Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T15:41:30.714Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Veneration of Heroes in the Roman Army: The Evidence of Engraved Gemstones*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 November 2011

Martin Henig
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Religious beliefs current in the Imperial army are attested by numerous inscriptions. The Roman soldier was probably no more superstitious than his civilian counterpart but the dangers to which he was exposed rendered him in especial need of divine assistance, and so, in Britain at any rate, a large percentage of the extant dedications to gods and goddesses were erected by men from the legions or the auxiliaries. Other related aspects of military thought have received less attention however. Particularly worthy of examination in this connection is the attitude of the officer class within the army to the great heroes of the past. Even the slightest knowledge of Ancient epic must have been enough to ensure that the officers in both legions and auxiliaries (and almost certainly other ranks in the legions, as well) were acquainted with such events as the Trojan War and the foundation of Rome. It would have been natural for these men to have seen themselves as the inheritors of a glorious tradition established by heroes who had overcome all difficulties.

Type
Articles
Information
Britannia , Volume 1 , November 1970 , pp. 249 - 265
Copyright
Copyright © Martin Henig 1970. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Richter, G. M. A.: Catalogue of Engraved Gems, Greek, Etruscan and Roman, in the Metropolitan Museum, New York. (Rome 1956), xx–xxi.Google Scholar

2 Furtwängler, A.: Masterpieces of Greek Sculpture (Trans. Sellers, E. 1895; revised edition Chicago 1964), 227.Google Scholar

3 Plutarch, : Theseus, iii, 4; vi, 3.Google Scholar

4 Babelon, E.: Collection Pauvert de la Chapelle, intailles et cameés donnés au département des médailles et antiques de la Bibliothèque Nationale (Paris 1899Google Scholar), No. 100 = Vollenweider, M. L.: Die Steinschneidekunst und ihre Künstler in Spätrepublikanischer und Augusteischer zeit (Baden-Baden 1966), pl. 1, no. 4.Google Scholar

5 Babelon, op. cit., pl. vii, No. 98; and a Cornelian in Leningrad, Vollenweider, op. cit., pl. xl, nos. 3 and 5. Also note a terracotta plaque in the British Museum, Walters, H. B.: Catalogue of the Terracottas in the British Museum (London 1903), 398, no. D594 and pl. xxxix.Google Scholar

6 Guildhall Museum, Acc. no. 21568, unpublished. See our pl. xxiii a, b.

7 On coin evidence cf. Merrifield, R. in Antiq. Journ., xlii (1962), 38CrossRefGoogle Scholar ff. Weapons: Merrifield, , The Roman City of London (London 1965), 35Google Scholar, pl. xcix (dagger) and Webster, G., Arch. Journ., cxv (1958), 84Google Scholar ff. Votive Material: Jenkins, F., Arch. Cant., lxxii (1958), 72. Nos. 30–32 and 36 are from Walbrook as are, in all probability, many other London finds. A number of miscellaneous objects in the Guildhall Museum, London, should be noted, including a miniature wheel (Acc. No. 19483); phallic charms (Acc. Nos. 19031; 20770); and a sheet-bronze ornament representing the zodiacal sign Pisces (Acc. no. 19070).Google Scholar

8 Corbridge, site museum. Charlesworth, D., Arch. Ael.4, xxxix (1961) 1 ff, 29 no. 74 and pl. v, 5. See our pl. xxiii b, xxvii d.Google Scholar

9 Cf. Henkel, F.: Die Römischen Fingerringe der Rheinlande (Berlin 1913), no. 1498: an iron ring said to be of the first cent. A.D.Google Scholar

10 Henning, R.: Denkmäler der Elsässischen Altertums-Sammlung zu Strassburg (Strassburg 1912), pl. xxxiiiGoogle Scholar, 23 (Red stone); B.J., vii (1845), pp. 1–11Google Scholar, nos. 4 and 5 = Henkel, op. cit., no. 2169 (Onyx, Trier); Chiesa, G. Sena: Gemme del Museo Nazionale di Aquileia (Aquileia 1966), nos. 720–21 (Nicolo) and 722 (red Jasper). Babelon, op. cit., nos. 99 (Amethyst) and 100 (Cornelian) are from Rome. There is a small Nicolo probably from Vechten in the collection of the Provinciaal Utrechtsch Genootschap at Utrecht no. 70.Google Scholar

