Possible gem engravers working for the Republicans

of gem engravers in order to produce propaganda gems, mostly those bearing their own images. What is more, it is likely that when Sextus settled in Sicily, he organised a gem workshop operating at least for several years after

78  Evans 1992: 145-148.

79  RRC, nos. 433/1-2 (denarii of Marcus Iunius Brutus, 54 BC).

80  An exception might be a portrait gem that Henig identifies with the so-called ‘Brutus’, see: Henig and MacGregor 2004: 62.

81  RRC: 741.

his arrival (cf. chapter 9.1.2). Because Roman statesmen like Brutus and Cassius were very mobile during the conflict following the assassination of Caesar, two scenarios are possible as to their employment of gem engravers. They may have occasionally used services of such artists when visiting major cities either in Greece and Asia Minor, or like Sextus, they may have organised a sort of mobile workshop travelling with them. In the case of the Pompeians the existence of such a mobile workshop is suggested by two portrait gems found in Spain, but in the case of the Republicans, the evidence is even weaker. Vollenweider proposed linking the engraver Philon with Brutus on the basis of one silver ring presenting a portrait of a man with a cloak around his arms signed by the artist which she identified with Brutus (cat. no. 9.95, Figure 365).⁸² She linked this ring with Brutus’ attendance of philosophical lectures in Athens, while briefly in Greece. Her opinion was accepted by some scholars,⁸³ while others hesitated to identify the portrait with a specific historical figure.⁸⁴ It is difficult to decide, but the head is indeed similar to Brutus’ portraits known from coins minted in 43-42 BC (Figure 366) thus, the proposal of Vollenweider cannot be rejected out of hand.⁸⁵ Nevertheless, this is all the evidence one can find. There are no more signed gems featuring portraits of either Brutus or Cassius even though the latter may have had more occasions to employ gem engravers for his propaganda since he resided in Asia Minor. All in all, it appears that neither of the two leaders of the Republicans created the same sort of permanent workshop as Sextus might have done, but they used the services of gem engravers only occasionally while travelling to the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire.

9.2.2. Portraits – personal branding induction and manifestation of loyalty

If there is any category of glyptic material testifying to the employment of engraved gems for propaganda and other social and political purposes by Brutus or Cassius, or within the Republicans, these are certainly portrait gems. No other category transmitted so many powerful messages either as acts of personal branding or manifestations of loyalty. In the case of the Pompeians, portrait gems show that while Gnaeus was promoted on them only for a short period of time, Sextus enjoyed much longer activity in this field. As for portrait gems presenting the Republicans, the first observation is that among the bulk of gems, those depicting Marcus

82  Vollenweider 1966: 39.

83  Giuliano and Micheli 1989: 34.

84  For instance: Boardman 2001: 361, no. 1006; Furtwängler 1900, vol.

I, pl. XXXIII.13, vol. II: 162; Gerring 2000, no. Vr/29.

85  For the coin, see: RRC, no. 506/1 (aureus of Marcus Iunius Brutus and (Pedanius) Costa, 43-42 BC). See a full discussion in: Vollenweider 1972-1974: 142-143 and a recent commentary in: Wagner and Boardman 2017, no. 251.

Iunius Brutus prevail.⁸⁶ This is hardly surprising since he was the first to stab Julius Caesar and thus became the symbol of the Republic or rather its last defender.

While portraits of Cato the Younger on gems are quite problematic (cf. chapters 8.2.4 and 8.3.2), it seems that only Quintus Cassius Longinus enjoyed some promotion through gems alongside Brutus which is a bit surprising giving the fact that he controlled eastern provinces where glyptic art was firmly established for centuries and there were workshops producing various types of gems there. The only reasonable explanations for this are the following: Cassius was uninterested in glyptic art and limited its use only for his personal needs;

Cassius had no financial means to spend on the most luxurious arts available; Cassius was much less popular than Brutus and only a few people (if any) manifested their allegiance to him using intaglios featuring his likeness. In any case, glyptic art delivers interesting evidence for the Republicans promoting themselves through these channels and most likely for their relatively high reputation within society, especially as far as Brutus is concerned. Most of the material amassed here was likely produced when they arrived back in Italy and conducted the civil war with the Caesarians. An extremely interesting remark was made by Saint Ambrose who recalled having read that certain persons who wore rings with portraits of Cassius and Brutus had been condemned to capital punishment when the triumvirs defeated Cassius and Brutus.⁸⁷ This would mean that wearing gems with portraits of political leaders could have tragic consequences and was severely punished when one turned out to support the defeated side. Still, the most important thing is that Saint Ambrose indirectly informs us how important were intaglios of this type and how useful and popular they were in the political life of the Late Roman Republic. Furthermore, the situation described by the bishop of Milan suggests that Sextus Pompey indeed threw away his own ring and what is more his companions who used rings with his portrait engraved upon gems could have done the same to avoid death once recognised as his supporters by the enemy (cf.

chapter 9.1.1).

