Promotion of the faction

In the two previous sub-chapters I have discussed portraits of Sextus Pompey as well as those of his brother and father that he most likely promoted on gems. There could be various motivations for such a considerable production of those gems like personal branding, transfer of auctoritas, comparison to a prominent ancestor and so on and all are propagandistic in character. As consistently proposed in this book, many portrait gems bearing images of famous politicians like Julius Caesar, Pompey the Great and his sons etc.

could be commissioned by their supporters, including soldiers, to manifest their loyalty to them. Even if they did not wish to show their direct link with a political leader, it is also quite probable that those gems were produced to mark one’s allegiance to a specific faction.

Furthermore, gems were possibly used to mark one’s identity as a member of the Pompeian faction and thus to promote it. Such a view has already been proposed by Vollenweider and I believe she is right.⁴⁵ It is especially applicable to the period after the death of Julius Caesar.

it copies the coin of Sextus minted ca. 38-37 BC (Trunk 2008, no. G11).

45  Vollenweider 1972-1974: 155.

As one sees here, there is a considerable production of portrait gems of Sextus Pompey and his brother Gnaeus. Many of them are difficult to attribute to a specific person and date with precision, but it is clear that one reason for this is that official portraits were copied by less skilful artists on private commissions.

These artists distorted the original image during the production process. Coins, sculpture and gems alike were presumably their sources of inspiration.

It is clear from other periods of Roman glyptics that gems were used to mark one’s allegiance to a specific community and carrying a ring with the image of a specific politician could be a part of this process. It is known from literary sources that gems with portraits of philosophers were used to manifest one’s views or membership of a specific philosophical school. In the 2nd century AD Clement of Alexandria suggests which motifs are suitable for Christian to have on their rings so that they could manifest their religion.⁴⁶ Because there are so many Pompeians’ portrait gems it is likely that they were produced for a similar purpose. This is a part of integration propaganda intendedto create bonds between a propagandist (in this case Sextus Pompey) and his followers as well as between the followers too.

I do not find any other subjects on gems that could be used for a similar purpose except for some variants of symbolic constellations which will be discussed later (cf. chapter 9.1.8).

9.1.6. Commemoration

In his study of propaganda practices of the members of gens Pompeia Magna, Kopij remarked that Sextus Pompey used to issue gems commemorating his military and other successes.⁴⁷ It is a well-established view that some maritime subjects, especially Scylla killing one of Odysseus’ companions, may represent or allude to the naval victories of Sextus Pompey in his clashes with Octavian’s fleet, for instance the one at Messina in 38 BC or another at Naulochus in 36 BC.⁴⁸ In this sub-chapter, I would like to challenge this view and suggest other, perhaps more plausible explanations for this kind of iconography and consequently re-evaluate Sextus’ propaganda emitted on gems.

The first thing to notice is that the subject of Scylla indeed appears on the coinage of Sextus Pompey where the creature wields a rudder with both hands.⁴⁹ This iconography is used for the denarii dated by Crawford to 42-40 BC who claims that they commemorated the fact that in 43 BC the Senate granted Sextus the office of praefectus classis et orae maritimae and also his naval victory over Q. Salvidienus Rufus in 42 BC after which

46  For a more detailed discussion of these issues, see: Lang 2012: 105-106; Spier 2007: 15; Zwierlein-Diehl 2007: 16-17.

47  Kopij 2017: 263-264.

48  See, for instance: Vollenweider 1966: 20-21.

49  RRC, nos. 511/4a-d (denarii of Sextus Pompey, 42-40 BC).

Sextus was acclaimed imperator for the second time (Figures 346-347).⁵⁰ According to Crawford, this was propaganda coinage aiming to show his takeover of Sicily, identification with Neptune and continuation of a programme maybe already established while Sextus was in Messalia issuing coins (and gems) with his father surrounded with Neptune symbols on the obverse and a ships with some symbolism like a star on the reverse (cf. chapter 9.1.5 above).⁵¹ However, it has been recently established that these coins should be dated a bit later to c. 38 BC and related to the second battle at Scylleum and the times when Sextus was already well settled in Sicily since on the reverse side of those denarii is the Pharos of Messana – the main base of Sextus’ fleet.⁵² The propagandistic message encoded on those coins would be the presentation of Sextus’ considerable naval power under the auspices of Neptune⁵³ or the general protection of Neptune over Sextus and his naval victories illustrated here by Scylla demolishing the ships of his enemies. Moreover, Kopij also rightly observes some shift in Sextus’ propaganda claiming that these coins represent subjects relating specifically to Sextus, not to his father as before.⁵⁴

Whatever the exact date and reason for minting those coins, it is striking to observe that Scylla appears in glyptics on a number of intaglios traditionally linked with the above-mentioned coinage.⁵⁵ However, there are a good number of reasons to think about it another way. The key to solving the problem is a deep analysis of all known gems representing this particular motif.

