1 Large Imperial Cameos
Introduction
Large Imperial cameos from the Early Roman Empire, including the Tazza Farnese, Gemma Augustea, and Grand Camée de France, have been studied and published ex tensively over the past 200 years. One might wonder why another publication about these gemstones is necessary and if there is anything new left to uncover. The answer is yes, there is more to say, and secrets still need to be uncovered. This is where Power and Propaganda in the Large Imperial Cameos of the Early Roman Empire comes in. Up to this point, large Imperial cameos have not been treated as a cohesive group that must be studied together to understand each fully. Power and Propaganda examines the five extant large Imperial cameos – along with the figured silver dish that inspired these large Imperial cameos and ignited the Julio‑Claudian craze for these luxurious gemstones – as a referential group with complex interrelationships. These luxurious objects were deep in conversation with one another, and the referentiality of the large Imperial cameos is evident in their propagandistic iconography.
Therefore, the iconography of the five Imperial cameos and one silver picture dish is a focus of this book, specifically tracing its development from Greek, Hellenistic, and Egyptian sources to a uniquely Roman visual language. After all, Augustus’ new Roman Empire needed a new Imperial language. These large Imperial cameos and the silver pic ture dish are also a case study of the life cycle of iconography. One witnesses the begin ning, evolution, and eventual dying out of iconography in this medium. The life cycle of iconography is a beneficial dating tool, much like Sir John Beazley’s study of Greek vase painting, though, of course, this study is on a small, restricted scale.1 Nevertheless, de spite the small sample size, if and when a previously unknown large Imperial cameo was to be discovered, studying its iconography would allow scholars to date the gemstone precisely.
But Power and Propaganda goes beyond examining the iconography and referential ity of these large Imperial cameos. Why did large Imperial cameos appear when they did, right around when the Roman Empire began? What was the impetus for the first large Imperial cameo, and why were at least four more created during the Julio‑Claudian period of the Early Roman Empire? Moreover, why did they disappear at the end of the Julio‑Claudian period? Why exactly were large Imperial cameos such a popular art form during the Julio Claudian period?
All these questions can be answered by investigating the patrons of these large Imperial cameos and why these patrons had these gemstones carved. Female Imperial family mem bers commissioned the large Imperial cameos, as will be argued, and the implications of
this female patronage for understanding these gemstones add additional layers of mean ing. While Imperial women had much more power than the average women in the an cient world, they were still restricted by the social mores of the time, and women could not commission the same art as the emperors and had to be more subtle with their com missions. Cameos were small and not displayed publicly. These gemstones had a private, small, and elite audience – but that was okay and, in fact, better served their purpose. The gemstones were the perfect, subtle way for Imperial wives and other female Imperial family members to persuade the emperor to choose her son as heir, thus utilizing cameos as weapons of propaganda. So large Imperial cameos first appeared right before the start of the Roman Empire. They flourished during the Julio‑Claudian dynasty because Impe rial women pushed for dynastic succession. These cameos advertised their sons in entic ing, beautiful packages given to the emperors. Livia, Agrippina the Elder, and Agrippina the Younger tried their hands at creating large Imperial cameos meant to persuade the emperor to elevate their son.
But what about the question of the inspiration behind these gemstones? Did Livia come up with the idea of commissioning the Tazza Farnese to promote her husband? Or was there something, or someone else, who inspired her? Cleopatra, as seen in Chapter 2, was the woman to start this craze for large Imperial cameos shortly before the Battle of Actium in 31 BCE. In the Aquileia Dish, a stunning silver picture dish, the Ptolemaic Egyptian queen aggrandizes Mark Antony, her partner and the father of three of her children, attempting to communicate through allegory and mythology that the Roman statesman is the best candidate for sole ruler of Rome. Like Octavian and Mark Antony, Cleopatra and Livia engaged in their own propaganda wars, utilizing art as political propaganda. The Aquileia Dish inspired Livia’s Tazza Farnese, a direct artistic response to the silver picture dish. Livia used an even more expensive medium on the largest scale ever. Because Livia was so successful with the first large Imperial cameo, she created an other one, the Gemma Augustea, with other Imperial women using these large Imperial cameos as models for their own dynastic plans. After all, dynastic succession was always an issue in the Julio‑Claudian dynasties, as there were never enough males. Imperial women, therefore, took up this cameo art form and passed it down to subsequent genera tions so that they, too, could manipulate the emperor.
Furthermore, why did large Imperial cameos disappear when they did right after the end of the Julio‑Claudian period? Large Imperial cameos are a uniquely Augustan and Julio‑Claudian art form because Imperial women used them as tools of persuasion for dynastic succession. By the Flavian dynasty, though, there was no more need for such a tool of enticement. Vespasian, the dynasty’s patriarch, already had two adult sons, Titus and Domitian, and thus a clear dynastic succession was already in place when the family came to power. Flavian women did not need to create large Imperial cameos to promote their husbands or sons and played a small role in Imperial succession politics.2
Written for a general art historical audience and as a complement to emperor‑ commissioned Roman art in the public sphere, Power and Propaganda is an introduc tion to large Imperial cameos and reveals their importance for the overall understanding of Roman art and iconography and the implications of its theorized Imperial female patronage. These five large Imperial cameos are the sole focus of this book, and their iconography, interrelationships, and referentiality are fully addressed, as are the crucial implications of Imperial female patronage. Often relegated to the sidelines, large Impe rial cameos take center stage in this book, much as they did in antiquity. Cameos were more popular in antiquity than sculpture, and “it is certain that in antiquity, they would
Large Imperial Cameos 3 have been regarded as more central to the history of art than they have appeared to most modern commentators.”3 Cameos had persuasive power, perhaps more than sculptures. Therefore, in the end, Power and Propaganda emphasizes the importance of large Impe rial cameos for understanding the development of Roman art and iconography. Perhaps the most significant contribution of this book is the insight that these large Imperial cam eos, which are small, private works of art, actually address a broad cultural sphere and deeply impact Roman art.
Chapter 2 explores one of the most famous Roman silver‑figured dishes, the Aquileia Dish (Figure 2.1). While this is a book on cameos, the Aquileia Dish is crucial to include in this study because large Imperial cameos likely would only have existed because of the Aquileia Dish, which was the impetus for creating the Tazza Farnese and subsequent large Imperial cameos. In the 30s BCE, Mark Antony and Octavian waged propaganda wars, not only in words but also in images. The Aquileia Dish was utilized in these wars, but it was Mark Antony’s female counterpart, Cleopatra, who commissioned the silver dish as a strategic tactic to promote her partner and the father of her three children, to be the sole ruler of Rome. Dating to the Late Republic, right on the cusp of the new Ro man Empire, the Aquileia Dish demonstrates stage one of the life cycle of iconography.4
The Tazza Farnese is the focus of Chapter 3 (Figure 3.1). This was the first large Impe rial cameo, and its production was an artistic response to Cleopatra’s Aquileia Dish. In the propaganda wars in art waged by Cleopatra and Livia, Livia fought back, praising her husband, who had recently defeated Mark Antony and Cleopatra at the Battle of Ac tium. Octavian’s new role as the sole ruler of Rome was now more likely, and Livia used the cameo to emphasize the defeat of Mark Antony and Cleopatra. Chapter 3 explores the propagandistic and referential iconography in the Tazza Farnese, which is based on the Aquileia Dish. Like the silver dish, the Tazza Farnese belongs to the first stage of the life cycle of iconography, and its symbols are still being worked out. But it is clear that the impetus for large Imperial cameos came from the silver picture dish and that the Aquileia Dish and Tazza Farnese conversed.
