Portraits - personal branding, induction and manifestation of loyalty

Pliny claims that Pompey the Great displaying the dactyliotheca of Mithridates’ gems and muhrrine vessels during his triumph introduced a fashion for these kinds of decorative arts in Rome.⁵² For this reason, Vollenweider felt justified in proposing that generally speaking this was the moment when portrait gems started to be produced on a large scale, especially glass gems.⁵³ She projected herself that Pompey portraits were frequently put on gems for propaganda purposes. In this sub-chapter, I would like to address her hypothesis and re-examine the evidence for such a claim. Because first, one wonders if there is indeed a significant number of Pompey’s portrait gems in existence and second, as so rightly observed by Trunk and Kopij, whether all the gems bearing Pompey’s likeness should be dated to his lifetime or not.⁵⁴ For the evidence is striking that some of the gems presenting Pompey’s portrait were produced under his son Sextus Pompey, and they more plausibly testify to the reception of his father’s image in glyptics (cf. chapter 9.1.4). Moreover, the chronology of Pompey’s portrait gems is problematic which is clear when one compares the studies of Vollenweider and Trunk, both equally incomplete.⁵⁵ Fortunately, in the case of Pompey identification of his portraits on gems is less problematical than in the case of earlier prominent Romans because the comparative material (coins and sculpture) is relatively abundant, although usually posthumous. I am going to sort out the material related to the issue and then discuss what kinds of propagandistic actions each class might have referred to.

I have already discussed the unusual portrait gem in a private collection that might present Pompey frontally, and which was most likely cut for him while he was on his eastern campaigns (see above). Vollenweider argued that due to Pompey’s great popularity among soldiers, he had every right to appear on gems one way or another as early as the 80s BC and considering his military successes, he was expected to be depicted heroized.⁵⁶ Indeed, there is some evidence to claim that Pompey was interested in glyptic art and had his likeness cut upon both intaglios and cameos.

Nevertheless, I believe this could not happen as early as she expected. As has been already shown, it was common for the Romans travelling to the East to have their first serious contact with glyptic art there (cf.

52  Pliny, Historia Naturalis, XXXVII.6-7.

53  Vollenweider 1955: 110.

54  Kopij 2017: 257; Trunk 2008: 144.

55  Trunk 2008: 143-152; Vollenweider 1972-1974: 115-119.

56  Vollenweider 1972-1974: 106-107.

chapter 6.2.1) and one supposes that this was the case of Pompey too. In 67 BC he departed from Brindisi to fight pirates in the eastern part of the Mediterranean Sea. In the following year he was given the command of Roman forces engaged in the third war with Mithridates VI Eupator, king of Pontus. Pompey quickly defeated Mithridates and brought much of the East under the control of Rome throughout the years 66-62 BC (Armenia, Syria and Judea among others). It must have been in that period of his military and political career when he became interested in glyptic art for the first time. He took over the dactyliotheca and muhrrine vessels once belonging to Mithridates VI Eupator that were later exhibited during his triumph in 61 BC. He might also have employed Greek gem engravers to carve intaglios and cameos for him (see above). For apart from the carnelian intaglio already discussed presenting his bust, there are several other objects that one possibly should link to his patronage over glyptics while he was in the East or to the popularity of his image among his followers who wanted to express their affinity to Pompey and his faction.

A small glass cameo was once preserved in the Musée du Cinquantenaire in Brussels and it is believed to feature the head of Pompey in profile to the right (cat. no. 8.14, Figure 181).⁵⁷ The identification made by Vollenweider is generally accepted as is her date for the cameo which she links to Pompey’s eastern campaigns.⁵⁸ She compared the portrait to the bronze coins minted in Soli-Pompeiopolis, however, it has recently been established that dates of this coinage are controversial, and they might have been struck after Pompey’s death.⁵⁹ Nevertheless, it is clear that the cameo once in Brussels was a Hellenistic product due to the style of engraving, cameo form unusual for Roman glyptics at the time and material used and it is noteworthy that it presents a relatively young Pompey. Another interesting object is a sapphire cameo once in the Ralph Harari collection of engraved gems. It shows the head of a Roman in a three-quarter view, slightly turned to the right. The man’s particular features are short curly hair widely arranged on the head and slightly receding at the temples, a square jaw and intense gaze.

The nose is straight, the face full, with double chin and the lips are a bit receded (cat. no. 8.15, Figure 182).