I should start by asking why only the second type known from coins exists on gems, whereas the first one is absent. Furthermore, the fundamental difference between the image applied on coins and that on gems is that on coins Scylla is presented alone, while on gems it is always shown as just about to kill one or sometimes even two of Odysseus’ companions whom she holds in her tentacle-like legs (cat. nos 9.63-80, Figures 348-352).

Another important observation is that these gems differ in quality, styles and techniques. Vollenweider was able to attribute the intaglio in Venice to Hyllos, son of the famous gem engraver Dioscurides and dated his work to 30s BC (cat. no. 9.63, Figure 348),⁵⁶ and another carnelian gem in Geneva is cut in a perfect style, quite close to Hyllos’ work too (cat. no. 9.64, Figure 349).

Noteworthy is the fact that there are only three more gemstone intaglios showing the subject: one housed in Verona (cat. no. 9.65), the second in Paris (cat. no. 9.66)

50  Dio Cassius, Historia Romana, 48.19.1; RRC: 521. The coinage in question exists in two types both employing Scylla on the reverse:

RRC, nos. 511/2a-c and 511/4a-d (denarii of Sextus Pompey, ca. 38 BC).

51  RRC: 739.

52  For an extensive discussion of this issue, see: Kopij 2017: 196-198;

Morawiecki 2014: 93.

53  Morawiecki 1989: 97-98.

54  Kopij 1989: 197-198.

55  See, the most recent study of this phenomenon in Massaro 2009.

56  Vollenweider 1966: 70-71.

and the third was found by Sir Arthur Evans in Zadar, Dalmatia (cat. no. 9.67). All the other examples (13 in total, cat. nos 9.68-80, Figures 349-352) that I was able to collect are made of glass of various types. Noteworthy is that one of them was found in Aquileia (cat. no. 9.68), while another come from collections that were most likely created in Rome (cat. nos 9.69-79, Figures 350-351). A notable exception is a glass gem now in Malibu that is said to have come from Syria (cat. no. 9.80, Figure 352). Since I have already established that Sextus Pompey issued gems with his image almost only on gemstones, it is puzzling that so many gems presenting Scylla are made of glass and most likely originate from Italy, maybe Rome and Aquileia specifically – in any case, territories out of Sextus’ control. Furthermore, as pointed out above, the gems form a heterogenous group in terms of their stylistic features. It is evident that they were created over decades and some might be securely dated to the times of Augustus. This would obviously preclude them from forming part of a specific, short and intensive propaganda action performed by Sextus Pompey in Sicily. Moreover, while discussing Sextus’

portrait gems and those of the Pompeians I showed that they probably ceased to be produced shortly after 40 BC. It seems that due to limited financial resources, Sextus stopped investing in propaganda through gems and focused on his coinage only (cf. chapter 9.1.3).

Actually, a good explanation for the popularity of Scylla on gems dated broadly to the second half of the 1st century as well as in other forms of art was proposed by Sena Chiesa and Spier. They believe that the dynamic composition based on diagonal axes points to a Hellenistic prototype in sculpture, most likely created in Pergamon.⁵⁷ It is possible that gems specifically were inspired by the sculptural group showing Scylla assaulting Odysseus’ ship found in the Sperlonga grotto.⁵⁸ Alternatively, the subject may derive from the painting by Nicomachus that was transferred to Rome as Pliny informs us.⁵⁹ Either way, it seems that gem engravers created all the intaglios listed above on their own initiative in various workshops spread across Italy and beyond, but there is no evidence suggesting that some of them were produced in Sicily on Sextus Pompey’s command. The example found in Aquileia best testifies that gems with this subject were crafted in large production centres unconnected to any specific political figure. Besides, the popularity of Scylla on gems was due to the fact that maritime subjects were widely popular in glyptics in those days (Hyllos preferred them). This was a general trend and gem engravers often took their inspiration from sculpture or paintings.⁶⁰ It is fairly possible then, that Scylla as

57  Sena Chiesa 1966, no. 749; Spier 1992, no. 422 (with further literature on the Pergamene sculpture).

58  Sena Ciesa, Magni and Tassinari 2009, no. 535.

59  Pliny, Historia Naturalis, XXXV.109; Toso 2007: 213.

60  Furtwängler 1900, vol. III: 330-333 and 342-345; Plantzos 1999: 96.

shown on the second type of Sextus Pompey’s coinage and on the gems are connected due to the common source of inspiration – a sculptural group - while they do not share the same propagandistic value. What is more, due to the fact that Octavian is undoubtedly presented in glyptics as Neptune, one may think that the glass gems possibly originating from Rome may have been created for him rather than for Sextus and would have been counterpropaganda to Sextus’ actions undertaken through coins. This issue will be further developed later (cf. chapters 9.3.1.7 and 9.3.1.8). To conclude, although coins are often indicative for propaganda messages on gems at this time, in this case they just seem to share a source of inspiration, rather than the precise meaning.