Chapter 4 examines the Gemma Augustea (Figure 4.1), the most famous large Impe rial cameo. Having been successful with the Tazza Farnese, with Octavian/Augustus be coming the first emperor of Rome, Livia tries her hand again, this time using the Gemma Augustea to push for her son, Tiberius, to be her husband’s successor. Dating to the mature Augustan age, the Gemma Augustea represents the second stage in the life cycle of iconography: the time when the symbolism has fully emerged and is easily understood. The Gemma Augustea abandons allegory and most of the borrowed Hellenistic Greek and Egyptian symbols seen in the Aquileia Dish and Tazza Farnese for more unique and explicit Roman iconography. In a little over a generation, the iconography of the Gemma Augustea has become more Roman, complex, and well‑established. While some symbols were still based on Greek and Hellenistic precedents, they were adapted to communicate Augustan ideology. In addition, others were distinctly Roman without any foreign prec edents. Furthermore, in the mature Augustan age, the iconography in the large Imperial cameos became increasingly complex and multivalent. Symbols can be combined with other symbols to imbue iconography with a more complex and esoteric meaning.
In Chapter 5, Agrippina the Elder follows Livia’s successful examples and commis sions her own large Imperial cameo, the Grand Camée de France (Figure 5.1), repre senting an updated version of the Gemma Augustea. Agrippina the Elder would have undoubtedly known the Gemma Augustea and spent ample time studying the earlier gemstone, becoming fluent in its Imperial language and propaganda. Agrippina the Elder
subsequently decided to commission a new, updated (and bigger) version that responds to and is in constant dialogue with the Gemma Augustea. Agrippina the Elder’s gemstone represents the third stage of the life cycle when iconography is fully understood and becomes even more complex. The Grand Camée de France illustrates an increasingly complex iconography, adopting what the artists of the Gemma Augustea had already done and enhancing it.
The Gemma Augustea and Grand Camée relate through shared Classical, Hellenistic, and Roman styles. However, the Grand Camée moves away from including many deities and personifications. Instead, the gemstone focuses on the dynastic ideas of the Domus Augusta, with Imperial women celebrated for their unique role in the dynasty. While the Gemma Augustea has dynastic ideas and proposes a dynasty to Augustus because it is a new concept and the emperor has yet to form one, these dynastic messages are hid den by various personifications and deities. In the Grand Camée, however, the Imperial dynasty is now the entire focus of the gemstone. With the Grand Camée, the dynasty already exists, and the cameo makes a more straightforward case for a particular dy nastic argument: Agrippina the Elder commissioned the large Imperial cameo to compel Tiberius to choose one of her three sons, members of the Julio‑Claudian family, as his successor.
Chapter 6 investigates another example of the third stage of the life cycle of ico nography with the cameo fragment of Caligula and Roma (Figure 6.1). Agrippina the Younger, the daughter of Agrippina the Elder and the great‑granddaughter of Livia, is the next Imperial woman to utilize large Imperial cameos as a weapon of persuasion. She commissions the first of two cameos during her brother’s reign, the emperor Caligula. Agrippina the Younger studied Livia’s Gemma Augustea and Agrippina the Elder’s Grand Camée de France, and she was influenced by both in her creation of the cameo fragment, which honored her brother and their recently deceased and apotheosized sister, Drusilla. But more importantly, Agrippina the Younger utilized the large cameo to convince her brother to name her son, Nero, as his heir – and both mother and son must have been in the original design of the cameo.5 Chapter 6 reconstructs the cameo fragment of Caligula and Roma, keeping in mind that these large Imperial cameos were in conversation with one another and Agrippina the Younger certainly would have wanted to up the ante on her mother’s Grand Camée de France.
The Tazza Farnese, Gemma Augustea, Grand Camée de France, and the Caligulan fragment represent the first three stages of the quadripartite life cycle of iconography. In the final fourth phase, symbols wane, lose popularity, and eventually die out. Chapter 7 examines the closest thing to a large Imperial cameo from the reign of Claudius, the Gemma Claudia (Figure 7.1). However, this gemstone is neither as large nor as complex as the other cameos. The medium of the large Imperial cameo itself was on its way out. By the end of the Julio‑Claudian dynasty, large Imperial cameos disappeared. With the Flavians, it was less important to advertise dynastic issues than to legitimize the new dy nasty’s right to rule. The new emperor, Vespasian, already had two grown sons to succeed him, Titus and Domitian. Because dynastic succession was not an issue for the Flavian dynasty, there was no need for an Imperial Flavian woman to commission a large Impe rial cameo to give to the emperor to promote her son as the heir. Some of the pioneering iconography of large Imperial cameos, though, continued to live on in the public sphere in relief sculpture, triumphal arches, and other monuments.
Chapter 8 explores the revival of large Imperial cameos in the fourth century. While large Imperial cameos were a Julio‑Claudian phenomenon, the gemstones returned with
Large Imperial Cameos 5 Constantine and his successors, exhibiting familiar Imperial iconography and motifs. There are four possible large Imperial cameos from the fourth century: the Belgrade Cameo, the Rothschild Cameo, the Ada Cameo, and the Cameo of the Hague. Some have argued that these fourth‑century cameos were reworked first‑century originals. Constan tine sometimes reused sculpture, not because he was unable to afford the expense of a new commission but because the old sculpture served a specific propagandistic pur pose. In the case of the large Imperial cameos, an original or a revised gemstone con nected Constantine and his heirs back to Augustus and the Golden Age of Rome. These fourth‑century cameos served similar purposes as those from the first century, promoting dynasty, family, and victory.
Several topics pertaining to large Imperial cameos will be explored in this introductory chapter. First, silver dishes and cameos are examples of the so‑called minor arts, and thus this classification must be explained, revealing that while they were part of the minor arts, their impact was anything but. Next, the technique, artists, and patrons of large Imperial cameos are examined. Finally, various facets of propaganda and iconography are defined and discussed.
The Minor Arts
Cameos are classified as one of the minor arts.6 In 1568, Giorgio Vasari was the first art historian to assert the supremacy of the arts of architecture, painting, and sculpture in his second edition of Lives of the Most Eminent Painters, Sculptors, and Architects. 7 Accord ing to Vasari, because architecture, painting, and sculpture required enormous skill and intelligence, these art forms were inherently greater than all other artistic media. Vasari’s classification stuck, and from the sixteenth century onward, the major arts (architecture, painting, and sculpture) have been separated from the minor arts (ceramics, metalwork, gemstones, jewelry, glass, ceramics, figurines, cameos, etc.).8 By the eighteenth and nine‑ teenth centuries, the division between the arts became even greater, with the minor arts now viewed as inferior to the major arts. Even in the twenty‑first century, the minor arts remain marginalized in art historical scholarship.