The exceptionally hard material used combined with a portrait study suggest the portrayed person must have been an important and wealthy individual. The work is Hellenistic in style, the face is a bit idealised, but it belongs to a Roman official whose hairdo is comparable to the one from the cameo once in Brussels. Therefore, it is tempting to suggest that the piece was executed

57  Trunk 2008, no. G2 (who states that the cameo is no longer there);

Vollenweider 1972-1974, pl. 71.1.

58  Vollenweider 1972-1974: 115.

59  Trunk thinks the same as Vollenweider (2008: 149-151), but see:

Kopij 2017: 148-151, 258 and 330-331.

for Pompey the Great, although such an identification is largely speculative.⁶⁰ Much less problematic is the identification of Pompey’s portrait on a cameo from the Content Family collection where his bust is draped and one easily recognises the anastole hairdo above the forehead (cat. no. 8.16, Figure 183). The provenance of the gem is especially interesting since Maurice Nahman (1868-1948) collected ancient art from Egypt, where Pompey spent his last days.⁶¹ But the cameo was probably cut earlier during Pompey’s eastern enterprises and could be gifted to and used by a local governor loyal to the Roman statesman. Noteworthy is the fact that although an unquestionably Hellenistic work in terms of style, this piece presents Pompey as a Roman dignitary wearing a toga, not a naked bust, which suggests control over the image created perhaps by Pompey himself. The cameos with Pompey’s portraits constitute a precedence in Roman glyptic art since none of the Romans before him promoted his image in this medium. Furthermore, in the haircut of Pompey one spots reflections of Alexander’s anastole which suggests that Pompey already during his eastern campaigns used to compare or identify himself with Alexander the Great.

Regarding intaglios made of hardstones, a comparable portrait to the one from the Harari collection cameo is a carnelian in the Bollmann cabinet featuring the portrait of a Roman whose face is fleshy with mimic wrinkles clearly marked, slightly receded lips, double chin and thick neck. His forehead is lined with numerous wrinkles and the hair presented as a mass of short curls clearly raised up at the top of the forehead (cat. no. 8.17, Figure 184).⁶² Both the face and especially the arrangement of hair with raised forelock (the so-called anastole hairdo) suggest identifying the portrayed person as Pompey the Great, perhaps with some signs of his imitatio Alexandri employed for propaganda purposes.⁶³ Vollenweider supposed that Pompey himself might be depicted here, but she hesitated to attribute the intaglio to him.⁶⁴ This is fully understandable since there are some details which fit awkwardly for Pompey. The most striking is the nose which is relatively strongly bowed on the intaglio, while it is not that much in the coinage.⁶⁵ However, the slight differences may result from the fact that Pompey’s image at the time was still poorly known in the East and artists, unless being directly employed by Pompey himself, had little sources of inspiration at hand. There are a few more objects testifying that

60  Boardman and Scarisbrick 1977, no. 60.

61  Henig and Molesworth 2018, no. 70.

62  This is only partially visible due to chipped edge of the upper part of the stone. See: Vollenweider 1972-1974, pl. 54.1-3.

63  Compare analogies in sculpture: Kopij 2017: 229-237.

64  Vollenweider 1972-1974: 85-86.

65  Compare, for instance: RRC, nos. 470/1a-d (denarii of M. Minatius Sabinus and Cn. Pompey, 46-45 BC), 477/1a-3b (denarii of Sextus Pompey, 45-44 BC), 483/1-2 (denarii of Q. Nasidius, 44-43 BC) and 511/1-3c (aureii and denarii of Sextus Pompey, 42-40 BC).

Pompey’s portrait gems became increasingly popular in the East in the late 60s BC. Two more examples are:

a sardonyx intaglio housed now in St. Petersburg (cat.

no. 8.18, Figure 185), while the second is preserved in the form of a modern plaster impression made by Tommaso Cades after an original ancient intaglio (cat.

no. 8.19, Figure 186). Both heads are very much alike and present Pompey with a typical anastole haircut. It is generally suggested that those gems were produced between 70-50 BC,⁶⁶ but I think a narrower period of time should be suggested, that is c. 66-61 BC because the portraits exhibit considerable Hellenistic influence in the engraving techniques and it is probable they were cut while Pompey campaigned in the East or slightly later.