Concerning commemoration of important events on gems, Vollenweider proposed that intaglios and cameos were often cut to immortalize marriages, especially those presenting busts or heads of a man and woman confronted.⁶¹ This is certainly true, and she interpreted one red jasper gem in a private collection as showing Gnaeus Pompey and his wife Claudia Pulchra (cat. no.

9.81, Figure 353). However, according to the stone type, style of engraving and especially woman’s coiffure, this piece should be dated to the 2nd century AD thus, under no circumstances it should be linked with the Pompeian faction or Gnaeus Pompey specifically. I do not find any other examples of portraits of this kind on gems from the second half of the 1st century, which allows me to doubt Vollenweider’s theory even more.

9.1.7. Divine and mythological references

Even though some ancient writers often presented Sextus Pompey as the commander of pirates and outlaws, who had nothing of the auctoritas of his father, a favourite of Neptune,⁶² it is an undeniably fact that at some point in his political career, Sextus proclaimed himself as Neptuni filius and compared himself to the sea god.⁶³ This was a deliberate propaganda action aimed at raising his authority and popularity among the people who had followed his father.⁶⁴ As Morawiecki observed, the identification of Sextus with Neptune widely circulated in literature and coinage,⁶⁵ and consequently, some scholars wonder if the same could have happened in glyptics.⁶⁶ One of the strongest voice in the discussion was Vollenweider who claimed that some gems presenting maritime subjects such as Neptune riding a biga of hippocamps (cat. nos 9.82-85, Figures 354-357) or representations of tritons (cat. nos 9.86-89, Figure 358), should be associated with Sextus Pompey and

61  Vollenweider 1972-1974: 208-211.

62  Berdowski 2015: 27-75; Morawiecki 2014: 61-62.

63  Barcaro 2008/2009: 211 and 217.

64  Morawiecki 2014: 86-99. For a very detailed study of this problem, see: Berdowski 2015. See also Kopij 2017, passim.

65  Morawiecki 2014: 86-99; Zanker 1988: 39-40 and 44.

66  Giuliano and Micheli 1989: 31-32; Zazoff 1983: 285 and 293.

his propaganda. They would account to the technique aimed at raising his authority and confirming that he is under the protection and enjoys the support of the god very much like his father.⁶⁷ Some scholars followed this view,⁶⁸ while others proposed to link these subjects to Octavian and, especially, the celebrations of his great victory at Actium.⁶⁹ I believe the latter hypothesis to be much closer to the truth since there is some direct evidence in glyptics that Octavian identified with Neptune and the unusually large format, exceptional style and complex iconography of the gems listed above are much closer to Augustan classicism. Still, the most convincing explanation for me is that those gems were produced because of a general trend in Roman art that had started by the late 2nd century BC and was related to the growing importance of the sea alongside Roman expansion in the Mediterranean basin (cf. chapter 9.3.1.8 and 10.7).⁷⁰ The maritime subjects involving Neptune, Tritons, Nereids etc. were extremely popular as testified not only by the existence of the aforementioned large intaglios, either in gemstones and glass, but also of insignificant small stones that were used by ordinary people.⁷¹ The fact that many of them were found in Aquileia – a huge glyptic centre producing gems on a massive scale but uncontrolled and not influenced by any of the key politicians at the time – only supports the view that if any of the gems with maritime subjects encoded some political messages, these could be only those related to Octavian, not Sextus Pompey.⁷² I do not find even the slightest evidence for Sextus Pompey promoting himself as Neptune through engraved gems.

It seems that he mainly used coins for his propaganda activities in this respect which is consistent with my theory that because of limited financial sources, shortly after 40 BC he directed his propaganda efforts primarily to coinage rather than other art forms. It is more likely that Octavian responded to Sextus’ propaganda in coinage with his own counterpropaganda, which was organised on a much bigger scale due to his considerable financial means so that it included glyptic art as well (cf.

chapter 9.3.1.7).

9.1.8. Political symbols

In the sub-chapter on political symbols related to Pompey the Great I argued that similarities between

67  Vollenweider 1966: 20-21.

68  For example: Giuliano and Micheli 1989: 31-32; Kagan and Neverov 2000, no. 29/10; Kopij 2017: 263-264 (however, he stresses that because similar symbolism was used by Octavian and Mark Antony in their propaganda practices, it is difficult to tell if the discussed gems should be linked to Sextus Pompey) Zazoff 1983: 285 and 293.

