Gaius Marius

The main opponent of Sulla, Gaius Marius (157-86 BC) because of his numerous merits towards the Roman Republic was called ‘the third founder of Rome’.¹¹³ He is supposed to have performed some propagandistic actions in order to promote his successes and also to compete with Sulla in the later phase of his career. Coins were presumably used for that purpose, especially if commemorating of Marius’ triumph over the Cimbri and Teutones in 101 BC.¹¹⁴ In this sub-chapter I would like to investigate whether there is any grounds for claiming that engraved gems were a part of Marius’

promotional practices too.

7.2.1. Triumph

In 104 BC the Romans finally defeated the Numidian king Jugurtha with the invaluable help of Bocchus, king

112  For example, Vollenweider 1979, no. 421.

113  Plutarch, Life of Marius, 27.5. See also commentary on this issue in:

Evans 1992: 88-89.

114  For instance, see an issue struck on this occasion: RRC, nos. 326/1-2 (denarii and quinarii of C. Fundanius, 101 BC). Another issue was minted slightly later, see: RRC, nos. 332/1a-c (quinarii of T. Cloulius, 98 BC) and RRC: 629. Another issue related to Marius’ military victories is: RRC, no. 333 (quinarius of C. Egnatuleius, 97 BC).

of Mauretania (c. 110-80 BC). The success had many fathers and all three major generals involved in the conflict on the Roman side claimed credit for winning the war: Gaius Marius, Quintus Caecilius Metellus Numidicus (c. 160-91 BC) and Sulla. I have already discussed very well-thought-out propaganda issued to commemorate and proclaim Sulla as the true leader of Roman forces and winner of the war through his personal seal and other channels. Metellus Numidicus celebrated the triumph over Jugurtha by publishing an oration explicitly entitled De Triumpho Suo and his adopted cognomen.¹¹⁵ However, it was Marius who appeared in a triumphal chariot with Jugurtha in chains before him presented to the people of Rome.¹¹⁶ During his procession and shortly afterwards, the Roman statesman committed two unprecedented but clearly deliberated actions. Unlike other triumphators, he wore a gold ring on his finger while it was a well-established habit for a triumphator to wear an iron one (like the slaves and soldiers did) to show modesty and pietas.¹¹⁷ This was much criticised. Even more outrageous was the second act of Marius who appeared at the first senatorial meeting of his consulship still dressed in triumphal robes. The senators felt so offended that Marius had to go back home and change his clothes before the meeting could resume.¹¹⁸ These two actions clearly exhibit Marius’ intentions to highlight his role in defeating Jugurtha and bringing splendour to Rome. The fierce rivalry with Metellus Numidicus and Sulla forced him to take extraordinary steps. He must have felt so confident that he decided to break the habits and perform these two acts of individual and ostentatious display. The choice of a gold ring over the iron one shows that there was an increasing demand among top Roman politicians and statesmen to highlight their extraordinary status and abilities.

As Isager observes analysing Pliny’s text on gold in his Historia Naturalis, gold rings became increasingly popular among the Romans who travelled to the East.¹¹⁹ This is consistent with observations that in the course of the 2nd century BC, finely engraved portrait gems were produced in the East for the Romans who visited Asia Minor or any other relevant region (cf. chapter 6.2.1). The case of Marius shows that this tradition was slowly transferred to Rome itself by the end of the 2nd century BC. It is not known if Marius had his portrait or any specific gem engraved upon his ring, but this seems likely since his opponent, Sulla, reacted to this private rivalry with a seal presenting him as a victor over Jugurtha (cf. chapter 7.1.1). However, noteworthy is the increasing significance of rings and

115  Gisborne 2005: 108.

116  Plutarch, Life of Marius, 12.

117  Pliny, Historia Naturalis, XXXIII.11-12. See also a commentary on this issue in: Zwierlein-Diehl 2007: 16 and a contrary view in: Isager 1998: 60.

118  Plutarch, Life of Marius, 12.7.

119  Isager 1998: 60.

gems as objects marking extraordinary social status.

Marius’ gold ring became a transmitter of an important propaganda message confirming his position not only among his contemporary rivals but also in history. It is also interesting to observe the reaction of the public, which was negative to the action of Marius, while Sulla was not criticised for making an allusion to the Jugurthine War on his seal, at least no ancient writer mentions that. This is due to the fact that Marius violated a deeply-rooted custom which was a major offence situated in the public sphere, while Sulla with his seal still stayed in the private sphere. Roman society was not ready to accept Marius’ ostentatious behaviour neither was the senatorial class who in addition was able to punish him for it. In contrast, Sulla created a precedent that endured since he also made a reference to his next military victories on his second seal later (cf.

chapter 7.1.1).