One should mention here one particularly interesting sealing originating from the Edfu hoard that was smuggled out of Egypt in the early 20th century and eventually split into two halves, one of which was bought by the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto.⁶⁷ The sealing in question features the head of Pompey the Great which Vollenweider dated to the 60s BC (cat. no 8.20, Figure 187).⁶⁸ I agree with her opinion, though a slightly later date is also possible. In fact, the object delivers immensely important information regarding the usage of portrait gems. It is very likely that this seal was attached to the document issued by a governor of one of the eastern Roman provinces created after Pompey’s conquest. He might have been one of Pompey’s followers who chose to seal his documents with his likeness on the one hand to manifest his loyalty to the Roman statesman and, on the other hand, to transfer Pompey’s authority onto himself.

For the seal testified that he acted on the behalf of Pompey which means he is supported by one of the most powerful Roman individuals. For Pompey himself, such a situation was beneficial too since he was assured of being supported in the far lands which he could not access easily when came back to Rome, and his authority was also raised within the local communities in the eastern provinces. He became more recognisable when his supporters used to spread his portrait in such a context as being described here. It seems that gems contributed to Pompey’s propaganda the same way as the honorific inscriptions and statues devoted to Pompey did when erected by the representatives of local loyal communities in the eastern cities.⁶⁹

66  Neverov 1983, no. 4 (= Trunk 2008, G1 and G3; Zwierlein-Diehl 1986, no. 530 (ca. 61-50 BC); 2007, ill. 488 (ca. 70-50 BC)).

67  For more detailed information about this hoard, see: Milne 1916;

Murray 1907; Plantzos 1999: 27-28. Currently, the Royal Ontario Museum is conducting a scientific project aiming at description and re-publication of all the sealings it possesses, see: https://www.rom.

on.ca/en/blog/clay-sealings-from-edfu-egypt-in-the-greek-roman-collection [retrieved on 16 January 2018].

68  Vollenweider 1972-1974, pl. 74.1.

69  On this issue, see: Kopij 2017: 237-238 and 246-250.

Further examples of portrait gems related to Pompey the Great are clearly Roman products as suggested both by the materials used as well as the style of engraving except for the work attributed to Agathopus (cf. chapter 8.1.3 above). There are two gemstones:

one is a red jasper in Berlin featuring Pompey’s head and the letter P on both sides of it (cat. no. 8.21, Figure 188),⁷⁰ and a banded agate intaglio in Hannover bearing just a head of Pompey cat. no. 8.22, Figure 189).⁷¹ The former has intrigued scholars a great deal because of the inscription. The portrait itself is difficult to date and usually placed between years 70-50 BC.

However, the style of engraving is very different from the earlier Hellenistic creations and suggests it is a Roman product. Even though the facial expression and features are still typical for Pompey, the coiffure (still the anastole type) has been considerably simplified as the locks of hair are rendered with numerous short strokes in a rather mechanical way. Moreover, the inscription which resembles a double P letter is also more typical for the Roman sphere. For these reasons, it is clear that the intaglio must have been produced in Italy, perhaps in Rome and that must have been after Pompey’s arrival and triumph in 61 BC. On the other hand, as Trunk observed, stylistically the intaglio has very little in common with posthumous portraits of Pompey known from both gems and coins.⁷² Therefore, I propose a date between 61 and 48 BC. Regarding the inscription, it has been suggested to stand for pater patriae, patronus publicae or Pompeius pater.⁷³ However, to my mind, the most probable is that the two letters stand for the name of intaglio’s owner (duo nomina) as it is often the case on various gems produced in the first half of the 1st century BC.⁷⁴ Still, the inscription makes the object interesting because it suggests that its owner identified with Pompey and certainly was one of his followers. Perhaps the intaglio was commissioned by him to manifest his allegiance to Pompey and his circle. This on the one hand confirms that Pompey’s propaganda was successful in glyptics because people wanted to show their bonds with him. On the other hand, it testifies to the political use of engraved gems and confirms the date of the object specified as between 61-48 BC. This date is the most plausible since it was the period when Pompey’s popularity reached its peak in Rome. For an aristocrat it would be suitable and beneficial to proclaim his support for his patron that

70 AGDS II, no. 415; Furtwängler 1896, no. 6536; 1900, vol. I, pl. XLVII.38, vol. II: 227; Trunk 2008, no. G6; Vollenweider 1972-1974, pl. 71.5 and 7 (ca. 60-50 BC); Zazoff 1983, pl. 78.5.