Today, scholars struggle to find the correct words to describe all those artworks that are not architecture, painting, or sculpture. Minor arts is the most common designation, though this is pejorative and implies that these objects are less important than their coun terparts. Some scholars call the minor arts the decorative or sumptuous arts. Still, these terms do not consider the plethora of different media in the minor arts and that not all minor arts were made of luxurious materials. Perhaps there will no longer be any separa tion of the various media in the future, rendering the categorizations of major and minor arts obsolete. For lack of better terminology, which hopefully will come in the future, in this book, the arts that are not architecture, painting, and sculpture will continue to be referred to as the minor arts.
Recent studies, including this one, have attempted to bring the minor arts to the fore‑ front.9 There was no such division between the major and the minor arts in antiquity, and minor arts were usually highly praised and valued at the time of their creation. Minor arts, especially those made of luxurious materials, were highly regarded, and some were even held in greater esteem than paintings, architecture, and sculptures.10 Therefore, we must cease viewing these works as inferior – because they were not labeled minor and less important until the sixteenth century. These so‑called minor arts were anything but minor at the time of their creation.
Large
The minor arts are also worthy of study because of their intimate reception. Typically small, a work like a Roman cameo could be held comfortably in the viewer’s hand, ex amined closely, and admired. This differs greatly from the reception of a public artwork, which was probably viewed from afar as a viewer walked by it. Certainly, one would have had little opportunity to view public art closely, let alone privately and at length.
Cameos
A cameo is a “gemstone, or sometimes glass, ceramic, or shell, which has layers of differ ent colors, carved or molded so that the design stands out in relief in one color against the background of another color.”11 There are several reasons why cameos are unique and worthy of extensive study, among them are their exquisite craftsmanship, their expensive and magical material, and their private patrons and audiences at the Imperial court. But perhaps the major reason Roman Imperial cameos are so extraordinary is their sheer beauty. As Marina Belozerskaya evocatively states after seeing the Tazza Farnese for the first time in the Naples Archaeological Museum, cameos are greatly admired for their beauty and high quality of artistry:
I had seen photos of the Tazza in various books, and though it certainly looked beau tiful, I did not quite understand why it prompted so much passion. But the first time I saw it in person, I could not tear myself away. It was infinitely more gorgeous, ma jestic, and mesmerizing than the best photographs conveyed. Entranced, I scrutinized over and over its minutest details, the confluences of carved lines and colored veins, the radiance of sardonyx, the tangible presence of the opalescent figures against the honeyed background. Coming face to face with the Tazza – the way its owners did over the centuries – I understood viscerally why they became besotted with it and spent enormous sums to make it theirs.12
With its distinctive layers of brown and white, sardonyx was the ideal banded agate for the production of cameos in the Roman Empire, particularly between the reigns of Augustus and Nero.13 While the Romans did not invent the cameo technique, they were certainly the ones to bring them into fashion in the late first century BCE and early first century CE under Augustus and the Julio‑Claudian dynasty.14 The Romans popularized a particular type of cameo: the large Imperial or state cameo, which was not used as jew elry but was much larger, often included numerous members of the Imperial family and was made by Imperial artists.15
Most Roman cameos are small, about the size of a large pendant, or roughly five to six centimeters in diameter. Usually, they are decorated with a bust or a simple, clear image. In contrast, large Imperial cameos like the Tazza Farnese, Gemma Augustea, and Grand Camée de France are significantly larger and possess a complex and dense multi‑figured composition, which makes them unique among all surviving Roman Imperial cameos.16 Because of their large size and rarity, these gemstones were special commissions.17 The material of Roman cameos, sardonyx, is also rare. Sardonyx is a chalcedony, a type of crypto‑crystalline quartz, with layered bands of white, brown, or black. Because of these distinctive layers, sardonyx is the perfect stone for producing cameos.18 There are many types of quartz, many of which, like sardonyx, are used as gemstones. Ranking number seven on the Mohs scale of mineral hardness, quartz is a hard and durable gem stone that results in a higher monetary value since harder gemstones are stronger and,
Large Imperial Cameos 7 therefore, not as easily blemished or scratched. Because of its hardness, sardonyx is much more difficult to carve, so only the most skilled gemmarii, or gem‑cutters, could success fully work with this material. Consequently, a highly talented (and more well‑paid) gem‑ marius was necessary.19 The hardness of sardonyx also added to the beauty of cameos because the durability allows for higher polish and the smallest details. Also, sardonyx was believed to have magical qualities that amplified the gemstone’s importance and prestige in the Roman Empire.20
According to Pliny the Elder, only a little sardonyx was found in the Mediterranean basin.21 The only major source anywhere near Rome was the Bohemian agate deposit, which provided Rome with gemstones of adequate size and quality for small cameos.22 But the Bohemian agate deposit did not produce stones large enough to make the signifi cantly larger Tazza Farnese, Gemma Augustea, and Grand Camée de France. In addition, the Bohemian stones were not the highest quality pieces of sardonyx available. Pliny the Elder states that India provided the greatest quality of the sardonyx and the largest stones: India’s great glory is “being the great producer of the most costly gems.”23 There fore, sardonyx utilized for the large Imperial gemstones was imported from India to Italy at an exorbitant expense.24
Only the wealthiest patrons could afford the magical sardonyx from India, along with paying an expert gemmarius to carve a large cameo, which would have taken at least a year to complete. The exorbitant price of a cameo was an attractive feature for the wealthy elite, lending the gemstone an additional layer of prestige. Likewise, the exper tise of the gemmarius raised the status of that object. Consequently, large cameos were expensive, and luxurious objects were created for the emperor himself or a member of the Imperial family or circle.25 These beloved objects were then passed down as family heirlooms.26
Because of its size, portability, and high value, a cameo like the Gemma Augustea would not have been displayed publicly in Rome for all citizens. Instead, large Imperial cameos had a special and restricted audience: the elite members of the Imperial court. While there are only five surviving large Imperial cameos, a strikingly low number, the gemstones’ importance far outweighs their paltry numbers. The audience was very small and exclusive, but they were the most important and influential people in the Roman Empire.27 Therefore, the impact of these large Imperial cameos was significant, especially the gemstone’s propagandistic messages in glorifying the Julio‑Claudian dynasty and the candidate(s) for succession. These large Imperial cameos
allowed the emperor and his circle to celebrate his victories, successes, and private events to the full as well as to immortalize their own images very much as it was in the Hellenistic royal courts due to the private character.28
Imperial homes were decorated with paintings, were filled with sculptures, and housed cabinets full of luxurious gems and cameos. Large Imperial cameos were gifts or presen tation pieces given to the emperor. Displayed in a gem cabinet, a cameo like the Tazza Farnese or Gemma Augustea was brought out during a dinner party as a reminder of the wealth and prestige of those honored in the gemstone. Often, as guests ate and drank, artworks provided topics of conversation. Ekphrasis was a popular activity of such gath erings and allowed guests to contemplate the artwork at hand and espouse its decora tion and moral content.29 However, large Imperial cameos, like the Boscoreale Cups, were designed to do more than inspire some casual conversation at a dinner party and
demanded more careful study and discussion because of their complicated and complex figures, iconography, and message. Like the Boscoreale Cups, the political messages of these large Imperial cameos were “meant to stimulate…a discussion of the historical glo ries and campaigns of the Augustan house.”30 Kuttner makes a convincing argument that the Boscoreale Cups were directly influenced by the subjects of now‑lost monuments in the public sphere in Rome, thus revealing the transmission of iconography from Roman relief sculpture to the minor arts.
