Uniwersytet Jagielloński Wydział Historyczny Paweł Gołyźniak Use of Engraved Gems for Self-Presentation and Propaganda Purposes in the Roman Republic and under Augustus Praca doktorska Tom I: Tekst Promotor: dr hab. Jarosław Bodzek Kraków 2019 Volume 1: Text Contents Part I - Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 1. Abstract .......................................................................................................................... 1 2. State of research ............................................................................................................. 4 2.1. Roman Republican and Augustan engraved gems .................................................. 4 2.2. Studies of propaganda on Roman Republican and Augustan gems issue ............. 21 2.3. General studies of Roman propaganda and self-presentation issues with references to engraved gems .............................................................................................................. 26 2.4. Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 29 3. Aims, methodology and structure ................................................................................ 32 3.1. Aims ...................................................................................................................... 32 3.2. Methodology ......................................................................................................... 35 3.3. Structure ................................................................................................................ 39 Part II – Theory ................................................................................................................... 44 4. Propaganda – definitions and characteristics of the phenomenon ............................... 44 4.1. Definitions of propaganda ..................................................................................... 44 4.2. Propaganda and persuasion ................................................................................... 48 4.3. Propaganda and public opinion ............................................................................. 49 4.4. Propaganda as a form of communication .............................................................. 52 4.5. Forms of propaganda ............................................................................................. 53 4.6. Tools and techniques of propaganda ..................................................................... 57 4.7. The effectiveness of propaganda ........................................................................... 61 5. Roman propaganda on engraved gems – general introduction .................................... 65 5.1. Anticipated areas of propaganda on engraved gems ............................................. 65 5.1.1. Use of gems in triumphs ................................................................................. 65 5.1.2. Collecting ....................................................................................................... 66 5.1.3. Employment of gem engravers ....................................................................... 66 5.1.4. Seals ................................................................................................................ 67 5.1.5. Personal branding and self-promotion ............................................................ 67 5.1.6. Induction and manifestation of loyalty and support ....................................... 69 5.1.7. Use of heritage ................................................................................................ 70 5.1.8. Promotion of family and oneself through orgio ............................................. 70 5.1.9. Promotion of faction ....................................................................................... 71 5.1.10. Commemoration ........................................................................................... 72 5.1.11. Promotion of abstract ideas (ordo rerum, Pax Augusta and aurea aetas) ..... 73 5.1.12. Religious, divine and mythological references............................................. 73 5.1.13. Political symbols .......................................................................................... 75 5.1.14. Luxury objects: State Cameos – carved vessels – works in the round ......... 76 5.2. Problems with studying propaganda in ancient times with emphasis on engraved gems ............................................................................................................................. 77 5.2.1. Basic (technical) problems ............................................................................. 78 5.2.2. Iconographical problems ................................................................................ 81 5.2.3. Iconological, conceptual and interpretational problems ................................. 84 Part III - Evidence................................................................................................................ 89 6. Beginnings (3rd-2nd century BC) .................................................................................. 89 6.1. Etruscan and Italic tradition (auto-presentation) ................................................... 90 6.2. Hellenistic influences ............................................................................................ 98 6.2.1. Portraits ........................................................................................................... 98 6.2.2. Patronage ...................................................................................................... 106 6.2.3. Collecting ..................................................................................................... 108 6.2.4. Triumphs and processions ............................................................................ 109 6.2.5. Iconography, forms and style ....................................................................... 109 6.3. Roman tradition (family symbols, personal branding, commemoration, state propaganda) ................................................................................................................ 111 6.3.1. Family symbols and references to familial stories on gems ......................... 111 6.3.2. Portraits on gems – Roman tradition ............................................................ 121 6.3.3. Roman generals, consuls, imperators and dictators? .................................... 123 6.3.4. Roman state propaganda: subjects related to wars and conquests (Gallic Wars, Punic Wars, Greek and Macedonian Wars, Social War 91-88 BC) ....................... 131 7. Early 1st century BC ................................................................................................... 136 7.1. Lucius Cornelius Sulla ........................................................................................ 136 7.1.1. Seals of Sulla ................................................................................................ 136 7.1.2. Employment of gem engravers and collecting ............................................. 140 7.1.3. Personal branding - portraits ........................................................................ 142 7.1.4. Commemoration ........................................................................................... 146 7.1.5. Divine and mythological references ............................................................. 149 7.1.6. Political symbols .......................................................................................... 154 7.2. Gaius Marius ....................................................................................................... 157 7.2.1. Triumph ........................................................................................................ 157 7.2.2. Personal branding – portraits ........................................................................ 159 7.2.3. Commemoration ........................................................................................... 161 7.2.4. Divine and mythological references ............................................................. 162 7.2.5. Political symbols .......................................................................................... 163 7.3. Lucius Licinius Lucullus ..................................................................................... 164 7.3.1. Diplomatic gift and collecting? .................................................................... 165 7.3.2. Personal branding and commemoration ....................................................... 166 7.3.3. Promotion of family and political symbols .................................................. 167 7.4. Other politicians .................................................................................................. 168 7.4.1. Personal branding - portraits ........................................................................ 169 7.4.2. Family symbols and references to familial stories on gems ......................... 177 7.4.3. Political symbols .......................................................................................... 183 8. Civil War: Pompey the Great, Julius Caesar and contemporaries ............................. 184 8.1. Pompey the Great ................................................................................................ 184 8.1.1. Triumph ........................................................................................................ 185 8.1.2. Collecting ..................................................................................................... 187 8.1.3. Gem engravers working for Pompey ............................................................ 187 8.1.4. Seals of Pompey ........................................................................................... 192 8.1.5. Portraits - personal branding, induction and manifestation of loyalty ......... 194 8.1.6. Promotion of family ..................................................................................... 201 8.1.7. Promotion of faction – optimates ................................................................. 201 8.1.8. Commemoration ........................................................................................... 203 8.1.9. Divine and mythological references ............................................................. 206 8.1.10. Imitatio Alexandri ...................................................................................... 214 8.1.11. Political symbols ........................................................................................ 216 8.1.12. Luxury objects (State Cameos, vessels etc.) and religious propaganda ..... 219 8.2. Julius Caesar ........................................................................................................ 219 8.2.1. Collecting ..................................................................................................... 220 8.2.2. Gem engravers working for Julius Caesar .................................................... 221 8.2.3. Seal of Julius Caesar ..................................................................................... 224 8.2.4. Portraits – personal branding, induction and manifestation of loyalty ......... 226 8.2.5. Promotion of and within family ................................................................... 233 8.2.6. Promotion of the faction – populares ........................................................... 234 8.2.7. Commemoration ........................................................................................... 236 8.2.8. Divine and mythological references ............................................................. 242 8.2.9. Political symbols .......................................................................................... 244 8.2.10. Luxury objects (State Cameos, vessels etc.)............................................... 249 8.3. Less significant politicians and women from the times of the Civil War ........... 250 8.3.1. Collecting of engraved gems and hiring the engravers ................................ 250 8.3.2. Portraits – personal branding induction and manifestation of loyalty .......... 253 8.3.3. Family symbols and references to familial stories on gems ......................... 256 8.3.4. Commemoration ........................................................................................... 259 8.3.5. Divine and mythological references ............................................................. 262 9. Post-Caesarian and Liberators’ Civil Wars (from death of Caesar to the Battle of Actium: 44-31 BC) ...................................................................................................................... 263 9.1. The pompeians .................................................................................................... 263 9.1.1. Seals of Gnaeus and Sextus Pompey ............................................................ 264 9.1.2. Gem engravers working for the pompeians .................................................. 265 9.1.3. Portraits – personal branding induction and manifestation of loyalty .......... 267 9.1.4. Use of heritage .............................................................................................. 275 9.1.5. Promotion of the faction ............................................................................... 279 9.1.6. Commemoration ........................................................................................... 280 9.1.7. Divine and mythological references ............................................................. 283 9.1.8. Political symbols .......................................................................................... 284 9.1.9. Luxury objects (State Cameos, vessels etc.) and religious propaganda ....... 286 9.2. The republicans ................................................................................................... 286 9.2.1. Gem engravers working for the republicans................................................. 287 9.2.2. Portraits – personal branding induction and manifestation of loyalty .......... 288 9.2.3. Use of heritage .............................................................................................. 293 9.2.4. Promotion of the faction ............................................................................... 294 9.2.5. Commemoration ........................................................................................... 295 9.2.6. Divine and mythological references ............................................................. 296 9.2.7. Political symbols .......................................................................................... 297 9.2.8. Luxury objects (State Cameos, vessels etc.) and religious propaganda ....... 298 9.3. The caesarians .................................................................................................... 298 9.3.1. Octavian ........................................................................................................ 299 9.3.1.1. Heir of Julius Caesar .............................................................................. 301 9.3.1.2. Gem engravers working for Octavian .................................................... 312 9.3.1.3. Seals of Octavian ................................................................................... 315 9.3.1.4. Portraits – personal branding induction and manifestation of loyalty ... 319 9.3.1.5. Promotion of family ............................................................................... 331 9.3.1.6. Promotion of the faction ........................................................................ 334 9.3.1.7. Commemoration .................................................................................... 336 9.3.1.8. Divine and mythological references ...................................................... 355 9.3.1.9. Political symbols .................................................................................... 370 9.3.1.10 Luxury objects (State Cameos, vessels etc.) and religious propaganda 380 9.3.2. Mark Antony ................................................................................................ 380 9.3.2.1. Collecting and personal seals ................................................................. 381 9.3.2.2. Gem engravers working for Mark Antony ............................................ 382 9.3.2.3. Portraits – personal branding induction and manifestation of loyalty ... 386 9.3.2.4. Promotion of family ............................................................................... 391 9.3.2.5. Promotion of the faction ........................................................................ 393 9.3.2.6. Commemoration .................................................................................... 395 9.3.2.7. Divine and mythological references ...................................................... 399 9.3.2.8. Political symbols .................................................................................... 406 9.3.2.9. Luxury objects (State Cameos, vessels etc.) and religious propaganda 409 9.3.3. Marcus Aemilius Lepidus (triumvir) ............................................................ 410 9.3.3.1. Portraits – personal branding induction and manifestation of loyalty ... 411 9.3.3.2. Political symbols .................................................................................... 412 9.4. Less significant politicians .................................................................................. 412 9.5. Women and their propaganda significance on engraved gems ........................... 414 9.5.1. Portraits – personal branding ........................................................................ 414 9.5.2. Divine and mythological references ............................................................. 417 10. Augustus (27 BC-AD 14) ........................................................................................ 422 10.1. Collecting .......................................................................................................... 422 10.2. Gem engravers working for Augustus .............................................................. 424 10.3. The final seal of Augustus ................................................................................. 427 10.4. Portraits – personal branding induction and manifestation of loyalty .............. 429 10.5. Commemoration and State Cameos .................................................................. 432 10.6. Divine and mythological references .................................................................. 445 10.7. Mythological Foundations of the New Rome ................................................... 454 10.8. Promotion of peace and prosperity.................................................................... 461 10.9. Luxury objects (State Cameos, cameo vessels etc.) and religious propaganda 469 10.10. Promotion of family and successors................................................................ 475 10.11. Divus Augustus ............................................................................................... 486 Part IV – Summary and conclusions ................................................................................. 491 11. Provenance, provenience, production and distribution of propaganda gems .......... 491 12. Statistics ................................................................................................................... 532 13. Conclusions – the significance of engraved gems in Roman propaganda machinery541 13.1. Use of gems in triumphs ................................................................................... 542 13.2. Collecting .......................................................................................................... 544 13.3. Employment of gem engravers ......................................................................... 546 13.4. Seals .................................................................................................................. 547 13.5. Personal branding and self-promotion .............................................................. 549 13.6. Induction and manifestation of loyalty and support .......................................... 555 13.7. Use of heritage .................................................................................................. 558 13.8. Promotion of family and oneself through orgio ................................................ 560 13.9. Promotion of faction.......................................................................................... 562 13.10. Commemoration .............................................................................................. 565 13.11. Religious, divine and mythological references ............................................... 568 13.12. Political symbols and promotion of abstract ideas (ordo rerum, Pax Augusta and aurea aetas) ................................................................................................................ 572 13.13. Luxury objects: State Cameos – carved vessels – works in the round ............ 574 13.13.1. State Cameos ............................................................................................ 574 13.13.2. Carved vessels .......................................................................................... 577 13.13.3 Works in the round .................................................................................... 579 13.14. Final remarks ................................................................................................... 580 Acknowledgments Warm words of acknowledgments are due to quite a few people who helped me to work on this dissertation. First of all, I would like to thank Jarosław Bodzek (Jagiellonian University) for supervising the whole process of writing the thesis, for his encouragement and consultations, especially regarding the comparative numismatic material. Secondly, Martin Henig (University of Oxford) is greatly acknowledged for his outstanding support, discussions and numerous suggestions that enabled to improve the thesis considerably. Aleksander Bursche (University of Warsaw) is acknowledged for reviewing my work and providing with valuable remarks. I would like to thank Claudia Wagner (University of Oxford) for her kind help and hospitality during my research stay in the Beazley Archive in Oxford as well as for fruitful discussions on the art of gem engraving. Sir John Boardman (University of Oxford) is acknowledged for inspirational discussions, especially those touching the issues of relationships between gems and coins as well as gems’ production and distribution. I am grateful to Mathilde Avisseau-Broustet (Bibliothèque nationale de France) for her great hospitality in Paris and facilitating my study of the gem collection housed in the Bibliothèque nationale de France. Similarly, I thank Alex Truscott (The British Museum) for organising my study of the gem collection kept in The British Museum in London. Finally, I thank for help received from the following: Gabriella Tassinari (Università degli Studi di Milano), Hadrien J. Rambach (Brussels), Ulf R. Hansson (The University of Texas at Austin), Marianne Maaskant-Kleibrink (University of Groningen), Erika Zwierlein-Diehl (Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn) and Kamil Kopij (Jagiellonian University) who kindly advised me during the writing of the dissertation. Finally, I wish to thank all the people with whom I had a pleasure to discuss separate parts of the research presented at the conferences and seminars in Krakow, Warsaw, Leiden and Prague. Part I - Introduction 1. Abstract The study aims at tackling a problem of use of engraved gems for self-presentation and propaganda purposes in the Roman Republic and under Augustus. The most important observation about the gems in this dissertation is that they portray Roman society at each level. They are snapshots of people believes, ideologies, everyday life and thus, they might cast some light at propaganda actions performed by Roman political leaders and their factions in the past. Gems are plausible to show both, general trends in propaganda activities as well as individual and private acts of being involved in politics, since they were objects of strictly personal use. They enable us to analyse and learn Roman propaganda from a completely different angle than coins, sculpture or literature. The miniaturism of ancient gems is often in inverse proportion to their cultural significance. Despite – or perhaps because of – their ubiquity, the motifs they bear are often highly sophisticated and captivating in their visual presentation of complex ideas. By such effective artistry the image is, almost literally, impressed upon the mind of the viewer. However, it is not easy to spot and correctly interpret propaganda messages encoded on gems. In contrary, the richness of iconography and forms often leads to overinterpretations. Therefore, the point of departure here is a database covering a wide range of information categories, which have guided the structure of the presentation. It is a combination of numerous case studies of ‘propaganda gems’ and a critical study of the previous scholarship, which tended to use the term propaganda for representations not necessarily related to this matter. The idea is not only to present clear-cut examples of ‘propaganda gems’, but also to discuss those problematical pieces and issues related to them. Hence, the aim is to offer a more complete analysis of the problem previously neglected. The study is organised into five main parts. First goes introduction outlining state of research on the subject of use of gems for self-presentation and propaganda purposes as well as aims of the dissertation, methodology employed and structure of the thesis. The second part includes definitions and characteristics of propaganda phenomenon as a term circulating in the current studies of semiotics and communication. It discusses various forms of propaganda, its basic tools and techniques as well as hypothesies about their effectiveness if applied in the studies of ancient society. It also draws attention to some problems related to ancient (e.g. Roman) propaganda studies. The third part discusses an evolutionary model of use of engraved gems from self-presentation to propaganda purposes in the Roman Republic and under Augustus. It is clear that propaganda on intaglios and cameos stems from the phenomenon of self-presentation. Apart from utilitarian motivations like sealing, it was the need and desire to present and express oneself in a specific, usually improved and bringing positive associations way, that was one of the key-impulses for production of gems in the 3rd century BC ancient Rome. That phenomenon is typical for Etruscan, Italic, Roman and Hellenistic cultural elements that have been merging over two centuries into one Graeco-Roman glyptic tradition. First presentations of Roman victorious generals on gems combined with commemoration of important political events and most importantly boost of personal branding through portraits engraved upon precious and semi-precious stones resulted in a transformation into a complex machinery involving manifestation of loyalty to the patron and affiliation to the faction, promotion of family members and application of divine and heroic natures into the self-image. One observes first tentative attempts of use of gems for propaganda purposes already in the 3rd and 2nd century BC, while there is a clear start of a fully aware propagandistic actions reflected in glyptic material in the early 1st century BC (Sulla’s dictatorship). The later fierce rivalry between Pompey the Great, who is traditionally assigned to popularise use of gems in ancient Rome, and Julius Caesar shows that glyptic art has been gradually incorporated to the propaganda machinery of Roman political leaders. The peak of production what one might call ‘propaganda gems’ is witnessed after death of Caesar in 44 BC and endures until the Actium battle in 31 BC. Then, gems like every other category of Roman art and craftsmanship became a part of a sophisticated language greatly influenced by Imperial rhetoric and ideology carefully designed by Augustus. The fourth part describes the context of ‘propaganda gems’ in the Roman Republic and under Augustus. The chapters included here contain remarks on the production, distribution, usage and cultural significance of gems. The base is information extracted from ancient literary sources which are followed by archaeological observations of the material considered here as related to self-presentation and propaganda matters and presented in the second part of the dissertation. More theoretical considerations about propagandistic value of engraved gems and possible target groups using them are offered here as well. To show the dynamics of using gems for propaganda purposes a separate chapter has been created that includes statistical analyses of either the whole phenomenon as well as individual categories like portrait gems, those presenting divine and mythological references and so on. Finally, the last chapter presents conclusions and it is also designed to present potential similarities and differences between gems and other artistic media, notably coins, in respect of propaganda. The last, fifth part of the study comprises of a catalogue, bibliography, list of figures, tables, charts, maps and plates. The specific characteristics of engraved gems, their strictly private character and the whole array of devices appearing on them are examined here in respect to their potential propagandistic value. This analysis is performed in the wider scope providing first comprehensive picture covering many aspects of Roman propaganda and a critical survey of overinterpretations of this term in regard to the glyptic art. The ultimate achievement is incorporation of this class of archaeological artefacts into the well-established studies of Roman propaganda as well as the Roman society in general. Gems turn out to be not only another media used by propagandists but also a very sensitive barometer of social moods. It remains disputable to what extent they were helpful in creation of propaganda communications by Roman political leaders, but it is clear that their role in evolution of Roman propaganda should be taken into account in the further studies of this phenomenon. 2. State of research 2.1. Roman Republican and Augustan engraved gems Outlined below is a history of modern glyptic studies relevant to the Roman Republican and Augustan material. This short text does not attempt to be a full account on the subject in any case, but it should be treated as a mean showing the importance and value of this glyptic material for the archaeology and ancient art history as scientific disciplines in general. Since the very early stages of glyptic studies, a clear division is observable: numerous publications of public and private collections are issued all along, whilst much less numerous are treatises devoted to specific problems and aspects of glyptics. It might seem strange that Roman Republican and Augustan gems have never been properly and exclusively analysed and described in details as separate categories, while studies dealing with specific chronological and cultural classes of gems have been published long time ago.1 Of course, it does not mean they were completely neglected. There are at least several most scholarly general studies of glyptic art including very good, but still insufficient accounts on Roman Republican and Augustan gems. There are also numerous, short and mostly iconographic, studies and all those works are taken into account in the present dissertation. They will be fully treated and critically discussed in their respective place in the following sections. 1 For instance: Zazoff 1968 (Etruscan scarabs); Boardman 1970/2001 (Greek Gems - early Bronze Age to late Classical/early Hellenistic periods); Plantzos 1999 (Hellenistic gems); Boardman 2003 (Phoenician scarabs); Hansson 2005 (A globolo gems); Spier 2007 (Late Antique and Early Christian gems). Nevertheless, according to my research, the most desirable exclusive study of Roman Republican and Augustan gems is not underway. Since the Renaissance engraved gems attracted attention mostly as collectors’ items. They were regarded as one of the most precious and best-preserved testimonies of ancient art. This interest was due to several factors. Gems offered an array of devices related to every aspect of classical life and culture; from the serious mythological and religious themes down to joyful and bucolic scenes presenting everyday life of ordinary people. They were made of precious and semi-precious stones – highly desirable and, maybe most importantly, valuable minerals. Gems offered insights into people believes and with magical formulas and iconography engraved upon pinched a bit of mystery into this category of ancient craftsmanship. Even now, many people believe in magical and medical properties of specific gemstones. Gems were sources of inspiration for Renaissance and later artists. The best example of that is the young Pan cameo from the Beverley collection that sparked the idea for composition of one of the most famous painting in the Sistine Chapel by Michelangelo.2 Like the artists, scholars have also been quickly attracted by the great potential hidden in those little artworks. Although the first symptoms of scientific interests into gems is to be recorded as early as the 16th century,3 it was Philipp von Stosch (1691-1757) with his Gemmæ antiquæ cælatæ, a study of 70 gems bearing artists’ signatures, who laid foundations for what may be considered as modern glyptic studies.4 His pioneering work was a great success and Stosch himself was regarded as the greatest collector and connoisseur of gems of his times. His vast collection including gemstones and a number of glass gems was shortly published in the most scholarly way to date by none other than Johann Joachim Winckelmann (1717-1768) in 1760.5 Stosch and Winckelmann were followed by others and literature on glyptics quickly expanded.6 In the 18th and 19th centuries, engraved gems experienced extraordinary interest. They were collected by many, notably representatives of high social classes since the best pieces sometimes reached astronomical prices.7 They were reproduced in various forms as drawings or prints and most importantly as impressions and casts made of gesso, resin, sulphur, electrotype and other materials and assembled in the forms of dactyliothecae.8 These collections, sometimes amounting to thousands of objects, on the one hand, turned out to be attractive souvenirs obtained by grand tourists in Rome, Milan, Naples and other Italian cities, but on the other hand they played a significant role in the popularisation and reception of classical art and culture.9 Sometimes a combination of both existed in one person. A good example of this is the most prominent Polish collector of engraved gems – Constantine Schmidt-Ciążyński (1818-1889). He had been trading and collecting engraved gems all his life, but in 1886 he decided to present his cabinet alongside with two dactyliothecae to the newly established National Museum in Krakow. He decided to do so because his belief in the collections to be useful tools for the emerging circles of 2 Wagner, Boardman and Scarisbrick 2016a, no. 6. 3 For instance, see one of the earliest studies of some portrait gems published by Fulvio Orsini (1529-1600) in 1570. For a more detailed commentary to this issue, see: Furtwängler 1900, vol. III, pp. 402-409 – for the earliest works and pp. 409-426 for 18th and 19th century ones; Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 279. 4 Stosch 1724. For some literature on Philipp von Stosch: Furtwängler 1900, vol. III, pp. 409-410 and 415-417; MacKay Quynn 1941; Lewis 1967, pp. 320-327; Borroni Salvadori 1978, pp. 565-614; Zazoff and Zazoff 1983, pp. 3-67; Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, pp. 274-275; Hansson 2014; Rambach (forthcoming 1). 5 Winckelmann 1760. 6 For instance: Comte de Caylus 1752-1768; Gori 1731-1732, 1750 and 1767; Mariette 1750; Millin 1797 and 1817; Natter 1754. For a recent analysis of this issue, see: Lang 2017. 7 It is difficult even to propose a selection of the most important collections of engraved gems here but useful lists of those can be found in: Furtwängler 1900, vol. III, pp. 426-435; Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, pp. 264-279; Lang 2017, pp. 199-201. 8 For more information about dactyliothecae, see: Kockel and Graepler 2006; Knüppel 2009. 9 The most numerous and famous at the same time are the collections of Philipp Daniel Lippert (1702-1785) – published in three volumes in 1755, 1756 and 1767, James Tassie (1735-1799) – published by Rudolf Erich Raspe in 1791 and those produced by Tommaso Cades (1772-1840). archaeologists and art historians from the Academy of Krakow as well as to artists and all enthusiasts of ancient art living in the city.10 10 Gołyźniak 2017, pp. 31-61. 11 The most recognisable example of that process is the famous scandal related to the Count Stanislas Poniatwski (1754-1833) collection of engraved gems. Among the rich literature on the subject, see: Kolendo 1981; Laska 2001; Wagner 2008 and 2013; Rambach 2016. On the crisis in trade of engraved gems in the second half of the 19th century, see: Plantzos 1999, p. 3; Berges 2011, p. 151; Gołyźniak 2017, pp. 57-58. 12 Furtwängler 1896. 13 Furtwängler 1888-1889. 14 Furtwängler 1900. 15 The importance and appreciation of Furtwängler’s works has been expressed, for instance in: Zazoff and Zazoff 1983, pp. 203-30; Hansson 2005, p. 24. 16 Furtwängler 1900, vol. III, pp. 212-299 for Italic gems and pp. 300-358 for Augustan and early imperial glyptics. These were the days when glyptic production was the most prolific, so it was also natural to write so much about it too. Even this brief overview clearly shows the high level of interest in engraved gems often declared by the most illustrious scholars. Nevertheless, while in the 18th and the first half of the 19th century the role of collecting gems clearly exceeded studying them, in the end of the 19th century the situation reversed. This was due to the fading interest of the art market in engraved gems which was caused by many factors (repetitious copying and considerable decrease in the quality of workmanship, dispersion of important collections combined with increasing number of gems of doubtful authenticity) and thus became unattractive investment.11 At the same time, in the end of the century another key figure in the study of ancient art and archaeology conducted and published his works on engraved gems – Adolf Furtwängler (1853-1907). His catalogue of enormous (reaching 12 000 objects) cabinet of gems housed in Berlin was his first major accomplishment.12 Later, he published important articles on the gems signed by ancient engravers.13 However, in 1900 he published his opus magnum – Die antiken Gemmen. Geschichte der Steinschneidekunst im klassischen Altertum which was a milestone for modern glyptic research.14 The outstanding quality of Furtwängler’s research proves the fact that his works are frequently cited by present-day scholars and the methodology he proposed, although with slight changes, still is a base for every serious analysis of glyptic material.15 Furtwängler deeply analysed and neatly systematised gems produced from the Minoan to the Late Antique period. Regarding the material interesting us here the most, his first achievement that should be singled out is separation of the Roman Republican gems from the Augustan and early imperial ones. One quickly realises that these two categories were maybe the most important for him since one third of the book is devoted to them.16 Furtwängler calls gems produced in Italy during the 3rd-1st century BC as Italic basically distinguishing two groups of them: etruscanising – those greatly influenced by Etruscan glyptic tradition which were produced in the northern and central Italy (mainly Latium), and hellenising – those produced in southern Italy (mainly Campania) and Sicily being under the influence of Greek artists. However, he was fully aware of the fact that Italic glyptics constitutes a much more complex picture and various local traditions should be taken into account as well.17 Noteworthy are his observations on glass gems so popular in Italy those days.18 He commented on them as well as on the various subjects and problems of dating gems from that period, their geographical distribution pointing at some places suitable for gem workshops’ locations, various styles performed by the artists and iconography.19 He did that without losing the clearness for the general framework of his work. Finally, Furtwängler observed the merge of Roman and Greek traditions in glyptic art which happened in the 1st century BC and resulted in what we call today as Augustan classicism.20 In his book, he describes Augustan gems together with early imperial works which was utterly fine for the time being. For many years his classification was sufficient and many of his observations remain actual today. Of course, intense publication of public and private collections combined with more archaeological data obtained, especially over last fifty years, now allow the scholars to go with their analyses of the Roman Republican and Augustan gems even deeper, but the foundations laid by Furtwängler still stay strong and his book is a point of reference to everyone pursuing any kind of glyptic studies also for the author of this dissertation.21 17 Furtwängler 1900, vol. III, pp. 212-18. 18 Furtwängler 1900, vol. III, pp. 219-22. 19 Furtwängler 1900, vol. III, pp. 223-27. 20 Furtwängler 1900, vol. III, pp. 300-303. 21 However, see some criticism towards Furtwängler’s and his contemporaries works on glyptic art in Sagiv 2018, pp. 3-4. My own commentaries on Furtwängler’s observations regarding Roman Republican and Augustan gems in a more extensive way are provided in specific chapters in the third part of the thesis. 22 Actually, prior to Furtwängler, among the major public collections of engraved gems, only the ones from Paris had been published with a selection of gems illustrated in the end of the 19th century by Ernest Babelon: 1894, 1897 and 1899 (noteworthy is also the catalogue written by Anatole Chabouillet in 1858, but this work was unillustrated). 23 Good examples of that are for instance: the famous Southesk collection published in 1908 (Carnegie and Carnegie 1908), Kibaltchitch’s assemblage published in 1910 (Kibaltchitch 1910) and the highly important Clercq collection published in 1911 (Ridder 1911). Noteworthy are also books dealing with Roman finger rings including some Roman Republican and Augustan gems (Marshall 1908; Henkel 1913). The greatness of Furtwängler’s book Die antiken Gemmen was not only a result of his beautiful mind, but also his methodology. Prior to this publication, he travelled across the Europe studying all the major public and private collections of engraved gems on his own. Having direct access to the material was not easy as very little of it was published.22 This situation gradually started to change after Furtwängler’s publication.23 In 1920s. publishing on gems intensified when several important in terms of quantity and quality collections ‘had come out of the museums’ and thus, became accessible to everyone willing to study them. In 1920 Beazley published his extraordinary study of the Lewes House collection of gems, which will be of special interest to us in the following chapters.24 In 1926 a catalogue with a selection of photographs of the vast cabinet of gems housed in the British Museum in London was released by Walters and three years later, the numerous collection of intaglios and cameos from the Thorvaldsen Museum in Copenhagen was elaborated by Fossing.25 Both of them included great numbers of Roman Republican and Augustan gems which are of great interest to us here and many times these books are still the only point of reference to those collections we have today. Furthermore, the authors were clearly inspired by Furtwängler’s work classifying the material basically to the etruscanising, hellenising and Graeco-Roman groups (the last usually included Augustan gems). Not less important is the catalogue of cameos preserved today in Kunsthistoriches Museum in Venna by Eichler and Kris.26 However, many objects from that collection have been discussed by later authors enabling their better understanding and exposure, thus making them more approachable for the presented dissertation.27 Concerning less numerous collections, noteworthy is publication of the Duval assemblage by Deonna.28 Across the ocean, gems were published as well, mainly by Richter.29 Although, these catalogues were necessary work that would have enabled to approach more complex issues and problems related to glyptic art, there were almost none studies of this kind since Furtwängler.30 24 Beazley’s catalogue has recently been republished and provided with new notes, lacking measurements etc. by Boardman (2002). 25 Walters 1926; Fossing 1929. 26 Eichler and Kris 1927. 27 Zwierlein-Diehl 2008. 28 Deonna 1925. 29 Richter 1920. 30 Perhaps Lippold 1922 and Gebhardt 1925 might be considered as exceptions, but still on very loose conditions. 31 Richter 1942 and 1956; Righetti 1954-1956, 1955a, 1955b and 1957-1959. 32 For instance: Alföldi 1954; Gonzenbach 1952; Vermeule 1957 and 1958. The period spreading from 1930s to 1950s yielded relatively few publications including Roman Republican and Augustan engraved gems. Some exceptions are catalogues of two collections from the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York by Richter and selections of gems from various museums located in Rome by Righetti.31 However, in 1950s, one observes first symptoms of interest in Roman Republican and Augustan gems as valuable comparative material for the studies of other branches of Roman art and craftsmanship, as well as some reports of their archaeological finds.32 In the late 1950s two authorities in the glyptic studies – Sena Chiesa and Vollenweider started to publish their works, but their contributions will be broadly discussed in the due course since they played significant role in the development of the research on ‘propaganda gems’.33 33 Some of the early works of these authors include: Sena Chiesa 1957 and 1958; Vollenweider 1955 and 1958. 34 Vollenweider 1966. 35 Sena Chiesa 1966. 36 See some reviews: Maaskant-Kleibrink 1969, pp. 173-74. 37 For instance, a number of gems housed in Kunsthistoriches Museum in Vienna or Civici Musei di Storia ed Arte in Triest proved to originate from Aquileia, see: Ciliberto and Giovannini 2008; Sena Chiesa 2009a. The same is the case with about 140 Roman Republican, Augustan and Roman imperial gems from the National Museum in Krakow collection, see: Gołyźniak 2017, p. 47. 38 Sagiv 2018, p. 27. A significant advancement in the studies of Roman Republican and Augustan engraved gems took place in the next period covering 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s. The year 1966 was special because two highly important books on gems appeared. First, Vollenweider published her thorough research on the top-quality gem engraving in the Late Roman Republic and Augustan times.34 She successfully analysed and described masterpieces of Roman gem engraving, mostly those signed by ancient artists. The signed work of each of them is discussed in her book and dated mainly through stylistic and comparative analyses to the coins. The dissertation part is accompanied with a catalogue and plates including wonderful photographs of these highly important pieces. Vollenweider approached the material with utmost carefulness detecting some modern copies among objects traditionally taken as genuine. But the most important for us, she analysed the glyptic material of that period as closely related to Roman politics and propaganda. For this reason, her work will be more extensively commented in the next sub-chapters. The second work of a major significance was the study of engraved gems from Aquileia by Sena Chiesa.35 This publication presents 1523 engraved gems (including a number of Roman Republican and Augustan specimens) originating from one archaeological site. Even though their archaeological context is incomplete, the publication is very useful because it includes almost all the current subjects appearing in Roman glyptics (of all periods), excluding portrait gems and cameos.36 It is a great reference material making possible to identify hundreds of gems preserved now in the museum collections as originating from this highly important centre of glyptic production.37 Sena Chiesa’s organisation of the selected material and her attempt to distinguish a number of larger and smaller studios operating at the site during a long period of time from the 2nd century BC to the 2nd century AD is interesting. Nevertheless, the book has received much criticism for the poorly reproduced objects and most importantly for the rather outdated methodology.38 As Maaskant-Kleibrink points out, the biggest shame is that the gems have been organised first according to their iconography, into larger thematic groups such as heroes, gods, animals etc. and then ascribed to smaller categories like Zeus, Apollo etc.39 Doing that way, Sena Chiesa lost a great chance to present the overall development of Roman glyptic styles and techniques over four hundreds of years first, which could have been then followed by distinction of separate studios producing gems (and the iconography might have been just one of many criteria). Basing the classification first on iconography and then on individual styles and techniques results in a chaos well illustrated by Sena Chiesa plates that often includes material not coherent in terms of chronology. Even though the plates offer a kind of graphical key to the whole study, the reader remains confused and if he is not a specialist on the subject, will quickly feel discouraged.40 About 7 000 gems are reported to be found in Aquileia and there is a hope that they should be digitised and available to everyone in the future so that the selection presented by Sena Chiesa would be completed.41 39 Maaskant-Kleibrink 1969, pp. 173-74. 40 Maaskant-Kleibrink 1969, p. 174. 41 According to oral communication with Dr. Elisabetta Gagetti who is the head of a scientific project aiming at cataloguing of all engraved gems found in Aquileia and its vicinity, now stored in the Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Aquileia. 42 AGDS I.2; AGDS I.3; AGDS II; AGDS III; AGDS IV. 43 Zwierlein-Diehl 1973a, 1979 and 1991 (the last devoted to the Roman Imperial gems, but with an appendix including some previously omitted works too). 44 Neverov 1971, 1976 and 1988. 45 For instance: Berry 1968; Hamburger 1968; Dorigato 1974; Gramatopol 1974; Henig 1975; Femmel and Heres 1977; Sena Chiesa 1978; Forbes 1981. 46 Regarding private collections, some truly spectacular assemblages were published those days like the Ionides collection (Boardman 1968) and the Harari cabinet (Boardman and Scarisbrick 1977). In the 1960s one observes inception of a more general and advanced trend in publishing of public and private collections of engraved gems, which has greatly intensified in the 1970s. Many of new catalogues included Roman Republican and Augustan material approached with more or less attention. Among them, the German project Antike Gemmen in Deutshen Sammlungen stands out. The collections of gems from Berlin, Munich, Braunschweig, Göttingen, Kassel, Hannover and Hamburg provided scholars with thousands of objects.42 A similar project was embarked on by Zwierlein-Diehl regarding the Vienna collection.43 This stream of publications kept flowing from all countries. Neverov published a selection of highly important for their quality intaglios and cameos housed in St. Petersburg.44 Apart from these, many other institutions elaborated their collections which even if not so numerous, should not be omitted due to the quality of the material they preserve.45 Some private cabinets were also made accessible to the wider audience.46 Studies on specific groups of gems were also carried out and many articles dealing with smaller collections as well as individual objects were released by various authors.47 This period also witnessed first critical studies of the numerous books and articles recently published.48 47 Concerning the studies, among all noteworthy are a book written by Martini on late Etruscan ringstones (1971) and dissertation on the problem of copying famous statues by gem engravers on their works by Platz-Horster (1970). It is pointless to mention here all the articles dealing with engraved gems and published those days, but one might find a good survey on them in Maaskant-Kleibrink 1969, pp. 175-80 and 1983, pp. 143-77, in Zazoff 1983, p. 260 as well as in the bibliography of this dissertation which for sure does not include all, but majority of the publications on the subject of Roman Republican and Augustan gems. 48 Maaskant-Kleibrink 1969 and 1983. 49 Richter 1968 and 1971. 50 Maaskant-Kleibrink 1983, p. 145. 51 Vollenweider 1972-1974. 52 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 1-16. 53 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 16-20. 54 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 21-22. Thanks to this hard and often minute work performed by numerous scholars, the number of gems accessible for study have sharply increased. This, in turn, resulted in the desire for new systematization and thorough description of glyptic art on a whole as well as studies of specific problems. It was Richter who embarked on a project aiming at a full description of Greek, Etruscan and Roman engraved gems. Published in two volumes,49 on the one hand her study offered much of previously unillustrated material, especially if portraits are concerned, and the descriptions of specific subjects appearing on gems are valuable, but on the other hand, many times her dating is unacceptable and the books include many modern gems.50 In the years 1972-1974 Vollenweider, a well-known authority in glyptic studies, published her probably the most outstanding work – Die Porträtgemmen der römischen Republik.51 This deep analysis of about 500 portraits on Roman republican gems is of capital importance for us here due to the fact that Vollenweider’s views on the use of gems for propaganda purposes are presented there too. This richly illustrated, published in two volumes study is well-organised and makes possible to trace the art of portraiture on Roman gems since Etruscan scarabs down to Octavian’s domination. It is worth to highlight Vollenweider’s reasonable evolutionary approach to the subject (which is close to the one presented here). In the first part of her book, she comments mostly on the heads of various deities like Janus, Vulcan, Dioscuri and Mars appearing on the 4th-2nd century gems being strongly influenced by Etruscan glyptics.52 In the next section she deals with portraits of Roman princeps dividing them on those belonging to old men, young men and boys.53 She correctly observes that these early representations are characterisations rather than direct portraits. Moreover, women’s heads appear ca. 2nd century BC, first those of female deities, then of individuals.54 An important section in her study is the one about the influence of Hellenistic portraiture on the Italic and Roman heads. One of the very important conclusions is that Hellenistic influence enabled the gem portraits to become more individualised.55 Vollenweider’s talent for identification of portraits, which is mostly based on the comparative analysis of gems and coins and incorporates great stylistic study is well exposed in the further sections of her book. With the aid of coinage and deep iconographical analysis of symbolism, often accompanying portraits of the Romans on gems, she successfully identifies individuals and provides with precise dates. However, one must be aware that Vollenweider sometimes goes too far in terms of both, identification and dating. Her stylistic analysis is often difficult to track and hence, the conclusions rather unconvincing. Nevertheless, her outstanding work still stimulates discussions over groups and individual pieces and will be more extensively commented in the further sections of this study. Regarding Vollenweider, it is worth to mention here also her second volume presenting gems from Geneva.56 Like her previously described books, this one is no exception. It is a comprehensive, well-researched and fully-referenced volume. The quality of scholarship is outstanding and even though again, Vollenweider seems to go too far in her interpretations and origins of particular motifs, still her work remains inspirational even today or at least stimulating and sometimes provoking. 55 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 25-26. 56 Vollenweider 1979. 57 Maaskant-Kleibrink 1978. 58 Maaskant-Kleibrink 1978, pp. 99-193 – for Roman Republican gems and pp. 194-205 and 364-371 - for the Augustan ones. Among the many catalogues of collections of engraved gems published in the described period of time the one which stands out is that written by Maaskant-Kleibrink presenting intaglios from the Dutch assemblage once housed in The Hague (now transferred to Leiden).57 This is due to the fact that the author attempts to classify regular and glass gems according to techniques of engraving rather than styles alone as it was often the case in the past. This is a major contribution of Maaskant-Kleibrink to the studies of glyptic art in general. Regarding Roman Republican and Augustan gems, she successfully distinguishes several classes, at the same time maintaining Furtwängler’s framework, and dates gems more precisely than others.58 Her observations also include archaeological ‘hard data’ as well as remarks on the influence of both Etruscan and Hellenistic traditions on Roman Republican gems which are reflected in her stylistic groups. These two were opposite to each other not only as was traditionally though in terms of iconography, but also techniques of engraving and styles. Each class of gems distinguished by Maaskant-Kleibrink precedes a compact but highly informative commentary. All of that together makes her catalogue an extremely valuable publication that is of key importance for everyone pursuing studies in Roman glyptics. Maaskant-Kleibrink’s methods proved successful because made on a relatively large group of material (although, still, originating from only one collection). It would be expected that further studies of Roman Republican and Augustan gems should be a combination of analysis of archaeological and contextual data, analysis of various styles, techniques of engraving, iconography and comparisons made with other branches of Roman art and craftsmanship (notably coins). Some of these means were used by the next great authority in terms of glyptic studies – Zazoff who published his handbook on ancient engraved gems in 1983.59 Generally speaking, Zazoff’s aim was again to follow his great predecessor Furtwängler in presenting history of ancient glyptics. His book constitutes a part of greater series Handbuch der Archäologie which should be kept in mind. The book form imposed some limitations. Yet, it should be highlighted that Zazoff as anyone else before him put the history of glyptic art into very clear frames. Each chapter of his book starts with up-to-date bibliography and includes several sections helping to understand gems in their specific cultural and geographical contexts. However, in contrast to Furtwängler, he does not consider Augustan gems as a separate category. First, he writes a section on Italic and Roman Republican gems where some information about Late Republican material is discussed.60 Then he writes a chapter dealing with Roman Imperial gems where one finds information on the famous gem engravers working under Augustus, famous seals mentioned in the literary sources and so forth.61 Of course, clear-cut definitions and dating frames in glyptics are impossible to be set precisely, but to my mind, Augustan glyptics exhibits so many individual features that it should be treated as a separate category.62 In fact, it may be taken as a transitional period linking both Roman Republican and Imperial glyptics. Coming back to Zazoff’s methodology, it was a good idea of him to start presentation of the material from known archaeological finds and localisations of regional collections including Roman Republican gems. Even though he does not propose more workshops than Aquileia, his neat work leaves the reader with a few other potential places where gems could have been cut.63 Then, Zazoff concentrates on gems forms and their rings as well as production and meaning of glass gems so popular in this period.64 This is helpful for 59 Zazoff 1983. 60 Zazoff 1983, pp. 260-305. 61 Zazoff 1983, pp. 306-348. 62 Henig also distinguishes between Roman Republican and Augustan gems, see: 1994, p. 153. 63 Zazoff 1983, pp. 261-268. 64 Zazoff 1983, pp. 268-274. dating gems since one may see which types of gems fit the rings fashionable those days. Furthermore, he elaborates on various styles performed by ancient gem engravers.65 Then, he concentrates on dating, localising and attributions of gems to specific artists.66 In this section he writes about the impact that politics had on the art of gem engraving, which will be of special interest for us in the following chapters. Finally, Zazoff briefly describes basic thematic groups appearing on Roman Republican gems.67 A similar structure is applied to the section on Roman Imperial gems, which as mentioned includes valuable observations on what we call Augustan gems. The system used by Zazoff in his book fixed the idea of how gems should be described, analysed and interpreted for the future generations. His contribution is important because he approached them as fully archaeological artefacts. Zazoff set standards which have been willingly applied by others. He also made researchers of glyptics aware of the need for archaeological finds of gems and reconstructions of their provenance information which remains actual today. 65 Zazoff 1983, pp. 274-277. 66 Zazoff 1983, pp. 278-290. 67 Zazoff 1983, pp. 290-302. 68 LIMC 1981-2009. 69 Sena Chiesa and Facchini 1985. After Zazoff’s handbook was published in 1983, there have been several aspects of glyptic studies gradually developed by scholars until another landmark appeared on the timescale in 2007. Gems received more attention not only from specialists in the field but also from outside. They were frequently used to illustrate mythological subjects so popular in Classical art collected and described in the series Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae.68 Engraved gems have been also described as an important branch of Roman art and craftsmanship in the series Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt.69 In between 1983 and 2007, catalogues of public and private collections have been published in a lavish number. It is difficult to point even the most important ones, but Italian collections might be treated as a separate category. These are of key importance for the provenance studies of Roman Republican and Augustan gems. As Sena Chiesa already showed by publication of gems found in Aquileia and in the Luni area, many Italian museums built their collections through gradual accumulation of the material from local people as well as through archaeological excavations. The two volumes of gems from the Museo Archeologico in Naples published by Pannuti must be singled out here since the first of them deals with gems having a confirmed archaeological provenance including the area of Pompeii and Herculaneum, while in the second one the author assembled not less important gems but without archaeological context.70 Museums from such cities as Bari,71 Bologna,72 Ferrara73 and Udine74 have their cabinets of gems published. The collections in Florence have been only partially elaborated and made accessible to the wider audience75 and the most important from our perspective located in various institutions in Rome (the Villa Giulia Museum, the Biblioteca Apostolica and the Vatican Museums) still wait for a proper publication.76 70 Pannuti 1983 and 1994. 71 Tamma 1991. 72 Mandrioli Bizzarri 1987. 73 Agostini 1984. 74 Tomaselli 1993. 75 Giuliano and Micheli 1989; Tondo and Vanni 1990; Tondo 1996; Gennaioli 2007. 76 The material is only partially accessible in museums’ exhibition galleries. 77 Weiß 1996 and 2007. 78 Zwierlein-Diehl 1986. 79 Zwierlein-Diehl 1998. 80 Platz-Hortser 1984, 1987 and 1994. 81 Krug 1981 and 1995. Regarding other countries having larger assemblages of Roman Republican and Augustan gems, Germany has completed their AGDS publication programme by issuing books on gems from the Germanischen Nationalmuseum Nürnberg and the Heinrich Dressel collection now housed in Berlin Antikensammlung, both written by Weiß.77 These two publications should be accounted here for their thorough descriptions, outstanding interpretations and abundance of the reference material which all prove their author to be another great authority on the subject of ancient engraved gems. The contribution of Weiß is particularly important for the studies of ‘propaganda gems’ because similarly to Vollenweider, she tends to present various points of view and very often explains iconography through political reasoning. Another great authority in the field, Zwierlein-Diehl, continues her works which apart from numerous articles resulted in two next major publications. The first one is the catalogue of glass impressions and casts made after various intaglios and cameos from Martin-von-Wagner-Museum.78 This book is important since it contributes with brilliant analysis of many now lost gems which would not be otherwise known. The second is a catalogue of ancient engraved gems re-used as decoration of the Three Magi shrine from the Cologne cathedral.79 The works of Platz-Horster focusing on the gems found in Xanten and area of Bonn should be mentioned here as well since they include some Roman Republican and Augustan material and many useful observations to their dating and stylistic classification.80 Also Krug is credited for her publications on gems found alongside the Rhine limes.81 Works of Platz-Horster and Krug are also important because they give us evidence for distribution of ‘propaganda gems’ among soldiers. Some Roman Republican and Augustan gems might be found in the catalogue of exhibition on gems found in Slovenia written by Nestorović.82 In England, aside from the British Museum’s, two other large collections are preserved in the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford and the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge respectively. The Oxford gems have been studied by Henig, another great authority in the field of ancient glyptic, and McGregor.83 The material in the Fitzwilliam Museum was published in the mid-1990s by Henig, Scarisbrick and Whiting. It is noteworthy that Henig separates Roman Republican gems from Augustan ones providing clear criteria of their classification.84 In addition to these, in light of the gems’ provenance studies, important is the contribution of Middleton who presented gems originating from Dalmatia in the collections of Sir John Gardner Wilkinson and Sir Arthur Evans, now in Harrow School, at Oxford and elsewhere.85 The same author also published gems in the Royal Albert Memorial Museum in Exeter.86 The French collections of the Bibliothèque nationale de France and the Louvre Museum remain largely unpublished, however, Greek and Roman portraits from the former have been studied by Vollenweider and Avisseau-Broustet.87 Furthermore, it is thanks to Guiraud that we now have a detailed picture of archaeological finds of Roman engraved gems on the French territory.88 Her contribution is of capital importance for the studies of gems provenance and distribution (including many delivered to Roman soldiers). After her study of gems from The Hague (now Leiden), Maaskant-Kleibrink published a collection of gems from Nijmegen.89 Casal Garcia and Giner made us available objects from the main collections of gems in Madrid and Valencia respectively.90 The Hermitage Museum in St. Petersburg houses a vast collection of engraved gems including many examples of Roman Republican and Augustan glyptics. As mentioned, some highlights have been already published by Neverov, but in 2000 the same author with another great specialist in glyptics Kagan published another selection of 500 stones including some previously unknown pieces.91 Thanks to Finogenova we got access to the selection of gems from the 82 Nestorović 2005. 83 Henig and MacGregor 2004. 84 Henig, Scarisbrick and Whiting 1994, pp. 75-90 – Roman Republican gems and pp. 91-127 – Augustan ones. On the problem of distinction between Roman Republican and Augustan gems, see also: Henig 1994, p. 153. Regarding gems from Cambridge, a bit earlier, the gems from the Welcome collection, now housed in Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge has been published by Nicholls 1983. 85 Middleton 1991. 86 Middleton 1998. 87 Vollenweider and Avisseau-Broustet 1995 and 2003. 88 Guiraud 1988-2008. 89 Maaskant-Kleibrink 1986. 90 Casal Garcia 1990; Giner 1996. 91 Kagan and Neverov 2000. Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts in Moscow.92 Concerning the collections preserved in the United States of America, an important contribution to our understanding of Roman Republican and Augustan gems have been made by Spier with his catalogue of gems housed in the Jean Paul Getty Museum, Malibu.93 Next year Tees published gems from the collection of the McGill University of Antiquities.94 Finally, in 2002, Berges released his catalogue of ancient gems from the Maxwell Sommerville collection, now housed in the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology in Philadelphia.95 92 Finogenova 1993. 93 Spier 1992. 94 Tees 1993. 95 Berges 2002. 96 Vollenweider 1984. 97 Zahlhaas 1985. 98 Henig and Whiting 1987. 99 Henig 1990. Martin Henig together with Helen Molesworth have just republished the complete Content cameos collection (2018). This new contribution includes many new previously unknown objects which entered the assemblage after the publication of the first volume. The manuscript of the dissertation was already closed, when the book was released, therefore, I was able only to mention several important cameos in relevant chapters without a thorough discussion on them which they deserve. 100 Konuk and Arslan 2000. 101 Middleton 2001. 102 Spier 2001. 103 Wagner and Boardman 2003. 104 Martin and Höhne 2005. 105 Bernheimer 2007. 106 Megow 1987. The period between 1983 to 2007 yielded with a surprisingly high number of private collections being exposed through detailed publications. Among the most significant contributions, one must list: the Leo Merz assemblage,96 Dr. E. Pressmar collection,97 the Sa’d collection of intaglios and cameos,98 the extraordinary Content Family collection of cameos,99 the highly important for gems’ provenance studies Yüksel Erimtan collection including pieces originating exclusively from Asia Minor100 and of similar importance the Wright collection,101 the Calouste Gulbenkian Collection of gems,102 a private collection originating from the eastern part of the Roman Empire published by Wagner and Boardman103 and another one from Germany published by Martin and Höhne,104 and finally the Borowski collection of intaglios, cameos and rings.105 Concerning the studies devoted to specific problems related to Roman Republican and Augustan gems, of great importance is the book on Roman cameos with imperial portraits sculpted from the age of Augustus down to the reign of Severan dynasty by Megow.106 For the first time, these extraordinary works of art have been collected in one place, grouped into classes according to their styles with aid of complex comparative analysis with sculptural heads and busts and broadly commented. Although, Megow’s publication is not free from errors and his dating as well as identification of individual pieces is sometimes controversial, he managed to organise a bulk of material into a certain framework which among other things, facilitates interpretation of Augustan glyptics. In turn, Moret focused his research on one specific motif – rape of Palladion by Diomedes.107 Late Etruscan and early Italic gems of specific a globolo style has been studied by Hansson.108 His contribution is of capital importance for us because it includes chapters dealing with gems’ production and identification of potential workshops that, as it will be shown, could survive down to the late 1st century BC/early 1st century AD. Toso offers a detailed study of various mythological motifs appearing on gems in the 1st century BC.109 She interprets the myths on gems as a cultural phenomenon, often related to the political activities and thus her study will be commented in the following chapters. In 1999, Plantzos published his monograph on Hellenistic engraved gems. Although the book is a holistic study of a class which does not primarily concern us here, the author presents valuable commentaries and remarks on the late Hellenistic glyptics which is inextricably linked with Late Roman Republican and Augustan ones.110 Particularly important from our perspective are his observations on use of gems in political life and these will be treated more extensively in the following chapters. The study of little figurines cut out of precious and semi-precious stones performed by Gagetti is also worth to mention here. Similarly to Megow, the author collected all the known examples of heads, busts as well as whole figurines of the same kind and thoroughly analysed them exposing new data concerning their dating and cultural significance.111 107 Moret 1997. 108 Hansson 2005. 109 Toso 2007. 110 Plantzos 1999, pp. 83-85, 87-88, 92-97, 101-102 and 111-112. 111 Gagetti 2006. 112 Zwierlein-Diehl 2007. The year 2007 is another landmark on the Roman Republican and Augustan gems research. Zwierlein-Diehl, author of already mentioned three-volume catalogue of engraved gems from Vienna and several other works, published her opus magnum entitled Antike Gemmen und ihr Nachleben.112 The book offers a fantastic survey on ancient glyptic art and goes beyond that since it includes very interesting chapters on the re-use and re-interpretation of gems in the Medieval times as well as brief but informative accounts on gems collecting and studying since the Renaissance to neo-classical period among others. Zwierlein-Diehl’s work has an extensive up-to-date bibliography and is richly illustrated. The scholar successfully combined Furtwängler’s tradition with Vollenweider’s level of expertise and upgraded Zazoff’s and Maaskant-Kleibrink’s methodology. Her analysis of Roman Republican and Augustan glyptics has been done neatly and in many aspects scrupulously even though the format of the book required natural contractions to be made and had many limitations. In her chapter about Roman Republican gems, like Furtwängler, Zwierlein-Diehl describes the influence of the Etruscan and Hellenistic traditions adding Italic component to this mixture as well. All the styles are covered with a useful graphic presentation on the plates.113 However, the late Roman Republican gems are treated together with Augustan and early imperial ones.114 She concentrates on the material itself first (styles, forms and types of stones used among other things), then takes iconography into account. Her analysis is very useful if one wish to date a gem from that long period of time. Zwierlein-Diehl provides with many useful examples of all categories of gems which are illustrated on plates. Her compact study also includes one of the strongest voices pointing out to political meaning of some gems (mainly Augustan cameos) and her text clearly manifests a need for thorough studies of the phenomenon of propaganda on gems.115 As a result, Zwierlein-Diehl’s book is another highly important point of reference for our own studies presented in this dissertation. 113 Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, pp. 97-107. 114 Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, pp. 108-122. But this is still a common practice, see, for instance: Wagner and Boardman 2017, p. 119. 115 Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, pp. 126-132. 116 Tassinari 2008. 117 Tassinari 2011. 118 Tassinari 2011, pp. 402-403. The last period presented in this sub-chapter is relatively short and span from 2007 to a present day. It starts from two important articles by Tassinari. The first one is an extensive study concentrating on the problems of production and distribution of Roman engraved gems.116 Most of the text concerns Roman Imperial glyptics, but retrospections to earlier phases (Roman Republican and Augustan) are also taken into account by the author. The second work is in fact a critical survey on glyptic literature published between 2007 and 2011.117 The reader learns not only about the great number of new studies in various areas of glyptics but is also given Tassinari’s remarks on the current problems and concerns of this particular branch of archaeology and art history. Tassinari even suggests what is still to be done for the future generations of researchers and how could we improve the discipline on several instances. Among several issues she lists, propaganda on gems is a one of the most important issues.118 Over the last decade, like in the previous periods, a number of new catalogues presenting both public and private collections appeared. Many of them include sometimes hundreds of Roman Republican and Augustan gems. Among the most important should be mentioned: the collection of her Majesty the Queen of England,119 the republished selection of the best cameos from Vienna,120 the reconstructed fabulous Marlborough collection,121 the collection of Museo Civico d’Arte Antica in Torino,122 a part of the collection of Civici Musei d'Arte in Verona,123 the collection of Museo Archeologico Nazionale dell’Umbria in Perugia,124 Helmut Hansmann collection,125 the Santarelli collection now housed in the Musei Capitolini in Rome,126 a small but significant for its provenance, assemblage of gems from Augsburg,127 the collection of cameos in the Antikensammlung Berlin,128 preliminary review of the James Loeb collection,129 the collection of gems and rings formed by Guy Ladrière,130 the Beverley collection, which has recently been republished,131 a notable private collection including many masterpieces in miniature132 and the cabinet of ancient engraved gems from the National Museum in Krakow.133 All these publications include objects which form the core of the material database in use in this dissertation. 119 Boardman and Aschengreen Piacenti 2008. 120 Zwierlein-Diehl 2008. 121 Boardman et. al. 2009. 122 Bollati and Messina 2009. 123 Sena Chiesa, Magni and Tassinari 2009. 124 Vitellozzi 2010. 125 Wünsche, Steinhart and Weiß 2010. 126 Gallottini 2012. 127 Platz-Horster 2012a. 128 Platz-Horster 2012b. 129 Weiß 2012. Dr. Carina Weiß kindly informed me that her catalogue of James Loeb collection is forthcoming. 130 Scarisbrick, Wagner and Boardman 2016a. 131 Scarisbrick, Wagner and Boardman 2016b. 132 Wagner and Boardman 2017. 133 Gołyźniak 2017. 134 Lang 2012. Regarding the studies devoted to specific problems, iconography and related issues, Lang’s dissertation on gems presenting Greek philosophers, thinkers and related figures stands out.134 Moreover, intaglios and cameos were often regarded as one of the most valuable and luxurious objects of ancient art and craftsmanship. They have been exposed as such in a book on Luxus in ancient world written by Lapatin. The selection of objects in this publication is not only the best in terms of quality, but it also shows how prestigious was to possess and use engraved gems of various kinds and that these objects could testify to a high social status in the best way possible and transfer political messages. Regarding representations of animals, fantastic creatures and their combinations, Sagiv has recently presented her study on the subject of animal representations on Greek and Roman engraved gems presenting nearly 70 objects from the Israel Museum Jerusalem collection and she notices that some of them served for political propaganda.135 Finally, one should mention the proceedings of a symposium on engraved gems held in Aquileia on 19th-20th June 2008, which shed much light and boosted new interest in the studies of gems’ provenance and beyond.136 Another important congress on engraved gems has been organised in 2016 in Leiden and its proceedings deliver a fresh collection of gem studies among which, the article presenting a deep iconological analysis of the motif of Cassandra on intaglios and cameos written by Maaskant-Kleibrink is very useful for the research presented here.137 135 Sagiv 2018, especially p. 164. 136 Sena Chiesa and Gagetti (eds.) 2009. 137 Maaskant-Kleibrink 2017. 138 Regarding engraved gems a number of public institutions made their collections at least partially available online, for examples: Museum of Fine Arts in Boston, Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, J. Paul Getty Museum in Malibu (a selection), the British Museum in London (a selection), Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge (a selection), the Rijksmuseum van Oudheden in Leiden, Bibliothèque nationale de France in Paris (a selection), Kunsthistoriches Museum in Vienna (very little), Antikensammlung in Berlin (very little), Musée d'art et d'histoire in Geneva, the State Hermitage Museum in St. Petersburg (a selection) and the Thorvaldsen Museum in Copenhagen. In the Internet era museums are undergoing some profound changes also if it goes to the way they make their collections available to the audience. Casual exhibiting and publication of catalogues constitute a basis but also putting the images into the Internet databases available for everyone or even virtual tours are popular actions nowadays. It is good to observe that more and more institutions put their collections online and it is hoped the example of several will be followed by the others.138 The author of this dissertation benefited from this phenomenon greatly using the images and data available online for construction of his own database (see, the catalogue part). 2.2. Studies of propaganda on Roman Republican and Augustan gems issue The quick overview above has shown that literature on Roman Republican and Augustan gems is abundant. Nevertheless, catalogues of public and private collections dominate and while many of them include tremendous amount of useful information for the studies of propaganda on gems, it is clear that studies devoted to specific problems, including propaganda issue on gems are scarce. Now, I would like to present and briefly comment on the books and articles treating or touching the subject of ‘propaganda gems’ since they form a base for the discussion presented in the next parts of the dissertation. Here, I present only works of scholars dealing mainly with glyptic art while the ‘outsiders’ are grouped and commented in the next sub-chapter. Studies of Roman propaganda on gems seem to have no precise beginning and sometimes it is difficult to ascertain to what degree the author really treats gems as artefacts with some political meaning. However, it seems natural to start with Furtwängler – one of the greatest authorities in the gem-world. Although in his Die antiken Gemmen Furtwängler offers little information about political significance of Roman Republican and Augustan gems, he clearly separated Augustan gems from the Republican ones, among other reasons, due to the political impact of Augustus on the Roman art in general. Furtwängler noticed that Pliny the Elder provides us with a bunch of useful information regarding seals used by the most prominent Roman politicians and he briefly commented on some generalisation of themes in glyptics under Augustus.139 Yet, he does not go into details but the reason for this is that he focused his research on gems as archaeological artefacts and ancient artworks rather than their potential propagandistic or political value. 139 Furtwängler 1900, vol. III, pp. 303-306. 140 Vollenweider 1955 and 1958. 141 Vollenweider 1955, pp. 99-101. Twenty years later a similar conclusion was drawn by Maaskant-Kleibrink (1978, p. 196). 142 Vollenweider 1955, p. 102. 143 Vollenweider 1955, pp. 105-107. 144 Vollenweider 1960, 1961, 1963-1964 and 1964. A significant progress has been made in 1950s and 1960s due to Vollenweider’s studies. First, she published a couple of papers on the matters related to propaganda on gems and the image of Scipio Africanus.140 The former article is of great importance and a point of reference to the studies on the issue of personal branding through portraits engraved upon gems. Vollenweider was the first to propose that glass gems were purposed as a cheap, mass production addressed to ordinary people and soldiers and used to achieve political (propaganda) goals.141 Moreover, she observed that Sulla’s personal seal exhibited a deep propaganda message which was purposefully put on his ring.142 Noteworthy is that she was aware of the problems with gems and the fact that only a tiny portion of the original artworks might have survived to the present day.143 In the 1960s Vollenweider continued her work on the one hand publishing papers on portrait gems and the use of gems for propaganda on the other hand. She elaborated on several peculiar intaglios and cameos, among others the one showing a scene of princeps iuventutis involving Gaius and Lucius Caesar, the one representing a very special portrait of Julius Caesar and episode from Pompey the Great’s career.144 But the comprehensive study of late Roman Republican and Augustan gem engravers was at the time her greatest achievement by far. As mentioned above, the book published in 1966 was not only a wonderful analysis of all the most important gem engravers transferring their workshops from the Hellenistic east to Rome and elsewhere in Italy, but Vollenweider also stressed that gems were frequently used for propaganda purposes.145 Another, perhaps even greater success of the Swiss scholar was a complete study of portraits on gems in the Roman Republic.146 In this book, the reader finds out why portraits on gems appear so frequently and what was the political background for this. Vollenweider’s commentaries on the symbolism accompanying portraits on gems and its political significance, especially in the 1st century BC, even though not always acceptable, still stimulate discussion on this significant issue. Therefore, her chapters on Pompey the Great, Julius Caesar, Marcus Iunius Brutus and Quintus Cassius Longinus or Mark Antony and Octavian are all starting points for our own investigations in the in the third part of dissertation.147 It can be said that there is no one else but Vollenweider who did more for the studies of propaganda on gems so far. Her contribution is even more valuable since she based her research on comparative analysis between gems and coins which successfully established a kind of trend to be followed by others. Furthermore, valuable commentaries regarding various political events, symbolism, portraits etc. can be found in her more recent works, however, the two described monographs constitute the absolute basis for the research on propaganda on gems.148 145 Vollenweider 1966, pp. 17-22. 146 Vollenweider 1972-1974. 147 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 106-229. 148 These are mainly next collections’ catalogues: Vollenweider 1979 and Vollenweider and Avisseau-Broustet 1995 and 2003. 149 Zazoff 1983, p. 329. 150 Zazoff 1983, pp. 295-296 and 328-334. The next major contribution to the studies of propaganda on gems was made by Zazoff. In his handbook Die antiken Gemmen from 1983, German scholar distinguished three main types of Roman glyptics if the subject-matter is concerned: 1. aristocratic glyptics, 2. popular glyptics and 3. state glyptics.149 Even though his observations and division mainly apply to the Roman Imperial gems, I would like to comment on this classification in the last part of the dissertation, in a chapter devoted to distribution of propaganda gems since it seems suitable for the reign of Augustus if not earlier. Apart from this, Zazoff comments on the subjects which could have had some political meaning, especially under Augustus, but he does not expand out of some general examples.150 Concerning propaganda on gems, noteworthy are remarks of Guiraud in her book on Roman glyptics.151 She briefly comments on the use of gems with portraits for personal branding, highlighting the divine protection from gods by politicians and the production, distribution and possible propagandistic value of glass gems.152 Guiraud is also of the meaning that the so-called State Cameos were publicly exhibited in the imperial palaces or temples, thus giving those political significance and impact on the society.153 In the recent general monography on ancient engraved gems, Zwierlein-Diehl provides with a highly informative and useful chapter covering issues of propaganda and panegyric on engraved gems. Her text, arranged in the form of several case studies showing some general trends, is mainly about the Augustan glyptics and later Imperial gems.154 However, one finds a lot of valuable observations in the chapters treating about the use of gems as well as those presenting Roman Republican, Augustan and early Imperial intaglios and cameos.155 Finally, the significant contribution of Weiß should be singled out. In her catalogues of the Bergau collection in Nürnberg and Dressel in Berlin, she presents numerous intaglios and cameos as having political significance.156 In commentaries to individual objects one finds fruitful discussions on peculiar motifs and those general ones which many times form the base for my own research and are properly exploited in the third part of the thesis. 151 Guiraud 1996. 152 Guiraud 1996, pp. 121-124, 124-127 and 127-133 respectively. 153 Guiraud 1996, pp. 116-121. 154 Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, pp. 126-132. 155 Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, pp. 9-13 and 97-157. 156 Weiß 1996 and 2007. 157 Zwierlein-Diehl 1979, p. 7; Wagner and Boardman 2017, p. X. 158 Henig 1994, pp. 154-156. 159 Maderna-Lauter 1988. Apart from these not much has been said about the use of gems for self-presentation and propaganda purposes except for some general statements.157 There is a clear gap in the research on the pre-Augustan phases of glyptic art. Augustan gems received more attention. Henig is of the opinion that Augustan gems like other artworks of the era reflect Augustus’ successful promotional and propaganda activities that were purposed to make his ideology more approachable to the people of Rome.158 There is one general study by Maderna-Lauter and several smaller contributions focusing mainly on specific motifs or individual objects. The study of Augustan propaganda reflected on engraved gems by Maderna-Lauter is extremely important and was a basis for my own investigations.159 The author offers a thorough overview on the subjects appearing on gems that to her mind are related to propaganda actions of the first Roman Emperor. Many of these gems are well-known from earlier publications, where they were treated as means of propaganda, thus the study does not include much new data, however, the way they are presented is attractive and, in many cases, more convincing than before. Nevertheless, there are types of objects which propagandistic value is controversial, for example, the gems Maderna-Lauter links with aurea aetas and Pax Augusta concepts or representations of gigantomachy involving Mars and Minerva. Some of the motifs described by the author as propagandistic are clearly overinterpreted. The study is an iconographical survey and lacks extensive commentary that could explain why or why not specific motifs should be taken as propagandistic or not and what could be their actual impact on the viewers and users. It also does not include even one or two portraits of Augustus’ successors, who were clearly promoted on intaglios and cameos. These facts motivated me to expand the research Maderna-Lauter started in order to provide a holistic image of Augustan propaganda practices performed through gems. There is a number of other scholars who wrote articles on specific problems or motifs related to Augustan gems as well as those from the slightly earlier period when Octavian rivalled with Mark Antony and they might be interpreted as propagandistic. In a short paper Cicu presents several gems from Sardinia which reflect the range of Octavian/Augustus propaganda actions in actual use by his followers who gathered on the island during his rivalry, first, with Sextus Pompey and later, with Mark Antony.160 In turn, Guiraud describes several examples of gems related to propaganda activity of Octavian/Augustus from archaeological finds in France.161 Gagetti wrote extensively on the motif of the so-called adoption ring appearing on series of conventional and glass gems.162 On the other hand, Sena Chiesa authored three papers on various aspects of Octavian/Augustus propaganda on gems: the Capricorn as his zodiacal and political sign and gems as luxurious objects being symbols of high social status and prestige.163 Regarding Capricorn as a political sign, important contribution has also been delivered by Weiß.164 Recently, representations of animals, fantastic creatures and their combinations have been discussed by Sagiv in her study on the subject of animal representations on Greek and Roman engraved gems presenting nearly 70 objects from the Israel Museum Jerusalem collection. She notices that some of them served for political propaganda.165 160 Cicu 2009. 161 Guiraud 1986. 162 Gagetti 2001. 163 Sena Chiesa 1989, 2002 and 2012. 164 Weiß 2010. 165 Sagiv 2018, especially pp. 104-107, 126-133, 137-144 and 164. Noteworthy are the recent works of Yarrow focusing on coinage but with multiple references to engraved gems and especially glass ones.166 166 Yarrow 2017 and 2018. 167 Regarding general studies of Roman propaganda, see: Popławski 1935; Sauron 1994; Flaig 1995; Döbler 1999. The area which has received most of attention is coinage though, see: Alföldi 1956; Morawiecki 1983, 1996 and 2014; Kunisz 1993; Kopij 2017. 168 Evans 1992. 169 Ramage 1991. 170 Hannestad 1988, pp. 11 and 15. He does not refer to engraved gems in his chapter on the Roman Republic (pp. 15-38), but briefly presents some key State Cameos (pp. 77-82). 171 See for instance: Alföldi 1950, 1951, 1954, 1956, 1970 and 1999. 2.3. General studies of Roman propaganda and self-presentation issues with references to engraved gems In this sub-chapter, I would like to refer to the scholars who are not primarily specialists on glyptics but in other fields related to the studies of Roman propaganda, in order to show what is the interest of people from outside in gems as means of propaganda. At the first glance, there is a vast literature approaching the problem from different angles, but only very few scholars considered gems as a material worth of studying or at least taking into account into their studies of Roman propaganda. Most scholars focus on spectacular and less controversial examples of Roman propaganda activities reflected in architecture, sculpture, paintings, literature and coinage.167 For instance, in one of the most valuable and important general studies of Roman propaganda, Evans deeply analyses various propaganda techniques and methods performed on the aforementioned categories of Roman art and craftsmanship, but she does not mention any example of the use of gems for such purposes.168 Similarly, Ramage provides a thorough characterisation of Sulla’s propaganda machinery reflected in various media, but he ignores Sulla’s personal seal and all its propagandistic value.169 Hannestad also completely ignores all kinds of engraved gems as propaganda means except for few State Cameos, even though gems are more distinctive for propaganda studies even than coins, especially for the 3rd and 2nd century BC.170 Of course, there are exceptions. One of them is one of the greatest authorities in the matters related to Roman propaganda and Augustus - Alföldi. In his numerous studies, he refers to gems mostly as comparative material to coins, which were the main focus of his scientific activities. Yet, many times he exhibits appreciation of glyptic material and especially if the Augustan propaganda is considered, he contributed with valuable remarks and hints, and pointed out the difficult process of deciphering propaganda messages encoded on gems.171 Also Kiss is worth to mention for he figured out that apart from sculptural busts and heads Julio-Claudian princes were promoted through gems as successors of Augustus, although, gems are only mentioned as comparanda rather than treated as independent mean of propaganda.172 Another example is Zanker with his fabulous study of visual propaganda in the times of Augustus.173 This author uses gems to show and describe various propagandistic actions and he succeeded in incorporating the material into a more general framework of Augustus’ propaganda machinery. What is more, in another study, he notices that gems as propaganda means were tightly related to the private sphere of either propagandist and the audience indicating some space for future studies.174 As far as the private sphere is concerned, Pollini should be mentioned here as well with his study on the Gemma Augustea and several other papers devoted to the problem of Augustus promotion, including divine support for him reflected on intaglios and cameos and mythological references that spread not only on the official art, but in the private sphere too.175 172 Kiss 1975. 173 Zanker 1988. 174 Zanker 2000. 175 Pollini 1993 and 2012. 176 Vermeule 1958. 177 For instance: Möbius 1964. 178 For example: Dwyer 1973; Laubscher 1974; Simon 1986; Simonetta 2006. Some scholars should be singled out here because they often use gems as comparative material or worked on a specific problem and evoked some gems in their studies. Even those who did not elaborate on the problem of use of engraved gems for propaganda purposes at all but noticed great potential in them and proposed to pursue studies on the subject are mentioned here as well. Since gems and coins are closely related to each other in terms of techniques, styles and iconography, it is not surprising that most of these scholars are numismatists. First to mention is Vermeule, who paid great attention to the comparative studies between gems and coins and thus noticed that studying gems might significantly contribute to our understanding of Roman propaganda.176 Authors of studies devoted to the subject of the influence of Greek art on the Roman one sometimes also mention about the political usefulness of gems first in the Hellenistic kingdoms and then in Rome.177 If focused on a specific motif used in Roman propaganda, for instance the Capricorn employed by Augustus, several authors have incorporated gems into their studies.178 Of course, Crafword, the author of the holistic study of the Roman Republican coinage should be singled out here as well. Among other things, he should be appreciated for his remarks on the technical and iconographical similarities between Roman Republican gems and coins as well as the view that gems like coins could have served as a medium of mass propaganda, especially those made of glass.179 He is another figure, who suggests studies on the ‘propaganda gems’ problem to be urgently undertaken. Similarly, Morawiecki regarded engraved gems as a gap in the studies of Roman propaganda. He highlighted that gems like coins should be thoroughly analysed and their propagandistic potential described in detail even though they might seem difficult to study.180 Ritter in his study of Heracles’ place in Roman culture, society and art often refers to gems as used for propaganda reasons by political leaders in Rome. He also puts forward an idea of collecting gems by Roman aristocracy as a form of propaganda activity too.181 Likewise, Kühnen, who elaborates on the problem of imitatio Alexandrii, uses gems to illustrate that kind of Roman political activities.182 179 RRC, pp. 727-728. 