Portraits – personal branding induction and manifestation of loyalty

Personal branding and self-promotion through portrait gems are the most popular and powerful propaganda activities I have discussed so far in Roman Republican glyptics. There is quite enough evidence to claim that portraits of Pompey the Great and Julius Caesar were engraved upon intaglios and cameos either under their encouragement of because of their followers who carried them in their rings in order to manifest loyalty and support. What about other prominent Roman politicians and statesmen contemporary to those two?

I am going to address this question starting with Cato the Younger (95-46 BC) who was one of the leading opponents to Caesar after Pompey. I have already remarked that there is a heated debate over the issue of portraits presenting male portrait busts wearing a toga but with a bare shoulder that are often recognised as Julius Caesar (cf. chapter 8.2.4). Zwierlein-Diehl identifies them with Cato Uticensis and relates them to his propaganda as those gems could be worn by followers of Cato to manifest their loyalty to him and opposition to the tyrant Caesar.³⁰⁶ As has been stated above, this particular portrait type did not serve one person only, but it was widely used by senators, consuls and other prominent Roman politicians, including Caesar and Cato (for Cato, see: cat. no. 8.189, Figure 290).

There are no other gems presenting Cato’s likeness but not in the type already discussed. There is virtually no gem that could be securely identified as presenting Cato Uticensis whatsoever. The explanation for this could be that his portraits were only cut as a middle-aged man wearing his toga in the old-fashioned way as Zwierlein-Diehl proposed. However, having virtually no images of him on coins and sculpture (except for later copies), within the bulk of portrait gems one is unable to attribute some of them to Cato and thus, his propaganda potential in glyptics cannot be measured in any reasonable way and is possibly underestimated.

The next influential person on the Late Roman Republican political scene whose portrait appears on engraved gems is Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 BC).

306  Zwierlein-Diehl 2007: 123-124.

Furtwängler already noticed that Solon possibly cut a portrait of Cicero. His view is based only on Renaissance and later copies as the original is lost.³⁰⁷ If that is true, Cicero would be another prominent Roman figure to have had his portrait engraved upon his ringstone. This particular gem could have been influential and copied already in ancient times, although artists could have taken inspiration from other sources like sculpture as well. For instance, in Aquileia a carnelian portrait gem with the image of Cicero has been found (cat. no. 8.190) and this might have been not a propaganda effect, but a reception of a portrait of this Roman politician who was appreciated for his merits as a speaker and writer during his lifetime.³⁰⁸ There are several intaglios bearing a likeness of Cicero which were, however, executed during his lifetime. Such a gem is, for instance, a sardonyx intaglio in Berlin (cat. no. 8.191), carnelian in Boston (cat. no. 8.192, Figure 291), probably sard in London (cat. no. 8.193), unspecified stone in Leiden (cat.

no. 8.194) and some more, today lost but known from their impressions (cat. no. 8.195).³⁰⁹ Cicero tended to mediate between quarrelling political parties and some could share his views. These people could use gems with a portrait of Cicero to manifest their sympathy for him and his views alike. Some surely wanted to imitate Cicero, and this could be another reason for carrying a ring with his portrait as an example or hero to follow.

There is no evidence for Cicero being engaged in the production of gems with his portraits, so these must have been bottom-up initiatives. They did not serve as propaganda tools but testified to a political sympathy for and the considerable authority of Cicero. Cicero’s fame made him a popular subject also on Roman Imperial gems which accounts for the reception of his portrait on the terms indicated above (cat. no. 8.196-199, Figure 292).

Regarding portraits of other contemporaries to Pompey and Caesar, they are quite abundant and have been collected and studied by Vollenweider.³¹⁰ She thought most of them depict optimates and this may be right since gems were luxury objects that not everyone could afford. Nevertheless, it seems that optimates did not manifest allegiance to their political class through specific gems, but generally speaking wearing gems by them was a sort of social distinction and informed their peers about their membership of the party. By

307  Furtwängler 1900, vol. III: 351-352. See also this issue addressed by Vollenweider (1966: 56 and 1972-1974: 98-99). For an extensive discussion on the possible creation of Solon and its later copies and replicas in modern times, see: Zwierlein-Diehl 1991, no. 2615; 2007:

114-115.

308  On the reception of Cicero’s portraits in the Augustan era, see:

Vollenweider 1972-1974: 99 and Vollenweider and Avisseau-Broustet 2003, no. 19.

309  Vollenweider listed more examples (1972-1974: 94-98), however, not all of them depict Cicero, see some criticism for instance in:

Maaskant-Kleibrink 1978, no. 1152 and Zwierlein-Diehl 1986, no. 534.

