Cultural Choice and Political Identity in Honorific Portrait Statues in the Greek East in the Second Century A.D.

by R. R. R. Smith
Cultural Choice and Political Identity in Honorific Portrait Statues in the Greek East in the Second Century A.D.
R. R. R. Smith
The Journal of Roman Studies
Start Page: 
End Page: 
Select license: 
Select License




(Plates I II-XIV)

The towns of the Middle Roman Empire have left an array of grand columned marble architecture that makes classical sites, from Merida to Ephesus, still so imposing for the modern viewer. The great benefactors who paid for this strange marble culture and for everything else thought worthwhile in an ancient city received large public portrait statues set up on tall elegant moulded bases, set either in columned fa~adesor posted around town at focal points of urban life (see below, Figs 1-2).In their method of signification these statue monuments shared more with poster hoardings than the gallery objects we think of as art. That is, they combined a commanding image with a loud complementary text. They were also different from the public statues of our own times in at least three other important respects -in their prominence, in their sheer quantity, and in that they mostly represented living persons. They were not isolated memorials but potent markers in local politics and aristocratic competition. Architectural setting, inscribed base, statue costume, and styled portrait head all combined to make sometimes complex statements about the subject.

This paper is a case study of such portrait monuments in the Greek East during the second century and aims to interpret the cultural and political identities they were designed to project. Many aspects of the ancient urban culture these statues inhabited have been well studied, but these images have not been well integrated into that overall picture. They have tended to be confined to the archaeological category of 'private', that is, non-imperial portraits. 'Private' they were emphatically not, neither in context, nor really in the status of those represented. They were public statues of city leaders, but 'private portraits' (= portraits of non-imperial persons) is a convenient collective misnomer that avoids clumsy periphrases and negative definitions. This paper proposes

An earlier version of this paper was given in a romischen Portriits in den Capitolinischen Museen seminar series at Oxford in 1997, 'Hellenism in the und den anderen Kommunalen Sammlungen der Stadt Roman East: Art, Literature, and Politics in the Rom I, I11 (1983-5) Second Century A.D.', jointly organized by E. L. Halfmann = H. Halfmann, Die Senatoren aus dem Bowie, S. R. F. Price, and the writer. Warm thanks to ostlichen Teil des Imperium Romanum bis zum Ende all participants and to the following who very kindly des 2.Jh.n.Chr. (1979) supplied photographs: M. Aurenhammer, G. Fitts-IR I =J. Inan and E. Rosenbaum, Roman and Early chen-Badura, E:, B. Harrison, J. Herrmann, Byzantine Portrait Sculpture in Asia Minor (1968)

F. Johansen, R. Ozgan, V. Kockel, S. Walker. The IR I1 =J. Inan and E. Alfaldi-Rosenbaum, Romische following abbreviations are used: undfni'hbyzantinische Portriitplastik aus der Tzi'rkei: Agora I = E. B. Harrison, The Athenian Agora I: Neue Funde (I979)

Portrait Sculpture (1953) Kabus-Preisshofen = R. Kabus-Preisshofen, Die Bieber, Copies = M. Bieber, Ancient Copies (1977); hellenistische Plastik der Insel Kos (I989) Datsoule-Stavride = A. Datsoule-Stavride, Rho-Poulsen I1 = V. Poulsen, Les portraits romains rr

maika Portraita sto ethniko Archaiologiko Mouseio (1974) tes Athenas (1985) Richter, POG = G. M. A. Richter, The Portraits of

Fittschen, 'Ritratti maschili' = K. Fittschen, 'Ritratti the Greeks, 3 vols (1965) maschili privati di epoca adrianea: problemi della Rosenbaum, Cyrene = E. Rosenbaum, A Catalogue loro varietal, Scienze dell'antichita: storia, archaeol-of Cyrenaican Portrait Sculpture (1960) ogia, antropologia 6-7 (1992-93), 445-85 Zanker, Mask = P. Zanker, The Mask of Sokrates:

FZ = K. Fittschen and P. Zanker, Katalog der The Image of the Intellectual in Antiquity (1995).

a framework for the study of such portraits and looks at how visual evidence can add to current discussion about culture, politics, and self-representation in the second century.'

Section I considers the remises of wrevious scholarshiw in this area and some points of method. Section 11~1ooks briefliat the backgroundAof metropolitan portrait styles and techniques in the top marble workshops of the city of Rome. Section 111 assesses the range of statue types, costumes, and clothes used in male and female portrait monuments in the Greek East and emphasizes the interplay between costumed statue, inscribed base, and portrait head. Section IV illustrates how this statue repertoire was deployed in three well-preserved monuments -the tomb of Philopappus in Athens, the library of Celsus in Ephesus, and the fountain of Herodes at Olympia -and at how the repertoire was used there to represent overlapping Greek and Roman identities. Sections v and VI study the range of ideas expressed in the styled portrait heads of such statues, in relation mainly to externally documented examples. Section VII looks at the wider context and the traditions of self-styling in portraits in the Early and Middle Empire in both East and West.


The inscribed bases of honorific statues have been studied by epigraphers and social historians who have produced excellent studies of local euergetic politics,2 but have tended to treat them as texts rather than as parts of monuments. The portraits, the heads, that is, have been studied by classical archaeologists who have made excellent catalonues3 but asked few auestions bevond: what date is it? The assumwtion of an


autonomous stylistic development, according to which portrait sculpture evolved in steady increments, that underlies the usual answers to such a question can produce strange results. Two examples can illustrate this point simply and quickly.

First, a fine marble portrait from Ephesus of a wreathed, clean-shaven man with plain hairstyle has been dated on style in its main publication in the Constantinian period (Pl. 111, I).~It is, however, on grounds of technique (and other grounds, we will see) clearly of the mid-second century. Second, an extravagant marble bust from the theatre of Dionysos at Athens has often been dated on stylistic grounds in the Gallienic period, and has been identified as a great range of figures from the emperor Gallienus to Jesus Christ himself (Pl. III,2).' The best experts recognize now, however, on technical grounds that it belongs in the mid-second century. Both portraits then come from the

Recently on urban political life of the Greek East:

M. Sartre, L'Orient ronzain: Provinces et socidtds provinciales en Mkditerrande orientale d'Auguste aux Sbvbres (31 avant J.-C.-z35 apres J.-C.) (1991);

F. G. B. Millar, 'The Greek city in the Roman period', in M. H. Hansen (ed.), The Ancient Greek City State (1993), 232-60; S. Mitchell, Anatolia: Land, Men, and Gods in Asia Minor, 2 vols (1993), I, ch. 12: 'The Development of the Cities'. On cultural identity (all without reference to visual evidence):

E. L. Bowie, 'The Greeks and their past in the Second Sophistic', in M. I. Finley (ed.), Studies in Ancient Society (1974); J. Hahn, Der Philosoph und die Gesellschaft: Selbstverstandnis, offentliches Auftreten, und populare Erwartungen in der hohen Kaiserzeit

(1989); G. Woolf, 'Becoming Roman, staying Greek: Culture, identity, and the civilizing process in the Roman East', ProcCamPhilSoc 40 (1994)~ 116-43;

M. Gleason, Making Men: Sophists and Self-Repres- entation in Ancient Rome (1995); S. Swain, Hellenism and Empire: Language, Classicism, and Power in the Greek World, AD 50-250 (1996). Two recent collect- ive volumes, combining archaeology and history:

S. Walker and A. Cameron (eds), The Greek Renais- sance in the Roman Empire (1989); S. E. Alcock (ed.),

The Early Roman Empire in the East (1997). See further recent work cited in nn. 2, 25, and 35.

Most recently, for example, R. van Bremen, The Limits of Participation: Women and Civic Life in the Greek East in the IleIIenistic and Roman Periods (I 996).

As well as Agora I, Rosenbaum, Cyrene, IR I and 11, and Datsoule-Stavride, useful collections are:

P. Graindor, Bustes et statue-portraits d'Egypte romaine (n.d.); A. Rusch, 'Das kaiserzeitliche Portrat in Makedonien', JdI 84 (1969), 59-196,; H. Jucker, 'Marmorportrats aus dem romischen Agypten', in Das rh'misch-byzantinische Agypten (I 983), I 39-49;

4. Datsoule-Stavride, Rhomaika Portraita sto Mouseio tes Spartes (1987);Anticki Portret u Jugoslav- iji: Classical Portraits in Jugoslaaia (Exhib. Belgrade, 1987);Albanien: Schatze aus dem Land der Skipetaren (1988), nos 17-3-82; Anticki Portret u Dalmacija i Istria (1990).

IR I, no. 185. Correct date already in K. Fitt-
schen, GGA 225 (1973)~ 62, no. 185 (review of IR I),
also 'Ritratti maschili', 475. See further below nn.

Datsoule-Stavride, 84-5, inv. 419, pls 118-19
(with earlier lit.). Correct date in Fittschen, op. cit.
(below n. 7), 244-5.

5 8 R. R. R. SMITH

Greek East and belong around the same time. But it is hard to draw a line of development that might sensibly take in both. Clearly some other forms of analysis are needed.

Portraits of the imperial family, disseminated and replicated in recognizable local versions throughout the Empire, have been intensively and well-studied with a scientific method of identification that works well, and imperial portraits provide a closely dated series of portraits from Augustus to Con~tantine.~

Most important from the perspective of private portraits is that this method has been able at last to sort out on objective criteria those portraits that represent imperial figures from those that represent private citizens, many of which have from time to time been casually suggested as portraits of imperial figures.' One example from many is the well-known bust from the Olympieion in Athens (Pl. III,4), which looks like Hadrian, has normally been identified as Hadrian, but corresponds to no known type among the emperor's well-studied series of 'official' or 'central' portrait model^.^ It is thus a private portrait of the Hadrianic period. So while the image of the emperor generally stands close to that of his subjects (especially close in the second century), archaeologically a clear distinction can be drawn between imperial and private by the typological method.

Study of non-imperial portraits in their own right has rather lagged behind that of imperial portraits, both in documentation and interpretation. There have been excellent recent studies of private portraits in the late Hellenistic East,9 in the late Republic," and in the early Imperial West" that have successfully bypassed the prevailing chronological impasses and looked at more historically oriented questions of public roles, statue types, and portrait styles as bearers of social and political meaning. And in the middle imperial period, there have been important studies sorting out many of the earlier, unproductive confusions over chronology that the two introductory examples illustrated. Many 'republican'-looking portraits have been re-assigned to the later first and early second centuries A.D." Many 'Ga1lienic'- and 'third-century'-looking portraits (like the bust in Athens, P1. III,2) have been returned to where they belong in the Antonine period.13 A series of 'Constantinian' private portraits has been correctly relocated in the second century,14 as has a series of 'fourth-century' female portraits.'5 And most 'Flavian' female portraits are now recognized to belong rather in the early second century.16 More needs to be done, however, to provide a framework for understanding this great density

FZ I and 111 are now fundamental for the full " P. Zanker, 'Grabreliefs romischer Freigelassrange of imperial portraits. Other important and enerl,JdI go (I 975), 267-3 I 5; idem, 'Zur Bildnisrepr- accessible studies are: M. Bergmann, Marc Aurel asentation fiihrender Manner in mittelitalischen und (1978); K. Vierneisel and P. Zanker, Die Bildnisse des campanischen Stadten zur Zeit der spaten Republik Augustus (Exhib.Cat., Munich, 1979); D. Boschung, und der Julisch-Claudischen Kaiser', in Les 'bour- Die Bildnisse des Caligula (1989); Die Bildnisse des geoisies' muncipales italiennes aux IIe et Ier sikcles av. Augustus (1993). The importance of this kind of work J.C. (I 981 Coll. Inst.Fran$ais, Naples, I 983); and its methodology are discussed by the present V. Kockel, Portratreliefs stadtriimischer Grabbauten: writer in 'Typology and diversity in the portraits of Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte und zum Verstiindnis des Augustus', JRA 9 (1996), 31-47. See also below, nn. spatrepublikanisch-friihkaiserzeitlichen Privatportrats

7-8. (1993).

K. Fittschen, 'Zum angeblichen Bildnis des I2 H. R. Goette, 'Das Bildnis des Marcus Vilonius Lucius Verus im Thermen-Museum', JdI 86 (1971), Varro in Kopenhagen. Zu den Basen von Por214-52. traitbusten und zum Realismus flavisch-traianischer

P. Zanker, Provinzielle Kaiserportrats: Zur Bildnisse', Boreas 7 (1984), 89-104. Rezeption der Selbstdarstellung des Princeps (1983), 14, l3 Fittschen, op. cit. (n. 7). pl. 4.3-4; also Fittschen, 'Ritratti maschili', 450, j4 K. Fittschen, GGA 236 (1984), 188-210, at

28. An additional clear argument against the 199-202 (review of IR 11); Fittschen, 'Ritratti masch- identification (besides the typology of the forehead ili', 463-78; idem 'Privatportrats hadrianischer Zeit', hair and the lack of Hadrian's tell-tale crease in the in J. Bouzek and I. Ondfejova (eds), Roman Portraits, lobe of the ear) is that the hair covers the tops of the Artistic and Literary: Acts of the Third International ears in a way unattested on any of Hadrian's portrait Conference on Roman Portraits, Prague 1989 (1997), types. 32-6.
Zanker, 'Bruche im Biirgerbild? Zur burgerli- I5 K. Fittschen, 'Zur Datierung des Madchenbild- chen Selbstdarstellung in den hellenistischen nisses vom Palatin', JdI 106 (1991), 297-309. A Stadten', in M.U'orrle and P. Zanker (eds), Stadtbild thorough and convincing chronological study has also und Burgerbild im Hellenismus (1995), 25 1-63. now reassigned many of the Fayum mummy portraits
Zanker, 'Zur Rezeption des hellenistischen from Late Antiquity to the middle imperial period: Individual-portrats in Rom und in den italienischen B. Borg, Mumienportrats: Chronologie und kultureller Stadten', in Hellenismus in Mittelitalien (1976) 11, Kontext (1996). 581-609; L. Giuliani, Bildnis und Botschaft: Her-l6 Zanker, in FZ 111, nos 64-70. meneutische Untersuchungen zur Bildniskunst der rom- ischen Republik (1986). Further, n. 164.

of material now correctly placed in the second century, and for interpreting its apparently contradictory strands of evolution in its various local contexts, West and East.''

The historical and chronological analysis of this material has tended to rely on the important phenomonon of the Zeitgesicht or 'period-face', which has been proposed as an embracing interpretive idea most forcefully by Paul Zanker.18 Most private portraits on this model are to be understood as versions of male and female period-faces fixed by the reigning emperor and his wife. 'If the emperor grew a beard, the citizens of the whole empire grew one too.'19 This is a usefully radical formulation, that contains a large measure of truth (the emperor's image did indeed have a powerful 'multiplier' effect around the Empire), but we may question whether it is quite the whole truth or whether it might be formulated in correct historical terms slightly differently. The Olympieion bust in Athens (Pl. 111, 4), we have seen, wears a 'Hadrianic' beard. But some bearded portraits from the Greek East are difficult to date and interpret in relation to any imperial bearded portrait. One example from many can illustrate this point. The subject of a bust from Lampsacus(?) in Copenhagen, of perhaps the early second century, seems, we may say provisonally, at least uninterested in Hadrian's beard and for that reason difficult to date in relation to it (Pl. 111, 3).20

The two ideas, of formal stylistic development and the period-face phenomenon, can be combined to make second-century portraits seem linear, predictable, and unproblematic. Everybody looks like the reigning emperor or empress, so all portraits can be arranged on a line marked by the changes of the imperial image: Trajanic, Hadrianic, Antonine, Severan. But this does not correspond well either with the range of surviving material or with the complexity of Greek and Roman society in this period. It is easy to break the circularity of this model of period-face plus evolution with examples that stand outside both (for example, P1. 111, 1-3). The period-face was clearly an important phenomenon and is perhaps a useful if rather historically abstract label. Equally clearly it was not the whole story: we may think of it provisionally as a kind of 'default setting' for a personal image.

An exception to the period-face has often been made for intellectuals, and in his stimulating recent book, The Mask of Sokrates, Zanker has a thought-provoking chapter called 'Hadrian's Beard' that deals in a broad sweep with the whole range of second- century portraits, East and west." It asks about much more than dates, but, as well as seeing great importance and significance in Hadrian's beard, it ends in my opinion fitting too many things under the heading of 'intellectual'. For the images at least, we will see, it is probably the wrong word.