180 Morawiecki 1983, p. 13. 181 Ritter 1995. 182 Kühnen 2005. 183 Hekster 2004. 184 Barcaro 2008/2009. 185 Biedermann 2014. 186 Piegdoń 2012. 187 Trunk 2009, pp. 143-151. Criticism towards the use of word ‘propaganda’ in interpretations of various artworks, including engraved gems, is highly desirable since the term is often a clear overinterpretation. Hence, Hekster’s paper about propaganda war between Octavian and Mark Antony reflected among others on gems is of great importance and serves as a guidance for those too enthusiastic to link propaganda with everything inexplicable in different ways.183 Apart from these, many authors used gems for their studies to illustrate peculiar problems. For instance, Barcaro hypotheses on the possible significance of gems in the consolidation of divine representations of the most influential Roman politicians.184 Biedermann published an important article about the significance and possible meanings of the bearded portraits in the Late Roman Republic which includes analysis of many engraved gems.185 The same problem has been approached by Piegdoń from a slightly different angle and he based his research partially on gems too.186 The use of gems by Pompey the Great and his sons attracted some attention. If it goes to portraits of Pompey the Great on gems and coins, the study of Trunk is of great importance.187 Recently, Kopij in his book on propaganda actions performed by the members of gens Pompeia Magna wrote a chapter about the use of gems for such purposes by Pompey the Great and Sextus Pompey. His study should be appreciated because unlike the others, he focuses not only on personal branding through portraits engraved upon gems, but also writes about other possible propagandistic messages encoded on intaglios and cameos.188 Yet, barely goes beyond Vollenweider’s observations. 188 Kopij 2017, pp. 253-264. 189 For instance, Zwierlein-Diehl is working on a large (5000 objects out of which about 500 are related to the field of Classical Archaeology) collection of gems formed by Prof. Dr. Klaus Jürgen Müller, which since 2011 is housed in the Akademisches Kunstmuseum der Universität Bonn, see: Zwierlein-Diehl 2015. 2.4. Conclusions As hopefully have become clear from the survey presented above, there is an urgent need to analyse engraved gems of the Roman Republican and Augustan periods as means of propaganda. Majority of publications in which gems figure are catalogues of the collections kept in various public institutions and private hands. This being the case, it is obvious that comparatively little original research has been carried out on this aspect of glyptic art so far. The information on potential use of gems for self-presentation and propaganda purposes is scattered among relatively few publications which are often not correlated to each other. This does not make easy to draw more general conclusions since often the subject of analysis is only one or a few specific cases, while no holistic study has been performed until now. Furthermore, the fact that no exclusive study devoted to Roman Republican and Augustan gems exist, one must first create a general image of the glyptics circulating those days. The amount of Roman Republican and Augustan gems made available through published catalogues and more recently online collections is vast. This material forms a good basis for a more specific as well as synthetic research. Of course, new collections will appear in the future revealing new examples of ‘propaganda gems’,189 but the number of intaglios and cameos already published justify and encourage to carry out a synthetic analysis which would describe Roman Republican and Augustan gems as means of propaganda. The fact that these groups have already been treated with attention to their styles, techniques of engraving and iconography by at least several scholars (Furtwängler; Richter; Maaskant-Kleibrink; Zazoff; Zwierlein-Diehl), facilitates the research. Naturally, some aspects require more attention (for instance, archaeological finds and contexts of already published gems, detailed iconological and iconographical studies and so on) and an exclusive work on Roman Republican and Augustan gems would be welcomed, but these aspects do not exclude undertaking a research on engraved gems’ potential political significance. It is clear that insufficient attention to the problem of propaganda on gems has been given so far. Only Augustan glyptics has been investigated to some degree. All the studies mentioned above are important elements which shed some light onto specific aspects of Augustan propaganda on gems and they form a basis for my own thoughts and conclusions. However, they touch only few issues (most concentrating on the Capricorn sign), while the full image is much more complex and needs to be explained in detail. Furthermore, Vollenweider’s contribution has been singled out as the most significant and comprehensive for the studies of Roman propaganda on gems. Nevertheless, in many instances her hypotheses and interpretations of individual objects are far-fetching and require critical investigations and sometimes reconsideration. On the other hand, some issues like the possible use of engraved gems for propaganda by Sulla and his predecessors in the 3rd and 2nd century BC are not thoroughly explained. The same is the case with Pompey the Great and Julius Caesar and generally speaking, even though the problem has been touched here and there, it is essential to collect all data, interpretations and ideas available and verify whether the term propaganda indeed applies to individual objects, subject-matters and so on or not. Vollenweider started an important discussion over the influence of the politics on Roman gem engraving which has been taken onwards primarily by Weiß. It is hoped that this dissertation will contribute to the overall discussion of the problem and as a result, a more detailed picture than exists now will emerge. Finally, as shown above, in more general studies of Roman propaganda practices engraved gems are often neglected if not completely ignored. Only very few scholars notice the potential of gems in the studies of Roman propaganda. Such an attitude is not surprising since gems like other minor arts are often not considered to be significant propaganda tools. Exceptions are the so-called State Cameos like Gemma Augustea which receive relatively much attention due to their outstanding artistic virtuosity and unusually big form. Another reason why gems have been ignored is their complexity. For many scholars, glyptics is a minefield where so many artefacts may turn out 18th or 19th century copies rather than genuine antiquities. Moreover, gems are difficult to date and interpret since very little of them bear any kind of inscription and vast majority has no archaeological context whatsoever. It is indeed difficult to detect and correctly interpret messages encoded on gems for their iconography is frequently ambiguous. The same motif might be interpreted in various ways depending on cultural and social circle, territory and time it is set in. Therefore, it is much easier to focus the research on Roman propaganda in sculpture, architecture or coins which are not affected so much by these inconveniences. In addition, the current state of affairs is to some degree due to focusing the research on the state and official propaganda rather than on the audience and target groups which also could induce propagandistic, ‘bottom-up’ actions either purposefully and unintentionally. Engraved gems are strictly related to the private sphere which has been insufficiently investigated yet too. All these factors contribute to their exclusion from the mainstream research. The need for a thorough study on the subject of the use of engraved gems for self-presentation and propaganda purposes is hence justified not only on a basic (glyptics) level but also a more general one (studies of Roman propaganda). 3. Aims, methodology and structure 3.1. Aims The new investigation embarked upon here has basically been designed to verify hypothesis of the use of engraved gems for self-presentation and propaganda purposes in the Roman Republic and under Augustus. The chronological framework has been established as starting from the 3rd century BC, the moment when four elements (Etruscan, Italic, Roman and Hellenistic) started to melt together into one Graeco-Roman tradition, and ending at the moment of Augustus’ death in 14 AD. In this period of time one observes evolution of various propaganda practices performed through gems from the casual acts of self-presentation down to the complex propaganda machinery created by Augustus, which have been further exploited by his successors. There seems to be no better circumstances for showing dynamics in use of engraved gems for propaganda in terms of time and cultural environment. On the other hand, the study aspires to show that careful iconographical, iconological and semiotic analysis of gems combined with image studies and investigations of their historical, political and cultural setting might be helpful not only to prove gems political significance, but also to reject overinterpretations. It is also hoped that linking specific classes of gems with political events will help to date these miniature objects of art. In the absence of other reliable and objective data, this might also be the only chance for decoding their true meaning and functions. The main objective was to analyse how politics could have influenced the art of gem engraving within the specified chronological framework and to what degree this process can be reconstructed basing the research on the glyptic material preserved until present day mainly in public and private collections. I undertake a difficult task aimed at detecting, deciphering and interpreting all possible propaganda communications encoded on gems. I pursue to do so in order to create a holistic image of all the propaganda techniques used by Roman politicians to influence the public opinion with use of intaglios and cameos. In a general sense, one of the advantages of gems in the studies of Roman propaganda is that they portray Roman society at each level. Therefore, the material gathered in this study is plausible to show both, general trends in Roman propaganda as well as individual and private acts of being involved in politics. I would like to demonstrate that the miniaturism of ancient gems is often in inverse proportion to their cultural and political significance. Despite – or perhaps because of – their ubiquity, intaglios and cameos with the motifs they bear are often highly sophisticated and captivating in their visual presentation of complex ideas. This is especially true for cameos, while intaglios, as much more popular form, were perfect for personal branding or manifestation of loyalty. By such effective artistry the image carved upon the gems is, almost literally, impressed upon the mind of the viewer. Moreover, the research is planned to show that propaganda gems reflect current situation within the Roman society; the fact that propaganda actions/messages occur on them are effect of this highly political climate. In other words, many of them (especially those bearing complex symbolism) were not deliberately made on politicians’ commissions, but even ordinary people were involved in politics and thus purchased and carried rings with gems to demonstrate their political preferences, needs, wishes and even sometimes disagreements. In addition, important seems taking into account the cultural, ethnic and even linguistic diversity of the Roman society and hence, to ask if the messages encoded on gems were understandable for ordinary citizens of the Roman Empire or maybe only well-educated people could make use of them. In conclusion, the glyptic material offers investigating of Roman propaganda from a completely different angle which, as shown above, was completely neglected in the previous scholarship. Gems might be a good barometer of social moods and indicate whether or not propaganda actions of various Roman politicians were successful which is unique. As has already been shown, there is a clear gap in the studies of ‘propaganda gems’ either in the glyptics literature as well as in the more general works tackling the problem of Roman propaganda. This situation encourages to ask some more specific questions. Why engraved gems could be regarded as useful propaganda tools? Can we say when they started to be used for propaganda purposes and why the popular view that it was Pompey the Great who popularised using gems in Rome is just a false impression? What was the role of Hellenistic culture in clarification of Roman propaganda? What were the characteristics of propaganda actions reflected on engraved gems, especially if the Late Roman Republic and Augustan times are considered? Were they similar to those known from other branches of Roman art, craftsmanship and literature or not? If not, why were they different? What are the reasons for such a situation? What is the propagandistic value of gems if compared, for instance to coins? Furthermore, one asks himself who was responsible for production and distribution of ‘propaganda gems’? What could be the intentions and expected results of the propagandists? Who were the propagandists – only the political leaders or the less influential politicians could use gems for their own propaganda as well? Which types of objects could have been made on private commissions, which by politicians and finally which by engravers themselves to answer the needs and current trends on the market? Can we point subjects suitable for Roman (national) propaganda that were intended to accelerate romanisation of provinces? Regarding glass gems, is it true that they were massively produced and delivered to many in order to steer public opinion? Would it be possible to categorise target groups of propaganda gems of all types? What about the reception of some motifs used by political leaders like Pompey the Great or Julius Caesar and their later re-use by Octavian or Sextus Pompey? Concerning the portraiture, is it possible to determine which ones were made during the life of the propagandist and which after his death in order to transfer his authority by a successor? What about counterpropaganda, is it reflected on gems or not? These and many more questions are addressed in this study. It is hoped they will stimulate the discussion on the problem in general and help to determine the meaning of individual pieces selected to illustrate the whole phenomenon. It is important to mention about limitations during the investigation process as well. Taking into account all the inconveniences related to engraved gems such as frequent lack of any archaeological context, ambiguous iconography that cannot be ascribed to a specific politician or the problem with dating gems and possible existence of modern fakes among the material analysed, one raises a question if such a research is justified and would come out with reliable results? I am fully aware of all the problems related to glyptic material and take them seriously into account. Furthermore, I try to collect as many interpretations of the visible communications appearing on intaglios and cameos proposed by other scholars as possible. Ultimately, they are confronted with the results of my own research. Among other things, the study aims to be a critical survey on the ideas and iconography interpretations that various scholars relate to propaganda. Either, general analysis as well as individual case studies will show that overinterpretations are very common. Doing that way, I feel to be as objective as possible in appraising gems political value and the reader stays informed about other possibilities too (mostly directly, but also in the form of cross-references). For this reason also, the first part of the dissertation includes some content helping to read gems’ iconography properly and indicate what can be the reasons for false conclusions (cf. chapter 5.2). To tackle this problem, some more theoretical considerations of propaganda techniques and forms has been put forward as well. It is crucial first to establish what we understand as propaganda phenomenon now and what it could have mean 2000 years ago taking into consideration all the circumstances not only the selected ones. It is also important to investigate to what degree one might use modern tools in the research of the phenomenon of propaganda because they might bring much more positive results than those used in the past (cf. chapter 4). Finally, the research carried out in this project has been designed to show how engraved gems can be useful to reconstruct more general aspects of Roman propaganda machinery. The aim was to show that basically, glyptic material divides into three main propaganda categories: agitational, integrational and religious/state propaganda. It is debated whether in the early stages (3rd-2nd century BC) one may distinguish a special kind of the state propaganda which reappears during the reign of Augustus. It is purposed to set ‘propaganda gems’ in a wide socio-cultural context in order to show their significance and popularity as a sort of phenomenon in the Roman society and to ascertain their significance in comparison to other media such as coins, sculpture, architecture and so on (cf. chapter 13). 3.2. Methodology The basis of the present study is the analysis, thorough description and interpretation of the collected glyptic material dated from the 3rd century BC to 14 AD as well as familiarisation with modern scholarship dealing with it as well as with specific problems related to the issue of propaganda on gems. Regarding territorial boundaries, the analysed material originates from the lands controlled by Rome from the 3rd century BC (primarily Italy) to the early 1st century AD and beyond since some gems have been found in the Near East region or on the frontiers of the Roman Empire (limes). Because of the great lack of provenance information, the geographical context is limited, but I have also undertaken actions to improve this state of affairs (cf. chapter 11). Intaglios and cameos have been collected primarily according to their potential propagandistic value, which has been determined according to the criteria described in chapter 4.5. These objects are treated as media or channels transferring propaganda messages encoded on them. They have been grouped in several sections to illustrate various aspects of propaganda phenomenon on gems, such as: use of gems in triumphs, collecting, employment of gem engravers, personal seals, personal branding and self-presentation (mainly portraits), induction and manifestation of loyalty and support, use of heritage, promotion of the family and oneself through orgio, promotion of the faction, commemoration of important events (military, social and cultural ones), promotion of abstract ideas (like Pax Augusta or aurea aetas), religious, divine and mythological references, political symbols, State Cameos, vessels and works in the round (luxury objects - if applicable), and other aspects (cf. chapter 5.1). Furthermore, the material is sorted according to the chronology and ascribed to five periods distinguished (Beginnings (3rd-2nd century BC); Early 1st century BC (Sulla, Marius, Lucius Licinius Lucullus and others); Civil War (Pompey the Great and Julius Caesar); Post-caesarian and liberators’ Civil War (factions of pompeians, republicans and caesarians); Augustus (27 BC-14 AD) (cf. chapters 6-10). However, it should be stressed that in some cases (mainly chapter 6 and 10) I decided to include material which ultimately cannot be regarded as propagandistic, but it has been interpreted as such in the previous scholarship for a long time. The idea is first, to show why this material has been interpreted as propagandistic for such a long time and why now it should not. Even though such an implication might cause some distortions, from the methodological point of view it was necessary to comment on those cases rather than ignore them completely. In consequence, each chapter and sub-chapter is furnished with a number of objects illustrating various aspects of propaganda on gems, which are numbered separately in the catalogue part. The gems in the number of 2900 objects have been studied mainly through photographs and illustrations published in catalogues, articles, reports and other forms. A bulk of material has been investigated basing on the sources available online and a good portion of it was examined in original during many visits paid in various European museums.190 In addition to the material inventory all available types of information concerning archaeological proveniences and collection provenances for individual objects have been critically examined. This has been done primarily in order to reconstruct where Roman Republican and Augustan, and thus ‘propaganda gems’ could have been produced and to chart their geographical distribution. The aim was also to identify the type of context in which the gems in question have been found and to date them by relating to other datable objects ideally coming from the same closed contexts. Unfortunately, majority of the gems collected has no precise (full) archaeological context, but I apply (with slight modifications) methodology first introduced by Rudolph for his studies on the ancient jewellery.191 According to him, there are three types of context: controlled, generic and no context which have been ascribed to the gems, but since this issue is highly important for the final conclusions of the whole study, it has been treated more extensively in a separate chapter in the fourth part of the thesis (cf. chapter 11). 190 The material housed in the National Museum in Krakow, the State Hermitage Museum in St. Petersburg, the Antikensammlung in Berlin, the Akademisches Kunstmuseum der Universität Bonn, the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna, the British Museum in London, the Bibliothèque nationale de France in Paris and several private collections have been studied in original. 191 Rudolph 1996. The material catalogued for each section has been described in the most comprehensive and compact way possible. Every entry includes basic information on the object such as current whereabouts, provenance or provenience information, type of stone used, date, subject-matter and literature). Just basic description of the device engraved is given as well as the most recent bibliographical reference possible because detailed descriptions and lists of literature are in most cases to be found in collection catalogues the object belongs. Thanks to this, I avoid unnecessary repetitions. Such a methodology proves more effective since no essential information is lost and repeating of the same information would be pointless. It should be stressed that if the motif exists in the same form on numerous gems (in case of glass ones frequently mechanically repeated), it is presented primarily in all the variants that I could have collected but some specimens might have been unintentionally omitted. Concerning statistical analyses (cf. chapter 12), these are performed to show the range and significance of the propaganda gems. Although the preserved material might constitute 10% of that initially produced, it seems essential at least to try to establish how big the production of ‘propaganda gems’ could be, which types of objects are the most numerous and whether their number could have any effect on the success of propaganda actions. Analysis of the material gathered in the catalogue part consists of two steps. The first one is to treat objects as archaeological artefacts, therefore, their forms, shapes, materials used, provenience and provenance information, techniques of engraving – all archaeological data are critically examined. The next step is an inquiry about cultural, historical and political context they are set in.192 As regards the images engraved on the gem devices, initially these have all been individually examined. At this stage iconographical and iconological analysis have been combined with semiotics and image studies and the comparative analysis between the gems and other archaeological artefacts (mainly coins) was performed as well. This is because gems as any other products of art are primarily treated here as documents, objects that reflect cultural, political and historical phenomena.193 Iconology allows to decode ‘propaganda gems’ within their environment and uncover their potential political significance compared to other branches of Roman art. Semiotic analysis justifies the research on ‘propaganda gems’ since in its basic essence it allows to think that intaglios and cameos had political significance after all. For analysing the signs featured upon gems, it is possible to re-create the system of communication between a propagandist and the audience and the other way around, having already this system shaped, it is possible to identify signs presenting it. Semiotics also investigates the creators of messages communicated through works of art, in this case, the propagandists and allows to identify historical events behind the signs they use.194 Finally, it analyses the process of coding and decoding of ideas behind signs which is of crucial importance in this study.195 The image studies deal mostly with the physical process of viewing and allow to concentrate on specific 192 Basically, these procedures follow the methodology of Binachi Bandinelli (1988, pp. 159-162). 193 On the clarification of this kind of methodology, see: Lorenz 2016, pp. 24-36. 194 Lorenz 2016, p. 166. 195 Lorenz 2016, pp. 104-106 and 154. allegorical meanings of the signs and their combinations. This is particularly helpful to confirm or deny that a specific myth or its version was employed by propagandists in communication of their ideas with use of art in general. Even if a myth or any other motif is a popular one with many variants existing, the details can tell us how it should be interpreted. The aesthetic value is not as much important here as is the content of the artwork and the functional application of the images used.196 Furthermore, image studies concentrate on the various functions of the objects that is the image’s or images’ meaning change with object’s application for various purposes which exposed it to another viewing point.197 Therefore, this work has naturally proceeded from description to interpretation, from form to content, and from the object to its environment according to the basic art-historical method. These actions resulted in grouping the material into specific classes sharing one or several common features in terms of their propagandistic value. They have further been ascribed to specific sections of the dissertation. Of course, iconographical and iconological analysis involved glyptic tradition of the region the object could have come from (if such an information is available). The potential influence of various external factors such as influence of the Etruscan, Italic or Hellenistic culture, physical properties of the stones used and so forth have been considered as well. Also, the concept of tradition understood as a broad cultural environment the object is related to is of some importance here too. Last, but not least, the material has been analysed on the stylistic ground since many times this is still the only way to determine object’s chronology. 196 Lorenz 2016, pp. 170-171. 197 Lorenz 2016, pp. 224-226. As the final step, the propagandistic value of each individual object has been examined. Depending on the object type, the result was confirmation of the previously established interpretation (sometimes only with slight modifications), change of the previously established interpretation for another one, complete rejection of the idea of linking the subject-matter and thus the object with propaganda practices of any kind or giving an object a new interpretation related to propaganda issues if it has not been recognised as such. This allowed to link specific gems with concrete political actions or persons and explain their propagandistic value in detail in the analytical part of the study (Part III). Generally speaking, the study of such aspects is always problematic and naturally includes a high portion of speculation. It is obvious that having such an incomplete data about the objects themselves as well as their position in the society and culture, it is risky to give them conclusive interpretations. The same object could have been used in many ways at the same time and proving that the specific is the correct one is sometimes impossible and undesirable. Nevertheless, interpretation is an essential part of every archaeological study process, without which an image of the past cannot be successfully reconstructed or better recreated in any meaningful way. Without trying any progress is possible to be made. But for Vollenweider, who in fact started the whole discussion on the use of gems for propaganda purposes, my project should be abandoned stating that still lack of hard data makes it rather pointless to draw any sensible conclusions. Nonetheless, it is hoped that the methodology applied here will reward us with a more comprehensive image of the place gems occupied in Roman propaganda and it will convince the others to introduce gems into more general studies of this phenomenon. 3.3. Structure The present study is made up of thirteen chapters which are set into five main parts: 1. Introduction, 2. Theory, 3. Evidence, 4. Conclusions, 5. Catalogue, bibliography, list of figures, tables, charts, maps and plates, so that they move from the theoretical data towards more contextual and finally cognitive issues concerned with functions, intrinsic meaning and significance of ‘propaganda gems’. The first part of the thesis (Part I – Introduction) includes three chapters entitled as follows: abstract (1), state of research (2) and aims, methodology and structure (3). They are designed to outline what has so far been done regarding the studies of self-presentation and propaganda phenomena on engraved gems from various angles, what are the aims of this work as well as to describe methodology used and structure of the dissertation. The second part is about theoretical considerations and should be treated as a background for the main, analytical part (Part II – Theory). It is further divided into two sections. The first one (chapter 4) contains definitions of propaganda circulating in modern semiotics’ and communication’s studies. Various approaches are briefly discussed, and the main characteristics of the phenomenon are presented as well. Propaganda is debated here as a form of communication between the propagandist, who sends his signals and messages, and target groups, which he aims at reaching and influencing. The debate also includes accounts on propaganda and persuasion as well as propaganda and public opinion (which could also respond to propaganda actions and induce bottom-up initiatives on its own). Further on, the various forms of propaganda are presented as well as are the basic tools and techniques it uses. In the final sub-chapters of this section the effectiveness of propaganda actions is discussed and finally, I briefly analyse how to investigate ancient propaganda with special regard towards engraved gems. In the second section (chapter 5), the emphasis has been put on the investigations of Roman propaganda on gems in general. Outlined here are potential spheres which propaganda actions cover and reflections of that might be noticeable in glyptics (chapter 5.1). These include most importantly personal branding for which accounts mostly portraits produced and delivered to the audience in various direct and indirect ways. Another sphere is self-promotion through orgio and self-presentation understood here as promotion of somebody’s special capabilities, high social status, wealth, power etc. Promotion of the family and its members is another sphere frequently used by propagandists in ancient Rome. This means, among other things, tendency to transfer auctoritas from famous predecessors onto propagandists as well as promotion of successors. It also includes promotion of the family on the whole to create and consolidate a positive image of the ruler and his circle, which often was his family. However, usually a good number of other people surrounded propagandist and if ancient Rome is concerned, they are often called a faction (derived from Latin factio). In the simplest way possible, it can be explained that these people were bound together by the same political goals, but they often had leaders who tried to influence and control them. Here, all the techniques to do so illustrated by various examples are briefly presented. Somehow related to this matter is also the issue of manifestation of loyalty and support. This action was usually induced not by propagandists himself but by his audience as people wanted to be included into the circle of his supporters for they could have received some profits from such a link. This is based on the patron – client relationship and it was a vital part of the social structure of ancient Rome. Commemoration of important events such as military victories, marriages’ celebrations and acts of truce have been widely represented in Roman art and craftsmanship and they are mostly related to propaganda. Promotion of abstract ideas like Pax Augusta or aurea aetas are next propaganda activities performed by propagandists in ancient Rome. Of the highest importance is glorification of oneself usually through highlight of the divine and mythological references and transfer of some of their divine nature onto oneself. Sometimes use of the heritage expressed by various allusions to a great predecessor should be regarded as propagandistic action. Possession of luxury objects such as cameo vessels or figurines made of precious stones enabled to raise social status and was a part of propaganda. The same applies to collecting of art, though as it will be explained, in case of Roman politicians more useful were acts of their donations in the temples for the common profit. Exhibition of gems during one’s triumph also accounts to propaganda and so does selection of a politically inspired subject-matter for one’s personal seal. Promotion of general ideas related directly to the state rather than to propagandist himself is another sphere of Roman propaganda. However, it should be singled out that such actions always involved a hidden private goal and they were usually well-calculated to bring as much profit to propagandist as possible. Finally, religion has always been a sphere strongly interfered by propaganda and it is treated here as a highly useful platform for propagandistic actions to be carried out. Basically, this section aims to illustrate how Roman propaganda worked and which spheres were touched by specific instruments. Ultimately, it is later hoped, after the critical analysis performed in the third part of the dissertation, to show which of the mentioned spheres were indeed affected by glyptics and why some of them received more and some less attention. This short outline is purposed to be linked directly with the conclusions of the whole study and so as to present which spheres had not been affected by glyptic art and why too (chapter 13). Engraved gems are objects of ancient art bearing various images engraved upon their devices, therefore, it is crucial to approach them not only as archaeological artefacts but also as artworks and apply in the investigations some of the basic art-historical methodology. In one of the sub-chapters of this section (chapter 5.2), I focus on the possible problems one must face with if pursues investigation of propaganda on intaglios and cameos. First, basic technical problems are addressed and then iconography and iconology are examined as the basic tools for analysis of the visual images appearing on gems. The fundamental question here is if one really can understand what the iconography appearing on gems means and what are limitations to our perception and interpretations. It is also crucial for the analyses carried out in this study to consider if ancient Romans could decipher and understand the messages sent them by propagandists. I also try to investigate what could be purposes of each propaganda actions undertaken by Roman political leaders and whether their goals were more or less the same (to gain as much power as possible) or not. Finally, some considerations have been made to the limits we have in the identification of the recipients of propaganda actions. In other words, the question raises whether one can identify who was exposed to propaganda or not? The third part of the study (Part III – Evidence) is the main one and includes a thorough description of all propaganda activities performed through engraved gems in the Roman Republican and Augustan periods. To make the presentation clear the discussions follow chronological order from the beginnings in the 3rd century BC when gems were mainly used for self-presentation down to the Augustus’ reign (as a part of a well-developed machinery). Regarding the beginnings, they are described in chapter 6 and cover such issues as Etruscan and Italic traditions, auto-presentation through gems, self-advertisment through portraits, patronage over gem engravers, collecting, use of gems in triumphs, family symbols on gems and state propaganda. The next chapter deals with gradual clarification and intensification of using gems for propaganda purposes in the early 1st century BC (chapter 7). It analyses several key-figures, notably Sulla, but also Marius, Lucius Licinius Lucullus and several other less prominent Roman politicians. In chapter 8 propagandistic actions of Pompey the Great and Julius Caesar reflected on gems are exposed as well as are those of the less influential Roman politicians. Chapter 9 has been devoted to the fierce rivalry between the three main political parties: the pompeians, republicans and caesarians. Each of them is broadly discussed with numerous examples of gems illustrating key-problems. This chapter also includes a brief commentary on the role of female representations in Roman propaganda on gems. Finally, the longest by far is the presentation of propaganda gems produced under Augustus in the chapter 10. As has already been specified above, each sub-chapter in this part of the study is cross-referrenced to the catalogue of all the propaganda gems related to specific politician or faction (cf. catalogue part). The fourth part of the study (Part IV – Summary and conclusions) broadly discusses issues related to the production and distribution of Roman Republican and Augustan, and especially ‘propaganda gems.’ The section on the production and distribution of gems (chapter 11) starts from presentation of the information extracted from ancient literary sources and further, some considerations on the archaeological finds, provenance and contexts in which gems of these kinds have been found are presented. The study of gems’ provenance history is one of the most important issues raised in this chapter. In this section, I also comment on the organisation of workshops producing engraved gems, their potential locations, mass production of glass gems, Imperial court workshop, politicians as commissioners of propaganda gems, private orders and finally rules of the market within which the gems circulated. Regarding distribution of engraved gems, first, I try to define who the recipients of ‘propaganda gems’ could be and later how ‘propaganda gems’ could have reach them. Chapter 12 is concerned with statistical analyses which are performed to show the range and significance of ‘propaganda gems’ against the entire estimated production of gem in Roman Republican and Augustan periods. Moreover, individual cases are also statistically compared to show which Roman politicians used engraved gems for propaganda purposes and which did not. Lastly, the propagandistic value of engraved gems is compared to other branches of Roman art and craftsmanship so that it should be clear whether it could play a significant or inferior role (chapter 13). Because for instance, engraved gems and coins of the Roman Republican and Augustan periods exhibit similarities in many respects, a comparison of these propagandistic media is made here including also estimation of the propagandistic value of either gems and coins. However, cross-referrencing is applied for gems being an artistic medium driven by the same propaganda mechanisms as sculpture, relief, toreutics, pottery and so on. This is a closing section containing a summary account of the conclusions from all the preceding parts of the study with some further ideas that should be discussed in the future. This is followed by the last part of the dissertation (Part V) including a catalogue, bibliography, list of figures, indices and plates illustrating the objects evoked in the analytical part. Part II – Theory 4. Propaganda – definitions and characteristics of the phenomenon In this chapter basic information about the phenomenon of propaganda, its definitions, characteristics, forms, tools and techniques are provided. Commentary on the effectiveness of propaganda, especially in ancient Rome, is presented too as is the basic guidance on how to investigate it especially in respect to engraved gems. This short theoretical account forms a basis for the further research. It clarifies what I understand as propaganda activities here and thus, also justify undertaking investigations towards detection, deciphering and interpretation of propaganda messages encoded on intaglios and cameos. 4.1. Definitions of propaganda Propaganda understood as a social, political and cultural phenomenon has been studied and thoroughly described by many scholars. Until the early 17th century, it held a more or less neutral meaning, true to its Latin origins. According to Cicero, propaganda derives from Latin propagare or propagatio meaning ‘to spread/circulate/propagate’ and ‘a thing/doctrine/practice that should be promoted’ respectively.198 It was mainly used in the latter context in antiquity and thus, it was also related to rhetorics as a form of art of persuasion, which was in fact much appreciated by ancient Greeks and Romans.199 In 1622 propaganda had been applied to the affairs of the Sacra Congregatio de Propaganda Fide, a papal body aimed at promoting (including the use of force) obedience to key Church doctrines, mostly in non-Catholic countries.200 This was the moment when it started to be seen as a practice having negative, even brutal connotations which had been accumulating towards the end of the 19th century. The original meaning of the Latin words propagare and propagatio have gradually been fading away and instead, propaganda term acquired a more dynamic form including all the practices and forms related to transfer of ideas, views, opinions, often manipulated or falisified, with the aid of text and signs onto recipients.201 198 Cicero, Marcell., 8; Cicero, Div., 2.149. 199 Ziomek 1990, pp. 15-19. 200 Hekster 2007, p. 2; Diggs-Brown 2011, p. 48. 201 Fulińska 2017, pp. 56-57. Shortly after the First World War politics has been commented as heavily depending on lies disseminated by the governments in order to influence public opinion which were briefly called as propaganda.202 Those days, one of the first definitions of propaganda has emerged. Lasswell said that propaganda comes down to control of the public opinion through the wide use of meaningful symbolism. To his mind, people’s attitudes are formed with use of direct manipulation of their beliefs. All the forms of social communication such as stories, gossips, rumours and most importantly visual signs (images and symbols) are utilized by a propagandist to reach his goal.203 His definition mirrors the current, negative character of propaganda. 202 An example of that is a work of Lord Ponsby entitled Falsehood in Wartime: Containing an Assortment of Lies Circulated Throughout the Nations During the Great War published in 1928, which is in fact a catalogue of lies broadcasted by the governments and intelligences of the countries involved into the conflict (Ponsby 1928). Another one is a literary debate between Edward Bernays and Everett Dean Martin where the latter argues that: ‘Propaganda is making puppets of us. We are moved by hidden strings which the propagandist manipulates.’ (Everett Dean 1929, p. 141). 203 Lasswell 1927, pp. 627-629. 204 McClung Lee and Briant Lee 1939, p. 15. 205 Chakhotin 1939. This view has been accepted by other researchers, for instance: Doob 1948, p. 334 and Ellul 1973, pp. 38-39. 206 Chakhotin 1939. Fear for propaganda had been mounting up. In Europe, all totalitarian systems used it as a mean of information control and presentation. Across the ocean in the USA that fear was present as well so that in 1937 a circle of social scientists, opinion leaders, historians, educators, and journalists founded The Institute for Propaganda Analysis (IPA). It was purposed to guide and help people surrounded with increasing amounts of propaganda messages quickly spreading within the society to think critically and independently. Its members created another definition of propaganda which should be helpful to detect propagandists. It suggests that individuals and groups of people purpose activities of various kinds with a view to shape opinions and actions of other individuals and groups to achieve a specific goal.204 At the same time, another definition came from Sergei Chakhotin (1883-1973), a Russian biologist, sociologist and social activist. He investigated the Third Reich propaganda machinery and should be recognised here for his observations regarding propagandist’s activities which according to him, should be customised to the natural needs of the recipients. In other words, new ideas should be anchored in the already existing beliefs or at least deriving from them.205 This also applies to the images which propaganda frequently uses. He also stated that propaganda depends on a simple rule: the more exposed it is, the more success it brings to the propagandist.206 After the Second World War many scholars investigated propaganda concept trying to define its essence. Due to the semantic and cultural changes resulted from the horrors of totalitarian systems of the 20th century, some of them like Doob came to terms with the fact that propaganda cannot be precisely defined.207 Ellul is of the opinion that any precise definition of propaganda should be rejected. In his view, propaganda is any effort to change the audience’s opinion. Accordingly, propaganda is a form of manipulation and even though Ellul claims that it functioned only in the technologically advanced societies, he does not reject its use in ancient world.208 Moreover, Ellul’s remarks on propaganda are of great importance for everyone concerned with its use in ancient times, since he notices that propaganda is a sociological phenomenon often created without any specific intention.209 In other words, people unintentionally create propaganda messages all the time by sending biased communications. This suggests that sometimes propaganda is invisible, and members of a society may not be aware that they help propagandist if they act in a specific way. One more observation of Ellul is of key importance for this dissertation since he states that propaganda must be timely and speak to contemporary events also possibly by alusions and retrospections to the past if it is to retain audience’s interest, a concept in fact close to the views of Chakhotin (cf. above).210 207 Doob 1989, p. 375. However, in his works he had been promoting negative aspects of propaganda which largely aims at bringing profits exclusively to the propagandist, see: Doob 1948, p. 390. 208 Ellul 1973, pp. XI-XIII. 209 Ellul 1973, p. XV. 210 Ellul 1973, pp. 43-44. 211 Pratkanis and Turner 1996, p. 190. 212 Pratkanis and Aronson 2004, p. 17. All the previously mentioned definitions of propaganda tried to capture its broad sense, paying little attention to the specifics of the phenomenon. Since in this study we deal mostly with the material basing its propagandistic value on visual signs, images, symbolism etc. it is worth to mention those who put more attention to this aspect of propaganda. For example, Pratkanis and Turner regard as propaganda all the efforts of propagandist aiming at convincing the recipient to his point of view but with the use of simple images and signs as well as slogans.211 Similarly, Pratkanis and Aronson remark that propaganda involves manipulation of various symbols which should influence the audience.212 On the other hand, I primarily deal here with propaganda in a political sense (and only little in the religious one). It has been defined as such for instance by Taithe and Thornton who take propaganda as a part of a sophisticated political language which is based on an ancient tradition of persuading and convincing. To some degree, this is like moving back to ancient roots of propaganda which was strongly associated with rethorics (cf. above), however, now seen as a negative technique of manipulation rather than art in its own right. The goal of propaganda in this sense is not only to persuade to a specific point of view, but also to sustain support for the propagandist who naturally is a politician.213 213 Taithe and Thornton 2000, p. 2. 214 Qualter 1962, p. XII. 215 O’Shaughnessy 2004, p. 4. 216 Hannestad 1988, p. 9. 217 Orwell and Orwell 2007, p. 441. 218 For more definitions of propaganda and its history and significence as a research subject, see: Kopij 2017, pp. 14-18. 219 Jowett and O’Donnell 2012, p. 1. One of the chapters of this dissertation aims to identify potential commissioners, recipients and users of propaganda gems. Therefore, the voice of Qualter regarding the key role of audience should be singled out here. According to him, to be successful propaganda must be adjusted and answer to the needs of the situation and desires of the recipients. It is also crucial to spread propaganda messages to the highest degree possible in order to make it noticeable. The audience should be exposed to propaganda so that it would be processed, remembered and make impact.214 In this respect, also important to evoke here what O’Shaughnessy said about the structure of propaganda. He claims that it is not always simple but may be diffused. This means the audience is often involved in both creation and dissemination of propaganda messages, a similar view to Ellul’s one (cf. above).215 As has been shown in this brief overview of basic propaganda definitions, today, this word brings mostly negative associations and thus is quite far from its original (Latin) meaning.216 This is mostly due to the semantic and cultural changes resulted from the horrors of totalitarian systems of the 20th century. The words of Orwell ‘All propaganda is lies, even when one is telling the truth’ perhaps are the best illustration of a popular and negative impression of propaganda one has in the 20th and early 21st century.217 Recently propaganda received much attention of sociologists and psychologists. As a result, on the one hand, its multifaceted nature expands even more because indeed, it is highly difficult to circumscribe all the aspects of propaganda as it is an enormously capacious concept.218 But on the other hand, it can be stripped off the socio-cultural accumulations of the 20th century and come back to the beginnings. A good example of this is probably the most comprehensive and compact at the same time definition of propaganda proposed by Jowett and O’Donnell who specify that ‘propaganda is the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behaviour to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist.’219 These words combined with other aspects of propaganda described by various scholars listed above seem to exhaust all its general aspects which should be applied in this study. Summing up, if it goes to the original (Latin) meaning of the term propaganda, engraved gems are plausible to play a significant role in the dissemination of images in ancient Rome. This is especially true for glass gems which production offered serial, massive repetition of the same motifs but also individual specimens must have been important for their captivating and peculiar features (unusual and expensive material used, high artistic level and so on). However, things complicate when one tries to point specific political messages and ideology, propagandists and the audience and to link those with existing material. Therefore, studying of propaganda on intaglios and cameos is difficult and as will be shown sometimes inconclusive due to some limitations. Nevertheless, an attempt should be made since it supplies new data concerning Roman propaganda in general. For those who criticise application of propaganda concept to ancient societies, as they believe it appears not earlier than in the 20th century,220 ancient Rome was an empire with the same complicated structure as the countries and empires of the 20th century. It covered a vast territory and was inhabited by an ethnically and culturally diverse population. All its parts had different level of civilisation progress and a highly complex and fiercely competing political class was present. The Republic and later Empire conducted constant wars due to its expanse, but civil wars were a common thing too, especially in the 1st century BC. All these circumstances made it possible to develop a complex machinery involving various techniques to manipulate facts and messages and shape public opinion according to one’s will – practices, which are the base of what is understood as propaganda today.221 220 Fulińska 2017, p. 56, note 66 lists some examples of those who deny application of propaganda in ancient Rome. 221 Hannestad 1988, pp. 17-18; Fulińska 2017, pp. 60-61. 222 Some scholars claim that propaganda evolved from persuasion used in ancient Greek rhetorics, see for example: Lausberg 2002, pp. 21-22; Fulińska 2017, p. 57. 4.2. Propaganda and persuasion There is one more concept that should be evoked in this theoretical part of the study since it seems to be relevant to our overall discussion on ‘propaganda gems’. Persuasion aside from propaganda is one of the subsets of communication between individuals or groups of people. At the first glance it works in the same way as propaganda, however, on the slightly different level.222 Persuasion is usually defined as a communicative process aimed at attempting to influence recipient’s beliefs, attitudes, intentions, motivations, or behaviours.223 The sender and the receiver are linked by symbols, verbal and nonverbal messages and the whole process works on a more personal level than propaganda. In contrary to propaganda, persuasion is more interactive and is generally based on the involvement of both sides. It is more mutually satisfying than propaganda.224 In the research on ancient societies, partial if not scarce portion of data available might seem an obstacle effectively preventing from distinguishing propaganda from persuasion unless one studies ancient literature. For the investigations focused on archaeological material sources such a distinction seems pointless indeed, nevertheless, engraved gems are very special objects for they have strictly personal character. One imagines a situation when a client manifests his support to a political leader by wearing his portrait upon a ring which situation is a gain for the latter. But at the very same time, the client broadcasts a message to his local community that he knows an influential figure and gains more respect that way. He decides to change his opinion, view or belief accordingly to the one suggested by his patron only because he sees in this his own personal profit. Such situations could have taken place both in Rome as well as on the outskirts of the Empire in provinces where local authorities sought to base or strengthen their power and authority on their connections with important individuals. Actually, gems may be very useful illustrations of client’s response to the persuasion of his patron. Since it is well-known that gems were exchanged as diplomatic gifts they could be also gifted to a political leader or emperor not only to please him, but most importantly to confirm support which might be a response to his persuasion. Several kinds of objects especially from Augustan times might have played such a role and they are presented in the third part of the thesis (chapter 10.9). 223 Gass and Seiter 2010, p. 33. 224 Jowett and O’Donnell 2012, pp. 32-33. 225 Jowett and O’Donnell 2012, p. 38. 4.3. Propaganda and public opinion The two previous sub-chapters were more or less exclusively concentrated on the propagandist. Now it is the time to speak about the audience. For propaganda to be successful it is essential for its emitter to know the people he aims to influence. How he knows that his actions meet a response in line with his expectations? He must carefully observe public opinion, which is a vital part of each propaganda campaign.225 The simplest but concise definition of public opinion is that it is a reaction (resonance) of the people to the global and individual political activities expressed in approval or disapproval to these actions.226 It can be said that public opinion decides about politics in general since propagandists must adjust their actions to the basic needs and desires of people. 226 Kula 2005, p. 70. 227 Locke 1689. 228 Cicero, Att., 6.1.18. 229 Dobek-Ostrowska, Fras and Ociepka 1997, p. 65. 230 Evans 1992, p. 6; Morstein-Marx 2004, p. 20. 231 Dobek-Ostrowska, Fras and Ociepka 1997, pp. 69-70. 232 Kopij 2017, p. 26. 233 Millar 1986; Horsfall 1996, pp. 46-50; Millar 2002; Sumi 2005. Although John Locke might be regarded as the first who used the term of public opinion in a modern sense,227 it was already Cicero who used this concept (publicam opinionem) much earlier228 and public opinion seems to circulate even in far more ancient times.229 Clarification of public opinion is a complex process, but it always involves a problem that the society must tackle. When this problem emerges, various people within the community express their own ideas how to solve it and of course, the most important are the voices of those the most influential and respected e.g. political leaders.230 They try to convince the others that their solutions are the best ones for everyone. Here comes propaganda and persuasion aiming at change, reverse or adjust emotions and opinions of the others (often masses of people) accordingly to the wish of the propagandists.231 So that public opinion can be shaped if the propaganda is successful, but it is worth to remember that it fluctuates and change under new conditions that appear and evolve alongside to various political and social events. This is why propagandists must carefully observe what people think about the current situation and how they are perceived by them and if there is a need, they must react. The conclusion is that public opinion is a vital part of the political life and it definitely existed in ancient Rome. It could be expressed during the assemblies as well as in theatres or during various ceremonies. As Kopij observes, political leaders used to directly test what are the current social moods and an example of that is for instance Mark Antony’s attempt to crown Julius Caesar with a diadem during the Lupercalia festival.232 Naturally, today one cannot directly observe how public opinion have been shaped in ancient Rome. Nevertheless, some insight into the problem is given by literary sources which have been analysed in this context.233 Interestingly, there are some information on the response of public opinion to various actions engaging engraved gems. For example, Valerius Maximus informs us that young Lucius Scipio disgraced himself by coming to an election in a soiled toga and thus his relatives removed the ring with the head of his father Scipio Africanus from his hand which symbolic act smashed his early political career.234 Cicero rebuked Lentulus Sura for being implicated in the Catilinian conspiracy when he ought to be restrained by the portrait of his illustrious ancestor Cornelius Lentulus, engraved on his seal.235 Unusually to other triumphators, Marius wore a gold ring on his finger while it was a well-established habit for a triumphant to wear an iron ring (like the slaves and soldiers did) to show his modesty and pietas and he was widely criticised for that act of self-advertisement.236 Pliny the Great heavily criticises Pompey for his ostentatious parading with gems and vessels during the triumph in 61 BC.237 Finally, while people wearing multiple rings with gems on their fingers were generally criticised throughout whole antiquity for the lack of modesty, according to ancient literary sources, it seems in the Late Roman Republic nobody care much about that anymore.238 234 Valerius Maximus, III, 5. 235 Cicero, Catil., III, 5.10 236 Pliny, NH, XXXIII.11-12. 237 Isager 1998, p. 60. 238 Lapatin presents many examples of such criticism, see: 2015, p. 116. 239 Henig 1994, p. 152. On the other hand, one should consider some reflections of public opinion’s reactions to propaganda campaigns to be found in the material sources. Engraved gems appear to be perfect candidates for such a task because as it is described in several chapters, some of them may show what people used to think and what were their needs and desires since they were strictly private objects (cf. chapters 7.1.6, 7.2.5, 8.1.11, 8.2.9, 9.1.8, 9.2.7, 9.3.1.9, 9.3.2.8, 9.3.3.2 and 10.8).239 Glyptics as an important indicator of social moods is the best exposed in the sub-chapter 10.8 devoted to Augustan gems and promotion of such ideas as Pax Augusta and aurea aetas. Many objects collected in this sub-chapter show that Imperial propaganda was successful since the people desires appear to have been fulfilled because wishes for peace and prosperity are replaced with scenes testifying to arrival of these qualities and establishment of peaceful and joyful reign. Their great popularity suggests them to be replicated by Augustus’ followers and even ordinary people because it was fashionable to carry a ring with such a decoration. In addition, gems clearly show that public opinion was not stable and must have been stimulated by new propagandistic messages, actions and programmes as the subject-matter repertoire evolved accordingly to the political situation within the empire. Moreover, in the Late Roman Republic and under Augustus gems were massively produced in many forms (intaglios, glass gems, cameos, works in the round, cameo vessels etc.) which suggests that various groups of people used them. This is also helpful for the investigations of public opinion’s reactions and responses to propaganda issued because as Kopij notices, all the social classes contributed to their creation.240 240 Kopij 2017, p. 27. 241 Jowett and O’Donnell 2012, p. 30. 242 Jowett and O’Donnell 2012, p. 30. Various models of communication have been profoundly described by Kopij (2017, pp. 29-33). 243 Aristoteles, Rh., 1358A-1358B. 244 Kopij 2017, p. 30. 245 Shannon 1948, pp. 406-407. 246 Kopij 2017, pp. 31-32. 247 Eco 2009, pp. 134-138. 4.4. Propaganda as a form of communication Propaganda should be regarded as a form of communication, which is in turn, a process involving a sender, who transmits a message to a receiver through a channel.241 Contemporary theories of communication distinguish several transactional models of interactions between a sender and receiver sometimes engaging some other elements like a speech in the Aristotelian model or in more complex cases a source, message, transmitter, signal and receiver (the so-called Shannon-Weaver model).242 Aristoteles (384-322 BC) was the first to define communication process and to create a model in which a sender reaches receiver through a speech, but from our perspective far more important is that he also created definition of a target group.243 Moreover, philosopher noticed that a message might be received by outsiders who accidentally accompany the target group.244 Therefore, one should consider a fact that a material object (here a gem) even if purposed to interact with a specific target group, could interact with other receivers too (usually by accident, but also purposefully if exhibited, for instance during a triumph like in case of Marius and Pompey the Great). Hence, its significance might often be underestimated by us today or seems ambiguous. The Shannon-Weaver model is also of some importance for the investigations carried out in this thesis since it includes a source of distortion that might have deform original message. As a result, recipient of propaganda message could receive a slightly different communicate which caused his reaction to be not as intended by the sender (propagandist).245 In case of the Roman society, it should be kept in mind that it was a multicultural crucible, thus, the same propagandistic message could have been decoded in several different ways or misunderstood by some recipients.246 Moreover, in his semiotic model of communication Eco highlights the role of culture, which is unstable and evolves all time.247 Therefore, propaganda to be successful must be adjusted to cultural differences, adapt to their constant changes and relate to some pan-cultural elements or there should be many actions aimed at attracting specific kinds of people, but the latter solution would be inefficient. In case of engraved gems their rich and sometimes complex iconography involves a lot of universal symbols that should be understood by many. Furthermore, gems seldom bear inscriptions, and if they do, these do not clarify the meaning of the symbolism presented on them but are signatures, names of their owners, wishes or magical formulas. In conclusion, it is expected that users of engraved gems in antiquity understood their iconography quite well and decided to use specific objects consciously.248 As to the modification of propagandistic messages, this is noticeable in Augustan glyptics which profoundly differs in terms of iconography from the range of subjects employed by Octavian during his rivalry with pompeians, republicans and Mark Antony (compare chapters 9.3.1 and 10). 248 The same is also expected if coinage is concerned, see: Hannestad 1988, p. 12. 249 Innis 2004, pp. 9-10; Kopij 2017, p. 33. 250 Kopij 2017, p. 33. Time and space are next key factors that decide if communication (and hence propaganda) is effective and successful.249 In ancient Rome, various means of propaganda were used, but the most significant seems to have been oral communication. Nevertheless, objects of art and craftsmanship like engraved gems should be analysed for their ability to transmit a message in time and distance. Coins for example reached audience relatively quickly since they were usually minted in vast numbers and because they were portable and handful, they travelled long distances.250 In case of gems the situation is similar since glass gems were produced massively, cheaply and quickly. However, other types of gems like cameos for example, were extremely sophisticated pieces aimed at reaching only few and they did not change places of occupation too often (especially the so-called State Cameos). Hence, while investigation propagandistic value of engraved gems, one should not only describe their propagandistic potential, often measured by gem’s iconography, but also take into consideration object’s ability to move around and between users as well as how much time it took to create it and deliver to the target group. 4.5. Forms of propaganda Several classifications of propaganda forms exist. Jowett and O’Donnell describe forms of propaganda in a very concise way focusing on two things: source of information and its credibility. They distinguish three basic forms: white, black and grey. White propaganda comes from a source that is identified correctly, and the information in the message tends to be accurate. Its goal is to present a propagandist in the best way possible, in other words, to create his positive image and convince the audience that his ideas and ideology are the best ones.251 Regarding ancient Rome, the vast majority of propaganda actions undertaken by its political leaders should be recognised as white propaganda. For instance, celebrations and triumphs were occasions to build a positive image of a political leader. Regarding engraved gems, like coins, among other things, they were used to commemorate important events, military victories, highlight mythological and divine references etc. as shown in many cases in the third part of the study. Portrait gems were primarily created to build a positive image of the propagandist who afforded to have employed a distinguished Greek artist as evidenced in rare 2nd century cases (cf. chapters 6.2.1 and 6.2.2). In the course of time, portrait gems, especially those made of glass were purposed to spread the image of a political leader. All these actions account for white propaganda. 251 Jowett and O’Donnell 2012, p. 17. 252 Jowett and O’Donnell 2012, p. 18. 253 Nieć 2011, pp. 154-160. Black propaganda is the opposite to white propaganda and comes from a source which is concealed or credited to a false authority and spreads lies, fabrications and deceptions.252 It is very difficult to detect in ancient world since sources are limited. Black propaganda could have been expressed in an oral form as rumours, gossips, spreading false information or fake news etc. which seldom survived in literature.253 Perhaps it had also been expressed in a form of wall paintings and graffiti that has not been preserved until present. It is equally difficult to detect on engraved gems. Depictions humiliating the opponent were undesirable because they would have reduced importance of the victory. Propaganda actions involving gems worked rather the other way around. Pompey the Great presented the dactyliotheca of Mithridates VI Eupator during his triumph to show how powerful and rich opponent he defeated (cf. chapter 8.1.1). However, the seal of Sulla presenting defeated Jugurtha technically presents the latter as kneeling in front of the Roman dictator – a rather humiliating act for the king of Numidia (cf. chapter 7.1.1). For the same reason, allegoric scenes including Mark Antony presented as Nilus rather than Neos Dionysus on some gems might be considered as black propaganda (cf. chapter 9.3.1.1). Several more cases are traditionally interpreted as acts of this propaganda form, but critical investigations disqualified them (cf. Part III). Finally, the third form of propaganda as Jowett and O’Donnell write is grey propaganda. It is based on a source which can be correctly identified, but it may not and thus the accuracy of the information is uncertain.254 Concerning ancient Rome, grey propaganda appears to be the best reflected in the family stories highlighting divine or mythological orgio. Various Roman families tended to derive their ancestry from gods like members of gens Iulia who descended from Venus or Mark Antony, whose ancestor said to have been Anton, son of Heracles. Also, information about being under protection and blessing of a specific deity accounts for grey propaganda because the direct source of such information did not exist, yet, the stories were told and spread all along. Such acts today seem obviously unbelievable but for ancient Romans, if presented in an adequate way, they were credible and thus, widely accepted within the society. All such actions are well exposed through various forms of Roman art and craftsmanship and engraved gems are no exception (cf. chapters 6.3.1, 7.4.2, 8.2.8, 8.3.3, 9.3.1.8, 9.3.2.7 and 10.7). 254 Jowett and O’Donnell 2012, p. 20. 255 Evans 1992, p. 1. 256 Evans 1992, p. 1. 257 Evans 1992, pp. 1-2. Evans proposes a different, more complex and thus precise classification of propaganda forms. First, she detects overt and covert propaganda for which criterium is the reaction of the audience.255 According to her, overt propaganda are all the actions which unambiguously communicate the message from propagandist to his audience. Examples of that are electoral campaigns and a part of ‘propaganda gems’ production (especially portraits) as well as actions involving their use (for instance triumphs) account to this form. Covert propaganda includes spreading rumours and false stories which are not directly served.256 What is more, at the first glance they appear to be not related to propaganda at all. These are subtle messages encoded in such a way that only a well-informed and well-educated receiver could decode. For example, while gems presenting Augustus’ victory at Actium were purposed to be decoded by the masses, since they are based on a relatively simple symbolism, Gemma Augustea with its highly sophisticated propagandistic programme could have been appreciated only by a limited number of well-educated people understanding allusions and specific language used (cf. chapter 10.5). Regarding other forms of propaganda, Evans follows Ellul and distinguishes agitation and integration propaganda. This division is of great importance to the study of ‘propaganda gem’. Agitation propaganda is the most visible one because it includes all the actions performed with the aim of gaining new followers and spread positive information about the propagandist. It had been also used to create and popularise his positive image.257 Kopij also investigated this form and specifies that agitation propaganda is dynamic and purposed to influence and change people’s views and attitudes.258 On the other hand, integration propaganda is a passive form which main goal is to consolidate already shaped views among the supporters of a propagandist so that the societal stability could be achieved.259 Both forms are well-represented in glyptics since for instance gems commemorating military victories account to agitation propaganda, while portraits could have been used as objects manifesting membership to a specific political group (factio) and integrate that organisation. Agitation propaganda was more frequently used in the Roman Republic, especially its later phase during the fierce rivalry between various political leaders and factions, while integration propaganda is more typical for Augustus and his successors.260 258 Kopij 2017, pp. 17-18. 259 Evans 1992, p. 2; Jowett and O’Donnell 2012, p. 17; Kopij 2017, pp. 17-18. 260 Evans 1992, pp. 2-3. 261 Evans 1992, p. 2. 262 Evans 1992, p. 3. 263 Evans 1992, p. 2. Evans observes that both agitation and integration propaganda can be used in a vertical and horizontal manner.261 The first means that actions are usually initiated by the propagandist from the top to the bottom aiming at reaching first the most influential personalities in the society (usually aristocracy) and then gradually wider circles of people. Thus, objects of various types circulated on the market, some purposed to reach only few, while other were produced for masses. This is clearly noticeable in glyptic production of the Late Roman Republic and Augustan periods where cameos and intaglios made of unusual, expensive gemstones were surely cut for the imperial court circle, aristocracy and senatorial classes, while casual gems and the cheap glass ones for masses. The horizontal manner is in use when propagandist emits signals which are further processed by the recipients, who react to them by emitting the response. Manifestation of loyalty through gems described in several chapters in the third part of the study is a good example of that phenomenon (cf. chapters 8.1.5, 8.2.4, 9.1.3, 9.2.2, 9.3.1.4, 9.3.2.3 and 10.4). Generally speaking, engraved gems confirm the general view that in ancient Rome vertical propaganda was far more important than the horizontal one.262 Finally, Evans proposes to distinguish rational and irrational propaganda. The first is based on knowledge and factual information, while the latter appeals to the emotions and impressions.263 The second category appears to be especially popular in ancient Rome since majority of propaganda messages had been designed to stir audience’s emotions by religious, cultural and patriotic allusions. Understood this way, this is by far dominating form of propaganda used on engraved gems since mythological and religious allusions are particularly popular (cf. chapters 7.1.5, 7.2.4, 8.1.9, 8.2.8, 8.3.5, 9.1.7, 9.2.6, 9.3.1.8, 9.3.2.7 and 10.6). The use of deities’ images by propagandists to portray themselves in a better way was not an easy task since the communicate must have been adjusted to the local conditions. Therefore, for instance, Octavian refers to his bounds with Apollo, Mercury or Neptune, while Mark Antony to Dionysus and Osiris because he targeted a completely different society in Egypt in terms of cultural and religious aspects. There is one more phenomenon related to propaganda and its various forms and I would like to mention it in this place for it might be easily mistaken with black propaganda. Counterpropaganda is usually defined as opposite to propaganda itself or as any type of propaganda used against propaganda already in force.264 The difference between counterpropaganda and black propaganda is that the latter is generally based on false information often created for a specific purpose for instance, to undermine the authority of the opponent. Counterpropaganda is usually a reaction to the campaign of the opponent and it is based on rivalry. The best illustration of counterpropaganda is when Octavian acquired Neptune’s favor that was first on the side of Sextus Pompey after the naval Battle at Naulochus in 36 BC. Octavian’s action was in fact a reaction to his opponent’s moves and it is illustrated on engraved gems (cf. chapter 9.3.1.8). A reaction to Sextus and Octavian’s movements was identification of Mark Antony with Dionysus which is also reflected on intaglios and cameos and should be recognised as counterpropaganda (cf. chapter 9.3.2.7). 264 Evans 1992, p. 1; Jowett and O’Donnell 2012, p. 1. 265 See a recent evaluation in Kopij 2017, pp. 20-21. 266 Kopij 2017, p. 20. 4.6. Tools and techniques of propaganda Contemporary studies of propaganda distinguish a number of tools and techniques used by propagandists to influence the audience. The first who described basic means of propaganda were members of Institute for Propaganda Analysis. In 1937, they produced instructions for American citizens explaining how to detect, analyse and neutralise propagandistic messages. Among these instructions, tools and techniques of propaganda were explained that later on were commented and developed by other scholars.265 A special attention is given here to those techniques which primarily apply to the studies of propaganda on engraved gems. One of the first techniques used by propagandists is name-calling or labelling which basically aims at assignation of negative epithets to the opponent of a propagandist.266 The key word here is the verb ‘to label’ which suggests that the opponent is presented in a specific way. This technique is used in black propaganda since the information added or spread are often unreliable or even false and the goal is to weaken authority and position of the opponent.267 It mostly refers to the oral or written forms of propaganda,268 however, in visual art presentation of the opponent in a clearly negative way is frequent and the institution of damnatio memoriae is its extreme form. Regarding glyptics, it is seldom employed, but some examples might be pointed out like the seal of Sulla presenting defeated Jughurta (cf. chapter 7.1.1) or Mark Antony presented as Nilus rather than Neos Dionysus on a cornelian commemorating Octavian’s victory at Actium in Naples (cf. chapter 9.3.1.1). 267 IPA 1995, p. 218. 268 Hannestad 1988, p. 17. 269 IPA 1995, p. 219. 270 Kopij 2017, p. 20. In opposition to the technique of labelling are glittering generalities. These are purposed to add splendour and present propagandist’s image in the most positive way possible by assignation of epithets rising his authority.269 This activity also involves positive presentation of a persuader in visual arts. Good examples of that are for instance Pompey the Great presenting himself as new Alexander the Great (cf. 8.1.10) or Octavian presented with auspices of Apollo and other deities (9.3.1.8). Such actions are widely represented on engraved gems and stem from the deeply rooted acts of self-presentation (cf. chapter 6.3.3). The image created in art or the words applied to the propagandist in oral expressions and literature are usually general in character so that even if misunderstood, they would bring no harm to the propagandist. This is noticeable on ‘propaganda gems’ which often use universal symbolism like the celestial globe – symbol of world domination and Jupiter’s power or support applied to a number of gems commemorating Octavian’s victory at Actium (cf. chapter 9.3.1.7). Sometimes a universal context the propagandist is presented may take the role of glittering generalities like in case of gems commemorating Julius Caesar’s fights with Gauls (cf. chapter 8.2.7). Peculiar circumstances of civil war encourage propagandists to apply more approachable and delicate techniques such as euphemisms. These were used in order to mute negative tensions and emotions within a society that has been brought about by tragic events.270 Regarding visual arts and engraved gems in particular, this technique was very successfully applied by Augustus who promoted his programme of Pax Augusta and aurea aetas (cf. chapter 10.8). The basic benefits to the propagandist are peace and unstirred social moods as well as rise of his own authority as a person thanks whom these values have been gained. Moreover, he might easier introduce his new programme and make changes to the current political system since he tends to present them in an approachable for the society way. The dynamic production of gems related to Pax Augusta and aurea aetas concepts is in accordance with actions performed in other branches of Augustan art and craftsmanship. Regarding Augustus propagandistic machinery, one of its key-technique was repetition, which is basically dissemination of the same symbolism in all kinds of media available. For this reason, Augustan glyptics stays in accordance with other branches of art and craftsmanship because all of them spoke the same sophisticated language. Moreover, in case of Augustus, the uniformity embraced also the style (classicism) and general thematic trends (cf. chapter 10.7). The same ideas are presented with the same means over and over again so that the receivers of this kind of propaganda would have its content literary impressed on their minds. An extremely important technique is transfer device which might be concerned with authority, sanction and prestige that are transferred over to something or someone else in order to make the latter acceptable, more recognisable or legitimised to undertake a specific action.271 The transfer of prestige and authority are of the key importance for our investigations since such actions are clearly noticeable on engraved gems produced by Octavian (for instance, series of gems presenting the so-called adoption ring, cf. chapter 10.3.1.1). This technique may also mean transfer of the divine nature onto a propagandist by making allusions to a specific deity like Pompey the Great and Neptune (cf. chapter 8.1.9) and Mark Antony and Dionysus (cf. chapter 9.3.2.7). In case of Pompey the Great, exhibition of Mithridates VI Eupator’s dactyliotheca during the triumph in 61 BC was a clear transfer of prestige (cf. chapter 8.1.1) and the same applies to employment of gem engravers who once worked or the opponent side (cf. chapter 10.2). 271 Evans 1992, p. 3; IPA 1995, pp. 219-220. 272 Evans 1992, p. 3; IPA 1995, p. 220. Another important propaganda tool is testimonial device. It is also concerned with authority which is here not directly transferred, but rather a point of reference. In other words, propagandist alludes to a well-respected personality (usually a predecessor or ancestor) so that he shows a connection with him.272 This is the best illustrated by the situation described by Valerius Maximus when young Lucius Scipio disgraced himself by coming to an election in a soiled toga and thus his relatives removed the ring with the head of his father Scipio Africanus from his hand.273 Using a ring with the image of his father, the young politician remembered everyone about his proud ancestry until he was forbidden to make this reference. Testimonial device technique worked also in the patron – client relationship. As evidenced in the third part of the study, portrait gems are plausible to materialise this propaganda technique (cf. chapters 8.1.5, 8.2.4, 9.1.3, 9.2.2, 9.3.1.4, 9.3.2.3, 9.3.3.1 and 10.4). A number of cleints tended to show their bounds and relationships with prominent Roman politicians to manifest their loyalty and support, and especially to raise their own authority in a local community. 273 Valerius Maximus, III, 5. 274 IPA 1995, pp. 220-221; Kopij 2017, p. 21. As has been already stated above, to be successful propaganda messages must be adjusted to the audience but also the propagandist himself must create his image to be in accordance with the people he wants to rule. For this reason, he uses one of propaganda technique named plain-folks device. It is purposed to create an impression that propagandist understands the needs and desires of common people.274 References to the free grain supply in Rome appearing on gems and coins alike are an example of this technique put into practice (cf. chapters 7.2.5, 7.4, 8.1.8, 9.3.1.4 and 9.3.1.7). Somehow in contrast to the plain-folks device is cult of personality. When individual pursues to create an idealised and heroic public image, he often takes a sort of model to follow. In case of the Romans, such an example was Alexander the Great who served as a model to Pompey the Great, Mark Antony and Octavian/Augustus among others (cf. chapters 8.1.10, 8.2.8, 8.3.5, 9.3.1.8, 9.3.2.7 and 10.6). This technique is usually dependable on the involvement of others which means, for example, that some people were gifted various things (including engraved gems) to support a propagandist, his ideas and aims. Euphoria is another technique used in propaganda. It is related to various celebrations and triumphs that generated a feeling of euphoria strengthened, for instance, by making luxury items available, such as engraved gems. The ultimate goal was to create a strong association in people’s minds between a positive event and the propagandist. This technique, among other things, refers to dactyliothecae installed by Pompey the Great and Julius Caesar in the temples of Jupiter on the Capitoline Hill and Venus Genetrix on the Caesar’s Forum respectively (cf. chapters 8.1.2 and 8.2.1). The band-wagon device is another propaganda technique which is the best to be characterised as an approach whereby the rate of uptake of beliefs, ideas, fads and trends increases the more that they have already been adopted by others. The conformism of individuals is targeted here so that they have an impression to be isolated with their critical thinking and should follow public opinion.275 This technique was a vital part of Roman propaganda. Concerning engraved gems, it is supposed that people have been encouraged by others to manifest their political views by a wide use of political symbolism (including portraits) on their private rings. Since such an act could bring some obvious benefits, more people joined the trend and it became a kind of fashion. This applies to Augustan times in particular because common people were literary bombarded with official images that were later copied by individuals in order to prevent isolation from a general trend. 275 Evans 1992, p. 3; IPA 1995, pp. 222; Kopij 2017, p. 21. 276 IPA 1995, p. 221; Kopij 2017, p. 21. 277 Kopij 2017, p. 21. Similar to euphemisms is another propaganda tool – card-sticking device. It is based on a selection of facts and creation of fake information so that they could enhance propagandist’s chances for success and to present him in the best way possible or in other way around, that is to present his opponent in the worst way possible.276 This technique is easy to observe in literature, but not so much in visual art. One assumes that complex iconography involving numerous mythological references often represented on gems was sometimes a result of well-thought propaganda campaigns organised by Roman political leaders and it does not appear on those objects totally by accident. There are many other propaganda techniques and tools such as sloganeering, fear inducing, big lie, scapegoating, black and white fallacy which may be applied to the general studies of Roman propaganda.277 However, since engraved gems use mostly iconography and symbolism to transmit the messages, it is difficult to say whether those other techniques were used on them or not. In any case, the most popular tools of propaganda have been presented here and they form a base for further, more detailed investigations of individual actions presented in the third part of the thesis. 4.7. The effectiveness of propaganda In this sub-chapter I would like to discuss various factors that affect effectiveness of propaganda campaigns. There is no one specific way to make propaganda working for its emitter, but there is a good number of things he can do to achieve his goal. Because a propagandist is the one that most depends on, he must be well-prepared before he launches his propaganda machinery. First, he must define his target group or groups since it is of key importance to prepare messages responding to the needs of various people. Besides, he should be aware of the fact that the society consists of various ethnic and cultural groups which must be approached in different ways. The economic factor is also important. In case of gems, for instance, cameos and pieces produced by the best artists were greatly appreciated and valuable, thus, if gifted, they were in the hands of rich and influential people, while most of the production of glass gems was purposed to reach ordinary people. Regarding the content of propaganda, a propagandist should know what will be generally accepted and what will not to avoid situations in which his actions are counterproductive.278 He must have a well-thought programme and use proper techniques and methods timely, which means, for example, that he must observe when to react to the unfortunate events to show he is helpful and reliable.279 Moreover, propagandist should emit his messages in the best circumstances possible, ideally during the moments of his glory like triumphs in ancient Rome. Finally, propagandist must make his programme appealing so that people are encouraged to join him and group of his peers. The messages should be attractive to interest people since they are bombarded with loads of various information every day.280 From this perspective, engraved gems due to their special status in Roman craft seem perfect candidates to transmit propaganda messages. 278 Kopij 2017, pp. 22-23. 279 Evans 1992, p. 3. 280 Kopij 2017, p. 22. 281 Evans 1992, p. 3. 282 Schudson 1992, p. 3. Propaganda to be successful must be repeated and the messages transmitted must remain constant throughout. Ideally, they should be anchored in past beliefs, myths, ideology and so on to create a feeling in the receiver’s mind that the new things propagandist tries to introduce are not revolutionary, but rather improved old methods.281 This relates to the phenomenon of collective memory which basically is the shared pool of knowledge and information in the memories of people. It refers to the institutional or cultural recalls of the past and their interaction with the current events.282 This is especially true with the Roman culture which was furnished with allusions to the past at each level of its development. This is why Roman political leaders often recall to their legendary ancestors or they commemorate past events in the form of extraordinarily organised celebrations comparing them to their own successes. Both, commemoration and personal branding based on recalling to proud ancestry are common on engraved gems. Such moves greatly helped to approach masses of people who did not like to be shocked with something new or which was associated with the tragic past events. As already said, propaganda messages must be repeated all the time ideally in various media to reach as many members of the society as possible. But to do so, the messages emitted by a propagandist must be understandable.283 This means they should use both sophisticated and simple language; first to fulfill the cultural needs of the more demanding recipients (most of the cameos), the latter to reach ordinary people (the bulk of casual and glass gems). It is said that propaganda usually works in urban communities between every concentration of people fosters spreading of information.284 Therefore, rural areas were less exposed to propaganda. Glyptic material confirms that view. According to provenance study (chapter 11), majority of ‘propaganda gems’ seem to be produced in Rome and other Italian cities as well as bigger urban areas of the ancient world (for instance Alexandria) which points to the places where there was a market for such objects. However, it should be noted that gems were portable objects and their concentrations exist also in the military bases of the Roman army as legionaries were keen users of engraved gems and one of the most important target group for each propagandist. Furthermore, existence of local elites also contributed to the spread propaganda, especially the one performed on engraved gems because thanks to their use local governors raised their own authority as well. A similar pattern is known to have worked in case of sculpture since reception of official portraits took place in provinces on a regular basis.285 It should be added that propaganda spreads well among educated people because they are more engaged in the social and political life. They would have more exposure to the written sources of propaganda, but also, they would have understood much more from complex symbolism engaged in the visual art that might have be the key to decipher the meaning of the propaganda action, especially if presented on a tiny gemstone.286 283 Hannestad 1988, p. 11. 284 Kopij 2017, pp. 24-25. 285 Hannestad 1988, p. 49; Ando 2000, pp. 228-245 and 303-313. His work concerns Imperial portraits, but the mechanism he identifies can be successfully applied to engraved gems too. 286 Evans 1992, pp. 5-6. 287 Evans 1992, p. 3. It is crucial for propaganda to be adjusted and follow any changes occurring within the society. It should speak to the contemporary events, adopt new trends and react to the social moods if it aims at retaining the audience’s interest.287 The constantly evolving market for various good, including luxuries as such were engraved gems, also affected propaganda efficiency. Changes of fashions and tastes were frequent, and the market was common which means it could be supplied with objects produced by various political factions, nevertheless, its capacity was limited. Therefore, a propagandist should carefully observe the surroundings and react to the counterpropaganda issued by his opponents. He should try to influence private art and craftsmanship with the official one created by himself.288 Possible organisation of a gem workshop by Sextus Pompey in Sicily meets engagement of Octavian in the same kind of activity. However, according to the research presented in chapter 9.3.2, Mark Antony’s reaction was surprisingly limited. This is probably due to his engagement in other means of propaganda such as coins, even though residing in Alexandria he had perfect conditions to promote himself through gems. It is not enough just to emit propagandistic messages, but a successful propaganda campaign involves a fierce rivalry with others who wish to gain the floor.289 Finally, we may be unaware of the exact degree of political and propaganda rivalry since as Nieć points out, people of Rome was not as much exposed to propaganda as we are today, because the basic were the discussions between people, mostly the local ones, who exchanged their views. They did that every day, all the time either attending meetings or spending time in baths. They needed channels offering propaganda messages to a lesser degree than we do today because the Romans were closer to each other than we are today.290 288 Łuszczewska 2002, p. 61. 289 Jowett and O’Donnell 2012, pp. 209-210. 290 Nieć 2011, p. 123. 5. Roman propaganda on engraved gems – general introduction This chapter concerns with Roman propaganda on engraved gems in a general sense as a political and cultural phenomenon. It is divided onto two parts. The first one introduces areas where intatglios and cameos are supposed to influence and shape public opinion as well as to convince individuals to propagandist’s point of view. They have been selected accordingly to the general rules of the theory of propaganda presented in chapter 1 and also on the basis of the previous scholarship. It is essential to analyse propaganda practices known from other branches of Roman art (especially coins and sculpture) because many mechanisms applied to them might be employed on engraved gems as well. Overall, it is hoped that distinction of these categories will help to navigate among numerous propaganda campaigns performed by Roman politicians presented in the third part of the thesis. This should also help to determine whether intaglios and cameos were indeed used for propaganda purposes or not and when they did, which forms of propaganda were preferred by Late Roman Republican politicians and Augustus. After presentation of the evidence in the third part of the thesis, verification of all the areas listed here will be once more discussed but in combination with presentation of glyptic art’s position in Roman propaganda in general in the third part of the thesis (cf. chapter 10). The second sub-chapter discusses various problems and limitations related to investigations of propaganda on gems. 5.1. Anticipated areas of propaganda on engraved gems 5.1.1. Use of gems in triumphs Triumphs and processions were perfect occasions for propagandists not only to show off their power but also to pride with the spolia of war. Triumphs were especially dear to Roman dictators and imperators for whom they were the only chance to appear in the city in full glory. They could show what they brought to Rome and for this they were appreciated by the people. Such spectacles were meant to raise authority of propagandist and gain him popularity by definition, but he could also distribute freely some money and other valuable objects presenting scenes commemorating the event.291 Engraved gems, especially glass ones, if indeed distributed among people during triumphs created a connection between them and politicians. Both these aspects will be discussed in the third part of the dissertation. 