Possible gem engravers working for the Pompeians

engravers’ services either while campaigning in the East or in Rome was discussed in sub-chapter 8.1.3 above. It seems that this tradition was continued by his sons, at least by Sextus. In contrast to their father though, there is no direct or indirect proof for Gnaeus or Sextus collecting engraved gems or using them in public events, therefore, there are no separate sub-chapters here devoted to these issues. Ancient literary sources also remain silent about Gnaeus and Sextus commissioning engraved gems, yet the archaeological material preserved up to this day, mostly in public and private collections, suggests that this happened.

One of the most famous signed gems from the period of the Post-Caesarian and Liberators’ Civil Wars is the carnelian housed now in Berlin presenting the head of a youth with curly hair spreading from one point on the top of the head in a rather untidy manner and a short beard to the right and signed by a Greek artist Agathangelos (cat. no. 9.1, Figure 315). The stone is said to have been found near the tomb of Caecilia Metella on the Appian Road and the portrait it bears is generally recognised as belonging to Sextus Pompey since 1736, mainly due to comparisons with coins (Figure 316).⁷ The identification indeed seems correct also if one compares the portrait with the bronze bust preserved in St. Petersburg (Figure 317).⁸ All three media seem to present the same head. This image was copied by other artists not only on gemstones, but also in glass which will be discussed below, but the foremost conclusion is that if indeed it depicts Sextus Pompey, it was cut on his own commission and hence, shows that the politician used the services of lapidaries for self-promotion and to raise his social status. Perhaps he aspired to equal his father in patronage of glyptic art.

Going further, Giuliano and Micheli proposed that gems related to the Pompeian faction were produced

7  Furtwängler 1896, no. 6984; 1900, vol. III: 351; Plantzos 1999: 94;

Richter 1971, no. 634; Vollenweider 1966: 39; 1972-1974: 154-158; Zazoff 1983: 281-284. However, not all scholars accept this identification, see: AGDS II, no. 418; Zwierlein-Diehl 2007: 123. For coins, see: RRC, no. 511/1 (aureus of Sextus Pompey, 42-40 BC).

8  Kopij 2017: 238; Trunk 2008: 139.

in the area of Naples but this is unacceptable.⁹ The intaglio by Agathangelos is an utterly individual work that cannot be attributed to any specific workshop or region judging by the style only. All one can say about it is that it was executed by a very skilful Greek artist as the portrait exhibits clear bonds with Hellenistic glyptics. The coiffure is wildly organised, even a bit untidy and the physiognomy of the face is approached with individualism. The hairdo is the biggest difference between this image and the one known from the coins mentioned above, however, this probably results from the very private character of the intaglio, while coins required a more official image. It is difficult to say if the gem was cut during Sextus’ travels with his father to the East, in Africa, Spain or Sicily. Nevertheless, the last location seems the most plausible giving the fact that the gem is similar to the aureus minted between 42-40 BC when Sextus already resided on the island and this would have been a location convenient for a Greek artist to work. Finally, it was the time when Sextus established more or less stable control over some territory and intensified his propaganda actions.

The propagandistic value of Agathangelos’ work was considerable. First of all, the portrait is of exceptional quality and cut by a skilful and, most likely, a famous artist. This made a huge impact on Sextus’ public image and gained him much splendour as he surrounded himself with the best artists available and probably presented himself as a continuer of his father’s traditions. Furthermore, the portrait is bearded which implies another propagandistic action, namely a display of Sextus’ pietas erga patrem which was clearly a political action. It is believed that the beard was carried by young Romans those days only if it was intended to be a sign of mourning and if he wanted to express the wish to avenge his dead ancestor, in this case Pompey the Great.¹⁰ However, another plausible explanation for this is that the beard was a sign of adolescence and sympathy towards older aristocrats.¹¹ This was a quite popular practice among young political leaders engaged in the conflict after Caesar’s death (cf.

chapters 9.2.2, 9.3.1.1, 9.3.1.4 and 9.3.2.3).¹² In any case, the ultimate effect aimed at by Sextus was to stir the emotions of his followers and remind them that he is the sole leader of Pompey’s avengers and the task they have towards their previous commander has not been fulfilled yet. Doing that he also indirectly transferred the authority of his father onto himself which was important considering his youth.

