Portraits – personal branding, induction and manifestation of loyalty

As shown above, even though Pompey is traditionally credited with the introduction of the fashion for gems in Rome, Julius Caesar also invested much in his propaganda in glyptics. This is confirmed by archaeological material now preserved in various public and private collections. I start my evaluation of Caesar’s and his followers’ input with portraits of the dictator since they are the most abundant category that could be related to propaganda activities of the Roman statesman. Gems bearing the likeness of Caesar are divided into four main categories: portraits without attributes, laureate portraits, portraits of Caesar as senator or consul and posthumous portraits.²⁰⁵ The final class shall be discussed in detail in the chapter devoted to Octavian (cf. chapter 9.3.1.1). Because of the fact that the portrait of Caesar appears on coins only in 44 BC and later and the comparative material in the form of sculptural busts is scanty and also usually known from later (mainly Augustan copies),²⁰⁶ the identification and most importantly the dating of Caesar’s portraits on gems is problematic. Yet, glyptics offers a relatively wide range of Caesar’s images that should substantially contribute to general studies of his likeness.

The first difference when one compares gems with Caesar’s portraits and those featuring the image of Pompey the Great is the material used. In the case of Pompey, the proportions between hardstones and their glass imitations were almost equal (cf. chapter 8.1.5), but in the case of Caesar, there are only a few glass gems bearing his portrait while gemstone intaglios clearly prevail. One of the earliest examples is an amethyst now preserved in Paris (cat. no. 8.107, Figure 227).

According to Vollenweider, this is a portrait of a Roman and should be dated to the first third of the 1st century BC.²⁰⁷ However, one should notice that the head is close

204  The image of Venus Victrix was initially reserved for Caesar’s seal, therefore, all attempts of numismatists to attribute one of Venus’

heads or images appearing on denarii is pointless, see for example a discussion in: RRC: 496.

205  For a thorough study of Julius Caesar’s portraits on gems see:

Vollenweider 1972-1974: 120-132.

206  Regarding the first coins featuring the image of Caesar, see: RRC, nos. 480/2-21 (denarii of various moneyers bearing head of Caesar, 44 BC). Concerning sculpture, see, for example a thorough study of Johansen 1987.

207  Vollenweider 1972-1974: 120-122; Vollenweider and Avisseau-Broustet 2003, no. 13.

to the Chiaramonti-Camposanto type of sculptural heads of Julius Caesar created shortly before or after his death (Figure 228).²⁰⁸ Although fragmentarily preserved, the gem shows a verist head of a middle-aged man with well-accomplished facial features such as sunken cheek, mimic wrinkles, straight nose and his hair is minutely engraved in numerous individual locks. Typical for this gem is the fact that the hair does not recede at the temples, but they are fully covered with it. The gem could have been executed by a Greek engraver but clearly, one active already in Italy around 50-44 BC.

It seems unlikely that Caesar himself engaged in the production of intaglios and cameos prior to his war campaign against Pompey, but when conflict between the two broke out, either Caesar himself or his followers seem to commission gems with the dictator’s portrait. There is a whole series of gems that are close to the Tusculum sculptural type of Caesar’s portrait.

They exhibit similar features to the Chiaramonti-Camposanto version, but there is little hair above the temples. For example, a carnelian intaglio in Berlin presents such a head, although, the man depicted seems relatively old for Caesar (cat. no. 8.108, Figure 229). The next interesting example, this time clearly meant to be Caesar, is a sapphire intaglio in Baltimore once in the famous Marlborough collection (cat. no. 8.109, Figure 230). In this case, the material used which is unusual and rare in Roman glyptics is noteworthy. It suggests that the commissioner must have been a wealthy aristocrat or Caesar himself and what is more, Caesar is presented wearing a toga as a senator or consul here. Interesting is a group of three almost identical carnelians that are preserved in the following places: St.

Petersburg, Bern and Vienna (cat. nos 8.110-112, Figure 231). The only difference is that the example from St.

Petersburg has no garment suggested in the bottom part of the bust, but this homogenous group should be dated similarly to the two gems described above, that is, c. 50-44 BC. They present Caesar as a senator or consul and a statesman. In the Martin-von-Wagner-Museum in Würzburg there are two further glass pastes made after ancient carnelians identical to the group previously described (cat. nos 8.113-114, Figure 232). One of them is accompanied with an inscription M•T:C suggesting Marcus Tullius Cicero is the subject, but Zwierlein-Diehl convincingly argues that these letters are an 18th century addition. The portrait itself should be identified as Julius Caesar and was executed already before his death.²⁰⁹ A slightly different version of Caesar’s portrait was cut upon an agate set in a gold ring, now in Geneva (cat. no. 8.115, Figure 233).