7.2.2. Personal branding – portraits

Apart from such ostentatious acts as the two described above, one wonders if Marius like Sulla used engraved gems for personal branding, that is to popularise his own image among his followers, or if they commissioned gems with his likeness to show their allegiance to him. As one could see, in the case of Sulla, there is little evidence for him using engraved gems for personal branding. However, it seems likely that Marius wished to have his portrait cut on gems and perhaps his supporters also wanted to carry the likeness of their beloved commander upon their rings.

Particularly interesting in those terms is a garnet now in Paris depicting a portrait of an old, partially bald man to the right (cat. no. 7.35, Figure 123). His exceptionally long, pointy nose and wrinkled forehead, small eye and tightly pursed lips make an impression that one is dealing here with a military commander. Vollenweider recognised him as an important individual and noticed that the portrait may illustrate Gaius Marius.¹²⁰ It is arguable if such an identification is plausible, but she is right to date the gem to the early 1st century BC.

Her stylistic observations point to that and one should also notice the type of material used, the size of the gem and its form. All of them suggest that even though the portrait itself exhibits purely Roman verist and far reaching individualisation, the hand of a Greek artist is noticeable here. In 98 BC Marius travelled to the East where he spent the next eight years of his life. One presumes that he may have come into contact with Hellenistic glyptic art there and if he had wished, he would have had his portrait cut upon a gem. The intaglio from Paris may testify to that and makes sense even

120  Vollenweider 1972-1974: 27-29, pl. 19.1-4; Vollenweider and Avisseau-Broustet 2003, no. 13 (with a detailed discussion on relevant portrait types known from coins and sculpture).

more if one remembers Marius ostentatious parading with a gold ring during his triumph in 104 BC, which points, among other things, to his taste for luxury.

It is clear that he liked to show his high social status and popularity off among ordinary people to impress them. Perhaps, Marius hired a Greek engraver earlier and wore a gold ring with a gem presenting himself during his triumph as stated above. Naturally, the identification of the Paris gem with Marius should be treated as tenuous and comparative material in regard to this politician is also highly problematic.¹²¹

Still, one of the arguments in favour of considering the intaglio from Paris as depicting a prominent Roman politician, perhaps Marius, is the fact that there are several other gems, although less skilfully executed, presenting a similar portrait type. For instance, there is a dark brown glass gem in St. Petersburg presenting a similar head with a long, pointy nose, but with more hair on the top of the head (cat. no. 7.36).

Close parallels are also a sard in a private collection, another sard in Leiden, a violet glass gem in Munich, and one more glass gem in Berlin (cat. nos 7.37-40).

Vollenweider pointed out that this series stems from the Roman tradition of portraits on gems but it exhibits powerful individual features that should be treated as a homogenous group.¹²² It is tempting to suggest the intaglio from Paris is a prototype executed in the East which was later copied in Italy, perhaps shortly before or during the Social War (91-88 BC) when Marius was appointed a general, though he must have resigned due to health reasons. Provenance of some of those gems (especially glass ones) confirms that they were made in Italy. The highly convex obverse form of some sards bearing the type of portrait in question also suggests their production in central Italy.¹²³ Some scholars suggest that the portrait type in question could be more widely used.¹²⁴ For one of the brown glass intaglios from Berlin collection classified as belonging to the group by Vollenweider bears a head of a man wearing a petasos which would suggest his connection with Mercury.¹²⁵ Such a connection in the case of Marius is not known in literature, coinage or any branch of art. For this reason, it is problematic to regard all the gems collected above as presenting the likeness of Marius. Some might be private portraits, perhaps of his followers aspiring to imitate their patron. Be that as it may, a trace of Marius’

personal branding seems to be reflected in glyptics but

121  Several marble busts are said to represent Marius, however, none with a considerable degree of certainty, see: Ohly 2002: 158.

122  Perhaps the best to compare are the following objects: AGDS III Göttingen, nos. 448-449; Maaskant-Kleibrink 1978, no. 97.

123  The gem from Munich was once a part of Paul Arndt collection of gems and the two glass gems from Berlin belonged to Philipp von Stosch. Both collections were formed while their creators were in Italy, therefore, it is probable they originate from this region or even from Rome specifically, cf. chapter 11.

124  For instance, Maaskant-Kleibrink 1978, no. 97.

125  Vollenweider 1972-1974, pl. 20.8 (= Furtwängler 1896, nos. 5065).

whether on his own or his followers’ initiative, it is hard to tell.