In place then of a model of emperors, imperial imitation, and intellectuals, I would prefer a different model with both a wider variety of cultural choices and also more basic axes of differentiation. We are dealing with a repertoire of public postures, heightened marble versions of the styled self, that could project a spectrum of social, cultural, and political concerns. Such postures may correspond to the real role of subjects in life, but not necessarily. The tension between personal posture and actual role is one of the main interests of the subject, not to be foreclosed by the assumption of an automatic correspondence of image and subject. As we will see, the overlap between portrait image

l7 The best starting points for the western material isches Portrat: Wege zur Erforschung eines gesellsch- are in my opinion Fittschen, 'Ritratti maschili', for aftlichen Phanomenons. Wissenschaftliche Konferenz, the earlier second century, and Fittschen, op. cit. Berlin 1981, = Wiss.Zeit.Berlin 3I (1982), 307-12;

(n. 7), for the later second century. Other useful cf. also M. Bergmann, 'Zeitypen im Kaiserportrat?',
studies: K. Fittschen, 'Ein Bildnis in Privatbesitz. ibid., 143-7.
Zum Realismus romischer Portrats der mittleren und l9 P. Zanker, 'Burgerliche Selbstdarstellung am
spateren Prinzipatszeit', in Eikones. Fest. H. Jucker Grab im romischen Kaiserreich', in H.-J. Schalles,
(1980), 108-14; P. Zanker, 'Ein hoher Offizier Tra- H. von Hesberg and P. Zanker, Die romische Stadt in
jans', ibid., 196-202. Other useful collections of 2.Jahrhundert n.Chr.: Der Funktionswandel des
material: G. Daltrop, Die stadtromischen mannlichen offentlichen Raumes (1992), 339-58, at 348: 'Wenn der
Privatbildnisse trajanischer und hadrianischer Zeit Kaiser sich den Bart wachsen liess, liessen sich die
(1958); K. Stemmer (ed.), Kaiser Marc Aurel und Burger im ganzen Reich den Bart wachsen.'
seine Zeit (1988), 38-53. The eventual publication of 20 Poulsen 11, no. 64.
FZ I1 will be important for this area of study. 21 Zanker, Mask, ch. 5.

l8 P. Zanker, 'Herrscherbild und Zeitgesicht', Rom

60 R. R. R. SMITH
and a subject's interests and self-defining ideas was capable of various kinds of tendentious manipulation.

A little more needs to be said about this matter. Roman portraits are visually a very successful and seductive medium, and it is easy to be persuaded to take them as they want to be seen, that is, to be seduced into seeing the real person in the image or interpreting the image straightforwardly in the light of what we know of the person. These are both fallacies about which we need to be explicit.

This 'biographical fallacy', as we may call it, constitutes an important methodologi- cal obstacle, and on its proper negotiation depends the kind of cultural history we can write from this visual evidence. The biographical fallacy has two procedures. One is to read important facts about the life of an undocumented subject unproblematically from his or her images. Many publications label unidentified long-bearded portraits of the second century, for example, 'philosopher', 'sophist', or 'philosophically interested citizen'. The leading signifying elements of the unidentified image are taken as true straightforward accounts of the subject's life. Often there may be a correct and genuine overlap between image and life, but documented examples often show the overlap to have been at best partial. It is better, especially in this period, to understand undocumented images in a more flexible, sliding relationship with their subjects. There was on the one hand a range of personal styles (in art and life), and on the other hand a variety of persons that might deploy those styles. We need documentation -names, contexts, external information -to assess properly the claims of an image. Various image types have root traditional meanings (for example, philosopher, king, athlete) derived from their long and familiar use as part of an inherited portrait vocabulary, but in the Middle Roman Empire they came to be appropriated by a wide range of figures. It needs to be recognized that unidentified images can really tell us only about a range of styles available, not about the real subjects of those images. Otherwise we will see philosophers, orators, sophists, and generals where there were only city aristocrats.

Another procedure of the biographical fallacy is to take the identified portraits of a historical figure and to see the life of the subject directly in the images. Hadrian, for example, was a philhellene intellectual, so his bearded portrait is intellectual and philhellenic (Pl. IV, 1-2). Marcus Aurelius was a philosopher, so his longer bearded portrait is philosophical. These interpretations take one widely reported aspect of the subject's life that it is felt has to be seen in the image. On their own, with only these two images, both these interpretations may seem convincing, even obviously correct. But set in a wider context of prevailing contemporary aristocratic portraits in metropolitan Rome and alongside a full range of available beard styles, they become less clearly explicable in this ad hominem way. Any interpretation of Hadrian's beard, for example, has to be good also for the portraits of Antoninus Pius which are merely (and purposefully) a physiognomical variant of Hadrian's." And Marcus' beard is not so easily or obviously a philosopher's beard, because many thoroughly non-intellectual figures wore the same kind of beard -for example, his co-emperor Lucius Verus (Pl. IV, 3-4).23 We perhaps bring too easily to their images the often-slanted and atypical things that the literary sources liked to highlight about historical figures. Hadrian and Marcus had many aspects to their role as emperor that might compete for inclusion in their public image -general, senator, cultured aristocrat, litterateur, philhellene, philosopher. And we might ask if their beards should automatically be referred to an aspect that emperors were explicitly to be discouraged from displaying even a Greek orator and philosopher can advise the Roman emperor not to be too interested in philosophy.24 We will see that it is not just a question of a beard or not a beard, or even of a short beard as opposed to a long beard, but of the whole context of

ZZ Hadrian's portraits: below, n. 29. Pius' portraits: 24 'Nor again should he (sc. the good emperor) apply Fittschen, in FZ I nos 59-60. himself to philosophy to the point of perfecting 23 The Louvre bust, PI. IV, 3-4: Fittschen, in FZ I, himself in it (pros to akribestaton)': Dio 2.26. under no. 73, n. 13d, Beil. 50; K. de Kersauson,

Muse'e du Louvre: Catalogue des portraits romains I I

(1996), no. I 17.

the portrait image -locale, posture, dress, hairstyle, and within that of what kind and styling of beard and of the relation of those elements to local traditions and expectations.

Self-presentation in life and in statues mattered greatly to leading figures in the Roman world (as before and after), and no less among them the notables of the Greek East. Statues were the outward expression of the political, social, cultural, and ethical ideas that defined the good Greek aristocrat of this period. Interpretation of the images is a matter of identifying those key priorities and aspects that had cognate visual signs that could be realized in statuary form.

The values and interests of eastern aristocrats are known in great detail from inscriptions and from the public speeches of such authors as Dio of Prusa.*' They were proud of their loyalty to the emperor, of their connections to the Roman aristocracy as citizens, knights, and senators, as officers in service to the Empire. They prized city patriotism and generous euergetic service on behalf of theirpatris and its gods in various city offices and priesthoods. Serving as priests of the city's gods and of the emperors was an extension of civic duty. They cared passionately about their statue honours and any perceived weakening of the norms that governed this powerful symbolic currency -the theme of Dio's Rhodian Oration (3I). They prized Hellenic culture, rhetorical expertise, and a respectable knowledge of an inherited literary canon. They were proficient in political oratory and could be called 'philosophers' when they were probably no such thing. And they emphasized their aristocratic descent from one of the few great families of the town. They had both Greek and Roman identities and deeply-felt ideas in matters of city politics, culture, religion, and family. Their primary identities were based less on ethnicity and race in a modern sense, than on political and social culture -they could certainly feel racially based differences, but they were simply of less pressing concern in aristocratic circles of the second century. Some but hardly all of these things might find their way into portrait monuments.

In constructing a public image in life and in marble that would embody such roles and ideas, eastern notables and their portrait.stylists had before them both the external attributes of contemporary life, such as priestly crowns of office, and an accumulated stock of portrait images to choose from -past and present, Greek and Roman, old and modern. Statues of Hellenistic orators, philosophers, politicians, benefactors, rulers, generals, and kings, still populated the older cities, along with the statue images of gods and heroes. And they also had more recent and contemporary portrait styles to draw on, both at home and at Rome. All this constituted a legible portrait language for the styled self. Greek and Roman cities were teeming with statue icons engaged in a clamorous debate of competing priorities and expressive means.


Out of all these, it is necessary to say a little more by way of introduction about contemporary portraits at Rome. Portrait styles in and emanating from metropolitan Rome were of course particularly important in any strategic calculation about a public image. The emperors' images were everywhere, and the self-styling of the Roman Clite would be readily available for inspection as senators and imperial officials passed through the provinces in person. Greek city leaders also travelled frequently to Rome, as ambassadors or as senators, where a full range of metropolitan aristocratic portraiture was on public dispay. Private portraiture as a whole in our period may be seen then as a

25 For what follows, see the balanced accounts of cited above, n. I. On euergetism: P. Veyne, Bread and

C. P. Jones, Plutarch and Rome (1971)~esp. chs 5-6; Circuses: Historical Sociology and Political Pluralism idem, The Roman World of Dio Chrysostom (1978); (1976, trans. ~ggo), Pt 11: 'Greek Euergetism'; idem, Culture and Society in Lucian (1986). Note also: F. Quass, Die Honoratiorenschicht in den Stiidten des

P. Brunt, 'The Romanization of the local ruling griechischen Ostens (1993); most recently J. F. Lendon, classes in the Roman Empire', in Assimilation et Empire of Honour: The Art of Government in the rdsistance a la culture grdco-romaine dans le monde Roman World (1997)~ch. 2: 'Honour and Influence in ancien (1976) = P. Brunt, Roman Imperial Themes the Roman World'. (~ggo), 267-81, and recent work on cultural identity

62 R. R. R. SMITH
dialogue with the portrait styles of the capital. Two connected phenomena were particularly important: a new technology for marble portraits, and a new 'styled' aristocratic image.

The second century was the great age of ancient portrait sculpture at Rome, unmatched in quantity, quality, expressive variety, and technical virtuosity.26 It was also the great age of the bust and with it that of greater attention to the portrait head in itself. More marble was used, so more survives, and marble came to receive the same or a higher degree of technical refinement and finish as bronze and silver. Bronze portraits soon come to imitate the new vocabulary of Antonine marbles, and even the fine silver bust of Lucius Verus from Marengo is technically less sophisticated than the emperor's best marbles (Pl. IV, 3-4).27 A new technology of marble portrait carving emerged to cater for a novel range of more sophisticated personal styles that were introduced in this period. A repertoire of drilling, texturing, and polishing techniques was introduced to represent eyes, beards, hair curls, and delicate details like eyebrows. This was a distinctly modern and contemporary portrait technique: a second-century head declares itself to be a portrait and of this period simply by its technical handling. The new technology was born out of the requirements of the styled Antonine self-image (Pl. IV).

Both the techniques and the new portrait styles were in origin phenomena very much of the capital. The old clean-shaven, plain hard 'Roman' style of Vespasian and Trajan gave way to the more sophisticated, cultivated portraits of Hadrian and the Antonines who wear styled and artificially curled hair and styled beards.28 It was the demands of these new hairstyles that drove the new marble techniques. The chronology is clear from the dated imperial sequence. Hadrian's first portrait type at his accession has a short beard and artificially styled hair brushed forward in curling locks over the temples (Pl. IV, I).~~

Drilled and engraved eyes were introduced, as we can trace in the surviving portraits of Hadrian, in the 130s. Antoninus Pius' portraits have the same kind of wavy styled hair and short beard as those of Hadrian, and in the middle decades of the second century, in the successive portrait types of Aelius Verus, Marcus Aurelius, and Lucius Verus appear the distinctive tightly curled Antonine hairstyles and eventually the long, luxuriantly-styled beards (Pl. IV, 3-4).30 Chronology is a matter of real changing hairstyles and of an evolving and increasingly emphatic technique of engraved eyes and drilled hair.

In purely formal terms this portrait manner represents, one might say, the reintroduction to Roman portrait art of a sophisticated Hellenistic vocabulary that had been removed by the stiff and chilling hand of Augustan classicism. In technical terms it occasioned the marble revolution outlined above. In narrow imperial terms, it represented an ideological shift in the imperial image from military virtus to an urbane civilitas. It is in this period for the first time that genuine visual priority is given to the expression of the idea of the civili~princeps.~' The Antonines present the first true image of the civilian Roman emperor. And in broader social terms, the new portrait manner represents the warm embrace of an artificially styled image by large sections of Roman society. The styling experiments seen in Roman portraits in the mid- and later first century, adopted by such figures as Nero and Domitian and by their followers,32 had

26 The best photographic documentation for the 29 Fittschen, in FZ I, nos 46-54; C. Evers, Les following sketch is in FZ I and 111. Aspects of it will portraits d'Hadrien: Typologie et ateliers (1994). The be justified in more detail later, in Sections VI and VII. Terme bust, P1. IV, 1-2: FZ I, under no. 46, Replica On the increased use of marble for statues and busts 4, Beil. 23; Evers, op. cit., 165-6, no. 107, figs 33, 39. in the second century: A. Claridge, 'Roman statuary 30 Fittschen, in FZ I, nos 58 (Aelius), 65-71 and the supply of statuary marble', in J. C. Fant (ed.), (Marcus), 73 (Verus). Ancient Marble Quarrying and Trade (I 988), I 39-52, 31 For the central ideological importance of which,

27 Bronze, for example, the Capitoline Marcus Aur- see A. Wallace-Hadrill, 'Civilis Princeps. Between elius: FZ I, no. 67; A. M. Sommella (ed.), I1 Marco citizen and king', JRS 72 (1982), 32-48. Aurelio in Campidoglio (1990). Silver bust of L. Verus 32 Nero: U. Hiesinger, 'The portraits of Nero', AJA from Marengo (Turin): M. Wegner, Die Herrscher- 79 (1975)~ 113-24. Domitian: Zanker in FZ I, nos bildnisse in antoninischer Zeit (1939), 248, pl. 41. Bust 32-3. Both: M. Bergmann and P. Zanker, 'Damnatio of Verus, P1. IV, 3-4: above, n. 23. Memoriae: Umgearbeitete Nero- und Domitianspor-

28 Collection of literary sources on imperial hair- trats', JdI 96 (1981), 317-42. Followers: P. Cain, styling: A. Demandt, Das Privatleben der romischen Mannerbildnisse neronisch-jlavischer Zeit (1993). Kaiser (1996), 101-4.


been swept aside by Trajan's aggressive plainness, but re-emerge in the now-bearded styles of Antonine high society and the court. The visual signs of a plain straightforward traditonal Roman morality (simplicitas) are replaced by those of a refined, cultivated, and luxurious civilian elegance (elegantia).

On a broader cultural level this change reflects a more positive public evaluation among the Roman aristocracy of such things as culture, rhetoric, and letters, which had been despised in former days with ostentatious philistinism. While Trimalchio's funerary valediction -'he never heard a philosopher' -was a coarse expression of a widespread sentiment under the Early Empire, an ideal Trajan is already presented as fostering 'love of culture and civilized wit'.33 Attendant circumstances, if not explana- tions, of this phenomenon are such things as the rise of Greek provincial aristocrats among the senatorial aristocracy of Rome, started under the Flavians and Trajan, consolidated by Hadrian and the an to nine^,^^ and the Second Sophistic movement, the energetic promotion of Hellenic cultural values by those same Greek aristocrat^.^' This was a complex, broad-based cultural change, reaching as far as the outburst of Greek mythological representation on the sarcophagi of the middle levels of Roman society.36 After several centuries of outspoken public opposition, Rome in the second century had come to some sort of negotiated deal with Hellenism. This tepid embrace, of course, left Roman identity intact. But a wider choice of personal style, a more differentiated, cultivated self-image was now possible. This in turn left the door open to a different phenomenon -a more vigorous public assertion of a cultured Hellenic identity by leading Greek provincials for whom such a posture now quite suddenly seemed effective.