Because members of the emperor’s Imperial circle were educated, Roman Imperial cameos contained more complicated and complex compositions and iconography.31 At one of these ancient gatherings, the erudite members of the court were surely delighted in the esoteric and multivalent messages found in Roman Imperial cameos.32 In addition, because of the limited audience, the “closed, private circumstances of their viewing may have permitted greater latitude in how the subject was treated.”33 A large Imperial cameo was a unique, one‑of‑a‑kind work that could exhibit more complexity and detail than artworks in the public sphere.34
Gemmarii
We may never know who exactly Roman artists were because ancient writers only say a little about them. Pliny the Elder was a notable exception and was one of the few to write about art and artists in the ancient world, though he was not overly preoccupied with the lives and careers of artists.35 From the evidence, most Roman artists were male and Greek (ethnically Greek, not necessarily Greek‑speaking). Some artists worked in dependently, like panel painters, while others operated large workshops. Little is known about where they did their work: workshops and studios. Most likely, there were more permanent workshops that produced popular artworks that were always in demand. However, there were also itinerant craftsmen. Because of the uncertainty of continuous work, many artists had to travel to where the work was, bringing their tools with them and either joining a workshop or creating a new one. From the material remains, many artworks were made outside Rome and then transported to the city after completion, complicating matters further.36
In the Augustan period, gems were all the rage in Rome. There are several gem‑cutters, or gemmarii, whose names we know; the best were Greek, who often signed their work.37 From these signatures, we know the names of at least seventy Greek and Roman gem‑ cutters – though ancient writers only name eight of these.38 In addition, many gem‑cutters taught their sons the craft, thus keeping the high skill level within the family.39
Unfortunately, the names of the gemmarii of the large Imperial cameos do not survive. The Imperial family most likely had a group of court artists and workshops at their beck and call.40 Only the most skilled gemmarius could have created the smallest details found in large Imperial cameos.41 Most likely, each large cameo was carved by a single gem‑ marius. Such a highly skilled gem‑cutter would have been expensive to procure, and he probably worked on a single large cameo for about a year.42
Technique
While Pliny the Elder and Theophrastus do not expound on the technique of gem carv ing, most likely, this has not changed significantly over the centuries except for the use of electric tools and more accessible diamond powder.43 In antiquity, gem carving was
Large Imperial Cameos 9 done with simple tools: a drill, various drill heads, and a bow. The drill heads were of different shapes and levels of hardness and could be changed depending on the material the gem‑cutter wanted to engrave. The bow’s string was wrapped around the shaft of the drill, and the bow was then turned back and forth to drive the drill. Abrasives were often utilized to facilitate the carving of the gemstone. Most likely, gem‑cutters did not use lenses.44 Sometimes the color of the stone was changed by various means, such as heating or submerging in honey, which “can penetrate the microstructure of the mineral and, when heated, it carmelizes or carbonizes, turning the stone or parts of it, orange, brown, or black.”45
Patrons
Because of the lack of information on ancient gem‑cutters, especially for the large Im perial cameos, many modern art historians instead focus on the issue of patronage, as serting that the patron had the most influence on the final product, not the artist.46 The patrons for the large Imperial cameos were Imperial women who had no real power and instead had to make the best of their privileged positions in subtle ways, including the commissioning of artworks.47 For example, as discussed in Chapter 4, in the Gemma Au gustea, Livia created an Imperial familial portrait suitable for Augustus and his potential heirs, and the messages were entirely germane to the emperor’s political regime. However, with the Gemma Augustea, Livia was also cleverly and subtly manipulating Augustus into choosing her son, Tiberius, as the next in line to the throne.
Livia was “an active agent, working with sculptors and artisans to create portraits suitable for her station and appropriate to the reigning political program.”48 Like the rest of the Imperial family, the empress undoubtedly would have known many artists, craftsmen, and artisans working within the court. There is also evidence that she commis sioned works, most notably buildings, consulted with architects, and scoured the plans. Material evidence also suggests that Livia commissioned cameos.49 Agrippina the Elder and Agrippina the Younger, having access to the Imperial gem collection, studied Livia’s Tazza Farnese and Gemma Augustea and followed in their predecessor’s footsteps with their own cameo commissions (Figure 1.1).50
Propaganda
Roman Imperial art was all about power, propaganda, and persuasion. Freestanding sculptures, triumphal arches, and other monuments were placed in public locations in Rome. They used iconography to advertise to the Roman citizenry the emperor’s strength, connection to the gods, and most significant accomplishments. Emperors were aware of the persuasive power of images and exploited iconography to create art that commu nicated their political and ideological messages. Roman emperors and members of the Imperial circle also commissioned works of private art, which were smaller in scale, like large Imperial cameos. Even though these gemstones had a restricted and elite Imperial audience, the precious works were still used for propagandistic purposes, just like their public counterparts.
According to Webster’s Dictionary, propaganda is defined as “ideas, facts, or allega tions spread deliberately to further one’s cause or damage an opposing cause” or “spread ing of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or insuring an institution, a cause, or a person.”51 However, this modern definition of propaganda has a pejorative
Julio-Claudian Family Tree
Gaius Julius Caesar
Gaius Marius
Calpurnia
Pompeia Sulla
Cornelia Cinna
Gnaeus Pompeus (pompey)
Scribonia
Claudius Marcellus
Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa
Agrippa Postumus
Julia Caesaris
Marcia, from the Regii
Gaius Julius Caesar
Gaius JULIUS CAESAR Dict 49-44BC
Julia Caesaris
Gaius Julius Caesar
Octavianus AUGUSTUS
(Gaius Octavius) Emp 27BC-14AD
Julia Caesaris
Lucius Caesar
Julia Caesaris
Lucius Cassius Longinus Drusilla
Caesonia
son/daughter adopted son marriage
Sextus Julius Caesar
Julia Caesaris
Gaius Octavius
C. Claudius Marcellus
Marcus Atius Balbus Atia
Livia Drusilla Augusta Tiberius Claudius Nero Octavia
TIBERIUS Claudius Nero Emp 14-37AD
Antonia Drusus Vipsania
Julia Livilla Drusus
Emp. emperor Dict. dictator number of marriage 1.2...
Marcus Antonius (Mark Anthony)
Nero Caesar Gaius Caesar
AgrippinaGermanicus
Drusus Caesar Julia Livilla
Gaius Caesar (CALIGULA) Emp 37-41AD
Julia Drusilla
Agrippina
Livia Julia Tiberius Gemellus
Tiberius CLAUDIUS Nero Emp 41-54AD
Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus
Tiberius Claudius NERO Emp 54-68AD
Figure 1.1 Julio‑Claudian family tree. Copyright: User: Muriel Gottrop.