Finally, in Würzburg, there is a glass paste made after an ancient intaglio presenting the head of a Roman that has been identified with Gaius Marius since the 18th century onwards (cat. no. 7.41, Figure 124). The paste was copied and as Zwierlein-Diehl rightly says, the inscriptions accompanying two examples (a copy is in Bonn) in the form ‘VII’ or ‘VII C’ were added in the first half of the 18th century to confirm identification with Marius.¹²⁶ It is difficult to ascertain whether the original gem was intended to show Marius himself or not. The comparative glyptic and numismatic material suggests a portrait of a Roman from the 1st half of the 1st century BC.¹²⁷ No Hellenistic traits are observed in the case of this portrait and fully verist manner is observed suggesting the gem to be a Roman product. Perhaps, a plausible explanation is that the original gem testified to the reception of Marius’ portrait in later (second half of the 1st century BC) gem engraving. It could have resulted from an unidentified politician’s aspirations to recall him as his ancestor or example that he followed.

Summing up, there is a possibility that Gaius Marius had his portrait cut upon his personal seal, most likely while in the East. There is also a group of interesting gems exhibiting some similarities to his own portrait, however, certain identifications are difficult due to some sort of schematisation of Roman Republican glyptic art at that phase of development as far as portraits are concerned. It is likely that some sort of personal branding or manifestation of loyalty by Marius’ followers was performed through gems, but this claim is based on relatively weak foundations.

Finally, there are some signs of the later reception of Marius’ likeness in glyptics which confirms his position in Roman politics even decades after his death.

7.2.3. Commemoration

Marius like Sulla tended to make references to his military successes using coinage.¹²⁸ He did so mainly by the images where he is a chariot driver with his eight-years-old son riding one of the horses or Victory crowning a trophy under which kneels a barbarian captive, or Victory inscribing a shield next to a trophy.

In both last cases, an important detail is the carnyx as a symbol of defeated Celts. According to my research,

126  Zwierlein-Diehl 1986, no. 536. Another reproduction of the same gem is in Museo Archeologico in Verona, see: Facchini 2012, no. 34.

127  See related gems showing portrait of Marius above, although, Zwierlein-Diehl notes some resemblance of the person depicted here to the heads of Cicero, see: Zwierlein-Diehl 1986, no. 536 (analogies).

Regarding coins, see, for example: RRC, no. 455/1a (denarius of C.

Antius Restio, 47 BC).

128  Related to these matters are the following issues: RRC, nos. 326/1-2 (denarii and quinarii of C. Fundanius, 101 BC), 33326/1-2/1a-c (quinarii of T. Cloulius, 98 BC) and 333 (quinarius of C. Egnatuleius, 97 BC).

none of these scenes is repeated on engraved gems.

The motif of Victory inscribing a shield or crowning a trophy is of course a popular one in glyptics, but it does not exist with the carnyx making an explicit reference to defeated Celts and thus, the victories of Marius.

Regarding barbarian captives (mostly Celts), they are present on intaglios in the late 2nd and early 1st century BC indeed but it is hard to say if they refer exclusively to Marius’ military accomplishments (cf. chapter 6.3.4).

The popularity of such gems may be due to the overall positive climate and reaction of people after dealing with the peril of the barbarian Celto-Germanic tribes in 101 BC. Like another category of intaglios presenting conflicts between the Romans and barbarians, these could have been produced as commemoration of Sulla’s successes instead of Marius’. Because no specific details occur on them and the representations differ to a considerable degree from those appearing on coins, it is difficult to determine whether one should link them with one propagandist or another. The most plausible theory seems to be that gem engravers produced those gems to meet the expectations of their customers and the need of the market for such products. A soldier of Marius or of Sulla equally wanted to boast about their involvement in the defeat of barbarians and could have ordered intaglios referring to this. On the other hand, a similar category of glyptic artefacts was produced under Julius Caesar’s domination and some examples can be convincingly related to him (cf. chapter 8.2.7).

Perhaps then, some gems produced under Marius and Sulla indeed referred to them, but having no clear context, today one is unable to identify such objects.

7.2.4. Divine and mythological references

In contrast to Sulla, who employed or referred to a number of deities and personifications (Venus, Apollo, Heracles, Libertas and so on), Marius did not extensively exhibit his connections with specific gods and goddesses.