291 Künzl 1988; Ostrowski 1999; Balbuza 2005; Lange 2013; Lange and Vervaet 2014; Lange 2016. 5.1.2. Collecting Collecting is an ancient activity usually practised by the wealthy who had money to spend for the objects that had no practical but other means to their owners. It was the Ptolemaic dynasty who collected books from all over the world and put them into the famous library in Alexandria.292 Art in all its forms was a primary subject of interest to notable collectors. The first securely dated art collector was Aratos of Sikyon (271-213 B.C.E.) who was known as a collector of paintings.293 When in the 3rd century BC Rome started to conquer the Mediterranean world, it considerably lacked in luxury, therefore, a hundred years later it had been seduced by the enervating abundance of the east. Romans started to be interested in almost everything that had some value and then brought those things to their land where marble or bronze statues, paintings and so forth decorated their villas.294 Naturally, such a situation resulted in creation of specific art market which was a good platform to raise money for any reasons, including political ones. For instance, various sources highlight the connection between auctions of works of art and the frequent dependence on effective short-term cash-mechanisms for the consolidation of military and political positions.295 Collecting itself should be regarded as a part of propaganda machinery since the practice was reserved only for a few who could by this show off their high social status and financial capabilities.296 Moreover, spending money for the best pieces of art could confirm regular incomes or other benefits in propagandist followers’ eyes. Besides, collecting of art might have been regarded as a proof of high educational and cultural aspirations of a politician and to have been appreciated by the upper class. As Casagrade-Kim notices, in Rome, it often worked on two levels, private and public one and both were useful in propaganda.297 292 Phillips 2010. 293 Plutarch, Aratos, 12-13. 294 Among ancient authors, Pliny the Great is of great use for exploring this subject, see: Isager 1991, especially pp. 212-229 if engraved gems are concerned. 295 Garcia Morcillo 2008. 296 Pliny accidentally mentions auctions of finger rings that could be set with engraved gems, which maybe were purposed to build a cabinet of gems (NH, XXXIII.6). 297 Casagrade-Kim 2018. 5.1.3. Employment of gem engravers As it will be discussed in chapter 11, one supposes that some propagandists (e.g. leading Roman politicians) were somehow engaged in the production of ‘propaganda gems’, especially the cheap glass ones that perhaps were manufactured in workshops controlled or influenced by them. These products flooded the market or were distributed directly to their recipients. However, if the most influential people are concerned, it was neither easy nor cheap to impress them because only very special and expensive artworks could raise their interest. Therefore, if a propagandist wanted to gain their support, he must have employed a leading artists who produced masterpieces. Such a contract was a powerful signal because it proved that a propagandist affords to do something which is possible only for a few. Besides, in case of engraved gems having an artist working exclusively for somebody was like, and perhaps in some cases (Augustus?) indeed was imitation of Alexander the Great who placed Pyrgoteles on a level with Apelles and Lysippus, by naming him as the only artist permitted to engrave seal-rings for him.298 Employment of a well-respected artist certainly added splendour and as will be evidenced in chapter 6.2.1, it could be even a matter of rivalry to offer a job to the best artists available. 298 Pliny, NH, VII.38 and XXXVII.4. For more information on this subject, including Pyrgoteles potential input into the Alexander and Lysimachus coinages, see: Hafner 1977; Baldus 1987; Plantzos 1999, pp. 60-62; Rusch 2012, p. 5. 299 Plantzos 1999, pp. 19-22. 300 Collon 2005, pp. 123-130; Siddall 2013, p. 147. 301 Giard 1975, p. 72; Hadjadj 2007. 302 Rambach (forthcoming 2). 5.1.4. Seals The primary function of intaglios was sealing. In general, they were used to secure properties, in correspondence and in some legal practices.299 However, the images appearing on them were not randomly, but deliberately chosen so that they tell much about their sitters. Needless to say that official seals of prominent politicians were used to manifest propaganda messages. Collon and Siddall notice that already some cylinder seals were engraved with meaningful communications and purposed for propaganda.300 In the medieval times (either early and later phases) official seals utilised by kings and high-rank dignitaries were given elaborated and complex iconography glorifying their users too.301 Rambach informs that French kings had even several seals for various purposes at their disposal so that they could emit more than just one message to the audience if they wished.302 Basing on this, it is expected that official seals used by prominent Roman politicians were also used to manifest some propaganda messages. 5.1.5. Personal branding and self-promotion Personal branding is regarded as the most significant and popular of all propaganda activities performed in ancient Rome and beyond. According to contemporary marketing studies, it is a practice of people marketing themselves and their careers as brands.303 The term first appeared in the 20th century, but it can be successfully applied to the studies of ancient propaganda as well.304 It is closely related to the concept of self-promotion and in this study, it is mostly concerned with portraits and their dissemination within the public and private spheres. Promotion of or through orgio as well as highlighting of various capabilities, high social status etc. (the two latter will be more extensively discussed in the following sub-chapters) might also be accounted to personal branding, however, because they usually express familial connections, they are treated as a separate category (cf. chapter 5.1.8 below). In any case, personal branding was purposed first, to popularise a politician, make him recognisable, and second, to make him an appealing, worth-to-follow figure. Since ancient times the images of kings, emperors and other key figures widely circulated within the society usually thanks to visual arts because to many ordinary citizens, this was the only chance to ‘meet’ their leader.305 Rulers were perfectly aware of this fact, thus, they issued self-images which played a crucial role in creation of a connection between them and their people.306 Personal branding is perhaps the best exposed on coins and sculpture since these two categories offered wide dissemination of the image: first thanks to the number of objects issued and their various forms, second due to their installation in the public places having numerous visitors.307 It was Julius Caesar in 44 BC who for the first time in the history of Rome put an image of a living person (his own).308 Although this act proved counterproductive for him, next generations used to issue coins with their own images without any problems. Coins were perfect for personal branding also because a sender of a propagandistic message could have been easily identified thanks to the inscription accompanying the image.309 In case of sculpture, one observes similar mechanism and overall, the propagandistic value of statues, busts and heads must have been considerable since they were so abundant.310 Moreover, private initiatives and reactions to official images in the form of putting busts and heads of the famous Roman politicians in private houses or installations of 303 Lair, Sullivan and Cheney 2005, p. 307. 304 Kopij 2017. 305 See a detailed account on portraiture’s significance in various cultures and periods of time in: Fulińska 2017, pp. 27-42. 306 Fulińska 2017, pp. 42-44. 307 Regarding coins, their propagandistic value is not always appreciated, and some researchers wonder if they were used for propaganda purposes at all. However, Hannestad proves coins to be particularly useful for personal branding (1988, pp. 11, 18-31 (Roman Republic) and pp. 47-50 (Augustan times)). See also a recent and detailed discussion on this issue presented in: Kopij 2017, pp. 70-74. 308 RRC nos. 480/19-20 (denarii of C. Cossutius Maridianus, 44 BC). 309 Of course, many people in Rome were illiterates and there is a fierce discussion whether they could recognise what is written on the coins’ legends, see: Kopij 2017, pp. 70-71. 310 For instance, according to Hannestad, today, there are known ca. 250 surviving portraits of Augustus in teh round (1988, p. 47). their statues by local communities in the cities and towns within the whole Empire (reception) are confirmed.311 All these observations bring us to the question whether or not engraved gems were used for personal branding too? 311 Gregory 1994, pp. 80-99; Tanner 2000, pp. 18-50; Kopij 2017, pp. 220-228. 312 Platt 2006, pp. 248-249. 313 Henig and MacGregor 2004, p. 66; Vollenweider 1955, p. 98; Vollenweider 1972-1974, p. 232; Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 17. 314 The subject of patron – client relationship in ancient Rome has been already much discussed, see for instance: Eisenstadt and Roniger 1980, pp. 42-77; Saller 1982. 315 For the statues of Pompey the Great erected in Roman provinces, see: Kopij 2017, pp. 237-238. For the statues of Augustus erected in provinces, see: Hannestad 1988, p. 49. 5.1.6. Induction and manifestation of loyalty and support Another propaganda practice that seems to be well-portrayed by engraved gems and hard to be found in other branches of Roman art is manifestation of loyalty and support. Intaglios and cameos are plausible to confirm personal relationships between people.312 It is suggested that portrait gems could be used to express someone’s loyalty and support towards his political patron.313 This view is based on a well-established patron - client model existing in ancient Rome where usually, the former is an influential politician, while the latter his supporter and follower.314 One imagines that regarding glyptics, this phenomenon existed in three forms. First of all, portrait gems could be distributed by political leaders to their clients (soldiers, followers and supporters) in order to gain their support and bound them with use of precious objects that would be kept for a long time reminding of the occasion and person from whom they were gifted. Secondly, the clients themselves could commission gems with portraits of their patron which they later either gifted to them or paraded with them to manifest their loyalty. This mechanism is analogous to the one known from sculpture. It is known as a fact that whole communities in Asia Minor and other Roman provinces erected statues for their Roman patrons (for instance Pompey the Great and Augustus) in order to ensure them with their loyalty and support.315 Doing this way, they also manifested support of prominent Roman politicians for their own cases so that this was a mutually beneficial relationship. This approach eliminates some problems related to portrait gems identification. As Yarrow points to herself, would the ancient wearer have associated a specific meaning with the portrait? Would that meaning have been obvious to at least some of those who encountered it as his personal seal? The variety and obscurity of portrait gems make sense if one thinks not about individuals making individual choices, but instead of a small community taking the portrait as a shared symbol, perhaps at the instigation of a particular community leader which is copied from various media by multiple artists.316 As a result, one ends up with smaller and bigger groups of gems inconsistent in style and with alterations to the physiognomic features but still attributable to a specific political leader. Finally, manifestation of political affinity could be expressed also by following the general framework offered by the official art. This form is supposed to be particularly successful in Augustan times and engraved gems like coins, sculpture and any other branch of Roman art should testify to its existence. 316 Yarrow 2018, p. 39. 317 Hekster 2015, pp. 1-50; Kopij 2017, pp. 65-66. 5.1.7. Use of heritage It is a general rule that various assets understood as private heritage contribute to public image. Like nowadays, in ancient Rome, the amount of inherited assets influenced the way how people perceived each other. It was not only the amount of wealth, but also other qualities that determined heritage’s usefulness for political actions. For instance, the fact that Augustus shared much of the wealth inherited from Julius Caesar with common people and soldiers brought him much of the respect and popularity. There were also other subtle ways of using heritage for political reasons. It is expected that intaglios and cameos as precious objects bearing important subjects by definition were used to transfer not only material value, but also various qualities including auctoritas. Gems set in family rings definitely helped to build propagandist his positive image since they were objects testifying his legitimacy to act as successors of their great ancestors. These two activities based on the use of inherited name and authority should be considered agitation and integration propaganda at the same time. They were purposed to raise authority of a propagandist through his claim to some special inherited qualities (usually the name, but also divine protection or nobility). At the same time, gems helped to unite followers of propagandist’s predecessor so that he could create himself as a new political leader of a faction. The most common technique used in this respect is transfer device. 5.1.8. Promotion of family and oneself through orgio The next popular subject of Roman propaganda is promotion of family and sometimes specific family members as well as promotion of oneself by demonstration of noble orgio. This mechanism was deeply anchored in Italic tradition and the Romans paid great attention to the cult of great ancestors as well as legendary founders of their families, cities and the state.317 It is not surprising then that official and private art was very much concerned with this issue. Promotion of the family history was performed for example through literature which includes descriptions of family legends such as Julius Caesar’s relationships with Venus or Octavian’s with Apollo.318 Since ca. 200 BC coins gradually became a platform for promotion of familial subjects. There are many motifs alluding to the legendary foundations of specific gens and reflecting their relationships with deities, for example Vulcan with gens Caecilia and Ulysses with gens Mamilia.319 This was especially popular in the 1st century BC among the upstart families like the Julii Caesares, the Memmii of the Galria tribe, the Mamilii and the Marci.320 However, the divine nature was not the only way to promote a family. Triumviri monetales of some gens tended to put images on coins that were related to their legendary ancestors, for instance members of gens Aemilia and Servilia.321 The studies performed by some scholars encourage to undertake a task for finding familial subjects on intaglios and cameos alike and to check whether they could be related to propaganda or were simply family heirlooms.322 Perhaps on gems the same phenomenon occurs as on coins which has been suggested by Vollenweider.323 Henig has made an interesting remark about the use of gems bearing an image of a famous family predecessor in order to rise one’s own authority.324 This transfer of authority is clearly one of propaganda techniques called transfer device. Finally, the last form of family propaganda is promotion of successors, a mechanism well-known from the studies of Roman coins and sculpture of Augustan times.325 It is supposed that the same mechanism can be traced on engraved gems, especially, if successors of Augustus are concerned. Promotion of family is a complex matter and accounts to both, agitation and integration propaganda. The main purpose was to send a positive message to the society about one’s orgio or to transfer authority from a predecessor onto propagandist which was purposed to integrate his supporters as his authority was raising and legitimacy to rule was strengthening. On the other hand, promotion of new family members was in fact agitation aimed to gain supporters for them. 318 Maderna-Lauter 1988, p. 447; Evans 1992, pp. 4-6. 319 Toso 2007, pp. 41-43. 320 Evans 1992, pp. 31-32. 321 Evans 1992, pp. 27-29. 322 About the former option, see for instance: RRC, pp. 727-728. About the latter: Hansson 2005, p. 139. 323 Vollenweider 1955, pp. 103-104. 324 Henig and MacGregor 2004, p. 66. 325 Kiss 1975; Hekster 2015, pp. 161-173. 5.1.9. Promotion of faction The political scene of ancient Rome was a very complex machinery driven by various political forces which today we would name as parties, but back then they were called factions (factiones). These bigger and smaller circles had been into a fierce rivalry, whether they were just two opponent sides (optimates and populares) or more numerous as after the assassination of Julius Caesar (pompeians, republicans and caesarians).326 In ancient literary sources one finds a number of useful information related to political life and the mentioned parties.327 However, it is not so easy to find traces of their activities directly exposed in visual arts such as architecture, sculpture, coinage and so on.328 Actions of well-known members of those political parties are sometimes difficult to identify because, for instance, everybody used the same range of symbolism or reference gods like Neptune in case of Sextus Pompey, Octavian and Mark Antony, let alone those preformed by groups of people. It is debated if such symbolism was employed for coins. For instance, there was a popular view that head of Apollo served as a political sign of the populares faction until Crawford rejected this view.329 In fact, engraved gems might offer one of a kind insight into the political allegiances in ancient Rome and related matters. This is due to the symbols and signs that might have been regarded as markers of political parties and factions. Some scholars believe they served that way to recognise who is who and by definition, this kind of activity is integrational propaganda.330 Political views could be expressed by various symbolism which I aim to identify and thoroughly describe in this study. 326 For some general studies on formation of political parties in ancient Rome, see: Syme 1939; Gruen 1974; Brunt 1988; Crawford 1978. 327 Morawiecki 2014; Kopij 2017, pp. 66-68. 328 Zanker 1988, p. 62. 329 RRC, pp. 731-732. 330 Vollenweider 1966, p. 18; Gesztelyi 1982, pp. 193-195; Lang 2012, pp. 102-105. 331 Lang 2012, pp. 105-106. 5.1.10. Commemoration Next important area where engraved gems are plausible to function as propaganda means is commemoration of military successes and other important events which can be performed either on personal and social level.331 All the commemorative actions undertaken by Roman political leaders with considerable use of visual arts generally account to agitation propaganda. They were purposed to show capacity to rule, military prowess and other positive features that made a political leader an appealing figure predestined to get power and worth to follow. An exception to the rule is Augustus and his efforts oriented towards promotion of peace and prosperity (Pax Augusta and aurea aetas). These actions were purposed to build a positive climate within his empire which in fact can be recognised as integration propaganda. It must be also stated that if it goes to commemoration, engraved gems are plausible to work on more personal level than other branches of Roman art. For gems if gifted or distributed in any other way were treated as private objects and were considered precious. Therefore, they are expected to create a sort of special connection between a propagandist and recipient, who looking upon his ring would come back to the event this object commemorates. So that gems were predestined to bound him with propagandist, not only to inform him about the event. 5.1.11. Promotion of abstract ideas (ordo rerum, Pax Augusta and aurea aetas) As has been explained in chapter 1, it is crucial for a propagandist to observe the audience, to be aware of its needs and desires and then to react by sending messages that properly answer them. Towards the end of the Roman Republic, an increasing desire for peace is noticeable everywhere. Because engraved gems are strictly private objects, they are possibly the best material source for archaeologists to investigate social moods since people tended to put on them symbolism and scenes related to their needs which created a sort of special climate (especially with use of symbolic gems). In the third part of the thesis I present evidence suggesting that this social behaviour exists on gems. Furthermore, it seems that Roman political leaders answered to the messages sent by ordinary people. Such a phenomenon should be seen as indirect propaganda because even though the impulse originates, for instance, from the Imperial court of Augustus and transmit ideology (in this case issues of peace and prosperity), it had been adopted by artists and craftsmen and used for the casual products completely unconsciously. The ultimate goal of every propagandist is always to reach as many recipients as he can and in fact Augustus managed to drive his propaganda machinery so well that at these lower levels it almost did not require any action and effort from him. The mechanism then can be regarded as agitation and integration propaganda at the same time since, on the one hand, it broadcasted specific messages assuring people that they are governed by an always caring emperor. On the other hand, it integrated them around him by creating a climate within which everyone could identify with the same values. 5.1.12. Religious, divine and mythological references Propaganda, if constructed properly, is an extremely expansive phenomenon touching every aspect of political, social and religious life. In ancient Rome politics and religion were tightly bound with each other since the very beginning.332 People of Rome used to regard every military success as being sanctioned by the gods and thus, individuals who wished to gain 332 Morawiecki 1983, p. 13; Binder and Ehlich (eds.) 1996; Beard, North and Price 1998, p. 134. See also a good case study of this phenomenon devoted to the figure of Publius Clodius Pulcher (ca. 93-52 BC) has been presented in: Kowalski 2004. popularity and support of the others must have referred in their political language to religion.333 This is noticeable in various spheres like architecture, since victorious generals used to found new temples to their patron-deities or coinage, which had been used for promotion of legendary ancestors of a specific family.334 The peculiar character of Roman art regarding mythological scenes was to exploit them in a different way to the Greeks. Romans tended to give the mythological scenes didactic, moralistic, or at least, allegorical character. 333 For a general study of this phenomenon, see: Pollini 1990. 334 Evans 1992. 335 Beard, North and Price 1998, pp. 114-210; Plantzos 1999, p. 95. 336 Toso 2007. Engraved gems are supposed to reflect promotion of connections between an individual and a deity who usually played a role of his divine patron. This was sometimes extended to direct identification with him, but less formal allusions to the similarities between mythological figures and propagandist were also a common practice. Another shade of this kind of propaganda was to put a reference to mythical or divine ancestor. Such activities account to agitation propaganda. The basic goal was to create a positive image, sanctioned by divine power and strengthened by its authority which was further presented to the audience. This sort of propaganda had been widely cultivated in ancient Rome because of the importance of religion in everyday life as well as due to creation a kind of hierarchy between deities, propagandist and people. A political leader became first an agent acting on the behalf of gods and then he was risen to the same level as his patrons, but his cult was more private in character. Therefore, intaglios and cameos seem plausible to illustrate those intimate connections because they circulated as private objects and were less limited by the rules of official art. Some scholars conclude that every mythological scene presented on Roman art works might offer something more than just a beautiful image; there is always something behind it, a kind of symbolism or reference hidden behind the image which often connects to politics.335 In her monumental work, Toso argues that a good number of 1st century BC engraved gems bearing scenes of these kinds should be interpreted through politics.336 This attitude was one of the starting points for my critical analysis of a considerable amount of material presenting motifs related to mythology and religion. Accordingly to the image studies methodology, it has been challenged whether some of them indeed had any political significance or not. The thing with gems bearing such complex images is that their iconography might have been understood in many different ways by their users and politics not always must have been the only one and other way around, more private explanations do not exclude usefulness of such gems for politics.337 337 Henig 1994. 338 Zazoff 1983, p. 301. 339 About the grylloi/baskania gems, see, for instance: Lapatin 2011; Śliwa 2012; Gołyźniak 2017, nos. 540-572 (with useful literature on the subject); Weiß 2017. 340 See her interpretations of individual gems in: Vollenweider 1979. 341 Vollenweider 1955, pp. 100-101 and 1970; Sena Chiesa 2012, p. 257. 5.1.13. Political symbols Political situation within the Roman Republic had gradually been complicated towards the end of the 2nd century BC. The Celtic (121 BC) and Germanic (113-101 BC) threats as well as the Jugurthine War (111-104 BC) met internal conflict between two main factions of populares and optimates. Such conditions were difficult to live in for ordinary people and they were even more unbearable in the 1st century BC when the rivalry between various factions and political leaders became fiercer than ever before. Unstable politics resulted in economic difficulties and thus social moods descended at a low level. Engraved gems were private objects, and many used them to express their desires and needs among others. This form of auto-presentation is very typical for a peculiar class of intaglios (much less for cameos) that bear various combinations of symbols. They are great in number and started to be produced around the late 2nd century BC, while the peak of their use is witnessed in the second half of the 1st century BC.338 This stays in consistency with the mentioned political and social changes. In the course of the Imperial period (1st-3rd century AD) they were used to a considerably smaller degree, often replaced by the so-called grylloi/baskania gems.339 The phenomenon of symbolic gems is complex, extremely capacious and difficult or maybe even unnecessary to explain only in one specific way. Scholars often tend to interpret those sorts of gems in the political context. Vollenweider related them to political events, mostly military victories of Rome over several regions that it conquered. For instance, according to her, club of Heracles appears on gems due to the Roman victories over Philipp V and Perseus kings of Macedonia, as it was a symbol of this land frequently used in the coinage issued by those rulers. Another example are vases and amphoras which may origin from the East and Rhodos in particular.340 As Vollenweider and Sena Chiesa suggest, around 44 BC many symbolic gems were issued in consistency with Julius Caesar promotion of ordo rerum and other positive concepts related to his propaganda.341 More recently, similar view has been proclaimed by Nardelli and Vitellozzi.342 Gesztelyi claims that these symbolic gems were mostly produced for soldiers,343 while Sena Chiesa proposes to link them with representatives of nobilitas.344 These and many other scholars based their ideas on the comparisons between gems and coins which indeed share the range of symbols used, but only to some degree.345 342 Nardelli 2007, pp. 265-266; Vitellozzi 2010, pp. 101-102. 343 Gesztelyi 1982, pp. 193-195. 344 Sena Chiesa 2012, p. 257. 345 Furtwängler 1900, vol. III, pp. 288 and 298; Vollenweider 1966, pp. 20-22; Maderna-Lauter 1988, p. 444; Ritter 1995, p. 73; Plantzos 1999, pp. 98-99. 346 Pliny, NH, IX.60–65. In this study, I would like to propose a slightly different approach than the most popular one. In order to analyse political significance and possible propaganda value symbolic gems are thoroughly analysed in a wider context. Cases which have traditionally been interpreted as propagandistic are critically investigated and discussed alongside to many other similar ones with special attention to the objects bearing inscriptions. To get a comprehensive and unadulterated picture, all the existing configurations are examined not only those presenting similarities to the coins. Doing the research that way, I should be able to identify, which configurations of symbols on gems might indeed have been related to politics and which were used for purely private purposes. This has been done for each period of time, since the late 2nd century BC down to Augustus in order to show a kind of evolution of the process as well as to illustrate its following stages which relate to specific political leaders. If purposed for propaganda, symbolic gems are expected to be engaged in various aspects such as manifestation of loyalty and support, commemoration of important events and military successes or promotion of abstract ideas. Therefore, they might be examples of both, agitation and integration propaganda. However, because they are a very complex phenomenon, I decided to separate those which are problematic and discuss them in detail in individual sub-chapters of the third part of the thesis. 5.1.14. Luxury objects: State Cameos – carved vessels – works in the round Many categories of archaeological artefacts can be regarded as related to the mainstream of the Roman state policy and individual actions of policy makers in Rome. Architecture, sculpture, coins – all these include examples of objects bearing iconography expressing the ideas propagated by political leaders. In case of luxury arts, one may pinpoint to such objects too. Even the garments dyed in the famous Tyrian purple were greatly prized in antiquity and in Rome, exclusively related to the imperial family.346 Luxury arts were, by definition, a part of propaganda. They raised social status of a propagandist and confirmed his ability to govern. Because he could afford the best pieces of jewellery, art, materials and so on, he seemed more powerful to his followers. Luxury art was also more likely to distinguish propagandist from his peers not only because of the special forms and materials used, but also because they usually allowed to transmit complex messages reserved for only a few well-educated people who would not be impressed otherwise. For these reasons many highly refined for their aesthetical value and artistic virtuosity intaglios and cameos were produced on the commissions of top Roman politicians and Imperial Court of Augustus. Reading Pliny the Elder’s Historia Naturalis book 37 one has an impression that this fragment was composed by him specifically for the elite which illustrates the high esteem for engraved gems within the Roman society.347 However, there are three classes of glyptic art products particularly important since they combine the two: the high esteem of the luxury goods and space for display powerful propaganda communications. This combination makes State Cameos, carved vessels and works in the round perfect propaganda tools. All known examples of those three categories of luxury objects are presented and thoroughly discussed in the third part of the dissertation. Their propagandistic value is high and can be compared only with other masterpieces of Roman decorative art. They account to agitation propaganda since most of them emit powerful communications based on the idea of unity of the Imperial House. Although their influence seems limited at the first glance due to a small number of these objects and relatively small group of recipients, they were purposed to affect the most demaning people at the court of Augustus which was impossible to be done with other works of art. 347 Yarrow 2017, p. 87. 5.2. Problems with studying propaganda in ancient times with emphasis on engraved gems There are many obstacles and difficulties in study of Roman propaganda in general and its occurrence on engraved gems in particular. I have already described the basic definitions, forms, tools and techniques of propaganda in chapter 4 but still, the reader might be not fully aware of some problems with investigation of such a complex phenomenon. Therefore, in this chapter I elaborate on the basic obstacles that cause problems to the investigations and limit the studies. One of the most problematic issue is that the thesis is largely based on the analysis of iconography which by definition poses some theoretical and practical problems. Moreover, the analysed material is often controversial if it goes to dating and precise meaning and functions of individual pieces. Finally, our knowledge about the Roman society and how propaganda worked 2000 years ago within it is only fragmentary. Insufficient number of sources does not make this research easy. One should be aware of these problems but not discouraged by them because still, drawing a general picture of Roman propaganda in glyptics is possible and necessary to raise discussion which would stimulate future generations. Intaglios, cameos and other products of glyptic art concerned in this dissertation bear various representations: from single and easy to interpret symbols to complex, multi-figural scenes that hide whole narratives using a sophisticated language. A natural question then is whether one can properly decode and understand the meaning and reasons for which various iconographical elements appear on engraved gems? To approach this problem, I have applied here the methodology based on Panofsky iconology and iconography analysis with the full awareness of its imperfections and criticism.348 However, the most influential is the recent operating sequence created by Lorenz.349 As a result, each engraved gem is treated here as an archaeological artefact and a work of art in one. It is first approached with analysis of all archaeological details available (material, form, style, provenance, provenience information and so on). Then, I proceed with iconographical analysis that engages knowledge of the literary sources that might be related to the particular motif, art history and its repertoire, historical events that might be reflected on the specific object, allegories and symbols. This step is followed by iconological analysis that require to put the object in the historical, political, philosophical and socio-cultural context. Next, decoding of its semiotics is addressed and finally principles of image studies are applied. The ultimate goal is to answer the question why the analysed item has been created in its specific circumstances and if that creation has anything in common with the current political situation, more precisely, various propaganda activities. 348 Panofsky 1971, pp. 11-32. For criticism of Panofsky, see: Didi-Huberman 2004. 349 Lorenz 2016. In the following sub-chapters, I am going to inform about various problems and limitations that one encounters during the process described above. They span from the very basic and perhaps quite obvious technical issues to the very complex matters of object’s identity and cultural significance. 5.2.1. Basic (technical) problems Engraved gems are studied by a few and there is a good number of reasons why one might be quickly discouraged when embark upon a project related to this specific archaeological material. Following Panofsky’s three-steps analytical approach towards a work of art, we should start with some general problems in studies of engraved gems which in fact may be called technical ones. Most of engraved gems have very small dimensions that usually do not exceed 1 or 2 centimetres. Sometimes they are even smaller, and this results in two basic difficulties. First, they must be analysed with the use of optical devices, ideally in autopsy since some iconographical details are very easy to be misunderstood or unnoticed. Second, the engraver usually had very limited space to work on, thus, the representations appearing upon gems are often abbreviated to a considerably degree. As a result, the abstracted motifs can be unidentifiable.350 This leads to the basic question: whether the recipients of propaganda gems could indeed decode and understand the messages encoded on them? Apparently, it seems so and other archaeological material (coins, for example) proves that objects’ dimensions were not as problematic as we suspect today. 350 Hansson 2005, p. 95. 351 Plantzos 2002, p. 77. Somehow related to this are techniques employed for engraving and styles performed by the artisans. The ultimate effect of engraving always largely depends on the skills of the gem’s producer and the tools he uses. Sometimes the same subject approached by two different artists looks completely different on two stones, but still, their function and possible propagandistic value should be the same. It goes without saying that cursorily cut intaglios and cameos may have been wrongly interpreted and thus, some ‘propaganda gems’ were not only unintentionally omitted in this study, but also could have been unnoticed by their ancient recipients. Regarding the styles, these can be misleading too since scholars, due to lack of other, more objective criteria, often date gems according to the styles and traditions distinguished. There is also a great danger to overinterpret a specific object because of its impressive stylistic features. The same hand could make both, good and bad gems and the reason usually was the money spent on the commission.351 It is obvious that some top engravers worked only for the highest bids, but a propagandist, if wanted to reach a larger audience used to employ less skilful artisans too who could quickly produce propaganda gems in larger quantities. The conclusion is that depending on a target group, the propagandist chose whose services to use, but his actions could be a part of the same propaganda campaign. Finally, the gemstones themselves may also pose some problems since some examples, like mottled jasper or rock crystal, make it difficult to read their iconography properly. Some help comes from their impressions but making them is not always practiced. Many times, glass gems are difficult or even impossible to be read and interpret if not for their impressions in plaster or other materials. The next highly problematical issue that should be singled out here are post-classical copies of ancient engraved gems. Since the Renaissance until the second half of the 19th century there was a high interest in engraved gems as collectors’ objects.352 This fascination, especially in the 18th and 19th centuries, resulted in increasing demand for ancient and post-classical gems. The number of the former was, of course, limited, therefore, many cutters excelled in imitating and paraphrasing ancient works which proved to be a profitable business. Some of them were so good in this peculiar activity that they were able to copy not only the subjects and styles of ancient masters, but also their techniques completely misleading their customers and asking high prices for a bargain. Even though scholarship made significant progress in this matter, still, it is not easy to distinguish a faithful modern copy of an antique intaglio or cameo from the original. In fact, sometimes this is even impossible.353 Publications of public and private collections are not free of errors even though they have been minutely studied by top specialists in the field of glyptics. Because only a portion of the material selected for this study could be examined by autopsy, we must rely on the information and findings of other scholars regarding individual objects. Of course, their judgments have been re-examined during the selection of the material and some pieces that in light of new data are not considered ancient anymore, but they used to be considered as propagandistic must have been dismissed.354 Naturally, I do not claim that this study is free of fake gems, but the efforts has been made to limit their number as much as possible. 352 There is a number of literature dealing with this subject, therefore, we have brought here only the most important contributions where the reader will find much more expanded lists of useful books and articles: Zazoff and Zazoff 1983; Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, pp. 264-305. 353 On this matter, see: Hansson 2005, pp. 31-33 and especially Gołyźniak 2019. 354 A good example of that is a garnet (jacinth) intaglio presenting portrait of Julius Caesar signed by Dioscurides that is taken as ancient work (cf. http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=431833&partId=1&searchText=julius+caesar+intaglio&page=1, retrieved 2nd October 2018), but is in fact a 16th century copy, see a discussion in chapter 8.2.2. 355 Such a case is, for instance, a highly important publication of Aquileian gems by Sena Chiesa (1966). As mentioned, only part of the material selected for this dissertation has been studied by autopsy. The rest was examined through images either published online by the museums housing glyptic collections and in their catalogues. Unfortunately, the latter are often printed with small pictures which quality is also disturbing.355 The increasing number of collections published online with high-resolution images is a promising trend for glyptic studies in general. I have been using that second source wherever possible to limit possible misinterpretations. However, a considerable amount of Roman Republican and Augustan gems that are the main subject of this thesis remains unpublished, especially if local Italian museums as well as those located in Rome itself are concerned. This may distort my investigations to some degree, but the general picture should not be severely affected since scholars have made a considerable effort to publish previously neglected material over the past decades (cf. chapter 2.1). Archaeology of engraved gems is another problematic issue that should be mentioned here. The vast majority of the material considered in this study consist of public and private collections usually created in the period spanning from the 16th to 19th century. Because of the above-mentioned high interest in gems trade and collecting those days, 90% of them were acquired from the art market which they usually reached from uncontrolled excavations and looting. As a result, most of intaglios and cameos described and analysed here have little or no information on their provenance and context whatsoever. The information about the places where those objects have been crafted or deposited has been lost which also affects their dating. This is a huge problem for my reconstruction of propaganda gems’ production, distribution and circulation issues. Nevertheless, to tackle this problem I applied a special methodology of contexts’ reconstruction based on the analysis of the art market for engraved gems from the 16th to 19th century and hence, some provenience information could be established. The preliminary remarks on these issues are presented in chapter 11. Finally, among technical issues I have place previous scholarship, which has been chapter 2.1. Basically, the problem is with interpretations of individual objects that had not been recognised as propagandistic. As has been proven the subject of political use of engraved gems in the Roman Republic and under Augustus has been neglected in the previous scholarship. Moreover, there is always a danger of following the description and thus point of view presented by author of a collection’s catalogue or any other study which might be false, but since he had a direct access to the object and one cannot control his judgment otherwise, he must be trusted. 5.2.2. Iconographical problems The ‘technical’ problems with describing propaganda gems are only a tip of the iceberg. Iconographical analysis of engraved gems and subject-matters appearing on them is even more problematic and challenging.356 The fundamental question one must ask is whether or not one 356 Guiraud 1996, p. 127. can read iconography of the gems correctly? There are many difficulties in this starting from inaccurate deciphering of the symbols to wrong identification of the figures involved in the figural scenes. Iconography is concerned with description of works of arts (e.g. gems) and its task is to provide information for their further interpretation. Iconography provides data concerning their dating, authenticity and origin. It tells, for example, how the specific depiction or type of object was influenced by other cultural circles. It also shows political and social influences.357 357 Panofsky 1971, pp. 14-15. 358 Marshman 2015, pp. 32-35. 359 Evans 1992, pp. 6-7. 360 Toso 2007, p. 193. Assuming that one can read iconography of the gems properly, it is not that easy to imagine doing the same by multinational and cosmopolitan society of the Roman Republic and later Empire. It is recorded that people living in the eastern part of the Mediterranean basin had different customs and could wear several rings on their fingers, while in the western (more Roman) part, this was considered inappropriate.358 One can only make more or less educated guesses in this matter since lack of hard data related to this problem complicates things. However, as Evans has proven, even if only several members of target group properly decoded propagandist’s messages and understood them correctly, the whole campaign would not have failed. They could further explain the meaning of these communications and spread the news since Roman culture was largely based on oral, rather than written communication.359 It is estimated that only a small number of Roman citizens were literate, which at the first glance might be seen as a problem for spreading propaganda messages, but inscriptions on engraved gems are scarce so that one assumes their iconography, although often based on complex symbolism, was legible to their users. I have already discussed a situation when it is almost impossible to identify a motif with a specific propagandist. Similar to these are situations when gem’s iconography might have two or even more equally suitable meanings. For instance, Heracles on gems cold be related to propagandistic campaigns of several politicians (mainly Mark Antony), but on the other hand he might have been popular on gems due to his role in averting and fighting evil.360 The sign of Capricorn about which there seems to be sufficient records for its political use in the times of Augustus either in ancient literary sources and Roman art still is ambiguous when appears on gems because it may stand for astrological sign and be related to someone’s private horoscope.361 It is generally debated that in many instances it is not possible to determine the only one correct interpretation of a motif given because each visual representation usually had more than one meaning and role which depended on the intention of its commissioner, creator or user.362 However, there is much space for speculation and because ancient literary sources deliver us selective, but still some information and evidence for application of engraved gems in politics, considering them as useful propaganda tools should be at least taken into account as possible and investigated, not dismissed straightforwardly. For engraved gems due to their devices belong to a more holistic image of Roman visual art that as Hölscher specifies, reflected ancient lifestyles and was used as a communication platform.363 361 Vollenweider 1979, p. XXI. 362 Sena Chiesa 2012, p. 259; Sagiv 2018, p. 20. 363 Hölscher 2011, p. 140. 364 Bugaj 2012, p. 890. 365 Sagiv 2018, pp. 162-163. 366 Bonner 1908, p. 407. 367 Sagiv 2018, p. 19. 368 Guiraud 1996, pp. 123-124. Somehow related to the problem discussed above is the fact that many times our understanding of the iconography might be completely different (including wrong) than the one presented by ancient people because we are unable to reconstruct the exact circumstances in which archaeological artefacts were used.364 Moreover, in many cases it is evenly difficult to imagine what was the reason for a gem user to utilise a gem with a specific device engraved upon it.365 The context is often crucial to understand the nature and function of the object because the images appearing on gems, apart from their artistic value, usually had a deep meaning, while the iconographical analysis may be not enough to uncover it.366 In case of engraved gems, lack of this cultural and historic context is particularly troublesome, but it does not at least entirely exclude possible political significance of some gems.367 Concerning iconography, analysis of portraits on engraved gems proves particularly frustrating. Extraordinarily cut cameos with male and female portraits are far easier to attribute rather than regular intaglios with the same subject. The first are supposed to be produced for the imperial family or the highest society, while the second not so. This is due to the fact that a number of people (especially women) wanted to present themselves with the same coiffure as the great Roman matrons or empresses. As a result, if the facial or any other portrait’s features are not distinctive enough, it is extremely difficult to attribute a portrait to a proper person and classify it as a private or official one.368 I should single out one more problem related to portraits – their reception. Sometimes it is hard to establish whether a portrait of a famous politician was cut when he was alive or maybe his successor commissioned such pieces on the one hand to commemorate his predecessor and to transfer his authority onto himself on the other hand. This seems to be the case for several portraits of Pompey the Great which were possibly produced on the commission of his son Sextus Pompey (cf. chapter 9.1.4) and those of Julius Caesar that were perhaps cut after his death by the order of Octavian or his supporters (cf. chapter 9.3.1.1).369 369 This issue has been touched by Trunk 2008 and Kopij 2017, pp. 257-264. 370 Lorenz 2018, pp. 20-21. It seems helpful in some cases to trace the whole history of a specific motif to discover when and why it has been given a new, special (political) meaning. A good example of that is the motif of Aeneas running out of Troy with his father Anchises and son Iulus, which popularity from the 3rd century BC until Augustus’ reign derived from general preferences of the Romans who tended to choose subjects related to the history of their empire. However, in the times of Augustus, the motif is vigorously promoted as related to the Julio-Claudian dynasty and the emperor himself (cf. chapter 10.7). There are many other examples like this one, but they can be detected only if we have their political allegiances confirmed in other branches of art. However, sometimes it is easy to ascribe to a subject political meaning even though there is insufficient evidence (cf. chapter 10.7). 5.2.3. Iconological, conceptual and interpretational problems As has already been signalised, frequent lack of any archaeological context in case of engraved gems makes studying them extremely difficult. For it is difficult to hypothesise about possible political significance of gems if their functions and cultural environment cannot be precisely described. This is a serious problem from the iconological point of view because our decoding of the symbols and iconographical elements, their interactions presented upon gems as works of art so much depends on what we know about gems as objects in use and the environment they were created.370 The content of gems as works of art was an effect of cultural, political and philosophical circumstances they were created in and in case of gems, due to their multifunctional nature, this is difficult to be re-created if a sole object is analysed in separation from the group of its peers. However, thanks to considerable efforts of many scholars, the general chronological, cultural and historical framework for Roman Republican and Augustan gems is established (cf. chapter 2.1). Therefore, from technological, artistic and iconological points of view, it is not as problematic as it might seem to place ‘propaganda gems’ among other glyptic products of those eras. Furthermore, it is essential to confront the depictions presented on gems with a wider spectrum of art (Roman Republican and Augustan in case of this dissertation) in order to elucidate their possible meanings circulating in the society.371 I believe that contextualisation of the images selected for a study in their historical context is possible even in the period of a great political instability as the Late Roman Republic. For there is not one single way, the right way, of analysing and interpreting pictures appearing on them, thus, political explanations should be treated as possible and tested which is the very base for the whole study presented in this dissertation.372 The fact that there is such a surviving literary testimony regarding the choice of image and the associated meaning for the signet rings of Rome’s political leaders, which is often of political nature, suggests that these images were readily recognizable among the Roman elite and perhaps even beyond.373 371 Such a method was successfully applied by Lorenz in her three case studies, see the results: 2016, pp. 89-92. 372 On the problem of multiple explanations of images presented in art in general, see: Lorenz 2016. 373 Yarrow 2017, p. 87. 374 The ‘cultural atmosphere’ of various populations living in the Roman Empire must have differ each other to a considerable degree. That ‘atmosphere’ is one of the core elements of iconological analysis and may affect its results, see: Loraenz 2016, pp. 99-100. 375 Panofsky 1971, pp. 17-18. 376 Lorenz 2016, p. 100. Regarding other iconological problems, much has already been said about potential lack of understanding in political messages encoded on gems due to the cultural variety of citizens of the Roman Empire. One cannot be sure if they were understandable for everyone and if the symbolism used in Italy worked out in Asia Minor and other places too.374 However, as has been proved in chapter 11, ‘propaganda gems’ were probably primarily produced and distributed within Italy only and only later transferred outside of it by soldiers, merchants and other users, which suggests that the propagandists took this nuisance into account. Another problem is that today, although it seems that we understand the iconography of a specific work of art, it may include some details adopted from different cultural circles which we cannot spot because of insufficient knowledge in this matter.375 As a result, our understanding is biased to the things we know and understand but it might be far from the truth. Therefore, sometimes a complete understanding of work of art and thus the propagandistic message encoded into it is impossible, but a full iconological analysis helps to overcome this problem.376 Moreover, it is equally difficult to measure whether today we may properly judge effectiveness of symbolism used by propagandists in the past according to our current knowledge.377 Nevertheless, information extracted from ancient literary sources and observations of propaganda mechanisms in other branches of art and craftsmanship allow to expand our knowledge in this respect and hence, limit the risk of drawing incorrect conclusions. 377 Schramm 1954. 378 Lorenz 2016, p. 105. 379 Sagiv 2018, pp. 19-20. 380 Barcaro 2008/2009, pp. 16-17. 381 Barcaro 2008/2009, pp. 18-19 and 29. 382 On a problem of recipients’ identification in general, see: Lorenz 2016, pp. 105-106. See also: Sagiv 2018, pp. 19-20. Regarding semiotics, there is some danger that today, we cannot properly decipher interactions between symbols and figures and their arrangement within the composition since all those things may communicate specific thematic messages. Moreover, it is not easy to identify the creators of the messages communicated through works of art, including engraved gems.378 It seems crucial to establish with whom we should associate a specific motif. Because only very few gems bear any kind of inscription (which is usually of no use for identification of the subject with a specific politician), and the representations themselves are often ambiguous because their cultural and historical contexts escape us today, it seems almost impossible to fulfil this task unless one deduces something from comparison of an object with different media like coins, descriptions in literature and so on.379 But sometimes even such comparisons are of little use. For instance, one of the most common device for the 1st century BC gems - head of Apollo - appears on coins minted by Sulla and thus, the researchers tend to link this motif with the faction of optimates.380 Nevertheless, Julius Caesar also highlighted his relationship with the god and the same did Octavian and Mark Antony after his death. So, the image could be suitable for the faction of populares and caesarians alike.381 However, as evidenced in chapter 8, statistical analysis of a single motif can help to determine whether there are any concentrations of its use at certain points of time which can be further linked with specific propagandists. Another question is whether one can discover true intentions of a propagandist who issued propaganda gems? In many instances, we cannot be entirely sure if he meant just to praise himself for his military victory, to commemorate it, elevate his personal status or there was something more than meets the eye behind a specific depiction. Among other problematical issues, it appears difficult to establish whether a message was meant to reach a specific target group, or it was for everyone because it is never altogether clear whether some representations on gems in general were purposed for specific kinds of people.382 As to the image studies, a kind of a problem is application of engraved gems for more than one task which suggests many viewing points for one object. An intaglio may serve as a seal and thus be very practical, but it also works well for personal adornment at the same time and as evidenced from literary sources, intaglios were applied even for abstract situations like the one where Pompey the Great put his seal on the swords of his soldiers to stop their quarrels while in Sicily.383 There is a risk that today, we cannot reconstruct all the applications of glyptic artefacts and accordingly all viewing points of their iconography. Besides, while investigating images decorating ancient artefacts, we create our own pictures of their applications based on well or poor documented data sets available. They might be inaccurate, thus, our creations are often not as reliable as it is wished.384 Nevertheless, this allows to discover potential applications of objects in many specific and precise conditions, in case of gems, for instance, when used in a triumphal procession, as seals, as amulets, as jewellery, as showpieces or as propaganda means. 383 Plutarch, Pompey, 10.7. 384 Lorenz 2016, pp. 234-235. 385 Zanker 1988, pp. 2-4. 386 Fulińska 2017, p. 63. Concerning the concept of propaganda itself much more problematic is the capacity of that term which frequently leads to abuse of this concept and its application to the objects that have nothing to do with it whatsoever. In fact, following Zanker one may say that propaganda machinery during Augustus has not been established at all, but his ‘cultural programme’ and the actions aimed at promoting the emperor and his successes were a natural consequence of the ongoing political changes which succeeded in a turnaround in public thinking.385 It may seem that Zanker rejects using the concept of propaganda in Roman times, but he only criticises its misuse.386 Indeed, there is a great risk, especially if there is not enough data about the objects to misinterpret them and ascribe them political significance. It is a common practice in archaeology to make educated guesses about object’s functions if they cannot be reconstructed straightforward. To better illustrate this problem, in this study I decided not only to describe all the propagandistic pieces for which I was able to prove their political usefulness, but also comment on objects previously recognised as having political or propagandistic meaning but in fact lacking evidence for taking them as such. This is surprisingly common, but I believe absolutely necessary because the basic goal of the dissertation is verification of engraved gems usage for self-presentation and propaganda purposes, not just proving its existence. our goal was not to criticise or undermine interpretations of other researchers but rather to enter a discussion with them. The next conceptual problem I have encountered is to decide is self-presentation through gems should be treated as a separate phenomenon or rather combined with propaganda. I believe that an evolutionary model can be proposed showing gradual development of Roman propaganda on gems from the early self-presentation acts to complex propaganda campaigns. It is a fact that self-presentation was always an essential part of the latter, thus, I think both things should be treated as interconnected and not separated. Finally, I should highlight that since overall, our understanding of propaganda practices performed by the Romans is limited. We may be unable to decipher their meaning because we do not have their full cultural context. In many instances, propagandistic messaged can be encoded through various allusions to heroic or mythical themes which were understandable for ancient people but escape us now. Sometimes we can spot some cultural changes that may be associated with political changes which are reflected in art,387 but the number of motifs that we cannot identify as propagandistic must be considerable. 387 Sena Chiesa 2012, p. 257. Part III - Evidence 6. Beginnings (3rd-2nd century BC) It is difficult to set beginnings of Roman propaganda in a precise chronological framework let alone individual actions performed through engraved gems. The first use of intaglios and cameos for political reasons, e.g. for propaganda, is traditionally associated with Lucius Cornelius Sulla (ca. 138-78 BC).388 This is indeed the first moment, attested by both archaeological and literary sources, when a Roman political leader deliberately used a propagandistic motif commemorating his victory over an opponent for his personal seal (cf. chapter 7.1.1). However, there is some evidence suggesting that first symptoms of gems application in political propaganda are much older. For example, Scipio Barbatus is said to use a seal presenting Victory with a palm branch.389 According to the investigations on the private seals of prominent Roman politicians presented in next chapters, it is evident that such figures chose the subjects for their seals because of the special relevance; they always commemorated important moments of their careers or praised their particular qualities (cf. chapters 7.1.1, 8.1.4, 8.2.3, 9.3.1.3 and 10.3). For this reason, Victory with a palm branch on Barbatus’ seal was surely a purposefully chosen depiction that immortalised his victory over Etruscans at Volterra in 280 BC. Pliny informing about the first use of rings by Roman nobiles makes it explicit that about 305 BC rings (supposedly with gems) were used only by a few which makes them objects of distinction and markers of a privileged class.390 Before I present undoubted applications of intaglios and cameos for self-advertisement and propaganda in the 1st century BC, it should be discussed which features of gems contributed to their frequent use for these purposes. In other words, it is necessary to investigate whether there were any symptoms of such actions already in the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC. For the development of gems’ employment in propaganda can be described as an evolutionary model starting from the vague beginnings settled in the 3rd and 2nd century BC to the fully-expanded machinery in Augustus’ reign. In this chapter I focus on analysis of possible sources for propaganda messages appearing on gems or actions performed through them in the period of the Middle and Late Roman Republic. 388 See the discussion in chapter 7.1.1 and: Vollenweider 1955, p. 102; Vollenweider 1966, p. 17; Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 30-31, 46-47 and 49-50; Zazoff 1983, p. 280; Maderna-Lauter 1988, p. 444; Strocka 2003; Toso 2007, p. 4, 16 and 222; Sena Chiesa 2012, p. 257. 389 Richter 1971, p. 4. 390 Pliny, NH, XXXIII.6. It has been a common practice to distinguish etruscanising and hellenising sub-types of Roman Republican gems, mostly due to their forms, styles and subject-matter.391 However, more recent studies reveal increasing importance of the central-Italic and south-Italic elements.392 Local components were strongly influenced by the impulses coming from outside: Etruria from the north and Greece from the south. One of the links between all of them was auto-presentation, a phenomenon practiced on gems by the Etruscans, Romans, Italics and Greeks alike. However, the regional diversity is reflected not only by the abundance of styles and fashions performed by gem engravers throughout the 3rd and 2nd century BC,393 but also applications of gems for activities that were unique for the mentioned cultural elements. Having this in mind, but also trying to simplify the whole mechanism, I believe it is the best to propose three basic traditions which in various ways made gems attractive propaganda tools in the Roman Republic and under Augustus: 1. Etruscan and Italic tradition involving aspects of auto-presentation; 2. Hellenistic tradition mostly based on the royal activities but also introducing new forms of gems (cameos, cameo vessels, works in the round) and 3. Roman tradition basically promoting the state with its institutions and political leaders as well as families and their legends and customs. All three were intertwining during the 3rd and 2nd century BC and they ultimately merged into one system in the 1st century BC that indeed elevated many types of gems to the role of propaganda transmitters.394 391 This traditional distinction was first proposed by Furtwängler (1900, vol. III, pp. 212-299) who was followed by others: Walters 1926, pp. 110-122; Fossing 1929, pp. 43-72; Zazoff 1983, pp. 260-305 (cf. chapter 2.1). 392 In his book on a globolo gems, Hansson proved the importance of gem workshops operating in central and south Italy (2005) and Tassinari thinks that these workshops survived down to the 1st century BC, though created works of different kinds (2008, pp. 266-270). 393 On this, see the classification of Maaskant-Kleibrink (1978, pp. 99-196) that should corelate to typology of Zwierlein-Diehl (2007, pp. 97-107). 394 The situation in glyptics stays in consistency with processes observed in other forms of Roman Republican art, see: Binachi Bandinelli 1988, p. 179. 395 Hansson 2005, pp. 130-135 where one finds a list of the previous scholarship dealing with this subject. The author plans to update, expand and republish his work in the near future which would be warmly welcomed. 396 Torelli 2002. 6.1. Etruscan and Italic tradition (auto-presentation) The recent research on late Etruscan and Italic glyptics revealed much new data regarding the use of engraved gems in Italy at the turn of the 4th and 3rd century BC. It appears that one of the main reasons for carrying a finger ring with a specific device was auto-presentation.395 In fact, about 60% of Etruscan and a globolo scarabs refer to this particular function.396 This activity, as understood here, focuses on expressing oneself in a positive way through specific images in order to identify with the virtues and ideas which were shared and appreciated by the community the individual belonged to. Taking a closer look, auto-presentation is just one small step from propaganda, which also aims to present the propagandist in the best way possible, however, with a clear intention of influencing or making an impression on the others. Auto-presentation and propaganda in some sense are two very close communication techniques. Even though auto-presentation covers many more aspects of glyptic repertoire, it is a source for self-presentation and personal branding that later became the most popular propaganda practices in use on gems. For this reason, it is necessary to make here a short comment on auto-presentation on gems practiced first by Etruscans and Italics that have later been successfully adopted by the Romans and transformed into self-presentation and personal branding. Regarding late Etruscan-early Italic glyptics, Hansson distinguishes five basic areas of gems’ devices related to the concept of auto-presentation: athleticism, hunting, warfare, banqueting (symposium) and religious acts (sacrificing).397 Each of these subjects was meant to express a virtue, value or quality appreciated within the society the individual lived in. Therefore, representations of athletes at various activities like running, jumping, disc throwing as well as cleaning off the body and even standing by a luterion and washing hair or groups of chariot drivers if engraved upon the gemstones should be usually understood as the auto-presentation practice (cat. nos. 6.1-2, fig. 1).398 Physical training was a crucial preparatory stage for entering military service. For young males who wished to pursue such a career, it could be of importance to highlight their physical prowess by putting an image related to this virtue upon their ring. Such an act would reflect their talents.399 397 Hansson 2005, p. 134. 398 In some cases, like a figure washing hair at a luterion, either male or female, another possibility is to interpret them as Peleus (due to the inscriptions often accompanying the images, see Gołyźniak 2017, no. 46) or Atalanta (see Hansson 2005, p. 130). Chariot riders falling of their vehicles might be Phaeton or Oinomaos and thus, such images can be interpreted as related to funeral practices and so the objects bearing them as amulets. These possibilities are evoked here to show that in glyptics one often cannot ascribe the only one specific function to a gem and interpretation of its iconography is in many instances vague and difficult. Nevertheless, these exceptions do not distort a general image based on analysis of hundreds of gems. 399 Hansson 2005, pp. 130-131. Another social activity related to the same quality is hunting. Both, Etruscan and a globolo scarabs are full of images related to this peculiar enterprise. It seems reserved to a few, since hunting played a central role in the social training of aristocratic youths, but the glyptic material yields with less elaborated representations of hunters and even simple devices showing hares, hounds or stags might refer to hunting as an activity involving cleverness, flair, physical strength and endurance (cat. nos. 6.3-4, fig. 2). Understood as such, hunting images would have reflected those positive qualities of gems’ owners.400 400 Hansson 2005, pp. 131-132. 401 Beazley 1920, no. 107, p. 90; Henig 1970. 402 Barbanera 1996; Hansson 2005, pp. 132-133. 403 Hansson 2005, p. 133. 404 Hansson 2005, p. 134. The subject-matters related to warfare, understood in a broad sense, are extremely popular on Etruscan and Italic scarabs. Representations of generic warriors and heroes who are often undistinguishable, identifiable Greek heroes (especially Achilles, Heracles and so on) as well as horse and chariot riders either represented as single figures, in pairs and other groups account for this category (cat. nos. 6.5-6, fig. 3). They would have been suitable for a young man entering his military career as well as to those proud of their military prowess and skills.401 Moreover, those who served in especially appreciated units might have wanted to highlight being a part of it by putting an image testifying that. On the other hand, Greek heroes could have served as examples to follow, especially to those young military men who could receive gems with such depiction upon entering military service.402 The next class of representations related to auto-presentation are those referring to the world of symposium. Satyrs and other members of Dionysus’ thiasos as well as various winged creatures and depictions of Eros are not frequent, but still, may refer to the symposium as an activity performed by aristocracy (cat. nos. 6.7-8, fig. 4). Such a distinction and highlight of social status would be a part of auto-presentation. This category in particular informs about the raising influence of the Greeks on the lifestyles and cultural practices of the people living in southern and central Italy.403 The last group of representations connected to expressing yourself are religious scenes of people engaged in sacrificing animals to the gods and performing other religious practices. These may refer to the priests, haruspices, augurs and other important religious offices that enjoyed a widespread respect within the society (cat. no. 6.9, fig. 5).404 Since the status of these people was highly important, they wanted to mark it in some way and it is supposed that carrying a ring with symbols of augurate or any other religious office was reserved only to the few. This kind of auto-presentation might have had some powerful consequences because once marked, a priest enjoyed privileges and special treatment among members of the society he lived in. Apparently, Hansson mentions one more group of representations that in my opinin accounts to the auto-presentation issue. These are images showing male and female figures engaged in various activities that might be understood as their occupations and crafts. It is easy to imagine that a skilful potter, ironsmith or even a gem engraver boasted to present (maybe even himself directly) his occupation or profession upon a ring (cat. no. 6.10, fig. 6).405 Likewise the mentioned groups above, here a link between real life and mythology is visible too since representations of Daedalus, Argonaut or Vulcan at work were popular as well and might have referred to a craft in general as a form of important activity contributing to the development of the whole society. On the other hand, gems presenting such subjects served for self-advertisement. 405 Hansson 2005, pp. 133-134. 406 Furtwängler 1900, pp. 212-299; Zazoff 1983, pp. 260-305; Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, pp. 97-144. 407 Compare: Hansson 2005, p. 130. The whole concept of auto-presentation through gems had been adopted by the Romans from Etruscans and Italics already in the 3rd century BC and was one of the most important mechanisms driving the glyptic production also in the following centuries. Roman Republican glyptics is usually roughly dated to the 3rd-1st century BC period and among gems manufactured in this period of time, one easily identifies the same thematic groups as distinguished above.406 They refer to the same aspect of self-presentation as in the Etruscan and Italic material. Regarding the world of sports and games, representations of athletes engaged in various kinds of activities reflecting the athletic virtues and physical prowess are common (cat. no. 6.11, fig. 7). Gems with such devices constitute a significant group and they surely were meant to be a part of auto-presentation practices. In contrast to the Etruscan and Italic glyptics, mythic references in this category of gems are less frequent, though. Such heroes as Tydeus and Peleus, who used to be appreciated for their physical prowess and thus, could be linked with the athletic issues, are not so popular anymore.407 This is probably due to advanced secularisation of this theme which had been associated mainly with human sphere in the period of the 3rd to 1st century BC. Hunting, so popular on Etruscan and Italic gems is also fairly common on Roman Republican gems. Likewise, basically two sub-categories can be distinguished: figural representations usually involving a hunter, his prey (birds, hares and so on) and companion like a hound or a sole animal study (stag, hound, hare etc.) which is a shortcut of the hunting motif in general (cat. no. 6.12, fig. 8). Among the mythical images related to this activity, depictions of Artemis with her stag or hound, and Actaeon devoured by his own dogs appear, but these subjects are less likely to be related to self-presentation issue. Concerning warfare, Romans adopted not only the whole concept of self-presentation through putting a warrior or heroic image upon their rings, but they also did so regarding hatched borders’ decoration and stylistic elements.408 This is especially true for the early 3rd century BC, however, the situation is much more complex from the late 3rd century BC onwards. The tradition of engraving gems with images of warriors, heroic warriors and identifiable Greek heroes continues well down to the 1st century BC and even beyond (cat. nos. 6.13-38, figs. 9-13).409 The motivations for their use were pretty much the same as in case of Etruscans and Italics. Greek heroes were regarded as exemplum virtutis by gems’ owners,410 however, more emphasis is gradually put on the careers of individuals as well as on the praise of spectacular achievements. Actually, Pliny sheds some light on the reasons why Romans often chose this kind of iconography. In his Natural History he writes that ‘Intercatia, whose father challenged Scipio Aemilianus, and was slain by him, was in the habit of using a signet with a representation of this combat engraved upon it.’411 Gems presenting multi-figured compositions of warriors in combat could commemorate particularly important duel or event related to the military career of a certain Roman, sometimes including mythological references (no. 6.26, fig. 12). The rarely occurring inscriptions help to determine objects’ functions and their potential value in self-advertisement alike. Majority of inscriptions refer to gem sitter’s name and apparently create a special bound between him and the figure represented upon the intaglio (cat. no. 6.37, fig. 13). This is self-presentation in the clearest way possible. However, a sardonyx from Hannover engraved with an image of a naked warrior with a spear and shield, bears an inscription (EYTYKI) that should be read as on the stone (cat. no. 6.24, fig. 14). It suggests that some of the gems in question were regarded as amulets bringing good luck in combat and war. Apart from these, in the period spanning from the 3rd to the 1st century BC, representations of horse riders were particularly common, and they possibly referred to self-presentation too, especially if the class of equites is concerned since only they had the right to wear a gold signet ring and a representation of a horse rider upon such a ring was a synonym for equestrian status (cat. nos. 6.39-58, figs. 15-16).412 Some of the types might stem from Hellenistic culture, though.413 408 See a detailed study of the late Etrusco-Italic and early Roman Republican ringstones in Martini 1971. 409 See a discussion on this issue in: Sena Chiesa, Tassinari and Magni 2009, pp. 122-123. 410 Vitellozzi 2010, no. 43. 411 Pliny, NH, XXXVII.4. 412 Pliny, NH, XXXIII.4. 413 See a discussion on this issue in: Sena Chiesa, Tassinari and Magni 2009, pp. 125-126. To sum up, the whole phenomenon was gradually transformed into bolder private allusions and exploitation of these images changed its focus from the person represented on a gem to the one who carried it. As a result, in the course of the 1st century BC, many propagandists not only made references to specific mythological figures, but even identified with them (cf. chapters 7.1.5, 7.2.4, 8.1.9, 8.2.8, 9.1.7, 9.2.6, 9.3.1.8, 9.3.2.7 and 10.7). Similarly to the earlier Etruscan and Italic gems, Roman Republican ones bearing subjects related to warfare were used by those who served in especially appreciated units or who experienced brotherhood in arms. They might have wanted to exhibit their affiliation to such units which was a kind of membership proclamation. It was later exploited by various political factions as it was a common habit to inform about one’s political affiliation during the 1st century Civil Wars (cf. chapters 8.1.5, 8.2.4, 8.2.6, 9.1.3, 9.1.5, 9.2.2, 9.2.4, 9.3.1.4, 9.3.1.6, 9.3.2.3, 9.3.2.5 and 10.4). Alongside to all these motifs appear images that I identify as presenting Roman generals, imperators, dictators and high rank officers. These cannot be regarded as ordinary pieces related to just to auto-presentation, but they are first symptoms of propaganda on gems and seem to be purely Roman creations. For the second reason they are discussed separately (cf. chapter 6.3.3). Finally, it should be kept in mind that in the period discussed, many warfare subjects could have been used for different reasons than debated above. For instance, Greek heroes were preferable on gems because they were legendary founders of numerous Italian cities, especially those located in the southern Italy.414 It seems that a sort of local patriotism of the Romans might have contributed to the popularity of such images too. Some of them also were used as family symbols (cf. chapters 6.3.1, 7.4.2 and 8.3.3). Overall, a general observation is that there is much more representations of Greek heroes and warriors on Roman Republican gems rather than before because Roman society was much more militarised than Etruscan and Italic ones.415 414 For instance, Ulysses was said to have found at least ten cities in Italy, see: Gołyźniak 2017, no. 113, pp. 126-127. 415 Compare: Hansson 2005, p. 132. Subjects referring to banqueting (symposium) constituted a significant group in Roman Republican glyptics. Depictions of satyrs, maenads, Dionysus, Eros – all of them are present in large quantities but should not be regarded as only related to auto-presentation phenomenon (cat. nos. 6.59-60, fig. 17). They ceased to be seen as markers of high social status. In fact, Roman culture was much more exposed to the Hellenistic influences and thus, great popularity of dionysiac subjects may be explained as a reflection of that process. Moreover, these kinds of gems, according to their quantities, must have been used by masses, not a few, so their potential self-presentation meaning was much weaker than before. Generic and dionysiac scenes had been especially popular in the 1st century BC also due to the particular political and cultural significance which will be further discussed (cf. chapter 10.8). Religious acts such as sacrificing, rituals as well as symbols referring to religious offices are also present in Roman Republican glyptics. It goes without saying that these subjects were borrowed from Etruscans and Italics, but in some cases of the 1st century BC, it might be debated if they were produced for specific political leaders, especially if augural symbols are considered (cat. no. 6.61, fig. 18). Among the Roman Republican gems produced in the 3rd and 2nd century BC one finds several outstanding subjects. First of all, there are gems showing busts or heads of priests. In Berlin there is a brown glass gem presenting a pair of busts of priests with apex on the heads which is dated around 100 BC (cat. no. 6.62, fig. 19). Another glass gems but showing only one bust of an augur are kept in a private collection and in Aquileia (cat. nos. 6.63-64). A nicolo stone with an image of a Roman priest to the right wearing tutulus, a close-fitting round cap, tied under the chin with strings (offendices) is preserved in London (cat. no. 6.66) and another nicolo in Udine features the same subject (cat. no. 6.65). There are also known some gems presenting priests in figural forms such as a sardonyx in Berlin engraved with an augur who steps to the left holding lituus in his hands (cat. no. 6.67) or a praser showing a haruspex performing a ritual in St. Petersburg (cat. no. 6.68). All these gems confirm special social status of their sitters and could be used for self-presentation. This is indicated by presence of such gems on later bronze statues. For instance, Museo Archeologico Nazionale in Naples preserves an outstanding bronze statue of emperor Tiberius depicted as chief priest of Rome wearing a veil over his head and a ring on his finger with lituus engraved upon.416 Another statue equipped with a ring with augural symbols is that of Augustus as rider found in Cume.417 These statues give us context for the use of gems with augural symbols. It is clear that they were used by the most important personalities in the history of Rome, so it seems reasonable to believe that they represented special status of their owners earlier as well. Otherwise, they were simply tokens of their profession or employed for family propaganda (cf. chapter 6.3.1). 416 Inv. no. 5615. The statue was dedicated at Herculaneum’s Theatre in 37 and was found there in the 18th century, see: Lapatin 2015, p. 6. 417 Ergün 1999, p. 713, note 6. A peculiar group of intaglios are those presenting most likely Roman generals and other officials performing rituals and various religious practices (offerings) as a part of war preparations or victories’ celebrations. For instance, in Pavia there is a nicolo presenting a victorious Roman general with two of his companions about to sacrifice a bull on altar standing in front of them (cat. no. 6.69). Another interesting piece is in Paris and it shows a Roman soldier or general sacrificing a bull to god Mars standing next to him on the left (cat. no. 6.70). Vollenweider suggested that this cornelian might have been related to the wars that Rome conducted in the 3rd and 2nd century BC during the conquer of Italy and beyond.418 A highly interesting motif is that of a Samnitian warrior making an offer (ver sacrum) with a bull before or after a battle with two other warriors in the field. It exists on several gems and probably is related to the sacrifices made during the second Punic War (cat. no. 6.71, fig. 20).419 All those intaglios might have served as ritual objects, but it is tempting to perceive them as commemorating particularly important moments in the Roman history, especially those related to the wars Rome was engaged in the 3rd and 2nd century BC. Commemoration of such events was an essential part of all promotional practices of propagandists and even though not numerous, all the gems evoked represent outstanding quality of engraving and complex subject-matters. It may be concluded that they were purposed to be used among higher social classes that would both appreciate them and understand the messages encoded into them. 418 Vollenweider and Avisseau-Broustet 2003, no. 8. 419 Furtwängler 1900, vol. III, p. 243; Zazoff 1983, p. 294; Zwierlein-Diehl 1986, no. 121; Berges 2002, no. 64. 420 Hansson 2005, p. 135. 421 For a detailed information on this peculiar class of gems, see: Hansson 2005. Finally, crafts and professions were well covered in the Roman Republican material and similarly to Etruscan and Italic glyptics, intaglios presenting various occupations and people at work should be linked with auto-presentation (cat. nos. 6.72-73, fig. 21). Summing up, auto-presentation through engraved gems was successfully adopted by the Romans and widely used in the 3rd-1st century BC. According to Hansson, political and religious life is conspicuously absent from the, at least, a globolo material.420 This is due to the specific cultural and political context. A globolo gems, which in a very simplified way, can be described as Etrusco-Italic glyptic material produced between the late 4th and early 2nd century BC,421 illustrate that in this period of time glyptics was much concerned with individuals. Even though as Hansson presents, some general trends existed, it was always up to individuals to decide what kind of image they identify with and are eager to carry upon their rings. At the first glance, the Roman glyptics experienced the same phenomenon if the 3rd and early 2nd century BC are concerned. However, as evidenced above, the increasing number of military subjects, much stronger emphasis put on the gem owner and reflection of his particular merits, qualities and successes as well as the highlight of his special status within the society was becoming more and more important as the time passed. Ultimately, already in the 2nd century BC, but especially in the 1st century BC, politics had much greater impact on gem devices than it had in the preceding centuries. Still, it can be said that while auto-presentation through gems worked on a general level in the 3rd and 2nd century, in the course of the 1st century BC political leaders started to subordinate glyptic art to their personal goals, including propaganda campaigns. Glyptics was undergoing profound changes which are clearly noticeable not only in the gems’ devices repertoire but also in their forms (glass gems, cameos, works in the round, vessels) and scale of production. Auto-presentation borrowed from Etruscan and Italic glyptics was one of the pillars for those changes to occur. Multiple impulses originating from the Hellenistic culture that worked especially well in the late 3rd and 2nd century BC for Roman elites were another one. 6.2. Hellenistic influences The second major source of inspiration for the Roman Republican gem engravers and politicians was Hellenistic culture. Similarly to Etruscan and Italic glyptics, Hellenistic one influenced Roman glyptic art to a considerable degree in terms of new forms (cameos, carved vessels, works in the round), practices (collecting, triumphal processions, royal patronage), styles, techniques and of course iconography. As has been proved by Hansson, Hellenistic culture started to mingle with glyptic production of the southern and central Italy as early as the mid-4th century BC.422 Because archaeological and cultural context for the Roman Republican gems is largely incomplete, it is a difficult task to point out which depictions and practices stem from Hellenistic traditions unless one tries to trace them according to the political motivations that might have been the reasons for their adoption by the Romans. 422 Hansson 2005, pp. 38-39 423 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 1-47. 424 Möbius 1964, pp. 14-19; Megow 1987, p. 2; Plantzos 1999, p. 42. 6.2.1. Portraits The first category of glyptic material that experienced a massive Hellenistic impact are intaglios and in later phase also cameos with human portraits. Although Vollenweider identified some Etruscan and later Italic and Roman Republican own traditions towards this phenomenon,423 it is a generally accepted view that the practice of putting an image of a living man upon a gem was a Greek invention that flourished in particular in the Hellenistic period (cat. nos. 74-77, figs. 22-23).424 Since Alexander the Great down to Cleopatra VII a number of portrait gems had been produced and their functions are a subject of a fierce debate.425 These gems could have been used as personal seals of the rulers that commissioned them,426 but there is evidence to claim they were exchanged in a form of diplomatic gifts. For instance, Lucius Licinius Lucullus was offered a gold ring with emerald engraved with a portrait of king Ptolemy IX Soter II during an audience at his court in 86 or 85 BC.427 According to Plutarch, Lucullus out of modesty, declined to accept the gift, but Ptolemy showed him that the engraving on it was a likeness of himself, so the Roman general accepted the gift wishing to make no offence to the king.428 As Plantzos observes, the passage offers valuable information for our understanding of royal portraiture in glyptic. It was regarded as a great personal honour to be offered an intaglio with an image of a ruler. This privilege was reserved to the few and could not be simply rejected.429 Literary records suggest that gems with portraits were also used in order to manifest loyalty and support to a political leader. Polybius, when talking about the murder of Ptolemy IV by Agathokles and his followers mentions a certain Aristomenes who expressed his support to Agathokles by being the first who used to wear his image on a ring.430 However, this phenomenon could have been double-sided. It is easy to imagine that it was a king who by giving a precious gift with his likeness engraved upon (e.g. a ring with a gem) counted for loyalty of the gifted person. The confirmation of that comes from Athenaios who informs that in the days of confusion and anarchy preceding the advent of Mithridates in Athens, the peripatetic philosopher Athenion, who became a dictator in the city in 89/88 BC, and was an active member of the pro-Pontic party, was seen wearing Mithradates’ portrait upon a ring.431 It is not clear from this narrative whether it was Mithradates who used to gift gems with his own portraits to his supporters or they commissioned such objects on their own, but the former supposition is supported by the fact that Mithradaes was a collector of gems and hired best gem engravers to work at his court (cf. chapter 6.2.2 below). 425 Plantzos 1999, pp. 42-65; Fulińska 2017. 426 For instance, the famous Pyrgoteles cut a gem for Alexander the Great bearing king’s own image, see: Plutarch, Alex. 4.1; Pliny, NH, XXXVII.4 and a broad commentary on this issue in Plantzos 1999, pp. 60-62. However, according to literary sources some rulers preferred other subjects than their own likeness, for instance, Cleopatra VII used a ring with an image of Methe, see: Anth. Pal. IX.756; Neverov 2005, p. 189. 427 Plantzos (1999, p. 111) and Zwierlein-Diehl (2007, p. 108) suggest the king to be Ptolemy IX Soter II, however, Lapatin (2015, p. 110) claims it was Ptolemy XI, but this can be author’s typo since that king ruled briefly in 80 BC? 428 Plutarch, Lucullus, 3.1. 429 Plantzos 1999, p. 111. 430 Polybius, Histories, 15.31.8. 431 Athenaios, Deipn. 5.212d-e. See also: Plutarch, Sulla, 13; Appian, Mith., 28. Yarrow thinks that glass gems bearing head of Mithridates were primarily used to manifest allegiance to pro-Pontic party (2018, pp. 39-40). The situations described above clearly show that engraved gems were used for political and propaganda purposes in the Hellenistic world. They were employed for personal seals of the rulers, commemorated specific events and were means of manifestation of loyalty and support. But above all, gems with portraits in Hellenistic period were used for personal branding and contributed to the dissemination of royal image among the people, even if these were only limited groups.432 Besides, gems with portraits were exceptionally luxurious products testifying to the high social status and distinction of both, their commissioners and receivers. It seems this was the main reason why in the course of the 2nd century BC many Roman dignitaries and generals infiltrating the east during military campaigns followed Hellenistic examples and started to have their portraits cut upon their rings. The absolutely top quality of glyptic art and prestige it gave was appealing for them. It is a common view that Etruscan art was quickly romanised by aristocracy in Rome because it was top quality and allowed to stand out from others.433 The same applies to the Hellenistic art that greatly influenced the Roman one, especially after the Second Punic War (218-201 BC) (cf. above). Again, the dominant role was played by aristocracy for which Hellenistic standards offered far more possibilities to fulfil their needs and desires for raising own popularity and authority. At the dusk of the Second Punic War, Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus (236-183 BC) emerged as the most significant Roman general and political leader. After the battle at Zama in 202 BC, Scipio was welcomed back to Rome in triumph with the agnomen of Africanus. He refused the many honours which the people would have thrust upon him such as consul for life and dictator titles. Instead, in the year 199 BC, Scipio was elected censor and for some years afterwards he lived quietly and took no part in politics. Nevertheless, his position was strong and there were many who sought for his support and wanted to ensure him about their loyalty. There is a substantial number of engraved gems and rings that provoke to think that way. 432 Plantzos 1999, pp. 111-112. 433 Binachi Bandinelli 1988, p. 179. 434 Furtwängler 1900, vol. III, pp. 215-116; Vollenweider 1958; Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 57-58; Zazoff 1983, p. 269; Plantzos 1999, p. 92. However, as Lapatin states, some scholars are less willing to identify the person depicted with any specific historical figure (2015, p. 234). 435 Inv. no. 25085. Ward et al. 1981, no. 56; Pirzio Biroli Stefanelli 1992, no. 1; Lapatin 2015, pl. 47. The famous gold ring found in Capua engraved with a portrait of a Roman, who has been recognised as Scipio Africanus (cat. no. 6.78, fig. 24) is the most significant glyptic object related to the Roman general.434 It is signed by a Greek artist Herakleidas (AKΛEIΔΛC EΠOCI - Herakleidas epoei) and is now preserved at the Museo Archeologico Nazionale in Naples.435 The portrait is presented in an entirely Greek manner, however, the style and the serious physiognomy including thin, close-lipped mouth is closer to the verist representations of the Romans praising contemporary ideals of gravity and piety. Actually, this piece is a good example of the situation when the commissioner must have been a Roman, while the artist was a Greek previously working somewhere in the Hellenistic east.436 It is a particular situation when the severe Roman standards are reflected upon the object that represent a major lapse in them since it must have been a precious even boastful item in its character. It can only be speculated if this ring once belonged to Scipio Africanus, but since the Romans adopted the same standards as Hellenistic rulers in patronising glyptic art and signed pieces seem to be direct commissions from the most wealthy and important people, such a possibility cannot be entirely rejected. One imagines that this was a mutually beneficial situation for the commissioner, who could boast to have his ring engraved by a famous artist, which added him splendour and prestige, and for the artist to claim one of his customers to be a prominent politician. The Herakleidas’ ring is dated ca. 200 BC or slightly later and whether it indeed features portrait of Scipio Africanus, it illustrates well the phenomenon of Hellenistic traditions towards portraiture in glyptics intercepted by the Romans. 