11 Furtwängler, A.: Beschreibung der Geschnittenen Steine im Antiquarium (Berlin 1896)Google Scholar, No. 8481, red Jasper; Beazley, J., The Lewes House Collection of Ancient Gems (Oxford 1920)Google Scholar, no. 107 (Sard) and 123 (Nicolo). Walters, H. B.: Catalogue of the Engraved Gems and Cameos, Greek Etruscan and Roman in the British Museum (London 1926Google Scholar), nos. 1909; 1909 and 1910, Nicolo. Fortnum Collection, Ashmolean Museum, no. 158 is a Nicolo in a gold ring of first to second-cent, date bought in Milan: also Ashmolean Museum 1941.327 (Cornelian). Guilhou Ring Sale (Sotheby; London 1937) Catalogue, pl. vii, no. 168.

12 Vollenweider, op. cit., passim. I cannot find the motif on gems which are certainly earlier than the second half of the first cent. B.C.

13 Ibid. 52. An allusion to Octavian's adoption by Julius Caesar may be intended.

14 Ibid., 42, pl. xxxvi, no. 2 and Siviero Gli Ori e le Ambre del Museo Nazionale di Napoli (Florence 1954) 91, no. 378, pl. 225 a and b = Vollenweider, op. cit., 47 ff., pl. xlvii nos. 1, 2 and 7.Google Scholar

15 E.g. Walters, op. cit., no. 1448 (Venus); Henkel, op. cit., nos. 1454 and 1488; Chiesa, op. cit., nos. 236–40 (Mars). Fossing, P., The Thorvaldsen Museum, Catalogue of Antique Engraved Gems andCameos (Copenhagen 1929Google Scholar), no. 1754 (Ajax); and Xanten, P. Steiner, Sammlung des Niederrheinischen Altertums-Vereins (Frankfurt a. m. 1911) nos. 119–22 (Achilles).Google Scholar

16 Even the young Mars is shown as a powerful striding figure, cf. Chiesa, op. cit., pl. xii, nos. 221–33.

17 But note Etruscan gems showing the suicide of Ajax. Richter, G. M. A.: Engraved Gems of the Greeks and the Etruscans (London 1968), 201, nos. 812–14.Google Scholar

18 Achilleid, II. 207 ff. See Daremberg—Saglio: Dictionnaire des Antiquitis Grecques et Remains I (Paris 1877), 27 for further references.Google Scholar

19 Iliad, xviii (trans. Lang, A., Leaf, W. and Myers, E. (London 1909)), 397.Google Scholar

20 Philostratus, ii, 7.

21 N.H., xxxiv, x.

22 Furtwängler, op. cit. (1895), 233, note 7.

23 Ovid, Heroides, iii; Amores, i, ix, 33; Philostratus, Imag., ii, 2 and 7; Fronto (Loeb ed.),i, 167; ii, 199; Heliodorus, Aethiop., ii, xxxiv; S.H.A. Severus Alexander, xxi, 4. Cf. Lucan, vi, 350; Seneca De Beneficiis, iv, xxvii, 2.

24 Vollenweider, op. cit., 61 f., pl. lxiii, nos. 1, 3,4.

25 J. Chester and N. Wales A. Arch, and Hist. Soc, xli (1954) 35; fig. 12, 1. It has so far proved impossible to locate the intaglio either at the Grosvenor Museum or elsewhere. The description is of the impression shown in our pl. XXIII d, rather than of the original gemGoogle Scholar

26 Thompson, F. H., Roman Cheshire (Chester 1965), 15–16. The suggestion is that ‘it served as a staging-point for goods being sent from the works-depot at Holt to Chester’.Google Scholar