One of his most plausible divine patrons appears to be Heracles as a guarantee of military power, even though contrary to Sulla he did not personally engage in his cult.¹²⁹ Toso remarks on the possibility that dionysiac subjects on gems appearing in vast quantities from the early 1st century BC could be related to Gaius Marius and the Dionysus thiasos, often illustrated on gems, would have referred to Marius’ triumph over Jugurtha and Gallic tribes.¹³⁰ However, I do not find any gems of this kind include direct references to Marius. Also, because a broader context of Marius’ engagement in the veneration of Dionysus is unknown, it is difficult to point to some groups of intaglios and cameos as illustrating this connection as it was in the case of Sulla and engraver Protarchos (cf. chapter 7.1.2). For these reasons, I believe that it is rightly observed by other scholars that the

129  Ritter 1995: 85.

130  Toso 2007: 204.

increasing popularity of dionysiac themes on Roman gems is due to a better exposure of Roman Republican glyptics to Hellenistic culture and art.¹³¹

7.2.5. Political symbols

Regarding the combinations of symbols on gems in the early 1st century BC, it has been argued that some of them could be directly or indirectly related to Gaius Marius and his political career. For instance, Vollenweider suggested that the motif featuring a sparrow-like bird perching a pomegranate and ear of corn and similar compositions could refer to the invasion on Rome by Marius and Cinna in 87 BC and to the subsequent supply of free grain from Sicily for which C. Norbanus Balbo (d. 82 BC), one of Marius’ close followers (cat. no. 7.42, Figure 125a-b) was responsible.¹³² She bases her theory on a comparison to C. Norbanus Balbo’s coins presenting on the reverse side a combination of prow stem, fasces with axe, caduceus and corn ear (Figure 126).¹³³ However, only one element – corn ear – appears on both the gem and the coin, while the rest of the iconography differs, hence, following the basic principles of image studies, the two repertoires would have different meanings. In fact, the sparrow-like bird frequently appears on late 2nd-early 1st century Roman Republican gems in other configurations (with fruits, poppies, skyphos, club, wine-branch, plough and so on) and thus it is clear that the theme illustrates a general concept of prosperity and food rather than a specific political act.¹³⁴ Furthermore, some of the symbols accompanying the bird suggest the evocation of ideas such as fertility and well-being.

It has been rightly pointed out that the gems bearing such iconography belong to a specific stylistic class and they were produced in northern Italy (possibly Aquileia) rather than in a workshop controlled or influenced by a politician or on his direct commission.¹³⁵ They were surely worn as amulets ensuring the issues stated above or expressed the wish for peace and prosperity to come after the civil wars. If they had any political significance, this was more likely to be related to Sulla and his complex programme of restoration of the Roman Republic rather than to Marius.

Another motif that Vollenweider links with Marius, and this time also with Social War (91-88 BC), is a combination of a rudder or anchor and dolphin (cat.

nos 7.43-46, Figure 127).¹³⁶ However, as Maaskant-Kleibrink observes, the combination does not exist on Roman Republican coins minted during this conflict,

131  Furtwängler 1900, vol. III: 280; Plantzos 1999: 86-87; Zazoff 1983:

291-292; Zwierlein-Diehl 2007: 140.

132  Vollenweider 1979, no. 476.

133  RRC, no. 357/1a-b (denarii of C. Norbanus, 83 BC).

134  Gołyźniak 2017, no. 183.

135  Henig, Scarisbrick and Whiting 1994, no. 151; Maaskant-Kleibrink 1978: 105.

136  Vollenweider 1979, no. 478.

but a set of a rudder and anchor appears on coins of L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi in 87 BC which may refer to the naval victory of Marius (Figure 128).¹³⁷ The same opinion has been expressed by Guiraud and Maaskant-Kleibrink in the case of the two comparable gems found in France and from Leiden (cat. nos 7.45-46).¹³⁸ For this reason, it seems far more convincing to explain a combination of a dolphin and rudder/anchor as related to one’s wishes for good luck and divine blessing of both Fortuna (whose attribute was the rudder) and Neptune (whose messenger was the dolphin).¹³⁹ Configurations like this are common in Roman Republican glyptics in both gemstones and in glass. They were probably mass-produced by gem engravers and delivered to the market as popular amulets rather than on a specific

but a set of a rudder and anchor appears on coins of L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi in 87 BC which may refer to the naval victory of Marius (Figure 128).¹³⁷ The same opinion has been expressed by Guiraud and Maaskant-Kleibrink in the case of the two comparable gems found in France and from Leiden (cat. nos 7.45-46).¹³⁸ For this reason, it seems far more convincing to explain a combination of a dolphin and rudder/anchor as related to one’s wishes for good luck and divine blessing of both Fortuna (whose attribute was the rudder) and Neptune (whose messenger was the dolphin).¹³⁹ Configurations like this are common in Roman Republican glyptics in both gemstones and in glass. They were probably mass-produced by gem engravers and delivered to the market as popular amulets rather than on a specific