436 Alas, except for his name and extraordinary skills nothing is known about Herakleidas. His name is not recorded in literary sources and none of his other works is known. 437 It is speculated if a brown glass gem in Vienna bears a portrait of Scipio Africanus, however, as Zwierlein-Diehl points out (1979, no. 790), in this case, the long hair resembles that of Alexander the Great and there are some differences in facial features as well. 438 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 57-58; Zwierlein-Diehl 1979, no. 790. 439 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pl. 39.11. 440 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pl. 39.12-13. In case of Scipio Africanus his portraiture on gems appears to be not a single event, but a regular phenomenon. Vollenweider collected several glass gems that with greater or lesser probability present heads of this famous Roman general (cat. nos. 6.79-82). Several more can be added to this list (cat. nos. 6.83-85, fig. 25).437 Portraits on all these gems are similar to bronze coins minted in Canusium in the early 2nd century BC438 as well as to the ring described above. Vollenweider pointed also two more rings in her opinion presenting portrait of Scipio Africanus: a silver one now in London,439 and iron one in Louvre Museum in Paris,440 however, I think that considerable differences in both facial physiognomies and haircuts do not allow to make such an attribution. In any case, except for one dark violet object in Berlin, all the evoked gems are made of brown or yellowish-brown glass and have convex obverse sides, so they indeed constitute a homogenous group. However, these portraits were not made from the same matrix and to my mind they exhibit slight differences in both, facial features and coiffures. Therefore, it may seem speculative to regard them as portraits of Scipio Africanus, but the problems with their identification result from scanty comparative material and different skilfulness of those glass gems’ makers. By all means it is problematic to accept that they all copy one image engraved by Herakleides as Vollenweider proposed.441 Assuming that indeed these portrait gems were intended to present Scipio Africanus, one believes that they might have been produced for his followers who wanted to manifest their loyalty and commitment to him. Alternatively, some gem engravers took advantage of Scipio’s popularity in Rome and produced those objects to deliver them on the market since there was a considerable demand for them.442 The six glass gems mentioned above probably were produced in Italy, possibly in Rome since they previously were a part of Bergau, Fol and Stosch collections which were all created from the material originating from Italy (cf. chapter 11). The gem now in Athens could be transferred there from Italy for instance by a Roman legionary. In conclusion, it is controversial to think that gems with portraits of Scipio Africanus were primarily used for personal branding of that stateman. It is difficult to say whether Scipio indeed used the ring cut by Herakleides for his own promotion and commissioned it purposefully as there is no other evidence, either archaeological and literary, except for the ring itself. Nevertheless, the series of glass gems with his likeness must have been an effect of his great popularity in Rome. As evidenced, it is possible that those gems were used for manifestation of loyalty and support, especially among ordinary people rather than aristocracy which would not have invested into cheap glass intaglios. 441 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 59-60. 442 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 60-61. 443 Furtwängler 1900, vol. III, pp. 270-272. 444 Vollenweider and Avisseau-Broustet 2003, no. 2 (with previous literature). Portrait of Scipio Africanus cut by Herakleides is just one example, but in the course of the 2nd century BC the phenomenon of personal branding on portrait gems reached a much larger scale. Already Furtwängler pointed out that many representatives of Roman elites became fascinated by the Greek culture and promoted themselves in a totally Hellenistic manner including glyptics.443 The contact with Graeco-Hellenistic civilisation was a crucial factor for some Romans to have their portrait cut upon a gemstone. A proof of that is a garnet intaglio in Paris presenting bust of a Roman in profile to the right with short curly hair and slight beard dressed in a chlamys (cat. no. 6.86, fig. 26). The gem is signed by a Greek artist Daidalos (ΔAIΔAΛOC). The person depicted has been identified as Titus Quinctius Flamininus (ca. 229-174 BC).444 In case of Scipio’s ring the Roman verism was quite straightforward, but here, the portrait is a bit idealised; Titus is projected as a relatively young man and his likeness is closer to the images of Hellenistic kings, rather than serious and rough images of Roman generals.445 In 197 BC he defeated Philipp V at Kynoskephalai which has been celebrated by several coin issues.446 It is likely that the gem in question was made in order to celebrate and commemorate this victory. Regarding the coins, they exhibit some differences in style, which means they must have been prepared by several coin dies cutters, but it has been observed that Flamininus portraits from the gem and those coins were executed according to one concept – a combination of distinctive physiognomic features with illustration of Titus famous philhellenism.447 Even though the work of Daidalos on the stylistic grounds is entirely Hellenistic,448 the individualisation of the portrait means that it was cut for personal use of the commissioner, in this case most likely Flamininus himself. This is also confirmed by the fact that he wears no diadem or laurel wreath on his head on the intaglio to manifest his role as the saviour of the people ruled by a tyrant as Flamininus with his army was asked by Greek and Asian allies to intervene against Philip. If paraded around with such an intaglio on his hand, he must have made a great impression on his peers. Again, one deals with a situation when a propagandist wanted to possess an extraordinary item cut by a top artist available which ideally presents him and reflects his values - in this case, also his appreciation for the Hellenistic culture. It is clear that this gem was a powerful propaganda tool since only such an individual as Flamininus could have afforded it both economically and ideologically. The gem is utterly exceptional like his gold staters struck in Chalcis ca. 196 BC because before Flamininus almost no living person had been depicted upon coins as that privilege was reserved for deities.449 The gem was once a part of de Clercq and Count Boisgelin collections which confirms that it was cut in the east (Greece or Bithynia?), not in Rome.450 445 Rambach 2018. 446 RRC, no. 548 (stater of T. Quinticus Flamininus, 196 BC); Smith 1988, p. 128. For a detailed study of the coinage in question, see: Campana 2016. 447 Plantzos 1999, p. 92; Vollenweider and Avisseau-Broustet 2003, no. 2; Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 108. 448 It is noteworthy that even the gemstone type employed here – garnet – is the most frequently used material for Hellenistic glyptics and especially if portraits are concerned. 449 RRC, no. 548 (stater of T. Quinticus Flamininus, 196 BC). 450 The core of the Louis de Clercq (1837-1901) collection of engraved gems and other antiquities was formed while he was in the Near East (mainly in Syria, Phoenicia, Mesopotamia and Cyprus), see: chapter 11, Ridder 1911 and a valuable discussion on this specific piece in: Vollenweider and Avisseau-Broustet 2003, no. 2. 451 Inv. no. OIA29789. 452 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pl. 136.1-2 and 6. The third gem attesting increasing interest of the Romans in portraiture in glyptic art is a garnet intaglio in the collection of the Oriental Institute Museum in Chicago (cat. no. 87, fig. 27).451 Like the preceding gems, this one bears a portrait of a powerful Roman individual, who has traditionally been identified as Mark Antony,452 however, this is untrue. As Plantzos and Lapatin observe, this work is purely Hellenistic in terms of style. Besides, gem’s form and material (highly convex garnet) as well as the heavy, gold ring with a stepped bezel it is set into suggest dating it around 150 BC.453 The piece is signed by a Greek artist Menophilos (MENOΦIΛOC EΠOIEI) about whom nothing certain is known, but he is likely to have worked in Asia Minor or on Delos.454 The portrait on the gem exhibits far-reaching individualisation reflected by strong jaw, sunken cheek, deeply cut mimic wrinkles, prominent nose and furrowed brow. His hair, although arranged freely are much shorter than on previous two portraits. This illustrates progressive adjustment of the Greek engraving towards new Roman customers. The ring is said to have been found in Syria, and although this seems disputable,455 beyond a shadow of the doubt it is an eastern product. The identification of the portrayed person is indeed problematic, but the gem is another example of a work made for a prominent Roman (possibly a general, diplomat or stateman?) who wanted to promote himself by commissioning a piece of extraordinary jewellery for himself. He might have paraded himself with a work performed by one of the best gem engravers of his times which added him splendour and prestige as well as confirmed his distinctive social status. 453 Plantzos 1999, p. 94; Lapatin 2015, p. 245. 454 Lapatin 2015, p. 245. 455 Compare: Plantzos 1999, p. 94 and Lapatin 2015, p. 245. 456 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pl. 53.1; Plantzos 1999, no. 612. 457 Although, some researchers are not convinced to such an early date and proposed to place these two gems in the 1st century BC, see: Plantzos 1999, p. 93. 458 Gołyźniak 2017, no. 223. There are several other gems that combine Hellenistic manner of engraving and stylistic features with Roman Republican individualisation of the portrayed person, the so-called verism aimed at deep reflection of his personality. One such piece is a garnet intaglio from a private collection with a flat face engraved with a portrait of a man whose facial features and expression as well as the treatment of hair suggest him to be a Roman (cat. no. 6.88).456 According to the style, this gem should be dated to the late 2nd or early 1st century BC. There are two interesting mottled jasper intaglios cut with images of the Romans that may be broadly dated from the late 3rd to the early 1st century BC.457 The first one, housed in Berlin, is a double-faced scaraboid featuring a portrait of a sober and wrinkled man having short hair slightly receding at the temples and Gorgoneion on the other side (cat. no. 6.89). Identification of this portrait appears particularly difficult. The Gorgoneion, as a single element, was usually employed on gems to avert all kinds of evil.458 If combined with a portrait, it would have meant the gem to be a personal amulet of the person depicted. However, giving the fact that the man presented on the gem in question seems a quite exceptional person and the object itself belongs to a rare class of early Roman portrait intaglios, it may be that the gorgoneion emblem is a later addition. It does not seem likely that the sign has a political reference anyway unless it or testifies to identification with Alexander the Great.459 The second intaglio is now preserved in Paris and is also highly problematic in terms of person’s identification, but it has been generally accepted that it presents a Roman stateman (cat. no. 6.90). This portrait is compared to another mottled jasper intaglio presenting Philetaerus of Pergamon (ca. 343-263 BC) now in London,460 and thus it is suggested to be executed in Asia Minor.461 Another noteworthy piece is a garnet intaglio set in ancient gold ring also housed in Paris (cat. no. 6.91). According to Vollenweider, it may present a Roman ambassador and should be dated around 200-180 BC.462 It should be singled out that this gem was a part of de Clercq and Count Boisgelin collections which suggests that it was indeed cut in the east (most likely Asia Minor), not in Rome. Next intriguing object is a bronze ring carrying a bust of a middle-aged man to the left also from the Paris collection (cat. no. 6.92).463 It can be roughly dated to the 3rd-2nd century BC but in my opinion identification of the person depicted as a Roman is not entirely convincing.464 Less problematic is a glass gem presenting a beardless Roman in profile to the right from London (cat. no. 6.93, fig. 28). The man wears a military cloak fibulated on the shoulder which suggests his role as a commander of the army. The object should be dated to the late 2nd or early 1st century BC and similarly to other gems evoked here, this one was meant to be used for personal branding, although, judging by the material used, it must have been made for a less prominent person. Finally, in the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston there are three intaglios of exceptional quality, executed in entirely Hellenistic manner but presenting Romans (cat. nos. 6.94-96, figs. 29-30). They all account to the group described here and illustrate that the phenomenon of Roman portraits appearing on Hellenistic intaglios clearly intensified towards the 1st century BC. 459 See also a discussion on the famous intaglio presenting Medusa’s head cut by Apollophanes and its potential relationship with Mithridates VI Eupator suggested by Vollenweider (chapter 8.1.3). 460 Walters 1926, no. 1184; Planztos 1999, no. 90; Lapatin 2015, pp. 244-245. 461 Vollenweider and Avisseau-Broustet 2003, no. 1 (with earlier literature and discussion on portrait’s identification). 462 Vollenweider and Avisseau-Broustet 2003, no. 4. 463 Vollenweider and Avisseau-Broustet 2003, no. 5. 464 Compare the attribution proposed by Vollenweider in: Vollenweider and Avisseau-Broustet 2003, no. 5. Of course, in the course of the 1st century BC more and more Romans decided to have their portraits cut upon their rings and a general trend of advancing adjustment of the engraving manners towards demands of these new customers is noticeable. Nevertheless, it must be stressed that all the evoked examples were purely Hellenistic creations. In most of the instances, the people presented on them cannot be identified but all of them are securely recognised as Romans who were generals and ambassadors visiting Asia Minor and other regions of the Near East during their diplomatic missions or military campaigns. They are responsible for gradual adoption of Hellenistic traditions. The situation observed in glyptics reflects increasing domination of Roman imperialism over the Greek east and gradual overtaking of artists who found their new customers among Roman dignitaries.465 Their commissions not only confirmed their high social status, but also propagated their successes and raised authority. This is confirmed by Pliny, who claimed that gold rings, which were regarded as special and informative of exceptional status of their sitters within the society were worn by the Romans who visited the east.466 This is portrayed in the heavy Hellenistic rings that some of the gems evoked above are still mounted. Yet, one must stress that in Hellenistic glyptics (3rd-2nd century BC) portraits of rulers and queens were cut in much larger quantities than those of Romans because they were meant to be delivered to many recipients and hence, should be regarded as personal branding activities.467 Only in the 1st century BC portrait gems started to play a significant role in personal branding of the Romans. As evidenced, the earlier examples are not numerous which suggests their contribution to the social distinction rather than deliberate dissemination of the self-image among the wider audience.468 An exception from that seem to be gems with portrait of Scipio Africanus, however, I believe that their relatively high number result from an ephemerid enthusiasm for this highly popular Roman general which was a bottom-up initiative rather than effect of his own actions (e.g. propaganda). 465 Sena Chiesa 1989. 466 Pliny, NH, XXXIII.11-12. See also a commentary in: Isager 1998, p. 60. 467 Plantzos 1999, p. 42. 468 This goes in accordance with more general observations regarding rings and their status in the Roman society. It is observed that there was an increasing importance of the material the rings were made from iron through bronze and silver down to gold ones in the period of 3rd-1st century BC, see: Fourlas 1971, pp. 76-77. In other words, the higher status of the ring in Roman culture, the more important became the image engraved upon it. This ultimately results in application of gems for political purposes. 6.2.2. Patronage The material collected above proves that in the course of the 3rd and 2nd century BC Romans gradually became patrons to gem engravers. This phenomenon is best illustrated by the works of Herakleides, Daidalos and Menophilos whom we know for sure that they had been working for Roman customers. This is hardly surprising since a good number of Hellenistic kings and rulers used services of gem engravers and some are even believed to establish court workshops operating exclusively for them. Alexander the Great, typically for him, reserved the right of cutting his own portrait upon ringstones only to one artist - the famous Pyrgoteles.469 The Ptolemies were keen patrons of glyptic art and employed such artists like Nikandros and Lykomedes.470 Gem engraver Sosis is attested to have been working first in Alexandria and then in Syracuse and similarly to him Theokritos is believed to work in Sicily.471 Seleucids also employed gem engravers at their court, for instance Apollonios worked for them.472 Mithradates VI Eupator (120-61 BC), who was a great admirer and keen collector of engraved gems as well as vessels made of precious stones, is believed to organise a gem workshop at his court. It is believed that Apollophanes, Solon, Protarhos and Gnaeus all worked for him before they departured to Rome.473 469 Pliny, NH, XXXVII.4. See also a valuable commentary in: Rush 2012, p. 5. 470 Plantzos 1999, p. 63. 471 Plantzos 1999, p. 64. 472 Plantzos 1999, p. 65. 473 Regarding Apollophanes, see: Plantzos 1999, pp. 88-89. Concerning Solon, see: Vollenweider 1966, p. 49; Zazoff 1983, pp. 319-320; Rush 2012, pp. 57-58. On Protarhos, see: Giuliano and Micheli 1989, p. 27; Tassinari 2008, p. 280. On Gnaeus as working for Mithradates VI Eupator, see: Tassinari 2008, p. 299. 474 Henig 1994, p. 153. These facts make us aware that glyptics was an exclusive and luxurious art and only a few could afford to use services of the best engravers. Moreover, already in the 3rd century BC the Romans started to imitate Hellenistic kings in their patronage over this peculiar art form and those who did so must have been highly appreciated among their peers for it confirmed their financial capabilities and compared them to the kings themselves. The art of gem engraving and the highly personal subjects, e.g. own portraits, were particularly appealing to the ambitious Roman careerists. Naturally, their portraits lack of any attributes and are verist in terms of physiognomy and expression which was due to the values of modesty and piety obediently cherished by them, even though the art of gem engraving had little to do with those qualities at the time by definition.474 It is evident that at this stage, employment of glyptic art into the propaganda activities of those first Roman military and political leaders was contributing to their social distinction, while forms and messages were less significant. The fact that an individual was an art patron and decided to have his portrait cut upon his ring already gained him recognition because in the 3rd and 2nd century BC this was still very rare, even exceptional. A side effect of this process was the increasing influence of Hellenistic glyptics on the Roman one, which is easily observable in Roman Republican gems’ forms, styles and iconography (cf. chapter 6.2.5 below). Ultimately, the patronage of those few first Roman generals, diplomats and explorers of the east sparked a considerable phenomenon that resulted in migration of Greek gem engravers from Alexandria and Asia Minor to Rome.475 475 Furtwängler 1900, vol. III, pp. 300 and 342-343; Möbius 1964; Vollenweider 1966; Giuliano and Micheli 1989, pp. 31-32; Lang 2012, p. 40. 476 Vollenweider 1966, pp. 16-18; Plantzos 1999, p. 56. 477 Appian, Mith., 115. 478 Pliny, NH, XXXVII.11-12. 479 Suetonius, Julius Caesar, 47. On the possible origins of Caesar’s gem cabinets from the treasury of Ptolemies, see: Toso 2007, p. 4. 480 For instance, Menes 2004, p. 18 claims that there is evidence that Ptolemies possessed gem collections, however, she does not present any proof for that. 481 Suetonius, Augustus, 71. 482 Pliny, NH, XXXVII.169; Giuliano and Micheli 1989, p. 23; Toso 2007, p. 4. 483 Plantzos 1999, p. 10; Thoresen 2017, p. 163. 6.2.3. Collecting Another practice the elites of the Romans adopted from Hellenistic kings was collecting of engraved gems. Only very few could have afforded to spend vast sums of money on carved precious and semi-precious stones, therefore, in Hellenistic world this kind of activity was reserved notably to the rulers and perhaps their wives. Mithradates VI Eupator is probably the most famous gem collector among Hellenistic kings, sometimes even recognised as the first one in the history.476 He is said to have possessed two thousand engraved gems and vessels decorated with precious stones.477 Moreover, his dactyliotheca was brought to Rome by Pompey the Great, exhibited during his triumph in 61 BC and ultimately dedicated to the Temple of Jupiter on Capitoline Hill.478 Similarly, Julius Caesar placed his six dactyliothecae to the Temple of Venus Genetrix on his Forum and one wonders if he exported some gems from the treasury of the Ptolemies while his visit in Alexandria?479 It is debatable if Ptolemies indeed owned collections of engraved gems, even though Alexandrian court appears a natural place for such cabinets.480 As stated above, Ptolemies, Seleucids and other Hellenistic kings employed top gem engravers at their courts, hence, it seems straightforwardly justified to think that at least a part of their production was kept in royal treasuries. A small proof for that is a record from Suetonius who informs that even modest Octavian did not hesitate to take one precious object from the Ptolemies’ treasury after the battle of Actium – a murrhine bowl.481 Seleucus XII of Syria is reported to be a collector of gems on the basis of Pliny’s record and the fact that he possessed books and manuscripts on engraved gemstones.482 Apparently, some rulers enjoyed collecting and studying engraved gems as a hobby. For instance, Juba II was believed to have written a manuscript on gems and he was greatly appreciated by Pliny, even quoted by him in his Historia Naturalis book 37 devoted to the gemstones.483 As will be described below (cf. chapters 8.1.2, 8.2.1, 8.3.1, 9.3.2 and 10.1), Marcus Aemilius Scaurus, Pompey the Great, Julius Caesar, Marcellus – all of these prominent Romans owned gem cabinets that usually were based on the collections created earlier by Hellenistic kings. The ownership of a considerable set of engraved precious stones and vessels was appealing to the Romans and therefore, they continued the Hellenistic tradition of collecting. However, as it will be shown, these assemblages not only raised their authority and confirmed high social status, but also could be used for clever propaganda moves if dedicated to the temples and thus, becoming goods serving to a common case of the people of Rome, at least theoretically. 6.2.4. Triumphs and processions As far as glyptic art is concerned, there is one more royal practice of purely Hellenistic nature and origin that Romans have adopted. Engraved gems played a significant role in triumphs which is recorded by ancient writers. Already Ptolemy II exhibited gems, vessels made of precious stones and other luxury objects incrusted with them in his famous procession in honour of Dionysus in the early 3rd century BC.484 Pompey the Great followed his example. After his victory over Mithridates VI Eupator, in 61 BC he organised a triumph during which he exhibited gems and vessels taken over from the king of Pontus.485 There is no direct proof for other Romans doing the same as Pompey. Exhibiting of gems during processions and triumphs added much splendour to the ruler or in case of Pompey, a stateman and propagandist. It must have been influential since Pliny recorded this event in his book as a pivotal moment for massive production of engraved gems in Rome.486 Pompey not only initiated a fashion in Rome for possessing rings with engraved gems, but most importantly he made himself more recognisable and popular by exhibition of the gems he brought to Rome as spolia of war so that ancient writer immortalised his achievements in this respect. 484 Lapatin 2015, p. 117. 485 Pliny, NH, XXXVII.6. See also a valuable commentary in: Isager 1991, pp. 212-229. 486 Pliny, NH, XXXVII.6. 6.2.5. Iconography, forms and style Finally, the last matter in the discussion on the impact of Hellenistic glyptics on Roman Republican gems and their potential political applications are iconography, forms and styles native to the east and transplanted to Rome. This is a broad issue that deserves a separate deep study and because it is not closely related to the main concept of this dissertation, I would like only to single out some basic points. Due to long-lasting presence of the Greeks in Sicily and southern Italy, Roman Republican gems were strongly influenced by their Greek counterparts since the very beginning.487 One even points to a distinctive Hellenistic-Roman style in carving gemstones that flourished already in the 2nd century BC.488 Nevertheless, as has been proven above, over the 3rd and 2nd century the Romans were increasingly interested in promoting themselves through the portrait gems, employment of gem engravers, collecting etc. which were basically imitations of the actions performed by Hellenistic kings. These beginnings of Roman patronage over Greek gem engravers resulted in their massive influx to Italy. In the 1st century BC a good number of transferred their business from the east to Rome.489 Because of Roman conquest of the east, many Hellenistic gems infiltrated to Rome and Italy either in the form of whole collections and individual pieces. Of course, this was not a single blow action, but a gradual process. Alongside to this, some themes and ideas previously used specifically for Hellenistic intaglios and cameos became popular in Italy alike. A good illustration of this process is the representation of a bust or head of Galene-Selene, which was widely popular on Hellenistic gems and it was due to Quintus Crepereius Rocus that the subject become popular on Roman Republican gems alike as the moneyer employed it as his coin emblem.490 As Crawford writes, the moneyer was connected with the Roman negotiores in the Greek East therefore the Galene-Selene subject as well as other marine ones used by him as control-marks are suitable for a person with such a background.491 This example clearly shows direct transfer of Hellenistic ideas and iconography on the Roman ground. There were many more Hellenistic themes that became widely popular on Roman Republican gems, especially if Bacchic and maritime worlds are concerned.492 Also in terms of composition and techniques, borrowings from Hellenistic glyptics are clear. For example, the three-quarter view from behind, naked busts of deities and mortal women and many more had been absorbed.493 Finally, new forms such as cameos, carved vessels and small works in the round which were all Hellenistic 487 Henig 1994, p. 153. 488 Furtwängler 1900, vol. III, pp. 277-299; Maaskant-Kleibrink 1978, pp. 108-109 and 131-132; Zazoff 1983, pp. 276-277; Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 107. 489 The most comprehensive study on this subject is still the book by Vollenweider 1966. However, many other authors contributed to our understanding of this complex phenomenon, for instance: Möbius 1964; Sena Chiesa 1989; Plantzos 1999, pp. 83-84, 87-88 and 92-97; Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, pp. 109-119; Sena Chiesa 2013. 490 Furtwängler 1900, vol. III, p. 342; RRC, nos. 399/1a-b (denarii of Q. Crepereius Rocus, 72 BC); Plantzos 1999, pp. 89-90; Henig 2007, p. 3; Yarrow 2017, p. 87. 491 RRC, nos. 399/1a-b (denarii of Q. Crepereius Rocus, 72 BC). 492 For a more detailed discussion, see: Giuliano and Micheli 1989, pp. 31-32; Sena Chiesa 1989; Planztos 1999, pp. 95-96; Toso 2007, p. 5. 493 Furtwängler 1900, vol. III, pp. 342-343; Möbius 1964, pp. 19-23. inventions became popular especially under Augustus as it will be presented in the further parts of this study (cf. chapters 9.3.1.9, 9.3.2.9 and 10.9).494 494 Möbius 1964, p. 14; Vollenweider 1966, pp. 12-16; Zazoff 1983, p. 269; Megow 1987, p. 2; Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, pp. 59-70 and 146-180; Sena Chiesa 2012, pp. 266-267; Sena Chiesa 2013. 495 Wiesman 1974, pp. 159-160; Brace 1979; Evans 1992, pp. 28-29; Rakoczy 2006. For some literature on the family genealogy see also Zanker 1988, p. 374. 6.3. Roman tradition (family symbols, personal branding, commemoration, state propaganda) Two main external directions influencing the developments of Roman Republican engraved gems in terms of their political applications have been discussed above. As proved, both, Etrusco-Italic and Hellenistic cultures made a great impact on propagandistic actions performed by Roman statemen especially if auto-presentation and personal branding are concerned. However, the native Roman element was an important factor in development of propaganda on gems too. Below is presented a survey through themes that in the course of time became inspirational for later propaganda messages appearing on gems or were directly transformed into such. It is combined with a critical evaluation of the ideas proposed by other scholars. Most of the examples brought up here date to the period of the 3rd-2nd century BC but some may span to the early 1st century BC too. All of them appear to be not a regular production, which is well documented for the later 1st century BC, but if indeed account to political sphere, they are rather first attempts and experiments. Most of the examples refer to auto-presentation practices aimed at showing oneself in a positive way with highlight of particular merits, values and virtues. Some of them refer to commemoration of military victories and other important events as well as to personal branding. This sub-chapter also offers a discussion on a poorly researched issue of family promotion through symbolism. Finally, some of the gems presented here touch a broader issue of state propaganda which links to the romanisation and imperialism of the Romans spreading throughout the Mediterranean basin. 6.3.1. Family symbols and references to familial stories on gems Family symbols, either understood as single items or their configurations and narrative scenes referring to the history, stories or legends of specific gentes were commonly depicted on coins of the Roman Republic issued by triumviri monetales.495 They used to promote themselves, their clan and its members in order to become more recognisable and raise authority by its transfer from legendary and historical ancestors. Since engraved gems are strictly private objects, it seems natural to think that they should play the same or even more important role in the display of family allegiances.496 Already in the end of the 19th century Furtwängler noticed a great potential in comparisons made between gems and coins in terms of promotion of gentes.497 However, a careful survey on the motifs that may refer to family propaganda on gems shows that overinterpretations are common and in fact to prove that promotion of the gentes and exhibition of membership to a specific family indeed occurred on gems is somewhat problematic. This is clearly noticeable in case of the late Etrusco-Italic a globolo material as suggested by Hansson.498 496 Barcaro 2008/2009, pp. 6-7. 497 Furtwängler 1900, vol. III, pp. 277-279. 498 Hansson 2005, pp. 137-138. 499 A particularly suitable fragment to this discussion seems to be: Pliny, NH, XXXVII.17. See also a commentary of Henig to this issue (2007, p. 1). 500 Pliny, NH, XXXIII.27; Ergün 1999, pp. 713-714; Gagetti 2011, pp. 136-137. 501 Valerius Maximus, III, 5. 502 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 197-199; Gagetti 2001, pp. 136-139 (also very useful for a general discussion on the issue of family seals); Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, pp. 11-12. 503 Pliny, NH, XXXVII.4. 504 Cassius Dio, Historia Romana, 51.3.7; Jucker 1975; Campagnolo and Fallani 2018, no. IX.3.i, pp. 157-158. One shall start investigations on the issue from analysis of the literary sources. They deliver some evidence supporting the view of existence of family seals. One of the ancient writers who vaguely mentions them is Pliny the Elder. He does not inform when exactly Romans started to use rings with family seals or to make references to their ancestors with the use of gems, but as far as it can be judged from his Natural History book 37, this happened in the late 4th or early 3rd century BC.499 Beyond the shadow of a doubt, family seals were important, and it was a great honour to carry them upon one’s ring. They were passed from one generation to another.500 As Valerius Maximus informs, young Lucius Scipio disgraced himself by coming to an election in a soiled toga and thus his relatives removed the ring with the head of his father Scipio Africanus from his hand.501 It is clear from this fragment that he inherited it, but even minor offences could be the case to lose it which was considered a great shame and could literary ruin young Scipio’s career. A family ring belonged to pater familias and was given to a successor or adopted son, like in case of Julius Caesar and Octavian (cf. chapter 9.3.1.1).502 Pliny suggests that after Augustus, all Roman emperors used as their official seal the ring with Augustus’ portrait engraved upon a gem by Dioscurides.503 Nevertheless, the record from Cassius Dio Historia Romana on the seal of emperor Galba is of special importance here as well because when he became the emperor he still used his family ring with an image of a dog standing on a prow rather than portrait of Augustus (cat. nos. 6.97-98, fig. 31).504 Actually, this is the only one example recorded when it is clear that a ring device was employed as a family symbol, even though it seems to have been used by more than one family.505 In any other cases, portraits of famous ancestors or deliberately created up-to-need images were used to promote family through gems like in case of Lucius Licinius Lucullus, Pompey the Great, Julius Caesar, Sextus Pompey and Augustus (cf. chapters 7.3.3, 8.1.6, 8.2.5, 9.1.4, 9.3.1.1, 9.3.1.5, 9.3.2.4 and 10.10). For this reason, it is extremely difficult to find any other family symbols employed in glyptics to be utterly convincing. Nevertheless, some attempts should be made and discussed as possible rather than completely ignored. Generally speaking, regardless of portraits themselves, there are two categories of representations plausible to be of significance for family propaganda on gems. The first one consists of single symbols or their configurations. In coinage it was a common practice to form a kind of a symbolic rebus that would refer to the name of the issuer and his family. One wonders if in case of engraved gems, the same phenomenon occurs. Some examples can be positively identified if compared to coins unless symbols or scenes they bear have other precise and distinctive meaning in terms of glyptics, which is often the case. The second category encompasses various mythological and historical scenes so often appearing on intaglios. It is a well attested view to think that Roman gentes used highly sophisticated methods for their family promotion which often hides behind mythological and historical references.506 As it will be shown, it is difficult to detect and correctly identify those on gems because such themes might have served for different purposes as well. Yet, some positive results of my investigations are presented below. The earliest applications of gems for family and orgio promotion date to the second half of the 2nd century BC and this is consistent with observations made by numismatists regarding Roman Republican coinage.507 This correlation covers not only chronological framework, but also iconography and while comparing gems’ and coins’ devices one encounters some representations occurring in both media, probably at the same time.508 This is particularly helpful for stating that not only political leaders of the main factiones used to promote themselves on gems but also the less prominent ones as well as whole families or their specific branches (cf. chapters 7.4.2 and 8.3.3). 505 See discussion in: Vollenweider 1979, no. 442, who suggested the subject to be related to the Second Punic War and gens Lutatii Catulii. 506 On this issue, see: Wiseman 1974; Evans 1992; Smith 2006, pp. 32-44; Toso 2007. 507 Rakoczy 2006, p. 21. 508 Yarrow lists some examples of such situations in regard to coins and glass gems (2018). Her study proves a dramatic need for a thorough comparative analysis of coins and gems of the Roman Republic. However, this should by no means be limited to glass gems only and there could be multiple reasons for coins and gems sharing the same iconography, some of which are indicated in this thesis. Regarding potential family symbols on gems dated to the 2nd century BC, the first group consist of single symbols. The bull as a single motif exists on Roman Republican gems from at least 2nd century BC onwards and is usually understood as the astrological sign of Taurus.509 However, a peculiar type seems to occur on some gems where the animal is charging with raised hooves (cat. no. 6.99, fig. 32). This design is mirrored on or from the denarius of L. Thorius Balbus issued in 105 BC (fig. 33).510 Crawford as well as Campagnolo and Fallani argue that the motif may be a word-game corresponding to moneyer’s name rather than a reference to Juno Sospita appearing on the obverse side, which would further suggest the gems with similar device to be used by the members of gens Thoria.511 However, the bull belonging to cattle may also be linked to the concept of Italy as a homeland and giving the year when the coin was minted it possibly recalls Roman common case facing the peril of the Cimbri invasion and Battle of Arausio where two Roman armies were destroyed.512 Perhaps the gems and the coin combine both elements suggesting input of the family Thoria into the defence against the invaders. 509 Gołyźniak 2017, no. 269; Sagiv 2018, p. 44. 510 RRC, no. 316/1 (denarius of L. Thorius Balbus, 105 BC). 511 RRC, no. 316/1 and p. 719 for additional commentary; Campagnolo and Fallani 2018, no. IX.1.ii, p. 130. 512 On the significance of cattle on gems as symbols of Italy and other possible meanings, see: Gołyźniak 2017, no. 262. 513 Maaskant-Kleibrink 1978, no. 202. However, Evans is of the opinion that gens Aemilia did not use images of their legendary ancestors but instead they promoted generals from their line (1992, p. 27). 514 RRC no. 486/1. 515 Wiesman 1974, p. 153; Evans 1992, pp. 26-27. See also other possibilities presented by Smith (2006, pp. 35-36). Head of Diana of Ephesus appears on the denarii of the Aemilian family in the end of the 2nd century BC and is regarded as the emblem of that gens.513 Perhaps some gems featuring the same motif were used as personal seals by the members of the Aemilian family, but there are no direct proofs for that (cat. nos. 6.100-102, fig. 34). Actually, the fact that head of Diana of Ephesus appears later on the coins issued by P. Accoleivs Lariscolus makes the hypothesis of taking her as Aemilian family’s emblem even weaker and in some other cases her image suggests the particular coins to be minted in Asia Minor.514 Besides, according to some versions of mythological foundations of Rome, Aemylos, brother of Ascanius/Iulus was the eponymous ancestor of the patrician Aemilii but his images are absent in Roman Republican glyptics, or at least remain unidentifiable.515 The second type of representations that could be regarded as family emblems are figural scenes referring to mythology and legendary history of many gentes. A god number of historical, legendary, mythological and divine figures served to Roman families as their ancestors or patrons at least. It seems justified to start this survey with Heracles who was said to have been ancestor primarily for Fabia and Antonia as well as Potitia and Pinaria gentes.516 According to legend, the Fabii claimed descent from Heracles, who visited Italy a generation before the Trojan War broke out, and from Evander, his host.517 They were involved in the cult of Heracles and minted coins with his images.518 They used to put head of the hero on their early coin types,519 while later his full figure engaged in various activities.520 The Pinarii and Potitii were connected with Heracles’ visit to Evander too, while the Antonii descended from a son of Heracles called Anton.521 Full-figure studies of Heracles are common motifs on engraved gems in the Roman Republican period (cat. nos. 6.103-107, fig. 35), whereas heads of the hero were especially popular in the 1st century BC (cat. nos. 108-109, fig. 36). At the first glance there seems to be plenty of motifs that would be suitable for seals of families claiming to descent from Heracles. However, there is little direct evidence to think that Heracles was indeed used as a family symbol on engraved gems prior to Mark Antony’s references to his own legendary ancestry (cf. chapter 9.3.2.7). Heracles’ popularity on gems in the Roman Republican period is due to many reasons. One of them is the fact that several place names in Italy were connected to his adventures.522 Moreover, vitulia as a name for the Italian peninsula supposedly came into usage because Heracles chased a runaway bullock (vitulus) there.523 It is reasonable to think that Heracles was regarded as a unifying symbol for the Romans and therefore, his cult was so strong in Rome and beyond. Many Romans chose to have him engraved upon their rings seeking his blessing and protection. He was also appealing for the young soldiers starting their military career. I did not find any example of a gem bearing Heracles that would be personalised enough to claim it could be used as a family seal. Even if one narrows his research to one particular motif such as Heracles Musarum, which exists on both gems and coins alike,524 it quickly turns out that gems and coins were merely inspirational to each other. It was not the same idea (e.g. family promotion) shared but the same source of inspiration that unify those two categories of archaeological artefacts (cf. chapter 13). Heracles Musarum on coins refers to moneyer’s name 516 Wiesman 1974, p. 154; Smith 2006, pp. 36-38. 517 Ovid, Fasti, II.237; Plutarch, Fabius Maximus, 1. 518 Evans 1992, p. 30. 519 RRC, nos. 265/3 (quadrans of Q. Fabius Maximus, 127 BC) and 273/2 (quadrans of Q. Fabius Labeo, 124 BC). 520 Evans 1992, pp. 59-63. 521 Wiesman 1974, p. 154; Smith 2006, p. 40. 522 Hansson 2005, pp. 98-99. 523 Wiesman 1995, p. 39. 524 The most famous representation of Heracles Musarum on gems is a cameo signed by Skylax, see: Stosch 1724, pl. LIX; Furtwängler 1900, vol. I, pl. LVII.10, vol. II, p. 260; Vollenweider 1966, p. 79, pl. 92.1 and 3. Regarding coins, see denarius struck by Q. Pomponius Musa in 66 BC (RRC, no. 410/1). making his issue easily recognisable and thus private, but the same scheme does not work in case of gems with this motif.525 Inscriptions referring to the names of gems’ owners occurring on intaglios with Heracles’ image cannot be linked with gentes of Fabia, Antonia, Potitia and Pinaria in any terms as well (cat. no. 6.108, fig. 36). To sum up, because of the insufficient context, family propaganda and promotion of orgio is not the primary reason for Heracles to appear on engraved gems in the Roman Republican period. There are more plausible explanations, but it neither cannot be entirely excluded that hero’s image carried on a finger ring would testify to someone’s ancestry deriving from him. 525 See discussion on this subject in Furtwängler 1900, vol. III, pp. 282-283. 526 Wiesman 1974, p. 155; Evans 1992, pp. 24-25. However, some Caecilii also claimed to descent from Caecas who was a companion of Aeneas, see: Smith 2006, p. 40. 527 Gołyźniak 2019, no. 34. 528 RRC, no. 263/2. 529 RRC, no. 239/1. Gens Caecilia claimed to descent from Caeculus, son of Vulcan, who was the legendary founder of Praeneste. For this reason, representations of Vulcan and his features appearing on coins can be regarded as promotion of that family.526 Interestingly, Vulcan working on an armour for Achilles or shield commissioned by Thetis is a popular motif on engraved gems (cat. nos. 6.110-111, fig. 37). It can be debated if some of those intaglios were used as personal seals by members of the Caecilia family who wanted to promote themselves because of their legendary orgio. There is no definite proof for that both in terms of iconographical elements and inscriptions. Vulcan, especially if paired with Thetis, indirectly refers to Achilles story and this might be the reason for his popularity on Roman Republican gems.527 Nevertheless, an exceptional gem is an amethyst in Vienna presenting bust of Vulcan to the left (cat. no. 6.112, fig. 38). The piece exhibits considerable similarities to the bust of Vulcan appearing on coins minted by M. Caecilius Metellus in 127 BC which iconography refers to the promotion of his family ancestry (fig. 39).528 Perhaps then, the evoked intaglio like the coins served to the same purpose. A careful comparative analysis between coins and gems reveals further examples of application of specific images that probably served to advertise certain families and their members. For instance, the Dioscuri on horseback rearing in opposite directions, heads facing one another with spears and stars above them appear on the reverse of the denarius of C. Servilius M. filius struck in 136 BC (fig. 40).529 Crawford remarks that the image possibly served as a reference to moneyer’s ancestor, supposedly Publius Servilius Geminus, consul of the 252 and 248 BC.530 Indeed, such an evocation makes sense from the propaganda point of view as a transfer of authority from the illustrious ancestor to the moneyer. What is more, the image of the Dioscuri seems to refer to the family name too since the cognomen Geminus means ‘the twins’. It seems reasonable to think that the image from the coin applied to both aspects even more giving the fact that Publius Servilius Geminus had a brother named Quintus Servilius,531 and perhaps it was used by other members of that family branch as a family symbol. This is supported by gems bearing similar iconography to the one from C. Servilius’ coin (cat. no. 6.113, fig. 41). It is likely that those gems like coins were used to manifest allegiance to the Gemini branch of the Servilia family and also transferred authority of the famous Publius Servilius Geminus onto their sitters. 530 RRC, no. 239/1 (denarius of C. Servilius, 136 BC). 531 Cicero, Lucullus sive Academica priora, 2.56 and 2.84-85. 532 Wiesmann 1974, p. 154; Evans 1992, p. 27; Smith 2006, p. 39. 533 Plutarch, Numa, 21; Wiesmann 1974, p. 155; Evans 1992, pp. 25-27; Smith 2006, p. 39. 534 RRC, nos. 446 (denarius of Cn. Calpurnius Piso, 49 BC) and 334/1 (denarius of L. Pomponius Molo, 97 BC); Evans 1992, pp. 25-26. 535 Livy, Ab urbe condita, I.7.13. This is also reflected on coins, see: RRC, no. 410/1 (denarius of Q. Pomponius Musa, 66 BC). 536 Wiesmann 1974, p. 155; Evans 1992, pp. 25-26; Smith 206, p. 39. 537 Evans 1992, pp. 26-27. Apart from mythological and divine figures, legendary Roman kings and their posterity were often taken as ancestors to the noble families in Rome. For instance, gens Marcia, one of the oldest and noblest family in Rome, claimed to descent from the fourth legendary king of Rome – Ancus Marcius.532 The Calpurnii claimed descent from Calpus, the son of Numa Pompilius, the second King of Rome while his brother Pompo served as an ancestor to gens Pomponia.533 Accordingly one finds the head of Numa on some of the coins of minted by Calpurnii and him also watching over a goat-sacrifice on the denarii struck by Pomponii.534 Another noble patrician family that originated from son of Numa Pompilius was gens Pinaria. Although, alternative tradition we have already mentioned was that they were descendants of Heracles,535 some of the Pinarii claimed to descent from Pinus, son of Numa too.536 Finally as already mentioned, gens Aemilia in the 2nd century BC established a tradition that said they origin from Mamercus one more son of Numa, although, another legend suggests that Aemilii originated from Aemylos, brother of Ascanius.537 The commonly used image of Numa Pompilius by the members of all these families on their coins as well as other images referring to their legendary ancestry derived from the first kings of Rome push to search for similar representations in glyptics and consequently to propose that such images might have been related to one family or another. Vollenweider noticed a class of gems, usually sards that are circular or almost circular in shape (suitable for portraits) bearing more or less homogenous group of male heads interpreted variably as Menelaos, Mars or Mercury.538 Indeed, these highly interesting portraits can be dated to the late 2nd and first half of the 1st century BC, the times when majority of Roman noble gentes started to promote themselves through their orgio. Moreover, according to the scholar, a closer look to this motif reveals that the class should be divided onto two groups: older and younger males.539 Once these portraits are compared to the coins issued by the above mentioned Roman gentes, it is tempting to inquire whether the first group of portraits could be identified as Numa Pompilius (cat. nos. 6.114-139), while the second may show his sons (cat. nos. 6.140-151). However attractive this hypothesis seems to be, it cannot be neither entirely accepted or rejected. 538 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 16-17; Gołyźniak 2017, no. 145. 539 Older male portraits - Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 16-17; Younger male portraits - Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 17-18. 540 For example: RRC, nos. 447/1a-b (denarii of Pompey the Great and Varro, 49 BC), 460/2 (denarius of Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio and P. Licinius Crassus Iunianus Damasippus, 47–46 BC). 541 Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 103, ill. 404; Gołyźniak 2017, nos. 145-146 (with more literature). Actually, the group of elder male portraits can be split onto three further sub-types. The first one is an adult man with a long, pointy beard and crested helmet on the head (cat. nos. 6.114-126, fig. 42). This is the most common representation that stays in relation to other heads which, however, do not carry a helmet on the head. These are archaistic representations of various deities: Mercury, Jupiter, Dionysus and so forth (cat. nos. 6.127-129, fig. 43) which form the second sub-type. The third sub-type is unusual since it also involves a portrait of an old, bearded man who has his hair rolled around the head or wears a diadem; sometimes he also wears a helmet, but a cap-like Italic version (cat. nos. 6.130-139, figs. 44-45). Noteworthy is that the gods from the second sub-group are presented in a similar way on Roman Republican coins too, though, a bit later than on gems (figs. 46-47).540 This would suggest, the sub-type one (with a helmet) to belong to Mars but he is also suggested to be simply a warrior.541 However, there seems to be a universal approach to the archaising images of deities and Roman legendary kings alike applied by coin dies’ makers in the late 2nd and 1st century BC. Similar heads to the ones known from gems also occur on several issues of Roman Republican coins minted in the 1st century BC by representatives of the families mentioned above (gentes Marcia, Calpurnia and Pomponia) and they are identified with Numa Pompilius and Ancus Marcius (figs. 48-51).542 It is evident that all three sub-types discussed are based on one Italic-Roman portrait tradition as so rightly observed by Vollenweider (cf. discussion on this issue in chapter 6.3.2 below), however, not all of them should be recognised as presenting legendary kings of Rome.543 There are multiple explanations to their iconographies from images of deities to private portraits. Only two gems belonging to this class bear inscriptions, which do not help to identify these representations with Numa Pompilius or Ancus Marcius neither.544 Actually, because of these inscriptions, Zwierlein-Diehl says that most of the gems in question represent private portraits.545 Nevertheless, the comparative analysis with coin devices gives some hope to link at least heads from the first and third sub-groups distinguished here with legendary Roman kings (Numa Pompilius or Ancus Marcius to be precise).546 Therefore, it might be hypothetisied that some of those gems were indeed used by the members of various Roman families who claimed to descent from legendary Roman kings. 542 RRC, nos. 334/1 (denarius of L. Pomponius Molo, 97 BC), 346/1a-i (denarii of C. Marcius Censorinus, 88 BC), 346/3-4b (ases of C. Marcius Censorinus, 88 BC) and 446/1 (denarius of Pompey the Great and Cn. Calpurnius Piso, 49 BC). 543 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 16-17. 544 Zwierlein-Diehl 1973a, no. 122 (ALEO(V?); Weiß 2007, no. 167 (SECVNDI). 545 Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 103. 546 See also opinions of Vollenweider on this matter (1972-1974, pp. 16-17), Zwierlein-Diehl (1973, nos. 122-123) as well as that of Weiß (Wünsche, Steinhart and Weiß 2010, no. 40). 547 On the workshop similarities, see: Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 17-18. In my investigations, I tried to establish if the images like on cat. nos. 6.139, 146-147, 150 and 153 could be taken as sons of Numa Pompilius or Ancus Marcius from whom many Roman gentes derived their ancestry (see above). 548 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 17-20. 549 Evans 1992, p. 27 and see the paragraph above. As regards to the group of young male heads, they have been selected and presented here because they are cut in a similar tradition to the ones presenting older male figures discussed above (cat. nos. 6.140-151, fig. 52) and tested if related somehow to the family propaganda of gentes descending from legendary Roman kings.547 It turns out that there is no supportive data available from coins or any other branch of Roman Republican art and craft to claim that these should be identified with sons of Numa Pompilius or Ancus Marcius.548 This homogenous group is cut according to the slowly-evolving tradition of Italic-Roman portrait, which flourished on turn of the 2nd and 1st century BC (cf. chapter 6.3.2 below). Some reminiscence of it is even noticeable in the early portraits of Octavian occurring on both, gems and coins (cf. chapter 9.3.1.4). Concerning other families, as mentioned, gens Marcia derived its orgio from Ancus Marcius whom some moneyers of this family put on their coins alongside to Numa Pompilius.549 It is debated if those heads were family symbols used in glyptics as well, but one expects a prominent Roman gens to advertise its legendary ancestry in more than just one way. On a brown glass gem from Geneva Vollenweider spotted a Corinthian capital surmounted with a horologium – a solar device (cat. no. 6.154, fig. 53). She links this peculiar motif with Q. Marcius Philippus, who constructed Horologium in Rome in 164 BC.550 There are several other intaglios made of glass with the same device engraved upon (cat. nos. 6.152-155 and 157). Among them the most intriguing one is the gem from Vienna combining a male head with the capitel and the solar device (cat. no. 6.156, fig. 54). Zwierlein-Diehl admits it is difficult to find a parallel among architectural elements,551 so one wonders if the head refers to Q. Marcius Philippus indeed which would suggest the motif to be related to the promotion of ancestry by the members of the Marcia family. Inscriptions found on some of these gems do not confirm such a supposition (cat. no. 6.157)552 but as evidenced, the view cannot be straightforwardly rejected. 550 Vollenweider 1979, no. 533. 551 Zwierlein-Diehl 1979, no. 947. 552 See, for instance: Walters 1926, no. 2018 (A•FOL). 553 RRC, nos. 242/1 (denarius of C. Minucius Augurinus, 135 BC) and 243/1 (denarius of Tiberius Minucius, 134 BC). 554 Yarrow 2017. A particular case is the one concerning gens Minucia and especially its Augurinia branch. In about 135 or 134 BC, two representatives of this family named Gaius and Tiberius became moneyers and issued denarii presenting on the obverses a column with a figure standing at the top flanked by two other standing figures and corn ears - the so-called Minucii Monument (fig. 55).553 A recent re-evaluation of this coinage by Yarrow reveals that both coins are one of the earliest examples for family promotion performed by moneyers. They were drawing on a positive narrative of L. Minucius, probably a legendary figure of the late 5th century BC known for his role in the Maelius incident, as a model for the conservative resolution of grain crises. Gaius and Tiberius also referred to their ancestor, the first plebeian Augur, by means of a much older claim to religious and moral authority in the person of Spurius Minucius, the severe Pontifex Maximus in the Postumia story.554 I have already discussed augural symbols appearing on gems as plausible markers of the augural priesthood performed by their owners, but giving the context reconstructed by Yarrow, it cannot be excluded that they were also used as family symbols of the Augurini branch of gens Minucia (cf. chapter 6.1). Furthermore, there are several gems featuring the iconography close to the one known from the coins minted by Gaius and Tiberius Minucii Augurii (cat. nos. 6.158, fig. 56). As Yarrow remarks, it is tempting to regard them as family seals used by representatives of Minucii Augurii.555 Similarly to the coins, those intaglios were purposed to transfer authority of prominent ancestors on gems’ sitters. 555 Yarrow 2017, pp. 87-88. 556 Wiesmann 1974, pp. 153-154; Evans 1992, pp. 25-29; Smith 2006, pp. 39-40. 557 Evans 1992, p. 30; Smith 2006, p. 39. 558 RRC, p. 727; Evans 1992, p. 30. 559 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 3-7. 560 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 8-13. There were many more Roman families that claimed to descent from legendary ancestors. For instance, gens Gegania descended from Gyas, a companion of Aeneas, gens Nautunia was related to Nautes, gens Cloelia derived its ancestry from a Trojan hero Clonius, gens Memmia traditionally origins from Venus and Cupid or Mnestheus, gens Cluentia from another Trojan hero Cloanthus, gens Sergeia from Sergestus, a companion to Aeneas and so forth.556 Goddess Juno was supposed to be a divine patroness of gens Junia, although, Marcus Brutus used to put a portrait of his famous ancestor Lucius Iunius Brutus – first consul of Rome on his coins.557 Jupiter or Capitoline triad was related to gens Cornelia, and Genius of Rome to the Scipio branch specifically.558 One finds some clues for these connections in literary and sometimes numismatic sources. Nevertheless, while analysing glyptic material dated to the 2nd or early 1st century BC, I was unable to identify any objects that would bear the mentioned subjects combined with any unambiguous clues for linking them with those families at the same time. In the early 1st century BC the phenomenon of promotion of family and oneself through orgio, either legendary or historical one became more popular but ceases around the middle of the century. The evidence for that is presented in the further chapters of the dissertation (cf. chapters 7.4.2 and 8.3.3). 6.3.2. Portraits on gems – Roman tradition In the previous sub-chapter dealing with Hellenistic influences in Roman Republican glyptics I have shown that regarding portraits and their use for propaganda purposes Romans copied actions of their eastern counterparts as well as kings and other dignitaries. Moreover, it looks that this idea-transfer for glyptics application to self-promotion and distinction from the Hellenistic culture was one of the key-factors for gems to become means of propaganda. However, Vollenweider in her monumental study on Roman portraits on gems proved that local Italic-Roman tradition of carving gems with portraits was present very early too. Actually, even in Etruscan glyptics one finds first symptoms of portraying men on scarabs.559 Later, this tradition was transferred to central Italy and subsequently to Rome in the 3rd century BC.560 In all likelihood that local tradition also served for self-advertisement. A peculiar feature of those early Roman Republican portraits on intaglios (3rd-2nd century BC) is frontal capture and Vollenweider claimed that they belonged to imperators and dictators.561 This is a possible and perhaps some of them belonged to the representatives of senatorial class as evidenced by togas they wear (cat. nos. 6.159-172, figs. 57-58). Any certain identification of those heads and busts cannot be made. The portraits themselves are cut in the same tradition as busts belonging to deities, mythological figures or athletes,562 but the most important thing is that they most likely represent living people. It is difficult to estimate their propaganda value, but one imagines that such images carried upon rings marked their sitters out among others and documented their important profession very much like the gems bearing augural symbols and images of the priests (cf. chapter 6.1). Moreover, intaglios presenting victorious generals commemorated their successes. Having a distinctive gem engraved upon a ring, ideally with one’s portrait was certainly helpful in self-advertisement. There are no comparable portraits on coins from the period at that time because it was almost regarded a sacrilege to put an image of a living person upon the denarii and other denominations, which suggests that gems were the only way for living politicians to present themselves and disseminate their images among peers and followers those days.563 561 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 39-47. 562 Cf. Vollenweider 1972-1974, pl. 27.1-3 and 5, 29.5 and 8-10 and 30.1-6 and 8-9; Henig and MacGregor 2004, no. 5.27. 563 But see also commentary to the gem presenting T. Quinctius Flamininus – chapter 6.2.1. 564 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 18-20, 23-27 and 38-39. 565 Richter 1971, no. 467; Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 17-20; Maaskant-Kleibrink 1978, no. 96; Zwierlein-Diehl 1986, no. 137. Vollenweider stated that ultimately a sort of unified Italic portrait type evolved characterised by a profile capture, cubistic form, short, close-cropped hair rendered in a linear manner, and physiognomy lacking strong individual features (cat. nos. 6.173-186, figs. 59-60).564 On the one hand, this might be due to very general approach to the portrait on Roman gems at this point of time by artists producing them. On the other hand, this suggests that some of those gems do not present portraits but, for example, sons of Numa Pompilius as has been inquired above (cf. chapter 6.3.1) or other figures. The only one significant feature distinguishing older and younger individuals is presence or lack of beard (cat. nos. 6.184-186).565 Some of those portraits are inscribed which presumably was meant to confirm identity of the person depicted with gem’s sitter (cat. nos. 6.179 and 185-186). Those objects should be dated to the second half or late 2nd century BC. Towards the end of the 2nd century BC and in the early 1st century BC Roman portraits on gems were still based on the same Italic-Roman prototype, but they became more and more individualised which is due to the increasing influence of the Hellenistic glyptics (cat. nos. 6.187-199, fig. 61).566 Important observation is that this individualisation resulted in a significant raise of propagandistic value of these gems. It is clear that people wanted to have a distinguished portrait engraved upon their ring which was no longer used only for sealing, but rather for other private purposes including personal branding. The scale of this phenomenon was considerable since gems with such portraits were engraved in big glyptic centres like Aquileia (cat. no. 6.160). Moreover, there is some evidence in the form of sealings found in the eastern part of the Mediterranean basin suggesting that such gems were used by governors of new Roman provinces (cat. nos. 6.198-199). 566 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 48-52. 567 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 21-22, pl. 13.1-15; AGDS IV Hannover, nos. 199-200; Vollenweider and Avisseau-Broustet 2003, no. 10. The unified type has survived down to the 1st century BC and early portraits of Octavian on both, gem and coins, are based on this prototype (cf. chapter 9.3.1.4). Regarding female portraits, Vollenweider is of the opinion that many busts and heads of deities, mainly of Victory, might be in fact Roman matrons in the guise of those deities in the late 2nd century BC or even earlier.567 However, I find it difficult to prove that such depictions indeed refer to individuals not deities. There is no indication for busts and heads of male deities to be regarded as hiding images of individuals in their disguise at that time, so it is difficult to imagine that the case of women differed so significantly in this matter. Female portraits appear very rarely on Roman Republican engraved gems prior to the mid-1st century BC and in all likelihood for purely decorative motivations (cat. no. 6.200, fig. 62). 6.3.3. Roman generals, consuls, imperators and dictators? In the course of the 2nd century BC Roman generals, ambassadors, consuls and other personalities infiltrated the east, mostly Asia Minor and Egypt, where, as has been shown above, they contacted with the use of glyptics for personal branding. On the one hand, this resulted in self-promotion through commissioning gems with their own portraits at the workshops of the best Greek gem engravers available (cf. chapter 6.2.1 above). On the other hand, this contact influenced the way how Roman imperators, generals and dictators perceived themselves and provoked them to advertise and commemorate their successes. As a result, in Roman Republican glyptics one spots new creations that focus on highlighting propagandist’s special status (imperium) and praise his values, virtues and achievements. For example, a white-brown agate in Leiden possibly presents a Roman general, imperator or dictator with his left leg put on a rock (?), holding parazonium in the left hand and a trophy in the right arm (cat. no. 6.201, fig. 63). Maaskant-Kleibrink supposes that the gem presents a hero,568 which would be totally understandable concerning his nudity, however, the pose of the figure, which copies a well-established type deriving from the so-called Lateran type of Poseidon/Neptune’s statue,569 the parazonium he is holding and especially the trophy suggest him to be a Roman heroized victorious general praising his military prowess and maybe comparing himself to Diomedes?570 Such a piece could be an object of personal adornment and commemorated a military victory. The parazonium was much concerned with Virtus or Mars, so the gem could highlight particular virtus of the gem’s owner and favor of the god of war.571 Noteworthy is that the dagger was a ceremonial weapon indicating a high position in the Roman army and was a sign of dignity. In the later times Roman emperors presented themselves with it on their coins.572 568 Maaskant-Kleibrink 1978, no. 131. 569 Weiß 2007, no. 158 with informative discussion on identification of various types of that motif and their identifications with Poseidon, Neptune and Octavian-Neptunus. 570 According to Furtwängler, the earliest examples of gems bearing a similar subject-matter appeared in the 3rd century BC, see: Furtwängler 1896, nos. 468 - although the figure puts its leg on a dolphin instead of a prow and probably holds Palladion, thus it might be Diomedes? 526 – which possibly also presents Diomedes? and 1439 is another very early example in the Berlin collection with an interesting inscription: L ANTON SΛLVIVS – L(ucius) Anton(ius) salvivus – long life to Lucius Antonius? 571 The iconography of the gem could be explained as Mars with parazonium and trophy, but the pose of the figure is unusual for the god and he does not wear a helmet or any other military attribute. 572 For instance: RIC II Trajan 642 (sestertius of Trajan, 114-117 AD); RIC V.2, no. 306 (bronze coin of Diocletian). Actually, there are several other pieces similar to the intaglio from Leiden. All of them are made of glass which perhaps suggests that they were widely distributed or copied. Two glass gems from Berlin most likely present Roman generals as figures standing to the front leaning on a lance and holding parazonium in their left hands (cat. nos. 6.202-203, fig. 64). They are recognised as such due to the cuirass they wear. Another example is preserved in the Kestner Museum in Hannover. It is a yellowish-green glass gem showing the same type of figure, but like on the stone from Leiden, he puts his leg on a rock (cat. no. 6.204). Finally, a brown glass gem from Geneva presents a naked figure in profile to the left also leaning on a spear and holing parazonium in the left hand (cat. no. 6.205). Regarding those representations, Vollenweider suggested that the figures hold a sceptre, but this seems to be an overinterpretation because similar objects are usually recognised as spears (see below). She also suggested that several portrait gems are related to this group but this is unlikely as the heads are too schematised unless one focuses on the function, not the identity (cf. chapter 7.4.1).573 Overall, it is tempting to propose the gems in question to be some of the first attempts of Roman generals, imperators or dictators – people who held considerable military power in their hands – to be depicted on those objects. Their images could be delivered to their followers through such gems and they could have commemorated their triumphs that way. Most of these gems are made of glass which would have suggested a serial production, but the number of preserved material is strikingly small. Two of the evoked pieces (Geneva and Hannover) originally were a part of collections formed in Italy which indicates those glass gems to be produced in Italy, possibly in Rome itself (cf. chapter 11). The ringstone now in Leiden is engraved in a distinctive Campanian-Roman style performed in the workshops located in central Italy.574 All the mentioned gems can be roughly dated to the 2nd century BC and since no findspots are known, their chronology cannot be more precise and neither it is possible to identify the people presented on them. 573 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 43-44. 574 On the gems executed in the Campanian-Roman style see: Maaskant-Kleibrink 1978, pp. 108-109. 575 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 42-43. 576 Maaskant-Kleibrink 1978, no. 1154. Compare this image with a gem from Berlin executed in the Augustan period which is debated to present Augustus as Alexander (Furtwängler 1896, no. 2299 and cf. chapter 10.6). Although the preceding group of gems is problematic due to its ambiguous iconography, there is another bunch of gems presenting Roman generals, imperators or dictators in a military scheme, namely with trophies. In Leiden, a victorious Roman general standing to the front with a trophy on the side and a big shield is engraved upon a large bright red cornelian (cat. no. 6.206, fig. 65). Beyond the shadow of a doubt this is an exceptional piece. The gem itself is exceedingly large and the figure depicted is a mortal, not a hero or god since he wears himation arranged in large drapery and his pose resembles the Hellenistic type.575 However, his nudity suggests heroization. The trophy erected on a side and gesture that the man makes towards to the shield allows to identify him with a triumphant Roman general, who possibly compared or identified himself with Alexander the Great?576 Another interesting example is an intaglio found in Bonn, which also presents triumphant Roman general standing next to a trophy, possibly in the guise of Alexander the Great due to his pose on the spear (cat. no. 6.207). The same subject appears on a light green glass gem in Copenhagen and another young warrior crowns a trophy with a laurel wreath on a cornelian intaglio in London (cat. nos. 6.208-209, fig. 66). A slightly different approach to the subject is reflected on a cornelian in Nuremberg, which presents a naked youth sitting on a rock with spear and shield and a trophy erected in front of him (cat. no. 6.210). This gem is dated to the 2nd century BC and the naked figure might be a heroized roman general as Achilles since Gorgoneion is on his shield.577 However, the most striking example of an early Roman propaganda practiced by a general, imperator or dictator is an orange cornelian from Berlin, once a part of the Dressel collection (cat. no. 6.211, fig. 67). This minutely engraved intaglio shows a Roman general handing over a legionary standard (signum) to god Mars holding a trophy. Atop of the standard is legionary eagle, not a woodpecker as Weiß suggests.578 The gem is dated to the early 1st century BC and I could not find a parallel to it in the corpus of Roman Republican gems. This exceptional piece testifies extraordinary bound between a mortal and god which has been highlighted here by the legionary standard as object that is a subject of the action between the figures. It illustrates dedication of the gem’s owner to the care of Mars, patron of Roman army. The intaglio suggests that because the commander offers his military troops under the protection of Mars (symbolised by handing over the standard) he is going to be granted a victory (Mars holds a trophy). The gem could have been used as a personal amulet, but on the other hand, its propagandistic value must have been considerable too. The propagandist would praise for his special connection with the deity and his authority would raise among his comrades in the army. The gem also illustrates the intimate relationship between gem’s sitter and god reflecting his pitas erga deo. 577 Weiß 1996, no. 232. 578 Weiß 2007, no. 35. 579 Maaskant-Kleibrink 1986, no. 40. Two of the gems evoked here come from Bergau and Dressel collections, which were formed in Italy, more specifically in Rome and this might indicate they were produced in the city. Other examples, according to their style, were also cut in central Italy. Perhaps then those gems were objects commemorating conquests of the Roman army with special regard to the military and political leaders. Although they remain unidentified, it is plausible that the intaglios were produced on the occasion of their triumphs celebrated in Rome. The concept that gems presenting triumphant Roman generals were issued to commemorate their triumphs is even more clear on the next examples. A yellowish-brown glass intaglio from Nijmegen presents a warrior wearing cuirass and helmet, leaning on a long spear with a shield in his right arm. Before him at his feet is another cuirass (cat. no. 6.212, fig. 68). Maaskant-Kleibrink recognises here a heroic-warrior, an extremely popular motif existing in the early Roman Republican glyptics in many variants.579 However, this one seems special, since the figure presents spolia he won on his opponent. In fact, there are not many close analogies to this specific scene (cat. nos. 6.213-214). Such a motif would be suitable for self- presentation since it is focused on the person depicted: it highlights his virtus and contemplates his success in combat and perhaps only in a broader sense at war. Military prowess was something which a Roman should be proud of in particular, therefore, it was a subject especially suitable to display on a personal ring. A less spectacular but of similar importance are also representations of armed Roman warriors. There are many variants where figures are naked, and thus probably heroized or simply presented with their military equipment. In Paris there is a cornelian with a Roman soldier or general standing with spear and shield to the front with head turned to the left (cat. no. 6.215, fig. 69). As Vollenweider suggested, this as well as many similar gems might have been related to the wars that Rome conducted in the 3rd and 2nd century BC during the conquer of Italy and beyond.580 It could be a common practice to parade with a ring highlighting physical strength, military skills and successes as well as commemorating person’s input into the conquests or simply membership to the army, which was appreciated those days indeed. Single figures seem refer to self-presentation in the greatest degree possible and most of them should not be recognised as propaganda pieces. Motifs of these kinds exist both on gemstones and glass gems and the latter, as cheaper versions, testify for common use of these gems among soldiers (cf. also discussion in the chapter 6.1 above). Yet, sometimes self-advertisement takes a more elaborate form and the warrior is probably compared to a Greek hero. The key to heroization seems nakedness, but it is mostly incomplete as the figures often wear tunica on their hips. There are not many gems presenting such a variant and it is plausible that they were distinctive, perhaps reserved for high-rank officers? In Oxford, there is a sard presenting a naked warrior or a Roman general resting his right leg on a fallen column or a rock, grasping a spear in his left hand and holding a sword in the right one (cat. no. 6.216). Several glass pieces from Geneva collection are especially interesting since they show a naked heroized Roman general leaning on a long object which Vollenweider recognised as a sceptre and thus supposed that the gem owner compared himself to Jupiter, but I believe this to be an overinterpretation and the object is simply a spear (cat. nos. 6.217-219).581 In Göttingen there is another glass gem presenting a similar approach to the subject (cat. no. 6.220, fig. 70) and a close analogy is a brown glass gem in a private collection (cat. no. 6.221, fig. 71), apparently made of the same matrix? All these gems exhibit similarities in their forms, styles and subject and should be dated from the late 3rd to early 1st century BC. The pieces from Paris, Geneva and Oxford come from 580 Vollenweider and Avisseau-Broustet 2003, no. 7. 581 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pl. 41.5. the collections that have been formed in the 19th century in Rome, so there is a good probability that the whole class was produced in local workshops in the city or maybe more broadly in Italy (cf. chapter 11). Next motif that possibly refers to auto-presentation of Roman generals, high-rank officers, imperators, dictators or simply soldiers from the equites class are figures standing next to their horses (cat. nos. 6.222-230). This type probably derives from representations of Dioscuri and might have had a social-military significance.582 It occurs on both, gemstones and glass gems. While the production of the latter seems considerable, it indicates that the type was commonly used not only by high-rank members of the Roman army, but also ordinary soldiers. A glass gem imitating banded agate from Hannover is of special interest because the general holds a legionary standard which allows to identify this subject as related to Roman army without question (cat. no. 6.227, fig. 72). In Perugia there are two good studies of this subject: one on cornelian and one on glass gem (cat. nos. 6.222-223). Similarly to the previous categories, in this type also cuirassed and naked figures exist, like on the gems from Vienna, Berlin, Hannover, and the art market (cat. nos. 6.224-226 and 6.228-230, fig. 73). 582 Vitellozzi 2010, no. 340. 583 Gołyźniak 2017, no. 140. 584 RRC, nos. 293/1 and 425/1 respectively. For a more detailed discussion on possible equestrian prototype for the motif, see: RRC, pp. 448-449. The last motif that seems related to the previous ones is a representation of a Roman general galloping on his horse. In some instances, the gems may reproduce equestrian statues that were placed on Forum Romanum and elsewhere. This seems to be the case of a cornelian intaglio from Krakow which shows a rider on a horse in profile to the left wearing a tunic across his body and a pilos on his head; he raises his right hand and is holding a spear in the left one behind him (cat. no. 6.231, fig. 74).583 The gesture of salutation or greeting is typical for equestrian statues and similar representations occur on Roman republican coins, for instance, on denarius of L. Marcius Philippus minted in 113–112 BC or denarius of L. Marcius Philippus struck in 56 BC.584 Sometimes, the figures are depicted with military equipment. Many of these gems are made of glass which on the one hand suggest they were produced in large quantities for legionaries (cat. nos. 6.232-234). On the other hand, some examples are peculiar like the gem from Hannover, which shows a horse rider with a spear and legionary standard (cat. no. 6.235, fig. 75). The latter attribute allows to identify him as a Roman general or high-rank officer and must have been a distinctive feature of this intaglio making it an exceptional item. Furthermore, scenes presenting men riding a biga or quadriga on the one hand might simply be related to the circus games, but on the other hand they can be related to the triumphs and other celebrations of military victories (cat. nos. 6.236-237). Among these there are representations of Roman generals, imperators or dictators that involve also divine elements. A good example of that is a fragment of a glass gem in Copenhagen engraved with a victorious Roman standing with a spear beside his horse to the left and behind him there is Roma, city goddess of Rome (cat. no. 6.238, fig. 76). The special bound between a propagandist and the goddess supporting him has been successfully highlighted here. Such a piece presents him as a leader acting under auspices of the personification of the state. It is not a coincidence the goddess is Roma since the intaglio fits well the overall trend of promotion of state issues (cf. chapter 6.3.4).585 585 Vollenweider 1972-1974, p. 14; Maderna-Lauter 1988, p. 443. 586 Furtwängler 1900, vol. III, p. 284. 587 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 58-60, pl. 39.2-5, 7 and 11-12; Vollenweider 1979, nos. 94 and 96-99. 588 Vollenwedeir and Avisseau-Broustet 2003, no. 12. 589 Maaskant-Kleibrink 1978, pp. 108-109. Regarding equestrians, there is one repetitive representation escaping standards. It is a galloping horseman in a three-quarter back view. He wears a chlamys, has short, curly hair and holds a whip in one hand while the second grasps reins or spears. Sometimes he holds a round shield in the arm as well. This common motif exists on both gemstones and glass gems (cat. nos. 6.239-253, figs. 77-78). It was already Furtwängler who suggested the motif to be related to one of the wars the Romans conducted during the late 3rd and 2nd century BC.586 Vollenweider took one step forward and proposed, first, to link this motif precisely with the Second Punic War and identified the rider as Scipio Africanus who was the most popular military leader those days.587 Over the decades scholars either accepted Vollenweider’s vision or limited themselves to describe the basic features of this peculiar motif. It is noteworthy that quite recently Vollenweider changed her mind and decided to date that motif to the end of the 2nd and early 1st century BC. This time, she suggested that the rider might be related to the Social War (91-88 BC).588 Because in this dissertation I do not only focus on identification of propaganda messages on gems but also try to verify hypotheses drew by other scholars, this particular case requires a deeper analysis. Overall, the group of gems engraved with the subject in question is relatively big and there seem to be some distinctive objects within it that help to understand the peculiar and vague iconography. Almost all the pieces are homogenous in terms of the style which should be defined as Campanian-Hellenistic-Roman. This is due to the type combines Campanian pelleting engraving with Hellenistic composition and some purely Roman elements.589 Zwierlein-Diehl observes that in terms of style the type has much in common with Roman coins executed in the Campanian-Roman manner.590 However, in coinage of the 3rd, 2nd and early 1st century BC I do not find any iconographical parallel which is disappointing and indicates that ultimately, those gems do not present Scipio Africanus. In any case, it is possible that a good number of the gems bearing this motif were cut in Italy, most likely, its central or southern part for which points analysis of collections’ provenance (cf. chapter 11). Furtwängler noticed that some of them could be based on a Greek painting brought to Rome by C. Popilius.591 The equestrian statue installed on the Capitoline Hill by Fabius Maximus who defeated Carthaginians in 209 BC at Tarent has been pointed as a potential source of inspiration for the iconography too.592 However, the piece once in the Leo Merz collection and now in Bern is of crucial importance here since it is cut in garnet and mounted in a massive gold Hellenistic ring (cat. no. 6.249, fig. 77). Both, the stone and the ring are Hellenistic, or I should rather say executed by a Greek engraver and goldsmith at the same time? I think that this object testifies to the early transfer of a Hellenistic motif, that maybe derives from an unidentified statuary or painting prototype indeed, by a Greek artist to Italy who must have used his services for a special kind of customer that should be both wealthy and of extraordinary social status. If the type had been later commissioned by a Roman general or a political leader in the 2nd century BC, it would have commemorated his military success or praise his prowess in this matter. The frequent copies might have served to his followers and enthusiasts who used to carry them upon their own rings to manifest their support to his case. However attractive this way of thinking may seem, still the presence of clear copies is disturbing like in case of the glass gem from Krakow which is a close parallel to the garnet from Bern and indicates that the original Hellenistic creation was quickly adapted by the local Roman engravers and copied to a considerable degree, even aspiring to imitate the gemstone type used (cat. no. 6.253, fig. 78).593 Perhaps then, the type did not serve any specific Roman politician, but was just one of the many subjects transferred from the Hellenistic repertoire to the Roman one. Vollenweider’s latter hypothesis to link this kind of representation with Social War events seems quite far-fetched and should be rejected because most of the gems in question can be securely dated to the 2nd century BC. 590 Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 105. See stylistically close representations of Dioscuri on denarii struck by C. Servilius in 136 BC – RRC, no. 239/1. 591 Furtwängler 1900, vol. III, p. 284. 592 Zazoff 1983, pp. 278-279. 593 Gołyźniak 2017, no. 139. 6.3.4. Roman state propaganda: subjects related to wars and conquests (Gallic Wars, Punic Wars, Greek and Macedonian Wars, Social War 91-88 BC) In the course of the 3rd and 2nd century BC Roman society became increasingly militarised which is reflected on engraved gems. Subjects related to the wars that Rome conducted first within the Italian Peninsula and later beyond were often picked up either by commissioners of the gems or their carvers. Gems presenting fighting scenes between the Romans and barbarians were surely the favourite objects of this kind for soldiers. Among them, there might be individuals who wanted to highlight their military prowess, exceptional merits and successes on the battlefield. Such acts may be accounted for emerging propaganda since the goal was to present oneself in a positive way with intention of making an impression on other members of the community he belonged to. Besides, the military world in Roman society constituted a separate social class and if one truly wanted to manifest his allegiance to it because he was proud of being a part of that community, the best way to do that was to put an image upon his ring alluding to his profession and military unit or event (a battle or triumph) that could be easily associated with it.594 These were the reasons why several individual subjects have been selected and discussed above in detail as I believe many of them could be produced on the commissions of outstanding individuals. Nevertheless, there are many more far more popular and universal war-subjects related to the Punic, Gallic, Greek and Macedonian Wars conducted by Rome in the 3rd and 2nd centuries that appear on gems. They were usually illustrated in a form of warriors or cavalry men fighting barbarians, but also scenes of pre- and after-war rituals were of some importance. It is debated whether they had any political significance, and, in this chapter, I would like to put that issue into a test. 594 Maderna Lauter 1988, p. 443. 595 Sagiv 2016, p. 36. 596 Sagiv 2016, pp. 37-39. Taking images of equestrians for example, it should be remembered that if they appear on engraved gems, they might have represented a higher social status (equites class) and by definition were objects of distinction. This was true either in the Greek and Roman case.595 Horse riders on gems could simply be acts of auto-presentation since this kind of activity was closely related to hunting and required special skills.596 One guesses that some of the cavalry men appearing on Roman Republican gems are related to the wars the Romans conducted from the 3rd to the 1st century BC. Extremely popular are representations of Roman horse riders engaged in combats with Gallic footmen, the so-called celtomachy motif (cat. nos. 6.254-273, figs. 79-80). Many of those gems should be dated to the middle of the 1st century BC and surely reflect fighting during Julius Caesar’s conquest of Gaul, some are even supposed to present the dictator himself and those will be discussed later (cf. chapter 8.2.7). Nevertheless, a portion dates to the earlier periods and thus perhaps relates, for instance, to the victories of Marius over Teutons and Cimbri in 102-101 BC.597 Many of them are made of cheap glass which means they were distributed among or preferred by Roman soldiers.598 597 Zazoff 1983, p. 297; Sagiv 2016, pp. 40-41. 598 Vollenweider 1955, p. 102. 599 Zazoff 1983, p. 279. 600 RRC, no. 295/1 (denarius of L. Manlius Torquatus, 113-112 BC). 601 RRC, no. 295/1. 602 Fossing 1929, no. 250. 603 Yarrow 2018, p. 51, note 75. The Celts are distinguishable due to their typical military equipment, especially, long oval shields. However, some of the horse riders are Romans fighting with other kinds of barbarians and some riders’ scenes seem to be related to other conflicts like the Punic Wars and conflicts with the Greeks and Macedonians (cat. nos. 6.274-280, figs. 81 and 83). Perhaps those gems commemorate specific victories like the one at Pydna in 168 BC, which was a large success of Aemilius Paulus Macedonicus.599 A peculiar type seems to be a helmeted horse rider with a round shield and spear charging to the left or right who was repeatedly engraved on gemstone and moulded on glass gems (cat. no. 6.282, fig. 80) since exact the same motif appears on the denarius of L. Manlius Torquatus struck in 113 or 112 BC (fig. 82).600 The occurrence of the design in both media suggests commemoration of a specific event. As Crawford observes, the cognomen of the moneyer and torque on the obverse side make reference to a single-handed victory of T. Manlius Imperiosus Torquatus over a Gaul, but this duel was fought on foot so the scene from the reverse remains obscure.601 Fossing noted a similar depiction to exist on the coins of Larinum in the 3rd century BC.602 However, Yarrows makes an interesting remark on the similarity of the rider in question to the ones from the Paullus Monument erected in the Sanctuary of Apollo at Delphi shortly after 167 BC in order to commemorate the Roman victory at the Battle of Pydna.603 Indeed, the Macedonian riders depicted on the monument use rounded shields and spears and their composition is very close to the one known from gems and the coin of Torquatus. Perhaps, the moneyer made an allusion to the Battle of Pydna in which fought his ancestor? The gems are more plausible to commemorate this battle or the final Macedonian War in general. Other popular motifs related to the wars Rome conducted mostly in the 2nd century BC are scenes presenting the Romans with their captives or just captives, usually Gallic warriors (cat. nos. 6.281-289, figs. 84-85). The motif of a captive Celt is borrowed from the Hellenistic art, but if applied to the Roman context, it reflects Roman supremacy over barbarians. The difficult moments of the Roman history were also illustrated in Roman Republican glyptics. For instance, the Second Punic War was a great threat to Rome and seems to have triggered a production of themes on gems that would raise morale of the people of Rome. Images like oath-taking scene, sacrifices, Caput Oli and even a goat standing on a prow – all of them might have served one goal, to unite people and assure the protection from the gods as well as boost positive thinking towards ending the conflict with good results (cat. nos. 6.290-298, figs. 86-89).604 Some scenes are repeated on coins minted during those particularly difficult moments which strengthens the hypothesis to think about them as a sort of ‘state propaganda’ transmitters.605 A peculiar example of the phenomenon which I call here ‘state propaganda’ is Marcus Curtius falling into abyss on a cornelian in St. Petersburg (cat. no. 6.299, fig. 90).606 This mythological young Roman offered himself to the gods of Hades for the cause of the commonwealth,607 and he was a perfect visualisation of self-sacrifice and commitment to the common cause. The motif was not particularly common, which suggests a very private use of this kind of iconography.608 A glass gem from London featuring armed Roma standing with her left foot on a globe, approached by a winged Victory carrying a wreath and palm branch is another example of ‘state propaganda’ message on gems (cat. no. 6.300, fig. 91). In this instance, the communicate clearly speaks about the supremacy of the Roman nation and state over others with a further suggestion of the Romans to be predestined to rule the world. 604 Weiβ 2007, no. 321 and 457; Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 137. For the various semiotics of the Caput Oli motif, see especially Yarrow 2018, pp. 46-48. 605 Hannestad 1988, p. 20; Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, pp. 104-105. 606 Neverov 1976, no. 78; Zazoff 1983, pl. 86.4. 607 Livy, Ab urbe condita, 7.6. 608 Furtwängler 1900, vol. III, pp. 284-285. It is noteworthy to remark that there are many more images on gems serving to all Romans as unifying symbols of their homeland, some of which faithfully copy coins’ designs. A good illustration of this is the head of Roma motif that was used for coins obverses from the late 3rd to the early 1st century BC. It was one of the most common illustration of the Roman state and exactly the same head appears on engraved gems (cat. nos. 6.301-302, fig. 92). The correlation between gems and coins sometimes reaches a considerable degree as in case of the glass intaglio in London which was possibly made after a coin due to the border of dots moulded above Roma’s head (cat. no. 6.302, fig. 92).609 Another scene referring to the same idea of the Roman state and special divine favor and protection over the Romans is lupa romana motif often presented on gems in the more pastoral context rather than on coins (cat. nos. 6.303-304, fig. 93).610 Gems bearing this iconography were consistently produced for a long period of time, but noticeable is the revival of this subject under Augustus due to his promotion of the mythological foundations of Rome (cf. chapter 10.7). Pieces of evidence for combining the two, Roma and lupa romana in one are gems in Berlin collection featuring Roma seated on pile of arms observing she-wolf suckling the twins and there is eagle in field (cat. no. 6.305, fig. 94). Such an iconography is the best illustration of Roman patriotism and ‘state propaganda’ and the design was also promoted by an anonymous moneyer on a denarius minted ca. 115-114 BC (fig. 95).611 609 Yarrow 2018, pp. 44-45. 610 Dardenay 2009 and 2012; Yarrow 2018, pp. 45-46. 611 RRC, no. 287/1 (denarius of anonymous moneyer, 115-114 BC) and p. 729 for a commentary. 612 Vollenweider 1979, nos. 415, 522, 537 and 541; Maaskant-Kleibrink 1986, no. 43. 613 Vollenweider 1979, no. 415. 614 Vollenweider 1979, no. 522. 615 Vollenweider 1979, no. 541. 616 Maaskant-Kleibrink 1986, no. 43. It is believed that gems presenting various configurations of individual symbols reflect conflicts between the Romans and other nations too (cat. nos. 6.306-313, figs. 96-99).612 Such a view is highly controversial due to plenty of more plausible alternative explanations of the iconography appearing on those gems. For instance, Vollenweider claimed that a rhyton terminated with a protome of a bull is related to the Macedonian Wars,613 while the gem could simply work as an amulet ensuring abundance and well-being to a person whose private horoscope was Taurus (cat. no. 6.306, fig. 96). It is difficult to figure out if a trophy as a sole symbol should signify a specific military success, as Vollenweider claimed unless it is accompanied with other symbols indicating that (cat. no. 6.307, fig. 97).614 For a certain Roman it could work that way, but having no context available today, it is pointless to even hypothesise on this matter. The configuration of a club, bow and arrow is more likely to stand for Heracles and his attributes rather than to be a sophisticated reference to the Battle of Pydna in 168 BC (cat. no. 6.309, fig. 98).615 A palm tree flanked by cornucopiae was by all means meant to ensure good luck and prosperity to gem’s owner rather than to be an allusion to the Punic Wars (cat. no. 6.310, fig. 99).616 The few examples evoked here illustrate some common overinterpretations. Similarly, I do not recognise any motifs clearly related to the Gracchi Brothers internal Rome conflict and the Social War (91-88 BC), even though Vollenweider suggested their possible existence.617 617 Concerning the Gracchi Brothers Roman internal conflict, see: Vollenweider 1979, no. 474. Regarding themes possibly related to the Social War, see: Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 23-24. 