71 AGDS IV Hannover, no. 568; Trunk 2008, no. G4; Vollenweider 1972-1974, pl. 71.2-3; Zazoff 1983, pl. 78.4.

72  Trunk 2008: 149. But see a contradictory view in: Kopij 2017: 261.

73  Kopij 2017: 261 (the author wrongly attributed this gem to the posthumous objects created on the commission of Sextus Pompey, though); Vollenweider 1972-1974: 116.

74  See many examples of portrait gems with heads of Pompeians and inscriptions in chapter 9.1.3. For more information on the inscriptions of this kind on gems, see: Aubry 2009: 13.

way. The second intaglio (Hannover collection) has been engraved upon a banded agate, a typical material for Roman Republican glyptics, in a similar style to the intaglio from Berlin. Therefore, I suggest taking it as a contemporary piece to the red jasper, although other scholars would not be so sure about such a date.⁷⁵ As one can see, there are some reasons to think that indeed Pompey’s arrival in Rome with the dactyliotheca of Mithridates VI Eupator and his muhrrine vessels was an initial spark that set off a considerable production of engraved gems. Pompey’s popularity and the new art form combined quickly resulted in a phenomenon when ordinary people sought to have a portrait of their patron cut upon their rings. The demand must have been increasing over the 50s BC so that gem engravers started to produce cheaper glass gems with Pompey’s likeness and deliver them to the market or they were told to do so by Pompey himself as a part of his propaganda machinery. I collected four glass gems bearing Pompey’s portrait all of which were presumably produced between 61 to 48 BC in Italy, most likely in Rome itself (cat. nos 8.23-26, Figures 190-191) as shown by the provenance of those gems. One is in Venice, one in Munich, but it was once a part of the Paul Arndt collection formed in Rome, the next in Copenhagen (about which little is known) and finally the last travelled as far as to the Rhineland (now preserved in Bonn). All those pieces feature a very similar head of Pompey without any attributes engraved in a manner close to the already mentioned intaglios in Berlin and Hannover. I believe that those gems are contemporary with the gemstone ones and were produced for ordinary people. Moreover, the example from Bonn suggests that some of their recipients were Roman soldiers fighting for Pompey and wishing to manifest their allegiance to him. In other words, they were markers of identification with Pompey.

Speaking of Pompey’s portrait gems, Vollenweider noticed one particular glass gem in Geneva. It bears the head of a bearded Roman king, possibly Numa Pompilius in profile to the right (cf. cat. no. 6.133, Figure 42). She compared the device with coins issued by Pompey the Great and Cn. Calpurnius Piso in 49 BC and proposed that the gem owner wanted to manifest his loyalty and faith in Pompey who should be elevated to the royal level and rule the Roman Republic.⁷⁶ Such an interpretation is unacceptable. Even though indeed there are considerable similarities between the coins and the gem in question, it has recently been proved that the head of Numa appears on that denarius as a reference to the legendary origins of gens Calpurnia.⁷⁷

75  Compare: Kopij 2017: 262; Trunk 2008: 149; Vollenweider 1972-1974: 115.

76  Vollenweider 1979, no. 117.

77  See: RRC, no. 446/1 (denarius of Pompey the Great and Cn.

Calpurnius Piso, 49 BC) and especially, Kopij 2017: 145-146 (with a

It is possible that the gem itself was used as a private seal of a member of Calpurnia family as was often the case in the 1st century BC and earlier (cf. chapter 6.3.1).

All the intaglios, cameos and sealings presented above confirm that Pompey used engraved gems for his political propaganda already while engaged in a series of military campaigns in the East. Moreover, manifestation of loyalty and support by his followers was clearly practiced with the use of gems featuring his likeness in Rome and the eastern provinces too.

Vollenweider’s supposition based on Pliny’s record about Pompey’s role in popularising gem engraving in Rome is confirmed by the growing scale of production of gems bearing the portrait of Pompey. Even though the evidence presented here seems scanty, it is the first time one can say that gems were clearly used for personal branding to a considerable degree and on various levels since Pompey probably encouraged production of pieces bearing his portrait. In the case of Sulla and Marius the evidence for that activity is much more tenuous. It is difficult even to identify their portraits let alone to link them with specific periods of their military and political careers. In the case of Pompey there is enough evidence that he promoted himself first, imitating Hellenistic kings through cameos and intaglios as well as the employment of gem engravers which then continued in Rome, especially after his triumph when his image was disseminated in the form of glass gems.