Hellenistic influences

The second major source of inspiration for the Roman Republican gem engravers and politicians was Hellenistic culture. Like Etruscan and Italic glyptics, Hellenistic glyptics influenced Roman glyptic art to a considerable degree in terms of new forms (cameos,

35  See an interesting discussion of this matter in: Ambrosini 2014.

36  Hansson 2005: 135.

37  For a detailed information on this peculiar class of gems, see:

Hansson 2005.

carved vessels, works in the round), practices (collecting, triumphal processions, royal patronage), styles, techniques and of course iconography. As has been proved by Hansson, Hellenistic archetypes started to mingle with glyptic production of the southern and central Italy as early as the mid-4th century BC.³⁸ Because the archaeological and cultural context for the Roman Republican gems is largely incomplete, it is difficult to point out which depictions and practices stem from Hellenistic traditions unless one tries to trace them according to the political motivations that might have been the reasons for their adoption by the Romans.³⁹

6.2.1. Portraits

The first category of glyptic material that experienced a massive Hellenistic impact is intaglios and in a later phase also cameos with human portraits. Although Vollenweider identified some Etruscan and later Italic and Roman Republican independent traditions regarding gem portraiture,⁴⁰ it is a generally accepted view that the practice of putting an image of a living man upon a gem was a Greek invention that flourished in particular in the Hellenistic period (cat. nos 6.74-77, Figures 21-22).⁴¹ From Alexander the Great down to Cleopatra VII a number of portrait gems had been produced and their functions are the subject of fierce debate.⁴² These gems could have been used as personal seals of the rulers that commissioned them,⁴³ but there is evidence that they were exchanged in a form of diplomatic gifts. For instance, Lucius Licinius Lucullus was offered a gold ring with an emerald engraved with a portrait of King Ptolemy IX Soter II during an audience at his court in 86 or 85 BC.⁴⁴ According to Plutarch, Lucullus out of modesty, declined to accept the gift, but Ptolemy showed him that the engraving on it was a likeness of himself, so the Roman general accepted the gift wishing to make no offence to the king.⁴⁵ As Plantzos observes, the passage offers valuable

38  Hansson 2005: 38-39

39  Hellenistic art was certainly appealing to the Roman aristocracy which was another factor contributing to the relatively quick adaptation of Greek traditions (among others in glyptics), see: Binachi Bandinelli 1988: 179-180; Furtwängler 1900, vol. III: 300 and 342-343;

Giuliano and Micheli 1989: 32; Lang 2012: 40; Möbius 1964: 16-23.

40  Vollenweider 1972-1974: 1-47.

41  Megow 1987: 2; Möbius 1964: 14-19; Plantzos 1999: 42.

42  Fulińska 2017; Plantzos 1999: 42-65.

43  For instance, the famous Pyrgoteles cut a gem for Alexander the Great bearing the king’s own image, see: Plutarch, Life of Alexander, 4.1; Pliny, Historia Naturalis, XXXVII.4 and a broad commentary on this issue in Plantzos 1999: 60-62. However, according to literary sources some rulers preferred other subjects than their own likeness, for instance, Cleopatra VII used a ring with an image of Methe engraved on an amethyst, see: Anthologia Palatina IX.756; Neverov 2005: 189;

Spier 1992, no. 180.

44  Plantzos (1999: 111) and Zwierlein-Diehl (2007: 108) suggest the king to be Ptolemy IX Soter II, however, Lapatin (2015: 110) claims it was Ptolemy XI, but this could be the author’s typo since that king ruled briefly in 80 BC.

45  Plutarch, Lif of Lucullus, 3.1.

information for our understanding of royal portraiture in glyptic. It was regarded as a great personal honour to be offered an intaglio with an image of a ruler.