The fashionable elegance of Antonine portraits was very popular around the Empire, from Ostia to Alexandria, and was probably much more than simply an imitation of the emperor's image. This was a modern cosmopolitan style, capable of endlessly graded mutations, whose precise significance on its own is difficult to pin down. We may note, however, an important negative. Artificial styling had never been part of the public image projected in Hellenistic portrait sculpture for kings, statesmen, philosophers or citizens. Rather the reverse: both royal Macedonian and Greek demos political morality had always despised it. Artificial1 curled and styled hair and beards are unknown in Classical and Hellenistic portraits. 37


For city notables and benefactors, public statues were the highest denomination in the currency of euergetic politics. Such statues are usually easily recognized among surviving marbles by their high technical elaboration and finish (usually polished) and by their imposing scale (usually 2.10-2.20 m in height, a standard scale for public statues, well over lifesize). As a purely symbolic reward for public-spirited benefactions, a city notable received a decree of people and council, public praise, and a statue in a public place set on an inscribed base. The sound of the praise faded quickly, but the statues remained as enduring symbols and treasured family monuments. The inscribed

33 'Nec unquam philosophum audivit': Trimal-Empire (1969); E. L. Bowie, 'The importance of chio's epitaph, Petronius, Satyricon 71. At Trajan's Sophists', YCS 27 (1982), 29-60; G. Anderson, The court, there are 'et liberales ioci et studiorum honor': Second Sophistic: A Cultural Phenomenon in the Pliny, Panegyric 49.8. Cf. R. Syme, Tacitus (1958), Roman Empire (1993). 5I 1-1 2, 'The customary and normal scorn of a Roman 36 cf. Zanker, op. cit. (n. 19), 356-7. for any contemporary Greeks must now (sc. in the 37 The hostile literary sources about Menander's second century) undergo some abatement or disguise'. perfumed and mincing appearance (Phaedrus, Fables

34 Syme, op. cit. (n. 33), 506-1 I; idem, 'The Greeks 5.1) should not be taken seriously. His portrait statue, under Roman rule', Roman Papers I1 (1979), 566-81, for all its suave naturalism, has a plain, deliberately esp. 572-81; idem, 'Greeks invading the Roman 'casually' arranged hairstyle (cf. Zanker, Mask, government' (S. J. Brademas lecture, 1982), Roman 78-83, with different emphasis). For the reconstruc- Papers IV (;988), 1-20. Most recently on this theme: tion of the Menander statue: K. Fittschen, 'Zur

A. Birley, Hadrian and Greek senators', ZPE 116 Rekonstruktion griechischer Dichterstatuen. I. Teil:

(19971, 209-45. Die Statue des Menander', AM 106 (1991), 243-79. 35 G. W. Bowersock, Greek Sophists in the Roman

64 R. R. R. SMITH bases itemized the benefactor's family connections, his good deeds, any interesting aspects of his career, his patriotic public-spirited virtues, and any details of who actually paid for and set up the statue. These statues established a prominent presence for the leading families who in any generation surely dominated the sculptural landscape of their towns. Such statues could stand on their own or in groups in public squares and colonnades, or they could be set into larger, programmatic settings -the columnar faqades of theatres, council houses, gates, or fountain buildings. Their appropriate context was the functionless display architecture that so characterized the period (for example, below, Figs 5-6). Looking at surviving portrait heads on their own we can go easily wrong in their interpretation: they were always part of a larger monument and setting -usually a statue, or sometimes a bust or herm. We may look first at the costuming of the portrait statue, then at some examples of both male and female statues that are preserved with their inscribed bases and/or their public settings. Statues had two intersecting external aspects -the figure's format or support (for example, standing, equestrian, seated) and the costume worn by the figure (for example, toga, himation, or cuirass). Where portrait heads can have a calculated ambivalence costumed statues made very direct, clear statements about public roles and identities. 31; Out of a wide inherited repertoire, the eastern aristocracy however deployed an astonishingly narrow and conservative range, in terms both of format and costume. To take the format briefly first. Equestrian statues were available for non-imperial honorands, but are relatively rare in the surviving record in the Greek East in this period.39 (Chariot-groups as a setting for honorific figures seem to have been mainly a preserve of the emperor as-rriumphal warrior-in-chief and seem to be found rarely in the Greek ~ast.)~'

Seated statues are also surprisingly rare: with different costumes and styling they carried two quite separate meanings neither of which, we will see, was a high priority for eastern Antonine notables. (With togas, such statues suggested magistrates seated in authority as officers of the Roman state.41 With himatia, they suggested full-time thinker^.^') Eastern aristocrats generally preferred to stand in their statues, the most neutral format and one that suggested at least a readiness for action and engagement. They also liked overwhelmingly, we will see, to wear the civilian himation suit of the Greek citizen. First we may look briefly at the minority dress options.

Cuirassed statues were used occasionally, heavily contextualized, to represent Roman military service: this was the full dress uniform of the Roman colonel (Pl. V, 2).43 Naked statues were used only for athletes and sometimes for youths, but rarely apparently with the extraordinary mythological and heroic trimmings favoured by the municipal and middle levels of Roman society in Italy.44 We find now none of the thrusting naked statues favoured for local leaders earlier.45 Nudity is deployed for mature men in the Greek East now only in the much 'safer', abbreviated, and metaphorical format of the bust (Pl. 111, 4). Usually the addition of a military cloak refers the metaphor to the realm of manly bravery, or better simply 'manliness'.

38 In a similar direction to that taken here, 41 Th. Schafer, Imperii Insignia: Sella Curulis und cf. P. Zanker, 'Statuenreprasentation und Mode', in Fasces: Zur Reprasentation romischer Magistrate Walker and Cameron, op. cit. (n. I), 102-7; idem, op. (1989)~149-50, PIS 16-17. cit. (n. 9); and recently C. H. Hallett, 'A group of 42 R. von den Hoff, Philosophenportrats des Friih- portrait statues from the civic center of Aphrodisias', und Hochhellenismus (1994)~passim; Zanker, Mask, AJA 102 (1998), 59-89. More generally on statue 90-1 29. types: K. Fittschen, BonnJb 170 (1970)~ 541-54, 43 K. Stemmer, Untersuchungen zur Typologie, review of H. G. Niemeyer, Studien zur statuarischen Chronologie, und Ikonographie der Panzerstatuen Darstellung der romischen Kaisar (1968). (1978). On the statue illustrated (Pl. V, 2): below nn.

39 J. Bergemann, R6mische Reiterstatuen (I 990). 88 and 92. 40 Compare the imposing effect of the imperial * H. Wrede, Consecratio in formam deorum: Ver- chariot groups in statue landscapes of Western cities: giittlichte Privatpersonen in der riimischen Kaiserzeit

G. Zimmer, Locus Datus Decreto Decurionum: Zur (1981); C. Maderna, Jupiter, Diomedes, und Merkur
Statuenaufstellung zweier Forumsanlagen im riimischen als Vorbild fur romische Bildnisstatuen (I 986).
Afrika (1989), 33, fig. 14 and 50, fig. 22 -reconstruc-45 P. Zanker, 'Zur Bildnisreprasentation fiihrender
tions of the public statuary on the fora of Timgad and Manner', op. cit. (n. I I).


The himation with no tunic and bare chest was an old-fashioned. ostentatiouslv plain costume, worn originally by classical civic elders, which in conjunction with a seated figure had carried since the exemplary philosopher statues of Hellenistic Athens the meaning of professional thinkerltea~her.~~

Its equivalent today would be the thinking academic's costume of unbuttoned shirt and rough sports jacket. It seems to have been rare for full statues in our period, and was perhaps avoided for its overt philosophical overtone^.^' But the costume was commonly deployed in busts, both in the East and the West, presumably as a metaphorical statement of philosophical culture (Pl. V, I).~* A himation bust of this kind usually carries a very different, diluted 'intellectual' effect from the full commitment of a full-length statue.


The main remaining statue costumes were the toga and the himation with tunic, which were legible immediately as, respectively, Roman and Greek (compare, for example, P1. VI, I and 3). The toga is easily recognized by its distinctive, bulky and imposing dress architecture, (re-)designed in the Augustan period, and signified simply and forcefully Roman citizenship.49 It was a ceremonial dress-suit, marking a distinct legal and social status: an exclusive civilian uniform with the effect something like that of a morning-coat. It was always worn with Roman shoes, either regular calcei, soft plain boots, or the calceipatricii with cross-straps over the top of the soft boot and prominent ankle straps (corrigiae), which distinguished the wearer as a senator.50

Toga statues had been used regularly if not abundantly in the Greek East in the first century A.D., but in the greatly increased statue output of the second century they are overwhelmed in numbers by those in himation and tunic. The explanation is probably simple. In the Early Empire Roman citizenship had been more unusual and worth highlighting in statues at home. In the Middle Empire, with the wider spread of the citizenship among the elite, it became something less unusual and therefore less worth parading in the context of Greek city politics. These statues were designed for a local audience and local expectations. The Roman aspect of a notable's identity, we will see, could be taken care of in other ways. Roman identity remained important but had other ex~ressions.


by far was a costume type unchanged from late Classical and Hellenistic times, the himation with tunic -that is, a well-pressed, short-sleeved shirt (chiton), with low square-cut open neck, worn under a long thicker cloak or mantle (himation) (Pls V, 3-4; VI, I; X; XI)." This was the standard Greek civilian dress, the polis costumepar excellence and was always worn with a distinctive kind of Greek sandal. The costume was both civilian (non-military) and urban (worn in town, not outside). Its effect and meaning were very like that of a smart suit and tie today. Statues wearing this costume were composed for the most part in two broad, unchanging types: (I) with the himation dra~ed low across the front of the bodv in a thick roll of cloth extendine from the right hip ;o the left forearm and leaving the ;ight shoulder and arm free (Pl. q,3-4) ('Coan' type -after a group of late Hellenistic and early imperial-period statues from

46 cf. von den Hoff, op. cit. (n. 42), ++. 49 H. R. Goette, Studien zu romischen Togadarstel-

47 Rosenbaum, Cyrene, nos 135, !36, 138 (very lungen (1990). Good illustrated collection of Eastern much the minority there beside himatlon statues with examples: Rosenbaum, Cyrene, nos 107-13. tunic, ibid., nos I 14-28); Richter, POG 111, 286, fig. H. R. Goette, 'Mulleus -Embas -Calceus', 2043 (no good evidence, however, that this headless YdI 103 (1988), 401-64. statue is of Herodes Atticus). On the powerful con- 51 There is no study of the full range of himation temporary effect in the Roman period of this philo- statues of the Roman period. See provisionally: sophic achit6n en himatici costume, which was K. Polaschek, Untersuchungen zu griechischen Man- irritating to the average man-in-the street, see Dio telstatuen: Der Himationtypus mit Armschlinge (Diss., 72.2, in a speech Per tou Schematos or On Personal 1969); Bieber, Copies, ch. I I; A. Lewerentz, Stehende Appearance (sc. of philosophers). mannliche Gewandstatuen im Hellenismus (Diss.,

48 Copenhagen bust, P1. V, I: Poulsen 11, no. 154. 1992). There is also no proper study of the associated On the type: Zanker, Mask, 226, with figs 107 footwear. K. D. Morrow, Greek Footwear and the (Seneca, Berlin), 123 (Thessaloniki), 129 (Capito- Dating of Greek Sculpture (1985) is inadequate for the line), 132 (Copenhagen), 133 (Theon, Capitoline), Hellenistic and Roman periods. 136 (so-called 'Polemon', Athens). Others: below, nn. 109-10.

66 R. R. R. SMITH

Cos in this dress and posture),52 and (2) with the himation covering the right shoulder and catching the right arm up as if in a sling (Pl. VI, I) ('arm-sling' type).53 This popular second type is also sometimes called the 'Aeschines' type, after the well known statue icon of the great classical orator,54 but since few of the Roman-period examples explicitly recall the Aeschines statue, it is better referred to more prosaically as the arm-sling type. The statues of this type tend to have a plainer, more modest, less swaggering posture, without the left hand held behind the hip under the mantle that gives the Aeschines figure such a suave and calculated swing.

The two statue types wear precisely the same himation-with-tunic suit, only configured differently. They signified different kinds of public posture and implied action (they can be contextualized by narrative scenes). One is the posture of speaking or officiating -pouring a libation, for example -a demeanour of calm, modest address. The other is a public posture of reserve and discipline, waiting to speak or act. 'He approached in proper fashion, kosrnias, his arm drawn beneath his mantle.'55 Seated portrait statues wearing the himation-tunic suit -the compromise first negotiated in the Hellenistic Menander statue between full modern civic dress and seated 'intellectual' Dose -are rare.56

Extraordinary satisfaction was evidently felt in this smart unchanged polis himation-and-tunic suit. It had never gone out of use and attached its wearers automaticallv to five centuries of shared civic values. The level of static continuitv is staggering: it would be as if all good citizens and public figures today were still wearing Elizabethan costume. The two standing statue costumes and postures of this kind auicklv came to constitute two exem~larv civic emblems. Of the two. the more self-


contained and ideologically more 'modest' arm-sling type came swiftly to predominate. From a technical point of view, it was also easier and more economical than the more extended 'Coan' type. These statues in themselves could express a range of desirable overlapping characteristics: Greek and civilian; clean, well-dressed, and traditional; and active and disciplined.

The emphatically Hellenic nature of this costume is stressed in contemporary literature. The costume was part of a package of cultural externals that identified the good old-style Greek, as opposed to the debased contemporary variety. The right clothes, gait, hairstyle, and language marked out the pure, original Hellene (Dio

21. I 5-1 6; 3I. 162-3; 39.3; with 48.8 for 'pure Hellenes'). This dress language extended to details. On Rhodes, when the city started in the imperial period to change its numerous old local benefactor statues to honour contemporary (Roman) benefactors, not least among the perceived problems was the transgression of this visual-political code. Jarring to the sensitive Hellenic eye, the dress and shoes of the old statues were now simply wrong for the new (Roman) honorands (Dio 3 I. I 55-6).

The statue thus stated directlv kev asDects of an honorand's ~ublic role and ~olitical

, , A

identity. The head added more complex ideas as well as indhidual physio&omical identity, and it was left to the base to specify names, family, and key aspects of career and moral character. Together portrait, statue, and inscribed base set up an interplay of overlapping and complementary meanings. This interplay can be illustrated in some well-documented examples from Aphrodisias in Caria.

Around A.D. 200 a pair of fine public statues of two great Aphrodisian notables,

L. Antonius Claudius Dometeinus Diogenes and his niece Claudia Antonia Tatiana, was set up to either side of the main doors of the city's council house on top of identical

52 The two statues from Aphrodisias, PI. V, 3-4: 55 Dio 36.7 A part of good old-fashioned Hellenic

K. T. Erim, R. R. R. Smith, 'Sculpture from the manners: Plutarch, Phocion 4. This schzma or pose is theatre', Aphrodisias Papers 2 (1991), 67-98, at 83-4, called a s6phrosynt% paradeigma in Demosthenes, De no. 18, figs zoa-b (with captions reversed). On their Falsa Legatione, 251; cf. Zanker, Mask, 46-9. portrait heads: below, n. 141. For the Coan statues: 56 There is an example from the group of statues Kabus-Preisshofen, nos 33-4, 36-7. that decorated the stage-building of the Bouleuterion

53 Polaschek, op. cit. (n. 51); Rosenbaum, Cyrene, at Aphrodisias (to be published by C. H. Hallett): see nos 114-28; Bieber, Copies, figs 625-36. On the provisionally, K. T. Erim, Aphrodisias: A Guide to statue, PI. VI, I: below, n. 57. the Site and its Museum (1989), 87, no. 38, fig 122.

54 Richter, POG 11,212-15, figs 1369-90. Menander: above, n. 39.



tall elegant inscribed bases (Figs 1-2 and P1. VI, I-2)." The statues were thus positioned inside the grand double stoa that sheltered the entrance from the city's main (north) agora into the council house.58 The statue of Dometeinus was awarded by the patris and set up and paid for by another well-connected member of the local 6lite (one Ti. Claudius Ctesias the Elder). An altar was set up with the statue, which was probably therefore a posthumous honour. The statue wears the himation suit in the standard arm-sling posture, supported by a box of scrolls. He is local, civilian, well-lettered, reserved, rhetorically capable. The inscribed base however lays most stress not on his local civic role as a law-maker, but on his Roman credentials: he was the proud father of two Roman senato~-s.'~

The statue wears the crown of an imperial priesthood which the

57 K. T.Erim, in IR 11, nos 186-7. at Aphrodisias in Caria, 1995'~ AJA IOI(1997), 1-22,

58 For recent plans of the North Agora and Boule- at 3-7, figs 2 and 6. uterion showing the precise location of the statues: 59 J. Reynolds, in IR 11, no. 186.

R. R. R. Smith and C. Rattb, 'Archaeological research

68 R. R. R. SMITH

base does not bother to mention. It did not need to: vou cannot miss it. The or trait head is ambivalent. On the one hand it has the ;efinement and techniq;e of a metropolitan Roman image, on the other hand its beard form and overall effect is local, and the unusually long hair is that of a priest.60 With different kinds of semantic emphasis in its various parts and attributes (base, statue costume, scrolls, portrait, crown), the monument covers the main political, social, and religious dimensions of Dometeinus' preferred public persona.

In the other statue is figured Dometeinus' niece, Claudia Antonia Tatiana, a grande dame of her generation at Aphrodisias and in the province as a whole (Fig. 2 and P1. VI, 2).61 The plinth is signed by the statue's maker, one Zenas son of Alexandros of Aphrodisias, and the inscribed base below informs us that the statue was awarded by the boule and demos, and that its setting up was seen to by another local aristocrat (one Ti. Claudius Capitolinus). Unlike her uncle, Tatiana was clearly still living at the time the pair of statues was voted; and it is striking that hers is the larger and more imposing of the two figures (see Figs 1-2). The base of Tatiana's statue describes her as a benefactor by family descent, of Roman equestrian rank, and a cousin of Roman senators. the same two brothers. the sons of D~meteinus.~'

Thus her Roman status is again to the fore in the inscribed text. And again there is no mention of the priesthood that was so much in evidence in the crown she wears. There is also no mention of the valued ~rivile~e

of the ius liberorum attested in other texts.

The plinth supported an extra figure of a young child or Eros (its feet remain) which probably alluded to her fertility or desirability. She wears an artificial, 'pre- designed' costume consisting of a mantle over a thin button-sleeved blouse or dress that probably contained a reference to Aphrodite -as appropriate both to Tatiana's matronly beauty and to her priesthood of the goddess. Her portrait is a straight fashionable imitation of the contemporary heavy-wigged metropolitan style of Julia D~mna.~~


The inscribed base deals with her family and Roman connections, her statue and crown with her priesthood, and her portrait with proximity to metropolitan style.