27 Luton Museum, Acc. No. 95/49. Unpublished: originally identified as Apollo in museum register. See pl. xxiv, a, b.

28 Henkel, op. cit., nos. 410, 411. Perry, R. (in Geschnittene Steine der Antike (Basel 1968), 51 and 65, no. 162) dates a silver ring of identical type to the late first or early second cent.Google Scholar

29 For policing duties in the army: Webster, G., The Roman Imperial Army (London 1969), 261 ff. See R.I.B., 88 (Winchester) and 235 (Dorchester, Oxon) for beneficiarii consulates, and 233 (Irchester) for a strator.Google Scholar

30 Legionary Museum, found in the Broadway: cf.Lee, J. E., Isea Silurum; or an illustrated Catalogue of the Museum of Antiquities at Caerleon (London 1862), 69 and pl. xxxv, 13–14.Google Scholar

31 Henkel, op. cit., 420, 421. It is broader than the other one which is little different from first-cent, (gold) rings from Pompeii, except that it is flatter in section. Cf. R. Siviero, op. cit., e.g. nos. 375 and 434.

32 Site Museum. Charlesworth, op. cit., 29, no. 69 and pl. v, 3.

33 Henkel, op. cit., 166 (gold) and 118 (bronze), both said to be of the first cent.

34 On rock crystal ring. Petrikovits, H. von, Das Römische Rheinland (Cologne 1960), 133Google Scholar–34, pl. xvi, I (for technique, cf. Röder, J. in B. J., 165 (1965), 235Google Scholar ff. and fig. 2) described as Mars, from Neuss. Steiner., op. cit., nos. 119, 121–22 (red Jasper); 120 (Nicolo) from Xanten. Henkel, op. cit., no. 1454 (Cornelian in first-cent, iron ring) and 1488 (Nicolo in first-cent, iron ring) from Vechten. Chiesa, op. cit., nos. 236 (Cornelian); 237 (Nicolo); 238 (Jasper); 239 (Cornelian); 240 (red Jasper) from Aquileia. Carducci, C.: Ori e Argenti dell' Italia Antica (Milan 1962), pl. page 61 (Nicolo? re-used in fourth-cent, gold ring) from Emilia.Google Scholar

35 Gori, A. F., Museum Florentinum II (Florence 1731), 64Google Scholar, no. 2; 66, no. 3; 68, no. 4 = Reinach, S.: Pierres Graées (Paris 1895), pl. lxiii–lxiv (all Onyx)Google Scholar; Walters, op. cit., no. 1448 (red Jasper); Fossing, op. cit., no. 1754 (Cornelian); Ridder, De : Collection de clercq, vii (Paris 1911), no. 3129 (Nicolo).Google Scholar

36 The spear and sword are carried by each of the Dioscuri, the heavenly guardians of Rome, on gems from Britain: note one from Silchester in the Duke of Wellington's Collection in Reading Museum, Acc. No. 03002 and another from Pentre, Rhondda, in the Nat. Museum of Wales, Cardiff, Acc. No. 55.83 and Art in Wales (Arts Council, 1964), no. 24 : cf our pl. xxvn c. Both a spear and a sword are carried by Mars on a number of gem stones, e.g. Smith, C. R.. Antiquities of Richborough, Reculver and Lympne (London 1850), 89, no. 3 (Richborough).Google Scholar

37 Cf. Toynbee, J. M. C., Art in Roman Britain (London 1962), 157–58, Cat. 82; pl. lxxxvii.Google Scholar

38 Alföldi, A., American J. Arch., lxiii (1959), 26 and pl. x, fig. 19.Google Scholar

39 Boon, G. C., Isca, the Roman Legionary Fortress at Caerleon, Monmouthshire (Cardiff 1962)) pl. ix b and esp. Art in Wales, 34, no. 22.Google Scholar