In her monumental study Vollenweider broadly discussed portraits of Cato, Brutus, Cassius and their contemporaries.⁸⁸ She identified their portraits mostly through comparisons with coins. Today, it is known that some of the gems researched by her are not ancient and there are also serious doubts about the attribution of a series of numerous glass gems to Brutus. The issue of the attribution of portraits is, of course, important, but I am going to focus on the propagandistic value,

86  Yarrow also comes to the same conclusion, but she seems to uncritically follow Vollenweider, which, as shall be shown below, does not guarantee results free of errors (2018: 39).

87  Lapatin 2015: 114.

88  Vollenweider 1972-1974: 136-151.

provenance and production aspects of the gems presenting the Republicans too.

Regarding portrait gems depicting Marcus Iunius Brutus, they are very problematic, and, in my opinion, many can be attributed to him purely hypothetically.

I shall start with a group of 12 gems scattered among various collections across Europe and the USA (cat. nos 9.96-108, Figures 367-370). They are made of various gemstones and five of them are glass gems. They present portraits of a young clean-shaven man with a distinctive physiognomy and coiffure. Because of the nose-line, massive jaw and prominent cheek-bones the overall similarity to portraits of Brutus known from some of his first coins can be suggested (Figures 371).⁸⁹ A glass gem in Geneva and a carnelian intaglio in New York present this man with a dagger in the field which suggests him to be Brutus, the assassin of Julius Caesar (cat. nos 9.99 and 9.105, Figures 367). The fact that Brutus carries no beard in the case of these portrait gems might seem problematic. However, even though from the very beginning, Brutus was presented on his coins with a slight or even full beard symbolising his mourning because of the fall of the Roman Republic or his adolescence,⁹⁰ this feature is often barely noticeable on those coins. Therefore, a reasonable explanation of the beardless portrait gems of Brutus is that they were commissioned on private initiatives by Brutus’

followers. Because he was virtually a symbol of the opposition to Caesar’s tyranny, his image would have been suitable for members of the Republican party to carry.⁹¹ Apart from the mentioned coins, it is difficult to point to a source for the representations on the gems in question. Perhaps some of them were free creations, therefore; even though they multiply the same head type, they differ much in details and styles.

Some might have been cut after sculptural prototypes and if some of them were cut in Greece or Asia Minor, the engravers, unaware of the beard’s symbolism in Roman culture, could have omitted it. Very little can be said about the provenance of the intaglios in question, but one gem was found in Athens (cat. no. 9.96), which would correspond with the ring engraved by Philon (cf.

chapter 9.2.1 above), while the glass gems may have been produced in Italy.⁹²

Much less problematic are the next seven gems among which two are made of glass (cat. nos 9.109-115, Figures 372a-b-373a-b). The identification with Brutus is almost certain given the very close similarities to coin images:

shape of the head, coiffure, facial features and delicately

89  Compare for instance: RRC, nos. 507/1a-b (aureus of Marcus Iunius Brutus and P. Servilius Casca Longus, 43-42 BC) and 508/3 (aurei and denarii of Marcus Iunius Brutus and L. Plaetorius Cestianus, 43-42 BC).

90  Biedermann 2013; Piegdoń 2012.

91  Yarrow 2018: 39.

92  Cat. nos. 9.97 and 9.99 belonged to the collections once formed in Rome which suggests their provenance to be Italy.

suggested beard (Figures 359 and 366).⁹³ I believe that those intaglios are contemporary to coins minted by Brutus while still on Crete in 43 BC or already in Italy in 42 BC. The reason for issuing those coins was mainly economical, that is to cover war expenses e.g. soldiers’

payments.⁹⁴ It is clear that the figure of Brutus unified the Republicans and probably this is the reason why his head appeared on denarii and aurei. It was not only a part of his own propaganda, but rather its integrational form. The gems discussed in this paragraph most likely served exactly the same purpose. If issued by Brutus and gifted to his followers, they strengthened the bonds between him and them. However, many could have been made on private initiative. This is probably suggested by the fact that cat. nos 9.108 and 9.110 were found in Rome or their provenance points to Italy as their place of production.⁹⁵ One imagines that once the Republicans landed in Italy, many supporters rose up and joined them. Some of them perhaps wished to manifest their allegiance by putting a portrait of the party leader – Brutus – upon their rings.