This privilege was reserved for the few and could not be simply rejected.⁴⁶ Furthermore, Gutzwiller argues that portrait gems were disseminated among royal supporters before coins.⁴⁷ Literary records suggest that gems with portraits were also used in order to manifest loyalty and support for a political leader. Polybius, when talking about the murder of Ptolemy IV by Agathokles and his followers mentions a certain Aristomenes who expressed his support to Agathokles by being the first who used to wear his image on a ring.⁴⁸ However, this phenomenon could have been double-sided. It is easy to imagine that it was a king who by giving a precious gift with his likeness engraved upon it (e.g. a ring with a gem) counted on loyalty of the gifted person.⁴⁹ The confirmation of that comes from Athenaios who states that in the days of confusion and anarchy preceding the advent of Mithridates in Athens, the peripatetic philosopher Athenion, who became a dictator in the city in 89/88 BC, and was an active member of the pro-Pontic party, was seen wearing Mithridates’ portrait upon a ring.⁵⁰ It is not clear from this narrative whether it was Mithridates who used to gift gems with his own portraits to his supporters or they commissioned such objects on their own, but the former supposition is supported by the fact that Mithridates was a collector of gems and hired the best gem engravers to work at his court (cf. chapter 6.2.2 below).

The situations described above clearly show that engraved gems were used for political and propaganda purposes in the Hellenistic world. They were employed as the personal seals of the rulers, commemorated specific events and were the means of manifestation of loyalty and support. But above all, gems with portraits in the Hellenistic period were used for personal branding and contributed to the dissemination of the royal image among the people, even if these were only limited groups.⁵¹ Besides, gems with portraits were exceptionally luxurious products testifying to the high social status and distinction of both their commissioners and receivers.⁵² It seems this was the main reason why in the course of the 2nd centuries BC many Roman dignitaries and generals visiting the East during military campaigns followed Hellenistic

46  Plantzos 1999: 111.

47  Gutzwiller 1995: 389-390.

48  Polybius, Histories, 15.31.8.

49  Gross 2008: 13.

50  Athenaios, Deipnosophists, 5.212d-e. See also: Plutarch, Life of Sulla, 13; Appian, Mithridatica, 28. On the political implications of the described event, see: Gross 2008: 13-15. Yarrow thinks that glass gems bearing the head of Mithridates were primarily used to manifest allegiance to the pro-Pontic party (2018: 39-40).

51  Plantzos 1999: 111-112.

52  For a more thorough discussion on this matter, see: Gross 2008:

13-14.

examples and started to have their portraits cut upon their rings. The superb quality of glyptic art and the prestige it gave was appealing for them. It is a common view that Etruscan art was quickly romanised by the aristocracy in Rome because it was top quality and allowed the user to stand out from others.⁵³ The same applies to Hellenistic art that greatly influenced the Roman, especially after the Second Punic War (218-201 BC) (cf. above). Again, the dominant role was played by the aristocracy for which Hellenistic standards offered far more possibilities for fulfilling their needs and desires for raising their own popularity and authority.

At the end of the Second Punic War, Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus (236-183 BC) emerged as the most significant Roman general and political leader. After the battle at Zama in 202 BC, Scipio was welcomed back to Rome in triumph with the agnomen of Africanus. He refused the many honours which the people would have thrust upon him such as consul for life and dictator.

Instead, in the year 199 BC, Scipio was elected censor and for some years afterwards he lived quietly and took no part in politics. Nevertheless, his position was strong and there were many who sought his support and wanted to assure him of their loyalty. A substantial number of engraved gems and rings make one think that way.