Messalina
Octavia Britanicus
meaning. In this book, propaganda is defined through the eyes of the ancient people, who viewed its meaning differently. Cicero, the famous orator, stated that the etymology of the word propaganda is derived from the Latin word propagare, to propagate, and that it is a “thing, doctrine, or practice that should be promoted.”52 According to this defini tion, in antiquity, propaganda was not regarded negatively or as words or images meant to persuade – it was more about promoting yourself. For Imperial art, propaganda also is closely tied to self‑representation or how one chooses to represent themselves and their family, especially, in this book, an emperor or a member of the Imperial family.53 This ancient practice of self‑representation can be equated with the modern phenomenon of social media, where individuals carefully curate their images to present themselves in the best light.
For propaganda to be successful and for the message to be received, the person behind it (for large Imperial cameos, this was the Imperial woman) must know her audience. The empress must know her situation and audience and then use an appropriate method of communication, like a large Imperial cameo, to transmit her message to her audience. However, the audience also must be able to read and interpret this message. For example, public art’s iconography must be simple and effective to reach the widest number of peo ple possible. In private and elite art with a more educated audience, these propagandistic messages can contain more complicated iconography. Above all, iconography and propa ganda must be endlessly repeated in public and private art and in various media to reach
Large Imperial Cameos 11 the most people.54 Propaganda, like iconography, constantly changes to reach people and respond to trends and updates.
Iconography
Power and Propaganda utilizes an iconographic framework to interpret cameos’ mean ing, intertextuality, and influence. The study of iconography has its own history, most notably in the work of Erwin Panofsky.55 In Studies in Iconology of 1939, Panofsky outlines the three main levels of understanding a work of art. The first stage is the pri mary or natural subject matter. In this level, the most basic of the three, the viewer un derstands only the immediate subject of the artwork. Panofsky labels the next level of understanding as the secondary or conventional subject matter or iconography. At this time, the viewer incorporates cultural, religious, and iconographic knowledge into their interpretation. According to Panofsky, the final level is the tertiary or intrinsic mean ing, also known as iconology. In this stage, the work of art is placed into its particular context. Using Panofsky’s terminology, the task of the art historian is to understand a work of art not only on the primary and secondary levels but also to place it within its iconological context. Therefore, in my discussion of the Tazza Farnese, Gemma Augu stea, and Grand Camée de France, I will incorporate cultural, religious, historical, and iconographic knowledge of the content.
Undeniably, any art historical iconographic study, including this one, is indebted to Panofsky and his three levels of understanding, for an artwork is a product of its par ticular time and place. However, adhering to Panofsky’s definition of iconography and iconology is restrictive and does not specifically express how I use the term, for I will examine not merely content but also particular attributes and conventions utilized in Roman Imperial cameos.56 While my book is indebted to the methodology of Panofsky, it subscribes to and refines Göran Hermerén’s method, which is concerned with indi vidual iconographic attributes, along with various motifs and conventions, and how this iconography evolves, changes, and eventually wanes and finally dies out – basically, the “life cycle” of iconography.57 Hermerén’s method includes four stages. As mentioned earlier, in the first stage, or the period of creation, an iconographic symbol is first used, and its underlying meaning is beginning to be understood. Next is the period when ico nography is fully emerging and has matured. In the third level, the iconographic tradition is well‑known and established and becomes more varied and complex. Finally, the last stage is when symbols begin to wane, lose popularity and potency, and eventually die out. The development from the first stage to the last is gradual, with no strict boundaries.
Power and Propaganda will reveal that large Imperial cameos demonstrate Her merén’s four stages of the development of iconography: this is the life cycle of iconog raphy (Table 1.1). In these four stages, Imperial cameos experiment with transmitting new Imperial messages that become common in subsequent dynasties, moving from the iconography that borrows from Egyptian and Greek sources to the creation of a mature Roman iconography, to added complexity, to the waning and declining complexity of the symbols (and the medium of the large Imperial cameo).
The Aquileia Dish and Tazza Farnese represent the first stage of the development of symbols, when iconography was first created and understood. As a product of the early Augustan age, the Tazza Farnese borrows much of its iconography from established Egyptian and Greek sources. Specifically, the seven figures in the Tazza are still based on Classical and Hellenistic Greek prototypes, such as Triptolemos as a Gaul, Nilus, and
Table 1.1 Life Cycle of Iconography
Stage 1
Creation and Experimental Phase
Iconography is used, and its meaning is beginning to be understood
Aquileia Dish
Before 31 BCE
(Patron: Cleopatra)
Tazza Farnese
30 BCE
(Patron: Livia)
Stage 2
Stage 3
Stage 4
Mature PhaseComplex PhaseWaning Phase
Iconography has fully emerged and is now understood
Gemma Augustea
9–12 CE
(Patron: Livia)
Iconography is well‑known and has become more complex and multivalent
Grand Camée de France 23 CE
(Patron: Agrippina the Elder)
Caligula and Roma Fragment 38–41 CE
(Patron: Agrippina the Younger)
Symbols begin to wane and lose popularity and eventually die out
Gemma Claudia 49 CE
(Patron: Agrippina the Younger)
two nymphs. Likewise, the iconography is not yet Roman and depends much more on other cultures. For example, the olive tree upon which Nilus sits is a traditional symbol of Egypt that is found in visual imagery throughout that early ancient civilization. In the Tazza Farnese, the tree thus becomes a symbol of Egypt and Octavian’s victory at the Battle of Actium. As demonstrated in the following chapters, the symbolism included in Imperial cameos first derived from the beginnings based almost exclusively on other cultures.
The Gemma Augustea, which dates to the mature Augustan age, belongs to the sec ond stage of iconographic development when symbols have fully emerged and matured. At this point, the designer of the Gemma Augustea abandoned much of the borrowed Greek and Egyptian symbols for a uniquely Roman iconography that communicates the emperor’s ideology in multivalent and syncretic ways. For example, instead of the olive tree used to express victory (over Egypt), figures are now crowned with laurel wreaths or a corona civica
From the Julio‑Claudian period, the Grand Camée de France and Caligula and Roma cameo fragment are examples of the third level, when the iconographic tradition is fully established and understood. This can be seen in the way the iconography of the Grand Camée plays off that of the Gemma Augustea. The Grand Camée represents a more complex iconography, taking what artists of the Gemma Augustea had already done and elaborating on it.58 Imperial cameos waned in popularity after the reign of Nero, though the beginning of Hermerén’s fourth stage is visible in the Gemma Claudia.
In these four stages of development, Imperial cameos experimented with new Impe rial iconography and messages, some of which would become common in the public art of subsequent dynasties. In other words, large Imperial cameos like the Tazza Farnese, Gemma Augustea, and Grand Camée de France serve as an iconographic testing ground for the Julio‑Claudians, with symbols subsequently moved to mainstream public art by the Flavian dynasty, such as the Cancelleria Reliefs and the Arch of Titus. Therefore, this study will illuminate the importance of these Roman Imperial cameos in the development of Roman Imperial art.
But what is iconography? At the most basic level, iconography first means identifying the figures in an artwork based on their attributes, or in the case of real historical figures, their physiognomy.59 For example, one can easily identify the figure of the goddess Roma because of her attributes: she is commonly depicted wearing a helmet and carrying a spear and shield, yet she can be distinguished from Minerva by her bare breast.60 As for a historical figure like the emperor Augustus, a study of his portraiture reveals an ideal ized yet individualized man with distinctive and readily recognizable facial features and hairstyle.