Although its facial features and the coiffure is close to the Tusculum type, the image presents a slightly older

208  Johansen 1987: 17-24.

209  Zwierlein-Diehl 1986, no. 532, p. 200.

man and thus, perhaps should be dated around 44 BC.²¹⁰ In the Louvre Museum in Paris there is an interesting silver ring with a plomb decorated with a portrait of Julius Caesar too (cat. no. 8.116). Finally, in Geneva there is a fragmentarily preserved cameo presenting a frontal head of a Roman whom Vollenweider identified with Julius Caesar (cat. no. 8.117, Figure 234). Indeed, his facial features are typical for Caesar and if so, apart from two cameos presenting Pompey the Great, this one would be another very early Roman cameo.

Noteworthy is the fact that all three present portraits of political leaders, which is no coincidence and testify to the use of engraved gems, and cameos in particular, for personal branding and the manifestation of loyalty and support.

All the examples listed above suggest a substantial production of Julius Caesar’s portrait gems already during his lifetime. The most interesting is the carnelian series bearing almost identical images that could not be copied from coins, since images of Caesar are consistently absent from these until 44 BC, but could have been copied from sculpture. They were not made by one artist but were possibly carved after a sort of prototype. They were probably made by several gem engravers and delivered to the market or cut on individual commissions of various people (Caesar’s followers). Less likely is that they were all made for Julius Caesar who gifted them to his supporters, however, such a hypothesis cannot be entirely rejected. Some objects, like the cameo could have been created for the personal adornment and the use of Caesar himself due to its form, extraordinary for such an object in those days. A similar case could be the sapphire intaglio once a part of the celebrated Marlborough cabinet, since the piece clearly stands out of the group in terms of stone and engraving quality. It is likely that those two objects were cut for Caesar when he campaigned in the East, perhaps during his stay in Alexandria which was the main glyptic centre of the Hellenistic world.

The second class of Julius Caesar portrait gems can be more securely anchored in the chronological framework. It consists of laureate heads and busts of the dictator that were most likely created shortly after his quadruple triumph in 46 BC. The laurel wreath refers to Venus – divine patroness of Caesar – or to the golden wreath (corona aurea) Caesar worn at the Lupercalia in 44 BC.²¹¹ Sometimes the images of Caesar are accompanied with the lituus or capis as on the glass gem from Vienna or a ring in London (cat. nos 8.118-119, Figures 235-236).

Although Vollenweider and Zwierlein-Diehl believe the piece to be close to coins minted after Caesar’s death, I think this particular example closely copies Caesar’s head from the denarius of L. Aemilius Buca issued in

210  For the Tusculum type of Caesar’s portrait, see: Johansen 1987: 27.

211  RRC: 488.

44 BC (Figure 237) and could not have been made after the dictator’s death.²¹² Furthermore, I suggest such a date because Caesar wears a sort of decorated wreath that has no bands on the back of the head which was a typical feature of corona aurea mentioned above.²¹³ In Syracuse there is a distinctive amethyst engraved with Caesar’s portrait and lituus in the field (cat. no. 8.120).

One notices the same kind of decorative wreath with no ribbons hanging down the neck, so it must be the corona aurea awarded to Caesar in 44 BC and additionally, the lituus recalls the pontifex maximus office which Caesar was appointed to in 63 BC. Highly interesting is the green chalcedony gem in Berlin, once in the Philipp von Stosch collection, featuring a laureate bust of Julius Caesar wearing a military cloak (paludamentum) with a palm branch in front of him (cat. no. 8.121). The cloak suggests military prowess and the branch is a symbol of victory. Both attributes combined surely refer to the triumph that Caesar celebrated in 46 BC and this particular object might be even earlier than the two gems discussed above. A further, but less close, parallel is a glass gem in Rome (cat. no. 8.122). It is noteworthy that the provenance of all these examples can be established more or less securely as Italy or Rome which fits a broader image suggesting that gems with Julius Caesar’s image were primarily produced in the area under his control, and nowhere else. In addition, the gems discussed here show how close were the products of gem engravers and coin die makers those days. The images appearing in glyptics were most likely copied from coins and delivered to the market either with Caesar’s encouragement or independently. The followers of the dictator certainly used his image on gems to manifest their loyalty and support for him and communicated to each other about membership of the same group, although, it must be stressed, none of these examples bears an inscription with the name of the sitter. It is evident that gems with Caesar’s image served well as integration propaganda aimed to unite his followers. Therefore, intaglios and cameos were complementary to Caesar’s propagandistic actions performed through sculpture and coinage.