The famous gold ring found in Capua engraved with a portrait of a Roman, who has been recognised as Scipio Africanus (cat. no. 6.78, Figure 23) is the most significant glyptic object relating to the Roman general.⁵⁴ It is signed by a Greek artist, Herakleidas (AKAEIΔAC EΠOCI - Herakleidas made it) and is now preserved at the Museo Archeologico Nazionale in Naples.⁵⁵ The portrait is presented in an entirely Greek manner, however, the style and the serious physiognomy including the thin, close-lipped mouth, is closer to the verist representations of the Romans praising contemporary ideals of gravity and piety. This piece is a good example of the situation when the commissioner must have been a Roman, while the artist was a Greek previously working somewhere in the Hellenistic East.⁵⁶ It is a strange situation when the severe Roman standards are reflected upon an object that represents a major lapse in them since it must have been a precious, even boastful, item in character. We can only speculate if this ring once belonged to Scipio Africanus himself, but since the Romans adopted the same standards as Hellenistic rulers in patronising glyptic art and signed

53  Binachi Bandinelli 1988: 179.

54  Furtwängler 1900, vol. III: 215-116; Plantzos 1999: 92; Vollenweider 1958; 1972-1974: 57-58; Zazoff 1983: 269. However, as Lapatin states, some scholars are less willing to identify the person depicted with any specific historical figure (2015: 234).

55  Inv. no. 25085. Lapatin 2015, pl. 47; Pirzio Biroli Stefanelli 1992, no.

1; Ward et al. 1981, no. 56.

56  Alas, except for his name and extraordinary skills nothing is known about Herakleidas. His name is not recorded in literary sources and none of his other works is known.

pieces seem to be direct commissions from the most wealthy and important people, such a possibility cannot be entirely rejected. One imagines that this was a mutually beneficial situation for the commissioner, who could boast of having his ring engraved by a famous artist, which brought him splendour, prestige and guaranteed him social distinction, and for the artist to claim one of his customers to be a prominent politician. The Herakleidas ring is dated c. 200 BC or slightly later and whether it indeed features a portrait of Scipio Africanus, it illustrates well the phenomenon of Hellenistic traditions in portraiture being developed by the Romans in glyptics.

In the case of Scipio Africanus his portraiture on gems appears to be not a single event, but a regular phenomenon. Vollenweider collected several glass gems that with greater or lesser probability portray the head of this famous Roman general (cat. nos 6.79-82). Several more can be added to this list (cat. nos 6.83-85, Figure 24).⁵⁷ Portraits on all these gems are similar to bronze coins minted in Canusium in the early 2nd century BC⁵⁸ as well as to the ring described above. Vollenweider pointed out two more rings which in her opinion present portraits of Scipio Africanus:

a silver one now in London,⁵⁹ and iron one in Louvre Museum in Paris,⁶⁰ however, I think that considerable differences in both facial physiognomies and haircuts do not allow one to make such an attribution. In any case, except for one dark violet object in Berlin, all these gems are made of brown or yellowish-brown glass and have convex obverse sides, so they do indeed constitute a homogenous group. However, these portraits were not made from the same matrix and to my mind they exhibit differences in both facial features and coiffures. Therefore, it may seem speculative to regard them as portraits of Scipio Africanus, but the problems with their identification result from scanty comparative material and a range of skill on the part of the glass gems’ makers. It is certainly problematic to accept that they all copy one image engraved by Herakleides as Vollenweider proposed.⁶¹ Assuming that indeed these portrait gems were intended to represent Scipio Africanus, that they might have been produced for his followers who wanted to manifest their loyalty and commitment to him. Alternatively, some gem engravers took advantage of Scipio’s popularity in Rome and produced those objects for the market since there was a considerable demand for them.⁶² The six glass gems mentioned above probably were produced

57  It is speculated if a brown glass gem in Vienna bears a portrait of Scipio Africanus, however, as Zwierlein-Diehl points out (1979, no.

790), in this case, the long hair resembles that of Alexander the Great and there are some differences in facial features as well.