618 Yarrow 2018, pp. 44-48. All the subjects discussed in this sub-chapter were not only used for self-presentation performed by individuals, but they also fit a general trend of the ‘state success’ and Roman imperialism. The Romans proud of their numerous conquests put those images either due to the patriotic reasons as well as in the moments of threats generating increasing amount of national pride.618 The observations based on the glyptic material fit general trends in the Roman art. The actions described above by no means should be treated as regular propaganda unless one treats those objects as highlighting Roman nature and identity that the people of Rome regarded as superior to other nations. It cannot be reasonably measured if in the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC there were figures stimulating production of such pieces or not. The only reliable data appear for the 1st century BC political leaders and it is noteworthy that to some of them creation of a special climate for their political activities (stimulation of the impression that thanks to them Rome will be once more a stable and secure state) was crucial to make their propagandistic actions successful. It is attested that gems were a part of this phenomenon (cf. chapters 8.2.9 and 10.8). 7. Early 1st century BC Although in the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC some propagandistic actions performed on or with the use of gems is observed, they are still quite far from the clear-cut definition of propaganda (cf. chapter 4.1). At the turn of the 2nd and 1st century BC the situation has dramatically changed, and first symptoms of very clear propaganda actions performed on intaglios and later also cameos occur. Many of them are also mentioned and even sometimes evaluated by ancient writers. For the discussion on the beginnings of propaganda on gems, Sulla’s political activity is of crucial importance. In this chapter I am going to present the role of glyptics in his propaganda as well as to show how other leaders of Roman political scene employed glyptics to make themselves more recognisable and popular, to raise their authority as well as demonstrate and commemorate their successes. 7.1. Lucius Cornelius Sulla In his thorough study of Sulla’s propaganda actions Ramage touches all its aspects and investigates all types of archaeological and historical material, surprisingly, except for engraved gems.619 Sulla’s domination is the first period when engraved gems are clearly attested to be used for propaganda purposes. The information testifying that yields from both, literary and archaeological sources. Sulla is the first Roman about whom we know with all certainty that he intentionally employed gem engravers for his personal motivations to influence others. They could carve gems to popularise his image as well as to commemorate his successes. In this sub-chapter I would like to analyse all those aspects of Sulla’s propaganda on gems and examine also mythological references he could have used on intaglios to advertise himself. Finally, symbols and their configurations, traditionally regarded as having political meaning, will be discussed here as well. 619 He barely touches the issue of Sulla’s seal ring, see: Ramage 1991, p. 111. 620 Plutarch, Sulla, 3.4; Plutarch, Marius, 10.5-6; Pliny, NH, XXXVII.9; Valerius Maximus, VIII.14.4. 7.1.1. Seals of Sulla The most powerful ancient record about Sulla as a propagandist using engraved gems for self-promotion comes from literary texts. Pliny in his Historia Naturalis, Plutarch in his Life of Sulla and Life of Marius as well as Valerius Maximus specify that Sulla sealed his documents with an image of himself seated on a raised seat with a bound Jugurtha kneeling beside him; before him kneels Bocchus, offering an olive-branch.620 The seal portrays Sulla’s first great victory, in which he ended the Jugurthine War (112-106 BC) and its iconography was most likely based on the sculptural prototype which was a gilded statuary group sent by Bocchus to Rome and installed on the Capitol.621 That event enormously boosted his political career and for a nobleman seeking to raise his authority it was a perfect occasion to promote his success. There was no better way than to illustrate his exceptional military and political achievement upon a personal seal. The seal itself as well as the statuary group did not survive until present, but the seal’s iconography inspired son of Sulla, Faustus Cornelius Sulla (questor in 54 BC), who in 56 BC minted denarius presenting exactly the same scene (fig. 100).622 It is suggested that Sulla used this image for some time just after his arrival to Rome in 105 BC.623 Actually, his seal is the first so powerful propagandistic message encoded on an intaglio in the Roman Republican period. The value of this gem is beyond measure since Sulla by sealing all his documents letters etc. reminded about his achievement and highlighted that he was the designer and main author of the success. For it is important to remember that Sulla was serving under Marius at the time, who took all the public credit for this feat. Putting such an image upon a personal seal was the only option Sulla had to popularise himself and commemorate his achievement even though he was risking a conflict with Marius, as has been said by Plutarch and Valerius Maximus.624 According to the writers, Sulla’s seal was an open provocation that might have ended up in a civil war. It seems that Sulla’s propagandistic move was successful since as a result he was credited by many Romans for the victory in the Jugurthine War.625 He did not risk an open rebellion against Marius, but gradually undermined his authority in a very sophisticated way using engraved gems. As one sees, intaglios could be powerful and fascinating propaganda tools. The seal is also of crucial importance in the discussion on the matter whether the above-mentioned gilded statue presenting the same scene was delivered by Bocchus independently or it was Sulla himself who instructed his ally to do so. Giving the fact that Sulla chose exactly the same scene for his personal seal at the same time suggests no coincidence and the whole action was a carefully designed propagandistic plan. It was impossible for Sulla to have erected the statue for himself, so he must have acted through Bocchus’ hands and this even exposed the Roman dictator as the one to whom external kings 621 Plutarch, Sulla, 6.1. However, Flower has suggested that Bocchus took the inspiration for his monumental sculptural group directly from Sulla’s ring device (2006, p. 113). 622 RRC, no. 426/1. 623 Furtwängler 1900, vol. III, p. 304; Vollenweider 1955, p. 102; Instinsky 1962, p. 20; Vollenweider 1966, pp. 17-18; Zazoff 1983, p. 315; Maderna-Lauter 1988, p. 444; Plantzos 1999, pp. 85-86; Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 10; Lapatin 2015, p. 113. 624 Plutarch, Marius, 10.5; Valerius Maximus, VIII.14.4. 625 Plutarch, Marius, 10.6; Valerius Maximus, VIII.14.4. subordinate themselves which contributed to his auctoritas. In case of glyptics, there were no such limits and the image could be used without any restrictions. The statue, due to its prestigious location must also have been approved by the Senate so that both media transmitted a consistent picture in order to disseminate a particular message about its subject that was consecrated by the most important institution of the Roman Republic.626 626 Noble 2014, p. 77. 627 Toso 2007, p. 16. 628 RRC, pp. 450, 732-733; Zanker 1988, p. 6. 629 Casius Dio, Historia Romana, 42.18.3. 630 For instance, see a discussion on this matter in: Plantzos 1999, pp. 85-86. 631 RRC, p. 450. 632 RRC, no. 359/1. Toso observes that taking such an image as Sulla did as a personal seal was a continuation of an Italic-Roman tradition called auto-presentation.627 This is very true as the seal image was not only aimed at provoking Marius or commemorating specific event, but also highlighting Sulla’s virtus, military prowess and other positive features of his character. On the other hand, this act was a kind of precedence which is typical for Sulla, as for instance, the mentioned gilded statues presenting his victory over Jughurta donated by Bocchus and installed on the Capitol, the tablets set up by Bocchus on the Captiol and his coinage too.628 Another, very important observation is that the image known from glyptics was inspirational for the later coin dies makers and Sulla’s son who used it to recall his father’s success on his own coins. Doing that way, he transferred Sulla’s auctoritas onto himself. This sort of reception should be regarded here as a transfer of authority from great ancestor to a new propagandist. No literary or archaeological record survived suggesting Faustus Cornelius Sulla using the seal of his father but giving the fact that it was a common practice in the Roman Republican period to pass seals from one generation to another, one projects this could have happened. Apparently, there is evidence to claim that Sulla continued to use engraved gems for propaganda purposes during his whole political career. In contrast to Pliny and Plutarch, Cassius Dio, while writing about the seal of Pompey the Great sent to Rome by Caesar to prove his opponent’s death, informs that Pompey used to seal his documents with an image of three trophies as Sulla did.629 Based on this information, it is argued that this was Sulla’s next seal.630 However, Crawford thinks that Cassius Dio was wrong about linking Pompey’s three trophies ring device with original Sulla’s one.631 Instead, he refers to the coins minted during Sulla’s lifetime, especially to the aurei struck between 84-83 BC by Sulla himself. On the reverse side there are only two trophies and a jug with lituus between them.632 This iconography refers to the battle at Chaeronea in 86 BC after which Sulla erected two trophies: one dedicated to Mars, for delivering victory to Rome, and second to Venus, in the spirit of fortune for the luck granted to the Romans and as Sulla’s personal patron deity.633 Basing on such a fragmentary evidence, it is difficult to judge whether Cassius Dio was indeed wrong while mentioning Pompey’s ring and referring to Sulla’s one at the same time. But to my mind, there is no strong argument why we should not believe him. 633 RRC, p. 373. 634 RRC, no. 426/3. 635 Kraft 1952-1953, pp. 34-35; Kopij 2017, pp. 94-95 and 260. 636 Morawiecki 1996, p. 46; Mackay 2000, pp. 208-209. 637 Kopij 2017, pp. 94-95 and 260. Again, coinage is helpful to determine what kind of iconography was featured upon Sulla’s next potential ring. A series of denarii minted in 56 BC by Faustus Cornelius Sulla, son of Sulla, under Pompey the Great bears three trophies on the reverse side (fig. 101).634 It is believed that the three trophies appearing on this coin as well as one of Pompey’s rings stand for his victories on three continents which was a success unique for Pompey because he was the first Roman to accomplish that after Romulus.635 The most striking question is why should we believe Cassius Dio and other authors when they mention first Sulla’s ring with surrendered Jughurta and not with the second one featuring three trophies? It seems reasonable to believe that Faustus Cornelius Sulla depicted on his second coin struck under Pompey the Great another motif referring to his father’s seal so apart from glorify Pompey, his goal was also his own self-promotion? Some numismatists believe that the three trophies on these coins refer to Sulla’s triumphs in Cilicia, Greece (against Mithradates VI Eupator) and Italy.636 Even though in the context of 56 BC and minting coins under Pompey the Great, such a reference is by all means plausible. Kopij argues that this coin type has a double meaning and refers to Pompey’s three triumphs as well as those of Sulla at the same time.637 What Crawford misses is the fact that some Roman politicians used to have two or even more seals at their disposal even at the same time or used them one after another (cf. chapters 8.14, 9.3.1.3 and 10.3). It is probable that Sulla first used the ring with surrendered Jughurta and then another ring with three trophies. Furthermore, it seems that indeed, son of Sulla issuing his coins killed two birds with one stone: he promoted himself and his family while delivering Pompey’s propaganda at the same time. As mentioned, Sulla used his next seal with three trophies to make a clear reference to his military successes. This is another example of his propaganda actions performed through glyptics. Having no precise information as to the specific occasions the seal commemorated, it might only be repeated that plausible candidates are Sulla’s triumphs in Cilicia, Greece (against Mithradates VI Eupator) and Italy.638 The propagandistic value of this seal was comparable to the first one and it is noteworthy that the subjects are consistent with Sula’s general propaganda objectives e.g. focus on his military accomplishments and they were not isolated cases but a part of a well-designed programme.639 638 Morawiecki 1996, p. 46; Mackay 2000, pp. 208-209. 639 Noble 2014, pp. 173-174. 640 Giuliano and Micheli 1989, p. 27. See also discussion on Protarchos activities in Rome as a gem engraver and coin dies maker by Vollenweider (1966, pp. 23-25). She does not link him with Sulla. 641 Vollenweider 1966, pp. 23-25, pls. 12.1 and 5 and 13.1, 3, 5 and 7. 642 Regarding coins, see: RRC, nos. 359/1-2 (aurei and denarii of Sulla, struck in 84-83 BC). See also a recent discussion in: Noble 2014, pp. 169-173. Regarding Sulla’s veneration of Venus, see: Ramage 1991. 7.1.2. Employment of gem engravers and collecting As described above, Sulla is mentioned to be the first among prominent Romans (at least of whom any records in ancient literary sources survived) using their personal seals for political purposes. His both seals born clearly propagandistic images deliberately created to affect other people, promote the propagandist, especially his values and immortalise his successes. It is justified to believe that Sulla hired gem engravers to produce those seals for him and maybe other intaglios for his personal use. During his numerous eastern quests and governing Cilicia, he surely met gem engravers working at the courts of Hellenistic rulers or at least their products. It is supposed that a Greek gem engraved Protarchos first worked for Mithridates VI Eupator, but around 80 BC or even earlier, he transferred his business to Rome and worked for Roman aristocracy including Sulla.640 Indeed, such a supposition seems to be correct if one analyses iconography of Protarchos’ signed works as well as those attributed to him.641 These cameos present a homogenous group illustrating Venus and Cupid at various activities. On the signed cameo in Florence, Protarchos depicted Cupid playing a cithara while a ride on a large lion to the right (cat no. 7.1, fig. 102). On the signed by Protarchos onyx cameo in Boston, Venus is presented with a veil over her head and Cupid in the arm (cat. no. 7.2, fig. 103). On a cameo from Naples Venus rides on a large lion with her veil scattered and her son Cupid holds a branch and leads the lion on a leash (cat. no. 7.3, fig. 104). Finally, on another cameo in Naples, the artist cut Venus seated on a rock in conversation with a Hermaphrodite lying on a column and with Cupid on her knees (cat. no. 7.4, fig. 105). The pair of Venus and Cupid was much venerated by Sulla which is reflected in his coinage and beyond.642 It is noteworthy that Venus accompanied by Cupid rising a branch towards her is an element of the trophies erected after the Battle of Chaeronea (86 BC) and the warlike qualities and accoutrements are ascribed to her in case of this monument.643 It is argued that doing this Sulla was drawing attention to the tradition of the mythical origins of Rome as Venus was believed a mother of Aeneas.644 A useful metaphor of this was a configuration of Venus and her son Cupid which one observes precisely on the evoked cameos executed by Protarchos.645 His works presenting Cupid riding a lion and leading a lion with Venus riding on it symbolically recall the voyage of Aeneas, son of Venus, with his father Anchises and son Ascanius to Italy and foundation of Rome, while the cameo from Boston is a less direct allusion to that myth.646 The lion, as an exotic animal in Rome, could reflect the starting point of that travel as Asia Minor.647 The second cameo from Naples, where apart from Venus and Cupid there is Hermaphrodite, is attributed to Protarchos on the stylistic grounds. If indeed his work, should it serve for personal adornment to Sulla or someone from his circle, but it could be made for another customer as well. If indeed the first three cameos evoked above were ordered by Sulla himself, they would have had a considerable propagandistic value which was a reference to Venus’ role as the ancestress of the Roman state proving Sulla’s legitimacy to govern the Roman Republic.648 Furthermore, Sulla is credited for his efforts towards reconciliation between Greek and Roman elites.649 Employment of Protarchos as his gem engraver by Sulla could be the best illustration of this and perhaps his cameos were purposed to affect well-educated spheres that could understand sophisticated language of his propaganda encapsulated in those objects. Furthermore, they are not isolated examples but fit Sulla’s political programme combining military distinctions with mythological references.650 643 Noble 2014, pp. 114-115 and 163-168. 644 Noble 2014, p. 168. 645 Cupid was often employed to recall the myth of Venus and Aeneas in the times of Augustus like in case of his famous cuirassed Prima Porta statue, see: Zanker 1988, pp. 145, 188-192 and 196. 646 On alternative meaning of Cupid/Eros riding a lion, see: Sagiv 2018, pp. 102-104. 647 The animal was also a symbol of the sun and thus associated to Apollo (Sagiv 2018, p. 91), another deity venerated by Sulla. 648 Noble 2014, p. 115. 649 Santangelo 2007, pp. 197 and 206-207. 650 On which, see: Noble 2014, pp. 173-174. 651 Zazoff 1983, p. 269; Toso 2007, p. 4. 652 I did not find any information on collections of gems prior to the mentioned ones, however, Pliny accidentally mentions auctions of finger rings that could be set with engraved gems, which maybe were purposed to build a cabinet of gems (NH, XXXIII.6). Finally, it is worth to mention that some scholars claim that there seems to be fashion for gem collecting already in the times of Sulla,651 however, I do not find any credible evidence for such practices before Marcus Aemilius Scaurus and Pompey the Great (cf. chapter 8.1.2).652 Nevertheless, it is evident that during Sulla’s political activity the influx of Greek gem engravers to Rome began to gain strength and Pompey the Great should not be given the whole credit for promotion of engraved gems among the Romans.653 653 Vollenweider 1966, pp. 17-18; Plantzos 1999, pp. 111-112. 654 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 30-31, pl. 21.1, 4 and 6. 655 For coins, see: RRC, no. 434/1 (denarius of Q. Pompeius Rufus, 54 BC); Strocka 2003, pp. 37-55 (appendix study by T. Ganschow). Regarding the marble heads, see a thorough discussion on this subject in: Strocka 2003, pp. 7-36, though, see also Poulsen 1974, no. 30. 656 Sulla: Vollenweider 1972-1974, pl. 21.1, 4 and 6; Molinari et al. 1990, no. 8. Julius Caesar (post-classical): Righetti 1955a, no. 216; Richter 1971, no. 761. 7.1.3. Personal branding - portraits After examining Sulla’s personal seals as well as possible gem engravers working for him, it is time to investigate whether or not glyptics had been employed by him for personal branding to any considerable degree. In her thorough study of Roman portraits on Roman Republican engraved gems, Vollenweider described only one intaglio presenting likeness of Sulla.654 This is hardly surprising since comparative material is so scanty and all the known examples of Sulla’s portrait in other branches of Roman art and craftsmanship are copies from later periods. There are a few images of Sulla on coins and only three sculptural heads can be more or less securely attributed to him.655 However, according to my observations above portraits of living people are more likely to appear on gems rather than coins or sculpture in the Middle Republic. Therefore, if there had been a medium where Sulla’s portraits occur during his lifetime, it would have been only glyptics. Identification of portrait gems is always extremely difficult and problematic and so is dating them. The examples investigated below should be treated with a considerable reserve for both, attribution and date. My judgments are just proposals, not definitive verdicts and they cannot be anything more due to the puzzles and problems listed above. The Musei Capitolini in Rome preserves an outstanding black glass gem engraved with a laureate and draped on the right arm bust of a Roman to the right (cat. no. 7.5, fig. 106). In front of him there is an object interpreted as a sceptre surmounted with aequila. The man depicted on this gem has been identified as Sulla by Vollenweider and Molinari, however, Righetti and Richter claimed it to be a post-classical intaglio presenting Julius Caesar.656 In my opinion, there seem to be no definite arguments to regard the gem in question as a modern work. The provenance of the piece (Martinetti collection), the stylistic features of the engraving, form and most importantly traces of considerable war – all combined testify to that. The identification of the portrait is a much more complex issue, though. Although the facial features including deeply cut mimic wrinkles and strong physiognomy of a powerful man are well exhibited and similar to the faces of Sulla known from coins and sculpture,657 the treatment of hair is problematic. It is consistent with the Italic-Roman tradition of hair rendered with numerous, short strokes constructing a sort of casque on the head, but different to the sculptural hairdos of Sulla.658 Nevertheless, it might be due to the unusual attribute the man is wearing on his head – a myrtle wreath, which caused this sort of neatly combed hair and also individual approach of the engraver who might not have had a prototype of Sulla’s likeness to inspire him. 657 For coins, see: RRC, no. 434/1 (denarius of Q. Pompeius Rufus, 54 BC); Strocka 2003, pp. 37-55 (appendix study by T. Ganschow). Regarding the marble heads, see a thorough discussion on this subject in: Strocka 2003, pp. 7-36. 658 Compare the head from Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek in Copenhagen (inv. no. 1811) – Strocka 2003, pp. 14-18, ills. 1-3, 5-7, 10, 13, 16, 18). Strocka is of the opinion that the gem in question does not present Sulla’s portrait (2003, p. 33). 659 Vollenweider 1972-1974, p. 31. 660 On this issue, see: Flory 1995; Gołyźniak 2017, no. 718. 661 Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 148, ill. 608 (with more literature). Vollenweider observed that the myrtle wreath should be linked with Venus whom Sulla venerated as his patron goddess and this was one of her arguments for attributing the portrait to dictator.659 However, to my mind, no male portraits in glyptic art from the 1st century BC are known to be decorated with this peculiar kind of wreath. In the late 1st century BC and early 1st century AD, Roman empress Livia was presented on cameos with this kind of attribute while identified as Venus Genetrix – mother of the Julio-Claudian family (cf. chapter 10.10).660 The eagle-sceptre is another unusual attribute that can be compared only to the cameo mounted in the centre of the Cross of Lothair in Aachen presenting laureate and draped bust of Augustus.661 It is a legionary sign that in the context of Sulla would highlight his position as the chief commander of the Roman army. Those two exceptional attributes could not be used for an ordinary Roman citizen or politician for sure, they must have belonged to the most powerful man at the time of the first third of the 1st century BC, which date is suggested on the stylistic grounds of the intaglio. Yet, the material – glass – does not match extraordinary iconography. For these reasons, identification of the man portrayed as Sulla is possible, but largely uncertain. If the attribution of the portrait is correct, the intaglio perfectly encapsulates Sulla’s veneration to Venus as well as his outstanding position in the Roman army. The object would transmit a powerful propagandistic message that could have been created only in the late 80s once Sulla became a dictator and consolidated his position in Rome. By this image, he not only presented himself as a powerful individual but also, as a governor supported by Venus, the only one who was able to conduct necessary reforms in order to save Rome. Another interesting and not less controversial object that should be evoked here is an iron ring engraved with a head of a man to the left in the collections of the Louvre Museum in Paris (cat. no. 7.6, fig. 107). Coche de la Ferté identifies the individual presented on the ring as Sulla.662 According to museum’s documentation, the ring was found in Smyrna (Izmir at present) and due to the kind of material used, it has been suggested that the ring belonged to a Roman soldier fighting for Sulla during his engagement in the First Mithridatic War (87-85 BC).663 Although such an interpretation is tempting, it should be stressed that identification of the portrayed person with Sulla is largely speculative. In contrast to the previous piece, here, the portrait lacks attributes, while the physiognomy and coiffure seem to be far from those met on coins and marble heads presenting Sulla.664 Even though the ring should be dated to the early 1st century BC basing on the stylistic and technical grounds, it is more likely that it presents a Roman general or a high-rank officer rather than Sulla himself. 662 Coche de la Ferté 1956, pl. XLII.3, p. 88. 663 Coche de la Ferté 1956, p. 88. 664 For coins, see: RRC, no. 434/1 (denarius of Q. Pompeius Rufus, 54 BC); Strocka 2003, pp. 37-55 (appendix study by T. Ganschow). Regarding the marble heads, see a thorough discussion on this subject in: Strocka 2003, pp. 7-36. 665 RRC, no. 434/1. 666 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 49-50. 667 Zazoff 1983, p. 280. Much closer to the images of Sulla known from coins and sculpture is a head engraved upon a dark orange cornelian now preserved in the Kestner Musuem in Hannover (cat. no. 7.7, fig. 108). Here, the face expression suggesting a powerful individual is well elaborated through deeply cut mimic wrinkles, widely opened eye, big nose, open mouth and clearly marked Adam’s apple. The coiffure presented as a mass of medium-long locks in disarray is particularly close to Sulla’s portrait appearing on a denarius minted by Q. Pompeius Rufus in 54 BC.665 Moreover, the sense of Hellenistic engraving is noticeable here and the cutting is of exceptional quality. Although the individualisation is far reaching, this portrait clearly stands out the mass of other gems with Roman heads. Although Vollenweider compared it to the coins of Q. Pompeius Rufus, she hesitated to identify the head with Sulla.666 Such an attribution was proposed by Zazoff and I believe he is right.667 The stylistic features of this intaglio suggest dating it to the 80s of the 1st century BC, however, due to lack of comparative material more specific date cannot be determined. Nothing certain is known about the provenance of this piece, but owing to its somewhat Hellenistic character, it could be cut for Sulla during one of his eastern campaigns. The intaglio was a powerful propaganda tool contributing to Sulla’s personal branding and raising of authority. It certainly helped to disseminate his image. In Hannover, there is another interesting cornelian gem presenting a head that might belong to Sulla (cat. no. 7.8, fig. 109).668 This portrait exhibits characteristics of Sulla’s face which are open mouth, big eyes, deeply cut mimic wrinkles, straight nose and hollow cheek. The physiognomy of a powerful individual is well highlighted here. The hair is formed in short and thick locks carelessly arranged on the head like in case of the head from Copenhagen.669 Apparently, the gem seems to be a local Roman work, and in contrast to the one described above, there is no trace of Hellenistic manner here. Most likely, the intaglio was cut after Sulla’s death (after a sculptural prototype?), perhaps around mid of the 1st century BC when his legend had been a subject of coins struck by Q. Pompeius Rufus? The gem may be a part of Sulla’s reception from that time and the owner wanted to advertise his relationship with the dictator and transfer his authority onto himself. 668 AGDS IV Hannover, no. 563. 669 Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek in Copenhagen (inv. no. 1811) – Strocka 2003, pp. 14-18, ills. 1-3, 5-7, 10, 13, 16, 18. 670 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 86-87, pls. 55-56.1. 671 Vollenweider 1972-1974, p. 85, pl. 54.1-3. 672 See also discussion on these two gems in: Strocka 2003, pp. 33-34. 673 Strocka 2003, p. 24, ills. 19-20. 674 Strocka 2003, p. 26, ills. 21-22. Vollenweider suggested that two more gems are plausible to bear portraits of Sulla. One of them is a cornelian in Florence that she identifies with a member of the optimates faction and does not exclude he might be Sulla himself.670 Similarly, another cornelian from the Bollmann collection in Switzerland featuring a portrait of a Roman was identified by her as possibly Sulla.671 Nevertheless, the comparative analysis of those images with gems described above as well as Sulla’s portraits known from coins and sculpture suggests negative answer and I think the intaglios in question present private portraits of two Roman individuals.672 Strocka points out to several other gems possibly bearing portrait of Sulla. One of them is a cornelian now in Bern presenting a head of a man whose facial expression as well as the coiffure, in Strocka’s opinion, are close to the head of Sulla from Copenhagen.673 Another cornelian from Paris according to him is executed in a similar manner and presents a head of a man with a powerful face expression and minutely engraved hair. It also bears an inscription FAL (cf. cat. no. 7.58, fig. 138 below).674 This portrait was dated by Vollenweider ca. 50-40 BC which is unacceptable because it exhibits more features of the early 1st century Hellenised portraits of the Romans and in this respect Strocka observation is correct.675 I believe that those two portrait gems were created in the early 1st century BC, perhaps in the 80s BC, but I do not recognise much features of Sulla on them. Strocka brings about one more portrait of a Roman cut in garnet, now in private hands,676 which, however, seems to be a complete misunderstanding as it is clear that the intaglio was executed by a Greek engraver in the east in the second half of the 2nd century BC, not later (cf. cat. no. 6.88, chapter 6.2.1 above).677 675 Compare Vollenweider and Avissau-Broustet 2003, no. 15 and Strocka 2003, p. 26, ills. 21-22. 676 Strocka 2003, p. 26, ills. 23-24. 677 See also discussion on it in: Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 83-84, pl. 53.1-4. The survey on portraits of Sulla on engraved gems resulted in a relatively small number of objects that can be linked with this Roman stateman. In the mass of anonymous portrait intaglios dated to the first half of the 1st century BC, there is no homogenous group that could be identified with Sulla which is surprising and problematic at the same time. Only single objects can be identified with this Roman dictator and even those on quite speculative grounds. It seems that personal branding of Sulla through gems was extremely limited. The gem from Musei Capitolini in Rome is an exceptional piece possibly executed during Sulla’s lifetime. The attributes accompanying him suggest a special occasion upon which the intaglio was made. The material used (glass) and the level of workmanship rather excludes this gem to be made for Sulla himself. Perhaps it had been gifted to one of his followers or made on a commission of such a person. Noteworthy is the intaglio from Hannover collection which betrays considerable Hellenistic influences. It was possibly cut during one of Sulla’s eastern campaigns or his governorship over Cilicia, but it is hard to tell whether it served to dictator as an extraordinary piece of jewellery or to one of his followers. There is also evidence for the reception of Sulla’s portrait in glyptic art which is suggested by another intaglio from Hannover described above. It does not concern Sulla’s propaganda itself but is and interesting example of long-lasting popularity of the dictator that was utilised by his son, which is also confirmed by numismatics. 7.1.4. Commemoration The two seals of Sulla discussed above make one aware that one of the most important propaganda practice performed on engraved gems is commemoration of important events. It became popular in the second half of the 1st century BC but already at the times of Sulla one observes first symptoms of that phenomenon and there are more examples testifying that than dictator’s seals. A cornelian in Munich features a highly interesting iconography including two male busts to the left on a round altar flanked by two Victories holding palm branches and crowning the heads with wreaths (cat. no. 7.9, fig. 110). This unusual piece seems to have no parallels whatsoever but Vollenweider compared the heads with coins and identified them as belonging to Sulla and Quintus Pompeius Rufus presented here as a pair of consuls appointed in 88 BC.678 The latter was a faithful follower of the dictator. He accompanied him on his first march on Rome and gave him his complete support in his campaign against Sulpicius as well as during the occupation of Rome. Together, the consuls passed a series of laws, including the exile of Marius and his supporters. The identification proposed by Vollenweider is controversial giving the fact that regarding Sulla’s portrait there is little comparative material available. To some degree, the bust on the foreground is consistent with images of Sulla appearing on later coins, sculpture and it is similar to the intaglios from Hannover and to lesser degree also the one in Rome discussed above. Noteworthy is that Sulla is not distinguished here by any kind of attribute, yet he is presented at the foreground. He does not have any specific attribute and there are two Victories crowning the men who seem to be presented as equal. Perhaps this was the intention of Sulla’s propaganda here.679 He wanted to justify his actions and avoided showing his ambitions plans of the sole rule openly. Instead, on this intaglio, he presented himself next to his colleague in office which also ensured his support to Sulla’s case in the fierce rivalry with Gaius Marius as Rufus was appreciated for that. The presence of Victories normally suggests a victory and thus Vollenweider argued that the gem refers to Sulla’s military accomplishments.680 However, I think it is impossible giving the circumstances and the fact that a victory over another Roman was not considered a triumph at the time. In contrast to Vollenweider, I do not believe that the motif had any divine or mythological reference too. Such a hypothesis seems quite far-fetched and comparison to the bronze coins of Mantineia (ca. 431-370 BC) is misleading.681 It is far more possible that the intaglio was of purely commemorative character and transmits a message of the new world order, peace and prosperity as well as restoration of the Republic that has been proclaimed by two new consuls. Sulla was cautious with his propaganda language and used to carefully plan the messages sent to the society. For this reason, there are two Victories illustrating this triumph, not just one.682 The gem is of special importance since it might be identified with historical figures and specific event allowing us to date it precisely to 88 BC. The intaglio once belonged to Paul Arndt (1865-1937) 678 Vollenweider 1958-1959, pp. 23-24; Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 46-47, pl. 34.3-4. Such an interpretation is also accepted by Zazoff 1983, p. 280. 679 Vollenweider argued that the Victories symbolise two military victories of Sulla (1972-1974, pp. 46-47), while Strocka rejects identification of the portraits with Sulla and Rufus at all (2003, p. 33). 680 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 46-47. 681 Vollenweider 1958-1959, p. 24; Vollenweider 1972-1974, p. 46; BMC Peloponnesus, no. 6, p. 184. 682 For the meaning of Victory in coinage of Sulla and references to his successes and triumphs, see: RRC, p. 732. who created his collection while in Rome (cf. chapter 11). This fact even strengthens probability that the gem was cut in Rome just after Sulla and Rufus were appointed consuls. Regarding commemoration of important events related to Sulla on gems, one more intriguing example is a glass intaglio preserved in Geneva. It presents a rider on biga holding a spear and behind him there is another figure dressed in toga mounting the chariot (cat. no. 7.10, fig. 111).683 As suggested by Vollenweider, the iconography closely copies the reverse side of the denarius minted in 75 BC by L. Farsuleius Mensor (fig. 112).684 The scholar claimed both, the coins and the gems to commemorate Sulla’s triumph over Mithardates VI Eupator in 81 BC. She based her hypothesis on the fact that head of libertas appears on the coins obverses who was venerated by Sulla.685 However, the gem lacks scorpion sign under the horses and it is difficult to judge if the male warrior standing on a chariot is cuirassed and helmeted as he is on the coins. These differences are possibly due to the material used for the gem – glass and its overall poor quality. Regarding coins, Crawford suggests the figure on biga to be god Mars, but he hesitates to identify the scene with any specific historical event.686 Among Roman deities, Sulla venerated mainly Venus and Apollo, but he also had some appreciation towards Mars.687 In the lack of any more meaningful clues, Vollenweider’s interpretation of the Geneva gem is not utterly convincing. The cheap material and simple moulding technique used suggest the gem to be a mass product. However, I was unable (as was Vollenweider herself) to find any parallel to this object. Perhaps gem’s iconography like the coin’s one alludes to a general concept or demand for restoration of peace and reconciliation between soldiers and civilian after the assimilation of the new citizens enfranchised after the Social War (91-88 BC) to which possibility libertas from the coin fits perfectly.688 The gem then would not be an effect of Sulla’s propaganda but a rather ordinary item reflecting social needs and desires at the time. 683 Vollenweider 1979, no. 142. 684 RRC, no. 392/1a-b. 685 Vollenweider 1979, no. 142. 686 RRC, pp. 406-407. 687 Sulla did not highlight his sympathy for Mars very often, although he put god’s name on the trophies erected after the battle at Chaeroneia alongside to those of Victory and Venus, see: Ramage 1991, p. 98. 688 RRC, pp. 406-407. However, Yarrow proposes to decipher the scene as apotheosis of Romulus (forthcoming). In the previous chapter I have described a number of gems presenting fights between the Romans and Gauls. Some of these gems are dated to the late 2nd or early 1st century BC (cf. chapter 6.3.4) and a part of this production may commemorate Sulla’s fights with Cimbri and Teutones in the years 104-101 BC. Perhaps such subjects were suitable for Roman veterans and could be distributed to them as Vollenweider thought.689 However, there is no direct evidence that those gems were commissioned by Sulla or that he stimulated their production. They could be produced by gem engravers simply to answer people’s desire for these kinds of objects. As far as can be judged from the material available in the public and private collections there are no more examples of Sulla’s successes commemorated on engraved gems. As evidenced above, only the intaglio from Munich can be more or less securely linked with his propaganda activities in this respect naturally apart from Sulla’s own seals. 689 Vollenweider 1955, p. 102. 690 Ramage 1991; Plantzos 1999, pp. 85-86; Barcarro 2008/2009, pp. 16-17 and 100; Noble 2014; Morawiecki 2014, pp. 50-52. 691 Evans 1992, pp. 89-90 and 107 (a sort of reception performed by Sulla’s son Faustus); Toso 2007, pp. 55-64. 692 Plutarch, Sulla, 29. On Apollo as symbol of libertas, see: RRC, p. 732. 693 Plutarch, Sulla, 29.6. 7.1.5. Divine and mythological references During his whole political career, Sulla venerated various deities. He highlighted his connections with Venus, Apollo, Victory, libertas and Heracles in particular.690 Apart from these, in his propaganda he less frequently referred to mythological and legendary figures such as Romulus (in the beginning) and Diomedes (later).691 In contrast to architecture or coinage, in glyptics one identifies a relatively small portion of subjects that might be related to Sulla’s propaganda highlighting divine protection over him and his special connections with specific deities. I have already discussed the issue of potential employment of a Greek gem engraver Protarchos by Sulla and significance of his cameos in relation to dictator’s veneration of Venus (cf. chapter 7.1.1 above). One of the issues touched were the warlike qualities of Venus highlighted on the Chaeronea trophies which possibly refer to her role as ancestress of the Roman state. Following this unusual attribution, one wonders if early representations of armed Venus (Victrix) on gems could be related to Sulla’s special connection with the goddess. I did not find a single proof for that and in the absence of science, it should be accepted that these gems are more likely to be related to the gens Julii Caesares and Julius Caesar’s propaganda activities (cf. chapters 8.2.8 and 8.3.3). Concerning Apollo, his cult was much promoted by Sulla especially among his soldiers and the god was a symbol of libertas so much venerated by the dictator too.692 Sulla is even said to carry a small gold figurine of the god with his bosom to which he prayed during the battle of the Colline Gate.693 Actually, one observes a significant number of gems cut with head of Apollo produced in the 1st century BC. This trend seems to start while Sulla was in charge regarding government of Rome and a good number of those intaglios can be dated to the early 1st century BC, also if compared to similar representations appearing on coins (cat. nos. 7.11-12, fig. 113).694 Although there is a plenty of other reasons for Apollo’s heads and busts on gems popularity rather than political ones, the abrupt and significant increase in the early 1st century BC is hard to be explained in other way than his cult to have been promoted by top Roman politicians, in this case Sulla. I do not find any example clearly indicating that Apollo’s head upon a gem was related to the dictator. Therefore, it is so difficult to regard engraved gems with image of this god as propaganda objects issued by Sulla himself, but they could work well on a much less obvious level which due to the lack of context escapes us. For interesting is the remark of Plutarch who suggests that Sulla’s veneration to Apollo was targeted to influence the army and one projects that since the commander gave an example, his followers did the same and cherished the same god.695 Such a practice would have strengthened the bounds between a propagandist and his audience. Ultimately, the image of Apollo might have been automatically associated with Sulla and thus, gems with god’s head were desirable products to manifest one’s allegiance to the group of Sulla’s supporters. 694 See an extremely important iconological analysis of that motif in: Maaskant-Kleibrink 1989/1993, pp. 196-200. 695 Plutarch, Sulla, 29. 696 Toso 2007, p. 222. 697 RRC, nos. 363/1a-d (denarii of L. Marcius Censorinus, 82 BC). Regarding other motifs involving Apollo and potentially referring to Sulla, Toso suggests that some intaglios presenting the punishment of Marsyas by Apollo may be related to Sulla’s propaganda (cat. nos. 7.13-14, fig. 114). She bases her hypothesis on the fact that an original Hellenistic statuary group illustrating that myth created in Pergamon in the second half of the 3rd century BC had been copied in the times of Sulla in Rome.696 This was due to the fact that the group was a perfect allegory of Sulla’s victories over barbarians (Cimbri and Teutones) as well as the east (the First Mithridatic War). Such a concept is illustrated on a glass gem from London where Apollo plays a lyre standing next to Marsyas who hangs on a tree and on the other side stands Victory (cat. no. 7.13, fig. 114). The subject of Marsyas punishment became indeed popular since the early 1st century BC. However, one should remember that Sulla’s opponents used that motif for their own political reasons too. For instance, L. Marcius Censorinus issued coins depicting Marsyas, at a time when the augural college was the subject of political controversy during the Sullan civil wars of the 80s BC (fig. 167).697 He was later killed by Sulla for this mockery. As a matter of fact, it is debatable if the subject of Apollo punishing Marsyas could be applied in glyptics by Sulla for his propaganda or it was used by his opponents alike. An argument in favour of Sulla is that the motif was plausible to be used in his integrational propaganda focusing on Apollo. Later, it had been employed for similar reasons by Octavian (cf. chapter 9.3.1.7). Less controversial is the issue of Victory’s employment for Sulla’s propaganda and possible reflections of that on engraved gems. In Geneva there is a highly interesting brown glass gem presenting Victory flanked by two trophies (cat. no. 7.15, fig. 115). As Vollenweider suggested, such an iconography exists first in the Hellenistic east appearing, for instance, on the coins of Antiochos VIII Grypos among others.698 A similar layout for trophies (without Victory, though) had been applied by Sulla on his coins celebrating his military success in the Battle of Chaeronea in 86 BC and the statue of Victory was a part of the trophies erected after the battle near Aphrodisias. Perhaps then, the mentioned intaglio served to the same purpose and was supposed to commemorate this particularly important event in Sulla’s career. Noteworthy is that similarly to the bust of Apollo, also the one of Victory gains popularity in the early 1st century BC. Vollenweider argued whether the motif was a symbol of the faction populares or could stand for Sulla’s military victories (cat. no. 7.16, fig. 116).699 Finally, Weiß draws attention to another glass gem presenting unusual type; this time Victory is shown as holding a palm branch and throwing something into a hydria standing beside her (cat. no. 7.17, fig. 117). She argues that the motif may commemorate the ludi Victoriae Sullanae or ludi Victorianae Caesaris.700 The first, were the games performed in the early 81 BC, after Sulla’s victory at Porta Collina in 82 BC. This exceptional occasion might have been commemorated on engraved gems by using such an unusual iconography.701 It is probable because Victory was employed by Sulla on his coins proclaiming his expected victory just before the battle at Porta Collina.702 698 Vollenweider 1979, no. 525. 699 Vollenweider 1979, no. 123. 700 Weiß 2007, no. 239. 701 Hölscher 1967, pp. 143-147. 702 RRC, nos. 367/1-5 (aurei and denarii of Sulla, 82 BC). 703 Plutarch, Sulla, 35; Barcaro 2008/2009, p. 100 (with more literature on the subject). Regarding Heracles, as Plutarch says, he was regarded by Sulla as his patron god whom he dedicated a statue on the Esquiline called Heracles Sullanus.703 In Roman Republican glyptics the motif of a head of Heracles or his bust became popular in the early 1st century BC which is consistent with Sulla’s veneration for the Greek hero (cat. nos. 7.18-19, fig. 118). The peak of popularity of that motif occurs around the middle of the 1st century BC, which might be related to another Roman propagandist referring to the hero – Pompey the Great (cf. chapter 8.1.9). Naturally, as has already been pointed out, there could be a plenty of other than political reasons for popularity of Heracles on gems those days (cf. chapter 6.3.1). Nevertheless, the political factor should not be entirely ignored. One imagines a situation when the cult of this particular Greek hero is promoted by Sulla and the practice is further imitated by his followers (especially soldiers) inspired by him. Moreover, perhaps some of them even identified the propagandist with Heracles and thus chose to have had his likeness engraved upon their own rings. This would have testified the considerable authority and influence of Sulla as well as his propaganda to be successful. As has been said in the introduction (cf. chapter 4.7), propaganda becomes successful when the audience does not have to be stimulated anymore, but processes messages and issues related to the propagandist on its own and this is the case here. Another thing is reception of Sulla’s propaganda performed by his son Faustus who struck an issue with Heracles’ head wearing a lion skin.704 Due to the three wreaths appearing on the reverse, it is traditionally identified with propaganda of Pompey the Great,705 but one cannot exclude that the moneyer intended to compare Pompey to Heracles and Sulla (also as Heracles) at the same time. Interpreting that way, it is a confirmation of a subtle political language that was preferred by propagandists of all kinds. This instance makes one aware that even on coins equipped with legends and other helpful indicators, the proper meaning of the propagandistic message remains obscure for us today, let alone engraved gems. Still, for the Romans just one symbol was often a sufficient allusion, thus, political significance of Heracles on gems should be taken into consideration. 704 RRC, no. 426/4b (denarius of Faustus Cornelius Sulla, 56 BC). 705 RRC, pp. 450-451; Plantzos 1999, pp. 85-86. 706 Plutarch, Sulla, 9. Finally, one of the most discussed motifs in glyptics and coinage often associated with Sulla is the so-called ‘Dream of Sulla’ scene (cat. nos. 7.20-22, fig. 119). According to Plutarch, the following dream occurred to Sulla on the night before he attacked Sulpicius and Marius in Rome in 88 BC: ‘(…) the goddess whom the Romans had learned to worship from the Cappadocians, whether she is Selene or Athena or Enyo (Bellona), appeared to Sulla as he was sleeping. She handed him a thunderbolt and naming his enemies one by one, she ordered him to strike them. When he did so, all his enemies fell down and vanished. Sulla was encouraged by this dream and after he told it to his followers at dawn, he marched upon Rome.’706 Based on this account, Vollenweider connected the imaginary of goddess Selene appearing to Endymion occurring on a considerable series of gems with that dream of Sulla. She claimed that a number of glass gems with that motif should be linked to Sulla’s propaganda practices because they were distributed to the soldiers faithful to the statesman and worn by them as amulets.707 The scholar as well as some numismatists pointed out to the denarius struck by L. Aemilius Buca in 44 BC presenting on the obverse side head of Venus and the goddess approaching a sleeping man on the reverse one (fig. 120).708 Because Venus was venerated by Sulla (and Caesar), it was tempting to associate the scene from the reverse side with the ‘dream of Sulla’ story as Crawford did.709 However, over recent decades more attention has been given to that motif either by numismatists and scholars focusing on glyptics.710 707 Vollenweider 1958-1959. 708 RRC, no. 480/1. 709 For the coins, see: RRC, no. 480/1 (denarius of L. Aemilius Buca, 44 BC). 710 Zazoff 1983, p. 295. 711 See for instance a detailed discussion in: Fears 1975; Toso 2007, pp. 217-219. The motif is sometimes related to the death of Caesar and his apotheosis, but this seems to be exaggerated as well. 712 Woytek 2003, pp. 428-430. 713 Vollenweider 1958-1959, pp. 26-29. 714 Spier 2001, no. 35. To start, one notices that in the dream described by Plutarch the goddess appearing to Sulla gives him a bundle of thunderbolts which is absent either on coins and gems. Crawford explains that this element is replaced on the coins by Victory with a staff, however, she does not appear on any intaglio except for one glass gem in Copenhagen which clearly copies the design of L. Aemilius Buca’s coin from 44 BC and thus, cannot be linked with Sulla’s propaganda (cat. no. 7.23). Instead, the eastern goddess depicted on coins grasps her veil, while on gems she holds a torch. Even though Vollenweider tried to justify this inconsistence between iconography and Plutarch’s story by quoting other authors describing similar event and combining some linguistic studies, her hypothesis has been rejected and it is a common view now that the scene depicts Selene approaching Endymion in a deep sleep.711 As regards to coins, Venus on obverse refers to Caesar and gens Julia in general, while the scene on the reverse is thought to be a personal choice of the moneyer.712 Moreover, even Vollenweider noticed that the goddess from the scene described above appears separately on a good number of gems and she explain that as a sort of a shortcut of the story, which is unacceptable.713 As Spier observes, the motif of Artemis-Selene (which is a correct identification of the goddess) either appearing to Endymion or alone occurs on the gems of various kinds in respect of their shapes, materials, forms and style of engraving. They do not constitute a homogenous group and should be dated from the 1st century BC to the 2nd century AD.714 I believe this to be truth and increasing popularity of Artemis-Selene on engraved gems in the 1st century BC/AD is due to a general trend observed by Pliny the Elder who claims that many Egyptian and eastern deities were becoming popular as signet images at that time.715 A similar study of the goddess (recognised as Diana), though riding a biga, is presented on denarii of Faustus Cornelius Sulla minted in 56 BC, which Crawford explains as a personal preference for the deity of the moneyer.716 This confirms words of Pliny and might be the case for the issue of L. Aemilius Buca from 44 BC as well as the gems showing the so-called ‘dream of Sulla’ scene. 715 Pliny, NH, XXXVII.41. 716 RRC, no. 426/2, see the commentary on p. 450. 717 Toso 2007, p. 61. 718 Toso 2007, p. 63. 719 Regarding coins, see: RRC, nos. 369/1 (denarius of M. Metellus Q. f., 82-80 BC), 370/1a-b (denarii of C. Serveil, 82-80 BC) and 371/1 (denarius of Q. Max, 82-80 BC) and p. 732 for a commentary to the issue. 720 Sena Chiesa 2012, p. 257. 721 Gesztelyi 1982, pp. 193-195. Regarding other possible identifications of Sulla with mythological or divine figures, Toso points out that similarly to Apollo and Heracles, representations of Diomedes became popular in the early 1st century BC (cat. no. 7.24, fig. 121). This might be due to the fact that the motif was related to a general concept of Roman power, imperium and even pietas towards Venus whom Sulla venerated so much.717 Besides, Sulla, the victor of the First Mithridatic War and governor of Rome could be regarded as new Diomedes which might have triggered production of gems with his figure.718 Concerning libertas – Sulla considered himself a champion of that personification, but she was mostly indirectly promoted on his coins through Apollo and the same probably happened on gems because her images, either heads or in figural form, do not occur on engraved gems.719 7.1.6. Political symbols Gems bearing various configurations of symbols are often treated by scholars as means of propaganda usually with some political references and messages decoded (cf. chapter 5.1.13). Sena Chiesa remarks that already in the times of Sulla symbolic gems were used for propaganda because similar constellations of symbols known from gems appear on coins. In her opinion, those symbolic gems were used by nobilitas to identify their political views.720 Such a view might be confronted with the one of Gesztelyi, who claims that symbolic gems were produced mostly to be delivered to soldiers wishing to express their political allegiances that way too.721 This reasoning is attractive as in the times of Sulla political situation in Rome was far from stability and the dictator promoted his programme addressed to the needs and desires of people through various channels. It should be examined whether the symbols appearing on his coinage and gems produced in the early 1st century BC conform each other or not and whether they had any political references. Regarding coinage of Sulla, the symbols used in it span from augural symbols (lituus, jug) and trophies to cornucopia, bundle of thunderbolts and wreath composed of ear of barley, ear of wheat and assorted fruits.722 The first case seems to be a standard set appearing on the coins of every moneyer that performed augural office, though there is a fierce debate on the precise meaning of its application on this specific coin.723 Of course, on coins the symbols played a significant propagandistic role highlighting the status and importance of the person to whom they refer, thus, also raising his authority. Augural symbols appear on engraved gems usually without any other symbols that would allow to associate them with a specific politician (cf. chapter 6.1), unless they accompany busts or portraits, however, this is not the case of gems produced during Sulla’s domination. Besides, as has been stated above, such symbolic gems were used by priests and other people performing sacrifices and rituals. This is the most evident from a sard intaglio in London which apart from the symbols also carries an inscription: AV - probably a shortcut from augur or augurate (cat. nos. 7.25-26, fig. 122). Naturally, it cannot be entirely excluded that one of those early 1st century BC gems with augural symbols once belonged to Sulla. I have already mentioned that Museo Archeologico Nazionale in Naples preserves an outstanding bronze statue of emperor Tiberius depicted as chief priest of Rome wearing a veil over his head and a ring on his finger with lituus engraved upon.724 Another statue equipped with a ring with augural symbols is that of Augustus as rider found in Cume.725 These statues give us context for the use of gems with augural symbols by the most prominent personalities in the Roman Empire. However, it is not clear whether or not Sulla actually was an augur or whether he was making a claim to be one so the hypothesis of his potential use of a gem with augural symbols has no supportive evidence. 722 For augural symbols see: RRC, nos. 359/1-2 (aurei and denarii of Sulla, 84-83 BC). Regarding the bundle of thunderbolts and cornucopia, see: RRC, no. 371/1 (denarius of Q. Fabius Maximus, 82-80 BC). 723 Nobel 2014, pp. 169-172. 724 Inv. no. 5615. The statue was dedicated at Herculaneum’s Theatre in 37 and was found there in the 18th century, see: Lapatin 2015, p. 6. 725 Ergün 1999, p. 713, note 6. 726 Noble 2014, pp. 171-172. Another matter is that augural symbols could stand for other offices or issues than augurate or priesthood in general. One of the hypotheses says that on the above-mentioned coin, jug and lituus appear due to the passing of the lex curiata which conferred on Sulla’s imperium.726 Such a meaning makes sense when jug and lituus are set in combination with other symbols clearly related to Sulla, which does not happen on gems. As a result, I do not find any gem presenting augural symbols as convincingly associated to the dictator. As to the trophies accompanying augural symbols on Sulla’s coins, their significance is explained as objects commemorating his military victories at Chaeronea and Orchomenus (fig. 123).727 As already explained above, trophies, as separate symbols, exist on gems in vast quantities since the late 2nd century BC. One wonders if some of them could stand for any of Sulla’s military victories and stay in relation to his coins. Even a thorough analysis covering a good number of gems does not bring results that would suggest a direct reference to Sulla (see some examples dated to the first third of the 1st century BC, cat. nos. 7.27-29, fig. 124). This fact only strengthens hypothesis that such gems were primarily private objects symbolising personal victories of the ring bearers as well as the wishes to win some cases and military conflicts. They are not distinctive enough to be linked with Sulla but were worn by Roman legionaries. I also do not find any evidence in literary sources to suspect Sulla’s involvement in promotion of such iconography among his followers, hence, I presume those gems to be delivered on the market by gem engravers who attempted to meet preferences of their clients. 727 RRC, nos. 359/1-2 (aurei and denarii of Sulla, 84-83 BC). 728 RRC, pp. 387-388. 729 For example, Vollenweider 1979, no. 421. 730 For example, Vollenweider 1979, no. 421. Concerning the last configuration of symbols appearing on coins, it consists of cornucopia, bundle of thunderbolts and wreath, and Crawford does not link it to any specific event or issue related to Sulla, but for his veneration to Apollo.728 This provoked some scholars to accept the view that combinations of symbols on Roman Republican gems refer to specific deities and thus, might be indirectly related to politics.729 According to my research the configuration known from Sulla’s coins does not exist on gems, however, individual symbols do either alone or in other variants and one tests if they present any reference to Sulla (cat. nos. 7.30-33, fig. 125). Vollenweider compared various glass gems presenting cornucopia above a prow and staff (thyrsus?) to quadrans minted by Sulla in 82 BC ascertaining they transmit the same political message of ordo rerum – one of the key points of Sulla’s political programme.730 However, there are significant differences between the evoked coins’ and gems’ iconography. The former bear two cornucopiae over a prow which is a completely different set than those presented on gems and there is no staff at all. It is more plausible to explain appearance of such symbols on intaglios as due to their positive associations and values they could ensure to gem’s sitter or be wished by him. Cornucopia symbolises plenty, well-being and abundance, and it may refer to Fortuna as her attribute. The bundle of thunderbolts surely stands for Jupiter, the chief Roman god whose blessing the intaglio’s owner sought to, while the wreath may be another symbol of abundance and wished or expected victory. Engraved gems were highly personal objects and I believe these personal needs and desires to be the primary reasons why such iconography as discussed here appears on them. Still, there is a possibility that they also had political significance. Sulla’s commitment to their production cannot be proven to any reasonable degree but his programme of restoration of the Roman Republic could be influential. The gems referring to this idea and Sulla’s ideology could be cut on a daily basis in Rome once his domination was established in a common spirit. For the people united after a long period of Civil War would have gave a vent of their energy and positive thinking towards the future. A similar ‘outburst’ occurred when Julius Caesar controlled Rome and Augustus became its first emperor (cf. chapters 8.2.9 and 10.8). 7.2. Gaius Marius The main opponent of Sulla, Gaius Marius (157-86 BC) because of his numerous merits towards the Roman Republic was called ‘the third founder of Rome’.731 He is supposed to perform some propagandistic actions in order to promote his successes and also to compete with Sulla in the later phase of his career. Coins were presumably used for that purpose, especially if it goes to commemoration of Marius’ triumph over Cimbri and Teutones in 101 BC.732 In this sub-chapter I would like to investigate whether there is any ground for a claim that engraved gems were a part of Marius’ propaganda and promotional practices. 731 Plutarch, Marius, 27.5. See also commentary on this issue in: Evans 1992, pp. 88-89. 732 For instance, see an issue struck on this occasion: RRC, nos. 326/1-2 (denarii and quinarii of C. Fundanius, 101 BC). Another issue had been minted slightly later, see: RRC, nos. 332/1a-c (quinarii of T. Cloulius, 98 BC) and RRC, p. 629. Another issue related to Marius military victories is: RRC, no. 333 (quinarius of C. Egnatuleius, 97 BC). 7.2.1. Triumph In 104 BC the Romans finally defeated Numidian king Jugurtha with the invaluable help of Bocchus, king of Mauretania (ca. 110-80 BC). The success had many fathers and all three major generals involved into the conflict on the Roman side claimed credit for winning the war: Gaius Marius, Quintus Caecilius Metellus Numidicus (ca. 160-91 BC) and Sulla. I have already discussed a very well-thought propaganda issued to commemorate and proclaim Sulla as the true leader of Roman forces and winner of the war through his personal seal and other channels. Metellus Numidicus celebrated the triumph over Jugurtha by publishing an oration explicitly entitled De Triumpho Suo and his adopted cognomen.733 However, it was Marius who appeared in a triumphal chariot with Jugurtha in chains before him presented to the people of Rome.734 During his procession and shortly afterwards, the Roman statesman committed two unprecedented but clearly deliberated actions. Unusually to other triumphators, he wore a gold ring on his finger while it was a well-established habit for a triumphant to wear an iron one (like the slaves and soldiers did) to show modesty and pietas.735 This was much criticised and even more outrageous was the second act of Marius who appeared at the first senatorial meeting of his consulship still dressed in triumphal robes. The senators felt so offended that Marius must have went back home and change his clothes before the meeting could resume.736 These two actions clearly exhibit Marius intentions to highlight his role in defeating Jugurtha and bringing splendour to Rome. The fierce rivalry with Metellus Numidicus and Sulla forced him to take extraordinary steps. He must have felt himself so confident that he decided to break the habits and perform these two acts of individual and ostentatious parade. The choice of a gold ring over the iron one shows that there was an increasing demand among top Roman politicians and statemen to highlight their extraordinary status and abilities. As Isager observes analysing Pliny’s text on gold in his Historia Naturalis, gold rings became increasingly popular, but among the Romans who travelled to the east.737 This stays in consistency with observations that in the course of the 2nd century BC, finely engraved portrait gems were produced in the east for the Romans who visited Asia Minor or any other relevant region (cf. chapter 6.2.1). The case of Marius shows that this tradition was slowly transferred to Rome itself by the end of the 2nd century BC. It is not known if Marius had his portrait or any specific gem engraved upon his ring, but this seems likely since his opponent, Sulla, reacted to this private rivalry with a seal presenting him as a victor over Jugurtha (cf. chapter 7.1.1). However, noteworthy is the increasing significance of rings and gems as objects marking extraordinary social status. Marius’ gold ring became a transmitter of an important propaganda message confirming his position not only among his contemporary contenders but also in the history. It is also interesting to observe the reaction of the public, which was negative to the action of Marius, while Sulla was not criticised for making an allusion to the Jughurtine War on his seal, at least no ancient writer mentions that. This is due to the fact that Marius violated a deeply-rooted 733 Gisborne 2005, p. 108. 734 Plutarch, Marius, 12. 735 Pliny, NH, XXXIII.11-12. See also a commentary on this issue in: Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 16 and a contrary view in: Isager 1998, p. 60. 736 Plutarch, Marius, 12.7. 737 Isager 1998, p. 60. custom which was a major offence situated in a public sphere, while Sulla with his seal still stayed in a private one winning the case. The Roman society was not ready to accept Marius’ ostentatious behaviour neither was the senatorial class who in addition was able to punish him for it. In contrast, Sulla made a precedence that endured since he also made a reference to his next military victories on his second seal later (cf. chapter 7.1.1). 7.2.2. Personal branding – portraits Apart from such ostentatious acts like the two described above, one wonders if Marius like Sulla used engraved gems for personal branding, that is to popularise his own image among his followers, or if they commissioned gems with his likeness to show their allegiance to him. As one could see, in case of Sulla, there is little evidence for using engraved gems for personal branding. However, it seems likely that Marius wished to have had his portrait cut on gems and perhaps his supporters also wanted to carry the likeness of their beloved commander upon their rings. A particularly interesting in those terms is a garnet preserved now in Paris depicting a portrait of an old, partially bald man to the right (cat. no. 7.34, fig. 126). His exceptionally long, pointy nose and wrinkled forehead, small eye and tightly pursed lips make an impression that one deals here with a military commander. Vollenweider recognised him as an important individual and noticed that the portrait may illustrate Gaius Marius.738 It is arguable if such an identification is plausible, but the scholar is right to date the gem to the early 1st century BC. Her stylistic observations point to that and one should also notice the type of material used, size of the gem and its form. All of them suggest that even though the portrait itself exhibits purely Roman verist and far reaching individualisation, a hand of a Greek artist is noticeable here. In 98 BC Marius travelled to the east where he spent next eight years of his life. One presumes that he may have contacted with Hellenistic glyptic art there and wished to have his portrait cut upon a gem. The intaglio from Paris may testify to that and makes sense even more if one remembers Marius ostentatious parading with a gold ring during his triumph in 104 BC. It is clear that he liked to show his high social status and popularity off among ordinary people soldiers that way to impress them. Perhaps, Marius could hire a Greek engraver earlier and wear a gold ring with a gem presenting himself during his triumph as stated above. The identification of Paris gem with Marius should be treated as speculation because there is no hard data proving 738 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 27-29, pl. 19.1-4; Vollenweider and Avisseau-Broustet 2003, no. 13 (with a detailed discussion on relevant portrait types known from coins and sculpture). the portrait indeed belonged to him and comparative material in regard to this politician is also highly problematic.739 739 Several marble busts are said to represent Marius, however, none with a considerable degree of certainty, see: Ohly 2002, p. 158. 740 Perhaps the best to compare are the following objects: AGDS III Göttingen, nos. 448-449; Maaskant-Kleibrink 1978, no. 97. 741 The gem from Munich was once a part of Paul Arndt collection of gems and the two glass gems from Berlin belonged to Philipp von Stosch. Both collections were formed while their creators were in Italy, therefore, it is probable they originate from this region or even from Rome specifically, cf. chapter 11. 742 For instance, Maaskant-Kleibrink 1978, no. 97. 743 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pl. 20.8 (= Furtwängler 1896, nos. 5065). One of the arguments in favour to consider intaglio from Paris as depicting a prominent Roman politician, perhaps Marius, is the fact that there are several other gems, although less skilfully executed, presenting a similar portrait type. For instance, there is a dark brown glass gem in St. Petersburg presenting a similar head with a long, pointy nose, but with more hair on the top of the head rendered (cat. no. 7.35). Close parallels are also a sard in a private collection, another sard in Leiden, a violet glass gem in Munich, and one more glass gem in Berlin (cat. nos. 7.36-39). Vollenweider pointed out, this series stems from the Roman tradition of portraits on gems but exhibits powerful individual features that should be treated as a homogenous group.740 It is tempting to suggest the intaglio from Paris to be a prototype executed in the east which was later copied in Italy, perhaps shortly before or during the Social War (91-88 BC) when Marius was appointed a general, though he must have resigned due to health reasons. Provenance of some of those gems (especially glass ones) confirms that they were made in Italy. The highly convex obverse form of some sards bearing the type of portrait in question also suggests their production in central Italy.741 Some scholars suggest that the portrait type in question could be more widely used.742 For one of the brown glass intaglios from Berlin collection classified to the group by Vollenweider bears a head of a man wearing petazos which would suggest his connection with Mercury.743 Such a connection in case of Marius is not known in literature, coinage or any branch of art and craftsmanship. For this reason, it is problematic to regard all the gems collected above as presenting the likeness of Marius. Some might be private portraits, perhaps of his followers aspiring to imitate their patron. Be that as it may, a trace of Marius personal branding seems to be reflected in glyptics whether on his own or his followers’ initiative is hard to tell. Finally, in Würzburg, there is a glass paste made after an ancient intaglio presenting head of a Roman that has been identified with Gaius Marius since the 18th century onwards (cat. no. 7.40, fig. 127). The paste was copied and as Zwierlein-Diehl rightly says, the inscriptions accompanying two examples (a copy is in Bonn) in the form ‘VII’ or ‘VII C’ have been added in the first half of the 18th century to confirm identification with Marius.744 It is difficult to ascertain whether the original gem was intended to show Marius himself or not. The comparative glyptic and numismatic material suggests a portrait of a Roman from the 1st half of the 1st century BC.745 No Hellenistic treats are observed in case of this portrait and fully verist manner is observed suggesting the gem to be a Roman product. Perhaps, a plausible explanation is that the original gem testified to the reception of Marius portrait in the later (second half of the 1st century BC) gem engraving. It could be an effect of unidentified politician’s aspirations to recall him as his ancestor or example that he followed. 744 Zwierlein-Diehl 1986, no. 536. Another reproduction of exactly the same gem is in Museo Archeologico in Verona, see: Facchini 2012, no. 34. 745 See related gems showing portrait of Marius above, although, Zwierlein-Diehl notes some resemblance of the person depicted here to the heads of Cicero, see: Zwierlein-Diehl 1986, no. 536 (analogies). Regarding coins, see, for example: RRC, no. 455/1a (denarius of C. Antius Restio, 47 BC). 746 Related to these matters are the following issues: RRC, nos. 326/1-2 (denarii and quinarii of C. Fundanius, 101 BC), 332/1a-c (quinarii of T. Cloulius, 98 BC) and 333 (quinarius of C. Egnatuleius, 97 BC). Summing up, there is some evidence to claim that Gaius Marius had his portrait cut upon his personal seal, most likely while in the east. There is also a group of interesting gems exhibiting some similarities to his own portrait, however, certain identification is difficult to be made due to some sort of schematisation of Roman Republican glyptic art at that phase of development as far as portraits are concerned. It is likely that some sort of personal branding or manifestation of loyalty by Marius’ followers was performed through gems, but this claim is based on relatively weak foundations. Finally, there are some signs of later reception of Marius’ likeness in glyptics which proves his simulative position in the Roman politics even decades after his death. 7.2.3. Commemoration Marius like Sulla tended to make references to his military successes using coinage.746 He did so mainly by the images where he is a chariot driver with his eight-years-old son riding one of the horses or Victory crowning a trophy under which kneels a barbarian captive, or Victory inscribing a shield next to a trophy. In both last cases, an important detail is carnyx as a symbol of defeated Celts. According to my research, none of these scenes is repeated on engraved gems. The motif of Victory inscribing a shield or crowning a trophy is of course a popular one in glyptics, but it does not exist with carnyx making an explicit reference to defeated Celts and thus, victories of Marius. Regarding barbarian captives (mostly Celts indeed), they are present on intaglios in the late 2nd and early 1st century BC indeed but it is hard to say if they refer exclusively to Marius’ military accomplishments as well (cf. chapter 6.3.4). Popularity of such gems may be due to the overall positive climate and reaction of people after vanishing the peril coming with the barbarian Celto-Germanic tribes in 101 BC. Like another category of intaglios presenting fights between the Romans and barbarians, also these could be produced as commemoration of Sulla successes instead of Marius. Because no specific details occur on them and the representations differ to a considerable degree from that appearing on coins, it is unlikely to determine whether one should link them with one propagandist or another. The most plausible theory seems to be that gem engravers produced those gems to meet expectations of their customers. A soldier of Marius or that of Sulla equally wanted to boast about their involvement into the defeat of barbarians and ordered intaglios referring to this issue. On the other hand, a similar category of glyptic artefacts was produced under Julius Caesar domination and some examples can be convincingly related to him (cf. chapter 8.2.7). Perhaps then, some gems produced under Marius and Sulla indeed referred to them, but having no clear context, today one is unable to identify such objects. 7.2.4. Divine and mythological references In contrast to Sulla, who employed or referred to a number of deities and personifications (Venus, Apollo, Heracles, libertas and so on), Marius did not exhibit his connections with specific gods and goddesses to a considerable degree. One of the most plausible divine patron to him appears to be Heracles as a guarantee of military power, even though contrary to Sulla he did not engaged himself in his cult so much personally.747 Toso remarks on the possibility that dionysiac subjects on gems appearing in vast quantities since the early 1st century BC could be related to Gaius Marius and the Dionysus thiasos, often illustrated on gems, would have referred to Marius’ triumph over Jugurtha and Gallic tribes.748 However, I do not find any gems of this kind to include direct references to Marius. Also, because a broader context of Marius’ engagement into the veneration of Dionysus is unknown, it is difficult to point some groups of intaglios and cameos as illustrating this connection like it was in case of Sulla and engraver Protarchos (cf. chapter 7.1.2). For these reasons, I believe that it is rightly observed by other scholars that increasing popularity of dionysiac themes on Roman 747 Ritter 1995, p. 85. 748 Toso 2007, p. 204. gems is due to a better exposure of Roman Republican glyptics to the Hellenistic culture and art.749 749 Furtwängler 1900, vol. III, p. 280; Zazoff 1983, pp. 291-292; Plantzos 1999, pp. 86-87; Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 140. 750 Vollenweider 1979, no. 476. 751 RRC, no. 357/1a-b (denarii of C. Norbanus, 83 BC). 752 Gołyźniak 2017, no. 183. 753 Maaskant-Kleibrink 1978, p. 105; Henig, Scarisbrick and Whiting 1994, no. 151. 754 Vollenweider 1979, no. 478. 7.2.5. Political symbols Regarding combinations of symbols on gems in the early 1st century BC, it has been argued that some of them could be directly or indirectly related to Gaius Marius and his political career. For instance, Vollenweider suggested that the motif of a sparrow-like bird perching a pomegranate and ear of corn could refer to the invasion on Rome by Marius and Cinna in 87 BC and to subsequent supply of free grain from Sicily for which responsible was C. Norbanus Balbo (d. 82 BC), one of Marius’ close followers (cat. no. 41, fig. 128).750 The scholar bases her theory on a comparison to C. Norbanus Balbo’s coins presenting on the reverse side a combination of prow stem, fasces with axe, caduceus and corn ear.751 However, only one element – corn ear – appears on both, the gem and the coin, while the rest of the iconography differs. In fact, the sparrow-like bird frequently appears on the late 2nd-early 1st century Roman Republican gems in other configurations (with fruits, poppies, skyphos, club, wine-branch, plough and so on) and thus it is clear that the theme illustrates a general concept of prosperity and food rather than a concrete political act.752 Furthermore, some of the symbols accompanying the bird suggest evocation of such ideas as fertility and well-being. It has been rightly pointed out that the gems bearing such iconography belong to a specific stylistic class and they were produced in northern Italy (possibly Aquileia) rather than in a workshop controlled by a politician or on his commission.753 They were surely worn as amulets ensuring the issues stated above or expressed the wish for peace and prosperity to come after ceasing of the civil wars. If they had any political significance, this was more likely to be related to Sulla and his complex programme of restoration of the Roman Republic rather than to Marius. Another motif that Vollenweider links with Marius, and this time also with Social War (91-88 BC), is a combination of a rudder and dolphin (cat. nos. 7.42-43, fig. 129).754 However, as Maaskant-Kleibrink observes, the combination does not exist on Roman Republican coins minted during this conflict, but a set of a rudder and anchor appears on coins of L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi in 87 BC which may refer to the naval victory of Marius.755 The same opinion has been expressed by Guiraud in case of the two comparable gems found in France (cat. nos. 7.44-45).756 Nevertheless, it seems far more convincing to explain such an iconography as related to one’s wishes for good luck and divine blessing of both Fortuna (whose attribute was the rudder) and Neptune (whose messenger was the dolphin). Besides, dolphin is sometimes entwined on a trident and anchor and all these variations are much better explained as related to Neptune rather than specific political events.757 Configurations like the one evoked here are common in the Roman Republican glyptics either in gemstones and glass. They were probably massively produced by gem engravers and delivered to the market as popular amulets rather than on a specific occasion related to an important political event. 755 RRC, no. 340/6c; Maaskant-Kleibrink 1986, no. 4. 756 Guiraud 2008, nos. 1400-1401. 757 For other configurations and their possible meanings see: Gołyźniak 2007, nos. 218-219. Concerning other symbolic combinations, one does not find any reasonable similarities between the coinage in favour of Gaius Marius and engraved gems, therefore, it seems they were not purposed to transfer any political message. Overall, it can be said that there is much less evidence for propaganda on gems in case of Gaius Marius than Sulla because he was generally less interested in such practices than his opponent. In coinage as well as other branches of Roman art and craftsmanship one does not find so strong reflections of Marius’ political programme as it is in case of Sulla. The only one exception are portrait gems. There are relatively many portraits of Marius on gems in contrast to Sulla and their attribution is less problematic as well. Whether those were cut on the commission of Marius or his followers in order to manifest their loyalty and support is hard to say. 7.3. Lucius Licinius Lucullus Lucius Licinius Lucullus (118-56 BC) is probably the most intriguing Roman politician and general from the second line about whom there is relatively much information regarding his experiences with engraved gems. Starting from the famous story of the diplomatic gift he received from Ptolemy IX Soter, I would like to present here several gems that might be related to his political career and wandering across the east. All of these objects testify to an increasing application of glyptic art in the first century BC by the Romans, especially those who travelled to the east at various occasions, either military, political or diplomatic ones. 7.3.1. Diplomatic gift and collecting? It is due to Plutarch that we are told a story that Lucius Licinius Lucullus was offered a gold ring with emerald engraved with a portrait of king Ptolemy IX Soter during an audience at his court in 86 or 85 BC.758 This happened during the First Mithridatic War when Lucullus was sent by Sulla to collect a fleet that would have enabled to combat with Mithridates VI Eupator control of the sea lanes. In order to do so, Lucullus asked Roman allies for help, including Ptolemaic Egypt. After a turbulent journey, during which he was attacked and robbed by the pirates at the Egyptian seashore, Lucullus was audienced by Ptolemy IX Soter, the king of Egypt at his court. According to Plutarch, Roman general did not receive Egyptian help in terms of ships or any other kind of aid, but he was given a gold ring as a diplomatic gift. Firstly, he declined to accept it out of modesty, but Ptolemy showed him that the engraving on it was a likeness of himself, therefore, the Roman general accepted the gift not wishing to offend the king.759 As Plantzos observes, the passage offers invaluable information for our understanding of royal portraiture in glyptics. It was regarded as a great personal honour to be offered an intaglio with an image of a ruler. This privilege was reserved to the few and could not be simply rejected.760 Moreover, the ring Lucullus received was made of gold, a material normally not in use by piety Romans, so the story confirms words spoken by Pliny that only those who travelled to the east developed boldness to carry such rings.761 So the ring itself was exceptional and so was the gem set in it – an emerald possibly imported from Sri Lanka island like other rare and particularly beautiful gemstones (aquamarines or sapphires), since these kinds of gemstones became more accessible after Alexander the Great’s conquests.762 Actually, one should consider if the gem made of emerald was a sort of imitatio Alexandri practiced by Ptolemy IX Soter as his great predecessor had had his portrait also cut upon such a stone by Pyrgoteles, which is another example of using gems for propaganda purposes.763 Lucullus’ experience with engraved gems and rings could possibly end up with a great admiration towards this branch of art. It is supposed that he possessed a collection (dactyliotheca) of gems which would have been formed while in the east like in case of Scaurus and then transferred to Rome since he was 758 Plutarch, Lucullus, 3.1. Plantzos (1999, p. 111) and (Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 108) suggest the king to be Ptolemy IX Soter II, but Lapatin 2015, p. 110 claims it was Ptolemy XI, but this can be author’s typo since that king ruled briefly in 80 BC? 759 Plutarch, Lucullus, 3.1. 760 Plantzos 1999, p. 111. 761 Pliny, NH, XXXIII.11-12; Isager 1998, p. 60. 762 Zwirlein-Diehl 2007, p. 309. However, emerald specifically could be mined after 31 BC in the Egypt’s Eastern Desert, see: Thoresen 2017, pp. 175 and 183. Perhaps that source was already known at the time of Ptolemy IX Soter so it is not known if the emerald with his portrait would have come from Egypt instead of being imported? 763 Plutarch, Alex. 4.1; Pliny, NH, XXXVII.4. renowned for his luxurious lifestyle.764 However, analysing Plutarch’s text about him thoroughly, it is evident that Lucullus brought to Rome a number of booty and spolia of wars, displayed during his triumph in 63 BC, decorated with inlaid gemstones rather than engraved ones.765 764 Plutarch, Lucullus, 40; Vollenweider 1966, p. 17. 765 Plutarch, Lucullus, 7, 34, 37 and 40. 766 Furtwängler 1896, no. 6536 (= Furtwängler 1900, vol. I, pl. XLVII.38, vol. II, p. 227; AGDS II, no. 415; Vollenweider 1972-1974, pl. 71.5 and 7; Zazoff 1983, pl. 78.5). 767 Vollenweider 1972-1974, p. 91. 7.3.2. Personal branding and commemoration There is not much evidence for Lucullus to practice a deliberate propaganda actions aimed at influencing masses of people like it could be the case of Sulla and Marius in general, however, it seems probable that once gifted with a gold ring set with an emerald portrait gem, the Roman general became inspired and wished to have his own portrait cut upon a gem. Today, one is unable to identify Lucullus’ portrait on intaglios without controversies, however, in his monumental study of ancient engraved gems Furtwängler published a highly interesting (now lost) cornelian presenting head of a Roman surrounded with an inscription L and L on both sides of the head and a dolphin with olive branch in the mouth beneath (cat. no. 7.46, fig. 130). The stone was recognised as ancient first by Bernoulli and then by Furtwängler who also noticed that the dolphin with olive branch is a reference to Lucullus’ victory at Lemnos in 73 BC. Judging only by a photo, it is difficult to say more than Furtwängler, but the two L letters are located on both sides of the head like two P letters in case of a portrait gem from Berlin presenting Pompey the Great.766 They look genuine, not added in the post-classical era as it is often the case. There seems to be no better explanation for them as the reference to the name of the person depicted, which might be indeed Lucius Lucullus or Licinius Lucullus. The portrait itself is problematic because of lack of comparative material (Lucullus’ portrait does not exist in the coinage or sculpture, at least securely identified). The dolphin might keep in mouth a palm not olive branch, which is more suitable to present a naval victory. Those symbols appear to give the context for the portrait. The suggestion of Bernoulli as to portrait’s identification and the event the gem may commemorates agreed by Furtwängler is not impossible. Tried as it might, Vollenweider suggested some portrait gems to be recognised as presenting Lucullus likeness.767 However, these are far more unconvincing owing to the possibility that they might be just Roman private portraits that remain anonymous for us today, alas. Regarding commemoration of Lucullus’ military victories, a cornelian intaglio once in the Marlborough collection may refer to one.768 It shows a date palm at the centre with a shield leaning at its foot, a sword, greaves and palm branch on one side and a walking dog, helmet, spear and wreath on the other side. There is also an inscription that one reads as MENANDER above (cat. no. 7.47, fig. 131). The complex iconography suggests a military victory due to accumulation of military equipment as well as symbols such as palm branch and wreath which possibly stand here for the goddess Victory and her attributes. The date palm tree implies the event occurred in the east, while the dog might represent fidelity.769 Because of the inscription, King argued the gem to refer to an episode of the Second Mithridatic War when Lucullus and his soldiers defeated one of Mithradates’ generals Menander.770 His hypothesis is attractive, although more credible seems to regard the intaglio as a personal amulet belonging to a Roman soldier whose name was Menander or Meander.771 Accumulation of military equipment (a panoply) is a popular motif on gems used by Roman legionaries, however, the date palm and the dog are unusual elements and indeed suggest war occurring in the east. Whether the gem was issued to commemorate specifically the victory of Lucullus cannot be said with certainty but due to the dog, the gem could be used to manifest loyalty to Lucullus by one of his soldiers too. 768 Boardman et al. 2009, no. 431. 769 Gołyźniak 2017, no. 186. 770 Plutarch, Lucullus, 17.1; King 1861, p. 317. 771 It was a common practice to put intaglio’s owner name upon engraved gems. For a more detailed study of this problem, see: Aubry 2009 and 2016. 772 Vollenweider 1979, no. 457. 773 For a similar match and explanation of both in glyptics art., see: Gołyźniak 2017, no. 197. 7.3.3. Promotion of family and political symbols As far as Lucullus is concern, there seems to be at least some proof for promotion of his family members. In Geneva there is a greyish-white chalcedony intaglio engraved with a parrot standing on a poppy with a butterfly riding it (cat. no. 7.48, fig. 132). The gem is inscribed C•LUC which surely refers to intaglio’s name owner and may be deciphered as Gaius Lucilius or Lucullus.772 If the latter is the case, it will be tempting to interpret gem’s iconography as referring to Lucullus famous extravagant and luxurious lifestyle. Parrot was a symbol of luxury, wealth and exotic east, and it was a sacred bird of Bacchus, while the poppy was a common symbol of plenty and prosperity.773 These symbols match the mentioned Lucullus and his passion for comfortable life and extraordinary food. However, the butterfly is a crucial element here as it stands for brevity of life and soul (psyche).774 Therefore, the whole composition makes more sense as a personal amulet ensuring abundance, well-being and prosperous afterlife rather than a gem referring to Gaius Lucullus’s potential famous ancestor. 774 Compare: Gołyźniak 2017, nos. 181 and 274. The presented records extracted from ancient literary sources as well as the material itself provide only vague proofs for Lucullus using engraved gems for propaganda purposes. It is possible that he possessed a collection of engraved gems and had his portrait engraved upon his own as well as some other gems, but they are difficult to identify today due to the limited context. Regarding other potential propagandistic practices, as illustrated above by several examples, they are barely evidenced by glyptic material. The only one relatively strong point seems to be a portrait on a lost gem accompanied with symbols of naval victory that indeed may refer to Lucius Licinius Lucullus which propagandistic value was significant. 7.4. Other politicians In previous sub-chapters I have described potential range of propaganda practices reflected on engraved gems performed by some of the most important and influential Roman statesmen active in the late 2nd and early 1st century BC. I have also discussed some problematical issues as it is for example the case of the so-called combinations of political symbols. In the last part of this chapter I would like to focus on less known Roman politicians and inquire whether they used intaglios and cameos for political propaganda or not. Basically, the survey resulted only with portrait gems except for one predatory she-wolf motif possibly referring to the rebel Italians fighting Rome in the early 1st century BC. I do not find any significant piece commemorating important events or someone’s particular veneration towards a specific deity. This drives to a conclusion that in the early 1st century BC propaganda on gems was indeed limited to the few examples I have indicated above and identified mainly with the political leaders of the period. It seems that the rest only tried to imitate them one way or another. Naturally, the lack of proper context and scanty documentation found in literary sources affect the results but probably not to the considerable degree. Much better documentation of various applications of gems in political propaganda in the second half of the 1st century BC, especially in literary sources, is due to their increasing significance. Still, I believe it is necessary to comment on portrait gems that became very popular in the first third of the 1st century BC because one finds some indications that apart from being used as private seals, they could boost personal branding or even commemorate important moments of careers of their owners. 7.4.1. Personal branding - portraits In the late 2nd and early 1st century BC one observes a considerable increase in production of portrait gems presenting Romans. These are either objects clearly executed by Greek artists, who might have cut them in the eastern Roman provinces as well as in Italy and Rome to be more precise since they had been gradually migrating there, as well as local Italo-Roman products created by local engravers. However, the first dominate which means that possessing an intaglio with one’s own portrait was also concerned with the artist himself who cut the piece. In other words, if the seal was created by a distinguished artist in a good style and high level of workmanship, it added splendour to gem’s owner. This raised authority and should be regarded as a propagandistic practice. As Vollenweider observed, in the course of time Roman portrait gems became more and more individualised.775 Perhaps this is the reason why there is so few inscriptions accompanying them since for their recipients and people surrounding them it was clear that the seal presents a specific person. The quality of the portrait gem mattered for sure, but it is noteworthy that apart from the groups I associate with Sulla or Marius, in the turn of the 2nd and 1st century BC or even earlier with Scipio (cf. chapter 6.2.1), there is no evidence for existence of larger concentrations of gems presenting the same or at least more or less the same identifiable individuals. In conclusion, even if gems with personalised and individualised portraits were important to create a positive image and raise authority of a propagandist among people, they were not, at that time, primarily used for personal branding or any other kind of self-promotion targeted to influence a larger audience. These gems should not be considered useless from the propaganda point of view and as it has been shown, even ostentatious parading with a gold ring during the triumph by Gaius Marius met audience’s reaction. Here, I would like to briefly comment on some portrait gems and explain their potential propagandistic value, but I do not aim to discuss all the portrait gems produced in the turn of the 2nd and 1st century BC. This work has been done by Vollenweider 40 years ago and even though new material constantly reappears from newly published private and public collections, on the whole, it does not distort or revolutionise the general picture outlined by the Swiss researcher. 