The phenomenon suggested above finds more evidence in a few gems bearing a portrait of Brutus accompanied with brief inscriptions (cat. nos 9.116-119, Figures 374-377). In all four examples, the letters engraved compose shortcuts from the tria nomina of the gems’

sitters. These inscriptions were probably intended to make an even clearer statement of someone’s political views. Here, the gem owners were associated with Brutus or wished to be regarded as such. In the case of the carnelian from Oxford one notices that it clearly copies the image of Brutus known from his coins, and in three other cases similarities are considerable too. The gem from the J. Paul Getty Museum in Malibu (cat. no.

9.119, Figure 374), is said to have come from Asia Minor which information, if true, confirms my supposition that gems of this kind were created as a bottom-up initiative rather than a direct propagandistic action designed by Brutus himself. In the collected material one finds more evidence for Brutus’ and other Republicans’ propaganda activities in media other than gems. Naturally, it cannot be entirely excluded that some gems were issued by Brutus and his close friends, and then gifted to their followers, but this seems to be a very limited action.

There is a substantial group of gems presenting portraits whose identification is problematic, but they are often referred to as presenting Brutus mostly due

93  Compare: RRC, nos. 506/1 (aureus of Marcus Iunius Brutus and (Pedanius) Costa, 43-42 BC), 507/1a-b (aurei of Marcus Iunius Brutus and P. Servilius Casca Longus, 43-42 BC) and 508/3 (denarius of Marcus Iunius Brutus and L. Plaetorius Cestianus, 43-42 BC).

94  RRC: 741.

95  Cat. no. 9.110 is said to have been found in Lebanon but this provenance is hardly convincing, and the identification of the portrait is purely speculative, thus, I do not treat this gem as a sort of indicator for origins of the type in general.

to the suggestion put forward by Vollenweider (cat.

nos 9.120-131, Figures 378-381).⁹⁶ She observed some similarities in the physiognomy of the man depicted and indeed, he has, like Brutus, a strong jaw, prominent cheek-bones and a slightly curved nose line,⁹⁷ however, he seems older than casual portraits of Brutus known from coins and gems (see above). Another argument for the identification of this man with Brutus is the dagger represented on one example (cat. no. 9.131, Figure 381) which was taken as a symbol of Julius Caesar’s assassination.⁹⁸ Finally, Vollenweider noticed that these portraits are made mainly in glass (which is correct, 10 out of 12 are glass gems) and this suggests their use in propaganda actions of Brutus – his personal branding.⁹⁹ However, in my opinion, the resemblance to Brutus may be entirely accidental. The man depicted on the gems in question is much older than the political leader of the Republicans and his face is fuller, more crude and beardless. All these features complicate identification but the mystery may be solved if one compares these heads with the so-called Corbulo portraits in sculpture.¹⁰⁰ Gnaeus Domitius Corbulo (c. AD 7-67) was a Roman general, brother-in-law of the emperor Caligula and father-in-law of the emperor Domitian. He was quite popular due to his military merits, but the emperor Nero became suspicious of Corbulo and his support among the Roman masses and made Corbulo commit suicide. It was Furtwängler who proposed to identify the portrait gems of the discussed type with Corbulo.¹⁰¹ One cannot be entirely sure if the gems present him so do the marble heads, but they seem to be related to Corbulo to a much greater degree than to Brutus. The dagger appearing on one of the examples may refer to Corbulo’s suicide. In any case, the gems with the so-called Corbulo head probably present an individual other than Brutus. This is also suggested by the provenance of the gems. It seems that 10 glass objects were produced in Rome or Italy which is not impossible for Brutus, but rather unusual given the fact that only two glass gems present his more casual head-type clearly referring to his coins (compare above).

Finally, in the Beverley collection there is an exceptional cameo bearing the head of Brutus in profile to the right (cat. no. 9.132, Figure 382). It is a glyptic masterpiece and one of the earliest Roman portrait cameos of all, though certainly cut by a Greek engraver, probably while Brutus was stationed in the East. The cameo is small and suitable to be mounted in a ring, therefore, it is likely that it played not only a decorative, but also a political role and was used by one of the followers of the

96  In fact, Vollenweider draws her hypothesis on a suggestion of Paulsen, see: Vollenweider 1972-1974: 139-141.

97  Vollenweider 1972-1974: 140.

98  Zwierlein-Diehl 1986, no. 537.

99  Vollenweider 1972-1974: 139-141.

100  Megow 2005: 131, pl. 70a-d.

101  Furtwängler 1896, nos. 5068-5071.

Republicans as a manifestation of loyalty. Alternatively, the piece was made for Brutus himself to raise his social status.