58  Vollenweider 1972-1974: 57-58; Zwierlein-Diehl 1979, no. 790.

59  Vollenweider 1972-1974, pl. 39.11.

60  Vollenweider 1972-1974, pl. 39.12-13.

61  Vollenweider 1972-1974: 59-60.

62  Vollenweider 1972-1974: 60-61.

in Italy, possibly in Rome since they previously were parts of the Bergau, Fol and Stosch collections which were all created from the material originating from Italy (cf. chapter 11). The gem now in Athens could have been transferred there from Italy for instance by a Roman legionary. In conclusion, it is controversial to think that gems with portraits of Scipio Africanus were primarily used for the personal branding of that statesman. It is difficult to say whether Scipio indeed used the ring cut by Herakleides for his own promotion and commissioned it as there is no other evidence, either archaeological or literary, except for the ring itself. Nevertheless, the series of glass gems with his likeness must have resulted from his great popularity in Rome. It is possible that those gems were used for the manifestation of loyalty and support, especially among ordinary people rather than the aristocracy which would not have invested in cheap glass intaglios.

The portrait of Scipio Africanus cut by Herakleides is just one example, but in the course of the 2nd century BC personal branding on portrait gems was undertaken on a much larger scale. Furtwängler has pointed out that many representatives of Roman elites became fascinated by Greek culture and promoted themselves in a totally Hellenistic manner in glyptics.⁶³ The contact with Graeco-Hellenistic civilisation was a crucial factor for some Romans deciding to have their portrait cut upon a gemstone. A proof of that is a garnet intaglio in Paris presenting the bust of a Roman in profile to the right with short curly hair and slight beard dressed in a chlamys (cat. no. 6.86, Figure 25). The gem is signed by a Greek artist Daidalos (ΔAIΔAΛOC). The person depicted has been identified as Titus Quinctius Flamininus (c.

229-174 BC).⁶⁴ In the case of Scipio’s ring the Roman verism was quite straightforward, but here, the portrait is a bit idealised; Titus is projected as a relatively young man and his likeness is closer to the images of Hellenistic kings, rather than serious and rough images of Roman generals.⁶⁵ In 197 BC he defeated Philipp V at Kynoskephalai which has been celebrated by several coin issues.⁶⁶ It is likely that the gem in question was made in order to celebrate and commemorate this victory. Regarding coins, they exhibit some differences in style, which means they must have been prepared by several coin-die cutters, but it has been observed that Flamininus’ portraits from the gem and those coins were executed according to one concept – a combination of distinctive physiognomic features with an illustration of Titus’ famous philhellenism.⁶⁷ Even though the work

63  Furtwängler 1900, vol. III: 270-272.

64  Vollenweider and Avisseau-Broustet 2003, no. 2 (with previous literature).

65  Rambach 2018.

66  RRC, no. 548 (stater of T. Quinticus Flamininus, 196 BC); Smith 1988:

128. For a detailed study of the coinage in question, see: Campana 2016.

67  Plantzos 1999: 92; Vollenweider and Avisseau-Broustet 2003, no. 2;

Zwierlein-Diehl 2007: 108.

of Daidalos on stylistic grounds is entirely Hellenistic,⁶⁸ the individualisation of the portrait means that it was cut for the personal use of the commissioner, in this case most likely Flamininus himself. This is also confirmed by the fact that he wears no diadem or laurel wreath on his head on the intaglio to manifest his role as the saviour of the people ruled by a tyrant as Flamininus with his army was asked by Greek and Asian allies to intervene against Philip. If he had paraded around with such an intaglio on his hand, he must have made a great impression on his peers. Again, one deals with a situation when a propagandist wanted to possess an extraordinary item cut by a top artist available which ideally presents him and reflects his values - in this case, also his appreciation for the Hellenistic culture. It is clear that this gem was a powerful propaganda tool since only such an individual as Flamininus could have afforded it both economically and ideologically. The gem is utterly exceptional like his gold staters struck in Chalcis c. 196 BC because before Flamininus almost no living person had been depicted upon coins as that privilege was reserved for deities.⁶⁹ The gem was once a part of de Clercq and Count Boisgelin collections which encourages us to believe that it was cut in the East (Greece or Bithynia?), not in Rome.⁷⁰