As to the continuation of Pompey the Great’s legacy, it is argued that the amethyst in St. Petersburg attributed

9  Giuliano and Micheli 1989: 33.

10  Evans 1987: 105-106; Kopij 2017: 238.

11  For a detailed study of this phenomenon, see: Biedermann 2013;

Piegdoń 2012.

12  See also commentaries of Vollenweider (1972-1974: 147-151 and 169-179).

to the engraver Agathopus depicts Sextus Pompey, not his father.¹³ I have already presented arguments contradicting that view and explaining that it seems more likely for Agathopus to be employed by Pompey the Great (cf. chapter 8.1.3). However, one wonders if the gem cutter worked for Sextus Pompey at the later stage of his career. There is a group of gems presenting posthumous images of Pompey which I believe are products of the workshop created and operated by supporters of Sextus Pompey, possibly while he was stationed in Sicily (cf. chapter 9.1.4). Some of those gems are cut in exceptional materials like aquamarine and it is known that Agathopus preferred to use such hard stones for his works. Yet, their attribution to the engraver is speculative from the stylistic point of view and the fact that most of those gems are known only from glass, wax or plaster impressions not original stones.

Regarding other gem engravers potentially working for Sextus Pompey, Zazoff suggested that Aulos cut many gems with maritime subjects, especially those detailing Poseidon/Neptune and because they might be allusions to Pompey the Great’s identification with the god, Aulos might have worked for Sextus Pompey as well.¹⁴ This is, however, a very controversial view that will be challenged in the next sub-chapters (cf.

especially chapter 9.1.7 below). All in all, Agathangelos remains, so far, the only one good candidate for an artist working under the patronage of Sextus Pompey.

The number of ancient copies of his work is striking and suggests that it must have been accessible to many (cf. chapter 9.1.3 below). It is difficult to imagine how other lapidaries could see a small intaglio and copied it so faithfully. The only reasonable explanation is that they were somehow presented with it while working in Agathangelos’ workshop. Perhaps also Sextus ostentatiously paraded with Agathangelos’ intaglio set in a ring whenever he appeared in a public place like Marius did with a gold ring during his triumph (cf. chapter 7.2.1). The gem by Agathangelos could be then noticed and copied, but it seems more likely that Sextus engaged gem engravers to cut similar portraits and issued them to his loyal followers or to the market himself. So apparently, the preserved copies may bear witness that Sextus organised a sort of ‘workshop’

carving gems for himself, perhaps while settled down in Sicily. This would not be surprising considering the fact that other contemporary politicians seem to hire gem engravers too (cf. chapters 8.3.1 – Juba I and Juba II, 9.3.1.2 – Octavian and 9.3.2.2 - Mark Antony).

13  Neverov 1976, no. 89; Vollenweider 1972-1974: 152-153.

14  Zazoff 1983: 285-287.

9.1.3. Portraits – personal branding induction and manifestation of loyalty

There is a quite large number of portrait gems mainly cut in gemstones but also a few made of glass that can be attributed to Gnaeus Pompey or his brother Sextus.

This number is significant especially in comparison to portraits of Sulla, Pompey the Great or Julius Caesar discussed in previous chapters (cf. 7.1.3, 8.1.5 and 8.2.4).

It is clear that the use of glyptics for self-presentation, personal branding and manifestation of loyalty, all practices which should be counted as propaganda, intensified very much after Caesar’s death. I should stress that often distinguishing between the sons of Pompey is impossible due to a lack of comparative material. However, the evidence is in favour of claiming that most of the portraits listed below present Sextus Pompey rather than his brother as his political career was much shorter and the only moment when he or his supporters could issue gems with his likeness was when in Spain.¹⁵ There are only two portrait gems that might relate to brother’s presence in that location, and about a few more one can only speculate (see below). Noteworthy is the fact that in contrast to the previous periods, here, one deals with a considerable variety of portrait types, not only in iconographical, but also typological terms. There are gems presenting solely heads and busts of the Pompeians, but some of them are clearly shown wearing the paludamentum suggesting a military context and to others inscriptions were added. Perhaps the most important issue is that there are some gems clearly copying the intaglio cut by Agathangelos. They might testify to the existence of a well-organised workshop producing gems on the order of Sextus Pompey. I shall present and comment on all the evidence below.