Dometeinus and Tatiana can be visualized in a narrative setting, like a joint office- holding husband and wife pair, on a sarcophagus from Aphrodisias of the mid-second century that shows a couple standing together in a calm, restrained public posture wearing very prominent crowns of their joint office (Pl. VII, 2-3).64 They are pictured with Hermes Psychopompus on their way to Hades (seated at right), pausing to address their city and the viewer for one last time. Like Tatiana, the woman wears an artificial costume derived from an earlier statue; this time it is the most favoured exemplary statue type of the period, the so-called Large Herculaneum type.65 Its memorable and 'classic' combination of modest posture and plain tight-veiled costume came to outstrip all other female statue types in the Greek East during the second century. It was the female equivalent of the arm-sling himation costume for men, and we can see combined in this husband and wife pair on the sarcophagus the most typical and satisfying statue- costume-posture choices for both men and women of our period. One catches here too, beside the utter conformity of the costumes, the extraordinary and eye-catching effect, in art and processional life, that the elaborate priestly imperial bust crowns surely had.66

Another pair of statues from Aphrodisias, also from a single context, may serve to show how the respective statements of head and body could be formulated in a variety

60 Below, n. 127. Feste im kaiserzeitlichen Kleinasien (1988), 186-8;
61 She is PIR2 C 1071. idem, 'Neue Inschriftenfunde aus Aizanoi 1', Chiron

62 J. Reynolds, in IR 11, no. 187. 22 (~ggz), 337-76, at 352-68, pls 5-6. Statues with 63 Julia Domna's portraits: Fittschen, in FZ 111, priestly crowns are the subject of a forthcoming nos 28-30. monograph by J. Rumscheid. Note the comments on 64 LIMC Hades 163; R. R. R. Smith, Aphrodisias I: the public prominence of such crowns of office in Dio The Monument of C. Julius Zoilos (1993), 52-3, pl. 35.10 Similar in effect to the Aphrodisias sarco30d. For joint office-holding by husband-and-wife phagus is a 'Hades' sarcophagus from Ephesus in pairs as the most common form of public prominence Istanbul with two prominently wreathed himation for women in this period, see van Bremen, op. cit. priests (probably a father and young long-haired son):

(n. z), ch. 5, 'Joint Office-holding'. G. Koch and H. Sichtermann, Romische Sarkophage 65 Provisionally: Bieber, ch. 12; cf. E. A. Schmidt, (1982), 522, fig. 511; Bieber, Copies, figs 658-9, with

Romische Frauenstatuen (1967). details. 66 On crowns: IR 11, 38-47; M. Worrle, Stadt und


of different ways (Pl. VI, 3-4). They are of a young togate male and a young female and were found in front of (and probably once formed part of the statuary display of) a grand two-storey aedicular fa~ade (the so-called 'Agora Gate') that closed the east end of the South Agora at Aphrodisias. Both statues have been recently restored and put on display in the Aphrodisias Museum (in I 995 and I 996).

The togate statue of the young man, of the early to mid-second century A.D., contains some clear signs of its subject's political and cultural status (Pls VI, 3; VII, I).~~

It wears an elaborate toga, soft boots, prominent finger-ring, and holds a scroll. The toga shows he is a Roman citizen, and the scroll alludes to a literary education. This particular kind of soft strapless boot (calceus) is non-senatorial footwear, and taken with the prominently displayed ring (gold, we may presume) should allude to equestrian status -attained perhaps by a father in the imperial service. The statue combines this formal statement of Roman rank with an openly appealing and Hellenizing portrait with soft, lightly curling hair and handsome, rather mannered portrait features. The role projected by the statue might be formulated thus: aristocratic local youth (portrait head) as Roman kni ht (statue body). This role conditions more primary aspects of the statue than its date.6' As a teenager with no great civic career or priesthood to his name, this emphasis on the youth's Roman rank was perhaps a better statuary strategy than a common himation statue which would represent him as one gymnasium student among others. An earlier himation statue of a youth from COS,~~

for example, shows what the statue of the Aphrodisian youth might have looked like and how it is an 'improvement' on the Coan's strategy.

The head of the Aphrodisian statue (Pl. VII, I) benefits from the new ability of second-century sculptors to give an individual look to the images of handsome youths something borrowed from the spectacular identifying capacity of Roman portrait technique. (Earlier portraits of ephebes and neoi tended to represent their youthful good looks simply by those of ideal and classical facial forms.) The portrait is youthful, handsome, ideal, noble, but also with a strong personal identity in the rather mannered formation of its high cheek bones and deep narrow chin. This combination of youthful beauty and portrait identity was a feat most brilliantly achieved in the contemporary portrait type of the young Greek hero Antinous." The portrait head of the Aphrodisian togatus can be understood as an example of the youthful romantic Hellenic portraiture out of which the image of Antinous emerged. For, just as there was a distinctive Hellenic dress-code, so too it was felt there was in the best young Greek men a distinctively Hellenic kallos (Dio 21.15-16, On Beauty). It is this kind of claim to a special kallos that the portraits of Antinous and the Aphrodisian youth aim to project and give new shape to.

The fine portrait statue of the young woman (signed on its plinth by one Menodotos), found near the togate youth and probably from the same fa~ade, makes a very different set of choices from those of Tatiana (Pl. VI, 4).71 Without her inscription we cannot see how those choices related to her public and private role, what aspects are not represented. We can simply read how the statue situates its subject. The statue, dated by its inscribed signature and architectural context in the early to mid-second century A.D., represents a youthful woman in traditional Hellenistic dress. She wears a fringed cloak wrapped tightly around her body and arms and a finely pleated long dress that spills over her delicately sandalled feet onto the plinth. The rich dress style is

67 Preliminary publication: Smith and Rattk, op. cit. A. Claridge, 'Late antique reworking of the Ara Pacis

(n. 58),20-2, figs 16-18. and other imperial sculptures', JRA 10 (1997),

68 N. Hannestad, Tradition in Late Antique Sculp- 447-53. ture (1994)) 160, thinks this statue should be dated in 69 Kabus-Preisshofen, no. 33. the fifth century A.D., but on several external grounds 70 H. Meyer, Antinoos (1991).For earlier ideal this is very unlikely. The large scale, technical hand- portraits of Eastern youths, see further below, n. I 81. ling of hair and drapery, un-drilled eyes, form of toga, 71 Preliminary publication: R. R. R Smith and and apparently detailed statement of equestrian sta- C. Rattk, 'Archaeological research at Aphrodisias in tus, in my opinion, all speak decisively against it. The Caria, 1995',AJA 102(1998),246-8.For the signa- statue belongs clearly in the early to mid-second ture: K. T. Erim and J. M. Reynolds, 'Sculptors of century, perhaps c. A.D. 120-140.See further, Smith Aphrodisias in the inscriptions of the city', in N. Ba?and Rattk, op. cit. (n. 58), 21-2. On Hannestad's gelen and M. Lugal (eds), Festschrift fur Jale Inan chronology of Roman sculpture, see the review of (1989),517-38,at 524,no. 7,pl. 201.

70 R. R. R. SMITH designed to represent at the same time partly contradictory social messages of wealth, fine bodily form, and moral restraint. Her head is veiled and looks down modestly, and the ideal Madonna-like portrait is untouched by contemporary Roman fashions. By dress, posture, and portrait style, the statue attaches the woman, the wife or daughter of a leading local citizen, to an unchanging tradition of Hellenistic female representation. Women's dress and the costumes of Roman female statues require more careful study, but broadly it seems that the statues wear either real Hellenistic-style clothing such as that of the statue discussed above or pre-designed statuary costumes, that is, bodies that came with pose, dress, and drapery style already fixed by a famous earlier statue or simply by an often-repeated type. Use of a repeated type could associate the figure with the desirable virtues of a divinity -the beauty of Aphrodite, for example, or the fertility of Demeter.72 Or it may simply, as perhaps in the case of the endlessly repeated Herculaneum types (Pl. VII, 2), have lost any such connection with a particular goddess and simply referred the woman to the tradition of such smartly dressed, exemplary female portrait figures itself -rather in the manner of a prestigious suit type. These can be combined with Hellenistic or Roman-style portrait heads, according to choice. The Large Herculaneum female uniform is combined, for example, with a purely ideal classical head type in the statue of Plancia Magna from Perge.73 And a richly carved and pleated tight Hellenistic dress, in the manner of the signed statue from Aphrodisias (Pl. VI, 4), is combined in the very finely finished statue of one Kornelia Antonia from Pisidian Antioch with a portrait head in pure Antonine court style and technique.74 Compared to the wide range of female statuary signification in use in Rome, the Eastern aristocracy deployed a very limited and conservative range of statue costumes for its women. The statues expressed the core values of the attractive, but disciplined, modest, and restrained mother, wife, and daughter. Only the rare statues of professional priestesses have an even more constrained modesty, with the nun-like covering of the hair seen, for example, in the portraits of the priestesses of Artemis of Perge.75


The general pattern of costume and dress use that we have observed -traditional dress for women, old-style Greek himation suits for men, very few togas -would seem at first glance to go well with recent work which sees the Second Sophistic project as the construction of a local political and cultural world in which Rome and Romans were somehow magically made absent.76 And the portrait heads, we will see, might contribute more to this line of thinking. But before we see opposition in the visual record, a look at the wider programmed setting of such statues is helpful. In three monuments, each in a great 'international' centre -Athens, Ephesus, and Olympia -and each directed at the widest audience, we may still read and feel the great care, clarity, and balance with which separate Greek and Roman identities of these aristocrats were represented. It is something as forcefully and plainly stated as their combined Greek and Roman names (such as C. Julius Antiochus) and their use of the Greek and Latin languages.

The Monument of Philopappus
C. Julius Antiochus Epiphanes Phil~pa~pus~~

was the grandson of the last king of Syrian Commagene -King Antiochos IV, who retired his throne under Vespasian,

72 On a common veiled portrait statue type with the 73 IR 11, no. 225. attributes of Demeter-Ceres: Bieber, Copies,ch. 13. 74 IR I, no. 287. A well preserved example from Aphrodisias: IR I, 75 IR I, 11, nos 228and 234. no. 230,which was paired with a statue of an unveiled 76 cf. Swain, op. cit. (n. I), ch. 3, 'Past and Present'. younger woman (IR I, no. 229)-they were perhaps 77 He is Halfmann, no. 36. a mother and daughter.


'Basileus Antiochos Philopappus Basilebs Epiphanous tou Antiochou' -that is, 'King Antiochos Philopappus, son of King Epiphanes the son of Antioch~s'.~~

(Here the final 'Antiochos' is Antichos IV, the last reigning king of the dynasty, while Philopappus and his father Epiphanes, both without a kingdom, are styled 'kings'.) Although this was clearly not the place for such trifles as his Athenian offices, Philopappus' Athenian deme affiliation is given in the inscribed label under his statue that sits between the pilasters. Here the name and titles are emphatically plain and appropriate to the old-style tunic- less civic figure it identifies: 'Philopappos Epiphanous Besaieus', that is, 'Philopappus, son of Epiphanes, of the deme ~esa'.~~

The two inscribed pilasters thus carried Philopappus' most prestigious royal and Roman titles, while the central statue (Fig. 4) and its inscribed label were of an ostentatiouslv lain civilian aolis character.

The monument then is Greek and oma an ii the main v&tical axis and in the upper register also horizontally, in the inscribed pilasters. The horizontal axis of the upper storey contrives in fact to put on display in this way not only simple Greek and Roman identities, but also more specifically Philopappus' triple identity, as Macedonian king (righthand inscription), as Athenian citizen, demesman, and archon (central himation statue with label), and as Roman consul, praetorian, and personal acquaintance of the emperor (lefthand inscription and consular frieze below). The Achaemenid Persian branch of his family tree, claimed equally with his Seleucid ancestors by his forebear Antiochos I in the monuments of Commagene in the first century B.c., was of, course, conveniently elided from the monument.84

Philopappus' crowned portrait head, partly preserved in the consular frieze, wears a short beard which here cannot be 'Hadrianic' -this is probably a year or two before Hadrian's accession (Pl. VIII, 3).85 The beard was a traditional Hellenic accessory but in its short curled form here, it can be more simply taken as an example of the short stylish beards worn quite widely in Roman society before A.D. I 17.~~

The Library of Celsus

Ti. Julius Celsus Polemaeanus was a great notable of Sardis, benefactor of Ephesus, Roman army commander, consul at Rome (A.D. 92), and proconsul of Asia (c. A.D. 106).~' His statue wears a Roman cuirass and on its own would have projected very strongly his Roman identity, specifically his role as a high-ranking officer in the Roman military (Pl. V, 2).88 The statue was here no metaphor. But in its context, it was simply one element, one sentence of a carefully balanced programme statement. The statue was part of his great library-heroon (Fig. 5) located at the central hub of downtown Ephesus and built, like Philopappus' tomb, in the A.D. I IOS, late in Trajan's reign, with finishing work early in Hadrian's reign, carried out by his son, Ti. Julius Aquila Polemaeanus (cos. A.D. I ro), and testamentary executors (among them Ti. Claudius Aristi~n).~~

Dual Greek and Roman ideas and signs again pervade the monument.

The elaborate aediculated two-storey fa~ade was approached by a flight of stairs whose flanking cheek-walls acted as bases for two equestrian statues of Celsus. The mounted Celsus was emphatically and evenhandedly bi-lingual. The lefthand base gives his full career at home and abroad in Greek, while the righthand base repeats precisely the same career but in Latin.9o Unlike that of Philopappus' texts, the content of the

82 OGZS 410. 86 Below, nn. 176 (Rome), 182 (Greek East).

s3 OGZS~IZ. s7 He is Halfmann, no. 16.

84 OGZS 389-395; F. K. Dijrner, 'Zur Rekonstruk- 88 IR I, no. 144.

tion der Ahnengalerie des Konigs Antiochos I von 89 W. Wilberg, et al., Forschungen in Ephesos V.I Kommagene', ZstMitt 17 (I 967), 195-210; Th. Goell, (1953); P. Scherrer (ed.), Ephesos: Der neue Fuhrer

D. Sanders and H. G. Bachmann, Nemrud Dagi: The (1995)~ 132-4. The inscriptions also in ZEphesos Hierothesion of Antiochos Z of Commagene. Results of 5101-15. Celsus' son, Aquila, is Halfmann, no. 37. the American Excavations directed by Th. Goell (I 996), 90 J. Keil in Wilberg, op. cit. (n. 89), 62-6, nos 2-3; 254-355. ZEphesos 5 102-3.

ss Kleiner, op. cit. (n. 78), 82, pl. XVIIa.


represent 'the typical expectations of a high Roman official'.94 These are perhaps accurate statements of the monument's programme, of what it aimed to convey to its viewers and visitors. But the whole idea of building a city notable's tomb in the form of a library, and the representation of Hellenic cultural values as the framework on which Roman political and military administration rested is both striking and tendentious. The negotiated ~ublic truce made bv the Roman itlite with Hellenism in the second century-was an essential backdrop orepremise for this vigorous assertion by the Greek city itlites of everyone's need for Hellenic paideia, of Greek culture's essential and equal partnership in the Empire. But this was an aspiration not a historical truth. Although the Antonine government can hardly have believed that its proper functioning required the refinements of Hellenic culture, some parts of the Roman itlite were at least prepared to listen to such ideas. What is interesting about Celsus' monument is that this as~iration


was now thought worth expressing publicly in an expensive marble complex set up in memory of a truly Greek-Roman aristocrat. The monument both expected to find an understanding audience (difficult to imagine in the late Republic or early Empire) and to reinforce the idea.

This claim of an alliance of Roman politics and Greek culture was even worked into a striking detail of the architectural decoration of the building. In each of the pilasters on either side of the three doors, the 'inhabited' scrolled rinceaux in Hellenistic style are each framed by the fasces of a Roman lictor, the familiar emblems of Roman political and administrative Dower (PI. VI I I. z).~'This combination of Greek ornament and


Roman power symbols may be or have been viewed, depending on one's point of view, as brilliant or tasteless, absurd or sinister, but it encapsulates even at the level of architectural decoration the ex~ression of this dual identitv of a Greek Clite now work in^ closely and enthusiastically wiih the Roman ruling power.'~he deployment of the fascei was carefully calculated beyond the level of simple decoration to carry precise meaning for those interested. Firstly, the fasces all have axes bound in (Pl. VIII, 2), that is, they are symbols of executive magisterial power outside Rome (unlike those of Philopappus' intra-city lictors), and secondly (like those of Philopappus) they are exactly twelve in number, four at each of the three doors, and so enumerated the fasces of a consul and proconsul. The fasces thus specify the type, quantity, and rank of the Roman power exercised by Celsus.

Celsus' portrait has a square-jawed bearded portrait (Pl. VIII, 4). If this was the son Aquila, one might take it as a good typical period-face portrait, in the following of Hadrian. If, as is more likely (three to one), it is Celsus himself, then it is, like Philopappus' portrait, a bearded self-image before Hadrian. Indeed there were plenty of bearded figures before Hadrian, both stylish youths and military men at Rome, and probably too traditional polis long-beards in the Greek East -though these were perhaps less common (the Lampsacus bust is perhaps an example: P1. 111, 3).96 Celsus' beard is short and neat. and he could have said. if auestioned. that it was a Hellenic beard, but it might equally have been adopted and maintained frhm his youthful days in the Roman military. Neat, short beards like this (and that of Hadrian: P1. IV, 1-2) can hardly have had a simple or a single signification. They took on meaning from their wearer, their context, and their precise form and emphasis. Beards and hairstyles could, in certain 'radical' forms, carry strong straightforward unitary meanings -such as 'Greek' -but not necessarily.