The third gem to provide evidence for increasing interest of the Romans in portraiture in glyptic art is a garnet intaglio in the collection of the Oriental Institute Museum in Chicago (cat. no. 6.87).⁷¹ Like the preceding gems, this one bears a portrait of a powerful Roman individual, who has traditionally been identified as Mark Antony,⁷² however, this identification is incorrect. As Plantzos and Lapatin observe, this work is purely Hellenistic in terms of style. Besides, the gem’s form and material (highly convex garnet) as well as the heavy, gold ring with a stepped bezel it is set into suggest dating it around 150 BC.⁷³ The piece is signed by a Greek artist Menophilos (MENOΦIΛOC EΠOIEI) about whom nothing certain is known, but he is likely to have worked in Asia Minor or on Delos.⁷⁴ The portrait on the gem exhibits far-reaching individualisation reflected by strong jaw, sunken cheek, deeply cut mimic wrinkles, prominent nose and furrowed brow. His hair, although arranged freely is much shorter than on the previous two portraits. This illustrates the progressive adjustment of Greek engraving towards new Roman

68  It is noteworthy that even the gemstone type employed here – garnet – is the most frequently used material for Hellenistic glyptics and especially as far as portraits are concerned.

69  RRC, no. 548 (stater of T. Quinticus Flamininus, 196 BC).

70  The core of the Louis de Clercq (1837-1901) collection of engraved gems and other antiquities was formed while he was in the Near East (mainly in Syria, Phoenicia, Mesopotamia and Cyprus), see: chapter 11, Ridder 1911 and a valuable discussion on this specific piece in:

Vollenweider and Avisseau-Broustet 2003, no. 2.

71  Inv. no. OIA29789.

72  Vollenweider 1972-1974, pl. 136.1-2 and 6.

73  Lapatin 2015: 245; Plantzos 1999: 94.

74  Lapatin 2015: 245.

customers. The ring is said to have been found in Syria, and although this seems disputable,⁷⁵ beyond a shadow of doubt it is an eastern product. The identification of the portrayed person is indeed problematic, but the gem is another example of a work made for a prominent Roman (possibly a general, diplomat or statesman?) who wanted to promote himself by commissioning a piece of extraordinary jewellery for himself. He might have paraded himself with a work executed by one of the best gem engravers of his times which gave him splendour and prestige as well as confirming his distinctive social status.

There are several other gems that combine the Hellenistic manner of engraving and stylistic features with Roman Republican individualisation of the portrayed person, the so-called verism aimed at a deep reflection of his personality.⁷⁶ One such piece is a garnet intaglio from a private collection with a flat face engraved with a portrait of a man whose facial features and expression as well as the treatment of hair suggest him to be a Roman (cat. no. 6.88).⁷⁷ According to the style, this gem should be dated to the late 2nd or early 1st centuries BC. There are two interesting mottled jasper intaglios cut with images of the Romans that may be broadly dated from the late 3rd to the early 1st century BC.⁷⁸ The first one, housed in Berlin, is a double-faced scaraboid featuring a portrait of a sober and wrinkled man having short hair slightly receding at

There are several other gems that combine the Hellenistic manner of engraving and stylistic features with Roman Republican individualisation of the portrayed person, the so-called verism aimed at a deep reflection of his personality.⁷⁶ One such piece is a garnet intaglio from a private collection with a flat face engraved with a portrait of a man whose facial features and expression as well as the treatment of hair suggest him to be a Roman (cat. no. 6.88).⁷⁷ According to the style, this gem should be dated to the late 2nd or early 1st centuries BC. There are two interesting mottled jasper intaglios cut with images of the Romans that may be broadly dated from the late 3rd to the early 1st century BC.⁷⁸ The first one, housed in Berlin, is a double-faced scaraboid featuring a portrait of a sober and wrinkled man having short hair slightly receding at