40 Boon, G. C., Roman Silchester (London 1957), in, fig. 16, no. 5.Google Scholar

41 E.g. R.I.B. 341 (Caerleon); 1501 (from Hadrian's Wall at Halkridge near Chesters).

42 Dobson, B.—Domaszewski, A. von, Die Rangordnung des Römischen Heeres (Cologne 1967), 110; 137–39; 184.Google Scholar

43 Gonzenbach, V. von, Helvetia Antiqua, Festschrift Emil Vogt (Zurich 1966), 183Google Scholar ff. and Toynbee, J. M. C., Art in Britain under the Romans (Oxford 1964), 299 and pl. lxix b.Google Scholar

44 Beazley, op. cit., 90.

45 Our evidence comes from inscriptions left by the commandants of Auxiliary Units, e.g. R.I.B., 1041 and 1042 (hunting), 1212 and 1272 (building activities). Another tribune dedicated an altar to Fortune the Homebringer (R.I.B., 812), in which we may discern a desire for the end of military service.

46 R.I.B., 946; 1142. The most obvious case of promotion, R.I.B., 1329, concerns a praefectus equitum who had been adlected into the senate and given quaestorian rank. Whether this was through merit or influence remains unknown.

47 Tacitus, Agricola, 4.

48 Ibid., ch. 5.

49 I am very grateful to Dr. G. Webster for permission to mention this in advance of publication.

50 Proc. Dorset Nat. Hist, and Arch. Soc, I (1929), 88Google Scholar, and especially M. Henig in ibid., xcii (1971).

51 Unpublished. I am grateful to Professor S. S. Frere for giving me access to this intaglio; a detailed account of it is in preparation. See pl. XXVII, a, b.

52 Unpublished. Information from Dr. W. H. Manning. Report in preparation.

53 Cf. Hand-book to the Antiquities… in the Museum of the Yorkshire Philosophical Society (8th edn. 1891), 124. The cemetery dates from the first and second cent. For a military tornbstone from the area, cf. R.I.B., 671.

54 R. E. M. Wheeler, The Roman Fort near Brecon, 121, fig. 64, No. 2. Fort founded c. A.D. 75. Intaglio found with early second-cent, pottery. Cf. Footnote 45 above on Homesickness.

55 Brailsford, J. W., Hod Hill, i, 20Google Scholar and pl. xiv a, M.6. On the occupation of the fort, Richmond, I. A.Hod Hill, ii, 117 ff. It seems to be confined to the years A.D. 43–51.Google Scholar

56 Unpublished: in Llandrindod Wells Museum. Castell Collen was a Flavian foundation. For the most recent evidence, cf. Alcock, L.in Arch. Cambr., cxiii (1964), 64 ff. and especially 81–82.Google Scholar

57 Sussex Arch. Coll., lxxix (1938), 31 and fig. 21, No. 11. The building was assigned to the early Flavian period, and the building technique and the use of Opus Sectile is highly reminiscent of the Fishbourne palace.Google Scholar

58 For context cf. Proc. Soc. Ant.2, xxi, 153. Th e Gladius with which it was associated is suggestive of an early date. The gem will be fully discussed in Proc. Dorset Nat. Hist, and Arch. Soc, xcii (1971).Google Scholar

59 Unpublished: in site museum.

60 Wheeler, R. E. M., London in Roman Times (London 1930), 100 and fig. 30, No. 16. The iron ring in which the paste is set is of early type.Google Scholar

61 Archaeologia, v (1779), 71 and pl. i. The ring is of third-cent, date. A very poor rendering of the same subject is preserved on a paste from Verulamium set in a third-cent, bronze ring: it is difficult to attribute this to a soldier, or indeed to anyone more exalted than a peasant.Google Scholar

62 Or possibly Omphale, Art in Wales, 36–37, No. 29 (plate), and Proc. Cambridge Antiq. Soc., v (1884), 233. See our pl. xxiv f.Google Scholar

63 Niessen, C. A., Beschreibung Römischer Altertümer Sammlung Niessen Köln (Cologne 1911), 280 and pl. cxxxviii, no. 5386.Google Scholar