Vollenweider argued that there are a few intaglios bearing the image of Gnaeus Pompey and they were possibly executed during the lifetime of his father or shortly after his death (cat. nos 9.2-5, Figures 318).¹⁶ The identification of these portraits is based merely on the head appearing on the reverse of aureus minted by Sextus Pompey in 42-40 BC (Figure 319).¹⁷ The far-reaching similarities between coins and gems raise the question of whether the gems are contemporary to the coins or were executed earlier. In his propaganda, Sextus tended to evoke his father as both a subject of his vengeance and source of inspiration and auctoritas.¹⁸ Placing the portrait of his brother together with his father on the mentioned aureus was reasonable if

15  On the problems with the identification of Pompeians’ portraits, see: Vollenweider 1972-1974: 152-174. Kopij entirely ignores portrait gems presenting Gnaeus and describes only those few he relates to Sextus (2017: 261-262).

16  Vollenweider 1972-1974: 160-163.

17  RRC, no. 511/1.

18  Kopij 2017: 158-172, 288-297, 309-310 and 316.

the issue of vengeance was meant to be addressed.

However, putting portraits of his brother alone on gems while he must have intended to promote himself makes little sense. Therefore, one must trust that the portrait of Gnaeus from the aureus is a reliable source and indeed should be used for identification of Gnaeus’

portraits on intaglios. It seems reasonable to think that these were cut a bit earlier than the aureus and most plausibly during Gnaeus’ and possibly even Pompey’s lifetime. Perhaps he was encouraged to promote himself that way by his father while he was still alive since the gem from Berlin collection (cat. no. 9.2, Figure 318) is said to have been found in Rome. It seems possible that the piece was executed for one of the followers of the Pompeian faction. Naturally, a gem like this one could have been used purely for to promote Gnaeus and was surely related to his personal branding. It could have been gifted to someone on the account of Pompey the Great’s wishing to make Gnaeus more recognisable as his heir. The other three gems bearing a similar portrait of Gnaeus should be ascribed to the same period as the Berlin gem, but one cannot exclude that all four were issued after Pompey’s death in order to strengthen the position of Gnaeus and gather followers of the Pompeian faction around him as well. This might be suggested by the presence of a beard that is traditionally interpreted as a form of elegy and was worn by young Romans in order to express not only sorrow but first and foremost the intention to avenge their dead father or other ancestors.¹⁹ Nevertheless, recently other explanations have been proposed and one of them is to regard this kind of short beard as a sign of adolescence and full potential to undertake military and political missions.²⁰ Thus, I propose to date the objects in question to c. 50-45 BC because if the first is the case, these gems could have been carved only after 48 BC, but if the latter, the gems could have been cut already within the final years of Pompey the Great’s life. All in all, one should regard them as evidence for Gnaeus’ (or his father’s) integration propaganda practices.

There seems to be some evidence that Gnaeus was promoted or he promoted himself through gems, but what about his brother Sextus? Glyptic material yields some portraits that are first, difficult to distinguish clearly between Gnaeus and Sextus Pompey and second, to date precisely, but most likely they are contemporary with the previously discussed ones. I have collected four portrait busts of the bearded Gnaeus or Sextus Pompey and their common feature is drapery indicated on the shoulders that may be the military cloak – paludamentum (cat. nos 9.6-10, Figures 320-321). In this case, the brothers are represented as commanders of the army and this suggests the period when they took control of the Pompeian faction and its loyal legions

19  Kopij 2017: 238.

20  Biedermann 2013; Piegdoń 2012.

after the death of their father or that Pompey the Great promoted them as able to command the army together with him because they all travelled together to the East or when still in Rome. The latter option is suggested by the provenance of some gems. One intaglio preserved in Berlin comes from the Heinrich Dressel (1845-1920) collection that was formed from material acquired in Rome. There is also a series of three black glass gems (two now in Berlin and one in Geneva) made from the same matrix presenting the very same motif. These glass gems were also most likely produced in Rome, as they originate from the Philipp von Stosch and Walther Fol cabinets. All of them then were supposedly a part of promotional practices, perhaps even induced or just supported by Pompey the Great in the last years of his life.

The situation changed considerably after death of Pompey the Great in 48 BC when his sons struggled with Caesar and ultimately in 46 BC landed in Spain. There, they must have invested much energy in propaganda to keep their soldiers with them, for instance issuing specific coinage.²¹ It seems that similar practices are reflected in glyptics. There are two immensely interesting intaglios, one in Lebrija, the second in Madrid presenting heads of Gnaeus or Sextus Pompey that were recovered from the territory of Spain once controlled by the brothers (cat. nos 9.11-12, Figures 322). One imagines that they could have been issued by Pompey’s sons according to their personal branding practices or testify to the manifestation of loyalty and support by their soldiers and supporters. These gems should be quite securely dated to the years 46-45 BC or shortly after, as after the Battle of Munda, Gnaeus was killed by Lucius Caesennius Lento and Sextus managed to keep going for some time in the northern Spain, but ultimately transferred himself and the remains of his army to Sicily.