The Fountain of Herodes Atticus

The great Athenian magnate Herodes Atticus (full name, L. Vibullius Hipparchus Ti. Claudius Atticus her ode^),^' we will see, adopted such a unitary public image, but

94 Scherrer, op, cit. (n. 89), 132. 96 Discussed further below, at nn. 176 (Rome), 182

95 Wilberg, op. cit. (n. 89), 10-18, figs 18, 28,29, 32; (East). Schafer, op. cit. (n. 41), 210,374, Cat. B 2. 97 He is Halfmann, no. 97. See further lit. at n. 104.




R. Bol, op. cit. (n. 981, Beilage 5)

in the ostentatious decoration of his monumental fountain at Olympia, built in the early I~OS,

the programme is again carefully balanced within clear Greek and Roman axes (Fig. 6). The monument included statues of the imperial family and put on prominent display, along with other virtues, the cardinal virtue of loyalty to the imperial house, as well as the splendid privilege of proximity to it.

The two-storeyed hemicycle faqade enclosed a semicircular waterbasin in front and carried the grandest of surviving ancient portrait displays -it included at least twenty- two portrait statues. These portrait statues played to great effect on the deliberately restricted repertoire of statue costumes favoured in the Greek East. There is enough surviving of the statues, the portrait heads, and the inscribed bases they stood on to have confidence in the broad lines of the latest, fully-argued, and fully-documented reconstruction proposed by Renate Bo~.~~

The primary axis was again vertical: Herodes' family above (Greek), Antonine imperial family below (Roman). The imperial family in the lower register consisted of statues of Hadrian and Antoninus Pius, together with their wives and at least seven children, flanking a naked figure of Zeus. The emperors and the mature boys,

M. Aurelius and L. Verus, all wear cuirasses -this was the more forceful and senior costume. It signified the holder of imperium and marked the members of the imperial family as the executive branch and ultimate defenders of the Empire. Hadrian and Pius wear the grander cuirasses of a Roman infantry officer, while the boys have 'junior' equestrian cuirasses. In the upper register, statues of Herodes' family flanked a draped and so 'civilian' figure of Zeus, with the husbands, wives, and children arranged horizontally to parallel and shadow a 'corresponding' figure of the imperial family

98 R. Bol, Das Statuenprogramm des Herodes-Atticus Nymphaums (1984).


below. Again, there was a Greek and Roman cross-axis in the upper level. To one side of civilian Zeus stood Herodes and his father, the elder Atticus, to the other, his Roman wife Regilla and her father M. Appius Bradua. Most of the senior men in Herodes' family wear tne Roman toga, while the boys wear the himation of the junior gymnasium student. In the context of the monument then these togas were primarily civilian, and stood in opposition to the executive military cuirasses worn below.

One (headless) statue of a senior member of Herodes' family, however, wears prominently a Greek civilian tunic-and-himation suit (in the 'officiating' type, with right arm extended, holding a patera).99 This is hardly Regilla's Roman father or grandfather (both known to be present) and can really only be either Herodes or his father, both of whom of course were Greeks with the Roman citizenship. Of the father's and the son's statues, which should wear the toga, which the himation? The toga in such a context should doubtless be taken as the 'higher'-ranking costume, but would that go to Atticus senior or Herodes himself? Bol assumes that it is Herodes himself who wears the toga, and that is certainly a possibility.'00 Herodes would be highlighting his Roman and consular role. The alternative however seems to me as attractive and, on the analogy of the Philopappus monument, perhaps more likely. Philopappus, we saw, wears the civic himation, while his grandfather wears the toga. The same would suit Herodes' monument: the forebear secures the Roman citizenship and the toga, which the later (more cultivated and more 'Hellenic') generation can take for granted. Alternatively and more simply: the father is senior and wears the higher-ranking costume, while Herodes modestly wears the himation. It seems to me that with the himation Herodes wins both ways: he is modest, displays pietas to his father, and in the logic and context of the monument is able to juxtapose his Greek himation as being on an equal footing with the Roman togas of his father and his father-in-law. It is clear, as we saw earlier, from the abundant record of himation statues in the Greek cities of the second century that the Eastern elite thought it was really the himation that was the senior costumC. In this reconstruction, Herodes' self-representation within the monument as a whole would make a similar claim about the role of Greek cultural values within the best of empires as that made by the fa~ade of Celsus' heroon at Ephesus.

Precisely analogous balanced structures of Greek and Roman ideas then informed the design of three of the best preserved monuments of the period of the Second Sophistic, made up in each case of two registers but with different combinations of Greek and Roman signs and symbols, texts and statues. The 'Asiatic' columnar sarcophagi, a favoured burial format for the city 6lites of western Asia Minor in the second and early third centuries, provide in more compressed form similar well- preserved examples of complementary identities represented in the different registers of the same m~nument.'~' A new sarcophagus from Perge, for example, has a togate Roman figure in the main 'statuary' image reclining on the lid and a variety of Hellenic and cultural costumes and postures displa ed by the male and female members of his family figured in the niches on the chest.loY ~elsus' library-heroon remains remarkable in this context for its representation of Hellenic cultural values as the framework on which Roman political and military administration rested -an extraordinary visual assertion of Greek culture's essential and equal partnership in the Empire.

99 Bol, op. cit. (n. 98), 169-71, no. 35, pls 30-1. The grandfather, leaving one for Herodes or his father. On evidence and the possibilities for the following ques- the head wearinga priest's fillet, hypothetically associ- tion are best summarized in the very useful photo- ated by Bol, ibid., 165-9, with the fragmentary montage reconstruction, ibid., Beilage 4. togatus, no. 34, see further below, n. 150.

loo Bol, op. cit. (n. 98), 165, no. 33, pl. 26. This is one lo' H. Wiegartz, Kleinasiatische Saulensarkophage, of three headless togati (ibid., 164-7, nos 32-4, Ist.Forsch. 26 (1965). pls 24-8) to be attributed to the upper register of the lo2 Koch and Sichtermann, op. cit. (n. 66), 503-7, monument -two should be for Regilla's father and fig. 488.



I turn now in more detail to the sophisticated choices and well-defined constructions of identity presented in the best documented portrait heads of the period. The current view of portraits in this period sees a continuum between the bearded Antonine period- face and a more intellectual bearded appearance -a continuum between, for example, the Lampsacus and Olympieion busts (Pl. 111, 3 and 4). In this perspective, the images of Hadrian and Marcus Aurelius show intellectual emperors, that of Herodes a professional intellectual -all different parts of a single, intellectual-cultural spectrum. This interpretive formulation has in my opinion the wrong emphasis and brings to mind wrong implied meanings. The idea of 'intellectual' is overplayed, especially for the emperors, and in the private sphere too much is placed under its general heading. There is a wider range with rather different meanings and emphases. I would substitute in the same broad terms a range of fashionable, cultivated (Roman) images and a separate range of Hellenic identities.

Herodes At ticus

The portraits of the great Herodes are well-documented and a good example of the dangers of biographical interpretation (Pl. x).lo3 All here seems so straightforward and natural. We tend to look at the image of Herodes presented in the portraits (as he sought no doubt to present himself in real life) as a thinking classical orator and we see Philostratus' portrait of the brilliant sophist and display speaker, the great intellectual and teacher. But this public image was anything but a foregone conclusion. Herodes was a Roman senator and a consular, a Greek aristocrat, financier, city politician, and imposing benefactor.lo4 He might have chosen something quite different -for example, more 'intellectual', or much less so. But to ask 'how intellectual?' perhaps misses the main priority and basic resonance of his styled persona.

The single portrait type of Herodes is preserved in no less than nine surviving copies and versions (Pl. X) and is identified by one of these copies, a poorly preserved but inscribed herm copy from Corinth.lo5 The number of surviving portraits is more than for any other senior figure outside the imperial family, and is outstripped only by the portraits of Herodes' pupil (trophimos) P~l~deukion.'~~

The portrait is preserved in several examples as a bust, and it is clear that the portrait was designed as a programmatic whole with costume and posture an integral part of the image (Pl. X). Both its dress and posture are remarkable. The downturned head and lined brow, indicating a retiring modesty and thoughtfulness, are borrowed directly from the famous statue icon of Demosthenes, still standing in this period in the Athenian agora.''' The himation is worn with tunic (not alone, as an intellectual would) and is wrapped around the shoulder in a thick bundle that constrains both hands. This is not the usual public stance of the arm-sling himation, and indicates probably an even greater sense of restraint and discipline -it is truly a s~phrosyn~s

paradeigma (see n. 55): Herodes is not speaking or even waiting to speak, he will modestly wait to be asked. The head has short-cut hair lying flat on the head without styling and a full vigorous growth of beard and thick

Io3 Kephisia bust (PI. X, 1-2): Datsoule-Stavride, Museum', AntJ 69 (1989), 324-6 I am indebted to 50-1, inv. 4810, pls 50-3. Probalinthos bust (PI. X, Thorsten Opper, who is making a full study of the 3-4): de Kersauson, op. cit. (n. 23), no. 132. portraits of Herodes and of the members of his circle,

lo4 W. Ameling, Herodes Atticus, 2 vols (1983); for the current extant number of replicas.

J. Tobin, Herodes Attikos and the City of Athens: lo6 Richter, POG 111, 287; H. Meyer, 'Vibullius- Patronage and Conjict under the Antonines (1997). Polydeukion: Ein arch8ologisch-epigraphischer

lo5 Richter, POG 111, 286-7; F.S. Albertson, 'A bust Problemfall', AM IOO (1985), 393-404, at 398-9, lists of Lucius Verus in the Ashmolean Museum, and its twenty-three copies. artist', AJA 87 (1983), 153-63; S. Walker, 'A marble lo7 Richter, POG 11, 215-23, figs 1397-510. head of Herodes Atticus from Winchester City


overhanging moustaches -all parts of the late classical civic image. The hair and beard styles are those of a Lysias or Aeschines,lo8 but they evoke thereby not so much an intellectual as a city orator-politician and leader of the demos. In front view, the image has a sharp individuality helped by Roman portrait technique, while the profiles (Pl. X, I and 3) reveal more clearly the derivation from the normative image of the elder late classical Athenian polis citizen, seen for example, in the bearded heads of Attic grave reliefs.

In the context of local politics at Athens, then, Herodes' portrait presents an image of modest reserve, with the demeanour and style of a leader of the classical Athenian demos. In relation to the wider Antonine world and to Roman social and wolitical structures, it projects for Herodes a unitary and emphatic Hellenic identity. The portrait is therefore in this context not so much of a Greek intellectual, more simply of a Greek. It makes a clear choice, putting emphasis on one major aspect of Herodes' biography at the expense of all others (Roman consul, imperial tutor, civic benefactor).

The image draws all its important ideas from Greek portrait images of around 300

B.C. The beard and hair have nothing to do with those of the neatly styled Antonines (Pl. IV). It borrows from Rome only some elements of the new enlivening marble portrait technology which sharpens the individual and 'living' impact of the portrait, and it borrows only the techniques it needs -for example, for engraved eyes and hair textures. Elaborate metropolitan drilling is absent not out of some technical or stylistic choice, but simply because it was not required for the representation of this kind of hair and beard in marble. Other portraits without this modern technique -for example, the bust from Lampsacus in Copenhagen (Pl. 111, 3) -express the same image but look even more old fashioned. Other later portraits -for example, the very finely worked busts from Smyrna in Br~ssels'~~ combine the same image with a more thorough


application of metropolitan marble technique which tends automatically to give the image a more 'modern' air.

It is rare that we can compare the relations and tensions between a well-documented public image and a well-recorded public role so closely. Herodes might so easily have chosen, for example, the image of a Marcus Aurelius clone for a Roman audience or of a more hard-boiled benefactor style for his Greek audience (examples later). It requires some effort of historical reconstruction and imagination to recaDture the effect and novelty of Herodes' image in its time and context u
-it was not something obvious or predictable.

This Hellenic choice had become suddenlv verv ~o~ular

in the Greek East in the second century. We see the same image many times, mediated through different technical filters. Striking examples, beside those already cited from Smyrna and Lampsacus (Pl. III,3), are new portraits from the Balkans, from Styberra and Heracleia Lyncestis."O The essential meaning projected is that of Hellene and local polis patriot the ideas embodied in the termsphilopatris andphilopolit~s, so frequent in contemporary honorific texts. Such portraits represented a visual claim to be an old-style, co-operative demos politician, a claim that could be made more vivid by modern portrait technology.


Kosmetai and Others

In another body of documented material, the herm portraits of the Athenian kosmetai, we can see clearly within one coherent elite social group how little the range of public image choices was predetermined by a public role (Pl. IX)."' These portraits were set up by grateful classmates to the annual president of the Athenian gymnasium. He was the chairman of the gymnasium governors, a kind of Vice-Chancellor of Athens

'08 Lysias: Richter, POG 11, 207-8, figs 1340-5. I 13 (head from Herakleia Lyncestis), I 15-16 (two Aeschines: above, n. 54. himation busts from Styberra). Io9 IR 11, nos 116-17. 'I1 E. Lattanzi, I ritratti dei Cosmeti (1968). Anticki Portret zi Jzigoslaviji, op. cit. (n. 3), nos

80 R. R. R. SMITH

University. The portraits range in date through the second into the early third century, and vary more strikingly according to personal style than to date. They were all in the herm format, perhaps sufficient in itself in this context -like a himation -to announce Hellenic identity. They consist of a pillar with genitals, an identifying text, and a portrait head. There are some period-faces: men with loyal philokaisar portraits modelled in the manner of Trajan or Hadrian (Pl. IX, I)."* Others recall or even 'quote' the exemplary portrait icons ;f great orators and leaders of the good old days, such as Pericles and Aeschines. The portrait illustrated in P1. IX, 2, for example, seems to have been modelled directly on that of ~eschines."~

Other vortraits of kosmetai combine in endless varietv. like vrivate vortraits of the Greek ~asiin general, elements of metropolitan fashion (fb; exaAple, inAhairstyles) and of Greek identity (for example, beard and moustache forms). One, for example, combines a heaped mop of hair on top of the head, with a pronounced physiognomy, bushy moustache, and very long well-kempt beard, all treated with a sophisticated 'modern' technical palette of refined drill and chisel work (Pl. IX, 3)."4 The beard and hair are stvlish. but not artificiallv curled. while the form of the large moustache and the


large proportion of the whole portrait given over to beard and hair appear more 'Hellenic'.

The portrait of another kosmetes, identified by his inscription as one Chrysippos, wears a close, short-cropped receding hairstyle and a correspondingly short beard (Pl. IX, 4)."' Out of context, without the herm, the Athenian provenance, and the name, the portrait might have been thought 'Roman' and on conventional criteria and expectations would have been dated in the third century. It is in fact externally dated by its inscription to A.D. 14213, and given the well-documented context and herm format, the short hair and beard styles are better taken as 'athletic' or 'gymnasial'. This portrait illustrates the possibility of a quite wilful choice outside the main options current in a given period and how the meaning of familiar elernents of portrait language and personal style were relative to their context and expected audience.

Although it is often said that the herms of the Athenian kosmetai and other second- century eastern portraits quote Hellenistic intellectual types, all the elements of the pure Hellenistic philosopher image (hair, beard, concentration, himation only, seated, gestures of reflection or instruction) that were required to express the primary or unitary idea of a life devoted to thought are rarely encountered. The personal style of the philosopher had been something striking, novel, and particular in Athenian statuary and societv of the third centurv B.c.' The few heads of our veriod that seem ‘philosophical' lack bodies or b;sts, and might look different w6en fully contex- tualized."' It is very striking that there are no really philosophical or 'sophistic'-looking portrait statues surviving, but it is perhaps not difficult to explain.

Unlike the philosophers of Athens in the third century B.c., professional philo- sophers and sophists of the Antonine age were not of a social importance qua professional thinker regularlv to receive honorific vortrait statues that might have survived to us. Public honorific'statues of philosophers had been something u;usual even in Hellenistic Athens, and their original importance has been amplified for us by the subsequent revlication in marble of a relativelv few tvves for the decoration of Roman villas. The


sophists, orators, and intellectuals of the second century A.D. who received statues tend to be awarded them in their role as local aristocrats, benefactors, and politicians. And if they chose not to highlight the intellectual over the Hellenic, democratic, or metropolitan styles, that was merely an index of the widespread social contempt felt in the Roman period for the classic image of the shambling, bedraggled philosopher.118 Local

Lattanzi, op. cit. (n. I I I), no. 8. Fittschen, Lattanzi, op. cit. (n. I I I), no. 18. 'Ritratti maschili', 455, figs 8.1-2, sees a specific Lattanzi, op. cit. (n. I I I), no. 9. 'assimilation' to the main portralt type of Aelius Verus cf. von den Hoff, op. cit. (n. 42); Zanker, Mask, (ibid., fig. 8. 3-4). Imperial-style period-faces are rare ch. 3. among the surviving portraits of kosmetai after the For example, Zanker, Mask, 236-9, figs 128, 130, mid-second century. two portrait heads with a 'new Antisthenes' styling.