Concerning Quintus Cassius Longinus portrait gems, these are not as abundant as the Brutus ones. In fact, there is only one intaglio that might be linked to him with a reasonable degree of certainty (cat. no. 9.133, Figure 383), while another intaglio and one cameo possibly bear his likeness (cat. nos 9.134-135, Figures 384-385).¹⁰² The best example is a carnelian preserved in Munich which shows the head of a young man with relatively short curled hair surrounded with the following items: a ballot urn, caduceus, six-rayed star and bundle of thunderbolts. Even though Cassius’

portraits do not exist on coins, the ballot urn alone suggests identifying his image on the intaglio because this was the family symbol employed on his coins as well as those minted by his predecessors (Figure 386).¹⁰³ The gem combines several propagandistic aspects. First of all, it is of exceptional quality and the portrait it bears must have been influential when shown to someone else. Moreover, the caduceus surely stands here for the wish for peace and indicates that only Cassius and his followers can guarantee it. Furthermore, the bundle of thunderbolts is a reference to Jupiter – chief god of the Roman pantheon, of capital importance to Roman legionaries whose support Cassius sought to. Finally, as probably rightly suggested by Vollenweider, the star stood for the Dioscuri since Brutus and Cassius identified with them.¹⁰⁴ She suggested that the gem could have been produced during Cassius’ visit to Sardes in 43 BC. This is probable as the city was a known centre for gem carving.¹⁰⁵ The gem was surely a powerful propaganda tool with a lot of contents to be transmitted. Nevertheless, there was no significant production of gems with images of Cassius as was the case with Sextus Pompey and Brutus. Most likely, he was not that interested in investing in this sort of propaganda as Sextus possibly did and he was not so recognisable as to have his likeness copied by his followers as Brutus had. The fact that he did not issue coins with his own image surely contributed to the latter.

The case of Cassius is interesting since it shows that sometimes one’s propaganda was largely limited where glyptics is concerned. Among other members of the Republican faction I do not find anyone who would promote himself to a larger degree and thus stand out from the others. On the contrary, having his own image cut upon a gemstone set in a ring was almost a

102  Vollenweider 1972-1974: 145-147 (who claimed that all three might present Cassius).

103  RRC, nos. 428/1-3 (denarii of Q. Cassius Longinus, 55 BC), see also commentary on p. 452; Vollenweider 1972-1974: 145.

104  Vollenweider 1972-1974: 145.

105  Tassinari 2008: 283.

habit for those who could afford such a luxury (cat. nos 9.136-146, Figures 387-389a-b).¹⁰⁶ While such attempts certainly afforded social distinction to the people using them, there is no serial production of either expensive gemstones or cheap glass gems that would inform us about their more complex propaganda use.

9.2.3. Use of heritage

One of the basic techniques of propaganda used in ancient Rome was the transfer of authority, usually from an illustrious ancestor or predecessor who was frequently the father of the propagandist. For the first time this was clearly the case with Sextus Pompey who used to put a portrait of his father on his coins and gems even adding a divine context to it (cf. chapter 9.1.4).

Octavian also used to refer in his propaganda to his divine father Julius Caesar (cf. chapter 9.3.1.1). Brutus did the same regarding his legendary ancestor Lucius Iunius Brutus – first consul of Rome.¹⁰⁷ This was a clever move indeed since in the difficult times of the fall of the Roman Republic bringing back its founder on the coins was a powerful propaganda message. In Paris there is an agate intaglio presenting Lucius Iunius Brutus with lictors in a procession marching to the right (cat. no.

9.147, Figure 390). Richter recognised here Marcus Iunius Brutus himself and proposed that the gem was issued to commemorate his consulship.¹⁰⁸ In fact, the intaglio copies quite faithfully the reverse of a denarius minted by Brutus in 54 BC with a strong, propaganda message of opposition to Pompey’s real or supposed

9.147, Figure 390). Richter recognised here Marcus Iunius Brutus himself and proposed that the gem was issued to commemorate his consulship.¹⁰⁸ In fact, the intaglio copies quite faithfully the reverse of a denarius minted by Brutus in 54 BC with a strong, propaganda message of opposition to Pompey’s real or supposed