64 Marshall, F. H., Catalogue of the Finger Rings Greek, Etruscan and Roman in the Departments of Antiquities, British Museum (London 1907; reprinted 1968), No. 1186 (Colchester); Charlesworth, op. cit., 28, no. 62 and pl. iii, 12 (Corbridge); and unpublished, in site museum (Caerleon).Google Scholar

65 The complete identification of Emperor and god was always avoided even by such emperors as Domitian and Elagabalus who had close associations with particular deities. Hercules, so convenient to Commodus for his somewhat ambiguous status, was invoked by later third-cent, emperors, cf. Grant, M., The Climax of Rome (London 1968), 170.Google Scholar

66 Unpublished: information from Professor S. S. Frere.

67 Walters, op., cit. no. 1864.

68 In Castle Museum, unpublished.

69 In Castle Museum, unpublished (Acc. No. 1091. 1929).

70 Marshall, op. cit., no. 571 and pl. xvi; Drake, F., Eboracum (London 1736), 62 and pl. viii, 16.Google Scholar

71 Menzel, H., Die RömischenBronzen aus Deutschland, I (Mainz 1960), 52Google Scholar, no. 90 and pl. lvi (lock-plate); also mosaics in Britain from Lullingstone, Frampton and Hinton St. Mary; cf. Brandenburg, H. in Römische Quartalschrift für christliche Altertumskunde und Kirchengeschichte, lxiii (1968) 49–86 for the view that Bellerophon represents the ideal hunter.Google Scholar

72 Victory: The ‘Civil’ pieces include five pastes showing the goddess standing on a globe which make up a distinct group. They probably signify no more than local pride in the achievements of a vast empire and need not refer to specific campaigns. A fine Cornelian inscribed Rubrius Carinus Orientalis (perhaps an administrator) and another Cornelian from Lullingstone villa (possibly the house of a civil servant) further reduce the surprising gulf between the occurrence of Victory in the Forts and in the towns.

73 On this cf. MacMullen, R., Soldier and Civilian in the Later Roman Empire (Harvard 1963).Google Scholar

74 On Bath cf. Cunliffe, B. W., Roman Bath (1969) (Society of Antiquaries Research Report xxiv), 71–88. No published account of the Silchester gems exists, but there is a MS. Catalogue by G. C. Boon kept with the bulk of the Collection from the site (Duke of Wellington's Collection) in Reading Museum.Google Scholar

75 Gonzenbach, Von, Zeitschrift für Schweizerische Archaeologie und Kunstgeschichte, xiii (1952), 69, no. 13 (Diomedes); 70, no. 18 (Cheiron and Achilles). Both illustrated on pl. xxvii and xxix.Google Scholar

76 Steiger, R.: Antike Kunst, ix (1966), no. 11, and pl. viii, no. 10 (Othryadas). Nos. 21, 22, 23 (pl. 9, nos. 20, 22, 23) also show mythological scenes.Google Scholar

77 Henkel, op.cit., 21, no. 126 and pl. lxxvi, no. 184.

78 Steiner, op. cit. 130, nos. 129 and 130 (pl.xiv); 141, no.33; 143, no. 58 (pl.xv).

79 Henkel, op. cit., 136, no. 1474 and pl. lxxvi, no. 179.

80 H. Dannheimer and R. Fink, Fundort in Bayern (1968), 132–33.

81 Chiesa, op. cit., 39–40 and nos. 702 ff.

82 Table in Webster, op. cit., 108.

83 Vollenweider, op. cit. In a few cases the provenance is known but the high regard in which late gems were held, until the rediscovery of Archaic art in modern times changed the fashion, has made the problem more than usually difficult. Gems travelled considerable distances, and were included in medieval reliquaries. I believe it highly probable that many of the best surviving gems have never been lost but have been valued and cared for since antiquity.