However, in Power and Propaganda, iconography refers to more than just identifying the figures on large Imperial cameos.61 While it is important to identify individual figures on these gemstones, their groupings also have symbolism.62 Each figure has a distinct symbolism on its own, but when that same figure is paired or grouped with one or more figures, these figures, taken as a whole, have a new, modified meaning. The upper register of the Gemma Augustea exhibits this in its grouping of Augustus, Roma, Tellus Italiae, and Oikoumene (among others). Augustus and each deity or personification have their distinct meaning, but when depicted together in the same compositional zone, the mean ing of these figures is enhanced. Here, Augustus’ role as the bringer of the Pax Romana is praised in the Gemma Augustea, and Roma, Tellus Italiae, and Oikoumene allude to the peace and prosperity spreading not only throughout all of Rome and Italy but also throughout the entire civilized world.
In addition to figures and groups of figures, my iconographic approach will also take into account objects, attributes, and gestures and their symbolic meanings. The Romans had numerous canonical iconographic attributes that could be combined to form vary ing, formulaic messages. Roman art was polysemous and eclectic, with many artistic in fluences and iconography that often had multiple meanings.63 As Tonio Hölscher proves, the Romans utilized a semantic system, a visual language with specific syntax and gram mar, and it can combine many different symbols into one. This visual language, like any language, developed gradually and fluidly over the years, and it is sometimes inconsistent and difficult to comprehend because of its variety and organic nature. The semantic sys tem of Roman images can be traced back directly to Greek sources, which were the pri mary building blocks of Roman images’ new grammar and syntax. The Romans adapted these Greek sources, reformulating and sometimes even changing the meaning of these symbols by combining them with others. Signs and symbols were used and combined to create new Roman messages. While the style of Roman art changed as the centuries progressed, the predominance of subject and content was most important throughout the Roman Empire.64
While iconography can be complex, especially in large Imperial cameos, these gem stones have symbols that repeatedly appear in Roman art. Thus, this repetition of iconographic elements in various artistic media allows for even the most complex and multivalent artwork to be partially understood, at least by the educated elite. The wider public understood simpler works’ messages with fewer iconographic references.65
Iconography also refers to compositional conventions and schemes. For example, the Gemma Augustea and Grand Camée de France show subjugated barbarians. In the Grand Camée, a hunched‑over barbarian cowers at the throne of the Imperial woman in the central level. Likewise, in the lower register of the Gemma Augustea, barbarian men and women are dragged by their hair and forced to watch as Roman soldiers raise one of their trophies. As for a compositional scheme, one can again look at the upper register of the Gemma Augustea to see a grouping of mortals and divinities.66 As has
already been discussed, the grouping of figures has a particular meaning when taken as a whole and represents Augustus’ Pax Romana and the prosperity and abundance that will spread throughout the civilized world. However, the fact that mortals are mingling with divinities is important and a compositional scheme that is symbolic and iconographic, suggesting that Augustus and the other members of the Julio‑Claudian family included in the upper register are on the level of the gods.
A particular style or change in style can also have iconographical value. For example, a Roman artwork might have a classicizing style, which connects the sculpture or painting back to the Golden Age of ancient Greece, and therefore, that particular style can func tion iconographically. The five large Imperial cameos and silver dish exhibit a naturalis tic, classicizing style indebted to classical Greece.
Finally, in some instances, the material of an art object can also have iconographic meaning.67 In the case of Roman Imperial cameos, most were made of sardonyx, and the highest quality and largest pieces were imported from India. Because of the large amount of money required to procure sardonyx, the finished product became a symbol of the patron’s wealth and status. Furthermore, because sardonyx was viewed as possessing magical apotropaic qualities, the material of a cameo was believed to protect the Impe rial family and the prosperity of the Roman Empire. Thus, an image made of sardonyx has a different significance than a work of art made of terracotta, marble, or even silver.
The “Iconography Machine” in the Early Roman Empire
As the Roman Republic ended, the new regime needed to set itself apart from the past; this included the creation of a new Imperial iconography. With the start of the Ro man Empire, Octavian (who would become Augustus) needed new iconography to com municate his political ideology and legitimize his right to rule. Augustus created a new standard of representation that his heirs would follow, but that does not mean that what Augustus created was entirely new. The Romans were notorious for their eclectic tastes, combining various influences.68 The Romans drew upon the iconography of many cul tures they admired, including the Hellenistic Empires, the Egyptians, and even native Italian cultures like the Etruscans, to create a new visual language of Empire because:69
Rome needed a unique vocabulary and a systematized collection of images that were readily understandable by an ethnically and culturally diverse population…the new Roman terminology could not appear Egyptian but had to combine Italic, Etruscan, and Greek elements with a new Roman vision to create a singular but identifiable lexicon.70
Following his victory at the Battle of Actium in 31 BCE, Augustus immediately created this Imperial visual language.71 However, this new language of Roman Imperial imagery of Octavian/Augustus did not emerge suddenly or fully formed, but it developed gradu ally and organically.72 The experimentations and adaptations that led to a fully realized Roman Imperial iconography took a couple of decades to solidify.73 Some have viewed this new imagery of Augustus and the empire as a propaganda or iconography machine, but that is not the case. Everyone who had a hand in this new imagery worked together.74 The emperor “of course determined the themes and general tenor of this imagery.”75 Any changes to existing iconography or the implementation of new symbols had to come from the emperor.76
Large Imperial Cameos 15
Augustus and his entourage grappled with how to communicate certain messages in art, including his new dynasty and his heirs, what the new national identity of the Roman Empire was, how the new system of government was different from the Republic, and even the role and status of women and foreigners within this new government system. In true Roman fashion, artworks could be direct or oblique, sometimes explicitly addressing the issues, while other times, mythology was utilized to create a more ambiguous visual allegory.77 In this milieu, Augustan art was created, combining mythology, Roman his tory, and his new family history: “Augustus was determined to intertwine his vision of Rome and the empire with his family narrative.”78
Notes
1 See, for example, Beazley (1951).
2 Vespasian’s wife was dead, and Titus only had daughters. Titus was divorced, and Domitian was still unmarried in 70 CE.
3 Henig (1983, 139). Gemstones should “form an integral part of classical studies and contribute greatly to our understanding of Greek and Roman culture” (Plantzos 1999, 1).
4 Göran Hermerén is the inspiration for the life cycle of iconography, which will be discussed more in‑depth later in this chapter.
5 Nero was only three or four years old when Caligula was murdered. Agrippina the Younger started her dynastic campaign early, ensuring that her brother always had Nero at the forefront of his dynastic plans.
6 Because cameos are made of expensive, imported materials, they are often categorized as lux ury arts.
7 Vasari (1550). Even the title of Vasari’s text points to the supremacy of painting, sculpture, and architecture. However, please note that in Vasari’s first edition of Lives of the Most Eminent Architects, Painters, and Sculptors (1550), the art historian does not make the division between the major and the minor arts, and he praises metalwork, especially that of Benvenuto Cellini, and gemstones. In the second edition of 1568, Vasari promoted a formal separation between the arts, relegating the minor arts to a lesser position. See Vasari (2007).