69  Toso 2007: 209-210; Zwierlein-Diehl 2007: 121.

70  On this particular matter, see: Gołyźniak 2019.

71  See some examples: Maaskant-Kleibrink 1978, nos. 399-400 and 1167 (Nereid on hippocamp, signed by Dalion); Richter 1971, nos. 226-230; Tomaselli 1993, nos. 69-70; Tomaselli et al. 1987, no. G.22; Walters 1926, nos. 1297-1299, 2725 and 2738; Weiβ 1996, no. 111; 2007, nos.

214-216; Zwierlein-Diehl 1979, no. 1077; 1986, nos. 346-350.

72  For gems found in Aquileia, see: Sena Chiesa 1966, nos. 515-522.

gems and coins are sometimes only superficial and in fact, symbolic gems were not exploited for propaganda purposes by Pompey and his contemporaries as extensively as it would at first seem. In the case of Sextus Pompey one is probably not in a much better position to claim that symbolic gems were significantly involved in his propaganda.

Sextus identified himself with Neptune and reflections of that phenomenon are clearly visible in his coinage.

The issues minted directly by him or on his behalf often involve maritime subjects. One of them is a ship or groups of ships that appear on some coins related to his fleet (Figure 359).⁷³ This motif also gained great popularity on gems in the 1st century BC. Sena Chiesa proposes that this as well as some other naval themes should be linked with the propaganda of the main political figures (Sextus Pompey, Octavian, Mark Antony, Marcus Iunius Brutus and so on) active after Julius Caesar’s death.⁷⁴ Perhaps indeed some of those gems could be related to the propaganda of Sextus and his soldiers could have used them as tokens manifesting their allegiance to his faction (cat. no. 9.90, Figure 360), but I do not find any object that would bear any specific emblem or symbol indicating a connection with him.

It must be stressed that gems with such iconography could also illustrate someone’s profession or affiliation to a naval military unit that did not necessarily serve Sextus and many are inscribed with the names of their sitters (cat. no. 9.91, Figure 361). In those circumstances, it is highly speculative to claim that specific gems were related to Sextus. However, sometimes the inscription and iconography combined may point to the allegiance of the gem’s sitter to the Pompeian faction as in the case of a chalcedony intaglio bearing a set of symbols consisting of a dolphin, rudder, cornucopia and globe and inscription: AGAPOM in which case POM may stand for Pompey (Pompeius) (cat. no. 9.92, Figure 362).⁷⁵ Another interesting subject is the Pharos of Messana motif appearing on another coin issued by Sextus Pompey as it was the main port where his fleet was stationed (Figure 363).⁷⁶ There is a series of glass gems presenting a similar motif that could have been issued by Sextus Pompey after his victory over Octavian’s fleet near Messana in 38 BC (cat. nos 9.93-94, Figure 364). However, as Weiß rightly points out, although such an explanation is not impossible, gems with the lighthouse motif could be used as personal amulets bringing good luck and help in safe navigation to port.⁷⁷ The latter option is perhaps more plausible since none of the gems bear exactly the same image as the coins

73  RRC, nos. 483/1-2 (denarii of Sextus Pompey and Q. Nisidius, 44-43 BC).74  Sena Chiesa 2012: 260-261.

75  See also commentary to this issue in: Gołyźniak 2017, no. 226.

76  RRC, nos. 511/4a-d (denarii of Sextus Pompey, 42-40 BC).

77  Weiß 2007, no. 637.

and more importantly, Sextus does not seem to have had access to workshops producing glass gems while in Sicily. Furthermore, in contrast to Sulla, Julius Caesar or Augustus, Sextus did not promote any specific programme of restoration of the Roman Republic that would concentrate on some collective goals so that its reflections would be visible in art. The two examples discussed here illustrate how hard it is to identify propaganda subjects on gems due to the multiple explanations of their iconography. The political explanation is usually not the most plausible.

9.1.9. Luxury objects (State Cameos, vessels etc.) and religious propaganda

There is no proof whatsoever that the members of the Pompeian faction and its leaders produced or commissioned State Cameos or carved vessels.

Similarly, there is no record in literary sources testifying that Gnaeus or Sextus Pompey were engaged in religious propaganda. It seems that they did not follow their father who had offered collections of gems to the Temple of Jupiter on the Capitoline Hill. This is most likely because during their political careers they were constantly on the move and even when

Similarly, there is no record in literary sources testifying that Gnaeus or Sextus Pompey were engaged in religious propaganda. It seems that they did not follow their father who had offered collections of gems to the Temple of Jupiter on the Capitoline Hill. This is most likely because during their political careers they were constantly on the move and even when