775 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 73-93. I start my presentation with those portrait gems that exhibit a considerable Hellenistic influence. In some cases, they are even signed by Greek artists, but this practice seems less frequent than it was in the early and mid- 2nd century BC (cf. chapter 6.2.1). One of such examples is a garnet intaglio preserved in the Antikenmuseum Universität Leipzig. It presents a head of a young Roman to the left and is signed by a Greek artist named Skopas (ΣKOΠΛΣ) (cat. no. 7.49, fig. 133). The gem has been much discussed;776 the face elements of the portrayed person are delicately engraved with a considerable amount of individualisation, though, Hellenistic influence is reflected by wide open eye, slightly open mouth, attention to details such as the eyebrow and delicate treatment of cheekbones. Proportions of the head as well as rendering of the haircut are impressive. Overall, this is an extremely well-accomplished study of someone’s physical appearance testifying significant skilfulness of the engraver otherwise unknown. In my opinion, he must have worked somewhere in the east which is suggested by the signature, type of the stone used, its form as well as the style. The piece is dated to the mid- 1st century BC by Vollenweider,777 however, I think Plantzos and Lang are far righter to place it in the early 1st century BC.778 The gem proves continuation of the already described trend that began in the 2nd century BC when the Romans travelling to the east started to commission portrait gems by Greek engravers. The person depicted on the Leipzig intaglio remains unidentified. Nevertheless, it is clear he must have been an important statesman, politician, general or province’s administrator who was proud to have his own portrait engraved upon his ring. Moreover, signing of the gem was mutually beneficial for him as well as for the artist Skopas since the latter surely prided to be under patronage of a prominent Roman.779 776 Furtwängler 1900, vol. I, pl. XXXIII.8, vol. II, p. 161; Vollenweider 1966, pl. 15.1 and 3; Richter 1968, no. 676; Vollenweider 1972-1974, pl. 59.4; Zazoff 1983, pl. 79.9; Plantzos 1999, no. 618; Lang and Cain (eds.) 2015, no. II.14. 777 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 87-89. 778 Plantzos 1999, pp. 93-94; Lang and Cain (eds.) 2015, no. II.14. 779 Lang and Cain (eds.) 2015, pp. 104-105. 780 Lang and Cain (eds.) 2015, no. II.13. Universität Leipzig’s collection of engraved gems includes one more interesting portrait gem, this time, it is a cornelian engraved with a head of an elderly Roman to the right (cat. no. 7.50, fig. 134). His physiognomy was perfectly captured by the engraver who highlighted the mimic and other wrinkles, strongly bowed nose, tightly clasped mouth and double chin. This far reaching individualisation meets with overall good proportions of the head and minute rendering of the hair. Combined together, they create an image of a powerful maybe even brutal individual who must have been a prominent Roman.780 It is disputable if the piece was cut in the east or in Rome. As Lang observes, the head is very close to a black jasper intaglio in Boston (cf. chapter 6.2.1), which is correct, but I do not share his opinion that both gems depict the same man.781 As Beazley remarked, the superiority of the Boston intaglio is not due to the stronger personality of the man represented, but to a combination of varies realism in the treatment of substance with the strength and understanding which charge the form with compact and characteristic life.782 Apparently, the portrait gem in Leipzig exhibits more Roman treats and the verist is far reaching than in case of the Boston intaglio. This combined with more circular form of the intaglio and the type of stone used suggest that the piece was carved in Italy or even more precisely in Rome in the early 1st century BC possibly by Greek engravers migrating there from the east. A noteworthy fact is that an almost identical replica has been reproduced in a form of a glass paste in Würzburg.783 781 Lang and Cain (eds.) 2015, p. 104. 782 Boardman (ed.) 2002, no. 101. 783 Zwierlein-Diehl 1986, no. 525. Lang claims after a communication with Zwierlein-Diehl that the paste in Würzburg is not a copy of the intaglio in Leipzig (Lang and Cain (eds.) 2015, p. 137) which to our mind seems unlikely. 784 Boardman (ed.) 2002, no. 121. 785 Boardman (ed.) 2002, no. 118. Regarding Boston collection of engraved gems, it includes several intriguing intaglios that exhibit high respectability for glyptic art by prominent Romans, most likely still those travelling to the east. For instance, a black jasper intaglio once in the Morisson and Saulini collections, bears a portrait bust of a young, bearded Roman to the right. He wears a cloak or toga which is unusual for the early 1st century BC works, but truly interesting is the inscription appearing above his right shoulder: Π•ΠΛITINI•ΣEΠTIKΛI (P. Paetinius Septicianus) (cat. no. 7.51, fig. 135). Although there is a considerable debate between Furtwängler and Beazley on that inscription, ultimately one connects it with intaglio’s owner name who remains an anonymous figure.784 Whether the gem was carved in the east or Rome is uncertain, though, the fact that it was once a part of the Saulini collection suggests the latter possibility. This peculiar stone should be dated to the early 1st century BC and probably shows a prominent Roman politician (perhaps a senator?) who hired a Greek gem engraver in Rome to cut his portrait upon his personal seal. Another example of such a practice is a cornelian in Boston which similarly presents a Roman senator wearing a toga thrown over his right shoulder, but this time full in profile to the left (cat. no. 7.52, fig. 136).785 The gem is inscribed CNTS and although it is carelessly cut, it appears genuine. It is an abbreviation of the full name (tria nomina) of the person depicted who was the gem’s owner at the same time (possibly G(aius) N(---) T(---) S(-- -) or rather Gn(aeus) T(---) S(---)). Apart from these, in Boston there are: a sard presenting head of an elderly man said to have been found near Rome (cat. no. 7.53) and a brown chalcedony showing an aged Roman as well (cat. no. 7.54).786 In addition, a cornelian set in the early 1st century gold ring bearing a portrait of a middle-aged Roman, engraved in a similar manner to the gems from Boston, has been found in Pompeii (cat. no. 7.55, fig. 137).787 All these examples according to the provenance information reconstructed and judging by their style were most likely imported to Rome or central Italy in the early 1st century BC from the east or cut there by migrating Greek artists. 786 Boardman (ed.) 2002, nos. 119-120. 787 Pirzio Biroli Stefanelli 1992, no. 59. 788 Babelon 1899, nos. 153-154. 789 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pl. 34.1-2. 790 Weiβ 2007, no. 377. Further evidence for production of this kind of gems in Rome or its surroundings comes from the collection of engraved gems in Paris. There are three cornelians, once in the Pauvert de la Chapelle collection that are said to have been found in Rome. One of them presents a bust of a man to the right, the second another individual but this time a bearded one while the third bears head of a Roman to the left with inscription (FAL) bearing abbreviation of his or gem’s possessor name (cat. nos. 7.56-58, fig. 138).788 Less Hellenistic on stylistic grounds is a portrait appearing on a lost gem once in the collection of Lucien Naville (cat. no. 7.59).789 These pieces evidence for increasing demand for this kind of gems among prominent Romans and it could not have been entirely supplied with portraits cut in gemstones. For this reason, cheaper and less beautiful objects started to have been made for those less wealthy and significant customers. At the other extreme, there is a production of portrait gems by local Roman and Italic gem engravers. Although they must have been under a strong Hellenistic influence, their works present a completely different attitude towards physiognomy, styles and so forth, and sometimes there was more than just a portrait the commissioner requested from them. A good example of that is a cornelian intaglio in Berlin presenting a bust of a young, bearded man crowned by Victory with a laurel wreath and inscription referring to his name: LCORNELIUSLF, which should be read as L(ucius) Cornelius L(ucii) f(ilius) (cat. no. 7.60, fig. 139). As Weiß observes, the portrait itself, according to the stylistic and iconographical features, should be dated to the late 2nd or early 1st century BC.790 The gem is exceptional not only due to its iconography suggesting a reward after obtaining an important office or commemorating a military victory since Victory carries a laurel wreath behind the man like it was done during the triumphal processions, but also to the inscription suggesting that the object may present Lucius Cornelius Scipio Asiaticus IV (consul in 83 BC). He belonged to the party of Gaius Marius in Sulla’s first civil war and Sulla’s second civil war. In 83 BC he was appointed consul with Gaius Norbanus (d. 82 BC). When Sulla returned to Italy from the east in 83 BC, the troops of Scipio deserted their general. Although Sulla at first spared him, he was included in the proscription list in the following year 82 BC. Subsequently, he fled to Massalia where he spent rest of his life. It is not known for sure if Scipio’s father was named Lucius, but it seems likely since he named his son Lucius, perhaps in commemoration of his own father? Therefore, it cannot be excluded that this intaglio served as an object commemorating Lucius Cornelius Scipio Asiaticus IV’s consulate in 83 BC, especially if one compares the piece to the cornelian from Munich possibly featuring portraits of Sulla and Q. Pompeius Rufus crowned by two Victories (cf. chapter 7.1.4). The scene is very similar and even though the gem does not have any more parallels, it seems to have some propagandistic value. In turn of the 2nd and 1st century BC one observes that putting inscriptions indicating the name of the person depicted on portrait gems becomes common. The most frequent are abbreviations of the tria nomina like on a lost cornelian published by Furtwängler, where a bearded head of a Roman appear together with the letters L•S•C (cat. no. 7.61). Another piece, also published by the German scholar, is preserved in St. Petersburg and bears a portrait of a Roman and letters HA indicating initial of his name (cat. no. 7.62). Further examples have been collected by Vollenweider in her monumental study of Roman portrait gems, for instance, a dark green jasper intaglio presenting a head of a middle-aged Roman to the right with the letters PLA engraved behind the head and C under his chin (cat. no. 7.63, fig. 140). That gem is somehow close to the intaglios from Boston (see above), however, the man presented here has much less powerful face expression; in fact, the engraver focused mainly on the study of his physiognomy marking numerous wrinkles like in case of the intaglio from Leipzig (cf. above) and thus, the piece is more Roman in character of engraving. This is confirmed by gem’s provenance which is Aquileia glyptic centre. Overall, it seems reasonable to suggest that portrait gems belonging to less known Roman politicians were inscribed so that they should not have been confused with anyone else. One does not observe the same phenomenon in case of the Hellenistic gems with Roman portraits described above since they are supposed to present well-known figures of the Roman political scene. The case of the gem from Aquileia proves that possibly more and more portrait gems were produced on the local market in Italy (cat. nos. 7.64-67). One cannot study Roman portrait gems without paying attention to the contemporary coinage. Sometimes similarities of the people presented on intaglios are striking to those portrayed on coins. A good example of that is a cornelian in private collection presenting head of a Roman to the left. He is distinguished by hollow cheeks, prominent, bowed nose, small clasped lips and hair rendered as numerous short strokes (cat. no. 7.68, fig. 141). An identical portrait appears on a denarius struck by C. Numonius Vaala in 41 BC and he is identified as moneyer’s ancestor who presumably achieved curule office (fig. 142).791 Nevertheless, his full identity is unattested, but actually, the portrait from the gem proves helpful to determine that he should have lived in the early 1st century BC since the gem is dated to that period on the stylistic grounds. Another example is an onyx intaglio housed in Musei Capitolini in Rome portraying an elderly Roman to the left (cat. no. 7.69, fig. 143). His face is strongly wrinkled, his Adam’s apple is well carved, his nose bowed and prominent, his eye big and the lips tightly clasped. One finds the same features on coins minted by C. Coelus Caldus (questor in 50 BC) in 51 BC (fig. 144).792 They show head of his father Gaius Coelius Caldus who was appointed consul in 94 BC alongside to Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus. In this case the gem and coins match quite well. If the person depicted on the intaglio is indeed Gaius Coelius Caldus, it would be clear that portrait gems were commissioned only by important politicians and statemen to popularise their image. Ordinary citizen would not have afforded such a piece of extravagant jewellery as a ring with a personalised engraved gem. 791 RRC, no. 514/2. 792 RRC, nos. 437/1a-4b. Among early 1st century Roman portrait gems there are some exceptional objects involving unusual attributes or specific capture suggesting self-presentation combined with promotion of specific offices and skills that would have been appreciated within the Roman society. For instance, there is a nicolo gem in a private collection presenting a middle-aged Roman wearing toga and there is a corn ear behind his head (cat. no. 7.70, fig. 145). This unusual attribute combined with the garment suggest that the person depicted, although his personality remains a mystery, was responsible for supply of free grain to Rome. This activity must have gain him much popularity, therefore, he decided to remark that upon his personal seal. The intaglio proves that portrait gems sometimes were used not only for sealing, but also for auto-presentation. Even though issued as single objects, their propagandistic value must have been considerable and influence the people from the propagandist’s inner circle and beyond. Military distinctions are also marked on portrait gems like, for example, on two glass intaglios in Berlin which present heads of the Romans to the right with two spears behind them cat. nos. 7.71-72, fig. 146). Interesting are gems presenting laureate busts of the Romans to the front that date to the second half of the 2nd and early 1st century BC (cat. no. 7.73, fig. 147 and cf. chapter 6.3.2 above). According to Vollenweider, they present Roman imperators and should be related to the period of civil wars of the late 2nd and early 1st century BC.793 The subject is repeated on a several intaglios in Munich both to the front and in profile (cat. nos. 7.74-77, fig. 148).794 Nothing certain can be established regarding identity of those portrayed man. The objects from Munich comes from the Paul Arndt collection which may suggest they were made in Rome or central Italy. This conforms with the style and forms of those gems. I share Vollenweider’s opinion that they present important Roman individuals, perhaps they are triumphators immortalised this way on the occasion of their triumphs awarded after significant military successes? This would make sense because only them could use laurel wreath as an attribute of personal victory, though not by carrying it directly on the head, but by someone standing behind them in the triumphal car. A similar situation occurs on the cornelian in Berlin evoked here a bit earlier, where Victory carries the wreath behind the man (see above). 793 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 40-41. 794 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pl. 35.6. Vollenweider includes to this group also a praser in London (pl. 35.4-5), however, I believe this gem to be a product of the so-called lapis-lazuli workshop operating in Milan in the late 16th and early 17th century, see: Tassinari 2010. Noteworthy is continuation of the trend of putting upon a gem a unified type of portrait that started already in the late 2nd century BC (cf. chapter 6.3.2). In the early 1st century BC both male old heads as well as the young ones were cut, sometimes bearded (cat. nos. 7.78-89, figs. 149-150). Some of them are inscribed which suggests that they were used by regular politicians that had to distinguish their seals by adding inscription abbreviating their name (cat. no. 7.88). They usually refer to tria nomina. This fact confirms that gems of this kind were produced on special, private commissions, not as mass production of the gem engravers, though, some still in large workshops like the one in Aquileia (cat. no. 7.78). The uniformity of their stylistic features is due to the current trends in the local glyptic portraiture. Provenance of many of these pieces suggests that they were cut in Rome and central or northern Italy, not beyond. Their propagandistic value was not as high as those Hellenistic gems presenting Roman portraits, but still, they must have been regarded as valuable objects within the Roman middle class. Only few could afford them which means that apart from practical usage, they were employed for self-promotion and confirmed high social status. Finally, I shall touch a controversial issue of female portrait gems presenting Roman matrons and ladies that date to the early 1st century BC. Vollenweider was of the opinion that increasingly influential Roman matrons that in the course of the 1st century BC became seriously engaged into the politics wished to manifest their importance, for example by carrying rings on their fingers with gems presenting their own likenesses.795 This view, is an attractive one but one should carefully examine if that trend started already in the early 1st century BC as the Swiss scholar suggested, or it is a later phenomenon. Moreover, one should consider that female portraits on Roman Republican gems may have appeared more due to their decorative function rather than political purposes. As an early 1st century BC example of the practice analysed here, Vollenweider took an amethyst once in the Ionides collection. It presents a veiled bust of a middle-aged lady to the right (cat. no. 7.90, fig. 151). She proposed to regard the lady as a vestal virgin who could be a representative of one of the most important Roman gentes like Mucia, Iulia, Atia or Pompeia.796 However, it was already Furtwängler who considered this peculiar piece as a Hellenistic intaglio, even identified the portrait with the Greek queen of Egypt, Arsinoe II.797 Boardman partially shares the opinion of the German scholar, but he thinks the intaglio presents an Alexandrian Greek lady of the Ptolemaic court.798 Indeed, the style, the iconography which at that time suggest linking veiled portraits with Ptolemaic dynasty,799 as well as the treatment of face features and hair suggest in my opinion the gem to be a Hellenistic product. Another case is a circular garnet intaglio in London that indeed presents a Roman lady in profile to the left (cat. no. 7.91, fig. 152).800 Both, Walters and Vollenweider are right in their judgments of the gem. The coiffure is distinctively Roman which enables to identify the presented person as a Roman lady, but the style of cutting, the material used as well as overall quality of the workmanship invested in creation of this piece is wholly Hellenistic and was engraved in the east. Most likely, one deals here with a special gift that has been given from a loving man to his spouse. He could be a Roman diplomat, ambassador, general or administrator pf one of the eastern provinces. Either the first as well as the second gem evoked here do not confirm thesis put forward by Vollenweider of deliberate use of engraved gems for propaganda 795 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 223-228. 796 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 223-224. 797 Furtwängler 1900, vol. I, pl. XXXI.22, vol. II, p. 154. 798 Boardman 1968, no. 17, p. 21. 799 Fulińska 2017, 168-169. 800 Walters 1926, no. 1193; Vollenweider 1972-1974, pl. 162.3-4. purposes in the early 1st century BC among women. This phenomenon was probably practiced only later from the ca. mid- 1st century BC onwards. 7.4.2. Family symbols and references to familial stories on gems In the early 1st century BC promotion of family members or oneself through orgio greatly intensifies in Roman Republican coinage. There is much evidence to claim the same phenomenon occurred in glyptics as one identifies many more examples of subjects suitable to the role of the family emblems on gems than in the 2nd century BC (cf. chapter 6.3.1). Moreover, there seem to be close interconnections between coins and gems regarding such promotion which suggests use of both those propaganda channels at the same time maybe even by the same people. Nevertheless, sometimes scholars label representations as related to the specific Roman gens erroneously and too boldly and those instances are discussed below as well. The first motif to be analysed here is a fly appearing on several gems dated to the Roman Republican period (cat. nos. 7.92-94). The insect might refer to the cognomen Musca used by several members of the Sempronia family starting from the 2nd century BC and thus, might be a family symbol testifying allegiance to this branch of the gens as well as to the Terentia family.801 On some examples the fly is accompanied with abbreviated name of gem’s owner like on the specimen from the British Museum, where DIOD is inscribed, possibly to indicate the name of Diodotus or Diodorus (cat. no. 7.93, fig. 153). However, fly was associated with a nickname arising from someone’s height or perhaps his persistence too. In the latter case, it should be regarded as a reference to gem owner’s virtus and hence it could technically account to propaganda activities but not as a family symbol.802 It was also commonly recognised as a symbol of poetry so that it could inform about one’s occupation.803 Furthermore, the fly is often depicted on intaglios as combined with a bearded head, crescent or scorpion – the so-called Panorpa.804 All of them suggest that the motif had astrological-chthonic meaning too. 801 Campagnolo and Fallani 2018, no. IV.6, p. 76. Similar examples could be here multiplied. For instance, a crawfish (in Latin locusta) was a popular cognomen of the members of gens Licinia (Campagnolo and Fallani 2018, no. III.2, p. 50). Another example is gecko/lizard that might stand for the cognomen Stellio (Campagnolo and Fallani 2018, no. VII.1, p. 98). Should they be automatically recognised on coins and gems as kinds of personal signatures and family emblems? There are many other more plausible explanations to the use of such symbolism, therefore, in this dissertation, I limited myself to several most significant examples to inform about the phenomenon and show various ways of its interpretation. 802 Gallottini 2012, no. 257; Campagnolo and Fallani 2018, no. IV.1, p. 58. 803 Campagnolo and Fallani 2018, no. IV.1, p. 58. 804 Walters 1926, nos. 2563-2567. Another similar case is ant. This insect is extremely common on intaglios especially in the Roman Imperial period, but not so much in the 1st century BC or earlier (cat. nos. 7.95-96, fig. 154). Boardman and Vollenweider notice that ant in a political sense appears on quinarii of M. Porcius Cato struck in 89 BC and one wonders if it could be regarded as his family symbol.805 It does not seem to be the case since the symbol indeed is present on those coins but only as one of the many control marks (among which is also the fly).806 In fact, ant was a popular symbol of diligence and plenty often accompanying Rhea Silvia and Ceres (cf. chapter 10.7).807 For this reason, it is difficult to say if ant on gems should be considered as related to any Roman gens, however, it definitely could be used for auto-presentation to reflect a positive virtus of gem’s sitter. 805 Boardman and Vollenweider 1978, no. 339. 806 BMC Roman Republic II, p. 305, no. 677; RRC, no. 343/2a-b (quinarii of M. Porcius Cato, 89 BC). 807 Alföldi 1950; Gołyźniak 2017, no. 573; Campagnolo and Fallani 2018, no. IV.4, pp. 66-70. 808 RRC, no. 437/2b-3b. 809 RRC, nos. 385/1-2. 810 On the meaning of sow in Roman glyptics, see: Gołyźniak 2017, no. 198 but see also Wiesman 1974, p. 153 who proves the design to resemble the sow of Lavinium, which may imply a claimed descent from Troy and the Alban kings. Regarding significance of the boar on gems, see: Gołyźniak 2017, nos. 178 and 548; Campagnolo and Fallani 2018, no. IX.11.ii, pp. 238-243. 811 Berges 2002, no. 105. Many more animals serve on Roman Republican coins as symbols related to familial histories and one of the most significant was a boar. According to numismatic sources, it was a symbol related to two Roman gentes – Caelia and Volteia. On the denarii minted by C. Coelius Caldus in 51 BC the image of C. Coelius Caldus consul of 94 BC and moneyer’s father is accompanied with a boar standard commemorating his victory over Gauls.808 On the denarius struck by M. Volteius M. filius in 78 BC head of Heracles wearing lion skin appears on the obverse side and Erymanthian boar on the reverse one (fig. 155).809 This combination remains unclear in reference to the family history since the moneyer is otherwise unknown. However, a plausible explanation would be that Heracles was regarded a legendary ancestor of the family Volteia at some point. The boar as a single subject on gems does not appear frequently in contrast to the sow and it might refer to hunting, force, good luck concept or one of Heracles’ labours.810 Nevertheless, it might be that glyptics delivers proof for one more family to use boar (perhaps the Erymanthian one) as a family emblem because on a cornelian intaglio in Philadelphia the boar is presented together with inscription CΛSI which possibly refers to gens Cassia (cat. no. 7.97, fig. 156).811 It is not known if the members of that family used to take Heracles as their legendary ancestor but in the absence of science, this cannot be entirely excluded. Regarding gens Volteia and the mentioned coin, a sard gem in Berlin features exactly the same boar design and inscription that is largely illegible but as far as it can be ascertained, it does not point to Volteia family (cat. no. 7.98, fig. 157). Another intaglio in Berlin also bears a boar and inscription that does not refer to a member of Volteia family (cat. no. 7.99). Concerning other animals suitable to be family symbols, elephant or just its head is often associated with gens Caecilia Metelia according to the numismatic evidence.812 On the coins of L. Caecilius Metellus, consul of 117 or another consul with the same name active in 119 BC, head of elephant refers to the victory of L. Caecilius Metellus, consul of 251 BC, over Hasdrubal at Panormus in 250 BC and capture of his elephants.813 The denarius struck by Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius in 81 BC bears an elephant walking to the left on the reverse side which presence is explained in the same way as on the previous coin (fig. 158).814 It is assumed that in both instances the moneyers transferred authority of their famous ancestor onto themselves by making a reference to his accomplishment through the image of an elephant. Regarding elephant’s appearance on gems, it occurs on intaglios rather rarely and the preserved examples from various collections do not deliver any direct proofs to claim they were used as family seals or tokens confirming one’s allegiance to Caecilia Metelia family except one glass gem from Berlin that mirrors them animal from the coin of Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius (cat. nos. 7.100-109, fig. 159). This case is an interesting one because it should be concluded that generally, elephant appearing on gems is related to Bacchus because some gems present head of elephant raising a palm branch or thyrsus in the trunk which refers to god’s Indian triumph (cat. nos. 7.107 and 116, fig. 160). Only single items should be speculated as serving as family seals of gens Caecilia Metelia, like the mentioned glass intaglio from Berlin (cat. no. 109, fig. 159).815 812 Evans 1992, pp. 67-68; Campagnolo and Fallani 2018, no. IX.5.i, p. 194. 813 RRC nos. 262/1-5 (coins of L. Caecilius Metellus, 128 BC). 814 RRC no. 374/1. 815 For a detailed discussion, see: Gołyźniak 2017, no. 189. 816 Gołyźniak 2017, no. 202. 817 Mattingly 1926, p. 239; RRC, nos. 341/1-3. Another motif frequently pointed as a family emblem on engraved gems is Pegasus linked with gens Titus.816 Similarly to the case of triskeles, that association is based primarily on the fact that Pegasus appears on a specific denarii issue. For the moneyer Quintus Titius had Pegasus and Q. Titi stamped on the reverse of his coins in about 90 BC (fig. 161). He is otherwise unknown and apparently, there is no agreement among numismatists to the question why Q. Titius put Pegasus upon his coin.817 On some examples of this issue the male head from the obverse is identified with Mutinus Titinus, a phallic marriage deity in some respects equated with Priapus, and it is speculated if there is any allusion between deity’s name and that of Q. Titius.818 Other variants of that coin bear Victory and Liber-Bacchus images on the obverse side.819 The religious connotations appear particularly important for the moneyer, thus, perhaps the key to solve Pegasus problem on his coins is the fact that the creature springs up in the air which recalls its birth story that is in turn comparable to that of Athena/Minerva. Pegasus was born from the severed neck of the gorgon Medusa slain by Perseus, while Athena jumped out of Zeus’ head. It is noteworthy that on coins struck in 76 AD by Vespasian (69–79 AD, who belonged to the Titus family as well), trotting Pegasus appears too and the emperor willingly linked himself to Athena/Minerva.820 The emperor Domitian (81-96 AD), from the same line, also claimed the goddess to be his special protectress and he commissioned a temple to her in the Nerva Forum in Rome in the second half of the 1st century AD.821 Based on these facts, it seems that Pegasus indeed served as a family emblem to the members of gens Titus which might have pointed to their legendary ancestry or particular veneration of Athena/Minerva. Regarding glyptic art, Pegasus is already present in Etruscan glyptics,822 but it became widely popular only in the 1st century BC and later in the Roman Imperial period (cat. nos. 7.110-116). This popularity results from Pegasus connections with funerary themes as well as apotheosis.823 The inscriptions appearing on some gems with Pegasus device do not directly confirm the hypothesis of its use as a family emblem (cat. nos. 7.111-112). However, one peculiar intaglio is preserved in Berlin which one side bears Pegasus, whereas the other a male head (cat. no. 7.113, fig. 162). It illustrates the dependence between the owner and its emblem and perhaps proves that in some cases Pegasus indeed served as a family symbol. 818 Middleton 1998, no. 45. 819 For all three types, see: RRC, nos. 341/1-3 (denarii of Q. Titus, 90 BC). 820 RIC II, nos. 921–22 (denarii of Vespasian, 76 AD). This issue is well illustrated on a cameo in London where Athena/Minerva’s helmet is decorated with Pegasus, see: inv. no.: 1866,0504.119. 821 Noteworthy is also that one of the Republican denarii of Q. Titus (RRC, no. 341/1) was restored by emperor Trajan (98-117 AD), however, this action had no political but just economic motivations, therefore, it does not distort the reconstruction of Pegasus and gens Titus relationship presented here, see: Mattingly 1926 (especially p. 239); RIC II Trajan 776. 822 LIMC VII (1994), 218 s.v. Pegasos, no. 58 (C. Lochin). 823 LIMC VII (1994), 230 s. v. Pegasos (C. Lochin). Regarding funerary aspect of Pegasus, see, especially, an unpublished intaglio in Paris (inv. no.: Luynes.101) where Pegasus flies in the air with scorpion under its hooves and an inscription AE being most likely an abbreviation from Latin aeternitas. 824 RRC, nos. 399/1a-b. Lastly, the representation of a bust or head of Galene-Selene, which was widely popular on Hellenistic gems appears on denarii of Quintus Crepereius Rocus in 72 BC (fig. 163).824 Since that moment, the subject became popular on Roman Republican gems as the moneyer adapted it as his coin emblem. It is supposed that members of his family used it as a family symbol, however, numerous glass gems survived suggesting also different applications from the decorative to the commercial ones (cat. nos. 7.117-118, fig. 164; cf. also chapter 6.2.5 above).825 825 Furtwängler 1900, p. 342; Plantzos 1999, pp. 89-90; Henig 2007, p. 3; Yarrow 2018, pp. 48-49. 826 Wiesman 1974, p. 155; Evans 1992, p. 27; Smith 2006, p. 40. 827 RRC, no. 362/1. Noteworthy is that Ulysses on a prow exist on earlier coins produced by gens Mamilia too, see: RRC, nos. 149/1a-5a (dated 189-180 BC). 828 Henig 1994, p. 155; Campagnolo and Fallani 2018, no. IX.3.iii, p. 168. 829 RRC, nos. 140/1a-5b (bronze coins of L. Mamilius, 189-180 BC). 830 Furtwängler 1900, vol. III, p. 232; Henig 2007, p. 3; Toso 2007, p. 41. 831 Henig, Scarisbrick and Whiting 1994, no. 99. 832 Boardman and Vollenweider 1978, no. 381. 833 Toso 2007, p. 43. 834 Toynbee 1977, pp. 3-4; Yarrow 2015, pp. 342-343. 835 Vollenweider 1972-1974, p. 24; AGDS IV Hannover, no. 194. 836 RRC, no. 314/1a-d (denarii serrati of L. Aurelius Cotta, 105 BC). Much more complex is the case of Ulysses who is traditionally regarded as the legendary ancestor of gens Mamilia. The Mamilii traced their nomen and origin to the mythical Mamilia, the daughter of Telegonus, who was regarded as the legendary founder of Tusculum too.826 Because the motif of Ulysses welcomed by his dog Argos appears in the same configuration on gems as on coins, for instance those struck by C. Mamilius Limetanus in 82 BC (fig. 165),827 it is an ancient and popular view to suggest that the rings with gems bearing such a motif were used by the family members of gens Mamilia (cat. nos. 7.119-123, fig. 166).828 Indeed, they could put this image on gems as well as another one known from coins, that is Ulysses on a prow ship,829 in order to advertise their orgio.830 Such an explanation seems plausible, although, I did not find any gem with inscription referring to gens Mamilia. Moreover, Ulysses was popular already in Etruscan glyptics,831 and continued to be so in the Roman Republican one due to the fact that he was a founder of many cities in southern Italy.832 His image upon a ring was considered to guarantee secrecy which must have been the primary reason for using it as a seal.833 It is rightly observed first by Toynbee and later also by Yarrow that the die maker of the coin of C. Mamilius Limetanus minted in 82 BC drew inspiration for his coin-device from gems.834 Regarding bust of Ulysses, noteworthy is the opinion of Vollenweider about coins of L. Aurelius Cotta issued in 91 BC. The scholar interpreted the bust appearing on them as that of Ulysses and compared it with an intaglio from Hannover,835 proposing them to be linked and referring to the family advertisement during the Social War (91-88 BC). However, it has been established that the bust from coins belongs to Vulcan and they were minted in 105 BC, not during the Social War.836 The intaglio with bust of Ulysses from Hannover was presumably cut for the same reasons as the figural types of the hero discussed above. All in all, there is certainly some evidence for members of gens Mamilia to promote their ancestry on intaglios, but it should be kept in mind that Ulysses appearance on a gem does not automatically means family propaganda in action as other explanations are equally possible. The relatively numerous Roman Republican intaglios featuring Ulysses demonstrate that the iconography had a wide resonance as a marker of identity and should not be thought of as restricted to just a single gens or even just the hometown of that gens.837 837 Yarrow 2015, p. 343. 838 RRC, no. 363/1. 839 Yarrow 2018, p. 52. 840 Furtwängler 1896, no. 6963; Evans 192, p. 77. 841 Hölscher 1967, p. 137. 842 RRC, nos. 343/1a-2b (denarii and quinarii of M. Porius Cato struck in 89 BC). 843 Weiβ 2007, no. 42 Apparently, the representatives of gens Marcia could use one more emblem for their family advertisement. On the denarius struck in 82 BC L. Marcius Censorinus put an image of Marsyas walking left with his right arm raised and holding wine-skin over left shoulder, behind him there is a column with a statue of Victory atop (fig. 167). Crawford states that the figure of Marsyas is merely an allusion to moneyer’s nomen.838 The design is quite faithfully copied on a few gems. The only noticeable differences are Palladion instead of a Victory on the column or lack of the column (cat. nos. 124-125, fig. 168). As a result, one wonders if they were used by the members of gens Marcia as family seals.839 Indeed, it was considered an honour to belong to a well-respected family so use of a ring with such an emblem possibly raised authority and informed about belonging to the noble class of gem’s user. Nevertheless, as suggested by Furtwängler and confirmed by Evans, the image was borrowed to glyptics from the statue of Marsyas installed on the Forum Romanum.840 Perhaps then both gems and coins share the source of inspiration and the usage of the motif as a family emblem is uncertain. Apart from the figures described above there are some other motifs that could be used as family symbols on engraved gems. One of them is the so-called Victoria Virgo – enthroned Victory holding a patera and a palm branch in her hands, usually presented in profile. This image derives from the cult statue located in a shrine of the goddess founded by Cato Censorius in 193 BC on the Palatine Hill.841 Members of gens Porcia used to put this image on their coins,842 and it seems probable that they could use it for their personal seals as well (cat. no. 7.126, fig. 169).843 7.4.3. Political symbols Regarding subjects other than portraits and family symbols that possibly had some propaganda meaning on gems, the particularly interesting examples are the gems featuring single she-wolf (cat. nos. 7.127-130, figs. 170-171) which almost mirrors the one featured on denarii of P. Satrienus issued in 77 BC (fig. 172).844 She is believed to be a symbol of victory over the rebel Italians who likened Rome to a predatory wolf in the early 1st century BC.845 It is then argued whether intaglios with such an image were used by those rebels as a sort of black propaganda manifesting their disgrace for the sacred image of the she-wolf that nursed Romulus and Remus.846 844 RRC, nos. 388/1a-b. 845 Campagnolo and Fallani 2018, no. IX.3.v, p. 174. 846 At least this was the reason why the image appeared in the coinage, see: RRC, nos. 388/1a-b. 8. Civil War: Pompey the Great, Julius Caesar and contemporaries In the early 1st century BC engraved gems clearly became means of political propaganda. As evidenced above, there were many applications of intaglios and possibly some cameos in self- and family-promotion which makes gems’ propaganda value comparable to that of coins. In this chapter, I present further developments in use of engraved gems for self-advertisement and propaganda during the conflict between Pompey the Great and Julius Caesar. The research focuses mainly on those two political leaders, however, potential engagement of other politicians like Marcus Licinius Crassus or Cicero is not ignored as are next examples of auto-presentation and family propaganda practices applied by various, mostly unidentifiable Roman statemen, politicians, generals etc. The range of gems employed for such purposes clearly expands between ca. 70-44 BC, which is confirmed not only by archaeological, but also literary sources. Nevertheless, the climax was to come in the next Civil War when younger generation of Roman politicians realised that all branches of Roman art and craftsmanship, including glyptics, are suitable to be propaganda channels transmitting powerful messages influencing the people of Rome. 8.1. Pompey the Great According to Pliny, Pompey the Great was the first who introduced a general taste for pearls and precious stones to Rome just as the victories, gained by Lucius Cornelius Scipio Asiaticus (3rd century BC-183 BC) and Gnaeus Manlius Vulso (consul in 189 BC) had first turned the public attention to chased silver, Attalic tissues, and banqueting-couches decorated with bronze; and the conquests of Lucius Mummius (2nd century BC) had brought Corinthian bronzes and pictures into notice.847 He did so after defeating Mithradates VI Eupator in the east and his passion for carved gemstones and vessels was a pure imitation of the eastern, Hellenistic attitude towards this kind of artform. I have argued above that gems were increasingly popular over the second and early first century BC and used for personal branding, commemoration of special events and other propagandistic actions, among other factors, due to contact of Romans with Hellenistic culture in the east was one of the crucial factors for that. The figure of Pompey is indeed of key importance in both, gems’ production and their political use. In this chapter I present what kind of propaganda actions he performed through glyptic art. 847 Pliny, NH, XXXVII.6. 8.1.1. Triumph Much has already been said about Pompey’s triumph in 61 BC over Mithridates VI Eupator in which gems and muhrrine vessels played a significant role but let us evaluate all the information available and decide whether that ostentatious use of gemstones had any positive impact on the people it was addressed. According to Pliny and Appian, during his triumph, Pompey exhibited a variety of objects made of gemstones including a remarkable portrait of himself made of pearls and his chariot was decorated with gemstones too.848 It is not entirely clear what kinds of objects Pompey displayed since in chapter 5 of the XXXVII book of his Natural History Pliny mentions that Pompey took over the dactyliotheca once belonging to Mithridates VI Eupator and then installed it in the Temple Jupiter on the Capitoline Hill,849 while in chapter 7, a vast collection of murrhine vessels reaching the number of 2.000 objects is mentioned as a part of the triumphal procession.850 One supposes that both, the dactyliotheca and the murrhine cups were displayed alongside to other precious objects making his procession extraordinarily rich and appealing to ordinary people.851 This whole action had purely propagandistic motivations. Pompey wanted to present himself as the most powerful Roman and make his victories the most impressive ever seen in Rome, thus, the more treasuries taken from Mithridates he shown, the greater was his victory. For it was a popular practice among Roman triumphators to even exaggerate the greatness of their opponent to transfer their authority onto themselves. The success of Pompey’s propagandistic action was great. Everyone wanted to be like him which included imitation of his passion for engraved gems that became highly popular objects. On the one hand, this triggered a considerable production of glass gems and vessels, on the other hand, it was immensely beneficial for Pompey as propagandist who became extremely popular among the people.852 Although, there is no direct evidence for some gems to be distributed on Pompey’s command during his triumph among people,853 even their exhibition must have been highly affluential since Pliny recorded this event in his book as a milestone for massive production of engraved gems in Rome. Apparently, there were gems produced also to commemorate this specific event and a proof of that is a cornelian intaglio 848 Pliny, NH, XXXVII.5-7; Appian, Mithr, 12 and 17.117. 849 Pliny, NH, XXXVII.5. 850 Pliny, NH, XXXVII.7. 851 Vollenweider 1966, pp. 18 and 23; Plantzos 1999, p. 56; Toso 2007, p. 3; Lapatin 2015, p. 122. 852 Noteworthy is that Vollenweider claimed that portrait glass gems became highly popular since Pompey returned to Rome with Mithridates dactyliotheca (1955, p. 110), however, Kopij rightly questions that view pointing out that one cannot be sure if a considerable number of Pompey’s portrait gems was produced during his lifetime (2017, p. 257). I shall discuss this issue in one of the next sub-chapters below. 853 Such a possibility has been proposed by Vollenweider 1955, p. 103. See also: Kopij 2017, p. 255. housed in Paris. It was published just once by Chabouillet in 1858 (unillustrated) who recognised on it a triumphal athlete.854 However, a close examination of the piece reveals that it depicts a triumphal Roman general who rides a quadriga wearing full cuirass and holding a palm branch in his right hand, while rising a laurel wreath in the left one in the salutation gesture; before him is a horse rider trotting forward and carrying a trophy. In the upper part there is an inscription incised CN PM which should be probably read as Gnaeus Pompey Magnus (cat. no. 8.1, fig. 173). The inscription allows to identify this utterly extraordinary scene as an illustration of Pompey’s triumphal procession and the general himself. He is depicted here as saluting to the viewers and a trophy carried by his companion riding before him indicates his military victory over Mithridates. 854 Chabouillet 1858, no. 1870. 855 Isager 1998, pp. 212-229. 856 Pliny, NH, XXXVII.11. 857 Casagrade-Kim 2018, p. 103. It is noteworthy that Pliny criticised Pompey for his ostentatious parading with gems and vessels in 61 BC procession but in a typical hypocritical manner and from a perspective of a much later observer.855 Pompey was a cautious politician calculating all the profits and potential risks of specific actions and he would not have risked exhibiting gems if it had been harmful for his reputation. Officially, they were treated as usual spolia of war. Furthermore, after the triumph, Pompey installed his collection in the Temple of Jupiter on Capitoline Hill.856 Although this could have been a natural part of his triumph, because normally the booty were first displayed to the soldiers, prior to the celebrations, then to the people in Rome and finally to the gods, such an action must have had a powerful resonance since it was a great manifestation of Pompey’s pietas erga deos.857 For doing this Pompey renounced those spolia of war and offered them to the chief god of Roman pantheon. This was the next, purely directed move having a powerful and unparalleled impact on the society as a whole. The propagandist did not keep his treasures only for himself, but he made them public objects, at least in the eyes of ordinary people. He fulfilled his duty towards Rome and showed his pietas erga patriam that way too. Moreover, he appeared as a connector between the people and the gods. An offer made of such valuable objects was an important act for the good of everyone. Because of this Pompey probably gained even more support of common people than thanks to the exhibition of gems during his triumph alone. At the same time, he did not break any habit or behave inappropriately like Marius did when wore a gold ring during his triumph (cf. chapter 7.2.1 above). In conclusion, I believe that Pliny’s criticism is biased and use of Mithridates’ dactyliotheca by Pompey did him more good than harm. 8.1.2. Collecting Pompey the Great is regularly, somehow automatically, recognised as a collector of gems,858 but in fact, there is little evidence to consider him as one. As specified above, when he came back to Rome in 61 BC, he brought dactyliotheca of Mithridates VI Eupator and 2000 muhrrine vessels which also belonged to the last king of Pontus. Nevertheless, there is no information about Pompey forming his own collection of engraved gems or continuing expansion of the overtaken cabinet. He merely confiscated the already existing collection of Mithridates and used it, as it has demonstrated, for his propaganda during the triumph in the form of spolia of war. Moreover, he did not treat it as his personal war gain. In contrary, he shortly deposited the collections in the Temple Jupiter on the Capitoline Hill making them a public wealthy. Therefore, technically, Pompey was not a collector in a traditional sense like the Ptolemies, Mithridates, Marcus Aemilius Scaurus or Augustus and as he is often considered by scholars. Nevertheless, there is some evidence for him to hire gem engravers who cut intaglios and cameos for him (cf. chapter 8.1.3 below). Whether these were later distributed to his followers and family or kept for himself is hard to tell, but the last option cannot be entirely excluded. As I have specified earlier, collecting of gems could have risen social status and show that the collector is capable of purchasing the best pieces on the market which strengthened his authority as well. Therefore, the practice falls into propaganda. In case of Pompey there is a special treatment of Mithridates’ gem cabinet for sure. Essentially, it was handled as an object, a thing destined to raise his popularity and give him recognition among people. At the same time, perhaps Pompey kept some pieces from Mithridates’ collection for himself and commissioned next from the celebrated artists becoming a collector who imitated Hellenistic practices, but that remains disputable. 858 Furtwängler 1900, vol. III, p. 304; Vollenweider 1955, p. 100; Vollenweider 1966, p. 18; Boardman 1968, pp. 23 and 27; Zazoff 1983, p. 329; Maderna-Lauter 1988, p. 442; Ritter 1995, p. 101; Plantzos 1999, pp. 9, 56 and 105; Platt 2006, p. 238; Rush 2012, p. 31; Lapatin 2015, p. 117. 8.1.3. Gem engravers working for Pompey Generally speaking, ancient literary sources are not very supportive in a quest for linking gem engravers with specific historical figures. Despite some direct mentions in the Natural History by Pliny about Pyrgoteles working for Alexander the Great or Dioscurides for Augustus, there are not many records testifying to gem engravers employment by other political leaders.859 Nevertheless, analysis of iconography and other evidence results in some more or less likely attributions between artists and their patrons. I have already discussed first symptoms of Roman patronage over glyptic art and specific engravers evoking portrait studies signed by ancient masters cut in the 2nd and early 1st century BC (cf. chapters 6.2.1 and 7.4.1) as well as a plausible connection between Sulla and Protarchos (cf. chapter 7.1.2). Considering the fact that Pompey transferred to Rome Mithridates’ dactyliotheca and muhrrine vessels, one wonders if he could encourage some Greek artists skilled in carving gemstones to work for him in the east and later also in Italy?860 Such a view seems justified. 859 Pliny, NH, XXXVII.4. See also a commentary to this issue in: Plantzos 1999, pp. 9-11. 860 Vollenweider 1972-1974, p. 113. 861 For a thorough discussion including comparisons between gems and coins, see: Spier 1991. 862 Plantzos 1999, p. 88 (with full discussion on this matter and concepts of other scholars). 863 See a discussion on this issue in Plantzos 1999, pp. 88-89 and each artist evoked has been described in Vollenweider 1966, pp. 27-28. Regarding the work of Sosokles, it was recognised as a modern copy, see full discussion and literature on this subject in Plantzos 1999, p. 129. First, one should analyse who might have worked for Mithridates, since it seems most logical to think that the same artists or at least some of them sought a new employer after Mithridates’ defeat. A natural candidate seems Pompey. Following this logic, there is a popular view that a Greek gem engraver Apollophanes worked for Pompey the Great. He is an author of an intaglio presenting head of Medusa where one notices the same facial features of Mithridates VI Eupator himself as on his coins (cat. no. 8.2, fig. 174).861 It has been thought that Pompey commissioned this gem to present Mithridates as a Medusa monster after his victory over the king of Pontus, however, Plantzos recently pointed out that Medusa made a perfect sense as Mithridates’ emblem and therefore should not be regarded as his caricature.862 While indeed, Apollophanes’ masterpiece was most likely cut at the Pontic court and reflected Mithridates’ emblem, there is no point to think that the undeniable skills of Apollophanes or other engravers could be later used by Pompey when he defeated Mithridates for his own reasons. Certainly, the motif of Medusa’s head in profile has been adapted by gem engravers like Sosokles, Pamphilos and Diodotos who all worked in Rome in the second quarter of the 1st century BC and signed their cameos and intaglios (cat. nos. 8.3-10, figs. 175-177).863 It seems plausible to think that they copied Apollophanes’ original or another source, which was a common practice between engravers those days. One imagines that after 61 BC the symbol of Medusa’s head earlier associated with Mithridates in a positive way was now meant to reflect Mithridates as Medusa monster in a new Roman cultural circle. If that was indeed somehow related to Pompey, it would be an example of black propaganda aiming at destruction of authority of the opponent by comparing him to one of the most dangerous monsters ever existing in the Graeco-Roman mythology. At the same time, it would raise Pompey’s authority who chased away embodiment of a great peril for Roman domination in the Mediterranean basin. Actually, the phenomenon of Medusa’s head popularity in glyptics in Rome ca. 60 BC from our present perspective might seem misunderstood, however, it could simply work in a different way for the people living in Rome instead in Greece and Asia Minor. The Medusa’s head motif when transferred to another cultural circle could change its meaning for the new recipients. Yarrow reads the popularity of the motif in question on glass gems as an effect of Pompey’s triumph. According to her, Mithridates’ heads on glass gems are still produced at the time perhaps indeed for Pompey’s veterans who identified with that triumph as their own.864 I do not suggest that all the mentioned artists worked for Pompey since as stated above, his interest in engraved gems was rather perfunctory and one lacks definitive proofs. However, Pamphilos might have cut a beautiful amethyst presenting Achilles playing cithara for Pompey, who tended to compare himself to the hero as it will be explained in chapter 8.1.9 below. The two works of that artist complement each other in political terms suggesting their connection with Pompey. 864 Yarrow 2018, pp. 38-39. 865 Vollenweider 1966. 866 Spier 1991. 867 Vollenweider 1966, pp. 49-50. 868 It seems that Solon’s career fully flourished in later days, that is under Octavian/Augustus patronage, see: Plantzos 1999, pp. 96-97 and chapter 9.3.1.2 below. Regarding other artists, Vollenweider supposed that gem engraver Solon worked for Mithridates VI Eupator since he is another artist cutting Medusa’s head in profile and signing his work – the famous Strozzi Medusa (cat. no. 8.12, fig. 178).865 This was acceptable before Spier found out that it was most likely work of Apollophanes that inspired later gem engravers, including Solon himself, who cut Medusa’s head on intaglios and cameos.866 Vollenweider further argued that Solon worked for Mark Antony , but this statement is also problematical as will be proven later in this thesis (cf. chapter 9.3.2.2).867 Solon was certainly an outstanding engraver, possibly active somewhere within the late second and third quarter of the 1st century BC. It is noteworthy that his Strozzi Medusa was excavated in a vineyard at the Caelian Hill in Rome which does not prove but make it possible that he resided in Rome. Whether he worked for Pompey there cannot be said with certainty. Except for Medusa’s head none of his other signed works refers to Pompey’s personal propaganda, cult or seals.868 I should discuss here also an intriguing portrait presenting bust of a Roman wearing toga to the front cut upon a cornelian in a private collection (cat. no. 8.12, fig. 179). Vollenweider dated the piece ca. 60 BC and identified the person depicted with Pompey the Great. Moreover, she attributed the work to Aspasios who was a Greek gem engraver that possibly transferred his business to Rome after Pompey’s victory in the east. The gem is said to have been found in Djéreach (ancient Gerasa), near Damascus and would have certified Pompey’s popularity in the east.869 The identification of the person portrayed on a gem with Pompey seems plausible. One notices similar treatment of hair as it is in case of two heads attributed to the Roman statesman preserved in Venice and Paris, although, both sculptures have been preserved only as later (1st century AD) copies.870 As to Aspasios, his identity and style is very problematic since some scholars claim that there were two artists with the same name or they date his works to the 2nd century AD,871 but Zwierlein-Diehl convincingly argues that there was just one Aspasios engraver and he worked around 50-30 BC perhaps even a bit earlier. He might have been contemporary to Solon and like him, he is linked with Mark Antony and Juba I (cf. chapters 8.3.1 and 9.3.2.2).872 The cornelian in question is an extraordinary piece for sure since the size of the gem, capture of the portrait and its dressing (tunica and toga) suggest that. Actually, the last feature possibly originates from an old Roman tradition reaching 2nd century BC frontal portraits of senators presented that way on intaglios (cf. chapter 6.3.2). Moreover, this is a far individualised work, yet, some Hellenistic features in the style of engraving are observable. Therefore, it is tempting to claim that this gem indeed presents Pompey the Great and was executed for him while he was still in the east. It fits the general pattern of the Romans who commissioned their portraits on gems by Greek engravers as a sort of imitation of Hellenistic royal traditions. For Pompey, who tended to promote himself in the Hellenistic manner, for instance by comparison to Alexander the Great (cf. imitatio Alexandri – chapter 8.1.10 below) it would be natural to have his likeness cut upon a private gem. It remains disputable if Aspasios indeed executed the intaglio in question and served to Pompey since his style is closer to Augustan classicism. However, the same can be said about Solon because in both cases, their Hellenistic roots may reach late 60s BC when they were developing their own styles and one cannot say that they did not evolved over next decades down to 30s BC. 869 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 113-115. 870 Kopij 2017, pp. 230-231 (with further literature on sculptural portraits of Pompey on pp. 229-237). 871 For instance: Richter 1971, no. 493; Zazoff 1983, p. 323. 872 Zwierlein-Diehl 1986, no. 144, pp. 99-100. Finally, one should also consider the fact that Agathopus, an engraver traditionally linked with Sextus Pompey, for instance, by Vollenweider and Neverov,873 in fact possibly started his career in Rome under Pompey the Great.874 His case is particularly complex since his works, either signed and attributed, in my opinion should be dated ca. 60-30 BC on the stylistic grounds. Agathopus worked in exceptional and rare materials (aquamarine, emerald) and his portrait selection includes studies of the Romans typical for ca. 50 BC, while in 1966 Vollenweider, based on a tomb inscription in the Columbarium of Livia, pointed out that he should be linked with the imperial Julio-Claudian court and died prior to 42 AD.875 She was confused about Agathopus’ professional activity since a few years later, she linked him with Sextus Pompey (see discussion below). In fact, there is no definite proof that Agathopus known from the tomb inscription was indeed a gem engraver since the Latin word aurifex appearing on it means a ‘goldsmith.’876 Perhaps Agathopus – the gem engraver known from the survived intaglios, was one artist whereas Agathopus goldsmith buried in the Columbarium of Livia was another person. 873 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 152-153; Neverov 1976, no. 89. 874 On Agathopus and his career see also: Vollenweider 1966, pp. 77-79. 875 Vollenweider 1966, pp. 77-79. 876 For the inscription, see: Gori 1727, no. 116. Naturally, Vollenweider should be credited for noticing the closeness of the aurifex term with gem engraving since those two branches were certainly interconnected in antiquity (on this matter, see: Hansson 2005, p. 117), but this does not mean that both should be always automatically linked and regarded as one person of two professions. 877 Vollenweider 1972-1974, p. 152. 878 See a recent discussion on this particular head in: Trunk 2008, pp. 152-153. In St. Petersburg there is an amethyst intaglio depicting portrait of a Roman to the left attributed to Agathopus (cat. no. 8.13, fig. 180). Even though Vollenweider admitted that the portrait from the gem resembles the one of Pompey the Great on Sextus Pompey’s coins, ultimately, she as well as Neverov recognised the head as belonging to Sextus Pompey.877 However, a closer examination reveals that the facial features, especially the furrowed brow, forehead and nose line, deep mimic wrinkles as well as the arrangement of hair that are barely, but still slightly raised over the forehead resembling anastole are more typical for Pompey’s portraits. Of particular use is here one of the earliest sculptural portraits of Pompey – the so-called Venetian type – a marble head from the Museo Archeologico in Venice (fig. 181). It has been attributed to Pompey since the late 19th century and even recent, more critical evaluations still hold that identification.878 If one compares the marble head in the profile capture with the image from the gem in St. Petersburg, it is quite clear that they refer to the same person and are possibly contemporary. The sculpture is dated ca, 60-50 BC and I believe the same date applies to the work of Agathopus. His style is exceptional, evidently rooted in the Hellenistic east, yet, the barely visible anastole possibly indicates that the gem was cut already in Rome for it would not have risen controversies among the local viewers. This feature means a careful supervision of engraver’s work which is plausibly made by Pompey himself. Therefore, it is possible for Agathopus to work directly for Pompey and later he could continue his career in Rome carving gems for other Roman aristocrats or his son Sextus (cf. chapter 8.3.2). 8.1.4. Seals of Pompey Similarly to Sulla, Pompey also did not hesitate to employ his personal seals for propaganda purposes and like in case of the dictator, two seals are said to have been used by Pompey during his lifetime. The first one must have been created shortly after 61 BC when Pompey celebrated his third triumph, this time over Mithridates VI Eupator. According to Cassius Dio, Pompey’s ring featured three trophies, precisely in the type that Sulla used in case of his second signet ring.879 The same motif was put on coins struck by Faustulus Cornelius Sulla on his denarii in 56 BC and I have already argued that the image could apply to both, Sulla and Pompey (cf. chapter 7.1.1, fig. 101).880 The three trophies stood for victories accomplished on three different continents which was a success unique for Pompey because he was the first Roman to accomplish that after Romulus.881 It is possible that the gem was cut by one of the engravers that arrived at Rome with Pompey after his eastern campaigns. It is interesting to observe that apart from being a personal political message, the iconography of that ring alluded to Sulla, whose Pompey followed in the early stages of his political career. 879 Cassius Dio, 42.18.3. 880 RRC, no. 426/3 (denarius of Faustus Cornelius Sulla, 56 BC). 881 Kraft 1952-1953, pp. 34-35; Kopij 2017, pp. 94-95 and 260. 882 Plutarch, Pompey, 80.5. 883 Vollenweider 1955, pp. 99-100. As we are told by Plutarch, Pompey used another seal presenting a lion holding a sword in his paws.882 According to the writer, this ring was presented to Julius Caesar alongside to the head of Pompey when he came to Egypt, which stays in contrast to Cassius Dio’s record saying that the ring was engraved with three trophies (see above). This is probably due to a mistake of one of the authors, possibly Plutarch, who confused the two seals, as noticed by Vollenweider.883 Noteworthy is the fact that Caesar kept the seal so that it could not be used anymore, for instance by one of Pompey’s sons, which actually could happen owing to the fact that there is no information on Pompey’s seal to have been used by Sextus Pompey whatsoever in ancient literary sources or archaeological material (cf. chapter 9.1.1).884 This shows how important personal seals were and the devices presented on them had always some political message or auctoritas to transmit. That was the case of Sulla’s seals and, so it is in case of Pompey. The lion with sword is an unusual motif since it does not occur in coinage related to Pompey and scholars tend only to evoke it without any attempt of interpretation.885 Kopij argued that the motif represented Pompey as the defender of the Republic and the first soldier of Rome.886 This interpretation, although interesting and referring to Pompey’s military prowess, does not fully exploit seal’s potential. Because Pompey was born under Libra, the lion cannot refer to his zodiacal sign. However, Baldus combining literary and numismatic sources was able to reconstruct and broadly comment on the two seals used by Alexander the Great one of which depicted a lion walking with a short sword in one of its forepaws, and a star above in the field.887 The motif has been reproduced on now lost so-called lion-aureus issued by Mark Antony in 38 BC (fig. 182).888 According to the evidence presented by Baldus, it should be concluded that the second seal of Pompey exactly reproduced the one once used by his idol – Alexander the Great which was a part of his imitatio Alexandri.889 884 Plantzos 1999, p. 19. 885 Furtwängler 1900, vol. III, p. 304; Richter 1971, p. 4; Plantzos 1999, pp. 85-86; Toso 2007, p. 16; Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 10; Lapatin 2015, p. 113. 886 Kopij 2017, p. 260. 887 Baldus 1987. 888 RRC, no. 533/1, see also an incomplete commentary on p. 743; Baldus 1987, pp. 409-420; Kühnen 2005, pp. 105-109. 889 Baldus 1987, pp. 410-411. 890 Plantzos 1999, p. 86. 891 Baldus 1987, pp. 395-406. 892 Baldus 1987, pp. 412-413. Still, the question when Pompey’s seal with a lion and sword was produced cannot be decisively answered. Plantzos claims that this happened by the time of Pompey’s death, which sounds logical,890 however, again, Baldus offers an intriguing solution. He convincingly argues that both seals of Alexander the Great could be used at the same time. According to the scholar, Alexander used one ‘European’ seal suitable for his Greek citizens and the second ‘Asiatic’ (lion seal) suitable to be used in the eastern part of his empire.891 Actually, Pompey could imitate that practice as much as he did regarding his seals’ subject-matters.892 He supposedly used the seal with three trophies in Italy and Rome in particular, while his second seal with the lion and sword was meant for the eastern part of the Roman Empire. Whether he used it just in the end of his life or earlier is difficult to say. However, it seems that the more intensive was the rivalry between him and Caesar, the more intensive propaganda he practiced. Perhaps the seal was meant to awake the legend of Pompey Invictus next to Alexander the Great who conquered the east when the conflict between him and Caesar intensified in the late 50s BC. The second seal of Pompey had particularly powerful propaganda meaning for it transfers authority of Alexander on Pompey.893 It confirms that the Roman statesman used to imitate Alexander the Great (see also chapter 8.1.10 below). The iconography of the seal reappears on the mentioned coin issued by Mark Antony and is otherwise unknown. What is more, the propagandistic messages transmitted on the two seals of Pompey were precisely adjusted to the audience. The seal referring to Alexander could make more harm than good to Pompey in Rome, therefore he employed another seal there, while the Alexander’s one worked well in the east. 893 For the detailed meaning of each element of the seal, which appear to present the particularly interesting zodiacal constellation of the Sun in the Leo that indicated the highest ruler, see: Baldus 1987, pp. 413-420. 894 Kopij 2017, pp. 74-157 and 201-219. 895 Plutarch, Pompey, 10.14. 896 Pliny, NH, XXXVII.6-7. 897 Vollenweider 1955, p. 110. As it was in case of Sulla, Pompey also clearly chose devices having political references for his personal seals. Both known examples illustrated Pompey’s military accomplishments and perhaps even compared him to Alexander the Great. The focus on military aspects in glyptics is typical for Pompey’s propaganda activities reflected elsewhere (coinage or architecture).894 It is not surprising since his whole political rhetoric was based on his military genius. It is then noteworthy to add that Pompey used his seals not only for securing his documents but also among soldiers in a sort of metaphorical way. Plutarch reports that while stationing on Sicily, Pompey put his seal on the swords of his soldiers to prevent them fighting each other.895 As one can see, seals were powerful objects not only because they transmitted specially designed messages but because they could also unite followers of the propagandist. This unusual employment of Pompey’s seal communicates that the seal represented his authority and power of his orders. 8.1.5. Portraits - personal branding, induction and manifestation of loyalty Pliny claims that Pompey the Great displaying dactyliotheca of Mithridates’ gems and muhrrine vessels during his triumph introduced fashion for these kinds of decorative arts in Rome.896 For this reason, Vollenweider felt justified to propose that generally speaking this was the moment when portrait gems started to be produced on a massive scale, especially if it goes to glass gems.897 The scholar projected herself that Pompey portraits were frequently put on gems for propaganda purposes. In this sub-chapter, I would like to address her opinion and re-examine evidence for such a claim. Because first, one wonders if there is indeed a significant number of Pompey’s portrait gems in existence and second, as so rightly observed by Trunk and Kopij, whether all the gems bearing Pompey’s likeness should be dated to his lifetime or not.898 For evidence is striking that some of the gems presenting Pompey’s portrait were produced under his son Sextus Pompey, and they are more plausible to testify to the reception of his father image in glyptics (cf. chapter 9.1.4). Moreover, chronology of Pompey’s portrait gems is problematic which is clear when one compares studies of Vollenweider and Trunk, both equally incomplete.899 Fortunately, in case of Pompey identification of his portraits on gems is less problematical than in case of other prominent Romans because the comparative material (coins and sculpture) is relatively abundant, although, usually posthumous. I am going to sort out the material related to the issue and then discuss what kinds of propagandistic actions each class might have referred to. 898 Trunk 2008, p. 144; Kopij 2017, p. 257. 899 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 115-119; Trunk 2008, pp. 143-152. 900 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 106-107. I have already discussed the unusual portrait gem in a private collection that might present Pompey frontally, and which was most likely cut for him while he was on his eastern campaigns (see above). Vollenweider argued that due to Pompey’s great popularity among soldiers, he had all the rights to appear on gems one way or another as early as 80s BC and considering his military successes, he was expected to be depicted heroized or so.900 Indeed, there is some evidence to claim that Pompey was interested in glyptic art and had his likeness cut upon both, intaglios and cameos. Nevertheless, I believe this could not happen as early as the Swiss scholar expected. As has been already shown, it was common for the Romans travelling to the east to have their first serious contact with glyptic art there (cf. chapter 6.2.1) and one supposes that this was the case of Pompey too. In 67 BC he departed from Brindisi to fight pirates in the eastern part of the Mediterranean Sea. In the following year he was given the command of Roman forces engaged in the third war with Mithridates VI Eupator, king of Pontus. Pompey quickly defeated Mithridates and brought much of the east under control of Rome throughout years 66-62 BC (Armenia, Syria and Judea among others). It must have been that period of his military and political career when he became interested in glyptic art for the first time. He took over dactyliotheca and muhrrine vessels once belonging to Mithridates VI Eupator that had later been exhibited during his triumph in 61 BC. He might also have employed Greek gem engravers to carve intaglios and cameos for him (see above). For apart from the already discussed cornelian intaglio presenting his bust, there are several other objects that one possibly should link to his patronage over glyptics while he was in the east. A small glass cameo was once preserved in the Musée du Cinquantenaire in Brussels and it is believed to feature head of Pompey in profile to the right (cat. no. 8.14, fig. 183).901 The identification made by Vollenweider is generally accepted as is her date for the cameo which she links to Pompey’s eastern campaigns.902 She compared the portrait to the bronze coins minted in Soli-Pompeiopolis, however, it has recently been established that dates of this coinage are controversial, and they might have been struck after Pompey’s death.903 Nevertheless, it is clear that the cameo once in Brussels was a Hellenistic product due to the style of engraving, cameo form unusual for Roman glyptics at the time and material used and it is noteworthy that it presents a relatively young Pompey. Another interesting object is a sapphire cameo once in the Ralph Harari collection of engraved gems. It shows head of a Roman in a three-quarter capture, slightly turned to the right. The man’s particular features are short curly hair widely arranged on the head and slightly receding at the temples, a square jaw and intense gaze. The nose is straight, the face full, with double chin and the lips are a bit receded (cat. no. 8.15, fig. 184). The exceptionally hard material used combined with a portrait study suggest the portrayed person must have been an important and wealthy individual. The work is Hellenistic in style, the face is a bit idealised, but it belongs to a Roman official whose hairdo is comparable to the one from the cameo once in Brussels. Therefore, it is tempting to suggest that the piece was executed for Pompey the Great, although, such an identification is largely speculative.904 The cameos with Pompey’s portraits constitute a precedence in Roman glyptic art since none of the Romans before him promoted his image in this medium. Furthermore, in the haircut of Pompey one spots reflections of Alexander’s anastole which suggests that Pompey already during his eastern campaigns used to compare or identify himself with Alexander the Great.905 901 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pl. 71.1; Trunk 2008, G2 (whose informs that the cameo is no longer there.) 902 Vollenweider 1972-1974, p. 115. 903 Trunk thinks the same as Vollenweider (2008, pp. 149-151), but see: Kopij 2017, pp. 148-151, 258 and 330-331. 904 Boardman and Scarisbrick 1977, no. 60. 905 The only recently republished Content cameos collection yields with one more, highly important sardonyx cameo bearing a draped portrait bust of Pompey the Great to the right set in a 3rd century AD mount (Henig and Molesworth 2018, no. 70). It comes from the Maurice Nahman collection (1868-1948) who assembled his antiquities in Egypt so that the provenance of the piece is possibly related to the place where Pompey spent his last days and might reflect his promotional efforts despite the difficult position after loosing the Battle of Pharsalus. Regarding intaglios made of gemstones, a comparable portrait to the one from the Harari collection cameo is a cornelian in the Bollmann cabinet featuring portrait of a Roman whose face is fleshy with mimic wrinkles clearly marked, slightly receded lips, double chin and thick neck. His forehead is lined with numerous wrinkles and the hair presented as a mass of short curls clearly raised up at the top of the forehead (cat. no. 8.16, fig. 185).906 Both, the face and especially the arrangement of hair with raised forelock (the so-called anastole hairdo) suggest identifying the portrayed person as Pompey the Great, perhaps with some signs of his imitatio Alexandri employed for propaganda purposes.907 Vollenweider supposed that Pompey himself might be depicted here, but she hesitated to attribute the intaglio to him.908 This is fully understandable since there are some details looking awkwardly for Pompey. The most striking is the nose which is relatively strongly bowed on the intaglio, while it is not that much in the coinage.909 However, the slight differences may result from the fact that Pompey’s image at the time was still poorly known in the east and artists, unless being directly employed by Pompey himself, had little sources of inspiration at hand. There are a few more objects testifying that Pompey’s portrait gems became increasingly popular in the east in the late 60s BC. Two more examples are: a sardonyx intaglio housed now in St. Petersburg (cat. no. 8.17, fig. 186), while the second is preserved in the form of a modern plaster impression made by Tommaso Cades after original ancient intaglio (cat. no. 8.18, fig. 187). Both heads are very much alike and present Pompey with typical for him anastole haircut. It is generally suggested that those gems were produced between 70-50 BC,910 but I think a narrower period of time should be suggested that is ca. 66-61 BC because the portraits exhibit considerable Hellenistic influence in the engraving techniques and it is probable, they were cut while Pompey campaigned in the east or slightly later. 906 This is only partially visible due to chipped edge of the upper part of the stone. See: Vollenweider 1972-1974, pl. 54.1-3. 907 Compare analogies in sculpture: Kopij 2017, pp. 229-237. 908 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 85-86. 909 Compare, for instance: RRC, nos. 470/1a-d (denarii of M. Minatius Sabinus and Cn. Pompey, 46-45 BC), 477/1a-3b (denarii of Sextus Pompey, 45-44 BC), 483/1-2 (denarii of Q. Nasidius, 44-43 BC) and 511/1-3c (aureii and denarii of Sextus Pompey, 42-40 BC). 910 Neverov 1983, no. 4 = Zwierlein-Diehl 1986, no. 530 (ca. 61-50 BC); Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, ill. 488 (ca. 70-50 BC); Trunk 2008, G1 and G3. 911 For more detailed information about this hoard, see: Murray 1907; Milne 1916; Plantzos 1999, pp. 27-28. Currently, the Royal Ontario Museum is conducting a scientific project aiming at elaboration and re-publication One should mention here one particularly interesting sealing originating from the Edfu hoard that was smuggled out of Egypt in the early 20th century and eventually split into two halves, one of which was bought by the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto.911 The sealing in of all the sealings it possesses, see: https://www.rom.on.ca/en/blog/clay-sealings-from-edfu-egypt-in-the-greek-roman-collection [retrieved on 16 January 2018]. 912 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pl. 74.1. 913 On this issue, see: Kopij 2017, pp. 237-238 and 246-250. 914 Furtwängler 1896, no. 6536; Furtwängler 1900, vol. I, pl. XLVII.38, vol. II, p. 227; AGDS II, no. 415; Vollenweider 1972-1974, pl. 71.5 and 7 (ca. 60-50 BC); Zazoff 1983, pl. 78.5; Trunk 2008, G6. 915 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pl. 71.2-3; AGDS IV Hannover, no. 568; Zazoff 1983, pl. 78.4; Trunk 2008, G4. question features head of Pompey the Great which Vollenweider dated to the 60s BC (cat. no 8.19, fig. 188).912 I agree with her opinion, though, a bit later date is also possible. In fact, the object delivers an immensely important information regarding usage of portrait gems. It is very likely that this seal was attached to the document issued by a governor of one of the eastern Roman provinces created after Pompey’s conquest. He might have been one of Pompey’s followers who chose to seal his documents with his likeness on the one hand to manifest his loyalty to the Roman statesman and, on the other hand, to transfer Pompey’s authority onto himself. For the seal testified that he acts on the behalf of Pompey which means he is supported by one of the most powerful Roman individuals. For Pompey himself, such a situation was beneficial too since he was assured to be supported in the far lands which he could not access easily when came back to Rome, and his authority also raised within the local communities in the eastern provinces. He became more recognisable when his supporters used to spread his portrait in such a context as being described here. It seems that gems contributed to Pompey’s propaganda the same way the honorific inscriptions and statues devoted to Pompey did when erected by the representatives of local loyal communities in the eastern cities.913 Further examples of portrait gems related to Pompey the Great are clearly Roman products which is suggested both by the materials used as well as the engraving manners except for the work attributed to Agathopus (cf. chapter 8.1.3 above). There are two gemstones, one is a red jasper in Berlin featuring Pompey’s head and the letter P on both sides of it (cat. no. 8.20, fig. 189),914 and a banded agate intaglio in Hannover bearing just a head of Pompey cat. no. 8.21, fig. 190).915 The former has been fascinating scholars a great deal because of the inscription. The portrait itself is difficult to date and usually placed between years 70-50 BC. However, the style of engraving is far different than the earlier Hellenistic creations and suggest it to be a Roman product. Even though the face expression and features are still typical for Pompey, the coiffure (still anastole type) has been considerably simplified as the locks of hair are rendered with numerous short strokes in a rather mechanical way. Moreover, the inscription like double P letter is also more typical for Roman sphere. For these reasons, it is clear that the intaglio must have been produced in Italy, perhaps in Rome and that must have been after Pompey’s arrival and triumph in 61 BC. On the other hand, as Trunk observed, stylistically the intaglio has very little in common with posthumous portraits of Pompey known from both gems and coins.916 Therefore, we are on the position to propose date between 61 and 48 BC. Regarding inscription, it has been suggested to stand for pater patriae, patronus publicae or Pompeius pater.917 However, to my mind, the most probable is that the two letters stand for the name of intaglio’s owner (duo nomina) as it is often the case on various gems produced in the first half of the 1st century BC.918 Still, the inscription makes the object interesting because it suggests that its owner identified with Pompey and certainly was one of his followers. Perhaps the intaglio was commissioned by him to manifest his allegiance to Pompey and his circle. This on the one hand confirms that Pompey’s propaganda was successful in glyptics because people wanted to show their bounds with him. On the other hand, it testifies to the political use of engraved gems and confirm date of the object specified as between 61-48 BC. This date is the most plausible since it was the period when Pompey’s popularity reached its peak in Rome. For an aristocrat it would be suitable and beneficial to proclaim his support to his patron that way. The second intaglio (Hannover collection) has been engraved upon a banded agate, a typical material for Roman Republican glyptics, in a similar style to the intaglio from Berlin. Therefore, I suggest taking it as a contemporary piece to the described red jasper, although, other scholars would not be so sure about such a date.919 916 Trunk 2008, p. 149. But see a contradictory view in: Kopij 2017, p. 261. 917 Vollenweider 1972-1974, p. 116; Kopij 2017, p. 261 (author wrongly attributed this gem to the posthumous objects created on the commission of Sextus Pompey, though). 918 See many examples of portrait gems with heads of Pompeians and inscriptions in chapter 9.1.3. For more information on the inscriptions of this kind on gems, see: Aubry 2009, p. 13. 919 Compare: Vollenweider 1972-1974, p. 115; Trunk 2008, p. 149; Kopij 2017, p. 262. As one can see, there are some proofs to think that indeed, Pompey’s arrival to Rome with dactylioheca of Mithridates VI Eupator and his muhrrine vessels was an initial spark that set a considerable production of engraved gems. Pompey’s popularity and the new art form combined quickly resulted in a phenomenon when ordinary people sought to have a portrait of their patron cut upon their rings. The demand must have been increasing over the 50s BC so that gem engravers started to produce also cheaper glass gems with Pompey’s likeness and deliver them to the market or they were told to do so by Pompey himself as a part of his propaganda machinery. I collected four glass gems bearing Pompey’s portrait all of which were presumably produced between 61 to 48 BC in Italy, most likely in Rome itself (cat. nos. 8.22-25, figs. 191-192). To have such a claim one analyses provenance of those gems and one is in Venice, one in Munich, but it was once a part of the Paul Arndt collection formed in Rome, next in Copenhagen (about which little is known) and finally the last travelled as far as to the Rhineland (now preserved in Bonn). All those pieces feature very similar head of Pompey without any attributes engraved in a comparable manner close to the already mentioned intaglios in Berlin and Hannover. I believe that those gems are contemporary to the gemstone ones and were produced for ordinary people. Moreover, the example from Bonn suggests that some of their recipients were Roman soldiers fighting for Pompey and wishing to manifest their allegiance to him. In other words, they were markers of identification with Pompey. Speaking of Pompey’s portrait gems, Vollenweider drew our attention to one particular glass gem in Geneva. It bears head of a bearded Roman king, possibly Numa Pompilius in profile to the right (cf. cat. no. 6.135, fig. 46). She compared the device with coins issued by Pompey the Great and Cn. Calpurnius Piso in 49 BC and proposed that the gem owner wanted to manifest his loyalty and faith into Pompey who should raise to the royal level and rule the Roman Republic.920 Such an interpretation is unacceptable. Even though indeed there are considerable similarities between the coins and the gem in question, it has recently been proved that the head of Numa appears on that denarius as a reference to the legendary origins of gens Calpurnia.921 It is possible that the gem itself was used as a private seal of a member of Calpurnia family as it was often the case in the 1st century BC and earlier (cf. chapter 6.3.1). 920 Vollenweider 1979, no. 117. 921 See: RRC, no. 446/1 (denarius of Pompey the Great and Cn. Calpurnius Piso, 49 BC) and especially, Kopij 2017, pp. 145-146 (with a thorough discussion of this issue and its iconography). All the intaglios, cameos and sealings presented above confirm that Pompey used engraved gems for his political propaganda already while engaged in a series of military campaigns in the east. They also confirm Vollenweider’s supposition based on Pliny’s record about Pompey’s role in popularising gem engraving in Rome. Even though the evidence amassed here seems scanty, it is the first time one can say that gems were clearly used for personal branding to a considerable degree and on various levels. In case of Sulla and Marius the evidence for that activity is much smaller and uncertain. It is difficult even to identify their portraits let alone to link them with specific periods of their military and political careers. In case of Pompey the evidence is enough to claim that he promoted himself first, imitating Hellenistic kings through cameos and intaglios as well as employment of gem engravers which then continued in Rome, especially after his triumph when his image was disseminated in the form of glass gems. Moreover, manifestation of loyalty and support by his followers was clearly practiced with the use of gems either in Rome and eastern provinces too which is supported by the presented data. 8.1.6. Promotion of family Pompey the Great promoted himself through issuing engraved gems bearing his own likeness or it was his supporters who manifested their allegiance to him that way. It can be only speculated whether or not some of the gems with his portrait were used by members of gens Pompeia (for instance by his sons Gnaeus and Sextus?). It must be said straightforwardly that I do not recognise any other specific motifs as related to promotion of Pompey’s family in glyptics. Perhaps this is due to limited possibilities in decoding propaganda gems iconography, but in coinage and other media of propaganda, Pompey barely make references to his ancestors either historical or legendary as it was often the case of other families (see chapters 6.3.1 and 8.3.3) and will be in case of Julius Caesar (cf. chapter 8.2.5). This is probably because gens Pompeia did not establish any particularly effective orgio legend. As Cicero writes regarding Quintus Pompeius, the consul of 141 BC and first distinguished member of the family: ‘he was a man of humble and obscure origin’.922 Pompey the Great must have invested vast sums of money, time and energy into his propaganda then because he had to start from a scratch. He concentrated on himself only and this is the reason why there is no family propaganda on gems related to him. The situation changed after death of Pompey in 48 BC once his sons Gnaeus and Sextus started to promote themselves eagerly alluding to their father and his accomplishments (cf. chapter 9.1.4). 922 Cicero, In Verrem, 70; Pro Murena, 7; Brutus, 25. 8.1.7. Promotion of faction – optimates In the early stage of his career, Pompey, like his father Gnaeus Pompeius Strabo (135-87 BC) supported Sulla, who belonged to the optimates – a pro-aristocracy faction. He participated in the final part of the Social War (91-88 BC) and when his father died, he inherited the lands and estates as well as loyalty of his legions. When another civil war between Marius and Sulla broke out in 83 BC, Pompey again supported the latter. He helped him in his march on Rome and later chased survivors of the Marians gaining his cognomen Magnus and the first triumph in 80 BC. Later on, Pompey developed his political and military career first in Spain fighting Sertorius and gaining second triumph in 71 BC, and finally in the east where he put vast territories under Roman control finalised in his third triumph in 61 BC. It was 60 BC when Pompey entered coalition with Marcus Licinius Crassus (ca. 115-53 BC) and Julius Caesar (100-44 BC). It survived until Crassus’ death in 53 BC, but in fact since 60 BC down to his death in 48 BC Pompey was in a fierce rivalry with Caesar. For all these years, he was the leader of optimates party and even though his propaganda actions were mostly focused on him, he must have solicited for the support of other prominent Roman politicians, senators and aristocrats. Because engraved gems were strictly private objects, they seem the best to manifest political allegiances as it was the case for instance with philosophical views.923 In the previous chapters I have discussed gems bearing Pompey’s portrait and excluding the glass ones, which as has been said were most likely intended for Roman soldiers fighting under Pompey, one supposes that other gems could be gifted by Pompey to his friends and supporters as a sort of recognition for their loyalty. They will be further used by their recipients as tokens of membership to his party. Of course, some of those gems could be commissioned by Pompey’s followers not only to manifest their loyalty to their patron, but also to show that they belong to his circle and can be avenged by him. This seems to be the case of governors of eastern provinces like evidenced by a sealing featuring Pompey’s portrait found in Edfu. Otherwise, there is no sensible explanation for existence of so many portrait gems with Pompey’s likeness or any other political leader.924 One wonders if there were any other motifs that could be cut for the same purpose e.g. to integrate Pompey’s political faction. 923 Lang 2012, pp. 105-106; Yarrow 2018, pp. 35-37. 924 Yarrow 2018, p. 38. 925 Barcaro 2008/2009, pp. 16-17. 926 Maaskant-Kleibrink 1989/1993, pp. 196-200. It is noteworthy that Pompey only occasionally and in very specific circumstances referred to Apollo, for instance, head of Apollo appears on coins minted under his patronage in 49 BC in Greece when he was recruiting soldiers to his army to fight Caesar, see RRC 444/1-3 (denarii of Q. Sicinius and C. Coponius, 49 BC). This was due to the fact that Apollo was one of the most popular gods in Greece, It is believed that since Sulla, head of Apollo was a symbol commonly recognised as related to the optimates faction and thus, it became a sort of a party token.925 But the evidence is scanty and controversial. It has been argued here that Apollo in case of Sulla appears in his coinage and contemporary gems due to politician’s special veneration to the god which could be followed by his supporters, especially soldiers (cf. chapter 7.1.5). Nevertheless, there is no definitive proof or trace for that motif to work as a symbol of optimates faction. Maaskant-Kleibrink explained the various types of Apollo’s head appearing on gems in the late 2nd and 1st century BC and their potential origins. As a result, there is no particular reason to claim that head of Apollo was cut upon engraved gems in the time of Pompey as a sort of token of optimates party.926 The same applies to another, highly popular motif – head of Heracles. It is so his image was purposed to gain Pompey’s new recruits (Kopij 2017, pp. 118-119). In terms of glyptics, such actions are untreceabe alas and even more direct references of Pompey to Apollo are unnoticeable. 927 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 103-105. 928 Yarrow 2018, pp. 38-39. a fact that Pompey identified with the hero, but at the same time, it seems unclear if the motif in question became a sort of a unified symbol of allegiance to him and thus, indirectly to the optimates. None of the examples I have analysed include a direct reference to Pompey and the subject was highly popular throughout the whole 1st century BC for a number of other reasons (but cf. discussion in chapter 8.1.9). It seems that there was no specific symbolism or motif that supporters of Pompey could have used to manifest their membership to the political option he was a leader except for his portraits. It should be highlighted that the practice of having own portrait cut upon a gem could be popularised by Pompey among his contemporaries too. As Vollenweider observed in her study of Roman portrait gems, the optimates used to commission gems with their portraits far more frequently than members of the populares party.927 The reason for that could be, of course, financial, but it is tempting to suggest that indeed, those related to Pompey wanted to copy his moves and thus became more Hellenised than others. Imitation of someone’s lifestyle, customs and traditions is a clear identification with him and thus, should be accounted for propaganda. In other words, even if Pliny criticises Pompey for his ostentatious exhibition of gems during his triumph and Pompey’s portrait in pearls in particular, it does not mean that for other Roman aristocrats this kind of behaving was unappealing, and they eagerly imitated it. Pompey was a creator of a trend that was continued by his followers which is recognised as a banded-wagon propaganda technique. Apart from that, perhaps subject like Mithridates’ and Medusa’s head were shortly popular around 61 BC during Pompey’s triumph and served to his veterans as symbols of identification with the victory of their leader (cf. chapter 8.1.3).928 8.1.8. Commemoration Engraved gems were frequently used to commemorate important events like military victories and appointments of important titles and offices. Political and military career of Pompey was abundant in events that should be immortalised in material objects which would further influence people of Rome as a part of his propaganda campaigns. This is noticeable in sculpture and coins, and consequently, one wonders if engraved gems could be employed for the same purpose.929 929 Regarding commemoration of Pompey successes and accomplishments reflected in coinage, sculpture, architecture and other branches of art and craftsmanship, see: Kopij 2017, pp. 74-157 (coinage), 201-219 (architecture), 229-237 (sculpture) and 245-252 (honorific inscriptions). 930 Yarrow 2018, pp. 41-43. 931 See a full discussion including also points of views of other scholars in: Kopij 2017, pp. 126-144. See also a further commentary in: Campagnolo and Fallani 2018, no. IX.5.i, p. 192. 932 RRC, no. 461/1. I have already discussed Pompey’s seals which so obviously, like his coinage, commemorated his victories, especially the conquest of the east and three triumphs for military accomplishments on three continents (Europe, Africa and Asia). Moreover, I have also discussed that popularity of gems presenting head of Medusa or Mithridates VI Eupator that could have been used by Pompey’s followers to manifest their input to the victory over the king of Pontus who possibly were encouraged to do that by Pompey himself. This also accounts to commemoration of the triumph in 61 BC and a cornelian in Paris does the same in a more direct way (cf. no. 8.1, fig. 173, chapter 8.1.1). Apparently, there is little evidence in glyptic material to indicate that Pompey’s military successes or other events related to him were directly commemorated on gems. Even though Vollenweider linked several gems to Pompey’s census equitum ceremony, to my mind they are not related to him but to Marcus Licinius Crassus and his son (cf. chapter 8.3.4). Yarrow suggests that head of Africa appearing on glass gems could serve to commemorate Pompey’s victory over Africa and the gems with that iconography were used by his soldiers (cat. nos. 8.26-27, fig. 193).930 She bases her reasoning on the fact that one aureus issue minted and signed by Pompey the Great features on the obverse head of a woman wearing the elephant headdress and she accepts dating of that issue to 71 BC. Nevertheless, numismatists do not agree to only one date and meaning of the evoked coin. Recently, Kopij convincingly argues that the aureus of Pompey in question should be linked with his rivalry with Julius Caesar in 49-48 BC and the female head in exuviae elephantis identified him with Alexander the Great and his conquest of the east being a suitable reminiscence of his past accomplishments for the Greek and eastern recruits he sought to while stationing in Greece.931 In consequence, the female head wearing elephant’s scalp clearly appears for the first time as personification of Africa in Roman art in 47 or 46 BC on the denarius struck by Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio as a reference to his famous ancestor (on which cf. chapter 8.3.3).932 It should not be recognised as such prior to this coin especially if there are no other symbols linking her to that land. I believe the gems evoked by Yarrow should be recognised as Hellenistic creations, especially cat. no. 8.26, fig. 193 which is possibly made after a coin minted by one of the Hellenistic kings. Plantzos proved that such iconography was in use by unidentifiable Hellenistic rulers who tended to identify themselves with Alexander the Great that way and gems served to that purpose.933 Furthermore, there is a unique group of frontal female busts wearing elephant scalp that probably depict Hellenistic queens, possibly from the Ptolemaic dynasty, which is suggested by a presence of cornucopia on an unusual nicolo in Krakow (cat. nos. 8.28-30, figs. 194-195).934 Yarrow’s mistake is probably due to her presumption that glass gems were mostly produced in Rome, but they were abundant in the Hellenistic Greece and beyond too.935 In any case, the evoked glass and gemstone intaglios presenting female head with exuviae elephantis should not be attributed to Pompey and considered as commemorating his triumph over Africa. 