113 Lattanzi, op. cit. (n. I 11), nos 6 (Perikles-like) 118 Hahn, op. cit. (n. I), 33-45. and 22 (Aeschines-like).


aristocrats were prepared to be called 'philosopher', but were not interested in adopting its visual language as a public posture -there is a good example of such a philosophos with accompanying non-philosophical civic portrait image on the sarcophagus of one

M. Aurelius Kallimedes at ~~hrodisias."~

The statue of a long-haired sage from Gortyn is truly exceptional in this period, and without documentation for that reason hard to interpret. The statue comes from the agora at Gortyn in Crete and was therefore a public monument.'20 The standing figure wears the bare-chested himation without tunic and carries a knotted club of the itinerant philosopher. The portrait has a full neat long beard, and the long carefully combed hair of an old-time sage, such as Pythagoras or Homer (Hellenistic philosophers usually wore short hair). It could be a posthumous image of a long-dead sage of the remote or classical past (Herakleitos, a founding philosopher hero, has been the traditional hypothetical identification).12' But the portrait employs the pure modern Antonine portrait technique with eyes like those in fashion in the 160s. This would not be impossible for a long-dead posthumous figure, but as suitable for a contemporary. Zanker imagines Apollonius of Tyana thus (it would then still be a posthumous image),'22 or we could imagine a portrait of a contemporary figure in the manner of the Cynic sensation Peregrinus of Parion or the great Asclepian vates Alexander of Abunoteichos, both pilloried for their success by Lucian of Samosata. Like the statue, Peregrinus too carried a club in real life.'23 We should perhaps beware, however, of such a satisfying overlap between an image and our literary expectations. The statue remains an exception.

Dio of Prusa boasted of his long hair and the fine long hair of Apollonius of Tyana is noted by Philostratu~,~~~

but such hairstyles were unusual and find little or no echo in surviving marbles. Long hair in marble portraits has two very different forms and contexts. It can be the stylishly dishevelled, often swept-back, long hair worn by the princely Achillean swagger portraits of the gilded aristocratic Athenian youth, such as the fine bust from the theatre of Dionysos at Athens (Pl. 111, 2). These portraits, of which similar examples are also found in the West and which used generally to be designated portraits of 'barbarians', were collected recently as a group by Klaus Fittschen, who interpreted them as portraits of private youths imitating the image of Alexander the Great.I2* Paul Zanker sees better an allusion to the dvnamic image of


young long-haired heroes such as Achilles as seen on contemporary Roman sarcophagi.126 Alternatively, long hair can be that of priests. Some priests might indicate their office simply by wearing a crown -a much favoured attribute of the honorific statues of this period generally -while others might also grow the long hair of their divinity and turn their priesthood into a major part of their public image, indicating thereby perhaps long and deep religious commitment (Pl. VI, 2).12'

Vedius Antoninus (?)
In the portraits of another great figure, almost documented, from Ephesus, we can gauge the extent and limits of the 'intellectual' dimension within the Hellenic self-image of the eastern aristocracies. The man, we will see, was some kind of Ephesian Herodes.

119 MAMA VIII, 499; cf. Hahn, op. cit. (n. I), 125 K. Fittschen, "'Barbaren"-Kopfe. Zur Imitation

161-2. Alexanders d.Gr. in der mittleren Kaiserzeit', in The

lZ0 Richter, POG I, 80-1, figs 306-7, 310. Greek Renaissance, op. cit. (n. I), 108-13.

12' So Richter, ibid., following G. Lippold, and still 126 Zanker, Mask, 248-50.

K. Schefold, Die Bildnisse der antiken Dichter, Redner, 127 Dio 35.1 I; Lucian, Alexander 3; I I; 13. Good undDenker (rev. edn. 1997), 360, fig. 231. examples from Aphrodisias (here P1. VI, I), Athens, lz2Zanker, Mask, 264-6, fig. 143. and Cyrene: Datsoule-Stavride, 69-70, inv. 356, pl. 123 Lucian, Peregrinus, 36. 85; Poulsen 11, no. 157 (bought in Athens); Rosen- Iz4 Dio 12.15, 47.25; Philostratus, Life of Apollonius, baum, Cyrene, nos 69-70; Zanker, Mask, 262, fig.

1.32;with Zanker, Mask, 256-62. 142.

82 R. R. R. SMITH

A large himation statue from the East Baths at Ephesus steps forward in the impressive posture of a civic orator and officiating priest (Pl. XI, I-2).12* He has a longish-haired, long-bearded, and balding portrait of the mid-second century, and wears the crown of an imperial priest. There is a curious knot of hair over the forehead, and lank strands fall onto the brow in the manner of Aristotle's famous portrait. Because of the date and its fine 'intellectual' sophistic appearance, it was for long identified as the sophist Flavius Damianus, a figure well known from Philostratus. This identification was based on nothing other than the date and the biographical fallacy: the statue looks like a sophist, so should represent one. Damianus' civic career however is extremely well known from contemporary texts at Ephesus, and he was never an imperial priest.129

It has been demonstrated recently by Sheila Dillon that the portrait is an 'official' type, like those of Herodes, and is known in three different versions (one further head and another statue) and that the type represents probably one of the mid-second- century Vedii Antonini.130 This suits the inscribed context of the second statue, a himation figure in the standard arm-sling posture and without priestly crown, which comes from the bath-gymnasium complex built by P. Vedius Antoninus (Pl. XI, 3-4).131 The number of copies also shows that this portrait type must represent the leading magnate of his generation at Ephesus. It may therefore be one of the Vedius family top figures at Ephesus in the city's inscriptions during the second century and well connected at the Antonine court. Which precise Vedius this may be, does not really matter here. The family stemma in the relevant period is disputed.13' The point is that the subject is not a sophist, but a local notable who has chosen a sophistic-looking public image with thoughtful concerned brows, rather than something else -for example, that of a commanding Antonine general, readily available in the metropolitan and period- face register.


Anv intellectual effect of the portrait is offset bv obvious externals of the statues: standing, not sitting; himation with tunic; and the crown of an imperial priest -all signs of a public as opposed to an intellectual role. For Vedius as for Herodes, this posture could do two things: it could present the great man in his local context as the modest, civic-minded demos politician; and on a wider social stage, it could define a sharp identity as a Hellene that could be maintained even when such a figure was wearing a toga in his role as a Roman senator

~huat t6s was indeed some great international eastern notable who reached way beyond his local context has recently been demonstrated by the discovery of what seems to be a fourth version of his portrait type at the Peloponnesian villa at Loukou of none other than the great Herodes him~e1f.l~~

If this is correct, this man was indeed the Ephesian Herodes. The highly unusual top knot of hair over the brow was presumably some kind of ~ersonal aristocratic marker. rather like the idiosvncratic under-chin knot in the beard o'f the classical portrait of the great ~indar.'~~

It is very striking I think that two of the most powerful men of the Greek East in the mid-second century chose public images quite unrelated to either Hellenistic or contemporary power projection. They bypass completely the rich variety of contempor- ary metropolitan Roman styles; they avoid the thrusting drama and dynamic energy of Hellenistic leaders and thinkers; instead they reach back to even earlier styles which they enhance with contemporary technique.

lZ8 IR I, no. I5I ('Flavius Damianus'). 133 Lecture by the excavator of Loukou, Sp. Spyro- lZ9 He is PZR F 253. Epigraphic career outlined in poulos, London, Nov. 1996. ZEphesosVII. I, p. 90, and VIII. 2, p. 206. 134Pindar's portrait: R.R. R. Smith, 'Late Roman 130 S. Dillon, 'The portraits of a civic benefactor of philosopher portraits from Aphrodisias,' JRS 90 2nd-c. Ephesos', JRA 9 (1996), 261-74. (1990)) 12.7-55, at 132-5, no. I, pls VI-VII; J. Berge

131 IR I, no. 150. mann, 'Pindar: Das Bildnis eines konservativen

132 ZEphesosVII. I, pp. 88-9; Dillon, op. cit. (n. I~o), Dichters', AM 106 (1991), 157-89. 272-3, with lit. n. 41.



How different might the public image of Herodes and Vedius have been within the accepted limits of the styled self in the second century? What was the room for manoeuvre. what were the alternatives? The wortraits of Herodes and Vedius are situated aldng one axis, that of Hellenic identity: marked civic at one end, intellectual- philosophical at the other. There was also, I would argue, a Roman axis -less marked, more often mixed. more allusive and ambivalent because more sure of itself -but clear in its poles. At one end might be the cultivated philokaisares and their assiduous loyal imitation of imperial and metropolitan styles (Pls III,4; IX, I). At the other end should be located a group of elderly-looking portraits the extent of which has not really been noticed due to some basic doubts about the place and interpretation of individual pieces.

Two portraits from the home-towns of Herodes and Vedius may serve to introduce the phenomenon and its problems. An inscribed herm portrait from the Athenian agora of one Moiragenes, a leading figure (eponymos) of his Athenian tribe, has a hard, elder, clean-shaven portrait with pronounced neck cords and severe expression (Pl. XII, 1).13' The herm was dated in its main publication by its Trajanic style and appearance to early in Hadrian's reign because it also has drilled eyes, first introduced by metropolitan portrait workshops in Hadrian's reign. If however, as is likely, this Moiragenes is the same man as the Moiragenes named in a prytany list of the same tribe (Hippothontis), dated later in the second century, then the herm portrait would be of the same period as the portraits of Herodes and Vedius Ant0nin~s.l~~

Why should it not belong there? Because, according to another widely accepted dating criterion (beside drilled eyes), mature men after Hadrian wore a beard. Similarly a fine wreathed head from Ephesus, mentioned earlier, has emphatically drilled eyes and a hard, polished, clean-shaven mature face (Pl. 111, 1).13' Without any signs of period-style hair, it has been dated in the Constantinian period, the next time on these criteria that one might expect the combination of clean-shaven face and drilled eyes -Constantine wore flat, lank hair and reintroduced a regular civilian clean-shaven appearance after a century of stubbled beards. A maior re-wublication of the head has even identified it as Constantine himself. claiming the jewelled wreath (wrongly) as an imperial emblem.13* Such portraits in fact belong on good technical and contextual grounds in the middle of the second century.

Aside from self-fulfilling arguments about stylistic form, there are at root two distinct and incommensurable phenomena in play here. One, the marking of the eyes, concerns art and marble technology. The other, the wearing of a beard or a clean-shaven face. concerns real life. In chronolog.ica1 terms. the latter is evidentlv the more flexible.


Drilled pupils and engraved irises in portrait heads were, as mentioned earlier, a good new enlivening trick developed in metropolitan portrait workshops in the 130s. It caught on quickly and could be regularly deployed thereafter, from perhaps the I~OS,

in the best portrait workshops of the Empire. The surviving versions of the portrait types of the emperors and their wives from Hadrian and Sabina to Septimius Severus and Julia Domna provide the dates, both at Rome and around the Empire. A minority of the portraits of Hadrian and Antinous, which should belong for the most part before 138, uses the technique. It then comes into systematic use in the portraits of Antoninus Pius (138-I~o), which regularly have eyes with more lightly engraved irises and smaller drilled pupils than those that are certainly dated later. Once established, there is some clear and swift technical evolution from lighter to heavier, more emphatic eye- markings.'39

135 Agora I, no. 25. and 111. Evers, op. cit. (n. 29), does not give a figure 136 IGIIZ1809 (date: 'fin. s. I1 p.'). for the proportion of Hadrian's c. I 50 extant portraits 13' IR I, no. 185 and above, n. 4. that have engraved eyes. Fittschen, 'Ritratti maschili', 138 W.Oberleitner, 'Zwei spatantiken Kaiserkopfe 448, n. 10, estimates that of the portraits of Antinous, aus Ephesos', Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen which were for the most part probably made, it can be Sammlungen in Wien 69 (1973)~ 127-65, at 127-52. assumed, between 130 and 138, about half have the

139 These observations are best controlled in FZ I pupils and irises engraved.

84 R. R. R. SMITH Beards and shaving are a different matter. It is demonstrable that just as there were bearded men and bearded portraits before Hadrian (examples, Pls 111, 3; VIII, 3-4; below n. 182), so too there were people and portraits after A.D. I 17 that continued to present mature clean-shaven faces to the world. The primacy and power of the imperial image in the period-face model of understanding private portraits here comes under some strain. An emperor-driven period-face explanation of second-century beards not only somewhat misconstrues the cultural process that led to the beards of Herodes and Vedius, but is not quite right on the level of facts. But are these clean-shaven portraits not exceptions confirming a basically sound rule? Far from it. There are enough examples of these mid-second-century portraits of close-shaven elders with drilled eyes to show that we are dealing with a significant alternative choice, and one with a considerable geographical spread. Many of the pieces have been falsely dated, like the Moiragenes and the Ephesian portrait, either too early (in the early second century) or much too late (in the fourth century). They belong in the middle decades of the second century, say the 130s to the 160s and 170s, alongside the bearded period-faces and the bearded Hellenes we have looked at. and continue an unbroken tradition of the severe. elder, clean-shaven portraits found frequently in the first and early second centuries. The examples with drilled eyes merely show that this personal style continued into the Antonine ~eri0d.l~' Two statues from Aphrodisias, both once said to be Constantinian, show some range within the image type and provide some further context for it (Pls V, 3-4; XIII, I-2).14' Both were parts of grand civic statue displays in respectively the city's theatre and its bouleuterion -the two centres of demos politics, the assembly and council. They wear crowns of priestly office and the familiar Greek himation-and-tunic suits arranged and posed with right arm free in the grander 'Coan' or officiating type. And their scale, technique, context, and dress show clearly they represent two local Antonine aristocrats. The statue from the theatre has a harder, more severe-looking portrait (Pl. XIII, I), while the statue from the bouleuterion has a remarkable physiognomical adjustment of the type, with softer features and a near-smile (PI. XIII, 2). The patriarchal severity of the root type has here been modified in favour of benevolent philanthropia and the humane values prized by the culture of eastern euergetism in the Antonine age: concern, mildness, reasonableness, generosity of spirit (eunoia, praotcs, epieikeia, megalopsychia) . In the Greek East examples of the clean-shaven elder portrait style belonging to the mid-second century are found from Greece to the Levant (Pl. XII, 2)142 -for example, at Alexandria (Pl. XIV, 3),143 Aphrodisias (Pl. XIII, 1-2),'~~Athens (Pl. XII, I, 3-4),145 Cos (Pl. XIV, 2),146 Cotyaeum,14' Ephesus (Pl. 111, I),'~~ Olympia,150


140 There are perhaps some 30-40 examples extant. l* Above, nn. 52, 141. Some examples, mainly Western, have been well 145 Moiragenes (PI. XII, I): above, n. 135. Agora discussed by Fittschen, 'Ritratti maschili', 463-85, wreathed head (PI. XII, 4): Agora I, no. 43 ('ca. A.D. who sees nearly all of them as Hadrianic in date, 235-z45', by comparison with the portraits of placing them in the narrow time span, between the Maximinus Thrax). Copenhagen head (PI. XII, 3): introduction of engraved eyes, c. 130, and the death of Poulsen 11, no. 61 (second century). Hadrian in 138. But this does not accord well with the 146 R. Hinks, Greek and Roman Portrait Sculpture emphatic (later, post-140) rendering of the eyes on (2nd edn, 1976), 93, fig. 73 ('may be as late as the many of the examples; and the death of Hadrian in fourth century'). this context is probably a false terminus (these images j4' IR I, no. 257 ('Constantinian'). Note also the are not really concerned with or connected to anything small 'Constantinian' head in London from Cyrene: specifically 'Hadrianic'). For Fittschen's interpreta- Rosenbaum, Cyrene, no. 99 -perhaps recarved from tion of the phenomenon, below, n. 162. For Eastern a second-century head(?). examples, below, nn. 141-53. 148Above, nn. 4, I 37-8.

141 From the theatre (PI. XIII, I): IR 11, no. 194. 149 G. Bejor, Hierapolis 111:Le statue (1991), no. 20, From the bouleuterion (PI. XIII, 2): IR I, no. 239. pls 22-3. cf. Fittschen, 'Ritratti maschili', 467, 470. For their 150 Bo1, op. cit. (n. 98), 165-9, no. 34, fig. 73, pl. statues (PI. V, 3-4): above, n. 52. 29 -there attributed to a fragmentary togate statue

142 From the Levant, PI. XII, 2, a small herm portrait (cf. above, n. 100) and tentatively identified as with funerary inscription for one Rhoummas: M. Appius Bradua, grandfather of Herodes' wife

S. Walker, Memorials to the Roman Dead (1985), 61, Regilla. The head wears, however, a rolled fillet of a fig. 49 (before A.D. 150). kind that is most easily attested for Greek priests. Of

143 Fittschen, 'Ritratti maschili', 485, figs 27. 3-4; those whose statues are known from inscribed bases idem in Bouzek and Ondi-ejova, op. cit. (n. 14), 34-5, to have been present, it might then be more easily with lit. n. 28, pl. 10, figs I 1-12. attributed to Herodes' father, Ti. Claudius Atticus.

