Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T15:05:32.458Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

I. Portraits

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2016

Get access

Extract

Portraiture is among the most obvious legacies of classical antiquity. Roman busts of rulers and private individuals, sculpted in marble or occasionally cast in bronze, are the frequent inhabitants of museums and country houses. Imposing portrait-statues survive in great numbers, albeit frequently missing some of their extremities. We also have many smaller and more subtle images like those carved in gems and semiprecious stones, and, of course, the heads on Roman coins whose influence on the design of modern money is still obvious. The very custom of modern portraiture itself is, broadly speaking, derived from Rome, though it is easy to take it for granted as if it were an obvious or universal art-form. The Roman world was truly crowded with portraits. They are the subject of intense study and interesting debate. As such they present a useful point of departure for this survey of Roman art history.

Type
Research Article
Information
New Surveys in the Classics , Volume 34: Roman Art , 2004 , pp. 5 - 28
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 2004

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 For general introduction to Roman portraits see e.g. Brilliant (1974), 165-87; Kleiner (1992), passim; Walker (1995).

2 For general discussion of portraiture and likeness see e.g. Breckenridge (1968); Brilliant (1991); Woodall (1997).

3 On the long history of this reaction see Bažant (1995), 11-23.

4 Pliny, , Natural History 34.15-32 Google Scholar. Breckenridge (1973), 840-1; Hölscher (1978), 324-44.

5 On this question see Wallace-Hadrill (1990). Tanner (2000), 28-30 for argument for public honorific portraiture as such as early as fourth century BC. On republican statues in general see also Sehlmeyer (1999).

6 Polybius 6.53-4; cf.Pliny, , Natural History 35.6 Google Scholar. For a full and up-to-date discussion of ancestral masks see Flower (1996), arguing for their continued use.

7 For republican portraits generally see e.g. Hiesinger (1973) - includes bibliography to that date.

8 On the evidence for Roman death-masks: Drerup (1980); Jackson (1987) presents a reasonable defence of death-masks as a partial source for veristic portraiture. But for the reasons why they do not explain Roman portraiture see e.g.: Breckenridge (1968), 146-52; Smith (1981), 31-2; Gruen (1992), 155-6; Flower (1996), esp. 38 on death-masks and ancestor-masks. All address earlier discussions.

9 An excellent survey of the different theories, with critical discussion and references, is provided by Gruen (1992), 152-82. See also Smith (1981), esp. 30-7.

10 On Etruscan realism see: Breckenridge (1968), 160-4; Smith (1981), 31-2; Gruen (1992), 156-8.

11 On Greek realism see e.g.: Hafner (1954), 59-64, pis. 25-6; Breckenridge (1973), 849-52; Zanker (1976), esp. 582-4. On the Egyptian connection: Breckenridge (1968), 165-78; Adriani (1970), esp. 98-109; and examples in Bothmer (1960), esp. 128-84. On Greek realism and Greek artists making Roman portraits see Smith (1981).

12 For which see e.g. Smith (1981), 37; Gruen (1992), 152-82; Tanner (2000).

13 Cf. Terence, Andria 855 ‘sad severity is in his face’; Giuliani (1986), 225-33.

14 Tanner (2000); see also Zanker (1988), 5-8, along with critique in Stevenson (1998). Cf. the Venus-portraits in Chapter Three

15 Plutarch, Pompey 2 for the hairstyle. Generally: Giuliani (1986), and see discussion below under ‘Physiognomy’. For good discussion of problems see Beard and Henderson (2001), 209-13, outlining the difficulties with our reliance on comparison with coins for the identification of famous Romans’ portrait sculptures. On the context of the Copenhagen portrait illustrated here see most recently Kragelund, Moltesen, and Østergaard (2003).

16 Cf. Nodelman (1993).

17 On republican ‘freedman’ portraits see: Zanker (1976); Kockel (1993); further references in Chapter Three.

18 See above all Zanker (1988), noting critique by Wallace-Hadrill (1989). Also Wallace-Hadrill (1993) for excellent short introduction; and Galinsky (1996). See also Chapter Two for ‘propaganda’ in art.

19 See Zanker (1988), passim; Boschung (1993) for most recent thorough analysis, reviewed by Smith (1996). Also Walker and Burnett (1981) and Galinsky (1996), 164-79 for briefer summary.