933 See a full discussion on that matter in: Plantzos 1999, p. 58. 934 See discussions in: Gołyźniak 2017, nos. 18 and 32. 935 Plantzos 1999, p. 38. 936 Vollenweider 1979, no. 396. 937 Middleton 1991, no. 252. 938 Gołyźniak 2017, nos. 185 (a bird standing on a bucranium), 283 (a combination of a horse’s protome and bull’s head) and 554 (heads of a horse, boar and goat). 939 Gołyźniak 2017, no. 554. 940 Boardman 1968, no. 52. A similar case is a desperate search for any traces of commemoration of the first triumvirate in glyptics. Vollenweider thought that a combination of three animal heads on a glass gem in Geneva stood for the members of the pact: bull – Caesar, ram – Pompey and goat – Crassus (cat. no. 8.31, fig. 196).936 She believed that such gems were used as cheap amulets that were distributed to the people shortly after establishing the pact. Other scholars followed her, for instance Middleton recognises competing Caesar and Pompey in conjoined protomes of a bull and lion respectively engraved upon a gem found in Epidaurum in Dalmatia (cat. no. 8.32, fig. 197).937 However, such explanations are unacceptable. These constellations are often a part of more complex iconography appearing on the so-called grylloi gems and they occur in various configurations.938 They symbolise either zodiacal signs (goat – Capricorn, bull – Taurus, ram – Aries, lion – Leo etc.) or specific deities (goat – Ceres, horse – Mars, ram – Mercury and so forth).939 The most obvious argument contradicting Vollenweider’s concept is the fact that configurations of more than three elements exist as for instance on a contemporary to her Geneva example, intaglio once in the Ionides collection presenting heads of a bull, goat, boar and ram conjoined together.940 In addition, bull keeps a corn ear in its mouth which does not stand for free grain supply in Rome ensured by the triumvirs but it is a symbol of plenty and abundance instead. In my survey I did not find any intaglios or cameos that would have been related to Pompey’s propaganda of his titles as well as offices he was appointed throughout his career. In contrast to Sulla and later propagandists, he did not promote ideas of peace and prosperity as well (cf. chapters 7.1.6, 8.2.9 and 10.8). 8.1.9. Divine and mythological references A successful political and military career of every prominent Roman was impossible without blessing and support of various deities which in turn resulted in their extensive veneration. There were some commonly distinguished gods and goddesses, for example, cult of Venus received special treatment from Sulla, who venerated her as Venus Felix, Pompey as Venus Victrix and Julius Caesar as Venus Genetrix. The second had given her title Victrix because he dedicated his military accomplishments to her and promoted them as obtained due to her advocacy.941 Meanwhile, each prominent Roman general had his peculiar divine patrons. In case of Pompey, Neptune took such a role shortly after his naval victories in the campaign against the pirates.942 Actually, Pompey’s attitude to the gods is particularly interesting because it involves, on the one hand, cherishing well established deities of the Roman pantheon like Venus, Neptune, Heracles or even Diomedes and, on the other hand, promotion of new ideas that he had been inspired while travelling through the east (imitatio or comparatio Alexandri). In this sub-chapter I am going to analyse if there are any traces in glyptics of Pompey’s special bounds with the mentioned deities and heroes. 941 Kopij 2017, p. 93. 942 Barcaro 2008/2009, p. 212 (with a list of ancient authors comparing Pompey to Neptune). 943 Barcaro 2008/2009, p. 212. 944 Guiliano and Micheli 1989, pp. 31-32. 945 Vollenweider 1972-1974, p. 116. One of the first god that received special treatment in propaganda of Pompey was Neptune. After his brilliant campaign against the pirates Pompey started to be compared with the chief marine deity.943 For this reason some scholars link increasing popularity of maritime subjects on 1st century BC engraved gems with Pompey’s veneration towards Neptune.944 Vollenweider supposed that head of Pompey accompanied with trident and dolphin appearing on some gems could be related to general’s promotion as under auspices of Neptune.945 However, it has recently been established that these gems should date to much later period and were related to Sextus Pompey reception and allusion to his divine father (cf. chapter 9.1.4). Consequently, the maritime subjects, although indeed abundantly carved upon intaglios and cameos in the 1st century BC, ought to be regarded as a sort of new phenomenon and general trend rather than reflecting Pompey’s and his successors’ naval victories. For the sea was of growing significance to the Romans who appeared to control Mediterranean Sea already in the late 2nd century BC and clear comparisons between Pompey and Neptune do not exist in glyptics.946 This stays in consistency with lack of such references in the coinage issued during Pompey’s lifetime. It was only during the period of fierce rivalry between younger generation that explicit references to political developments started to be used (cf. chapters 9.1.7 and 9.3.1.8).947 946 The famous Altar of Domitius Ahenobarbus constructed in the late 2nd century BC is probably the best early illustration of the general trend birth, see: Plantzos 1999, p. 96. 947 RRC, p. 739; Morawiecki 2014, pp. 59-104. 948 Kopij 2017, pp. 93-94. 949 RRC, nos. 424/1 and 426/1 and 3 respectively. 950 Weinstock 1957, pp. 228-229; Ritter 1995, pp. 64-65; Kühnen 2005, pp. 77-78; Kopij 2017, pp. 98 and especially 206-207. 951 Pliny, NH, XXXIV.57; Appian, BC, 2.76.319; Appian, Mithr. 478; Plutarch, Pompey, 1. See also more references listed in: Barcaro 2008/2009, p. 99. 952 Ritter 1995, pp. 64-86. Regarding Venus, as has been said, Pompey venerated her with the title Victrix suggesting that his military victories were won under her patronage.948 Bust of Venus appears three times on Roman Republican denarii related to Pompey: those struck by C. Considius Nonianus in 57 BC and another minted by Faustus Cornelius Sulla, son of Sulla dictator in 56 BC most likely due to special veneration of the goddess by Sulla and Pompey alike.949 One shall expect then some reference to Venus on gems as well, but in fact, all the three bust types appearing on coins do not exist in glyptics, at least, in any considerable similarity. Moreover, I do not find any gem presenting Venus with a symbol or engaged in an allegorical scene that could be connected with Pompey in any meaningful way. Concerning Pompey relationships with Heracles, these are far more often reflected in ancient literary sources and material culture than already mentioned connections with deities. Pompey venerated Heracles with the title Invictus which was an allusion to his own military prowess. He renovated Temple of Heracles located near Circus Maximus so that the previous title of the hero (Invictus) has been replaced with Pompeianus.950 Pompey was frequently compared to the Greek hero, for instance by Pliny, Appian and Plutarch.951 For these reasons, many scholars claim that Pompey identified with Heracles in his propaganda efforts.952 The personal bound between Pompey and Heracles is possibly reflected in the best way in coinage. On coins issued by Faustus Cornelius Sulla in case of two types head of Heracles wearing lionskin appears. These two variants refer primarily to Sulla and Pompey together since the first was moneyer’s father and the second his father-in-law and that has been explicitly marked on the coins’ legends.953 Kopij drew an interesting conclusion that while on the first coin (related to Sulla) Heracles has been presented as older than on the second type (related to Pompey) which could be due to not only identification of Pompey with the Greek hero, but also a sort of subtle message communicating that he should be regarded as Sulla’s successor in terms of politics.954 Interestingly, Plantzos observes a class of intaglios featuring heads of youthful Heracles with lionskin on the head and proposes to link them with propaganda of Pompey and the coins minted by Faustus Cornelius Sulla (cat. nos. 8.33-41, fig. 198).955 Their style is essentially Hellenistic but betray first symptoms of classicising manner dominating in the second half of the 1st century BC. Naturally, it is difficult to judge whether those gems were created precisely around mid- 1st century BC, but according to their provenance, it is clear that they were produced both in Rome and the east at the same time which is an argument in favour of their relationship with Pompey.956 It cannot be ascertained for sure that Roman statesman was directly engaged in their production as has been suggested by Plantzos though. There is no precise information for the reasons why the head of youthful Heracles appears on coins of Faustus Cornelius Sulla; it could be the issue of Pompey’s succession after Sulla as well as commemoration of Pompey’s merits in terms of renovation of temples of Venus and Heracles.957 Perhaps popularisation of cult of Heracles by Pompey resulted in a considerable increase in production of gems with hero’s image either in Rome and in the east where Pompey was popular after his campaign in the late 60s BC. This in turn could result in popularisation of Heracles cult among Pompey’s soldiers who may have even identified their patron with the hero and hence carry gems with Heracles’ head to manifest that. This seems to be the only possible explanation of Heracles’ head exploitation in glyptics at the time if at all related to Pompey. There are no clues or attempts suggesting Pompey himself or someone on his behalf to present for instance his likeness with attributes of Heracles or Pompey stylised on the Greek hero on intaglios and cameos. In fact, there could be many other reasons why Heracles’ head was so popular on gems in the 1st century BC so that linking the motif with Pompey is only optional rather than certain (cf. chapter 6.3.1). 953 RRC, no. 426/2 (denarius of Faustus Cornelius Sulla, 56 BC) is related to Sulla, while RRC, no. 426/4a-b (denarii of Faustus Cornelius Sulla, 56 BC) are related to Pompey. 954 Kopij 2017, p. 94. 955 Plantzos 1999, pp. 85-86. A similar opinion has been expressed by Toso (2007, p. 190). 956 Plantzos 1999, p. 127. 957 Please, compare: Kopij 2017, pp. 93-94 and 206-207. If there is any connection between busts of youthful Heracles on intaglios described above and Pompey, it must have been allegorical and perhaps, therefore, it escapes us today or is inadequately appreciated. Maybe one should investigate other allegorical scenes involving Heracles that potentially reflect Pompey’s military successes. Toso notices existence of a large group of intaglios (mainly in glass) presenting release of Prometheus by Heracles (cat. nos. 8.42-48, fig. 199). She acknowledges that Pompey used to be compared to the Greek hero engaged in the release of the Titan by several ancient writers.958 In the Hellenistic tradition, it was Alexander the Great that rescued the Greeks and successfully protected them against Persian peril. Similarly, Pompey would release the nations of Asia Minor and beyond from the tyranny of Mithridates VI Eupator. For these reasons, it seems attractive to link the aforementioned gems with Pompey, but they appear for the first time already in the late 2nd century BC, thus, one is not sure if all of them referred to Pompey specifically. Besides, some of the ancient texts does not seem to focus on the comparison between Pompey and Heracles, rather on sharp contrast between Pompey and his father Gnaeus Pompeius Strabo.959 Of course, one assumes that the meaning of that particular motif changed over time, and there is indeed a clear increase in the production of gems bearing that scene around mid-1st century BC, especially if glass gems are concerned. Hence, Toso’s hypothesis cannot be entirely rejected. For propaganda to be successful must be anchored in the already existing language and mythology (cf. chapter 4.7) and perhaps this is the case here. 958 Toso 2007, pp. 182-184. 959 This is the case in particular with Plutarch, Pompey, 1. 960 Plutarch, Pompey, 35.1-4. 961 Appian, Mithr. 15.103. Accordingly, one should link to Pompey’s eastern campaign and propaganda of afterwards success over Mithridates also mid-1st century gems presenting Heracles killing Amazons or generally those presenting Amazonomachy (cat. nos. 8.49-50, fig. 200). According to Plutarch, while Mithridates flew to the kingdom of Bosporus, Pompey advanced towards Armenia but must turn back to fight Albanians near the Abas river. He won the battle and his soldiers did discover many women on the battlefield and among the prisoners of war. Their wounds showed that they had fought as vigorously and courageously as the men, hence, the Romans identified them with Amazons.960 In turn, Appian informs about Pompey’s expedition to Colchis, kingdom well-known for its gold and visited by the Argonauts, Castor and Pollux as well as Heracles, during which he fought with Amazons in a dense forest alike.961 Such descriptions would suggest comparing Pompey’s moves with Heracles fighting Amazons, but Roman general demonstrated his mercy and sent his prisoners back home.962 All in all, the subject frequently appearing on gems produced around mid-1st century BC may have been sometimes taken as an allegory to the events reported by ancient authors and again, plausibly Pompey’s soldiers would prefer such an iconography on their gems as a reference to their patron and commander. 962 Appian, Mithr. 17.117. 963 Moret 1997; Toso 2007, pp. 54-60. 964 Toso 2007, pp. 61-64. 965 Moret 1997, nos. 186-188. 966 Toso 2007, p. 61. 967 Weiß 2007, nos. 273-274. Another mythological figure frequently appearing on engraved gems and who is sometimes linked with Pompey the Great is Diomedes. The Greek hero stealing palladion of Troy with or without his companion Ulysses was a popular motif on gems engraved in Italy starting from the 5th century BC. Regarding Roman Republican glyptics, his popularity was due to the fact that Diomedes was related to the mythological foundations of Rome.963 In the 1st century BC Diomedes appears on gems with increasing frequency, hence, some scholars believed that it was a suitable subject for political leaders of Rome to be employed for their propaganda.964 Regarding Pompey, Moret believes that three intaglios, one in Paris and two glass gems in Berlin represent this Roman general as Diomedes stealing palladion (cat. nos. 8.51-52, fig. 201).965 According to him, in all three cases the coiffure resembles Pompey’s anastole and thus, the gems in question should be related to him and dated ca. 70 BC. They were produced to illustrate Pompey’s imperium since the motif indeed stood for Roman power and perfectly incarnated virtus.966 Nevertheless, such an early dating and attribution of the gems to Pompey is largely inconclusive. I entirely agree with Weiß, who recently re-evaluated the glass gems in Berlin. She convincingly argues that the head of the hero, rather than exhibiting any reference to Pompey and his anastole hairdo, fits well a general classicising type employed on gems in the second half of the 1st century BC and that is the time when those two objects were produced.967 In case of the gem from Paris, this general type head is even more evident and classicising. Besides, overall, the composition of the scene, strong highlight of perfect body and style of engraving are purely classicising in character and thus I recognise here work of Augustan times. Under no circumstances, the described gems should not be linked with Pompey and his propaganda actions, rather with Augustus and his political programme (cf. chapter 10.7). Finally, I shall remark on the suggestion that Pompey identified himself with Achilles and there are reflections of that in glyptics. Such a view has been proposed by Giuliano, Micheli and Moret regarding an amethyst in Paris presenting Achilles playing cithara, however, they do not present any solid arguments for such a claim.968 The gem is indeed exceptionally well carved and signed by artist Pamphilos (cat. no. 8.53, fig. 202). Vollenweider dated the piece to the times of Pompey the Great but hesitated to identify the hero with that Roman general.969 Actually, there are two intriguing details in gem’s iconography. The shield lying at Achilles’ foot is decorated with Gorgoneion, symbol of Pontic dynasty which might refer here directly to Mithridates (cf. chapter 8.1.3). Moreover, another element of shield’s decoration is quadriga which may symbolise triumph and in this particular case, the one Pompey was awarded once came back to Rome in 61 BC. For these reasons, the whole composition would present Pompey as Achilles engaged in a tranquil activity reflecting peace after long period of turbulent wars with Mithridates in the east.970 At the same time, the gem is a tribute to Pompey’s triumph, military prowess and courage compared to those of Achilles and even on the further extent also to Alexander the Great.971 Such a subject would be suitable for a someone living in the east rather than in Rome, though, unless the gem circulated in the inner circle of Pompey’s supporters. This is justified due to the complex political message encoded into this peculiar work of art which could be appreciated only by well-educated recipients. Moreover, apart from the Medusa’s head discussed above, this intaglio would be another one testifying to the patronage of Pompey over Pamphilos. It is noteworthy that later Augustus employed Dioscurides as his court gem engraver who also cut a very similar subject on a cornelian now in Naples (cat. no. 9.613, fig. 580) which also encapsulated the same idea of eastern conquest, but this time as a result of the Battle of Actium (cf. chapter 10.6). 968 Giuliano and Micheli 1989, p. 32; Moret 1997, no. 122. 969 Vollenweider 1966, p. 27. 970 Toso 2007, p. 34. 971 For instance, by Plutarch, Pompey, 29.1-5. Vollenweider stimulated imagination of many identifying the famous Beverley hyacinth intaglio presenting mourning Achilles seated on a stool with Pompey the Great (cat. no. 8.54, fig. 203). According to her, the hair on the top of the head resemble anastole coiffure applied by Pompey in order to imitate Alexander the Great. Furthermore, the Swiss scholar suggested that the plump body of the figure depicted reflects Pompey’s posture. Besides, she remarked that Alexander himself identified with Achilles so why Pompey would not have done the same, though, in his case, the comparison was meant to imitate Alexander rather than directly the Greek hero.972 Vollenweider linked the mourning Achilles with Pompey’s disappointment resulted from some of his followers to abandon him and turning to the side of Caesar.973 Her interpretation has been followed by other scholars. For instance, Kopij also recognises here Pompey in the guise of Achilles claiming that the gem could refer to Pompey’s appointment to fight the pirates and later Mithridates in the east. He highlights the potential propagandistic value of the piece suggesting that even if Pompey did not commission it directly, the intaglio shows he was highly esteemed so that gem engravers showed him as compared to Achilles.974 As attractive as it seems, linking the hyacinth intaglio in question with propaganda of Pompey the Great is unreasonable. Let us carefully examine the stone and what was engraved upon it. 972 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 111-113. 973 Vollenweider 1972-1974, p. 112. 974 Kopij 2017, p. 260. 975 King 1872, p. 65, pl. XLIII.3. 976 King 1885, p. 236, pl. LXVIII.2. 977 Furtwängler 1900, vol. I, pl. XLIII.18, vol. II, p. 205. 978 Knight 1921, no. 91. 979 Moret 1997, no. 186, pp. 123, note 13. 980 Scarisbrick, Wagner, and Boardman 2016a, no. 158. 981 Plantzos 1999, pp. 35-37. The Beverley gem presents a naked youth seated on a dress on a four-legged table, resting one hand on a sheathed sword and with the other hand to his head, pensively. It was King who first commented on it and recognised here Achilles seated on his couch within his tent, brooding over his quarrel with Agamemnon,975 while another time he thought it to present Ajax mediating suicide and even attributed the intaglio to one of the Pichlers.976 Later, Furtwängler took the figure for angry Achilles and his interpretation is particularly interesting, so we will come back to it a bit later.977 Knight saw on this gem a Hermaphrodite,978 while Moret compares gems where the subject suggests an emperor as the hero (see also my comment on his suggestions towards linking some gems presenting Pompey as Diomedes above).979 Only recently the Beverley collection of intaglios and cameos has been re-published and Scarisbrick, Wagner and Boardman rightly suggest the figure presented on the hyacinth in question here to be perhaps Achilles mourning Patroclus or sulking.980 The scholars date the piece to mid- 1st century AD which is unacceptable, though. That garnet intaglio is a Hellenistic creation which is suggested by the relatively large dimensions of the stone used, its type (garnet group) and form (convex face and concave back side). Such stones fit well solid gold Hellenistic rings.981 The style of engraving combining careful examination of the naked body with deep emotions reflected through nostalgic face expression and somewhat saddening posture suggesting emotional tear could be mixed together and so well accomplished only by a Greek artist. Therefore, I propose to date this piece to the second quarter of the 1st century BC. The subject of Achilles or another Greek hero sitting on a stool mourned or sulked is not particularly common in Greek and Roman glyptics, but there are several gems that bear more or less the same subject to the Beverley masterpiece. The closest analogy appears to be a sardonyx, once in the Philipp von Stosch collection and now in Berlin, presenting Achilles in a similar pose, but leaning his arms on a round shield decorated with a hippocamp, while his helmet and sword hangs on a column beside him (cat. no. 8.55, fig. 204).982 Another close parallels are: a black jasper intaglio in New York, where Achilles is seated on a stool and leans his left arm on a sheathed sword (cat. no. 8.56, fig. 205), a repetition of this motif on a sard in Munich (cat. no. 8.57) as well as a cornelian from Oxford with a similar subject (cat. no. 8.58). Regarding the specimen in New York, Richter suggested that similar pose was also employed for boxers and athletes.983 Less close to the Beverley gem are the following intaglios: a cornelian found in Aquileia presenting a Greek hero seated on his shield next to a column surmounted with a sword, helmet and another, small shield (cat. no. 8.59),984 a fragment of a blue glass gem in Munich bearing a Greek hero who stands next to a tree and puts his right hand on a rim of a large shield decorated with Gorgoneion (cat. no. 8.60),985 and two gems in Copenhagen featuring Ajax about to commit a suicide (cat. nos. 8.61-62, fig. 206).986 As one can see from this brief survey, the theme existed first in the Hellenistic glyptics to which I account here the Beverley intaglio as well as the gems in Berlin and New York. In the course of time it was adopted by the Romans who produced their own gems with that subject which is suggested by provenance study.987 They all might have followed a common prototype, or the subject was borrowed by gem engravers from another art form which it was often the case in antiquity. 982 Furtwängler 1896, no. 6882. This gem has been also reproduced in a glass paste, see: Zwierlein-Diehl 1986, no. 366. 983 Richter 1956, no. 408. 984 Sena Chiesa 1966, no. 745 (recognised as perhaps Diomedes). 985 AGDS I.3, no. 3259 (with further parallels). 986 Furtwängler 1900, vol. I, pl. XXX.65, vol. II, p. 151; Fossing 1929, nos. 392-393. 987 Note especially the gem found in Aquileia, the glass gem in Munich, which was once a part of Paul Arndt collection formed in Rome as well as another glass intaglio in Copenhagen likely also produced in Rome or Italy. I have mentioned that Furtwängler included the famous Beverley intaglio into his opus magnum and identified the subject with the famous painting of Timomachus, an influential Greek painter of the 1st century BC, presenting Ajax about to commit a suicide.988 Pliny informs that this work of art was purchased by Julius Caesar in pair with another work of the painter presenting Medea for a considerable sum of 80 talents, who consequently installed them in the front of the Temple of Venus Genetrix on his Forum.989 It is argued if the paintings were acquired shortly after Caesar’s victory at Pharsalus.990 This could be the moment when the subject infiltrated Roman glyptic art and has been copied by gem engravers working even as far from Rome as Aquileia. The Beverley intaglio plays a significant role here as it testifies the interest of Greek gem engravers in this kind of imaginary too. Most likely it is a free but beautiful copy of Timomachus painting that could not refer to Pompey in any reasonable way. Whether the engraver was aware that he replaces Achilles with Ajax or we wrongly decode his intentions is another kettle of fish. As evidenced above, the argumentation of Vollenweider to connect the image discussed with Pompey is weak from the iconological point of view. In addition, I do not recognise the famous anastole hairdo since the hair is divided and combed on both sides of the head and the naked body, although sometimes meant for heroization, here has purely mythological sense. Kopij’s view should be dismissed too. It would not make any sense for Pompey to display his dissatisfaction with the fact that some of his followers desert him. Roman propaganda focused primarily on positive aspects and as has been shown above, commemoration of Pompey’s successes as well as his personal branding occurred in glyptics only in case of positive events.991 One would expect identification with a victorious hero showing his physical prowess and other virtues rather than a mourning or sulking one. The Beverley gem is a perfect example of an overinterpretation of gem’s potential propagandistic value. 988 Furtwängler 1900, vol. III, pp. 343-344. Fossing was of a similar opinion regarding the evoked here gems from Copenhagen, see: 1929, no. 392. 989 Pliny, NH, VII.39. See also Cicero mentioning the paintings – In Verrem, 2.4.135. 990 Gurd 2007. 991 For more detailed study of propaganda of Pompey and his sons, see: Kopij 2017. 992 Sallust, Plutarch and many other ancient writers compared Pompey to the Macedonian king, see: Kühnen 2005, pp. 54-56 and 67-81, Kopij 2017, pp. 138-139. 8.1.10. Imitatio Alexandri The military campaign of Pompey in the east resulted in vast territories being put under Roman control. This accomplishment was the most impressive of all Pompey’s successes and it was done while he was very young. For this reason, Pompey became quickly compared to Alexander the Great.992 It seems that at the very early stage of his career Pompey engaged imitatio Alexandri into his propaganda machinery. For a long time, scholars debated on this phenomenon approaching it from different angles (historians, art historians, archaeologists and numismatists).993 However, relatively little attention has been paid to the role of glyptics in Pompey’s imitatio Alexandri which was usually brought to the famous and characteristic anastole coiffure that one observes on a number of Pompey portrait gems (cf. chapter 8.1.5).994 Nevertheless, there are some other indications for Pompey to have used gems to imitate Alexander the Great. For instance, during his triumph in 61 BC Pompey rode a chariot decorated with gemstones like Alexander used to do.995 Moreover, most likely he used to identify himself with Achilles and Alexander did the same (see discussion on this matter in chapter 8.1.9 above).996 Pompey’s last signet ring is reported to bear the same subject as the seal of Alexander which is another example of his deliberate imitatio Alexandri through gems as has been reported in chapter 8.1.4 above. 993 The most recent summary of Pompey’s imitatio Alexandri has been presented in: Kühnen 2005, pp. 54-82 and Kopij 2017, pp. 137-144. 994 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 108-109 and 113; Zanker 1988, p. 10; Kühnen 2005, p. 57. 995 Lapatin 2015, p. 117. 996 Toso 2007, pp. 31-33. 997 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 107-108. Such an interpretation was accepted by Kopij too (2017, p. 260). Regarding Pompey’s imitatio Alexandri reflected on engraved gems, Vollenweider noticed in a private collection a particularly intriguing sardonyx depicting a naked young man wearing only a mantle tied under his neck and hanging down his back, standing next to his horse. In the left hand he grasps a double-blade spear while with the right one he keeps his horse (cat. no. 8.63, fig. 207). She identified the man with Pompey and linked the intaglio with the events of 82 BC when he forced Sulla to let him celebrate his first triumph for Pompey rode on his horse on the Capitoline Hill and the gem would precisely refer to that event. Moreover, Vollenweider identified here Pompey with one of the Dioscuri (Castor).997 Indeed, a single male figure standing next to his horse brings about associations with Dioscurus, but there is no star or any other detail (for instance, a pileus cap on the head) suggesting such an identification. On contrary, the pose of the figure oriented to the front, but with the body and head slightly twisted to the left grasping a spear resembles rather Hellenistic statues. Besides, as has been shown above, it would be unusual for Pompey to engage glyptics into his propaganda as early as Vollenweider proposed since almost all categories of gems related to his self-advertisement and commemoration of various events date not earlier than to his eastern military campaigns that started in 66 BC. Furthermore, the nakedness meant here as a form of heroization should be accepted, while the coiffure of the male figure with highly raised forelocks reminds of Alexander’s anastole. This combined with the horse, which might be allusion to the famous Bucephalus, suggests that indeed Pompey the Great is presented on this intaglio but alluding to Alexander the Great. In my opinion, the gem testifies to Pompey’s imitatio Alexandri. Such an image would be suitable only around 61 BC when the Roman statesman came back to Rome after his eastern campaign whilst he conquered much of the east at a young age just like Alexander did. The intaglio appears Hellenistic in style which is noticeable in the capture of the figure, elaboration of body elements resembling more one of the Greek heroes rather than a mortal man. Such an interpretation seems more plausible since we know that Pompey became seriously interested in engraved gems while he was in the east and shortly after. The subject was shortly copied on glass gems as evidenced from two examples in London and perhaps the gems were connected to Pompey’s triumph celebrations e.g. distributed to his followers (cat. nos. 8.64-65, figs. 208-209). 8.1.11. Political symbols In sub-chapter 8.1.8 I have touched the issue of a large production of intaglios bearing various symbols and their combinations. I have also already remarked that due to considerable range of types, among which some are more or less similar to those one finds in the Roman Republican coinage of the 1st century BC, scholars tend to see in those similarities indications for propaganda messages being transmitted through gems and coins alike with abundant use of symbolism. In this sub-chapter, I am going to challenge this view and present several case studies that clearly show only superficial analogies between coins and gems regarding political symbolism as well as those where indeed one should read gems and coins as equal channels of Pompey’s propaganda. In sub-chapter 8.1.9 I have described potential reflections of Pompey’s identification with Heracles. There are many gems presenting Heracles attributes that should be dated to the first half of the 1st century BC. Because of the fact that Pompey promoted himself as Heracles on coins among others,998 some scholars suggest that those configurations of Heracles attributes and other symbols on intaglios should be related to Pompey the Great.999 Nevertheless, when one compares a large group of both gems and coins designs, it is obvious that differences in iconography are considerable. There are no symbolic configurations related to Heracles in the coinage of Pompey that would be clearly copied in glyptics. Therefore, I would like to present 998 For instance: RRC, nos. 444/1a-c (denarii of Q. Sicinius and C. Coponius, 49 BC) and p. 737. 999 For instance: Maaskant-Kleibrink 1986, no. 3; Middleton 1991, no. 27. here arguments contradicting the view that one should link gems like those with Pompey’s propaganda practices. Symbols of Heracles exist on the 1st century BC gems in various constellations, but there are several particularly popular types. For example, Heracles’ club and a corn ear or two (cat. nos. 8.66-67, fig. 210), Heracles’ club flanked by two arrows or a bow and arrow (cat. nos. 8.68-71, fig. 211) or even more complex configurations like Heracles’ club with palm branches and caduceus atop, flanked by a dolphin and cornucopia (cat. no. 8.72, fig. 212). Such examples most likely make reference to Heracles as a hero, sometimes combined with a deity like Diana represented by arrows and testify to special veneration of these figures by intaglio’s owner. This is clearly the case when not only symbols are represented but also full figures. A good example of that is an intaglio in Cambridge presenting helmeted Fortuna holding caduceus and Heracles’ club (cat. no. 8.73, fig. 213).1000 This piece shows that combinations of Heracles’ club, Mercury’s caduceus and Fortuna, elements so popular on symbolic gems, were also presented in the fully-figured subjects and thus, regarded as amulets ensuring blessing and protection of the deities addressed. Sometimes Heracles’ club is accompanied by objects and symbols clearly indicating amuletic properties, like a hand holding it together with corn ears, poppies, grass blades and laurel wreath or mouse and lizard (cat. nos. 8.74-75, fig. 214). Moreover, there is a good number of objects bearing Heracles’ attributes and inscriptions (cat. nos. 8.76-80, fig. 215). Some of them are names of intaglios’ owners, but there are some suggesting amuletic properties of these stones as well. To sum up, there is no clear evidence for Pompey or his followers to issue gems with symbolism referring to Heracles or comparing the Roman stateman with the hero. The symbols like Heracles’ club and others were chosen because of their apotropaic properties averting Evil Eye and other dangers as well as assuring divine blessing and protection from the gods. 1000 Henig, Scarisbrick and Whiting 1994, no. 131. 1001 Tomaselli et al. 1987, no. G.31. Another popular motif in glyptics that is often interpreted in the light of Pompey’s propaganda is a combination of a dolphin entwined on a rudder (cat. no. 8.81). I have already discussed it in the chapter devoted to Gaius Marius, but some scholars see in it a reference to Pompey’s role as the punisher of the pirates.1001 This is a clear overinterpretation since the motif was meant to be amuletic in character (cf. chapter 7.2.5). However, it is noteworthy that a glass gem in Berlin bearing a sceptre upright with a dolphin on the left and eagle on the right mirrors the design of denarius of Pompey and Varro struck in 49 BC (cat. no. 8.82, figs. 216-217).1002 The constellation from coin’s reverse on the one hand informs about Jupiter’s and Neptune’s favor to Pompey’s case, while on the other hand it is an allusion to Pompey’s domination over the land and sea.1003 Perhaps Yarrow is right to believe that glass gems featuring the same design as evidenced from the Berlin example were produced for Pompeian soldiers, maybe even those raised by Varro in Spain. They were used by them as unified symbols of their commander with whom they identified and whom they supported.1004 It might be the case that there were more designs like this one under discussion here used by Pompey’s followers. Another glass gem in London features a slightly different variation of the image known from Pompey’s and Varro’s coin as the eagle and dolphin flank caduceus (cat. no. 8.83, fig. 218). Perhaps the intaglio was carried by a soldier to manifest his support to Pompey with hope for peace to be established in the Roman Republic due to his future victory which is suggested by the presence of caduceus. 1002 RRC, no. 447/1a. 1003 RRC, p. 738; Kopij 2017, pp. 146-148; Campagnolo and Fallani 2018, no. VIII.1.i, p. 108. 1004 Yarrow 2018, pp. 43-44. Regarding other potentially political symbols’ combinations on gems, similarly to Sulla, the motif of a dressed trophy on gems is sometimes associated with Pompey, because one of his seals and coin designs included three as a reference to his military victories (cat. nos. 8.84-86, fig. 219). Nevertheless, like in case of Sulla, gems that can be dated precisely to the second quarter or ca. mid-1st century BC, which precision is often impossible, are sometimes accompanied with inscriptions suggesting them to function as private amulets or being related to auto-presentation of gem’s sitter. Finally, there is a great number of intaglios dated to the first half of the 1st century BC bearing cornucopia and other symbols combined with it (cat. nos. 8.87-92). They are often given political significance, sometimes related to Pompey’s good government, however, majority of evidence suggest that these gems were used as amulets and expressed people’s desires and hopes for peace and prosperity, in other words, their expectations of the end of the Civil War. This view is supported by the inscriptions appearing on some of them that usually recall gems owners’ names rather than Pompey and his case (cat. nos. 8.87-90). Some indicate amuletic functions directly like a gem from Munich with letter F engraved alongside to cornucopia, that possibly stands for Latin felix meaning ‘fortunate’ (cat. no. 8.90, fig. 220). Furthermore, analysis of provenance suggest that these gems were commonly produced throughout whole Italy, including large glyptic centres like Rome and Aquileia.1005 As a result, one supposes that those gems were primarily produced to bring good luck and prosperity to their owners or eventually, some of them should be linked with Sulla and promotion of his political programme (cf. chapter 7.1.6) rather than to Pompey’s propaganda. As evidenced above Pompey’s promotion in glyptics solely focused on his own figure and achievements. There was no promotion of a kind of a comprehensive programme like in case of Sulla, Julius Caesar or Augustus (cf. chapters 7.2.5, 8.2.9 and 10.8). Nevertheless, as evidenced above references to his power and leadership over one of the Roman political factions can be rarely found on symbolic gems. 1005 For Aquileia, see: Sena Chiesa 1966, nos. 1420-1456 and for Rome, Weiß 1996, nos. 436-41 – a series of objects purchased in Rome by Friedrich Julius Rudolph Bergau (1836-1905) or AGDS I.2, no. 924 (with more parallels) – objects from the Paul Arndt collection. 1006 Pliny, NH, XXXVII.7. 1007 Lapatin 2015, p. 122. 1008 One of the best accounts on Caesar’s triumph passed to us thanks to Appian, BC, 2.101-102. 1009 Pliny, NH, XXXVII.5. 8.1.12. Luxury objects (State Cameos, vessels etc.) and religious propaganda Pliny reports that it was Pompey who introduced in Rome fashion for engraved gems and muhrrine vessels made of precious stones.1006 He did that during his triumph when he exhibited 2000 bowls and cups of this kind that were taken from Mithridates VI Eupator’s treasury.1007 Nevertheless, there is no information whatsoever as to Pompey’s involvement in production, collecting or simply using of such extraordinary objects. The same is the case regarding State Cameos as not even one has been preserved to the present times that could be linked with Pompey and his propaganda practices (except for two portrait cameos discussed above – cf. chapter 8.1.5). All the known examples of State Cameos and vessels decorated with figural scenes are later products, mostly related to Augustus propaganda and panegyric (cf. chapter 10.9). 8.2. Julius Caesar When Pompey the Great came back to Rome and received his triumph in 61 BC exhibiting considerable collections of engraved gems and muhrrine vessels, he established a sort of precedence eagerly followed by others. The first one to respond to Pompey’s propagandistic actions with the use of engraved gems was naturally Julius Caesar. Nor Pliny neither other ancient authors speak about Julius Caesar’s use of gems during his quadruple triumph in 46 BC,1008 but the former informs that the dictator consecrated his six dactyliothecae to the Temple of Venus Genetrix on his Forum.1009 This action was surely inspired by the example of Pompey and Caesar did the same to gain popularity of ordinary people and to present his pietas erga deos and pietas erga patriam very much like his main opponent did. In case of Caesar, one wonders whether his propagandistic use of engraved gems was greater than Pompey’s or not. Next question is if some actions were induced by Caesar or they resulted from willingness to manifest support and loyalty to him by his followers which account to bottom-up initiatives. Finally, it is worth to wonder if Caesar’s political programme is reflected on gems to a considerable or at least noticeable degree with the tools the current researcher has at his disposal. 8.2.1. Collecting It has been mentioned above that Julius Caesar possessed a significant, because numbering six cabinets, collection of engraved gems and rings.1010 In case of Pompey, his set was largely if not entirely the dactyliotheca once belonging to Mithridates VI Eupator, thus, technically, Pompey ought not to be considered as a true collector. He definitely made a good use of already existing collection though, and perhaps hired some artists to produce gems for him and his followers (cf. chapters 8.1.2 and 8.1.3). The case of Caesar is slightly different and proves that gem collecting was a competitive sport in ancient Rome. The six dactyliothecae belonging to Julius Caesar could be partially formed from the jewels he brought back from Egypt,1011 but interestingly, Suetonius informs that Caesar ‘was always a most enthusiastic collector of gems, carvings, statues, and pictures by early artists.’1012 Regarding paintings, I have already brought to reader’s attention a story of two works by Timomachus that Caesar purchased and installed in his Forum (cf. chapter 8.1.9). According to Suetonius, collecting of gems must have been a highly popular practice, but the best pieces could be purchased by a few. Some scholars even argue if one of the reasons for production of glass gems and cameos, that were introduced to Rome at the time of Pompey and Caesar, was collecting.1013 Certainly, Caesar could afford the best cameos and intaglios and his cabinet was extraordinary if compared to others, including Pompey. Ultimately though, he deposited his dactyliothecae in the Temple of Venus Genetrix on his Forum.1014 Doing this he clearly expressed his pietas erga deos, more specifically to Venus herself, his patroness which was a well-thought, strategic and propagandistic movement. The temple was located in the sphere designed to be used by all 1010 Pliny, NH, XXXVII.5. 1011 Vollenweider 1966, p. 18; Toso 2007, p. 4. 1012 Suetonius, Divus Iulius, 47; Lapatin 2015, p. 118. 1013 Zazoff 1983, p. 329; Maderna-Lauter 1988, p. 442; Ritter 1995, p. 101. 1014 Pliny, NH, XXXVII.5. Romans so placing his collection there Caesar gained considerable popularity among ordinary people and aristocracy alike. He presented his power to create such a cabinet and generosity by making it a sort of public good showing his pietas erga patriam. For these reasons, his passion for collecting turned into an effective propaganda since the ultimate goal was to improve his own image and influence public opinion. 8.2.2. Gem engravers working for Julius Caesar In the second quarter of the 1st century BC the number of Greek gem engravers transferring their businesses from the east to Rome was rapidly increasing. Many of them started to sign their works due to increasing competition as well as to boast from the fact that they worked for the most prominent Romans.1015 Many Roman nobiles became patrons of glyptic art and Julius Caesar was surely one of them. For a long time it has been argued for that gem engraver Heius worked for Caesar.1016 He is supposed not only to cut intaglios for the dictator but also to be responsible for his coin dies, for instance, one of his work might be the denarius of L. Hostilius Saserna presenting archaising image of Diana with a stag to the front on the reverse (fig. 221).1017 Yet, the case of Heius is a rather complicated one. Zwierlein-Diehl discovered that the artist could be a Greek man freed by a member of Roman Heius family, possibly even by C. Heius, a rich man from Messana from whom Verres stole statues and tapestries.1018 Boardman notices that gems by Heius are almost exclusively based on sculptural prototypes which adds credibility to Zwierlein-Diehl’s theory because being employed in C. Heius’ house furnished with marble and bronze statues of all kinds, Heius engraver would have had a plenty of sources to take inspiration from.1019 This makes his potential employment by Julius Caesar less likely, though. 1015 Zazoff 1983, pp. 328-329; Zwierlein-Diehl 1988, p. 3647. 1016 Vollenweider 1970; Zazoff 1983, pp. 328-329; Henig 2007, p. 4. 1017 Vollenweider 1970; RRC, no. 448/3 (denarius of L. Hostilius Saserna, 48 BC). 1018 Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, pp. 110-111. 1019 Boardman 1997, p. 17. 1020 See some examples: Dalton 1914, nos. 786 and 869. The signature of Heius was often fabricated on post-classical gems,1020 but five his signed works are taken more or less securely as ancient including an original bust of king Kodros possibly based on an early classical statue by Pheidias, known today only from a glass impression, a pair of Hygeia and Aesculap carved on a cornelian in Vienna – the subject also deriving from a statuary group and bust of Athena Lemnia on a lost nicolo that copies the work of Pheidias (cat. nos. 8.93-95, figs. 222-224).1021 The other two intaglios of that cutter are now in London and present Diomedes and Ulysses standing over captured Dolon as well as goddess Diana with a stag (cat. nos. 8.96-97, figs. 225-226).1022 Vollenweider connected the latter to the above-mentioned coin of L. Hostilius Saserna. Artemis/Diana appears on that issue because she was the chief goddess of Massalia, a city in southern Gaul conquered by Caesar at the time of emission.1023 Nevertheless, the subject from Heius work possibly refers to the old Italic figure of Diana Nemorensis conflated with Hellenistic Artemis for which reason the goddess holds her bow and arrow instead of typical bowl and twig as already observed by Furtwängler.1024 It is possible that Diana’s image on Heius’ intaglio derives from a cult statue rather than is connected to the coin minted in 48 BC. Apart from the shared subject-matter, which, as proven is controversial, the coin and Heius’ gem differ considerably in compositional and stylistic terms. Therefore, in my opinion, the only work of Heius that could have been suitable for Caesar’s propaganda is his intaglio depicting Diomedes and Ulysses standing over captured Dolon (cat. no. 8.97, fig. 226). It would refer to the legendary history of gens Iulia, but it is known from his coinage that he preferred to refer directly to Aeneas rather than Diomedes and used completely different imaginary for that purpose (cf. chapter 8.2.8).1025 In conclusion, I believe that there is very little evidence, if any at all, to consider Caesar hiring Heius as his gem engraver. It is far more probable that the artist worked in Sicily for Heius family around 60-50 BC as suggested by Zwierlein-Diehl and his works have no political message encoded whatsoever. 1021 Hampe (ed.) 1971, no. 147, pp. 111-117; Zwierlein-Diehl 1988, p. 3468; Boardman 1997, p. 17; Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 111, ills. 429 and 431. 1022 Boardman 1997, p. 17; Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 111, ills. 430 and 432. Zwierlein-Diehl wonders if two more intaglios from Vienna collection should be attributed to Heius on stylistic ground (2007, p. 111, ills. 433-434). 1023 RRC 448/3 (denarius of L. Hostilius Saserna, 48 BC). 1024 Furtwängler 1900, vol. III, p. 231. 1025 RRC no. 458/1 (denarius of Julius Caesar, 47-46 BC). 1026 Vollenweider 1966, pp. 29-30. 1027 RRC, nos. 453/1a-e. Even if Caesar did not employ Heius, his patronage over glyptic art could be still considerable. Towards the end of his life his propaganda took momentum, and this is perhaps reflected on gems to the same degree as in his coinage. For example, gem engraver Rufus cut a cameo presenting Victory with a palm branch soaring aloft in a chariot driven with four horses (cat. no. 8.98, fig. 227).1026 The subject was inspired by a painting by Nicomachus. Noteworthy is the fact that it also appears on denarii struck in 47 BC by L. Plautius Plancus (fig. 228).1027 Perhaps the picture was in the possession of the moneyer at that time whose brother L. Munatius Plancus dedicated in 43 BC on the occasion of his triumph to the Temple of Jupiter on Capitoline Hill.1028 Vollenweider and Crawford argue if the motif could have reflected a desire to be associated with the victory of a great individual, perhaps Julius Caesar.1029 In fact, the subject was since that moment frequently copied on gemstones and especially glass gems (cat. nos. 8.99-103) which of course, could be due to extreme popularity of the painting itself since it was vigorously copied by various artists. Nevertheless, its appearance in the coinage related to Caesar and cameo signed by one of the leading gem engravers of the epoch allows to suggest that Caesar’s contribution to the popularity of the motif ought not to be excluded.1030 Perhaps as a notorious collector he wished to have such a cameo in his cabinet. The propagandistic tone of Rufus’ work is problematical, though. Although the connection between the subject-matter and Caesar’s military victories is possible here, the artistic motivations seem to prevail. Be that as it may, it seems possible for Rufus to cut intaglios and cameos for Caesar which testifies to his great esteem and patronage over this branch of art. 1028 Pliny, NH, XXXV.36. 1029 Vollenweider 1966, pp. 29-30; RRC, p. 468. 1030 Giuliano and Micheli 1989, pp. 32-33. 1031 Furtwängler 1888-1889, p. 222. 1032 Vollenweider 1966, pp. 56-64 and 73. 1033 Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 117. 1034 Regarding the copies of Dioscurides’ Hellenistic prince intaglio, one is in Leiden and another in London – both first published by Philipp von Stosch in 1724 (pls. 25-26). Another copy is now in London – Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 117, ill. 429. 1035 Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 117. Finally, I should discuss here one peculiar frontal portrait of Julius Caesar that is said to have been engraved by the most famous gem engraver of all time – Dioscurides. It was Furtwängler who first suggested that Dioscurides might have executed portrait gem for Caesar.1031 Vollenweider argued that the artist possibly first worked for the Ptolemies but after Caesar’s stay in Egypt he travelled with him to Rome where he established a workshop together with his three sons later operating for Octavian/Augustus.1032 Zwierlein-Diehl notices that due to signature of Eutyches, one of Dioscurides’ sons, it is known that the master engraver originated from Cilicia and she makes a suggestion that Dioscurides could have worked for the last Seleucid king Philipp II Philorhomaios, who ruled in Cilicia until Pompey claimed Roman supremacy over it in 63 BC.1033 Zwierlein-Diehl recognises a gem presenting a Hellenistic prince as one of his very early signed works. However, the problem is that it is known only from modern copies.1034 This does not discourage her to argue that Dioscurides established his workshop in Rome already ca. mid-1st century BC as she believes that he cut portraits of Julius Caesar and Cicero around this date.1035 But both cases share the same problem as Dioscurides’ Hellenistic prince intaglio – they are known only from modern copies which complicates the research much (cf. chapter 8.3.2). If it goes to Dioscurides’ portrait of Caesar, all the modern copies present him laureate with augural symbol of lituus and star in the field, clearly following one well-established scheme (cat. nos. 8.104-105, fig. 229).1036 For this reason, some scholars are sceptical and indeed, based only on such a documentation, it is difficult to judge whether Dioscurides could have indeed executed an intaglio presenting portrait of Caesar or no.1037 If so, this would have been a truly propaganda piece presenting Caesar crowned with laurel wreath – attribute of his divine patroness Venus and with lituus commemorating his pontifex maximus title obtained in 63 BC.1038 The star in the field would have suggested the comet appearing on the sky after Caesar’s apotheosis.1039 Laureate head of Caesar accompanied with lituus appears on coins only after his death, for instance on denarius of Q. Voconius Vitulus struck in 40 BC,1040 hence, I suggest that if Dioscurides indeed cut portrait intaglio with the image of the dictator at some point of his career (which is speculative), he should have done this after his death, not earlier and perhaps he did so on the commission of Octavian or already Augustus rather than Caesar himself. Therefore, the piece would have been related to Octavian/Augustus propaganda and testified to his transfer of auctoritas and divine status from his predecessor. In my opinion, such a scenario is also more probable due to extraordinary long career of Dioscurides reaching more than 40 years of active work if one accepts the views of both Vollenweider and Zwierlein-Diehl.1041 It seems more reasonable that Dioscurides’ first Roman commissions were realised under Octavian/Augustus, while his Hellenistic prince, Cicero and possibly even Julius Caesar portrait gems are fabrications of clever modern forgers. 1036 Cat. no. 8.106 is still on a display in the British Museum labelled as a genuine ancient work of Dioscurides. Nevertheless, my autopsy confirms Zwierlein-Diehl’s opinion that the object is early 18th century creation. 1037 For instance, see the opinion of Plantzos on this matter (1999, p. 97). 1038 Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 117. 1039 Suetnius, Divus Iulius, 88. 1040 RRC, no. 526/2. 1041 Vollenweider 1966, pp. 56-64; Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 117. 8.2.3. Seal of Julius Caesar Prominent Romans like Sulla and Pompey the Great deliberately chose subjects referring to their military successes or other themes of political significance (cf. chapters 7.1.1 and 8.1.4) for their private seals. These are perhaps the best examples of propaganda performed in glyptics by political leaders of Rome and Julius Caesar was no exception to that rule. For he chose his divine patroness and ancestor of his family – Venus – with the highlight of her military aspect (Victrix) that also implied success, for his personal seal.1042 The exact motif is unknown to us since the seal is only vaguely described by Cassius Dio as follows: ‘(…) he [Caesar] used also to wear a carved image of her in full armour on his ring (…)’, but it is very likely that it quickly became a sort of unified symbol used in coinage and glyptics alike.1043 An important thing to notice is that Caesar probably chose the image of the half-naked goddess seen from behind which was unusual and even would have been considered inappropriate in coinage those days. Moreover, Zwierlein-Diehl remarks that usually the shield of Venus lying against a column in her Victrix image known from later coins and gems stands for sidus Iulium and refers to divine nature of Caesar himself.1044 Nevertheless, this element was certainly added after Caesar’s death only. 1042 Dio Cassius, Historia Romana, 43.43.3. 1043 Furtwängler 1900, vol. III, pp. 304-305; Vollenweider 1966, p. 19; Laubscher 1974, p. 247; Henig 1994, p. 155. Regarding coins, see for instance denarii of Augustus minted ca. 32-29 BC – RIC I Augustus, nos. 2501-b. 1044 Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 11. 1045 Instinsky 1962, pp. 22 and 24-25; Zazoff 1983, p. 315; Gagetti 2001, p. 139. 1046 The image of Venus Victrix was initially reserved to Caesar’s seal only, therefore, all attempts of numismatists to attribute one of Venus’ heads or images appearing on denarii is pointless, see for example a discussion in: RRC, p. 496. Thanks to the case of Caesar’s personal seal, one realises that glyptics allowed Roman political leaders to go much bolder with their propaganda messages rather than sculpture or coinage because of highly personal character of intaglios. The choice of such a motif was purely political and highlighted Caesar’s bounds and special veneration to Venus. The message emitted to the audience was clear, Julius Caesar is patronised by the goddess and because of that he deserves special esteem. Moreover, his military successes were either due to his talent and her divine blessing. The impact of such a ring must have been significant. The ring of Caesar could be later literary used by Octavian and also in a figurative form as an iconographical element in his propaganda, which shall be discussed later (cf. chapter 9.3.1.1).1045 Apparently, it seems that the image employed by Caesar was very successful but only since the end of the 1st century BC which suggests its special status so that during his lifetime, nobody dared to take it as his own emblem.1046 The subject clearly became a popular family emblem of gens Iulia Caesares after Caesar’s death (cf. chapter 8.3.3). Even as late as the 2nd century AD members of Julian clan tended to choose Venus Victrix for their personal seals (cf. chapter 8.2.5). 8.2.4. Portraits – personal branding, induction and manifestation of loyalty As evidenced above, even though Pompey is traditionally accounted for introduction of fashion for gems in Rome, Julius Caesar also invested much in his propaganda in glyptics. This is confirmed by archaeological material now preserved in various public and private collections. I start evaluation of Caesar’s and his followers’ input with portraits of the dictator since they are the most abundant category that could be related to propaganda activities. Gems bearing likeness of Caesar divide into four main categories: portraits without attributes, laureate portraits, portraits of Caesar as senator or consul and posthumous portraits.1047 The final class shall be discussed in detail in the chapter devoted to Octavian (cf. chapter 9.3.1.1). Because of the fact that portrait of Caesar appears on coins only in 44 BC and later and the comparative material in the form of sculptural busts is scanty and also usually known from later (mainly Augustan copies),1048 identification and most importantly dating of Caesar’s portraits on gems is somehow problematic. Yet, glyptics offers a relatively wide range of Caesar’s images that should contribute to the general studies focusing on his likeness to a considerable degree. 1047 For a thorough study of Julius Caesar’s portraits on gems see: Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 120-132. 1048 Regarding first coins featuring image of Caesar, see: RRC, nos. 480/2-21 (denarii of various moneyers bearing head of Caesar, 44 BC). Concerning sculpture, see, for example a thorough study of Johansen 1987. 1049 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 120-122; Vollenweider and Avisseau-Broustet 2003, no. 13. 1050 Johansen 1987, pp. 17-24. First difference to notice when one compares gems with Caesar’s portraits and those featuring image of Pompey the Great is the material used. In case of Pompey the proportions between gemstones and their glass imitations were almost equal (cf. chapter 8.1.5), but in case of Caesar, there is only a few glass gems bearing his portrait while gemstone intaglios clearly prevail. One of the earliest examples is an amethyst now preserved in Paris (cat. no. 8.106, fig. 230). According to Vollenweider, this is a portrait of a Roman and should be dated to the first third of the 1st century BC.1049 However, one should notice that the head is close to the Chiaramonti-Camposanto type of sculptural heads of Julius Caesar created shortly before or after his death (fig. 231).1050 Although fragmentarily preserved, the gem shows a verist head of a middle-aged man with well-accomplished facial features such as sunken cheek, mimic wrinkles, straight nose and his hair is minutely engraved in numerous individual locks. Typical for this gem is the fact that hair is not receded at the temples, but they are fully covered with it. The gem could have been executed by a Greek engraver but clearly, a one living already on the Roman soil around 50-44 BC. It seems unlikely that Caesar engaged himself into production of intaglios and cameos prior to his war campaign against Pompey, but when the conflict between the two broke out, either Caesar himself or his followers seem to commission gems with dictator’s portrait. There is a whole series of gems that are close to the Tusculum sculptural type of Caesar’s portrait. They exhibit similar features to the Chiaramonti-Camposanto version, but there is little hair above the temples. For example, a cornelian intaglio in Berlin presents such a head, although, the man depicted seems relatively old for Caesar (cat. no. 8.107, fig. 232). Next interesting example, this time clearly meant for Caesar, is a sapphire intaglio in Baltimore and once in the famous Marlborough collection (cat. no. 8.108, fig. 233). In this case, noteworthy is the material used which is unusual and rare in Roman glyptics. It suggests that the commissioner must have been a wealthy aristocrat or Caesar himself and what is more, Caesar is presented wearing toga as a senator or consul here. Interesting is a group of three almost identical cornelians that are preserved in the following places: St. Petersburg, Bern and Vienna (cat. nos. 8.109-111, fig. 234). The only difference is that the example from St. Petersburg has no garment suggested in the bottom part of the bust, but this homogenous group should be dated similarly to the two gems described above that is ca. 50-44 BC and they present Caesar as a senator or consul and stateman. In Martin-von-Wagner-Museum in Würzburg there are two further glass pastes made after ancient cornelians identical to the group previously described (cat. nos. 8.112-113, fig. 235). One of them is accompanied with an inscription M•T:C suggesting Marcus Tulius Cicero to be engraved, but Zwierlein-Diehl convincingly argues that it is an eighteenth-century addition. The portrait itself should be identified as Julius Caesar and was executed already before his death.1051 A slightly different version of Caesar’s portrait was cut upon an agate set in a gold ring, now in Geneva (cat. no. 8.114, fig. 236). Although facial features and the coiffure is close to the Tusculum type, the image presents a slightly older man and thus, perhaps should be dated around 44 BC?1052 In the Louvre Museum in Paris there is an interesting silver ring with a plomb decorated with portrait of Julius Caesar too (cat. no. 8.115, fig. 237). Finally, in Geneva there is a fragmentarily preserved cameo presenting a frontal head of a Roman whom Vollenweider identified with Julius Caesar (cat. no. 8.116, fig. 238). Indeed, his facial features are typical for Caesar and if so, apart from two cameos presenting Pompey the Great, this one would be another very early Roman cameo. Noteworthy is the fact that all three present portraits 1051 Zwierlein-Diehl 1986, no. 532, p. 200. 1052 For the Tusculum type of Caesar’s portrait, see: Johansen 1987, p. 27. of political leaders, which is no coincidence and testify to use of engraved gems, and cameos in particular, for personal branding. All the examples listed above suggest a relatively considerable production of Julius Caesar portrait gems happening already during his lifetime. The most interesting is the cornelian series bearing almost identical images that could not be copied from the coins, since images of Caesar are consistently absent there until 44 BC, but eventually from sculpture. They were not made by one artist but were possibly carved after a sort of prototype. They were probably made by several gem engravers and delivered to the market or cut on individual commissions of various people (Caesar’s followers). Less likely is that they were all made for Julius Caesar who gifted them to his supporters, however, such a hypothesis cannot be entirely rejected. Some objects, like the mentioned cameo could be created for personal adornment and use of Caesar himself due to extraordinary form for such an object those days. A similar case could be the sapphire intaglio once a part of the celebrated Marlborough cabinet, since the piece clearly stands out of the group in terms of stone and engraving quality. It is likely that those two objects were cut for Caesar when he campaigned in the east, perhaps while his stay in Alexandria which was the main glyptic centre of the Hellenistic world. The second class of Julius Caesar portrait gems can be more securely anchored in the chronological framework. It consists of laureate heads and busts of the dictator that were most likely created shortly after his quadruple triumph in 46 BC. The laurel wreath refers to Venus – divine patroness of Caesar or to the golden wreath (corona aurea) Caesar worn at the Lupercalia in 44 BC.1053 Sometimes the images of Caesar are accompanied with lituus or capis like on the glass gem from Vienna or a ring in London (cat. nos. 8.117-118, figs. 239-240). Although Vollenweider and Zwierlein-Diehl believe the piece to be close to coins minted after Caesar’s death, I think this particular example closely copies Caesar’s head from the denarius of L. Aemilius Buca issued in 44 BC (fig. 241) and could not have been made after dictator’s death.1054 Furthermore, I suggest such a date because Caesar wears a sort of decorated wreath that has no bands on the back of the head which was a typical feature of corona aurea mentioned above.1055 In Syracuse there is a distinctive amethyst engraved with Caesar’s portrait and lituus in the field (cat. no. 8.119, fig. 242). One notices the same kind of decorative wreath with no ribbons hanging down the neck, so it must be the corona aurea awarded to Caesar in 44 BC 1053 RRC, p. 488. 1054 RRC, no. 480/6. 1055 See a detailed commentary on this issue also reflected in the coinage: RRC, p. 488. and additionally, the lituus recalls pontifex maximus office appointed to Caesar in 63 BC. A highly interesting is the green chalcedony gem in Berlin, once in the Philipp von Stosch collection, featuring laureate bust of Julius Caesar wearing military cloak (paludamentum) with a palm branch in front of him (cat. no. 8.120, fig. 243). The cloak suggests military prowess and the branch is a symbol of victory. Both attributes combined surely refer to the triumph that Caesar celebrated in 46 BC and apparently, this peculiar object might be even earlier than two gems discussed above. Further, but less close, parallel is a glass gem in Rome (cat. no. 8.121, fig. 244). It is noteworthy that the provenance of all these examples can be established more or less securely as Italy or Rome which fits a broader image suggesting that gems with Julius Caesar image were primarily produced in the area under his control, rather nowhere else. In addition, the gems discussed here show how close were products of gem engravers and coin dies makers those days. The images appearing in glyptics were most likely copied from coins and delivered to the market either with Caesar’s encouragement or independently. The followers of the dictator certainly used his image on gems to manifest their loyalty and support to him and communicated each other about membership to the same group of peers, although, it must be stressed, none of the evoked examples bears inscription with the name of the sitter. It is evident that gems with Caesar’s image served well to integration propaganda aimed to unite his followers by his side. Therefore, intaglios and cameos were complementary to Caesar’s propagandistic actions performed through sculpture and coinage. Within the group of laureate heads and busts of Julius Caesar there are exceptions and one of them is a chalcedony intaglio housed in Paris presenting a laureate bust of Julius Caesar wearing also a decorative flower wreath and chlamys to the right (cat. no. 8.122, fig. 245). This gem was once a part of the Seyrig collection and is said to have been purchased in Cairo. If true, this information makes the piece even more interesting since it would indicate that the intaglio was created for Caesar while his stay in Egypt in 48 and 47 BC. As Vollenweider observed, the gem exhibits completely different iconography and style than purely Roman products at that time (which I listed above).1056 Caesar wears not only a laurel wreath, but also a specially designed diadem or crown made of flowers. He does not wear cuirass and paludamentum but chlamys which is typical for eastern tradition. Moreover, the portrait is clearly idealised and even though individual facial features such as sunken cheek or mimic wrinkles are indicated, the overall expression is far calmer than on other intaglios presenting dictator’s likeness (compare portraits listed above). It is clear that this gem was cut purely for 1056 Vollenweider and Avisseau-Broustet 2003, no. 16. propaganda purposes in the environment and circumstances that allowed for more than Rome. Caesar could depict here himself without any limits as a true dictator or even a king. The vague diadem form of the crown is combined with regular Roman laurel wreath which indicates Caesar’s ambitions to become a king, but at the same time he does not reject his Roman nature because this would be shocking for his soldiers and Roman companions in Egypt. It is difficult to say if the piece was meant to be used as personal adornment of Caesar or it was gifted to him from one of his followers in Egypt who knew that Caesar is a gem collector and would be happy to receive such a gift. Alternatively, one imagines that the portrait was produced on the commission of Caesar who gave it to one of his influential followers who stayed in Egypt after Caesar’s departure. Be that as it may, the gem was purposed to circulate only within the inner circle of Caesar and his close friends since the image would not have been acceptable in a wider audience. The piece testifies like Caesar’s own seal that glyptics allowed more bold ideas to be transmitted and promoted rather than any other medium at the time (cf. chapter 8.2.3). Regarding portraits of Julius Caesar there is one particularly intriguing and problematic class presenting him as a philosopher, thinker or simply a senator or consul. The whole story starts in 1920 when Richter published her first catalogue of the gems housed in the Metropolitan Museum of Arts in New York. Among them, there is an excellently cut amethyst intaglio presenting a detailed portrait bust of an elderly man to the right that, as Richter proved, might be successfully identified with Julius Caesar (cat. no. 8.123, fig. 246).1057 His hair is formed in the fairly short locks receded above the temple but reaching the nape of his neck. His shadowed eye-brow and the two deep furrows on his forehead are prominent and so is his scraggy neck with its Adam’s apple clearly visible. His nose is long and straight, and his face is lean with typically sunken cheek. His mimic wrinkles are clearly marked alike. The overall impression is that of an ascetic and pensive individual. All those are features typical for Julius Caesar portraits on gems discussed above as well as his images known from coins and sculpture. Unusual though, is the pose the bust is engaged. The man rests his chin on his left hand which is loosely clenched. Moreover, he wears a mantle, so draped, that it leaves his right shoulder bare. The bust is not accompanied by any attributes typical for Caesar such as lituus, capis, star/comet and so on. Thus, its identification is based purely on the analysis of the portrait itself.1058 The identification of the amethyst intaglio from New York with Caesar was accepted by Vollenweider and she claimed that this portrait bust type of Caesar was widely copied in 1057 Richter 1920, no. 217. 1058 This has been already noticed by Zwierlein-Diehl (1973a, no. 350) and regarded as one of the arguments against identification with Caesar. gemstones and especially in glass gems.1059 She argued that such a type was preferred by Caesar who wished to present himself as a wise and civilised man and because he visited the east and Egypt in 48-47 BC, he took a sort of philosophical ideal image for his own and wished to be depicted that way. Nevertheless, the identification of the portrait intaglio from New York and its potential copies is uncertain since one finds a very similar head on the denarii struck by P. Cornelius Lentulus Marcellinus in 50 BC (fig. 247).1060 The coins bear the portrait of Marcus Claudius Marcellus (ca. 268-208 BC), moneyer’s ancestor who was appointed consul five times and was one of Roman generals active during the Second Punic War. In 222 BC he obtained spolia optima which was the highest honour in Roman army. 1059 Vollenweider 1964, pp. 508-517; Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 122-132. 1060 RRC, no. 439/1. 1061 Vollenweider 1964, p. 517; Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 130-132. 1062 The number of parallels is vast (31 glass gems and 5 intaglios according to Lang, see: 2012, p. 54, but there are some more), and many have been already presented by Vollenweider in her monumental study on Roman Republican portrait gems, see: Vollenweider 1972-1974, pls. 80-85. Because of the lack of space here, I decided to avoid unnecessary repetition and brought just few examples illustrating the phenomenon. 1063 Kraft 1963, pp. 15-34. 1064 Hölscher 1964. 1065 For Ennius, see: Schefold 1965, pp. 32-33. For Meander, see: Richter 1969, pp. 501-502. The great number of ancient gemstone and glass gems bearing the motif of a man supporting his head on his right hand is striking. Vollenweider proposed to regard those gems as products of propaganda that were delivered to Caesar’s soldiers and followers.1061 Indeed, similar portraits perhaps intended to be taken for Caesar can be identified in all major collections, for instance in Berlin, Geneva, Leiden and beyond (cat. nos. 8.124-126, figs. 248-250).1062 However, a fundamental question is why there would have been such a great discrepancy between regular portraits of Julius Caesar and those presenting him as a thinker, senator or consul since the number of the latter is bigger than all other portrait gems of Caesar combined. Moreover, one quickly discovers that this peculiar portrait type is fairly common in Roman Republican glyptics especially in the second and third quarter of the 1st century BC and heterogenous in its character. It cannot be regarded as related exclusively to Caesar by no means and should be addressed in a wider context. There has been much of dispute over the numerous examples of similar portrait busts since it is even uncertain whether they portray philosophers, historical figures, orators, thinkers or any other specific professionals. Some scholars are of the opinion that the busts like those under discussion should be identified with Greek philosopher Aristoteles,1063 while others reject such a view,1064 and other identifications such as Ennius or Meander, have also been put forward.1065 Interesting is the idea presented by Zwierlein-Diehl who notices that the men on the gems in question wear old-fashioned Roman toga which leaves one shoulder bare and because this was ostentatiously manifested by Marcus Porcius Cato Uticensis (95-46 BC), she proposes to identify these portraits with him.1066 Furthermore, the researcher claims that such gems were worn by opponents of Caesar who supported Cato and other members of the republican party so that they would have been used for integration propaganda.1067 Her views, however attractive, were dismissed by Vollenweider, Maaskant-Kleibrink and Weiß since they observed that the facial features and coiffure of some portraits presented on those gems are strikingly close to Julius Caesar, which is true.1068 1066 Zwierlein-Diehl 1973a, no. 350, 1973b and 2007, pp. 123-124. 1067 Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 124. 1068 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 122-132; Maaskant-Kleibrink 1986, no. 55; Weiß 2007, no. 384. 1069 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 192-195. 1070 Yarrow 2018, p. 38. 1071 Zazoff 1983, pp. 280-281; Maaskant-Kleibrink 1986, no. 55. 1072 Lang 2012, pp. 53-55. I am of the opinion that one must ask himself a fundamental question: whether all those portrait bust gems were meant to depict a single individual or there is a common type that was applied to many? My survey suggest the latter option to be true because there is a kind of a variety and even Vollenweider noticed that several gems should be attributed to Octavian rather than Caesar, which issue I shall comment in one of the next chapters (9.3.1.1).1069 For Yarrow, this is a sufficient argument to distinguish just two types – older men are associated with Caesar, younger ones with Octavian.1070 However, the holistic picture turns out to be more complex because, for instance, in the Beverley collection of engraved gems there is a bearded young man presented in the same manner for whom any reasonable identification cannot be made, but he is certainly nor Caesar neither Octavian (cat. no. 8.127, fig. 251). There are more examples like this one and all of them bring me to the conclusion that the type must have been employed for various men and thus, another question raises that is whether they were intended to be depicted as philosophers, thinkers, readers, senators, consuls or someone else?1071 One of the most recent analysis of this problem was presented by Lang, who concluded that by no means those gems present Greek philosophers, but rather various individuals who wanted to be portrayed this way on their ringstones.1072 Indeed, the variety of people represented is vast and the type cannot be assigned only to one individual. In the absence of any specific attributes or symbols that would indicate their identification, the toga remains the only one meaningful indicator. It seems reasonable to claim that all those people represented are Roman senators or even consuls wearing toga as indicator of their profession and status in Roman society. Such a supposition is plausible since it fits to all the major figures (Julius Caesar, Cato, Octavian) and possibly others who cannot be identified. The last question is why these people wished to have their portraits cut in such a type? The only explanation is personal branding aimed at popularising the image of a particular politician combined with transfer of authority by comparison to a prominent ancestor or historical figure. Perhaps the amethyst in New York presents not Caesar but Marcus Claudius Marcellus and was used by one of the members of gens Claudia Marcelia for family propaganda in the same way as it was used on the mentioned coins, thus, having some impact on their peers. Other prominent Roman politicians (including Caesar) probably followed the trend. In other words, the propagandists wished to be depicted in the same manner as the famous Marcus Claudius Marcellus or Caesar. Doing this, they compared themselves to those figures in the same way as many Roman politicians (for instance Pompey the Great) did towards Alexander the Great (cf. chapter 8.1.10). All in all, it is evident that the reasons were purely propagandistic and thus the gems listed above as presenting Julius Caesar account to his political propaganda. They played supplementary role to the casual portraits of Caesar. I agree with Vollenweider that such gems could be delivered or commissioned by soldiers and followers of Caesar who used to identify with their patron that way. However, in contrast to her, I think that Caesar’s promotion through such objects was limited because only several objects can be securely attributed to him. This makes more sense because casual portraits of Caesar should prevail, and this is the evident situation that becomes clear according to my analysis. 8.2.5. Promotion of and within family For every propagandist in the Roman Republic the primary source of followers was his family. Gems used to be employed to manifest allegiance to a specific family (cf. chapters 6.3.1, 7.4.2 and 8.3.3), thus, it is possible that some of the portrait gems of Julius Caesar listed in the previous sub-chapter could be used by family members of gens Iulia Caesares to whom dictator belonged. It is easy to project someone from his family to manifest his loyalty and support to him that way. Moreover, some people could do so in order to show that they are protected by this powerful Roman individual in the midst of the Civil War. Those people would have raised their own authority too and thus, perhaps sometimes unintentionally, became engaged in Caesar’s propaganda at the same time since they contributed to dissemination of his image, including a positive reference to a politician whom one may seek support and protection. This was an important practice contributing to dictator’s popularity since he often presented himself as a defender of the Republic and ordinary people against abuses of the aristocrats. Similarly to Pompey the Great, in case of Caesar I do not find any gem testifying direct promotion of any of his family members. However, this is due to the fact that the dictator had no legal sons except for Caesarion, whose case was problematical and rather not ideal for promotion in Rome, and Octavian was posthumously adopted which eliminates his promotion during Caesar’s lifetime. One also wonders if family members of Iulii Caesares tended to manifest their membership to the same gens as Caesar in other ways than by using portrait of the dictator. For this could be due to Caesar’s promotional practices and testify to the effectiveness of his propaganda. He was a creator of family legendary origins involving goddess Venus since he employed Venus Victrix probably half-naked and seen from behind for his personal emblem (cf. chapter 8.2.3). It is noteworthy that one observes a great outburst of Venus Victrix and motifs related to her and Caesar family legend on gems but only in the second half of the 1st century BC and more precisely after Caesar’s death. People used to employ either full version of Venus Victrix motif like on the intaglio from Nürnberg (cat. no. 8.128, fig. 252) as well as the shortened one presenting her bust or head like on another intaglio from the same collection (cat. no. 8.129, fig. 253). Some of those gems are inscribed with names of their owners who belonged to Julian family. For instance, in Vienna there is a cornelian intaglio presenting Venus Victrix and inscribed with the name of Gaius Iulius Cresecentis (C• IVLI CRESCENTIS) dated to the 2nd century AD (cat. no. 8.130, fig. 254). There is a significant number of intaglios depicting Venus Victrix motif produced after Caesar’s death down to the 3rd century AD mostly because his successor Octavian also engaged in promotion of the goddess’ cult (cf. chapter 9.3.1.8). The subject of Venus Victrix clearly became a popular family emblem of gens Iulia which will be discussed in detail later (cf. chapter 8.3.3), but its absence during Caesar’s lifetime suggests that it experienced extraordinary status as dictator’s private seal so that nobody dared to take it as his own emblem. What is more, it seems likely that because of that special status, Venus Victrix never appeared on coins minted by or for Caesar too.1073 1073 The image of Venus Victrix was initially reserved to Caesar’s seal only, therefore, all attempts of numismatists to attribute one of Venus’ heads or images appearing on denarii as Victrix is pointless, see for example a discussion in: RRC, p. 496. 8.2.6. Promotion of the faction – populares In 60 BC, Julius Caesar, Marcus Licinius Crassus and Pompey the Great formed a political alliance that dominated Roman politics for several years. Although Caesar was born into a patrician family, he engaged himself into this pact on the side of the populares faction favouring the cause of the plebeians, particularly the urban poor. He supported laws regarding the provision of a grain dole for the poor by the state at a subsidised price as well as reforms which helped the poor, in particular those focusing on redistribution of land for the poor to farm and debt relief. His activities towards reaching those goals may have caused a situation where his portraits on gems discussed above were used for identification not only with him but also with his political party in general. Caesar quickly became a leader of the populares thus, gems with his portraits may have been a sort of tokens people used to manifest their political preferences. If that was the case, it could be the answer why there are some portraits of Caesar either casual ones as well as those presenting him as a senator or consul made mostly on glass gems. The latter objects must have been popular among poorer people (middle class), however, as I have already remarked, they do not outnumber gems with portraits of Pompey, so it is difficult to say if such observations can indicate any reliable conclusions. It has already been discussed here whether popular motifs in the 1st century BC Roman Republican glyptics such as head/bust of Apollo or Heracles could be regarded as symbols of optimates or populares, but no such a conclusion should be made based on the preserved material and information extracted from literary sources (cf. chapters 7.1.5 and 8.1.11).1074 Recently, Yarrow has argued that some images of Gauls are strikingly close to their heads appearing in Caesar’s coinage (cat. nos. 8.131-133, figs. 255-256).1075 She thinks that such images were put on glass gems to manifest affiliation to Caesar’s political party, especially by soldiers and veterans, through identification with his major military success – conquer of Gaul. This is possible because that subject was much promoted in glyptics in figural forms (cf. chapter 8.2.7 below) as well as on coins or in literature (for example, Caesar’s memories compiled into a treatise entitled Commentarii de Bello Gallico). Furthermore, the scholar notices that images on glass gems were improved and altered by their makers in comparison to those known from coins, for instance in terms of the coiffure. The goal would have been to add them status similar to the Hellenistic kings. This intentional intervention would have added value to the images of defeated Gauls and hence, raise authority of Caesar who defeated them.1076 This would be a proof for deliberate actions of a propagandist (in this case Caesar himself) who controlled the production of glass gems so that it would have met his requirements. However attractive the view is, Yarrow probably misses the fact that many gem engravers working at the time in Rome 1074 However, some scholars are of a different opinion, see, for example: Barcaro 2008/2009, pp. 18-19. See also a discussion on this issue but in terms of coinage in: RRC, pp. 731-732. 1075 Yarrow 2018, pp. 40-41. Regarding coins, see for example, RRC nos. 448/2a-3 (denarii of L. Hostilius Saserna, 48 BC). 1076 Yarrow 2018, p. 41. were immigrant artists of Greek origin who travelled there from the Hellenistic east. It seems to me more reasonable to link the Hellenistic-like coiffure features with their own eastern tradition which they could not unroot at once rather than adding those according to a carefully designed plan. Still, copies of the images of Gauls on glass gems from the mentioned coins are definitely next proofs of Caesar’s propaganda employed and those gems testify it was successful since his followers used to refer to him that way but proving his direct engagement in the process is problematical. Finally, a noteworthy fact is to observe that portraits of populares on gemstones and glass gems are considerably less frequent than it is the case of the optimates (cf. chapter 8.1.7).1077 Such a situation may be due to smaller financial capacities of the populares. They could not afford commissioning expensive artists to cut their own likenesses on intaglios and perhaps also because they were generally less interested in the peculiar art form like glyptics. 1077 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 132-135. 1078 Sagiv 2016, pp. 40-41. 8.2.7. Commemoration Engraved gems were frequently employed to commemorate important events such as military victories or appointment of titles and offices as well as creation of political pacts. The career of Julius Caesar was full of tremendous victories and his campaign in Gaul was widely promoted by the general himself in his own writings and many other ways. It seems that glyptics was particularly productive in these terms too. For example, Sagiv observes that the motif of a horse rider attacking a Gallic or Celtic footman is fairly popular and ancient in glyptic art. Its origins may lie in the defeat of the Gauls at Pergamum in Hellenistic times. It is probable that people wore such gems as a reminder of the iconic defeat of the northern barbarians by the Attalids.1078 In Roman context, the function of pieces representing fights with Gallic or Celtic warriors could be the same and I have already suggested and commented on potential commemoration of Roman wars with Gallic tribes on gems produced in the 3rd and 2nd century BC (cf. chapters 6.3.3 and 6.3.4). A new boost of production of such gems is evidenced in the mid-1st century BC. There is a good number of intaglios presenting fights between the Romans and barbaric Celts which could be induced only by Julius Caesar’s campaigns in Gaul in the 50s BC. The variety of illustrations of those fights is vast from multifigured compositions such as on a large glass gem preserved in Hannover (cat. no. 8.134, fig. 257) down to combats of individual warriors and single figures, for example on glass gems in Perugia and Geneva (cat. nos. 8.135-136, fig. 258). A good portion of gems with such subjects is made of glass which indeed suggest they were produced for masses, certainly Roman soldiers taking part in Caesar’s campaigns. It was surely considered a great honour to be a veteran and one of the conquerors of a new Roman province. This pride could be immortalised and illustrated by such gems set in rings. Moreover, these objects could not only commemorate important military victories, but also manifest support and loyalty to Julius Caesar in the same way as heads of Gauls on glass gems imitating images known from dictator’s coins discussed above. Actually, there are several gems of exceptional quality and iconography related to this theme and it has been speculated if they present Julius Caesar himself engaged in the fights with barbarians. One of them is a sard intaglio presenting a Roman general who is suggested by cuirass and paludamentum, and he is riding a horse attacking a Gallic footman with a large shield and dropped sword on the ground (cat. no. 8.137, fig. 259). This monumental and dynamic composition stands out from a bulk of other intaglios presenting similar scenes. Zwierlein-Diehl suggested that due to exceptional military attributes (cuirass and paludamentum) the engraver might have meant to depict here Julius Caesar.1079 In Verona, there is an impression after a fragment of ancient intaglio presenting another Roman general wearing cuirass and galloping on his horse (cat. no. 8.138, fig. 260). Again, the distinctive military dress and armour suggest a high rank officer or general who, according to Sena Chiesa and Facchini, should be identified with Caesar.1080 Of particular interest are two glass gems housed in Villa Giulia Museum in Rome. They were made from the same matrix and present a naked heroized male figure on the right with his mantle wrapped around the left arm and holding a spear in the right one. He stands next to a trophy erected from armour, helmet, swords and Gallic shields, while next to it kneels a bearded man with long hair and his physical appearance suggest a Celt (cat. nos. 8.139-140, fig. 261). Vollenweider suggested these gems to depict Julius Caesar and defeated Vercigentorix, the famous leader of Gallic tribes whom Caesar defeated and presented during his triumph.1081 The interpretation is a bit problematic due to the fact that one does not recognise any other gem or coin presenting heroized figure of Caesar e.g. naked and with a spear and cloak, but depictions of Roman imperators in this kind of scheme are known (cf. chapter 6.3.3) plus glyptics was by definition purposed to promote bolder propaganda messages. Another plausible identification would be god Mars who used to be depicted with a spear, but he wears no helmet here, which would be unusual, and the kneeling barbarian indeed 1079 Zwierlein-Diehl 1979, no. 1092. 1080 Sena Chiesa 2010, p. 242; Facchini 2012, no. 67. 1081 Vollenweider 1972-1974, p. 127. might be a Gallic war-chief. The composition resembles to some degree a coin of Julius Caesar struck in 48-47 BC, but a sole, defeated Celt kneeling or seated on the ground exists already in the Hellenistic glyptics.1082 All in all, it may be only speculated that the two intaglios in question here and other similar compositions could have been executed on the occasion of Caesar’s triumph when Vercigentorix was presented in the precession. 1082 Compare the barbarian kneeling or seating under a trophy from Julius Caesar’s denarii minted in 48-47 BC: RRC, nos. 452/4-5. Regarding the Hellenistic type, see for instance: Richter 1956, no. 235 and an unpublished glass gem from the British Museum: inv. no.: 1814,0704.1989. 1083 RRC, no. 468/2. 1084 Zwierlein-Diehl 1979, no. 1074; Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 137. 1085 RRC, nos. 464/3a-c. Regarding kneeling barbarians and trophies, they exist on intaglios produced in the times of Caesar also in compositions involving more than just one figure, but not all of them should be automatically linked to the wars in Gaul, but also Spain and Germania (cat. nos. 8.141-142, figs. 262-263). This is clear when one compares the gems evoked to the motifs known from coins commemorating such events like the denarius of Julius Caesar minted in 46-45 BC (fig. 264).1083 The case of the gem now in Bonn but found in Xanten (cat. no. 8.141, fig. 262) is interesting due to find’s location suggesting that piece to be used by a soldier, perhaps a descendant of Caesar’s veteran. Less obvious subjects can make reference to Caesar’s military victories as well and a good example of that is a cornelian intaglio found in Lebrija in Spain presenting a volute crater flanked by two palm trees (cat. no. 8.143, fig. 265). Finally, regarding military victories, goddess Victory is sometimes employed on gems to indicate an important success of a propagandist. This is the case of a sard intaglio in Vienna where she stands to the right holding a palm branch and a laurel wreath, a globe is at her foot, sceptre and a writing tablet in front of her, and a rudder (?) behind (cat. no. 8.144, fig. 266). Zwierlein-Diehl remarks that the globe and sceptre stand for rule over the land and sea which is a combination of total power, that Caesar obtained once defeated the pompeians in the battle of Thapsus in 46 BC.1084 On the tablet in front of the goddess, the name of the victorious general was meant to be inscribed. Because a similar configuration of symbols appears on the denarius of T. Carisius minted in 46 BC for Caesar, it is indeed tempting to suggest that Caesar’s victory at Thapsus was intended to be commemorated on this intaglio (fig. 267).1085 Apart from military victories, engraved gems were used to commemorate other important political events. For example, Zwierlein-Diehl suggests that a glass gem bearing sella curulis with a roll of parchment (?) and a laurel wreath in Vienna might refer to Julius Caesar (cat. no. 8.145, fig. 268). According to Cassius Dio, after his victory at Thapsus Caesar was privileged to sit in the Senate on a curule chair between consuls and early in 44 BC Senate’s decree granted him with the curule seat everywhere except in the theatre, where his gilded chair and jewelled crown were carried in, putting him on a par with the gods.1086 Moreover, according to Zwierlein-Diehl, a similar motif appears on denarii struck by C. Considius Paetus in 46 BC and (Lollius) Palicanus in 45 BC (figs. 269-270 respectively). Both moneyers were related to Julius Caesar and most likely the choice of the curule chair was meant to commemorate the privileges mentioned above.1087 The similarity between the gem from Vienna and the coins is, however, not extremely striking. Furthermore, one must keep in mind that the motif of sella curulis in glyptics and coinage alike was fairly popular much earlier too. On coins sella curulis appears for the first time in 84 BC perhaps in the context of the curule aedilship of the moneyer.1088 Perhaps then, the iconography involving sella curulis on gems meant a title or office rather than referred to a specific situation or event related to Caesar? It seems to be a similar case to the gems bearing augural symbols discussed above (cf. chapter 6.1). Because the very precise dating of gems bearing that motif is impossible to be established, one cannot dismiss Zwierlein-Diehl’s view entirely. Perhaps some gems were produced once Caesar obtained his privileges to commemorate that, but at the same time, one should be aware that some of the gems engraved with the sella curulis chair were possibly tokens or seals used by curule aediles and maybe consuls as a part of their office attire. 1086 Dio Cassius, Historia Romana, 43.14.5. 1087 RRC, nos. 465/1a-2b and 473/1a-d respectively. 1088 RRC, nos. 356/1a-d (denarii of P. Furius Crassipes, 84 BC). 