HONORIFIC PORTRAIT STATUES 85 Pompeiopolis (Pl. XIII, 4),151 Telrne~sos,'~~

Tralles (Pl. XIV, 1).ls3 They tend to have plain, flat, thinning or balding hairstyles that make them difficult to date precisely on normal hairstyle criteria. They display marked signs of age, such as neck cords and a hard, objective, realistic-looking style with pronounced naso-labial lines -all signs of the severe, old, 'Roman' self-image, that had remained alive all this time since the late Republic. It had been much favoured by Rome-friendly notables in the Greek East then and through the first century A.D (further below, nn. 178-9) and was still a favoured choice in the early second century -for example, in the important new portrait of a cropped-haired elderly citizen wearing a crown of priestly office from Ephesus to be dated in the early second century (Pl. XIII, 3).'54 In one purely formal perspective, in terms of pure linear descent, these portraits are heirs to the old 'Romanized' image styled very much in this manner, which had been favoured by some of Rome's client- rulers in the late Republic to express the 'Rome-friendly' quality embodied in the title philorhomaios that many of them adopted.'55 In the Antonine age, however, when such a crude title was no longer fashionable, their meaning was perhaps not so unvarnished.

One striking and fine example from the Greek East, the head in Boston reportedly from Tralles, combines a mature, clean-shaven face with a tightly curled high Antonine fashion hairstyle (Pl. XIV, 1).ls6 This portrait shows both that the style continues into the I 50s and 160s and that traditional and fashionable modern styles could be combined in the same image.

For the most part, however, the portraits of this style conspicuously avoid metropolitan fashions, and in this probably lies a way to their contemporary interpreta- tion. From their point of view, the men represented in these portraits will have nothing either of the new-fangled, artificially styled hair and beards of a Lucius Verus (Pl. IV, 3-4) or of the tendentious, old-style Hellenic posturing of the Herodes-Vedius axis (Pls X-XI). They are quintessentially conservative in that they have changed nothing in the externals of a city notable's public image from the days of the second century B.C. clean-shaven, mature, with unstyled plain hair. Whatever root meaning may still attach to this choice of continuing to shave while all others are trying on various beards, it remained -and this is a feature of the truly conservative styled self-image -an eminently deniable meaning ('shaving means nothing; it is what we have always done').

The clean-shaven image then is at one level a claim in a local Greek context to the old way of doing things of the last two centuries when portraits of this type abounded in the Greek East. This portrait type, it can be imagined, might perhaps have been favoured by some elder and long-lived men, born say in the later first century, who reached shaving age under Trajan and maintained the practice into and beyond the mid- century, as a matter of personal integrity. But of course it could also have been favoured by others for whom it was an attractive conservative posture. This additional

lS1 IR I, no. 282 (Tetrarchic); IR 11, pl. 273. I, head attested elsewhere -for example, on the early-joined to himation body; and esp. W. Frey, 'Das second-century togatus from Ostia (so-called 'Maxen- Bildnis eines Kaiserpriesters aus Pompeiopolis in tius'): B. Andreae, Art of Rome (1977), pl. 149; Kilikien', Ant.Welt 13.3 (1982)~ 27-39 (mid-third Goette,.op . cit. (n. 49), 49, pl. 19. 5. century). Frey's precise date of A.D. 235-54, carefully Is2 R. Ozgan, 'Ein spatantikes Portrat in Fethiye', in argued on external grounds from the historical inter- N. Ba~gelen and M. Lugal (eds), Festschrift fur Jale pretation of the large letters carved in relief on the Inan (1989), 291-3, pls 129-30 (Constantinian). front of the crown (GMAKB), may need to be Is3 M. B. Comstock and C. C. Vermeule, Sculpture reconsidered in the light of some features that seem to in Stone: Museum of Fine Arts, Boston (1976), no. 357; speak against it. The himation statue seems clearly of IR 11, no. 215 (late Hadrianic or early Antonine). the middle imperial period; the small imperial busts Discussed further below. on the crown are full-bearded, and therefore probably lS4 M. Aurenhammer in H. Thiir (ed.), '. . . und not of emperors after 212; and the light beard of the verschonerte die Stadt': Ein ephesischer Priester des portrait is simply picked into the smooth, clean-Kaiserkultes in seinem Umfeld (1997), 41-52. An shaven surface of the face -which together with the attractive hypothetical identification as Ti. Claudius drilled eyes belongs best in the middle or later second Aristion, the asiarch andprinceps Ephesiorum of Pliny, century. It might then need to be argued that the Letters 6.3I .3, is proposed later in the same volume: original statue was a clean-shaven portrait of the kind P. Scherrer, ibid., I 13-28. under discussion, of the mid-second century, with the lS5Evidence, mainly numismatic, for this group light beard added in the mid-third century. Such light collected by the present writer in Hellenistic Royal picking of beards into the faces of clean-shaven early Portraits (1988), ch. I 3, 'Romans and Their Friends'. and middle imperial-period portraits, carried out lS6Above, n. 153. later, in the third or early fourth centuries, is well-

86 R. R. R. SMITH
interpretation seems to be supported by the numbers of surviving portraits. The emphatic rendering of age that most examples share is striking, and brin s to mind things such as Plutarch's essav on the need for elder men in ~olitics.'~~

D and the contemporary importance in the Antonine cities of the Councils of the Gerousia -the House of Lords of the conservative Greek city constitution. Elders, like Romans, were thought to be a good brake on the excesses of democratic

At another level, the style retained a Roman significance that was both deniable and offset by its regular use in conjunction with the Greek himation suit. This aspect may well have remained attractive for some members of the local aristocracies who wanted to put on display, their dual identity -citizen of Athens or Aphrodisias and citizen of the Empire. The surviving full-length statues of the two Aphrodisias priests (Pl. V, 3-4) and the priest from Pompeiopolis (Pl. XIII, 4) combined old-fashioned philo-Roman portrait heads, with traditional Hellenic civilian statue costumes.159

This style was also deployed in the same period in the West, especially at Rome, as a traditional or conservative alternative to the new fashionable styles of the Antonine court and aristocracv. Some in Hadrian's circle combined shaving with fashionable

eror's hunting companions in ;he 2'such assome of the em -hairstyles

the Arch of Constantine in ~ome.' O Others deployed it in its harder, root form that

tondi built into

signified an emphatically Roman moral character and a sharply defined personal aristocratic identity. A classic example is the famous fat-faced bust of a Hadrianic aristocrat in Venice, the 'Pseudo-Vitellius', which displays a realist delight in unusual identifying physiognomical features (Pl. XIV, 4).161 For men of such a posture, the neat curls of Hadrian's hair and beard might have seemed rather nouveau and homogenizing.162

Ancient written sources stress the importance of personal image and appearance in antiquity as expressions of character, cultural orientation, and even political identity. Texts of our period talk ad nauseam, for example, of the philosopher's beard and of the beard of a Hellene -although unfortunately they never specify what kind of beard, except long, that they mean. In the present context, a passage of Dio of Prusa, in a speech about a visit he made to the city of Borysthenes (Olbia) on the north coast of the Black Sea is interesting. It has been cited recentlv bv Susan Walker and Paul Zanker as another good text ab&t beards, hair, and ~ellkne's -which indeed it is -and by Simon Swain for its surprising anti-Roman flav0~r.I~~

The passage has in fact multiple ~ointsof interest.

Dio has stopped at the city on his way to do anthropological research inland among the Getae, and has accepted an invitation from the Hellenically inclined citizens of Borysthenes to address them. They gather in front of the temple of Zeus where they normally hold meetings of their council. Dio continues as follows:

A philosopher would have been vastly pleased at the sight, because all were like the ancient Greeks described by Homer, long-haired and with flowing beards, and only one among them was clean-shaven, and he was reviled and hated by all. It was said he shaved not out of whim (all6s) but to curry favour with (kolakeu6n)the Romans and to show his friendship

lS7 Plutarch, An seni sit gerenda respublica? or Should Old Men take Part in Politics?- the answer, naturally, is affirmative; cf. Swain, op. cit. (n. I), 183-4.

lS8 J. H. Oliver, The Sacred Gerusia (1941)~ 50: 'The imperial government . . . gave spontaneously its sup- port to this institution wherein the membership .. . was drawn entirely from the aristocratic, conservative, heartily pro-Roman elements of the population.'

ls9 Above, nn. 52, I 5 I.

160 H. Bulle, 'Ein Jagddenkmal des Kaisers Hadrian', JdI 34 (1919)~ 144-72; A. Bonnano, Roman Relief Portraiture to Septimius Severus (1976), 93-106, pls 188-zoo; M. T. Boatwright, Hadrian and the City ofRome (1987), 190-zoz.

161 G. Traversari, Museo Archeologico di Venezia: i ritratti (1968), no. 43. 162 Fittschen, 'Ritratti maschili', 478, briefly evokes some kind of opposition to the Caesars as a possible

interpretation of this class of portraits in the West: '. . . una forma di opposizione contro il dominio imperiale, riccorrendo a modelli repubblicani (basta pensare a110 storico Tacito)'. In my opinion, this is unlikely, both as a possible goal of such images and because some of the figures who deploy this self- styling in the Hadrianic hunt tondi (above, n. 160) were demonstrably among the emperor's closest supporters.

163 S. Walker, 'Bearded men', Journal of the History of Collections 3.2 (1991), 265-77 = eadem, Greek and Roman Portraits (1995), ch. 8: 'Bearded and Beardless Men', at p. 88; Zanker, Mask, zzo; Swain, op. cit.

I), 83-5, 215-16. Most recently on this text:
Braund, 'The Black Sea region and Hellenism under the early empire', in Alcock, op. cit. (n. I), 126-31.

(philia)towards them. One could see in his case from the disgracefulness of this action, how thoroughly inappropriate this was for (sc. proper) men. (Dio 36.17)

So, flowing beards are Hellenic, and currying favour (with the Romans) is offensive behaviour. Two further and quite different points stand out remarkably clearly. (I) Political as well as cultural affiliation could be read directly from a man's personal appearance; and (2) a clean-shaven appearance could be taken as 'Roman', and in a Greek as a pro-Roman or 'philo-Roman' image. This is all the more remarkable because it was written in the Trajanic period (Dio's visit to Olbia should be dated to c. A.D. 98 or later), when a close-shaven personal style was the social norm not only for the Roman aristocracy but also for most of those members of the city Clites honoured in surviving portraits.

Ultimately this portrait mode was a minority choice and a dead-end both at Rome and in the Greek East. At Rome, most of the aristocracy fell into line when it was clear with Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius that in the corridors of imperial power the new-fashion curls and beards, first made popular by Hadrian's court, were there to stay. In the Greek East the close-shaven style was soon isolated. Its conservative claims were outflanked by the vigorous promotion of the much more ancient and therefore even more traditional/conservative image of the classical Hellene. The modest, neo-or pseudo-democratic posture of Herodes also no doubt played better in the council house and city assembly than the aloof severity of the clean-shaven image. The Roman claims of the clean-shaven style were also quickly outmanoeuvred by the more ambivalent, flexible, and cosmopolitan styles of the metropolitan period-face. Those claims were also perhaps too blunt (so, explicitly, Dio) and perhaps open to whispering criticism in polis circles of a lack of Hellenic zeal and patriotism. 'Friend to the Romans' was fine, but 'friend of the fatherland' (philopatris) was surely better.

'Friend to the emperor' (philokaisar), a part of the essential, unreflecting visual meaning of the loyal period-face, remained an easy third course. Addressing the emperor in his first oration On Kingship, Dio articulates this meaning for us explicitly: 'Whoever most closely imitates your style (tropos), . . . he would be your dearest comrade and friend' (I. 44). A fourth course, that of the Hellenistic intellectual philosophos might sometimes be claimed as a verbal epithet but was very rarely, we have seen, embraced wholeheartedly in portrait statues. Public portraits of mature male citizens in the Greek East therefore settled down in the later second century to endless combinations of older- looking 'Hellenic' and more modern-looking metropolitan styles, deployed usually in conjunction with one of the standard types of himation figure.


To locate the private honorific portrait styles of the Greek East in the second century in their proper setting, to see and understand their peculiarities, novelties, traditionalisms, we need finally to enlarge our field of vision somewhat, both chronolo- gically and geographically. This section looks at portrait styles more broadly, in the West and East, from the Late Republic to the Middle Empire, pulling together arguments made at various points earlier, and revisits in particular the question of Hadrian's image and the interpretation of the fashionably-styled metropolitan portraits contemporary with the images that we have examined.

Although there was a clear relationship or dialogue between the portrait traditions of Italy and the Greek East, they should first be looked at separately. The two traditions had their own internal dynamic and meanings. That is, the political and cultural ideas projected by these styled marble personas were aimed in the first instance at local audiences, and they need to be interpreted first in relation to the expectations of those audiences. The same personal styling can mean something quite different according to the context of its deployment. For example, some of the close-shaven elder portraits from the Greek East are, in formal and expressive terms, very close to portraits in the

88 R. R. R. SMITH

same mode and of the same period in Italy. But the image of a local eastern benefactor represented in this manner in the context of local Greek city politics (for example,

P1. XIII. > II , clearlv meant something rather different from the bust of a Hadrianic general or aristocrat represented in this manner at Rome (for example, P1. XIV, 4).

We may try first to isolate crudely the prevailing strands of private male portraits at Rome. The Roman aristocracv had vractised shaving since the third centurv B.c.. and



by the later second and first century B.C. had evolved more or less strident versions of the Hellenistic-style individual portrait that could go beyond its basic Hellenistic models to define a distinct Roman-looking identity. This 'republican' style came in a great range of different expressions, stylings, and physiognomical formulations, but in its harder, older, more severe versions clearly catered to a perceived need for a distinctive Roman olitical styling within the larger family of late Hellenistic self-representational styles.16'~bout the supporting statue types of such images at Rome, we are ill-informed, but togate, cuirassed, and nude Hellenistic-ruler-style statues are all attested.16'

Augustus' youthful, sub-classical portrait, a brilliant and radical departure from prevailing norms, was in the first instance very much his own style and that of his family. In imitation, many private citizens too soon preferred a plain, sub-classical style, characterized by expressionless demeanour, hair falling casually on the brow, and a stiff regularized physiognomical surface.'66 Individual-looking physiognomical details of noses, ears, chins, however, continued to set most of these images off immediately from the emperor's. Only portraits of youths tended to employ a more pure classical style, and they can be genuinely difficult to tell apart from those of young Augustan princes. The hard objective-looking manner continued through the Augustan period and the first century A.D., in use for a wide range of subjects, according to age and personal choice. Preferred suvvorts were now busts and toga statues. The stvle was often diluted


and made milder in expression.167 Pompeii and ~&ulaneum provide good documented examples of the full range of personal styles in early imperial private portraits from Augustan to 'republican', more fashionable to more traditional, younger to elder.''' The traditional, elder, short-haired, sometimes balding style, which had come to identify its users both as (apparent) individuals and as traditional moral Romans, was still available in its 'root' form, for example, for such diverse figures as Roman freedmen,169 Pompeian bankers and actors,'70 and emperors (for example, Galba and Vespasian)17' -though with rather different effects according to other variables, such as material, technique, format, posture, and quality-level. And this manner remained available to be deployed in numerous Trajanic and Hadrianic private portraits in the early second century.'72 We are dealing then with a continuum from the late Republic to the second century A.D. that can make 'pure' images in this manner (especially balding ones) very difficult to date on internal grounds until the datable changes in the technology of marble portraits in the

A.D. 130s. Many examples, however, include 'compromising' elements of broadly datable contemporary hairstyles.

Alongside these two Roman modes, Augustan and traditional, there emerged in the mid-first century A.D., from Nero's reign, a third, more fashionable, styled manner of

164 Smith, op. cit. (n. 155)~ 125-30; Giuliani, op. cit. 167 For example, in the portrait type of L. Calpurnius

10); cf. K. Fittschen, 'Pathossteigerung und Piso(?): ibid., no. I 52. Pathosdampfung: Bemerkungen zu griechischen und 168 A. de Franciscis, I1 ritratto romano a Pompeii romischen Portrats des 2. und I. Jahrhunderts (1951); P. Zanker, 'Das Bildnis des M. Holconius
Chr.', AA (1991), 253-70; P. Zanker, 'Individuum Rufus', AA (1981), 349-61; S. A. Muscettola, 'Nuove und Typus: Zur Bedeutung des realistischen Indi-letture borboniche: I Nonii Balbi e il Foro di Ercol- vidualportrats der spaten Republik', AA (1995)~ ano', Prospettiva 28 (1982), 2-16. 473-81 (an earlier version of the same paper was 169 Kockel, op. cit. (n. I I). published later in Roman Portraits, Artistic and Liter- 170 Banker, L. Caecilius Iucundus: De Franciscis, ary, op. cit. (n. I,+), 9-15). The participants in the op. cit. (n. 168), 31-4, figs 17-20. Actor, Norbanus debate about the contemporary political meaning of Sorex: ibid., 27-30, figs 14-15. the 'republican' portrait style have not yet quite l7I Galba: J. P. C. Kent, M. and A. Hirmer, Roman reached an agreed formulation. Coins (1978), nos 210-14. Vespasian: Bergmann and
165 Zanker, 'Zur Bildnisreprgsentation fiihrender Zanker, op. cit. (n. 32), 332-5. Manner', op. cit. (n. I I); Goette, op. cit. (n. 49), 20-8. 172 Many examples in Daltrop, op. cit. (n. 17); 166 Good selection: M. Hofter, 'Portrxt', in Kaiser Goette, op. cit. (n. 12); Fittschen, 'Ritratti maschili'. Augustus und die verlorene Republik (Exhib. Berlin, 1988)~291-343


self-presentation that was laid over the more handsome and regular physiognomical framework of the Julio-Claudian manner.'73 Curled hair, side-burns, and light curly beards were some of the new modish features. This styled manner naturally has a loud reception in the conservative and moralizing literary sources.'74 It is best known to us from the imperial images of Nero (later in his reign), Otho, and D~mitian,'~' but was clearly part of a wider choice at Rome among various social groups. Among documented images in this manner, we know of portraits of aristocrats (such as Nero), and members of middle social levels, such as soldiers, lictors, and charioteers -a significant number of which wear short beards.'76 Nero and Domitian gave this new kind of personal styling a bad name in imperial circles, but it is really as coming out of this strand in first-century Roman portraiture and in this perspective that we should understand the portrait images of Hadrian and the Antonines (PI. IV).