Within the group of laureate heads and busts of Julius Caesar there are exceptions and one of them is a chalcedony intaglio housed in Paris presenting a laureate bust of Julius Caesar wearing a decorative flower wreath and chlamys to the right (cat. no. 8.123, Figure 238). This gem was once a part of the Seyrig collection and is said to have been purchased in Cairo.

If true, this information makes the piece even more interesting since it would indicate that the intaglio was created for Caesar during his stay in Egypt in 48 and 47 BC. As Vollenweider observed, the gem exhibits

212  RRC, no. 480/6.

213  See a detailed commentary on this issue also reflected in the coinage: RRC: 488.

completely different iconography and style from purely Roman products at that time (which I listed above).²¹⁴ Caesar wears not only a laurel wreath, but also a specially designed diadem or crown made of flowers. He does not wear a cuirass and paludamentum but a chlamys which is typical of the eastern tradition. Moreover, the portrait is clearly idealised and even though individual facial features such as the sunken cheek or mimic wrinkles are indicated, the overall expression is far calmer than on other intaglios presenting the dictator’s likeness (compare portraits listed above). It is clear that this gem was cut purely for propaganda purposes in an environment and circumstances that allowed for more than Rome. Caesar could here depict himself without any limits as a true dictator or even a king. The vague diadem form of the crown is combined with a regular Roman laurel wreath which indicates Caesar’s ambitions to become a king, but at the same time he does not reject his Roman nature because this would be shocking for his soldiers and Roman companions in Egypt. It is difficult to say if the piece was meant to be used as the personal adornment of Caesar or was gifted to him by one of his followers in Egypt who knew that Caesar is a gem collector and would be happy to receive such a gift. Alternatively, one imagines that the portrait was produced on the commission of Caesar who gave it to one of his influential followers who stayed in Egypt after his departure. Be that as it may, the gem was intended for circulation only within the inner circle of Caesar and his close friends since the image would not have been acceptable for a wider audience. The piece testifies like Caesar’s own seal that glyptics allowed more bold ideas to be transmitted and promoted than any other medium at the time (cf. chapter 8.2.3).

Regarding portraits of Julius Caesar, there is one particularly intriguing and problematic class presenting him as a philosopher, thinker or simply a senator or consul. The whole story starts in 1920 when Richter published her first catalogue of the gems housed in the Metropolitan Museum of Arts in New York. Among them, there is an excellently cut amethyst intaglio presenting a detailed portrait bust of an elderly man to the right that, as Richter proved, might be successfully identified with Julius Caesar (cat. no. 8.124, Figure 239).²¹⁵ His hair is formed in the fairly short locks receded above the temple but reaching the nape of his neck. His shadowed eye-brow and the two deep furrows on his forehead are prominent and so is his scraggy neck with its Adam’s apple clearly visible. His nose is long and straight, and his face is lean with typically sunken cheek. His mimic wrinkles are clearly marked. The overall impression is that of an ascetic and pensive individual. All those features are typical for Julius Caesar’s portraits on gems discussed above as well as his images known from coins

214  Vollenweider and Avisseau-Broustet 2003, no. 16.

215  Richter 1920, no. 217.

and sculpture. Unusual though, is the pose. The man rests his chin on his left hand which is loosely clenched.

Moreover, he wears a mantle, so draped, that it leaves his right shoulder bare. The bust is not accompanied by any attributes typical for Caesar such as the lituus, capis, star/comet and so on. Thus, its identification is based purely on analysis of the portrait itself.²¹⁶ The identification of the amethyst intaglio from New York with Caesar was accepted by Vollenweider and she claimed that this portrait bust type of Caesar was widely copied in gemstones and especially in glass gems.²¹⁷ She argued that such a type was preferred by Caesar who wished to present himself as a wise and civilised man and because he visited the East and Egypt in 48-47 BC, he took a sort of philosophical ideal image for his own and wished to be depicted that way. Nevertheless, the identification of the portrait intaglio from New York and its potential copies is uncertain since one finds a very similar head on the denarii struck by P. Cornelius Lentulus Marcellinus in 50 BC (Figure 240).²¹⁸ The coins bear the portrait of Marcus Claudius Marcellus (c. 268-208 BC), the moneyer’s ancestor who was appointed consul five times and was one of the Roman generals active during the Second Punic War. In 222 BC he obtained spolia optima which was the highest honour in the Roman army.