310  Vollenweider 1955: 96-101; 1972-1974: 102-105.

comparisons with coins, some people contemporary to Pompey and Caesar can be identified with historical figures such as Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus (cat. no.

8.200, Figures 293-294)³¹¹ or A. Postumius Albinus (cat.

no. 8.201, Figures 295-296).³¹² Apart from these, there are many other portrait gems which have no additional symbolism suggesting a specific function or position in the Roman society so that they remain unidentified (cat. nos 8.202-222, Figures 297-301). Some of them are clearly works of distinguished engravers, like Agathopus who apart from being employed by Pompey the Great, seemingly cut gems for other aristocrats of Rome (cat. nos 8.202-205, Figures 297-299). The quality of Agathopus’ works is of the highest level, and the three objects (one signed and two attributed to him) listed here prove that the man depicted on his intaglios was an important personage since he had his portrait signed by the artist, copied in exceptional material (aquamarine and emerald) as well as in glass. Even though one fails in identifying Agathopus’

commissioner, it is clear that the orders were not placed by an ordinary man. In conclusion, all these gems surely had some propaganda meaning since it was a common practice for significant politicians to carry a ring with their own portraits or distribute them to their followers. These were self-advertising techniques, quite popular among the Romans and deeply-rooted. It is difficult to judge their propagandistic value; it was not huge like the statue usually placed in a place visited by many or coin minted in thousands of thousands of objects. They were rather a sophisticated means of propaganda aiming at making an impression on a few important people, most likely representatives of the aristocracy. In about the second and third quarters of the 1st century BC female portrait gems appear in greater quantities than before, mostly for decorative purposes and it is difficult to give them any political significance (cat. nos 8.223-227, Figure 302).³¹³

8.3.3. Family symbols and references to familial stories on gems

It is reasonable to think that in the second and third quarters of the 1st century BC engraved gems, like coins, continued to be used for family and self-promotion by issuing objects featuring family symbols or scenes referring to familial stories and legends. A good example of that process is triskeles, a not particularly popular motif appearing on Roman Republican gems at the time (cat. nos 8.228-236, Figure 303). It has been regarded as an emblem of the Marcelli and Lentuli families and thus, gems bearing it are supposed to be family seals or at least tokens used by their owners to manifest their

311  RRC, no. 519/2 (denarius of Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus, 41 BC).

312  RRC, no. 450/3a (denarius of Decimus Iunius Brutus, 48 BC).

313  But see another view of Vollenweider (1972-1974: 224-225).

allegiance to those famous gentes.³¹⁴ This view is based on the fact that an identical triskeles appears on denarii of P. Cornelius Lentulus Marcellinus, son of M. Claudius Marcellus struck in 100 BC and especially those issued by C. Claudius Marcellus and L. Cornelius Lentulus Crus in 49 BC (Figure 304).³¹⁵ Another coin issue struck by P. Cornelius Lentulus Marcellinus in 50 BC bears a triskeles as a symbol recalling the achievements of the moneyer’s celebrated ancestor M. Claudius Marcellus, consul of 208 BC, who captured Syracuse and conquered Sicily in 212-210 BC the spoils from which he rescued Rome from imminent bankruptcy (Figure 305).³¹⁶ While that coin clearly presents a context for the triskeles in the form of the figure of M. Claudius Marcellus carrying a trophy into a temple on the reverse side, it is intriguing to see that just one year later, C. Claudius Marcellus and L. Cornelius Lentulus Crus minted a coin the main political message of which is to present Jupiter’s support for Pompey the Great, but still, the sign of the triskeles appears on the obverse side as a reference to private/family propaganda of the moneyers. In this case, just one symbol served as a clear reference to the family’s celebrated history, therefore, it seems justified to think that the same sole symbol carried by a member of Marcelli or Lentuli families upon a ring made an identical reference to that on the coins. Naturally, other explanations for the triskeles’ appearance on gems are possible. It was regarded as a symbol of the sun and Sicily. Moreover, there are at least two intaglios featuring the triskeles motif and inscriptions referring to the gem owners’

names but none of these cases can be securely linked to a member of the Marcelli or Lentuli families (cat.

nos 8.228 and 234). Finally, thanks to Cicero it is known that P. Cornelius Lentulus Sura used a ring with the likeness of his grandfather P. Cornelius Lentulus (the moneyer of the coin struck in 100 BC?) as his personal seal.³¹⁷ As one can see, even though a specific symbol appears suitable for a family seal, it could be replaced with other subjects, but still, the number of intaglios bearing the triskeles is limited, which suggests their use by a narrow group of people for a specific reason, in this case perhaps family propaganda, rather than for broader purpose. The triskeles case makes us aware how limited are our modern-day cognitive abilities.