84 Petrikovits, H. von in the Egger Festschrift, Band I (1952), pp. 126 ff.Google Scholar

85 British Isles: Toynbee, op. cit. (1964), 290 ff; Holland : cf. Numaga, xiii, Nr. 4 (1966), 187Google Scholar ff; Germany: cf. especially Keim, J. and Klimbach, H., Der Römische Schatzfund von Straubing (Munich 1951).Google Scholar

86 Keim and Klimbach, op. cit., Masks 5–7.

87 Cf. Pauly-Wissowa, , R.E., xiii (Stuttgart 1927), cols. 2059–67.Google Scholar

88 Toynbee, op. cit. (1962), 159–60, cat. 86, pl. lxxxviii.

89 Arrian, Tactica, 34. For a discussion of Cavalry manoeuvres, cf. Davies, R. W. in Arch. Journ., cxxv (1968), 73 ff.Google Scholar

90 Ed. Rostovtzeff, M. I., Bellinger, A. R., Hopkins, C. and Welles, C. B., Preliminary Report of Sixth Season of Work 1932–3 (New Haven 1936), 456–66Google Scholar and frontispiece; pls. xxv and xxv a; ed. Rostovtzeff, M. I., Brown, F. E. and Welles, C. B., Preliminary Report of Seventh and Eighth seasons of work 1933–34, 1934–35. (New Haven 1939), 326–69.Google Scholar

91 Capture of Troy (Shield 1), 331-49, pl. xli–xlii; Amazonomachy (Shield 2), 349–63, pl. xliv–xlv.

92 Römer am Rhein (Cologne 1967), 194–95 and Baatz, D in Germania, xlvi (1968), 40 ff., esp. 45–46.Google Scholar

93 Smith, D. J. in Bull. B. of Celtic Studies, xviii (1960), 304–10.Google Scholar

94 As suggested on ibid., p. 307.

95 Espérandieu, , Recueil General des Bas-Reliefs, Statues et Busies de la Gaule Romaine, viii (Paris 1922), 371–73, no. 6479.Google Scholar

96 Wright, R. P., Catalogue of the Roman Inscribed and Sculptured Stones in the Grosvenor Museum, Chester (Chester 1955), 51, no. 138, pl. xxxv.Google Scholar

97 Toynbee, op.cit. (1964), 196.

98 Richmond, I. A., Arch. Ael.4, xxi (1943), 171.Google Scholar

99 Toynbee, op. cit. (1964), 158.

100 Ibid., 159.

101 E.g. Espérandieu, op. cit., nos. 5950 (Carlsberg); 6195 (Coblenz); 6305 (Rheder near Bonn); 6382 (Cologne).

102 Carinthia I, cxlv (1955), 213 ff.Google Scholar

103 Strong, D. E., Greek and Roman Gold and Silver Plate (London 1966), 16–17; 183.Google Scholar

104 Nijmegen: Guidebook, Rijksmuseum G. M. Kam (1967), 19, no. 5 and pl.; Corbridge: J.M. Toynbee, op. cit. (1964), 306–7; Kaiseraugst: Strong, op. cit., ch. 10 and Laur-Belart, R., Der Spātrömische Silberschatz von Kaiseraugst (Aargau, 2nd edn. 1963).Google Scholar

105 Most conveniently illustrated in Toynbee, J. M. C., The Art of the Romans (London 1965), pl. lxxxviiGoogle Scholar, cf. Nordiske Fortidsminder, ii, fasc. 3 (1923), 119 ff.Google Scholar

106 Mitteilungen des deutschen archäolog, Instituts, Römische Abteilung 67 (1960), III.Google Scholar

107 Toynbee, op. cit. (1964), 304.

108 Curle, , The Treasure of Traprain (Glasgow 1923), 27–28, fig. 9 and pl. xii.Google Scholar

109 See note 103 above; cf. Strong, op. cit., pl. lix.

110 One thinks of gems depicting various rustic scenes, shepherds, etc., of which a number come from military sites. Cf. Richmond, I. A., Arch. Ael.4, xxi (1943) 174–75, on a sculptured pediment showing a nymph and a faun.Google Scholar