8 Vasari’s negative opinion of the minor arts was only gradually accepted. Throughout the Re naissance and Baroque periods, scholars and connoisseurs still praised and collected minor arts alongside paintings and sculptures. In the eighteenth century, Vasari’s division of the arts into major and minor took hold, resulting in the hierarchy we still see today. For a brief historiogra phy of the scholarship of the minor arts, see Lapatin (2003) and the introduction of Hourihane (2012).
9 This is not to say that no books are devoted to the minor arts, just that they do not receive as much attention. In addition, many of these so‑called minor arts are not part of the official canon of art history, which many scholars are striving to change. There are too many journal articles to list here, but for recent book publications that deal with the minor arts, consult Belozerskaya (2005, 2012), Feldman (2006), Feldman (2014), Hourihane (2012), Lapatin (2015), and Fischer (2016a).
10 Writers in antiquity praised objects that were what we now call the minor arts, making it clear that these artworks not only belonged beside the “major” arts but were also sometimes even more highly regarded. For example, see Pliny the Elder, Natural History Books 33 and 34 (Gold and Silver), and Book 37 (Precious Stones). See Pliny the Elder (1991), Isager (1998), and Pollitt (1983) for ancient sources that mention the minor arts in Greece and Rome.
11 Lucie‑Smith (1984, 39).
12 Belozerskaya (2012, 5–6). I felt the same when I (finally) saw large Imperial cameos, including the Gemma Augustea, at the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna, Austria, in December 2022. Photographs and reproductions do not do these extraordinary gemstones justice. Thank you to Lamar University’s Office of Academic Affairs for my faculty development leave in the fall of 2022, which provided funding for me to visit Vienna.
13 Ball (1950, 40–41) and Thompson (1978, 114). The technique of cameo carving did not exist until the Hellenistic period (for more on Hellenistic gems, see Plantzos 1999; Plantzos 1996a).
There are many examples of Ptolemaic cameos (see Plantzos 1996b), but cameos reached their height under Augustus and continued in popularity through the reign of Nero, at which time their popularity began to wane. Megow (1987) provides a comprehensive compendium of cameos from the reign of Augustus through Alexander Severus, listing 311 cameos from these periods. One hundred ninety‑eight cameos are listed from Augustus to Nero, or 64% of all cameos. The cameos created from Domitian through the Severans account for 36%. This sup ports the claim that during the Roman Empire, cameos were most popular between the reigns of Augustus and Nero. (Please note that these statistics are for all cameos, most of which were the normal, smaller size. Large Imperial cameos are a unique Augustan and Julio‑Claudian phenomenon.)
14 In searching for a new Imperial identity and iconography, Octavian drew upon Hellenistic in fluences, including the cameo technique. Hellenistic art and its visual language were especially influential in developing this new Imperial iconography. Augustus and his heirs quickly fol lowed the Hellenistic rulers’ lead, using the model of Hellenistic art to advertise themselves as powerful leaders with important military victories under their belts. However, in true Roman fashion, Augustus did not slavishly copy Hellenistic sources.
15 Gołyźniak (2020, 326).
16 The Grand Camée de France is the largest and measures approximately thirty‑one by twenty‑six and a half centimeters, while the Tazza Farnese and Gemma Augustea measure twenty centim eters in diameter and nineteen by twenty‑five centimeters, respectively.
17 There were probably additional large Imperial cameos from the Roman Empire, but unfor tunately, they do not survive today. However, we do have hints about the existence of some of these other larger cameos. For example, a fragment of a large cameo in Vienna depicting Caligula and Roma will be discussed in Chapter 6. Another possible large gemstone from a later period is the Constantinian Belgrade Cameo, now in the National Museum of Serbia (for a reproduction of this cameo, see Weitzmann 1979, plate II). Measuring fifteen by nineteen centimeters, the fourth‑century CE fragment depicts a triumphant emperor on horseback tram pling enemies.
18 O’Donoghue and Joyner (2003, 120–121).
19 Or a gemmarius was more expensive to buy, in the case of a slave worker. In this case, the patron would have to buy the slave to hire him to work as a gem‑cutter.
20 See Pliny Natural History 37, Henig (1994, xi), Isager (1998), and Plantzos (1999, 9 and 110). Pliny the Elder only rarely mentions the magical qualities of stones. In Theophrastus’ De Lapi dibus of 315 BCE, the author is concerned with the natural properties of stones and only com ments on their possible magical qualities once, which was with great skepticism on his part. See Eichholz (1965).
21 In the first century CE, Pliny the Elder wrote Natural History, which includes an important analysis of stones. Of great interest to Pliny was the observation of the world around him, and in Natural History, he records these aspects, producing a collection of ancient culture and knowledge. In Book 37, Pliny looks exclusively at stones, classifying them according to their beauty, rarity, value, color, weight, smell, and perfection. He ranks the stones according to their value and beauty, with the diamond first on the list, followed by emerald, opal, and sardonyx. In addition to classifying these gemstones, Pliny also provides information regard ing their provenance, the names of famous gem‑cutters like Dioscurides, prices, and common beliefs. While scientific, Pliny also tells many stories of how and why gem‑cutting and collecting became popular in Rome. As for sardonyx, Pliny mentions this particular gemstone in Chapter 23 of Book 37. Pliny describes the qualities of sardonyx, stating that since the time of Scipio Africanus during the Roman Republic, sardonyx had been popular in Rome.
22 Pliny Natural History 37.23 and Giuliani and Schmidt (2010).
23 Pliny Natural History 37.21.
24 While Pliny the Elder claims that there are Indian and Arabian types of sardonyx, he does not know exactly where the stones for cameos came from (Giuliani and Schmidt 2010, 91–96). Currently, neither location yields any large agates, and the ancient sources cannot be identified. However, in the 1970s, agate sources were discovered in Kostino, Bulgaria. These Bulgarian sources produced large pieces of agate, some more than a meter in diameter. Coloring experi ments on the Bulgarian agates resulted in a piece of stone that remarkably resembled the Grand Camée de France and the Belgrade Cameo; all of these are agates made of layers with thin
Large Imperial Cameos 17 surfaces of crystals between them. Schmidt concludes that the material for ancient cameos, therefore, comes from Thrace and not India or Arabia. See Giuliani and Schmidt (2010).
25 Elsner (1995, 96). As Jas’ Elsner states, “[A]t the highest social level, and among the most expensive of all luxury arts, were sardonyx cameos created for the Imperial court.” According to Elsner, the high cost of sardonyx necessitates an Imperial patron for large cameos. While an Imperial patron is most likely, other extremely wealthy people in the Roman Empire could have afforded a cameo. Nevertheless, the elite was a small circle, and even if a non‑Imperial member commissioned a large Imperial cameo, they would have known the emperor. For more on cameos used as a luxury art for the Imperial family, see Henig (1983, 1994), Möbius (1985), Veyne (1987), Gazda (1991), Plantzos (1999), and Giuliani and Schmidt (2010).
26 Henig (1983, 139).
27 Gołyźniak (2020, 39).
28 Gołyźniak (2020, 238).
29 Kuttner (1995, 9–10). See Kuttner for more on the Boscoreale Cups, including photographs of the two cups (one of which was destroyed during World War II). In particular, Kuttner makes a convincing case that the Boscoreale Cups influenced the subjects of the now‑lost Arch of Tiberius.