Unless there is some kind of context, it is difficult if not impossible to prove that a sole symbol served for family propaganda on gems.

Shortly after Pompey’s death, his followers gathered in northern Africa. The coinage related to this group of people is extremely diversified. Yarrow speculates

314  Boardman 1968: 31-32; Gołyźniak 2017, no. 224.

315  RRC, nos. 329/2 and 445/1a-b respectively. See also discussion on those issues in: RRC: 737-738.

316  RRC, no. 439/1 (denarius of P. Cornelius Lentulus Marcellinus, 50 BC).317  Cicero, Catiline, 3.10.

that some types of denarii minted about 47-46 BC were given images which were statements of political allegiance to Pompey. As an example, she gives the coin of Q. Metellus Scipio struck in Africa in 47-46 BC (Figure 306) and she notices that the image of Africa from the obverse is repeated on a series of glass gems, which possibly were used to manifest membership to the faction of Pompeians.³¹⁸ Although the gems she refers to are problematic as they do not repeat the image known from coins (see my discussion on those in chapter 8.1.8), still, her view might be close to the truth but in a slightly different sense. Crawford rightly pointed out that the coinage of Q. Metellus Scipio apart from being evidently post-Pompeian, displays some familial advertisement too and while indeed, the head of Africa combined with Heracles’ image on the reverse of the mentioned coin indicates hope for victory in the war with Caesar, it cannot be entirely excluded that Africa refers to Scipio Africanus, the famous ancestor of the moneyer, who would have transferred his authority onto himself by recalling his legend on his coins and gems.³¹⁹ It is noteworthy that on his other issues, Q. Metellus Scipio also advertised his family legends. Regarding engraved gems, there was once a carnelian intaglio in the Duke of Gordon’s collection that mirrors a head of Africa with an ear of corn and plough from a Q. Metellus Scipio denarius struck in 47 or 46 BC (cat. no. 8.237, Figure 307). Therefore, we are justified in thinking that coins and gems are suitable for expressing allegiance to the Pompeian faction and served as private propaganda for the moneyer at the same time, given the very limited number of the latter.

The next famous Roman family that used a specific emblem as a sort of family symbol enabling to promote its members were Julii Caesares. The moneyers from that gens used to put representations of Venus driving a biga in order to highlight the divine origins of the family already in the late 2nd century BC.³²⁰ But it was Julius Caesar (100-44 BC) who made Venus a true patroness and divine protectress of the Julii Caesares.

He promoted her cult in every possible way building her a temple in the centre of his Forum and praised his own descent from her on every occasion, even during his funeral oration for his aunt Julia.³²¹ Caesar was successful in establishing Venus as a sort of a canonical emblem as the divine ancestress of the Julian family by putting her image on his coins.³²² However, the most significant was the image of Venus seen from behind as an armed goddess standing next to a column with a himation covering her legs, holding a spear in one

318  Yarrow 2018: 42-43. Regarding the coin itself, see: RRC no. 461/1.

319  RRC: 738.

320  See for instance: RRC, nos. 258/1 (denarius of Sex. Julius Caesar minted in 129 BC) and 320/1 (denarius of L. Julius Caesar struck in 103 BC).

321  Evans 1992: 39-40, Smith 2006: 37; Wiesman 1974: 153.

322  Evans 1992: 40.

hand and a helmet on the other, outstretched. The goddess presented in this manner was called Victrix and Caesar used that motif as his personal seal which later was passed on to the young Octavian (cf. chapters 8.2.3, 8.2.8 and 9.3.1.1).³²³ At this point, I want to observe that there is in fact some direct evidence for claiming that the emblem established by Caesar worked well for the members of Julii Caesares in the late 1st century BC and later as a family emblem (cat. nos 8.238-243, Figures 308-309). Perhaps during the lifetime of Caesar, the image was reserved for him only and thus nobody else dared to use it as their personal seal. After Caesar’s assassination, the use of Venus Victrix for propaganda on gems as a reference to the dictator and possibly a demonstration of support for the young Octavian by his family becomes more open. The issue gets even more complicated when one analyses two interesting intaglios housed in Perugia. The first is a carnelian showing a standardised type of Italic/Roman young warrior but depicted so as to resemble Venus Victrix and he is surrounded by inscription: C•IVLIVS GEMINUS (Gaius Iulius Geminus) (cat. no. 8.242, Figure 308). The second gem is a sard presenting the head of Athena/

Minerva or Venus to the left with inscription Q IVL (Quintus Iulius) (cat. no. 8.243, Figure 309).³²⁴ According to the inscriptions, both examples can be securely linked with gens Julia Caesarea who in addition used motifs that must have been recognised as relating to the dictator and perhaps family ancestry.