111 Unpublished.

111 P. Steiner, op. cit., 131, No. 135 and pl. xiv.

113 Von Gonzenbach, Helvetia Antigua (1966), 185, 2.

114 Richmond, , Arch. Aelj4, xxi, 173–76.Google Scholar

115 Cf. Fink, R. O., Hoey, A. S. and Snyder, W. F., Tale Classical Studies, vii (1940), 11–221, and The Excavations at Dura Europos, ed. A. Perkins, Final Report V, part 1, The Parchments and Papyri, by G. Bradford Welles, R. O. Fink and J. F. Gilliam (1959), 191 ff.Google Scholar

116 Tale Classical Studies, vii (1940), 209.Google Scholar

117 Richmond, , Arch. Ael.4, xxi, 175.Google Scholar

118 Wheeler, R. E. M., Archaeologia, lxxvii (1928), 170Google Scholar and pl. xxxiii, 2. A sardonyx intaglio, set in an iron ring of Augustan type, and showing the same subject (though wearing an Athenian helmet), has recently been found on the site of an earthwork at Arthur's Seat, Edinburgh (Henig, M., Burlington Magazine, cxii (1970), 307). Perhaps it was brought to Scotland during Agricola's campaign. Also note a brown, opaque stone from Xanten (Golonia Traiana), figured by Steiner, op. cit., 126 and pl. xiii, no. 88. From a civil site, note a Nicolo intaglio from Fenny Stratford, Bucks. (Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, Acc. No. 1927. 518). This shows the head of a warrior facing right. However the workmanship is of too low a quality for certainty that the same personage is represented as on the other gemstones.Google Scholar

119 Kurz, O. in Hackin, J.: Nouvelles Recherches Archeologiques à Begram (Paris 1954), 129–30 and fig. 443. He believes that Ares is much more likely, however, and cites a bronze statuette from the Fossdyke, Lines. (=Toynbee., op. cit. (1962), 131, cat. 16 and pl. xix) to support his case.Google Scholar

120 Bieber, M., Alexander the Great in Greek and Roman Art (Chicago 1964), 59–61Google Scholar. She follows Shreiber, Th. in Abhandlungen der sachsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, xxi (1903), 92 ff. This idealized conception of Alexander seems to have been evolved in Alexandria.Google Scholar

121 Plutarch, Alexander, xv (Loeb edn. trans., B. Perrin (1919)). Also cf. ibid., v. The beauty of Alexander, and the ‘melting look in his eyes’ was also stressed, as with Achilles, ibid., iv.

122 Bieber, op. cit. 68–69. On Augustus, cf. Suetonius, Augustus, 50, and note 24 above. He used the head of Alexander, after he had tired of the sphinx as an emblem.

123 Cf. Suetonius, Nero, 19. The Legio I Italica called ‘The Phalanx of Alexander the Great.’ For a bronze statuette, probably from Suffolk, showing ‘Nero in the guise of Alexander’, cf. Toynbee, op. cit. (1964), 49 and pl. v. For third-cent, emperors, Bieber, op. cit., 76 ff.

124 Bieber, op. cit., 71.

125 Ibid., 74.

126 Chesters, , Arch. Ael.4, xxxix (1961), 32, no. 6 and pl. v, no. 7, Caerleon, unpublished (information G. C. Boon).Google Scholar

127 Steiner, op. cit., 119 and pl. xiii, no. 13.

128 Toynbee, op. cit. (1964), 311 and pl. lxxii.

129 S.H.A., , Triginta Tyranni, xiv, 6Google Scholar, cited in Bieber, op. cit., 80. On the date of S.H.A., see now Syme, , Ammianus and the Historia Augusta (Oxford 1968).Google Scholar

130 Bieber, op. cit., passim, also cf. Richter, G. M. A., Engraved Gems of the Greeks and the Etruscans (London 1968), 152Google Scholar–55, nos. 597–607, 610 and 611 and eadem, The Portraits of the Greeks (London 1965), 254–55.Google Scholar

131 Bieber, op. cit., 60 on the Cos statue, which may have been the very one seen by Nikander in the second cent., when it had an ambrosia plant (which of course symbolized immortality) growing from its head.

132 Cf. notes 118 and 126 above.