Turning now to Sextus Pompey alone, I have already discussed the intaglio presenting a portrait probably of him cut by Agathangelos and its propagandistic value above, but it is of crucial importance to mention it here once again due to its considerable impact on other gems showing Sextus’ image. Agathangelos’ work was most likely executed when Sextus established himself in Sicily and it was a powerful propaganda transmitter.

Because it exhibits reliable similarities to the aureus minted in 42-40 BC, the identification is plausible and a date for the gem can be proposed to the same years as to the coin, or it might have been cut slightly earlier.

Noteworthy is Vollenweider’s observation that there are some gems clearly copying the famous work of Agathangelos.²² This phenomenon reached a significant scale and I was able to collect 10 intaglios in various

21  Kopij 2017: 170-172 (for Gnaeus) and 198-200 (for Sextus).

22  Vollenweider 1972-1974: 154-160.

gemstones, one gold ring and one cameo that are direct and quite evident copies of Agathangelos’ work or at least have been inspired by it to a considerable degree (cat. nos 9.13-22, Figures 323-327). This fact has several important implications. First of all, it supports the argument for identifying Agathangelos’ portrait with Sextus Pompey. On stylistic and iconographic grounds, there is no better candidate and such a considerable number of copies would have been executed only if the original work presented a prominent statesman.

Secondly, these copies probably suggest that Sextus established a well organised workshop of gem engravers who produced gems with his likeness in order to raise his popularity and make him more recognisable. Even if one imagines that less close copies of Agathangelos’ work were produced on the private commissions of Sextus’ followers and supporters, perhaps mostly his soldiers, who manifested their allegiance to his party and loyalty as well as support directly to him, there is still a fairly big group of faithful copies that would not have been created if the source of inspiration had been close enough. If that is the case, their prototype must have been exposed in public so that gem engravers knew their source well. Either way, a considerable propaganda effort must have been undertaken by Sextus Pompey for the creation of so many homogenous gems related to him. Noteworthy is the fact that all the examples listed above are made of gemstones. There is a great variety of gems used so one cannot point to one specific workshop producing all of them as the styles and techniques vary as well.

This situation has two further implications. First, there were several engravers of gems producing intaglios based on Agathangelos’ work active in Sicily and fulfilling private commissions or working more or less closely with Sextus himself. Secondly, the lack of mass production of glass gems may point to Sicily as the place where those gems were manufactured since this type of glyptic object was not particularly popular on the island which was still under substantial Hellenistic influence in those days. As I have been suggesting throughout this work, in the course of the 1st century BC glass gems were produced mainly in Italy and it is very probable that Rome was the biggest centre of production, which was beyond Sextus’ control at the time. This view is also confirmed by series of earlier glass gems presenting portraits of Gnaeus or Sextus that were most likely produced in Rome. Subsequently, a Sicilian origins for the gems in question is also suggested by the presence of one gold ring and one cameo (cat. nos 9.21-22, Figures 326-327). The former was a typical product for south Italian and especially Sicilian territories.²³ It is a controversial piece though because the man’s beard reaches further down his neck

This situation has two further implications. First, there were several engravers of gems producing intaglios based on Agathangelos’ work active in Sicily and fulfilling private commissions or working more or less closely with Sextus himself. Secondly, the lack of mass production of glass gems may point to Sicily as the place where those gems were manufactured since this type of glyptic object was not particularly popular on the island which was still under substantial Hellenistic influence in those days. As I have been suggesting throughout this work, in the course of the 1st century BC glass gems were produced mainly in Italy and it is very probable that Rome was the biggest centre of production, which was beyond Sextus’ control at the time. This view is also confirmed by series of earlier glass gems presenting portraits of Gnaeus or Sextus that were most likely produced in Rome. Subsequently, a Sicilian origins for the gems in question is also suggested by the presence of one gold ring and one cameo (cat. nos 9.21-22, Figures 326-327). The former was a typical product for south Italian and especially Sicilian territories.²³ It is a controversial piece though because the man’s beard reaches further down his neck