20 Smith (1988), 137-9.

21 From the vast bibliography on the Prima Porta statue note e.g.: Zanker (1988), 98-100, 185-92; Galinsky (1996), 24-8, 155-64. Publications on restoration and polychromy by Paolo Liverani are forthcoming.

22 For argument along these lines see Zanker (1988), 239-63; Hölscher (1987). However, note also Smith (1996), 41-5 for reasoned scepticism about the connotations of the style and the connection between the Prima Porta statue and the Doryphoros.

23 Stewart (forthcoming).

24 Tiberius: see most accessibly Kleiner (1992), 123-6; Caligula: see below. On Julio-Claudian dynastic groups note Rose (1997); Boschung (2002).

25 Pollini (1987).

26 Bergmann (1978) offers a short and well-illustrated introduction to Marcus Aurelius’ images, with attention to questions of production, function, etc. For other examples see also Wegner (1939); McCann (1968).

27 Rose (1997); Boschung (2002).

28 Megow (1987), 200-2, A81; Wood (1999), 306-8.

29 Cf. Wood (1999), 8-14; Varner (2001).

30 See e.g. Fittschen and Zanker (1983); Bartman (1999); Wood (1999).

31 On other female images see e.g. Kleiner and Matheson (1996); (2000); Kampen (1996). Note Kampen (1981b) on the interesting link between gender and social status in Roman imagery. See also Chapter Three.

32 Generally see: MacMullen (1980); Bremen (1996), passim.

33 Quotation from Trimble (2000), 57. On Plancia’s statue: Boatwright (1993). Eumachia’s: Zanker (1998), 93-102.

34 Kleiner (1992), 129-35 for overview.

35 Kleiner (1992), 135-9; L’Orange (1947), 57-63, explaining Hellenistic connection; Bergmann (1998), 133-230, esp. 147-9 (disagreeing).

36 Galba: Fabbricotti (1976). Vespasian: Daltrop and Wegner (1966).

37 Most fully explained by Zanker (1982). Cf. Zanker (1995), 224-33 on the ‘intellectual Zeitgesicht’.

38 Evers (1994) on Hadrian’s portrait-types.

39 Scriptores Historiae Augustae, Hadrian 26.

40 Note the cautious reformulation of a traditional argument in Zanker (1995), 217-22; Smith (1998), 59-61 is largely unconvinced.

41 On the extent of his imitation: Zanker (1995), 217-33.

42 For discussion of the complexities see esp. Smith (1998). Also Bergmann (1982).

43 Ramage and Ramage (2000), 138; Kleiner (1992), 139.

44 See also Smith (1997), 194-5.

45 On its history in relation to the study of Roman portraits see Bažant (1995), 15-23.

46 See e.g.: Giuliani (1986), passim; Métraux (1995), esp. 3-5. Evans (1969); Barton (1994), 95-131. Descriptions of emperors by authors like Suetonius were equally informed by physiognomic theory and should not be used, as they often are, to establish the real appearance of the ruler.

47 On Pompey’s physiognomy: Giuliani (1986); Métraux (1995), 3-5.

48 Simple introduction in Smith (1984). Fejfer (1999) is useful on private portraits. See also Pekáry (1985) on imperial portraits; Rose (1997b) on the eastern empire; Stewart (2003), 83-91, generally.

49 See esp. Pfanner (1989). Also Stuart (1939); Bartman (1999), 18-25; Wood (1999), 23-6.

50 The statue-inscription CIL 11.6123 is an interesting example of a common occurrence.

51 On body types etc. see Niemeyer (1968), 38-64; Lahusen (1983), 45-65.

52 On cultural differences in clothing and other details of statuary iconography see Smith (1998), esp. 63-70.

53 On precious materials see Pekáry (1985), 66-80. Different formats: Lahusen (1983), 45-65.

54 Niemeyer (1968), 28-37; Lahusen (1983), 7-44; Pekáry (1985), 42-65. See also Stewart (2003), 136-40 on the importance of public exposure.

55 See e.g. Smith (1998); Smith (1999); Tanner (2000).

56 Pekáry (1985), 116-29. On statues in imperial cult: Price (1984), 170-206.

57 See esp. Freedberg (1989); Gregory (1994) on Roman material.

58 See Varner (2000); Hedrick (2000), esp. 93-130; Stewart (2003), 267-98. Varner (2001) on treatment of female portraits.