30 Kuttner (1995, 11).
31 As Jörg Lang states, large Imperial cameos were made for the emperors and were viewed within the context of the court. State cameos were “highly differentiated, panegyric pictorial programs would have scarcely been accessible, nor each of their details comprehensible, to everyone” (Lang, 2022, 371).
32 Pollitt (1986, 259).
33 Bartman (1999, 12).
34 But what about the multivalent iconography of these large state Imperial cameos? What if this small, elite audience did not understand everything within these cameos? Gołyźniak states that that would not have mattered much because even if only a limited amount of the target audi ence understood the message, these state cameos were deemed successful. See Gołyźniak (2020, 41).
35 Squire (2015, 173). The issue of identifying Roman artists stretches back to Johann Joachim Winckelmann (“History of the Art of Antiquity” from 1764).
36 Ling (2000, 91–101). For more on the artists and gem‑cutters in antiquity, see Ball (1950), Vollenweider (1966), Henig (1983), Plantzos (1999), Zwierlein‑Diehl (2008), Giuliani and Schmidt (2010), and Lapatin (2015).
37 Only a few Roman carvers are known by name; Pliny the Elder only mentions Apollonides, Cronius, and Dioskourides (Natural History 37.4).
38 Lapatin (2015, 121). These signatures can be found in inscriptions and signatures. See Pliny the Elder and Suetonius.
39 Pliny Natural History 37 and Theophrastus On Stones 127. Also see Henig (1983, 153–154) and Eichholz (1965).
40 Bartman (1999, 23).
41 For more on the technique of gem carving in antiquity, see Ball (1950), Henig (1983), Plantzos (1999), Zwierlein‑Diehl (2008), Giuliani and Schmidt (2010), and Lapatin (2015).
42 Giuliani and Schmidt (2010, 68). Schmidt, a modern gem‑cutter, made a copy of the Grand Camée de France in several months using modern equipment. He estimates that using ancient techniques, carving a cameo as large as the Grand Camée would have taken about a year.
43 Lapatin (2015, 111).
44 Henig (1983, 152–153). Corundum from Naxos was a popular type of abrasive.
45 Lapatin (2015, 109).
46 Patronage runs the gamut from elaborate state commissions to the popular market. Both Kleiner and Stewart claim that the patron had the most influence in creating an artwork, not the artist. See Kleiner (1992a, 4) and Stewart (2008, 32–38).
47 Livia is the most likely patron of the Gemma Augustea. Still, there is no smoking gun evidence for the direct role of Imperial women in creating these cameos. I am not the first to suggest the Imperial female patronage of these large cameos. The Aquileia Dish was most likely com missioned by an Imperial or elite to be a gift bestowed upon a lucky elite on a special occa sion (Strong 1995, 93). LaRocca believes that Cleopatra VII herself commissioned the Tazza
Farnese to commemorate the victory of Mark Antony in Alexandria in 34 BCE (LaRocca 1984, 91–92). Kleiner says the Gemma Augustea was commissioned by Tiberius or his mother, Livia (Kleiner 1992a, 71). In his 1978 dissertation, Pollini claims that Livia does not appear on the Gemma Augustea because she was the patron, and “her absence would have been a manifesta tion of her modesty” (Pollini 1978, 219). Some believe a supporter of Agrippina the Elder and her sons must have been the patron of the Grand Camée de France (Scheiderich 2017, 17).
48 Bartman (1999, 23).
49 Specifically, the material evidence shows the lack of Livia’s portrait on gemstones from the Claudian time: “thus it would seem her death curtailed this particular facet of her portraiture” (Bartman 1999, 23).
50 An Augustan and Julio‑Claudian family tree is a helpful reference throughout this book since names are similar, and divorce and remarriage are common. Consult Figure 1.1.
51 See Merriam‑Webster.com Dictionary.
52 Gołyźniak (2020, 22). See Cicero Pro Marcello 8 and Cicero De Divinatione 2.149.
53 Self‑presentation is a “social practice or behavior that refers to various activities performed by people in an attempt to present themselves in a much‑improved way or with emphasis on their positive qualities or features” (Gołyźniak 2020, 220).
54 Gołyźniak (2020, 22–26 and 31).
55 Any iconographic study requires an interdisciplinary approach to fully comprehend the com plexity of Roman symbolism and how Romans would have understood these images. In recent years, many classical scholars have been influenced by an anthropological work, The Social Life of Things, which takes an iconological approach to the study of objects, examining these objects’ worth, meaning, and how this meaning may have changed over time and with a change of ownership (Appadural 2014). When this anthropological method is applied to classical art and archaeology, the object’s value, meaning, and function are examined closely. Iconology is a particular methodology of the study of iconography and was endorsed by Erwin Panofsky and Aby Warburg.
56 Some art historians use the word iconography to delineate a particular style or change in style. For example, a Roman work of art might have a classicizing style, which connects the sculpture or painting back to the Golden Age of ancient Greece, and therefore, that particular style can function iconographically.
57 Hermerén’s iconographic development is certainly indebted to Panofsky since both have levels. In Panofksy’s version, as you move sequentially through the levels of iconography, the goal is to achieve the greatest understanding of a particular work of art. A particularly astute and educated person will be able to understand all three of Panofsky’s levels of iconography. In con trast, Hermerén deals with developing all three levels of Panofsky’s iconography. In particular, Hermerén is concerned with individual iconographic attributes and how iconography evolves, changes, and eventually dies out. See Hermerén (1969) and Panofsky (1939).
58 Most likely, whoever the gem‑cutter of the Grand Camée de France was, he had seen, and pos sibly even held, the Gemma Augustea. Perhaps the two gemstones even ended up in the same collection.
59 I am referring to an attribute as a symbolic object associated with a figure. This mortal, divin ity, or personification may be holding the attribute, or it is at least near them, such as a shield. Furthermore, an attribute can also refer to the particular costume (or lack thereof) and hair style worn by the figure. In Hermerén (1969), the author distinguished attributes in this manner (Hermerén 1969, 99–100).
60 In De Naturum Deorum, Cicero stated that even children could recognize gods by the symbols included in their depictions (Cicero De Naturum Deorum 1.29.81–83).
61 I will devote a little time to identifying the figures on large Imperial cameos. Countless scholars before me have concentrated on identifying figures and laid the groundwork for me in this respect.
62 In Knight (2012), the author states that iconography is not about a single object or figure but their relationship (Knight 2012, 3).
63 Kleiner (2005, 225).
64 Hölscher (2004, 2, 20–21).
65 Ginsburg (2006, 97).
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
The bear rose on his hind legs and said: “I feed on nuts. My little ones are warm and not hungry. I will take the boy.”
The council said that the bear was wise. The boy should go with him, and all the other animals would help to gather the nuts for his feeding. The council fire was put out, and each one went home. The boy followed the bear to a hole in a great tree. The mother bear and the cubs welcomed him, and the boy was happy.
He learned to talk as the bears talk and to walk like them. Nothing hurt him, and he was never hungry. Some Indians saw the father bear one day and chased him. Then they found the mother and her cubs, and all were killed.
The boy hid in the hollow tree. The Indians found him and took him away. He was very wild and did not love his people, for they had killed the bears.
The Indian boy was kept in the wigwam. He learned the ways of his people again, but never did he shoot or trap a bear. [126]
From a Photograph
T V