Another motif that might have served as a family emblem around the mid-1st century BC were representations of Salus/Valetudo/Hygieia and Aesculapius, mostly in bust form. Salus appears on denarii of Mn. Acilius Glabrio struck in 49 BC,³²⁵ and seems to be a family symbol of the gens Acilia whose representatives were the first physicians in Rome (Figure 310).³²⁶ Engraved gems presenting Aesculapius and Hygieia are often regarded as tokens of the physicians’ profession, therefore, it would make sense to regard at least some of them as belonging to the members of Acilia family (cat. nos 8.244-247, Figure 311).³²⁷ Nevertheless, I was unable to find any gem with this kind of iconography and inscription related to the gens Acilia or directly copying the image known from the coins.³²⁸

8.3.4. Commemoration

Among the bulk of Roman Republican gems produced around the mid-1st century BC, some stand out for

323  Dio Cassius, Historia Romana, 43.43.3; RRC, nos. 480/3-5 and 8-18 (denarii of Julius Caesar, 44 BC); Zwierlein-Diehl 2007: 11.

324  Vitellozzi 2010, no. 68 (although the head is interpreted as Athena/Minerva).

325  RRC, no. 442/1a.

326  Weiβ 2007, no. 200.

327  Gołyźniak 2017, no. 375.

328  But see other possibilities: Berry 1968, no. 132; Weiß 1996, no. 203.

their iconography which can sometimes be related to the commemoration of particular events. For example, in London there is a carnelian intaglio presenting a puzzling composition of a seated man, draped round the legs, and adding a shield and sword to a trophy (cat. no. 8.248). The inscription accompanying the image makes it a personal object probably suggesting a commemoration of a military victory by a Roman who might have philosophical aspirations at the same time because the seated figure motif is typical for depictions of ancient thinkers.³²⁹ The intaglio would then not only immortalise his success, but also inform about his highly esteemed education, a perfect constellation for self-presentation.

In Berlin, there is a brown glass gem presenting a Roman general wearing a cuirass with pteryges and mantle (paludamentum) to the front holding his horse with the right hand, while the left is put on a rim of a large shield decorated with a bundle of thunderbolts;

at his left stands a young male figure dressed in a cloak and holding a spear (cat. no. 8.249). The original gem is fragmentarily preserved, but it was reproduced in the early 19th century by the Italian gem engraver and impression maker Tommaso Cades (1772 or 1775-1850) while it was intact (cat. no. 8.250, Figure 312). This intaglio is exceptional for the very rare scene it depicts.

It was already Furtwängler who ascertained that the gem presents an unusual subject related to one of Rome’s political leaders, but he hesitated to make any meaningful identification of the figures presented and dated the piece to the 3rd or 2nd century BC. Instead, Vollenweider recognised here Pompey the Great conducting the census equitum ceremony.³³⁰ She based her identification on the coiffure of the man in the centre which according to her resembles the anastole and thus indicates Pompey. However, Vollenweider was wrong to claim that glass gem in Berlin and Cades’ impression are two different objects. If one carefully compares the two it is clear that Cades made his impression from the Berlin intaglio. Consequently, Vollenweider made another mistake since indeed on Cades’ impression the hair seems raised upward, but this is due to the cast’s imperfection. On the gem housed in Berlin it is clear that figure’s hair is not raised but smooth and regularly combed. There is no sign of anastole at all. Another argument contradicting the identification as Pompey is that the figure (or figures) uses a shield decorated with a bundle of thunderbolts being a symbol of Jupiter with whom Pompey had little in common. He did not venerate the god in any particular way in contrast to Heracles, Neptune or Venus.³³¹ Finally, there is another

329  Lang 2012: 80-90.

330  Compare opinions of the two: Furtwängler 1896, no. 1137 and Vollenweider 1969 and 1972-1974: 108-111.

331  Vollenweider’s view that symbols of Jupiter should be connected with Zeus-Ammon and further with Alexander the Great and Pompey himself is a bit far-fetched (1969: 658).

glass gem in Munich presenting the same scene. There is a similar configuration of figures and attributes and even though the state of preservation is poor one notices a cuirassed general and his younger companion on the side again with a large round shield decorated with a bundle of thunderbolts (cat. no. 8.251, Figure

glass gem in Munich presenting the same scene. There is a similar configuration of figures and attributes and even though the state of preservation is poor one notices a cuirassed general and his younger companion on the side again with a large round shield decorated with a bundle of thunderbolts (cat. no. 8.251, Figure