The great number of ancient gemstones and glass gems bearing the motif of a man supporting his head on his right hand is striking. Vollenweider proposed regarding those gems as products of propaganda that were delivered to Caesar’s soldiers and followers.²¹⁹ Indeed, similar portraits perhaps intended to be taken for Caesar can be identified in all major collections, for instance in Berlin, Geneva, Nijmegen and beyond (cat. nos 8.125-127, Figures 241-243).²²⁰ However, a fundamental question is why there would have been such a great discrepancy between regular portraits of Julius Caesar and those presenting him as a thinker, senator or consul since the number of the latter is greater than all other portrait gems of Caesar combined.

Moreover, one quickly discovers that this particular portrait type is fairly common in Roman Republican glyptics especially in the second and third quarter of the 1st century BC and heterogenous in its character. It cannot be regarded as related exclusively to Caesar (this

216  This has been already noticed by Zwierlein-Diehl (1973a, no. 350) and regarded as one of the arguments against identification with Caesar.

217  Vollenweider 1964: 508-517; 1972-1974: 122-132.

218  RRC, no. 439/1.

219  Vollenweider 1964: 517; 1972-1974: 130-132.

220  The number of parallels is vast (31 glass gems and 5 intaglios according to Lang, see: 2012: 54, but there are some more), and many have been already presented by Vollenweider in her monumental study on Roman Republican portrait gems, see: Vollenweider 1972-1974, pls. 80-85. Because of the lack of space here, I decided to avoid unnecessary repetition and give just a few examples illustrating the phenomenon.

specific portrait type is even employed for Odysseus)²²¹ and should be considered in a wider context. There has been much dispute over the numerous examples of similar portrait busts since it is uncertain whether they portray philosophers, historical figures, orators, thinkers or any other specific professionals. Some scholars are of the opinion that the busts like those under discussion should be identified with the Greek philosopher Aristoteles,²²² while others reject such a view,²²³ and other identifications such as Ennius or Meander, have also been put forward.²²⁴ Interesting is the idea presented by Zwierlein-Diehl who notices that the men on the gems in question wear an old-fashioned Roman toga which leaves one shoulder bare and because this was ostentatiously worn by Marcus Porcius Cato Uticensis (95-46 BC), she proposes to identify these portraits with him.²²⁵ Furthermore, the researcher claims that such gems were worn by opponents of Caesar who supported Cato and other members of the Republican party so that they would have been used for integration propaganda.²²⁶ Her views, however attractive, were dismissed by Vollenweider, Maaskant-Kleibrink and Weiß since they observed that the facial features and coiffure of some portraits presented on those gems are strikingly close to Julius Caesar, which is true.²²⁷

I am of the opinion that one must ask a fundamental question: whether all those portrait bust gems were meant to depict a single individual or is there a common type that was applied to many? My survey suggest the latter option to be true because there is variety and even Vollenweider noticed that several gems should be attributed to Octavian rather than Caesar, which issue I shall comment on in one of the next chapters (9.3.1.1).²²⁸ For Yarrow, this is a sufficient argument to distinguish just two types – older men are associated with Caesar, younger ones with Octavian.²²⁹ However, the overall picture turns out to be more complex because, for instance, in the Beverley collection of engraved gems there is a bearded young man presented in the same manner for whom any reasonable identification cannot be made, but he is certainly not Caesar or Octavian (cat. no. 8.128, Figure 244). There are more examples like this one and all of them bring me to the conclusion

I am of the opinion that one must ask a fundamental question: whether all those portrait bust gems were meant to depict a single individual or is there a common type that was applied to many? My survey suggest the latter option to be true because there is variety and even Vollenweider noticed that several gems should be attributed to Octavian rather than Caesar, which issue I shall comment on in one of the next chapters (9.3.1.1).²²⁸ For Yarrow, this is a sufficient argument to distinguish just two types – older men are associated with Caesar, younger ones with Octavian.²²⁹ However, the overall picture turns out to be more complex because, for instance, in the Beverley collection of engraved gems there is a bearded young man presented in the same manner for whom any reasonable identification cannot be made, but he is certainly not Caesar or Octavian (cat. no. 8.128, Figure 244). There are more examples like this one and all of them bring me to the conclusion