The Greek East had an e;en longer portrait history to draw on than that of Rome. But again seen in the wider context, the history of the styled self in the Greek East from the later Hellenistic to the early Imperial period shows strong levels of continuity, both in male and female self-representation. This is shown easily by the real difficulties (barely acknowledged by archaeologists) that are frequently encountered in dividing surviving marbles between the first centuries B.C. and A.D. -in terms both of the costumes and drapery styles of the statues and of the portrait styles of the head^."^ Those that show interest in the new Augustan and Julio-Claudian fashions can, of course, be dated in relation to those metropolitan fashions, sometimes closely especially female portraits that borrow precisely from Roman court hairstyles. But there remains a great quantity of marble portrait statuary that simply washes over the epochal date of 27 B.c., uninterested in contemporary Roman fashions or, rather, still very much more interested in its own traditional local priorities.

Among portraits of mature male citizens, there is a wide range of clean-shaven late Hellenistic-looking marble portrait heads, of which many take on in the first century

B.C. and under the Early Empire elements of western physiognomical severity and emphatic age. Typical images of this assimilationist Greek Clite can be seen, for example, in the series of public statues from first-century Cos, which deploy the familiar combination of severe elder western-style portraits with the traditional Hellenic himation-and-tunic suit.I7* It is out of this potent and long-lived strand in eastern self- styling that come the close-shaven elders of the mid-second century (Pls XII-XIV) which were discussed above (Section VI). This style had remained available in the East throughout the Early and Middle Empire. We have it, applied to varied physiognomies and mediated through different technical filters, in the middle and later first century, for example, at Aphrodisias and Athens'79 as well as Cos (n. 178), and in the early second century, for example, at Athens and Ephesus (Pl. XIII, 3),la0 before we reach our examples from the middle and later second century, which we can isolate chronologically with confidence simply because they have engraved eyes.

As in the second century, some portraits of women in the first-century East had continued in an ideal Hellenistic manner, while others adopted western hairstyles and/ or elements of a more individual-looking physiognomy. A classical head and face

173 Cain, op. cit. (n. 32), 58-78,81-104. period. The group may offer however not so much a 174 Cain, op. cit. (n. 32), 86-95. lesson in linear chronology as a conspectus of broadly 175 Nero and Otho: Kent and Hirmer, op. cit. contemporary, first-century portrait styles. Best illus-

I~I),nos 192-205, 216-17. Domitian: above, trations: E. Nash, Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient
32. Rome (1968), s.v. Hercules Cubans; cf. L. Nista (ed.),
176 Soldiers and lictors in Flavian and Trajanic Sacellum Herculis (1991). Other pre-Hadrianic, bear- reliefs: F. Magi, IRilievi Flavi (1965), pls 13, 17a, 19a ded portraits: Daltrop, op. cit. (n. 17), 60-3; Cain, op. (bearded); A. Bonnano, 'Imperial and private por- cit. (n. 32), 100-4, with list in n. 249. traiture: a case of non-dependence', in N. Bonacasa 177 Draped statues: A. Linfert, Kunstzentren hellenis- and G. Rizza (eds), Ritratto Uficiale e ritrattoprivato: tischer Zeit (1979). Portrait heads: G. Hafner, Spat-Atti della 11 Conferenza Internazionale sul ritratto hellenistische Bildnisplastik (I 954). Romano, 1984 (1988), 157-64; idem, op. cit. (n. 160), 17* Kabus-Preisshofen, nos 36-7,41-2. 52-94. Charioteers: A. Giuliano (ed.), Museo Nazion- Aphrodisias: IR 11, no. 181 ('Trajan'). Athens: ale Romano: Le sculture 1.9 (1987), R I I 5, R I 26-30, Datsoule-Stavride, 24-8, inv. 331, 3118, 4453, 353, R 193 -a group of busts and herms from the 437, 6-14. sanctuary of Hercules Cubans in Rome. R 193 is lsoAthens: Agora I, nos 18-19. Ephesus: Auren- bearded, and therefore usually dated in the Hadrianic hammer, op. cit. (n. 154).

90 R. R. R. SMITH
formulation was also in the first-centurv East the stvle of beardless vouth~.'~~

Their manner was combined with the more nuanced portrait technology of the second century to produce images like that of Antinous and the young togatus from Aphrodisias (Pl. VII, I), with their youthful portrait-like faces and thick casual 'portrait' hair.

Some mature citizens in the Greek East continued to wear traditional 'Hellenic' beards throughout the later Hellenistic and Early Imperial periods. We know this firstly from literary sources, chiefly in relation to philosophers, but it was surely not confined to them -this is an important further implication of the passage from Dio's Borysthenitic Oration (36.17, cited above) -and secondly from a few surviving portraits, not all or none of which need be professional intelle~tuals.'~~

Dio himself in the later first century certainly wore a beard (47.25). Against this background, it becomes remarkable how rarely a beard was worn in statue monuments and by the portrait-receiving class of the Greek East before the second century. A Hellenic-looking beard was clearly seen as a poor personal strategy in the political climate of the Early Empire. It was then out of this deeply attenuated Hellenic tradition that came, not Hadrian and the Antonines, but the bearded styles of, for example, Herodes and Vedius (Pls X-XI). They reached back over the prevailing clean-shaven late Hellenistic styles of the eastern cities to the heroic age of Demosthenes, to the pristine images of the demos leaders of the golden age of the independent Greek city, with their modest bearing, unstyled short hair, and full beards. The revival of this old Hellenic style had been made possible by quite independent changes in the self-image and beard-wearing practices of the Roman aristocracv in the Hadrianic and Antonine ~eriods.

The late classical bearded style, revitalized by contemporary technique, as seen in the portraits of Herodes and Vedius (Pls X-XI), and the close-shaven style of the 'philo- Roman' elders (Pls XII-XIV) were essentially two competing brands of conservatism. In the atmosphere of intensely patriotic inter-city rivalry that gripped the Greek cities of the second century, it is not surprising that the heightened patriotism of the traditional centuries-old image of the normative Athenian citizen defeated the more recent brand of conservative Dosture which derived visiblv too manv of its most effective signifying elements (age, severity, apparent physiognomical honesty) from a portrait language widely associated with Roman political culture.

It remains to ex~lore a little further the fashionable. contemDorarv end of the axis of cultural choice, ;hat is, the new metropolitan ~ntbnine stile, iis diffusion and meanings, from Hadrian to Marcus Aurelius (Pl. IV).

Seen against the background of contemporary aristocratic self-styling at Rome, one might argue that Hadrian and Marcus Aurelius are presented as neither (phil-)hellenic nor specifically intellectual. Both meanings were anyway perhaps beyond the range of likely meanings for a Roman emperor's public image -that is, from a Roman perspective these would still be pejorative features.Is3 Both portraits, we have seen, emerge visibly from the background of fashionable modes of self-styling at Rome.

The meaning. of Hadrian's and Marcus' beards is a auestion verv much of their broader contextsGnd the kinds of beard involved. It is not ;imply a qulstion of a beard or not a beard, of something with a unitary meaning. Both Hadrian and Marcus wear new-style curled hair, and Marcus' long beard is clearly styled, like the curls of his hairstyle, and can hardly be in its context a philosopher's beard. Hadrian's short beard looks more like that of a Pericles or an Aeschines, but its deployment in a portrait with an artificially styled metropolitan Roman hairstyle, in conjunction with Roman statue or bust types, would effectively close off any 'Hellenic' or philhellenic meaning. Hadrian wore a beard, according to the hostile literary sources, not because he was a graeculus

lS1 For example, Aphrodisias: K. T. Erim, 'Recent bearded portrait heads with hairstyles that could be work at Aphrodisias 1986-1988', in C. Roueche and dated anywhere between the later first and early

K.T. Erim (eds), Aphrodisias Papers I, JRA Suppl. I. second century). Delphi: P. de la Coste-Messelisre, (~ggo), 9-36, at 20, fig. 22. Athens: Datsoule-Delphi (1943), pls 195-7 ('Flamininus' head). Stavride, 49, 56-7, inv.,+zo, 2350, pls 47,, 62. Lampsacus: here, PI. 111, 3. Philopappus and Celsus:

Isz Adana: C.Bruns-Ozgan and R. Ozgan, 'Eine here, P1. VIII, 3-4. bronzene Bildnisstatue aus Kilikien', Antike Plastik Is3 cf. above n. 24 (Dio on not too much philosophy 23 (1994), 81-92, pls 37-43. Athens: Datsoule-for the good emperor). Stavride, 53-5, inv. 372, 342, 3985, pls 57-9 (three


but because he had a spotty complexion.184 A spotty face was perhaps a good insult, but hardly as effective in this context as being able to point to something obviously Hellenizing in someone's personal appearance. If Hadrian's beard had any kind of philhellenic resonance, it is perhaps surprising that the Historia Augusta chose to explain it by the perfectly legitimate desire to cover spots. That emperors had no interest in a philhellenic identity per se is easily demonstrated by their dress. It is simply the case that there are no imperial images on coins, statues, or busts that show an emperor wearing a Greek himation. The one, solitary, apparently sure exception, a himation statue from Cyrene, shows that everyone else knew it was thoroughly inappropriate.185 There are equally, I think, no sure surviving examples of contemporary imperial portraits in the gymnasial, educational, and Hellenic-flavoured format of the herm, although private portraits in this form are well known in the imperial period both in the West (for example, at Pompeii) and in the East (for example, Pls IX and XII, I-z).Is6

Viewed in context, Hadrian's and Marcus' portraits can be better seen as a metropolitan Roman affair. Their new styled hair and beards are better interpreted first against the traditions and ideals of the Roman aristocracy. Hadrian's portrait of course constituted a reformulation of imperial style the importance of which should not be diminished. It represented a radical departure from a plain, traditional, quasi-military image, seen in the portraits for example of Vespasian and Trajan, to a styled civilian image of urbane sophistication. The portrait emphasizes culture, elegance, and civilian care of the self. We see the formulation of a new civilian Roman identity, one of elegance that knows of paideia but is not defined by it. An artificially styled portrait manner, we saw, had been available since the Neronian period and some emperors had favoured it, but none of them were good models. Light beards had been an optional part of this style and in fairly widespread use at Rome from the later first century (above, n. 176). In this perspective, Hadrian's firm adoption of the fashionable but obviously manly beard might be seen as a way of offsetting the negative associations that many saw in the new curled hairstyles. Curling was obviously open to the charge of effeminacy in a way that a beard was not.

Against the background sketched above, we might briefly reconsider the phenom- enon of the period-face and the role that has been assigned to the imperial image as the creator and initiator of each new period-face. The emperor's image perhaps performed this role under the Early Empire, but in the second century it could be argued that the imperial image was much more closely embedded in the norms of high society at Rome and in fact emerged from fashionable aristocratic styles in the capital, from ideas shared by the Clite and by the emperor. Imperial styles might seem to us new and original to the emperor simply because it is only the emperor's portraits that are dated. This more 'consensual' imperial image could then be seen as playing the role of a multiplier in a wider social circle and in the provinces. Naturally we have less surviving from the narrow aristocratic circle in which these new personal styles evolved, much more of the widespread results of the multiplier's effect, which therefore seems more important to us. A clear and obvious example of this phenomenon in our own time is provided by the hairstyle of the late Diana Spencer. Her early pre-marriage hairstyle did not originate with her -a significant proportion of young women of her age and class in London had a similar hairstyle. But her public position, popularity, and exposure after her royal marriage, both in person and in images, ensured its effect as a multiplier for young women all around the United Kingdom.

The fashionable civilian elegance of Antonine portraits at Rome was a sophisticated expression of the refinement of character and speech brought by a thorough education in classical letters and good rhetoric. The same kinds of vocabulary can describe the sophistication of an Antonine gentleman's speech and his finely styled person -the

lS4 Hist.Aug., Hadrian 26. ls6 cf. H.Wrede, Die antike Herme (1988),71-8. lss Rosenbaum, Cyrene, no. 34

92 R. R. R. SMITH language of eloquentia and personal elegantia were closely related.18' In the provinces the style no doubt carried some reference to metropolitan Roman fashions and also to the emperor. And in the Greek East it effectively distinguished its users from obviously Hellenic stylings. But at Rome it was probably simply not the concern of the new style to state whether its sophisticated elaboration was due to cultivation by Greek or Latin letters -still less to identify the subject of a portrait in this manner as a Greek or a Roman. The stvle had a broadlv calculated ambivalence. Portraits kodelled more dr less closely after imperial portraits (such as Pls 111, 4 and IX, I) should then probably not have a unitary explanation -imitation of the emDeror. The urbane culture of which Antonine ort traits at Rome are so often an expression was not of the emperor's creation but soAething simply in which he shared. The Antonine period-face need not then automatically be referred to the emperor rather than to shared norms of civilian elegance. Some such images were doubtless modelled on those of the emperor with the intent of demonstrating loyalty (cf. Dio 1.44, quoted above); others were doubtless the result of natural infection carried over by sculptors more used to carving imperial portraits; and for others the borrowing of the forms of the imperial image may have been the easiest way of achieving the effect of a cultivated appearance. In other words the period-face may often have been simply a means to a desired end that was rather different from that envisaged by the 'imitation of the emperor' model of explanation. Without good documentation, it is of course very difficult to tell in any given case which of these overlapping aims and circumstances should be given priority.


The variety and range of Roman private portraits in the second century cannot adequately be accounted for on prevailing models of linear development and the workings of the imperial period-face. On this model the visible range of private portraits that goes beyond the period-face can only be described and anal sed in negative terms, in terms of their non-conformity to prevailing imperial styles.' 2' It is better to look at them more positively for the roles and identities they seek to portray beside the imperial image. Distinct concurrent strands of self-representation can be isolated in documented examples. We have looked in detail at some: fashionable metropolitan (Pls 111, 4; IV), Hellenic (Pls 111, 3; X-XI), conservative Roman (Pl. XIV, 4), and conservative 'philo- Roman' (Pls XII-XIII). And we have glanced at others: traditional and fashionable women (Pl. VI, 2 and 4), heroically-styled Achillean youths (Pl. 111, z), and long-haired Hellenic priests (Pl. VI, I). The main point is that these images are to be explained in terms not of chronology or biography but of cultural choices. The portraits cannot be fitted on any single line of formal development, nor were they concerned with a one-to- one representation of the subject's role in life. Rather they deploy a received and recognizable statue and portrait language to make and project plausible-looking statements about selected social, cultural, and political aspirations.

Ancient statues projected a range of social and political identities that can be read with profit by the historian of ancient culture. Elements of real-life self-presentation clothes, hairstyles, postures, attributes -could be combined in a large number of ways and heightened by the varied techniques of the portrait sculptor's art. The statues, their inscribed bases, their portrait heads, and their architectural settings were all parts of quite complex statements, with a vocabulary and grammar to be read. The language of

ls7 A theme in the correspondence of Fronto -for verbal sketches of the appearance and characters of example, Ad Amicos 1.4 (Loeb, pp. 288-9), a letter of the Antonine emperors given by the Historia Augusta: recommendation for Julius Aquilinus; cf. E. Cham-see Hadrian 26; Aelius 5; Pius 2; Verus 10. plin, Fronto and Antonine Rome (1980), 33-4 The lss 'Non-dependence': Bonnano, op. cit. (n. I76). language of humanitas, civilitas, and eloquentia, and 'Questo fenomeno della non-imitazione': Fittschen, their visual expression in personal elegantia and cura 'Ritratti maschili', 478. capillorum is boiled down to essentials in the brief

these monuments was understood unconsciously by an ancient viewer brought up amongst them. For the modern viewer some reconstructive interpretation is required, setting each portrait in its local context and within the tradition of images that surrounded it.

Lincoln College, Oxford

  • Recommend Us