1089 Toso 2007, pp. 217-219. Regarding commemoration of other political events related to Julius Caesar, the first triumvirate pact comes to mind and it has been suggested that it was reflected on gems presenting the so-called scene of ‘dream of Sulla’. However, as I have discussed above, this motif has nothing to do with politics and the same conclusion was drawn by Toso.1089 Another class of objects that is supposed to commemorate the first triumvirate established in 60 BC by Pompey, Crassus and Caesar are the gems bearing dextrarum iunctio motif sometimes combined with other symbols. Vollenweider argued that the motif of two clasped hands – symbol of Concordia – could have had a political meaning and was primarily referring to triumvirate (either first or second) since it was a pact of consensus between political leaders fighting each other. It is true that first gems involving this peculiar subject appeared in the first half of the 1st century BC, however, coinage to which the Swiss scholar referred does not support the view that some gems bearing that motif could be produced under Pompey in order to commemorate his pact with Crassus and Caesar because all the coin types featuring dextrarum iunctio are related to Caesar.1090 Besides, the constellations of dextrarum iunctio and other symbols on coins differ to those known from gems. Therefore, I believe that many intaglios were produced on the commissions of ordinary people or by gem engravers who distributed them at the market as amulets because there was a constant need for peace and prosperity and hope for the end of the Civil War. 1090 The earliest examples of putting dextrarum iunctio motif on coins are the following denarii, none related to Pompey the Great but to his opponent Julius Caesar, see: RRC, nos. 450/2 (denarius of D. Iunius Brutus, 48 BC), 451/1 (denarius of C. Vibius Pansa Caetronianus and D. Iunius Brutus, 48 BC) and 480/6 (denarius of L. Aemilius Buca, 44 BC). 1091 RRC, pp. 735-737. 1092 Vollenweider 1955, pp. 100-101; Sena Chiesa 2012, p. 257. 1093 Hamat 2014. The restlessness ratio must have been considerable at the time of the rivalry between Pompey and Caesar and the symbolic gems involving dextrarum iunctio motif were produced to express and address these feelings and hopes among common people and soldiers. For instance, in Geneva there is a glass gem bearing two clasped hands (dextrarum iunctio) holding caduceus, palm branch and a corn ear (cat. no. 8.146, fig. 271). These symbols should be explained as follows: the clasped hands and caduceus as a wish for peace, a palm branch as a symbol of victory, while the corn ear stands for a wish for prosperity and abundance of food that was scarce during the civil war. People who carried such gems in their rings wished for better times to come. It is true that in the coinage this symbolism as well as other emblems like cornucopia, sceptre and globe – all often appear on aurei and denarii minted under Caesar and it seems that he was the one who answered the needs of people emitting coins and perhaps stimulating fashion for symbolic gems referring to the same issues. Caesar must have been aware of people’s feelings, thus, he preferred on his coins subjects related to promotion of peace, prosperity and ordo rerum that could be guaranteed only by him.1091 It is difficult to say if the dictator could issue gems related to these matters too as suggested by Vollenweider and Sena Chiesa,1092 but his political programme was influential and possibly had an impact on the current gem production in Rome and Italy in a broader sense. Naturally, there is a good number of other than political reasons why such a symbolism was popular on gems, especially in the 1st century BC context and later. For instance, a popular subject on symbolic gems is an eagle standing on altar between two legionary standards and two clasped hands are located below which surely was meant to express soldier’s fidelity to his legion (cat. no. 8.147, fig. 272).1093 Gems with dextrarum iunctio motif were surely used as betrothal gifts and amulets which is suggested by additional elements accompanying them such as lizards, corn ears, poppies, eagles, ram’s heads and so on (cat. nos. 8.148-154, fig. 273).1094 Some scholars rightly suggest funerary function of gems bearing such an iconography too.1095 Sometimes, the amuletic function is confirmed by inscription accompanying the motif. For instance, on a sardonyx intaglio in Berlin two clasped hands co-exists with PAVLINVS FELIX inscription – clearly suggesting the gem to be an amulet intended to ensure good luck, fortune and happiness to the owner who might have been a just married man (cat. no. 8.155, fig. 274). Another similar example is a burnt cornelian that might have been put on a funeral pyre and buried with the deceased as the discolouration of the stone suggests that as well as the inscription (YГIA) does (cat. no. 8.156). For establishing function of gems with dextrarum iunctio subject, it is crucial to analyse their provenance and potential location of workshops they were made. The results of my investigations indicate that those gems were widely produced not only in Rome but also in Aquileia and beyond Italy, in fact on the whole territory controlled by the Roman Republic and later also Roman Empire. Some of those gems were used for sealing purposes which is attested by sealings find, for instance in Cyrene (cat. no. 8.157). Finally, one should keep in mind that this peculiar category of gems was not an ephemerid production of a period related to Caesar or slightly later phases, but gems of this kind were produced far into the Roman Imperial period.1096 1094 Such a view has been expressed by the following: Hamburger 1968, no. 128; Giner 1996, no. 22; Weiβ 1996, no. 453; Gallottini 2012, no. 284. 1095 For instance: Guiraud 2008, no. 1405. 1096 For instance: Henig and Whiting 1987, nos. 314-317; Spier 1992, no. 327. 1097 See also similar opinion in: Maaskant-Kleibrink 1978, no. 463; Amorai-Stark 1993, no. 125. For all these reasons, it seems unlikely to me to consider the whole production of symbolic gems including dextrarum iunctio element as products of Julius Caesar’s deliberate propaganda.1097 If somehow a portion of that production was related to politics, I believe this was due to the Caesar’s general political programme answering the needs, desires and wishes of ordinary people that were addressed in other media such as coinage too. I do not find any example of a clear connection between Caesar and an attempt to fulfill those social desires as well as promotion of peace and prosperity in glyptics but among his followers, there was no need for such a direct reference. The set of symbols spoke for itself and it must have been widely known what are Caesar’s aspirations and plans so that it was instantly identified with those. In other words, perhaps a portion of the gems under discussion was used to identify with Caesar’s political programme and the objects served to integration propaganda very well. In any case, the idea of linking symbolic gems bearing combinations including dextrarum iunctio with commemoration of the first triumvirate should be dismissed. 8.2.8. Divine and mythological references Political rivalry between Julius Caesar and Pompey the Great resulted in a sort of race involving veneration of specific deities who were supposed to act in favour of their worshipers. In case of Pompey, the chief deity venerated was Neptune, while Caesar focused on Venus. Caesar in his political and religious propaganda went even further than Pompey as he combined the veneration of Venus with mythological beginnings of his kin. For gens Iulia Caesares started to allude to Aeneas already in 103 BC but this identification was later significantly exploited by Caesar reaching Venus who was Aeneas’ mother.1098 The clearest act of a special veneration of Venus by Caesar, which ought to be regarded as his pietas erga deos, was of course dedication of a temple to her on his Forum.1099 Special bounds between the dictator and Venus were also reflected on coins minted by or in the name of Caesar.1100 Even the laurel wreath worn by Caesar during his triumph was supposed to link him with his personal divine patroness.1101 Glyptics was also employed to highlight intimate relationship between Julius Caesar and Venus. I have already discussed dictator’s personal seal that bore representation of Venus Victrix (cf. chapter 8.2.3). This was probably the most powerful propagandistic act that Caesar made since the seal testified to a very personal character of his bounds with Venus. It helped him to establish the view of the goddess to be divine ancestor of his family and as such, it helped him to transfer some of her authority onto him. It was not an imitation or comparison to the deity but a subtle yet powerful propaganda.1102 Such acts were made well before Caesar and his activities may be compared, for example, to Alexander the Great.1103 1098 Evans 1992, pp. 39-41; Barcaro 2008/2009, p. 67. 1099 Evans 1992, pp. 39-41; Barcaro 2008/2009, pp. 69-70. 1100 For instance: RRC, nos. 463/1a-b (denarii of Mn. Cordius Rufus, 46 BC). See also a good discussion on this issue in RRC, pp. 735-737. 1101 RRC, p. 480. 1102 Maderna-Lauter 1988, p. 447; Gagetti 2001, p. 139. 1103 Kühnen 2005, pp. 92-93. 1104 In this place a three-layered sardonyx presenting jugate busts of Julius Caesar and possibly Venus from the recently republished Content cameos collection must be evoked (Henig and Molesworth 2018, no. 69). This outstanding piece illustrates in the best and luxurious way possible the relationship between Caesar and his divine patroness. The cameo follows the Hellenistic precedents but it is the place it is said to have been found – Tarragona – which makes it even more interesting. As Henig and Molesworth write, the city was elevated by Julius Caesar Caesar’s propaganda related to Venus involving his personal seal was successful which is proved by the fact that Venus Victrix motif became immensely popular in glyptics from the second half of the 1st century BC onwards (cf. chapters 8.2.5 and 8.3.3).1104 The popularisation to the rank of colonia as the Colonia Iulia Urbs Triumphalis in 45 BC so it is possible that the cameo was gifted by Caesar to one of his loyal friends from the local elite in recognition of his merits (Henig and Molesworth 2018, no. 69). 1105 Sena Chiesa 1966, pp. 158-162; Sena Chiesa 2002, pp. 404-405. 1106 Vollenweider 1955, pp. 108-109. 1107 Toso 2007, pp. 159-161. 1108 Toso 2007, pp. 154-155. 1109 Maaskant-Kleibrink 2017, p. 46. 1110 Barcaro 2008/2009, pp. 18-19. of the cult of Venus as the mother of Julian family continued in the times of Augustus as well (cf. chapter 10.10).1105 The career of Venus Victrix theme in glyptics is the best example to illustrate that this kind of art became increasingly involved in politics and propaganda in the Late Roman Republic and later.1106 The resonance of Caesar’s seal was so powerful that after his death many bottom-up initiatives of private people, who wished to demonstrate their allegiance to him and his party, now controlled by Octavian, is registered. There is one more mythological figure worth to mention while discussing Venus’ role in Caesar’s propaganda reflected in glyptics - Medea. A painting by Timmomachus depicting her was installed on Caesar’s order in the Temple of Venus Genetrix and since that moment Medea appears in Roman glyptics (cat. no. 8.158, fig. 275). Perhaps it was due to the painting itself which became a sort of source of inspiration for the gem engravers, but on the other hand, the moment and the place where it was presented to the Romans makes it special. The propagandistic value was not high, but maybe the subject was associated with Caesar since he introduced the painting to Rome in his sacral complex.1107 Another mythological figure related to Julius Caesar’s propaganda and divine connotations is Cassandra. She was connected to Aeneas, whom she prophesied to escape Troy with Palladion and found a new nation in Rome. Because of that Cassandra was an attractive subject for Julius Caesar propaganda in glyptics (cat. nos. 8.159-163, fig. 276).1108 In the times of Caesar Cassandra theme could be popular also due to the fact that the dictator followed Sibyl oracle and Cassandra was portrayed as a female variant of Apollo, who also played an important role in Caesar’s propaganda (see below) as well as a seer propelling people towards a golden future that could be ensured by Caesar.1109 As to other divine patrons and deities or mythological figures that received special attention from Julius Caesar, the foremost figure was Apollo. Caesar’s veneration to the god is attested for instance by organisation of the ludi Apollinares festival in 45 BC.1110 I have already discussed the phenomenon of extraordinary popularity of heads and busts of Apollo in 1st century BC glyptics in Rome (cf. chapter 7.1.5). In the times of Caesar this trend continued, but there is no peak of production of this kinds of gems during his domination that would have suggested dictator’s input into a special promotion of the god in glyptics. The same applies to Jupiter. Caesar founded him a temple in 46 BC,1111 but no clear reference to Caesar’s relationship with the god is manifested in glyptic art. Similarly, no direct reference exists regarding Heracles. A slightly different situation is with Aeneas and Romulus. The former was popular on gems throughout the second half of the 1st century BC and maybe one of the reasons for that was Julius Caesar’s efforts to promote the idea that Julii Caesares descended from Aeneas (cat. no. 8.164, fig. 277).1112 He used coins for that purpose and perhaps thanks to this the subject could be popular on gems as well.1113 Romulus appears much less frequently on gems, even though his role in Julius Caesar’s propaganda was considerable (cat. no. 8.165, fig. 278).1114 Glyptics proves problematic in assessment of its contribution to Julius Caesar’s propaganda of these divine patrons because intaglios presenting them cannot be dated with great precision. The lack of any specific references on them that one could link with Caesar or Augustus allows only to make more or less educated guesses based on general observations of the peaks in popularity of specific themes in particular chronological framework of the Late Roman Republic and early principate. It is difficult to make any reasonable conclusions as the subjects like these listed above could be also popular due to a particular fashion at that time or personal reference to these mythological figures of the ringstones owners. Equally problematical is to prove that glyptics was engaged in Caesar’s imitatio Alexandri in any meaningful way but this is also the case of other archaeological materials and ancient texts.1115 1111 Kühnen 2005, p. 94. 1112 Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, pp. 134-135. 1113 Vollenweider 1966, p. 16. Regarding coins, see: RRC, no. 458/1 (denarius of Julius Caesar, 47-46 BC). 1114 Evans 1992, pp. 91-92. 1115 For the best analysis of potential imitatio Alexandri practiced by Caesar or rather its lack, see: Kühnen 2005, pp. 83-100. 1116 RRC, nos. 464/3a-c. 8.2.9. Political symbols In the times of Julius Caesar, symbolic gems continued to have been produced on a massive scale. The dictator is attested to use various configurations of elements standing for ordo rerum, abundance and prosperity in his coinage. For instance, the denarii of T. Carisius minted for Caesar in 46 BC bear on the reverses constellations consisting of a globe, cornucopia, sceptre and rudder and they are believed to portray the feeling after Caesar’s victory at Thapsus which culminated in his triumph in 45 BC (fig. 267).1116 Zwierlein-Diehl convincingly argued that there were gems combining figural motifs with rich symbolism representing the same idea (cf. chapter 8.2.7) and I have also discussed the role of intaglios bearing complex symbolic compositions including dextrarum iunctio element that served as both, private amulets and to mark political identification with Caesar’s programme of the restoration of the Roman Republic (cf. chapter 8.2.7). One can point to more examples that follow iconography known from coins minted at the time of Caesar and addressing his political programme. For instance, in Copenhagen, there is a cornelian featuring cornucopia terminating in the head of a goat and with a ribbon tied round it; on the left side of it a bird is pecking at one of the grape-clusters which hang out over the rim of the horn; on the right is a globe furnished with a double-lined cross (celestial globe) (cat. no. 8.166, fig. 279). There is a considerable production of similar intaglios around the mid-1st century BC and this is the reason why some scholars claim that those objects were related to Caesar or even produced on his command as a part of his propaganda activities, perhaps on the occasion of his triumph, but I think they grasped the general sense of his political programme that was widely promoted through his coins or architecture. Caesar’s idea of a new world order and guarantee of peace and prosperity for the Romans after many years of civil war by him must have been attractive for his followers who tended to portray it on their personal objects like gems.1117 Indeed, the overall climate in Rome was highly political and most of the people were engaged in politics one way or another. For this reason, every occasion to make a reference to politics was a good advertising for a propagandist. Caesar and his moneyers put subjects reflecting his military victories and accomplishments on their coins because through money they delivered propagandistic messages in a fast and relatively cheap way to large masses. It was easy to send political messages as coinage was a unified and controlled branch of craftsmanship. A propagandist could decide what should have been emitted to his audience directly by himself or through influence of only several people. In case of engraved gems, the situation was different because their production was dispersed, and it was difficult to control it to a considerable degree. Caesar could hire several artists cutting intaglios and cameos for him, but he could not control the whole market. There is no evidence to claim that he controlled production of glass gems which could deliver vast sums of cheap gems that may have been particularly efficient means of propaganda. Still, the evidence presented above and in previous sub-chapters proves that Caesar’s general idea and political programme was largely successful, 1117 Vollenweider 1955, pp. 100-101; Vollenweider 1970; Sena Chiesa 2002, pp. 400-401 and 410-411; Sena Chiesa 2013, p. 68. and gems are good indicators of that because they show that people identified with Caesar’s ideas. If one applies such a methodology, it quickly becomes clear that, of course, majority of symbolic gems could play a role of personal amulets and talismans ensuring values and things that people generally wished to get in the hard times of civil war. However, at the same time they portray social moods, needs and desires and many of them bear symbolism referring to deities whose protection was sought also by Caesar himself. In contrary to Pompey, in the times of Caesar’s domination configurations of symbols on gems and coins are not exactly the same but exhibit considerable similarities. This is probably due to the difference in propagandistic value of these two categories of archaeological artefacts and the fact that the former were created for personal use, while the latter for the public one. Taking the mentioned coins of T. Carisius and an amethyst from Udine presenting cornucopia and globe for an example (cat. no. 8.167, figs. 267 and 280), basing on iconographical similarities, Tomaselli claims that the gem refers to Julius Caesar, his total power and domination on both land and sea represented by the globe, and prophecy of abundance and prosperity arriving with him to Rome encapsulated in the symbol of cornucopia.1118 The comparison between the coin and this intaglio is technically useless since the iconography of the latter does not include other elements represented on the former. Nevertheless, lack of single elements on the gem does not change the general meaning and the message created by the propagandist would be still the same – promotion of peace and prosperity that was probably easily associated with Caesar by users of such gems. It is noteworthy to observe that the intaglio worked well as a personal amulet or talisman at the same time. The owner wished for abundance and prosperity in difficult times he lived in and he sought to protection and blessing from Jupiter represented on the gem by the globe.1119 Caesar notoriously projected himself as a connector between the gods and people of Rome and addressed his propaganda to many deities so that common people would associate their favor with him. 1118 Tomaselli 1993, no. 330. 1119 For more information on Jupiter represented on gems by a globe, see: Fossing 1929, no. 1612; Forbes 1981, no. 121, p. 129; Weiβ 1996, nos. 417-418. Explanation such as the one described above can be applied to a surprising number of other gems produced in the time of Caesar’s domination in Rome and most likely they are indirectly related to politician’s political programme. For example, in Geneva there is a glass gem presenting caduceus with a bee in the middle flanked by two cornucopiae, a rudder is in the centre and a globe below (cat. no. 8.168, fig. 281). Vollenweider suggested the gem to express the new world order introduced by Caesar.1120 The caduceus with a bee is particularly intriguing and Vollenweider thought is to represent monarchy of Caesar and his role as a guarantor of peace. The interpretation proposed by the Swiss scholar was generally accepted since gems of this type were common in the 1st century BC and many were made of glass (cat. no. 8.169, fig. 282).1121 It is noteworthy that similar symbolism occurs in the coinage since ca. 76 BC,1122 and it was surely used for private amulets ensuring good fortune (rudder stands for Fortuna who was a personification of luck), abundance (cornucopiae), peace (caduceus) and Jupiter’s blessing and protection (globe). The bee seems the key to understand the whole composition, as it was admired by the Romans for its industry and ability to organise its community. It exists on gems alone or with caduceus and may have chthonic or mystic significance as well as express gem owner’s positive values (good organisational skills or persistence).1123 In the times of Caesar the common sense and unity was a particularly important element of his political programme since it was addressed to masses of people rather than a group of elites. For this reason, it seems likely that gems like the ones mentioned above appart from being personal amulets could reflect the current political attitudes and identification with Caesar’s ideas. What is more, similarly to coinage, glyptics proves that Caesar’s propaganda messages were anchored in the already existing language which was purposed to increase effectiveness of his propaganda. 1120 Vollenweider 1979, no. 424. 1121 Weiβ 2007, no. 594. 1122 RRC, nos. 393/1a-b (denarii of Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Marcellinus, 76-75 BC). 1123 For more detailed discussion, see: Middleton 1991, no. 258. 1124 Tamma 1991, no. 23. Sometimes the references to Caesar’s victories that were supposed to guarantee political stability in Rome are more explicit on symbolic gems. An agate gem in Bari presents cornucopia, globe and a palm branch (cat. no. 8.170, fig. 283) and Tamma explains this iconography as related to propaganda of Julius Caesar’s good government.1124 It is, however, probably more correct to explain the symbolism of this piece on the one hand in a more personal way: cornucopia stands for a wish of abundance, globe for Jupiter’s blessing and protection and the palm branch was an attribute of Victory, thus here, it may stand for the goddess and personal victory either obtained or wished. On the other hand, the intaglio possibly referred to Caesar’s victory (Thapsus?) so that a private object became engaged into propaganda and could be used to manifest personal input in that victory of one of dictator’s veterans who identified with Caesar. In Bari one finds another highly interesting piece, a banded agate engraved with a hand holding cornucopia and corn ear (cat. no. 8.171, fig. 284). Tamma proposes to decipher this kind of iconography as a reflection of Caesar’s clementia towards people after the battle of Pharsalus.1125 Such an interpretation is attractive, although amuletic function for this gem is also plausible to occur. The motif of a clenched hand holding various objects is common on 1st century BC Roman Republican intaglios and later. It was not popular in the times of Caesar only. It is thought to represent values such as wealth and glory which the owner of the gem may have wished for himself too.1126 1125 Tamma 1991, no. 25. She follows in this Vollenweider, 1979, no. 426. 1126 Gołyźniak 2017, no. 221. 1127 Vollenweider 1979, no. 453. For coins, see: RRC, no. 455/4. 1128 Vitellozzi 2010, no. 195. 1129 Weiβ 2007, no. 586. An argument in favour of regarding gems with symbolic combinations as personal amulets are inscriptions sometimes accompanying the images. In Perugia a sard gem bears a hand holding a palm branch and inscription LVCRIO which is the cognomen of the gem’s owner (cat. no. 8.172, fig. 285). It probably shows that a wish for a personal victory was the subject of this ringstone, however, on the other hand, it may make even more explicit manifestation of support to Caesar and his politics in general. A popular motif in glyptics of the 1st century BC is the so-called altar of Venus presented for instance on a glass gem in Geneva, agate in Perugia and another glass gem in Berlin (cat. nos. 8.173-175, fig. 286). Vollenweider associated the motif with inauguration of the Temple of Venus Genetrix by Julius Caesar based on a comparison with denarii minted by C. Antius Restio in 47 BC (fig. 287).1127 Some scholars followed her,1128 but to my mind, this case is problematical. The presence of inscriptions on the examples from Perugia and Berlin may testify to private amulets however, a notable fact is that the Berlin gem is a copy of the one in Perugia but in glass as their inscriptions are identical. They stand for duo nomina, perhaps of the owner of Perugia intaglio which was later copied by one of his peers, while both supported Caesar and his politics? The dates of such gems cannot be restricted to the times of Julius Caesar’s domination only because similar products were cut since the early 1st century BC which was so rightly observed by Weiß.1129 To sum up, the potential for use of symbolic gems for political propaganda of Julius Caesar definitely seems greater than in case of his main opponent Pompey the Great. It is fairly likely that one of the reasons for a substantial production of symbolic gems around the mid-1st century BC was identification of some individuals, perhaps Caesar’s followers with his politics. This is suggested from the comparable symbolism employed in the coinage related to the dictator as well as his general promotion of a political programme aimed at establishment of peace and new world order (ordo rerum). Nevertheless, one should keep in mind that symbolic gems could have more personal meaning too and were simply used as amulets. There is no direct evidence to claim that Caesar had any significant impact on their production and design, but symbolic gems prove that there was a significant reception of Caesar’s ideology which suggests his propaganda campaign to have been largely successful. 8.2.10. Luxury objects (State Cameos, vessels etc.) Even though Julius Caesar is said to be a prolific collector of engraved gems, there is little evidence testifying his involvement in production or collecting of such extraordinary items as State Cameos or carved vessels. One very peculiar glyptic object that might refer to the dictator and his political activities is an outstanding cameo, once in the celebrated Marlborough and Ionides cabinets, that presents an elephant trampling a crocodile (cat. no. 8.176, fig. 288). It was Boardman who extensively wrote on that cameo admitting that unusual iconography suggests various explanations from symbolic to realistic, but indeed, given the extraordinary form – cameo – and exceptional size, he concludes the piece refers to victory over evil and Julius Caesar.1130 To be more precise, he bases his reasoning on the notification that the image is comparable with denarii of Julius Caesar struck in 49 or 48 BC featuring an elephant trampling on a war-trumpet with serpent head (carnyx) or a dragon (fig. 289).1131 Because it is one of the first emissions of Caesar, it is possible that the coins were minted to commemorate his victories in Gaul portraying quite literary a massive predominance of the Romans over the conquered subject, but the clear meaning has not been established yet.1132 However, as Boardman points to himself, the water animal under elephant’s legs resembles a crocodile a great deal rather than a dragon, but he hesitates to take it for one and ultimately sees here a fish. Doing this he rejects an idea of connecting the cameo with Egyptian episode of Caesar’s career.1133 In my opinion, this is a mistake since a crocodile is clearly intended on the gem in question. Indeed, a Roman artist would not have presented it in such a form, which probably means the cameo was created in the east, possibly in Alexandria. Perhaps this outstanding gem was commissioned by Caesar to commemorate his supremacy over Egypt. It is noteworthy to 1130 Boardman 1968, pp. 37-38; RRC, p. 735. 1131 RRC, no. 443/1. 1132 Crawford analyses various options for this vague iconography’s explanation, but none seems to be utterly convincing, see: RRC, p. 735. See also a recent discussion in: Campagnolo and Fallani 2018, no. IX.5.i, pp. 194-196. 1133 Boardman 1968, p. 38. mention a group of intaglios presenting busts of Augustus and Livia over a crocodile symbolising taking control over Egypt which was also promoted on coins (cf. chapter 10.10). However not inverted, the animal is strikingly close to the one appearing on the cameo under discussion here and this makes me think that it should be recognised as a subtle form of Caesar’s propaganda. 8.3. Less significant politicians and women from the times of the Civil War The difficult times of the Civil War seem to be a perfect occasion for many to develop their own propaganda practices or to follow others, especially if so many people are engaged in the conflict and politics as in the mid-1st century BC Rome. Definitely, two most successful politicians - Pompey the Great and Julius Caesar – emitted propaganda messages using glyptic art in a number of ways. Moreover, their followers and supporters clearly manifested allegiance and membership to their parties using intaglios. Nevertheless, there were many other influential people that maybe did not create their own well-organised factions but were quite influential and sought to raise their power and status during the war. In this sub-chapter I am going to focus on those people and inquire whether they employed glyptic art for self-presentation and propaganda purposed to influence others or propagate particular accomplishments or not. 8.3.1. Collecting of engraved gems and hiring the engravers As evidenced above, engraved gems constituted a part of the art collecting phenomenon in antiquity. Some scholars suppose that collectors of intaglios and cameos were active in Rome already in the 2nd century BC,1134 but as discussed here, the most prominent Romans used to collect engraved gems into considerable amounts only in the 1st century BC. The first one was said to have been Marcus Aemilius Scaurus, praetor in 56 BC and Sulla’s stepson.1135 He was a proquestor in Syria between 65 and 61 BC where he might have accessed a number of Hellenistic gems.1136 1134 Tees 1993, p. 29. 1135 Pliny, NH, XXXVII.5. 1136 Zwierlein-Diehl 1988, p. 3467; Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, pp. 108-109; Lapatin 2015, pp. 117-118. When touching the issue of gems collecting in ancient times, Pliny the Elder and other ancient writers usually speak some words only about the most prominent statesmen and rulers. Therefore, little is known about other people who collected those artworks. However, there is some evidence that wealthy people not only in Rome, but also outside of it not only created their own cabinets of intaglios and cameos, but also hired gem engravers in order to have their portraits and other subjects cut upon gemstones. An extraordinary example is the Heius family and C. Heius, a rich man from Messana from whom Verres stole statues and tapestries, probably employed a Greek gem engraver who once freed signed his gems with the name of Heius. C. Heius’ patronage over the artist was exceptional and possibly testifies that some artists worked exclusively for their patrons perhaps to enrich their collections of art (cf. chapter 8.2.2). Such situations may have appeared first time already in the 2nd century BC, because there are known some signed portrait gems of the Romans, however, the evidence is insufficient to suggest those pieces to enter any collection at the time. Another good example of a 1st century BC figure interested in glyptics and perhaps engaged into collecting phenomenon too is Juba II, king of Numidia (c. 52/40 BC-AD 23). Pliny the Elder notices that the ruler was a keen connoisseur and enthusiast of engraved gems and that he even wrote a treatise about gemstones which was one of the sources Pliny used to produce his work.1137 Juba II surely promoted glyptic art at his court and possibly commissioned works to the best artists available. One of them could be Gnaeus who certainly cut a portrait of Juba II’s wife Cleopatra Selene upon a cornelian now in New York as this piece is signed by him (cat. no. 8.177, fig. 290). Actually, a total number of seven works signed by Gnaeus are known and several other can be more or less securely attributed to him.1138 Among these there is a particularly interesting beryl intaglio in London presenting head of young Heracles shouldering his club (cat. no. 8.178, fig. 291). Vollenweider and Sena Chiesa think this might be Juba II identified with the hero since similar depictions occur on his coins (fig. 292).1139 Although indeed, this is a top-quality work cut in extraordinary material, as Zwierlein-Diehl notices the signature has been recut or corrected which raises some questions as to its genuineness.1140 Identification of Juba with Heracles is possible, but highly problematic. In the Beverley collection at the Alnwick Castle there is a sard engraved with the very similar image and signed by Aulos (cat. no. 8.179, fig. 293). For Vollenweider this gem was another proof to claim that Juba II identified himself with the hero,1141 although other scholars are less optimistic.1142 Aulos could be then another gem engraver employed at the Numidian court. But turning back to Gnaeus for a moment, one should note also his famous posthumous portrait of 1137 Pliny, NH, XXXVII.24; Boardman 1968, pp. 23 and 27; Plantzos 1999, p. 10; Thoresen 2017, p. 163. 1138 See a list of them and an extensive commentary in: Zwierlein-Diehl 1986, no. 144. 1139 Vollenweider 1966, p. 45; Sena Chiesa 1989, pp. 275-276. For the coin, see: denarius of Juba II, 25 BC-AD 23, ANS 1944.100.81078. 1140 Zwierlein-Diehl 1986, no. 148. 1141 Vollenweider 1966, p. 43. 1142 Scarisbrick, Wagner and Boardman 2016a, no. 90. Mark Antony cut upon an amethyst (cf. cat. no. 1129, fig. 744). This intaglio could be indeed executed ca. 30-20 BC and only at the Numidian court perhaps for Cleopatra Selene to commemorate her father and it would be the ultimate proof that Gnaeus worked for Juba II and his relatives.1143 Interestingly enough, the case of Gnaeus seems similar to that of Heius, namely, his name suggests that he was another Greek artist freed by a Roman family, this time gens Gneia. He must have initially work for a prominent member of that family but later he entered the court of Juba II where he cut the above-mentioned masterpieces. 1143 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 188-189; Zazoff 1983, pp. 288-289. 1144 Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 121. 1145 See, for instance: Wagner and Boardman 2003, no. 193. 1146 Giuliano and Micheli 1989, pp. 34-35; Plantzos 1999, p. 59. 1147 Vollenweider 1966, p. 30; Giuliano and Micheli 1989, pp. 26-27; Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, pp. 111-112. Regarding the Numidian court, Zwierlein-Diehl suggests another gem engraver – Dalion – to have worked there based on the cornelian in Florence presenting a laureate bust of a young man whom she identifies with Juba II (cat. no. 8.180, fig. 294).1144 Although attractive, this theory is rather far-fetching as other works by this artist do not correspond with political themes and the mentioned bust is strikingly close to some representations of Apollo from the Augustan times, thus, its identification with Juba II is unconvincing and I think he was more close to the circle of gem engravers working for Augustus (cf. chapter 10.2).1145 Nevertheless, hiring gem engravers and promoting glyptic art at the royal court of Juba II seems rather well attested.1146 In fact, it could be a more ancient tradition as his father Juba I might have employed Aspasios to cut a red jasper portrait gem for him (cat. no. 8.181, fig. 295).1147 Actually, one finds several examples of intaglios possibly bearing portrait of Juba I which supports this view (cat. nos. 8.182-184, fig. 296). The case of the Numidian court and its potential engagement in glyptic art as well as the cases of Heius and Gnaeus are of key importance to understand why this sort of activity could be very appealing from propagandistic point of view. The Kingdom of Numidia was essentially Hellenistic, but strongly influenced by Roman culture, especially under the reign of Augustus. It clearly shows that employment of the best lapidaries was usually in the good interest of the rulers and wealthiest figures because such a practice raised authority and social status by definition. Moreover, one observes mechanisms of personal branding (portraits of Juba I and Juba II in glyptics) or commemoration of deceased powerful individuals in the form of artworks bearing their portraits (the mentioned posthumous portrait of Mark Antony) which are exploited in the very same way as in Rome. At the same time, the cases of Heius and Gnaeus show that employment of gem engravers in the Roman world was not limited to the rulers only. Possibly, Roman wealthy collectors and admirers of art employed gem cutters also to raise their social status. With more direct evidence here, I shall suggest that either Pompey the Great and Julius Caesar as well as their prominent peers and successors wanted to show off their ability for luxury arts and advertising through more sophisticated methods than coin minting. Whereas coins and sculptures were meant to influence many, some peculiar gems were meant to impress the most educated and thus exacting followers. On the other hand, the example of the Numidian court as well as C. Heius and some Gnaeus clearly show that employment of famous gem engravers and collecting of intaglios and cameos was limited to the few, usually very wealthy people. The propagandistic value of such activities may seem limited or even relatively poor, but one must reckon with the fact that powerful and influential people, to whom glyptic products were usually addressed in the form of gifts, were not so easy to impress in comparison to masses of ordinary people feeling grateful if provided with free grain supplies, games and a bunch of coins and maybe glass gems. 8.3.2. Portraits – personal branding induction and manifestation of loyalty Personal branding and self-promotion through portrait gems are the most popular and powerful propaganda activity I have discussed so far in Roman Republican glyptics. There seems to be quite enough evidence to claim that Pompey the Great and Julius Caesar had their likeness engraved upon intaglios and, in some cases, their followers carried rings with their portraits in order to manifest loyalty and support. What about other prominent Roman politicians and statemen contemporary to those two? I am going to address this question starting with Cato the Younger (95-46 BC) who was one of the biggest opponents to Caesar after Pompey. I have already remarked that there is a heat debate over the issue of portraits presenting male portrait busts wearing toga but with a bare shoulder that are often recognised as Julius Caesar (cf. chapter 8.2.4). Zwierlein-Diehl identifies them with Cato Uticensis and relates to his propaganda as those gems could be worn by followers of Cato to manifest their loyalty to him and opposition to the tyrant Caesar.1148 As has been stated above, this peculiar portrait type did not serve to one person only, but it was widely used by senators, consuls and other prominent Roman politicians, including Caesar and Cato (for Cato, see: cat. no. 8.185, fig. 297). In the quest for gems presenting Cato’s likeness but not in the type already discussed, one ends up with no results. There is virtually no gem that could be securely identified as presenting Cato 1148 Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, pp. 123-124. Uticensis whatsoever. The explanation for such a situation can be that indeed, his portraits were only cut as a middle-aged man wearing his toga in old-fashioned way how Zwierlein-Diehl proposed. However, having virtually no images of him on coins and sculpture (except for later copies), within the bulk of portrait gems one is unable to attribute some of them to Cato and thus, his propaganda potential in glyptics cannot be measured in any reasonable way and can be underestimated. The next influential person on the Late Roman Republican political scene whose portrait appears on engraved gems is Marcus Tulius Cicero (106-43 BC). Furtwängler already noticed that Solon possibly cut portrait of Cicero, which view is based like in the case of Dioscurides’ portrait of Julius Caesar, only on the Renaissance and later copies as the original is lost.1149 If that is true, Cicero would be another prominent Roman figure to had had his portrait engraved upon his ringstone. He could proudly parade with it in the Senate House and elsewhere as this was not an ostentatious yet significant mean of self-promotion. If indeed signed by Solon, his stone added him much splendour and hence, the ultimate propagandistic value of it was considerable. This particular gem could be influential and copied already in ancient times, although artists could have taken inspiration from other sources like sculpture as well. For instance in Aquileia a cornelian portrait gem with the image of Cicero has been found (cat. no. 8.186, fig. 298) and this might have been not a propaganda effect, but a reception of a portrait of Roman politician who was appreciated for his merits as a speaker and writer at the time of his life.1150 There are several intaglios bearing likeness of Cicero which were, however, executed during his lifetime. Such a gem is, for instance, a sardonyx intaglio in Berlin (cat. no. 8.187), cornelian in Boston (cat. no. 8.188, fig. 299), probably sard in London (cat. no. 8.189), unspecified stone in Leiden (cat. no. 8.190) and some more, today lost but known from their impressions (cat. no. 8.191).1151 The question is what was the purpose for producing those intaglios? Cicero tended to balance between quarrelled political parties and some could share his views. These people could use gems with portrait of Cicero to manifest their sympathy for him. Besides, the Arpinate may have been admired for his oratorical skills which made a great impact on others. Some surely wanted to imitate Cicero, and this could be another reason for 1149 Furtwängler 1900, pp. 351-352. See also this issue addressed by Vollenweider (1966, p. 56 and 1972-1974, pp. 98-99). For an extensive discussion on the possible creation of Solon and its later copies and replicas also in modern times, see: Zwierlein-Diehl 1991, no. 2615; Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, pp. 114-115. 1150 On the reception of Cicero’s portraits in Augustan era, see: Vollenweider 1972-1974, p. 99 and Vollenweider and Avisseau-Broustet 2003, no. 19. 1151 Vollenweider listed more examples (1972-1974, pp. 94-98), however, not all of them present Cicero, see some criticism for instance in: Maaskant-Kleibrink 1978, no. 1152 and Zwierlein-Diehl 1986, no. 534. carrying a ring with his portrait as an example or idol to follow. There is no direct evidence for Cicero to be engaged in production of gems with his portraits, so these must have been bottom-up initiatives. They did not serve as propaganda tools but testified political sympathy and considerable authority of Cicero. Cicero’s fame made him a popular subject also on Roman Imperial gems which accounts to the reception of his portrait on the terms indicated above (cat. no. 8.192-195, fig. 300). Regarding portraits of other contemporaries to Pompey and Caesar, they are quite abundant and have been collected and studied by Vollenweider.1152 The Swiss scholar thought most of them to depict optimates and this may be right since gems were luxury objects that not everyone could afford. Nevertheless, it seems that optimates did not manifested allegiance to their political class through specific gems, but generally speaking wearing gems by them was a sort of social distinction and informed their peers about specific membership to the party. Due to comparisons with coins, some people contemporary to Pompey and Caesar can be identified with historical figures such as Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus (cat. no. 8.196, figs. 301-302)1153 or A. Postumius Albinus (cat. no. 8.197, figs. 303-304).1154 There are portrait gems clearly presenting augurs whom are identified according to lituus accompanying their heads (cat. no. 8.198, fig. 305), so that tradition from the previous decades or even centuries is continued (cf. chapter 6.1). Apart from these, there are many other portrait gems which have no additional symbolism suggesting specific function or position in the Roman society and they remain unidentified (cat. nos. 8.199-221, figs. 306-311). Some of them are clearly works of distinguished engravers, like Agathopus who apart from being employed by Pompey the Great, seemingly cut gems for other aristocrats of Rome (cat. nos. 8.199-202, figs. 306-309). The quality of Agathopus works is of the highest level, and the three objects (one signed and two attributed to him) listed here prove that the man depicted on his intaglios was an important personage since he had his portrait signed by the artist, copied in exceptional material (aquamarine and emerald) as well as in glass. Even though one fails in identification of Agathopus’ commissioner, it is clear that the orders were not placed by ordinary man. In conclusion, all these gems surely had some propaganda meaning since it was a common practice for significant politicians to carry a ring with their own portraits or distribute them to their followers. These were self-advertising techniques, quite popular ones among the Romans and deeply-rooted. It is difficult to judge their propagandistic value, it was not huge like the statue 1152 Vollenweider 1955, pp. 96-101; Volleneider 1972-1974, pp. 102-105. 1153 RRC, no. 519/2 (denarius of Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus, 41 BC). 1154 RRC, no. 450/3a (denarius of Decimius Iunius Brutus, 48 BC). usually placed in a place visited by many or coin minted in thousands of thousands of objects. They were rather sophisticated means of propaganda aiming at making impression on few but important people, most likely representatives of aristocracy. In about second and third quarter of the 1st century BC female portrait gems appear in greater quantities than before, mostly for decorative purposes and it is difficult to accept giving them any political significance (cat. nos. 8.222-226, fig. 312).1155 1155 But see another view of Vollenweider (1972-1974, pp. 224-225). 1156 Boardman 1968, pp. 31-32; Gołyźniak 2017, no. 224. 1157 RRC, nos. 329/2 and 445/1a-b respectively. See also discussion on those issues in: RRC, pp. 737-738. 1158 RRC, no. 439/1 (denarius of P. Cornelius Lentulus Marcellinus, 50 BC). 8.3.3. Family symbols and references to familial stories on gems It is reasonable to think that in the second and third quarter of the 1st century BC similarly to coins, engraved gems continued to be used for family and self-promotion by issuing objects featuring family symbols or scenes referring to familial stories and legends. A good example of that process is triskeles, a not particularly popular motif appearing on Roman Republican gems at the time (cat. nos. 8.227-235, fig. 313). It has been regarded as an emblem of the Marcelli and Lenteli families and thus, gems bearing it are supposed to be family seals or at least tokens used by their owners to manifest their allegiance to those famous gentes.1156 This view is based on the fact that identical triskeles appears on denarii of P. Cornelius Lentulus Marcellinus, son of M. Claudius Marcellus struck in 100 BC and especially those issued by C. Claudius Marcellus and L. Cornelius Lentulus Crus in 49 BC (fig. 314).1157 Apparently, another coin issue struck by P. Cornelius Lentulus Marcellinus in 50 BC bears triskeles as a symbol recalling the achievements of moneyer’s celebrated ancestor M. Claudius Marcellus, consul of 208 BC, who captured Syracuse and conquered Sicily in 212-210 BC the spoils from which he rescued Rome from imminent bankruptcy (fig. 315).1158 While that coin clearly presents context for the triskeles in the form of the figure of M. Claudius Marcellus carrying trophy into a temple on the reverse side, it is intriguing to see that just one year later C. Claudius Marcellus and L. Cornelius Lentulus Crus minted a coin which main political message is to present Jupiter’s support to Pompey the Great’s case, but still, the sign of triskeles appears on the obverse side as a reference to private/family propaganda of the moneyers as well. In this case, just one symbol served as a clear reference to the family celebrated history, therefore, it seems justified to think that the same sole symbol carried by a member of Marcelli or Lenteli families upon a ring made an identical reference as that from the mentioned coins. Naturally, other explanations for triskeles appearance on gems are possible. It was regarded a symbol of the sun and Sicily. Moreover, there are at least two intaglios featuring triskeles motif and inscriptions referring to gem owners’ names but none of these cases can be securely linked to a member of Marcelli or Lenteli families (cat. nos. 8.227 and 233). Finally, thanks to Cicero it is known that P. Cornelius Lentulus Sura used a ring with the likeness of his grandfather P. Cornelius Lentulus (the moneyer of the coin struck in 100 BC?) as his personal seal.1159 As one can see, even though a specific symbol appears suitable for a family seal, it could be replaced with other subjects, but still, the number of intaglios bearing triskeles is limited which suggests their use by a narrow group of people for a specific reason, in this case perhaps family propaganda, rather than in a broader sense. The triskeles case makes us aware how limited are our cognitive abilities. Unless there is some kind of context, it is difficult if not impossible to prove that a sole symbol served for family propaganda on gems. 1159 Cicero, Catil. 3.10. 1160 Yarrow 2018, pp. 42-43. Regarding the coin itself, see: RRC no. 461/1. 1161 RRC, p. 738. Shortly after Pompey’s death, his followers gathered in northern Africa. The coinage related to this group of people is extremely diversified. Yarrow speculates that some types of the denarii minted about 47-46 BC were given images which were statements of political allegiance to Pompey. As an example, she gives the coin of Q. Metellus Scipio struck in Africa in 47-46 BC (fig. 316) and she notices that the image of Africa from the obverse is repeated on a series of glass gems, which possibly were used to manifest membership to the faction of pompeians.1160 Although the gems the scholar evokes are problematic as they do not repeat the image known from coin (see my discussion on those in chapter 8.1.8), still, her view might be close to truth but in a slightly different sense. Crawford rightly pointed out that the coinage of Q. Metellus Scipio apart from being evidently post-pompeian, displays some familial advertisement too and while indeed, head of Africa combined with Heracles image on the reverse of the mentioned coin indicates hope for victory in the war with Caesar, it cannot be entirely excluded that Africa refers to Scipio Africanus, the famous ancestor of the moneyer, who would have transferred his authority onto himself by recalling his legend either on his coins and gems.1161 It is noteworthy that on his other issues, Q. Metellus Scipio also advertised his family legends. Regarding engraved gems, there was once a cornelian intaglio in the Duke of Gordon’s collection that mirrors head of Africa with a corn ear and plough from from Q. Metellus Scipio denarius struck in 47 or 46 BC (cat. no. 8.236, fig. 317). Therefore, it seems justified to think that coins and gems would be suitable to express either allegiance to the pompeians faction and served for private propaganda of the moneyer at the same time, giving the very limited number of the latter. The next famous Roman family that used a specific emblem as a sort of family symbol enabling to promote its members were Julii Caesares. The moneyers from that gens used to put representations of Venus driving biga in order to highlight divine origins of the family already in the late 2nd century BC.1162 But it was Julius Caesar (100-44 BC) who made Venus a true patroness and divine protectress of Julii Caesares. He promoted her cult in every possible way building her a temple in the centre of his Forum and praised to descent from her on every occasion, even during funeral oration for his aunt Julia.1163 Caesar was successful in establishing Venus as a sort of a canonical emblem for the divine ancestress of the Julian family by putting her image on his coins.1164 However, the most significant was the image of Venus seen from behind as armed goddess standing next to a column with himation overlapping her legs, holding a spear in one hand and a helmet on the outstretched second. The goddess presented in this manner was called Victrix and Caesar used that motif as his personal seal which later passed on to young Octavian (cf. chapters 8.2.3, 8.2.8 and 9.3.1.1).1165 At this point, I want to notice that there is in fact some direct evidence to claim that the emblem established by Caesar worked well for the members of Julii Caesares in the late 1st century BC and later as a family emblem (cat. nos. 8.237-242, figs. 318-319). Perhaps during the lifetime of Caesar, the image was reserved for him only and thus nobody else dared to use it for his personal seal. After Caesar’s assassination, the use of Venus Victrix for propaganda on gems as a reference to the dictator and possibly manifestation of support to young Octavian by his family becomes more open. The issue gets even more complicated when one analyses two interesting intaglios housed in Perugia. The first is cornelian showing a standardised type of Italic/Roman young warrior but depicted so that it could resemble Venus Victrix and he is surrounded by inscription: C•IVLIVS GEMINUS (Gaius Iulius Geminus) (cat. no. 8.241, fig. 318). The second gem is a sard presenting head of Athena/Minerva or Venus Victrix to the left with inscription Q IVL (Quintus Iulius) (cat. no. 8.242, fig. 319).1166 According to the inscriptions, both examples can 1162 See for instance: RRC, nos. 258/1 (denarius of Sex. Julius Caesar minted in 129 BC) and 320/1 (denarius of L. Julius Caesar struck in 103 BC). 1163 Wiesman 1974, p. 153; Evans 1992, pp. 39-40, Smith 2006, p. 37. 1164 Evans 1992, p. 40. 1165 Cassius Dio, Historia Romana, 43.43.3; RRC, nos. 480/3-5 and 8-18 (denarii of Julius Caesar, 44 BC); Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 11. 1166 Vitellozzi 2010, no. 68 (although the head is interpreted as Athena/Minerva). be securely linked with gens Julii Caesares who in addition used motifs that must have been recognised as related to the dictator and perhaps family ancestry. Another motif that might have served as a family emblem around mid-1st century BC were representations of Salus/Valetudo/Hygiea and Aesculap, mostly in a bust form. Salus appears on denarii of Mn. Acilius Glabrio struck in 49 BC,1167 and seems to be a family symbol of gens Acilia whose representatives were the first physicians in Rome (fig. 320).1168 Engraved gems presenting Aesculap and Hygeia are often regarded as tokens of physicians’ profession, therefore, it would make sense to regard at least some of them as belonging to the members of Acilia family (cat. nos. 8.243-246, fig. 321).1169 Nevertheless, I was unable to find any gem with this kind of iconography and inscription related to gens Acilia or directly copying the image known from the coins.1170 1167 RRC, no. 442/1a. 1168 Weiβ 2007, no. 200. 1169 Gołyźniak 2017, no. 375. 1170 But see other possibilities: Berry 1968, no. 132; Weiß 1996, no. 203. 1171 Lang 2012, pp. 80-90. 8.3.4. Commemoration Among the bulk of Roman Republican gems produced around the middle of the 1st century BC, some stand out for their iconography which can sometimes be related to commemoration of particular events. For example, in London, there is a cornelian intaglio presenting a puzzling composition of a seated man draped round the legs and adding a shield and sword to a trophy (cat. no. 8.247, fig. 322). The inscription accompanying the image makes it a personal object probably suggesting a commemoration of a military victory by a Roman who might have philosophical aspirations at the same time because the seated figure motif is typical for depictions of ancient thinkers.1171 The intaglio would then not only immortalise his success, but also inform about his highly esteemed education, a perfect constellation for auto-presentation. In Berlin, there is a brown glass gem presenting a Roman general wearing cuirass with pteryges and mantle (paludamentum) to the front holding his horse with the right hand, while the left is put on a rim of a large shield decorated with a bundle of thunderbolts; at his left stands a young male figure dressed in a cloak and holding a spear (cat. no. 8.248, fig. 323). The original gem is fragmentarily preserved, but it has been reproduced in the early nineteenth century by Italian gem engraver and impressions maker Tommaso Cades (1772 or 1775-1850) while it was intact (cat. no. 8.249, fig. 324). This intaglio is exceptional for the very rare scene it depicts. It was already Furtwängler who ascertained that the gem presents an unusual subject related to one of Roman political leaders, but he hesitated to make any meaningful identification of the figures presented and dated the piece to the 3rd or 2nd century BC. Instead, Vollenweider recognised here Pompey the Great during census equitum ceremony.1172 She based her identification on a coiffure of the man in the centre which according to her resembles anastole and thus indicate Pompey. However, Vollenweider was wrong to claim that glass gem in Berlin and Cades’ impression are two different objects. If one carefully compares the two it is clear that Cades made his impression after Berlin’s intaglio. Consequently, Vollenweider made another mistake since indeed on Cades’ impression the hair seems raised upward, but this is due to cast’s imperfection. On the gem housed in Berlin it is clear that figure’s hair is not raised but smooth and regularly combed. There is no sign of anastole at all. Another argument contradicting Pompey’s identification is that the figure (or figures) uses a shield decorated with bundle of thunderbolts being symbol of Jupiter with whom Pompey had little in common. He did not venerate the god in any particular way in contrast to Heracles, Neptune or Venus.1173 Finally, there is another glass gem in Munich presenting the same scene but without a horse. There is a similar configuration of figures and attributes and even though the state of preservation is low one notices a cuirassed general and his younger companion on the side again with a large round shield decorated with a bundle of thunderbolts (cat. no. 8.250, fig. 325). On this intaglio the figures are presented as more equal which rather exclude Pompey and his assistant during the census equites ceremony. The description of that event suggests that Pompey walked alone without anyone else to carry his weaponry.1174 Besides, on both gems in Berlin and Munich the figures seems equally important and related to each other. Therefore, a question raises whether one is able to identify the figures depicted with someone else than Pompey or not at all? 1172 Compare opinions of the two: Furtwängler 1896, no. 1137 and Vollenweider 1969 and 1972-1974, pp. 108-111. 1173 Vollenweider’s view that symbols of Jupiter should be connected with Zeus-Ammon and further with Alexander the Great and Pompey himself is a bit far-fetched (1969, p. 658). 1174 Plutarch, Pompey, 22.4-6. Apparently, coinage seems to be particularly helpful in solving the problem of figures’ identification. As Kopij states, to some degree a similar scene is presented on a reverse side of denarius struck by P. Licinius Crassus (86 or 82?-53 BC) in 55 BC where a cuirassed figure stands next to a horse holding him with its right hand and grasping a spear in the left one. At its foot there is a shield and perhaps another object (fig. 326).1175 The iconography of this coin proved to be particularly puzzling since scholars do not agree whether the figure depicted is a male or female one.1176 In 55 BC Marcus Licinius Crassus, father of the moneyer, was appointed consul alongside to Pompey the Great, while Publius Licinius Crassus was nominated a censor. The iconography of his coin could be then a combination referring to moneyer’s family history because his grandfather was appointed censor and attended census equitum ceremony in 89 BC and so did his father Marcus in 65 BC. Now, another member of the family became censor and will be attending the same ceremony so that the reverse motif could refer to that specific event or, which is more likely, it was a part of family propaganda practiced by Publius Licinius Crassus.1177 Be that as it may, returning to the two glass gems, in the light of presented evidence, Vollenweider’s interpretation should be rejected and instead I propose to link the two objects with Marcus Licinius Crassus and his son. 1175 RRC, no. 430/1. 1176 Full range of various hypothesies has recently been presented by Kopij (2017, pp. 104-105). 1177 Babelon 1885/6, pp. 133-134; Kopij 2017, p. 104. 1178 Regarding the described coin, Harlan wondered if it was supposed to symbolise future spolia of Parthian war (1995, pp. 121-122). 1179 Zwierlein-Diehl 1988, p. 3467. Perhaps, the gems show those two exceptional Romans just before departure for the war with Parthians since clearly an experienced Roman general with his younger companion are presented on those gems. The shield with a blazon of Jupiter may symbolise the future spolia that were supposed to be delivered to Rome after victorious campaign or they stand for Jupiter’s blessing and patronage.1178 Alternatively, it could propagate father and son both being appointed the same office (censor) and thus, the gems account for family propaganda combined with transfer of authority from older to younger generation. The material used for the two preserved gems suggest they could be distributed to Crassus’ followers in order to gain him and his son popularity, splendour and appreciation of their future plans. The style of these objects is purely Roman, with a considerable use of pelleting technique accentuated, for instance, on the small anatomical details and hair of the younger person which excludes very early dates for the object proposed by Furtwängler. The fact that Berlin gem has been reproduced by Cades in Rome and that the Munich example was once a part of Paul Arndt collection formed in Rome suggest that they were used or maybe even produced in that city or its neighbourhood. Finally, it is noteworthy that Marcus Lisinius Crassus was the first Roman who wore two rings with gems on his fingers at the same time which was considered as an extravagance, but it could be intended to attract attention of the peers and thus should be regarded as self-promotion.1179 For this reason, it is fairly possible that he and his son engaged into propaganda with the use of engraved gems and the above-described pieces present testimony to that. 8.3.5. Divine and mythological references In her study of Roman Republican portrait gems, Vollenweider argued that some female busts and heads of various deities, but especially of Victory may in fact represent Roman matrons identifying with those goddesses.1180 According to her, this phenomenon occurred quite early, already in the 2nd century BC which is unacceptable. Although in glyptics women identifications with various deities occurred even in the 3rd century BC, this was a common practice in the Hellenistic world, not the Roman one.1181 In Roman culture this would be an unacceptable manifestation of lack of piety towards gods (pietas erga deos). The situation has changed once Octavian defeated Mark Antony at Actium in 31 BC and when his wife Livia Drusilla started to be promoted as the mother of the Julio-Claudian clan with attributes or within a context identifying her with Venus Genetrix (cf. chapter 10.10). I do not find any reasonably secure evidence for other Romans than Pompey the Great and Julius Caesar to promote their special connections with deities and mythological figures on engraved gems. The evidence for these two political leaders is already often vague which is due to the fact that far more bold connections and even identifications with specific deities was fully developed by the next generation of Roman politicians. 1180 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 224-225. 1181 Although, this issue is controversial even there, see: Plantzos 1999, pp. 69-70. 9. Post-Caesarian and Liberators’ Civil Wars (from death of Caesar to the Battle of Actium: 44-31 BC) 9.1. The pompeians When Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon river in 49 BC, thus starting a civil war, Pompey the Great escaped to the East, as did most of the conservative senators. He was followed by his two sons Gnaeus (ca. 75-45 BC) and Sextus (67-35 BC). Pompey’s army lost the Battle of Pharsalus in 48 BC, and Pompey himself had to run for his life, only to be murdered in Egypt the same year, while Gnaeus and his brother Sextus united with the resistance against Caesar in the Africa Province. There, they joined forces with Metellus Scipio, Cato the Younger and other senators but all of them were defeated by Caesar at the Battle of Thapsus in 46 BC, yet, sons of Pompey managed to escape to Spain where they raised another army. Caesar soon followed them and defeated at the Battle of Munda in 45 BC. Few weeks later, Gnaeus Pompey was killed by Lucius Caesennius Lento, while Sextus Pompey survived for another decade still opposing Caesar and his successors until 35 BC. Within these years they must have struggled for keeping up the number of soldiers and other followers of their father and to recruit new ones. Such a situation required considerable propaganda efforts. Glyptics yields with a surprisingly high number of portraits that on the physical and stylistic grounds can be identified with sons of Pompey the Great. Moreover, there is some evidence that the legend of their great father was exploited through engraved gems by both Gnaeus and Sextus to a considerable degree and that they promoted their own accomplishments too.1182 This, however, stays in consistency with a general trend - after death of Caesar all Roman politicians invested much more energy and money in propaganda including many messages transmitted through gems (cf. chapters 9.2, 9.3 and 9.4 below).1183 In this chapter I am going to present the areas and degree of use of glyptics in propaganda actions of the pompeians faction especially in terms of personal branding, self-promotion and use of family heritage. 1182 See, a brief summary of the use of gems for propaganda purposes by the gens Pompeia Magna in: Kopij 2017 pp. 261-264, which, however, does not cover all the aspects. 1183 Vollenweider 1955, pp. 98 and 109; Vollenweider 1966, p. 18; Sena Chiesa 2002, p. 398; Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 17; Kopij 2017, p. 261. 9.1.1. Seals of Gnaeus and Sextus Pompey According to Plutarch, Pompey the Great’s signet ring, whatever device it featured, was presented to Julius Caesar alongside to his head when he came to Egypt.1184 Caesar burst into tears once he saw it, but it is a noteworthy fact that he kept the seal so that it could not be used anymore, for instance by one of Pompey’s sons. Actually, this indeed could have happened since there is no record on Pompey’s seal to have been used by Gnaeus or Sextus Pompey whatsoever in ancient literary sources or archaeological material.1185 This shows how important personal seals were and the devices presented on them had always some political message or auctoritas to transmit by themselves. Caesar certainly was aware of this and he did not wish to support the offspring of his opponent. Nevertheless, it does not mean that sons of Pompey did not used their own seals. There is no information about Gnaeus’ private seal either in ancient literary sources or archaeological material, but Florus writes the following passage when speaking about Sextus Pompey and his surviving companions escape at final part of the Battle at Naulochus: ‘There had been no such pitiable flight since that of Xerxes; for he who had been but lately lord of three hundred and fifty ships fled with six or seven and with the lights extinguished on his flagship, after throwing his rings into the sea, casting anxious looks behind him, though his only fear was lest he should fail to meet with death.’1186 The context of the information about the rings is obscure for author could have made a reference to the fetters worn by the rowers, which were removed so that they might make no noise since the description clearly shows the fugitives tried to hide desperately rowing in the darkness. However, Zwierlein-Diehl takes it for granted that the rings or apparently just one ring thrown to the sea was meant to be the signet ring used by Sextus Pompey as his personal seal.1187 Indeed, it appears to be that Sextus threw his ring away so that he might not be recognized by his pursuers if they captured him. Moreover, a passage from the writing of Saint Ambrose informing about death punishment for the supporters of Brutus and Cassius, who were recognised due to their rings bearing portraits of the leaders of the republicans, makes one wonder if Sextus’s soldiers wore similar rings and threw them away once defeated by Octavian to avoid death (cf. chapter 9.2.2). If the second interpretation is true, like Sulla, Pompey and Caesar before him, son of Pompey would be another prominent Roman politician testified to have used a personal seal. There is no information what was engraved upon it but owing to the fact that other such seals 1184 Plutarch, Pompey, 80.5. 1185 Plantzos 1999, p. 19. 1186 Florus, Epitome, II.18. 1187 Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 14. always communicated specific propaganda messages and Sextus is attested to encourage cutting portrait gems with his likeness, maybe even organised a workshop for that purpose (cf. chapters 9.1.2 and 9.1.3), it is fairly likely that his personal seal also featured an image important for him not only from personal, but also political point of view. 9.1.2. Gem engravers working for the pompeians The evidence for Pompey the Great’s use of gem engravers’ services either while campaigning in the east or in Rome was discussed in the sub-chapter 8.1.3 above. It seems that this tradition was continued by his sons, at least by Sextus. In contrast to their father though, there is no direct or indirect proof for Gnaeus or Sextus to collect engraved gems or use them in public events, therefore, there are no separate sub-chapters here devoted to these issues. Ancient literary sources also remain silent about commissioning engraved gems by Gnaeus and Sextus, yet, the archaeological material preserved up to today, mostly in in public and private collections, suggests that this happened. One of the most famous signed gems from the period of the Post-Caesarian and Liberators’ Civil Wars is the cornelian housed now in Berlin presenting head of a youth with curly hair spreading from one point on the top of the head in a rather untidy manner and short beard to the right and signed by a Greek artists Agathangelos (cat. no. 9.1, fig. 327). The stone is said to have been found near the tomb of Caecilia Metella on the Appian Road and the portrait it bears is generally recognised as belonging to Sextus Pompey since 1736, mainly due to comparisons with coins (fig. 328).1188 The identification indeed seems correct also if one compares the portrait with the bronze bust preserved in St. Petersburg (fig. 329).1189 All three media seem to present the same head. This image was copied by other artists not only on gemstones, but also in glass which will be discussed below, but the foremost conclusion is that if indeed it depicts Sextus Pompey, it should have been cut on his very own commission and hence, testify that the politician used services of lapidaries for self-promotion and to raise his social status. Perhaps he aspired to equal his father in the patronage over the glyptic art. 1188 Furtwängler 1896, no. 6984; Furtwängler 1900, vol. III, p. 351; Richter 1971, no. 634; Vollenweider 1966, p. 39; Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 154-158; Zazoff 1983, pp. 281-284; Plantzos 1999, p. 94. However, not all scholars accept this identification, see: AGDS II, no. 418; Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 123. For coins, see: RRC, no. 511/1 (aureus of Sextus Pompey, 42-40 BC). 1189 Trunk 2008, p. 139; Kopij 2017, p. 238. 1190 Giuliano and Micheli 1989, p. 33. Going further, Giuliano and Micheli proposed that gems related to the pompeians faction were produced in the area of Naples but this is unacceptable.1190 The intaglio by Agathangelos is an utterly individual work that cannot be attributed to any specific workshop or region judging by the style only. All one can say about it is that it was executed by a very skilful Greek artist as the portrait exhibits clear bounds with Hellenistic glyptics. The coiffure is wildly organised, even a bit untidy and the physiognomy of the face is approached with individualism. The hairdo is the biggest difference between this image and the one known from the coins evoked above, however, this probably results from the very private character of the intaglio, while coins required a more official image. It is difficult to say if the gem was cut during Sextus travelling with his father to the East, in Africa, Spain or Sicily. Nevertheless, the last location seems the most plausible giving the fact that the gem is similar to the aureus minted between 42-40 BC when Sextus already resided on the island and this would have been a location convenient for a Greek artist to work. Finally, it was the time when Sextus established more or less stable control over some territory and intensified his propaganda actions. The propagandistic value of Agathangelos’ work was considerable. First of all, the portrait is cut in exceptional quality and by a skilful and most likely famous artist. This made a huge impact on Sextus’ public image adding him much of splendour as he proved to surround himself with the best artists available and probably presented as a continuer of his father’s traditions. Furthermore, the portrait is bearded which implies another propagandistic action, namely display of Sextus’ pietas erga patrem which was clearly a political action. It is believed that the beard was carried by young Romans those days only if intended to be a sign of mourning and if one wanted to express the wish to avenge his dead ancestor, in this case Pompey the Great.1191 However, another plausible explanation for this is that the beard was a sign of adolescence and sympathy towards older aristocrats.1192 This was a quite popular practice among young political leaders engaged in the conflict after Caesar’s death (cf. chapters 9.2.2, 9.3.1.1, 9.3.1.4 and 9.3.2.3).1193 In any case, the ultimate effect aimed by Sextus was to stir the emotions of his followers and remind them that he is the sole leader of Pompey’s avengers and the task they have towards their previous commander has not been fulfilled yet. Doing that he also indirectly transferred authority of his father onto himself which was important considering his young age. 1191 Evans 1987, pp. 105-106; Kopij 2017, p. 238. 1192 For a detailed study of this phenomenon, see: Piegdoń 2012; Biedermann 2013. 1193 See also commentaries of Vollenweider (1972-1974, pp. 147-151 and 169-179). 1194 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 152-153; Neverov 1976, no. 89. As to the continuation of Pompey the Great’s legacy, it is argued that amethyst in St. Petersburg attributed to engraver Agathopus depicts Sextus Pompey, not his father.1194 I have already presented arguments contradicting that view and explaining that it seems more likely for Agathopus to be employed by Pompey the Great (cf. chapter 8.1.3). However, one wonders if the gem cutter worked for Sextus Pompey at the later stage of his career. There is a group of gems presenting posthumous images of Pompey which I believe are products of the workshop created and operated by the side of Sextus Pompey, possibly while he stationed in Sicily (cf. chapter 9.1.4). Some of those gems are cut in exceptional materials like aquamarine and it is known that Agathopus preferred to use such hard stones for his works. Yet, their attribution to the engraver is speculative from the stylistic point of view and the fact that most of those gems are known only from glass, wax or plaster impressions not original stones. Regarding other gem engravers potentially working for Sextus Pompey, Zazoff suggested that Aulos cut many gems with maritime subjects, especially those engaging Poseidon/Neptune and because they might be allusions to Pompey the Great’s identification with the god, Aulos might have worked for Sextus Pompey as well.1195 This is, however, a very controversial view that will be challenged in the next sub-chapters (cf. especially chapter 9.1.7 below). All in all, Agathangelos remains, so far, the only one good candidate for an artist working under the patronage of Sextus Pompey. The number of ancient copies of his work is striking and suggests that it must have been accessible to many (cf. chapter 9.1.3 below). It is difficult to imagine how other lapidaries could see a small intaglio and copied it so faithfully. The only reasonable explanation is that they were somehow presented with it while working in Agathangelos workshop. Perhaps also Sextus ostentatiously paraded with Agathangelos intaglio set in a ring whenever appeared in a public place like Marius did with a gold ring during his triumph (cf. chapter 7.2.1). The gem by Agathangelos could be then noticed and copied, but it seems more likely that Sextus engaged gem engravers to cut similar portraits and issued them to his loyal followers or to the market by himself. So apparently, the preserved copies may bear witness that Sextus organised a sort of ‘workshop’ carving gems for him, perhaps while settled down in Sicily. This would not be surprising considering the fact that other contemporary politicians seem to hire gem engravers too (cf. chapters 8.3.1 – Juba I and Juba II, 9.3.1.2 – Octavian and 9.3.2.2 - Mark Antony). 1195 Zazoff 1983, pp. 285-287. 9.1.3. Portraits – personal branding induction and manifestation of loyalty There is a quite big number of portrait gems mainly cut in gemstones but also a few made of glass that can be attributed to Gnaeus Pompey or his brother Sextus. This number is significant especially in comparison to portraits of Sulla, Pompey the Great or Julius Caesar discussed in previous chapters (cf. 7.1.3, 8.1.5 and 8.2.4). It is clear that use of glyptics for self-presentation, personal branding and manifestation of loyalty, which all practices should be accounted for propaganda, intensified very much after Caesar’s death. I should stress straightforward that often distinguishing between sons of Pompey is impossible due to lack of comparative material. However, the evidence is in favour to claim that most of the portraits listed below present Sextus Pompey rather than his brother as his political career was much shorter and the only one moment when he or his supporters could issue gems with his likeness was when in Spain.1196 There are only two portrait gems that might relate to brother’s presence in that location, and about few more one can only speculate (see below). Noteworthy is the fact that in contrast to the previous periods, here, one deals with a considerable variety of the portrait types, not only in iconographical, but also typological terms. There are gems presenting solely heads and busts of the pompeians, but some of them are clearly presented wearing plaudamentum suggesting a military context and to other inscriptions were added. Perhaps the most important issue is that there are some gems clearly copying intaglio cut by Agathangelos. They might testify to existence of a well-organised workshop producing gems on the order of Sextus Pompey. I shall present and comment all the evidence below. 1196 On the problems with identification of pompeians’ portraits, see: Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 152-174. Kopij entirely ignores portrait gems presenting Gnaeus and describes only those few he relates to Sextus (2017, pp. 261-262). 1197 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 160-163. 1198 RRC, no. 511/1. 1199 Kopij 2017, pp. 158-172, 288-297, 309-310 and 316. Vollenweider argued that there are a few intaglios bearing image of Gnaeus Pompey and they were possibly executed during the lifetime of his father or shortly after his death (cat. nos. 9.2-5, figs. 330-331).1197 The identification of these portraits is based mainly on the head appearing on the reverse of aureus minted by Sextus Pompey in 42-40 BC (fig. 332).1198 The far-reaching similarities between coins and gems imply a question whether the gems are contemporary to the coins or were executed earlier. In his propaganda, Sextus tended to evoke his father as both a subject of his vengeance and source of inspiration and auctoritas.1199 Placing portrait of his brother together with his father on the mentioned aureus was reasonable if the issue of vengeance was meant to be addressed. However, putting portraits of his brother alone on gems while he must have promoted himself makes little sense. Therefore, one must trust that the portrait of Gnaeus from the aureus is a reliable source and indeed should be used for identification of Gnaeus’ portraits on intaglios. It seems reasonable to think that these were cut a bit earlier than the aureus and most plausibly during Gnaeus’ and possibly even Pompey’s lifetime. Perhaps he was encouraged to promote himself that way by his father when he still lived since the gem from Berlin collection (cat. no. 9.2, fig. 330) is said to have been found in Rome. It seems possible that the piece was executed for one of the followers of the pompeians faction Naturally, a gem like this one could be used purely for promotional purposes of Gnaeus and was surely related to his personal branding. Maybe, it was worn by Gnaeus himself but probably it was gifted to someone on the account that Pompey the Great wished to make Gnaeus more recognisable as his heir. The other three gems bearing similar portrait of Gnaeus should be ascribed to the same period as the Berlin one, but one cannot exclude that all four were issued after Pompey’s death in order to strengthen position of Gnaeus and accumulate followers of the pompeians faction around him as well. This might be suggested by the presence of beard that is traditionally interpreted as a form of elegy and was worn by young Romans in order to express not only sorrow but foremostly intention to avenge dead father or other ancestors.1200 Nevertheless, recently other explanations have been proposed and one of them is to regard this kind of short beard as a sign of adolescence and full potential to undertake military and political missions.1201 Thus, I propose to date the objects in question ca. 50-45 BC because if the first is the case, these gems could be carved only after 48 BC, but if the latter, the gems could be cut already within the final years of Pompey the Great’s life. All in all, one should regard them as traces of Gnaeus’ (or his father’s) integration propaganda practices. 1200 Kopij 2017, p. 238. 1201 Piegdoń 2012; Biedermann 2013. There seems to be some evidence that Gnaeus was promoted or he promoted himself through gems, but what about his brother Sextus? Glyptic material yields with some portraits that are first, difficult to distinguish clearly between Gnaeus and Sextus Pompey and second, to date them precisely, but most likely they are contemporary to the previously discussed ones. I have collected four portrait busts of bearded Gnaeus or Sextus Pompey and their common feature is drapery indicated on the shoulders that may be the military cloak – paludamentum (cat. nos. 9.6-9, figs. 333-334). In this case, the brothers are represented as commanders of the army and this suggests the period when they took control over pompeians faction and its loyal legions after death of their father or that Pompey the Great promoted them as able to command the army together with him because they all travelled together to the east or when still in Rome. The latter option is suggested by provenance of some gems. One intaglio preserved in Berlin comes from the Heinrich Dressel (1845-1920) collection that was formed from the material acquired in Rome. There is also a series of three black glass gems (two now in Berlin and one in Geneva) made from the same matrix presenting the very same motif. These glass gems were also most likely produced in Rome, as they origin from the Philipp von Stosch and Walther Fol cabinets. All of them then were supposedly a part of promotional practices, perhaps even induced or just supported by Pompey the Great in the last years of his life. The situation has changed considerably after death of Pompey the Great in 48 BC when his sons must have struggled with Caesar and ultimately in 46 BC landed in Spain. There, they must have invested much energy in propaganda to keep their soldiers with them, for instance issuing specific coinage.1202 It seems that similar practices are reflected in glyptics. There are two immensely interesting intaglios, one in Lebrija and second in Madrid presenting heads of Gnaeus or Sextus Pompey that were recovered from the territory of Spain once controlled by the brothers (cat. nos. 9.10-11, figs. 335-336). One imagines that they could be issued by Pompey’s sons according to their personal branding pracitces or testify to the manifestation of loyalty and support by their soldiers and supporters bearing with them there. These gems should be quite securely dated to the years 46-45 BC or shortly after, as after the Battle of Munda, Gnaeus was killed by Lucius Caesennius Lento and Sextus managed to keep up for some time in the northern Spain, but ultimately transferred himself and remains of his army to Sicily. 1202 Kopij 2017, pp. 170-172 (for Gnaeus) and 198-200 (for Sextus). 1203 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 154-160. Turning now to Sextus Pompey alone, I have already discussed the intaglio presenting most likely his portrait cut by Agathangelos and its propagandistic value above, but it is of crucial importance to evoke it here once again due to its considerable impact on other gems showing Sextus’ image. Agathangelos’ work was most likely executed when Sextus established his power in Sicily and it was a powerful propaganda transmitter. Because it exhibits reliable similarities to the aureus minted in 42-40 BC, the identification is plausible and date for the gem can be proposed to the same years as to the coin, or it might have been cut slightly earlier. Noteworthy is Vollenweider’s observation that there are some gems clearly copying the famous work of Agathangelos.1203 Actually, this phenomenon reached a significant scale and I was able to collect 10 intaglios in various gemstones, one glass gem, one gold ring and one cameo that are direct and quite evident copies of Agathangelos’ work or at least have been inspired by it to a considerable degree (cat. nos. 9.12-22, figs. 337-342). This fact has several important implications. First of all, it supports argumentation for identifying Agathangelos portrait with Sextus Pompey. On the stylistic and iconographic grounds, there is no better candidate and such a considerable amount of copies would have been executed only for a prominent stateman. Secondly, these copies probably suggest that Sextus established a well organised workshop of gem engravers who produced gems with his likeness in order to raise his popularity and make him more recognisable. Even if one imagines that less close copies of Agathangelos work were produced on private commissions of Sextus’ followers and supporters, perhaps mostly his soldiers, who manifested their allegiance to his party and loyalty as well as support directly to him, there is still a fairly big group of faithful multiplications that would not have been created if the source of inspiration had been close enough. If that is the case, they prototype must have been exposed in public so that gem engravers know their source well. Either way, a considerable propaganda effort must have been done by Sextus Pompey for creation of so many homogenous gems related to him. Noteworthy is the fact that vast majority of the examples listed above are made of gemstones. Among the types of gems used, there is a great variety so one cannot point to one specific workshop producing all of them as the styles and techniques vary as well. Such a situation implies two observations. First, there were several engravers of gems producing intaglios based on Agathangelos work active in Sicily and performing private commissions or working more or less close to Sextus himself. Second, lack of serial production of glass gems may point to Sicily as the place where those gems were manufactured since this type of glyptic objects was not particularly popular on the island that was still under substantial Hellenistic influence those days. I found only one glass gem, now in St. Petersburg (cat. no. 9.19, fig. 340), which if indeed ancient and not a post-classical product, is the best evidence one has to prove that Agathangelos’ work was indeed copied within one bigger workshop. As I have been suggesting throughout this dissertation, in the course of the 1st century BC glass gems were produced mainly in Italy and it is very probable that Rome was the biggest centre of production, which was out of Sextus’ control. This view is also confirmed by series of earlier glass gems presenting portraits of Gnaeus or Sextus that were most likely produced in Rome. Subsequently, the Sicilian origins for the gems in question is also suggested by the presence of one gold ring and one cameo (cat. nos. 9.21-22, figs. 341-342). The former was a typical product for south Italian and especially Sicilian territories,1204 whereas the latter form of glyptic object is almost utterly alien for Roman Republican glyptics until Octavian.1205 It was a purely Hellenistic creation and it seems that the one cameo with Sextus portrait from Copenhagen could have been 1204 On the origins, tradition and production of engraved gold rings in the mentioned area, see: Boardman 2001; Hansson 2005, pp. 53-54, 63, 71-73 and 100. 1205 However, see some cameos that possibly depict Pompey the Great and Mark Antony in chapters 8.1.5 and 9.3.1.7 and 9.3.1.10 respectively. Nevertheless, in both cases, they were created only for the people visiting or permanently residing in the East and thus, having contact with Hellenistic glyptics. created only by a Greek artist who migrated to Sicily and worked there when Sextus also resided on the island.1206 1206 Vollenweider 1972-1974, p. 157. 1207 RRC, no. 511/1. 1208 Cat. nos. 9.27 and 9.28. Having no knowledge as to the provenance of these two gems, whether they were discovered in Rome or just included to the museums located there we cannot decide if they were produced outside of Sicily. Besides, those gems could have travelled to Rome in later periods too since intaglios tended to be used for considerable amount of time. Regarding other portrait gems presenting Sextus Pompey, highly interesting is the cornelian intaglio from New York which is, again, very similar to Agathangelos masterpiece, especially if the shape of the head, face expression and nose are concerned, but the hair is arranged on the head in a less wildly manner (cat. no. 9.23, fig. 343). Another interesting piece is a praser now in Rome that exhibits particular similarity to Sextus’ image known from his aureus dated to the 42-40 BC (cat. no. 9.24, fig. 344).1207 Similar to these two is a sardonyx in London (cat. no. 9.25, fig. 345). Considering the above-mentioned similarities to the work of Agathangelos and coins, I feel secure to date that group of gems around the years 42-40 BC and relate them to the circle of Sextus or his supporters. They could be issued to disseminate image of the stateman and make him more recognisable or used to manifest loyalty to him alike. Objects that were certainly produced for loyal supporters of Sextus Pompey who meant to manifest their affiliation to his pompeians party are several gems bearing his portrait accompanied with inscriptions (cat. nos. 9.26-34, figs. 346-350). Most of these are names or shortcuts from their names (both duo and tria nomina) so that it was clear that they used to indicate who sympathises with Sextus. Today, they remain anonymous as one may only do more or less educated guesses for which names they stood for. However, one stone bears a particularly intriguing inscription: ΔOMINΩN which probably stands for Latin word dominus and thus illustrate not allegiance but even subordination of the gem’s sitter to Sextus (cat. no. 9.30, fig. 348). A counterargument to my hypothesis would be that all these gems are private portraits inscribed with the names of their sitters but let us compare cat. no. 9.26 and ca.t no. 9.27 – both present exactly the same person, who in all likelihood is Sextus Pompey. Furthermore, similar phenomenon to the one described here occurs in case of gems presenting head of Octavian (cf. chapter 9.3.1.4). Noteworthy is the fact that amongst these gems there is no single glass one. This supports my presupposition that majority of gems with portraits of Sextus Pompey was produced while he controlled Sicily, perhaps even in one workshop, even though two objects escape the rule as they are now preserved in Rome.1208 It is impossible to indicate whether Sextus was directly involved in this process, although some evidence points to that, or this phenomenon was entirely a bottom-up initiative of his supporters and soldiers. It is also worth to mention that in all three groups discussed above all the portraits are bearded and this stays in consistency with representations of Sextus known from coins. It seems that also in glyptics one of the key rules for Sextus’ portraits was now definitely to highlight his mourning or elegy after murdered father and brother and wish to avenge both of them which basically comes down to expression of his pietas towards his family members. Judging by the portraits themselves, it is difficult to propose specific dates for all the intaglios amassed in this group. Most likely they are contemporary to the previously described gems (ca. 45-40 BC) although, some might be of later date and terminus ante quem for them is death of Sextus in 35 BC. Studying portrait gems is very problematic due to limited comparative material in other media than glyptics. Therefore, the reader should take identifications and dates proposed to the groups of gems discussed above as suggestions not definite identifications. Nevertheless, all those objects appear more or less homogenous because of their individual features (inscriptions, iconographic detail or portrait type and style) rather than overall estimation of the portrait itself. For these reasons I believe they could be related to Sextus Pompey and his propaganda activities. But there are many more problematic specimens (cat. nos. 9.35-47, figs. 351-353). It is clear that all of them are cut in the same tradition as the previously described intaglios and bear the same type of portrait of a young and bearded man. However, their links with coins of Sextus Pompey are considerably weaker and they do not copy Agathangelos’s masterpiece. Thus, it is difficult to say if they present Gnaeus or Sextus Pompey and some might not be related to them at all.1209 Very little can be said about provenance of these intaglios, but a striking fact is that except for one piece (cat. no. 9.41), they are all made of gemstones. Perhaps one should consider here a new phenomenon that is imitation of famous politician’s image by his followers. For instance, the fact that Sextus Pompey carried a beard in order to manifest his plans to avenge his father and brother could be influential and members of the pompeians party started to do the same. Moreover, they could commission private gems to be cut in a similar way to those presenting their patron and idol alike. This practice accounts to propaganda but more as evidence for successful actions taken by Sextus Pompey himself. Considerable production and distribution of gems with his portraits proves to have a significant impact on others. If some of Sextus followers were gifted or commissioned gems with his image and used them as tokens of their sympathy to the commander, other people may have wished to do the 1209 See a fruitful discussion on this problem in: Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 163-168. same. As a result, Sextus image quickly widespread making him more recognisable and the integration of the group of his peers intensified. Perhaps sometimes the original depiction of Sextus distorted considerably as there were not many sources (in sculpture and coinage) for artists to draw their inspiration. Accordingly, some gems could be made by poorly skilled engravers unable to perform better art or to copy the image more faithfully. Consequently, today one cannot tell if some gems featuring portraits similar to those of Gnaeus or Sextus Pompey indeed present them or not, but it does not mean the object circulated in antiquity in a completely different environment than one imagines today. It was probably much easier to decipher it and make a specific and certain association. These might be plausible explanations for existence of so many portrait gems close to those which undoubtedly bear Gnaeus or Sextus images. As to the dates of the gems under discussion, one can only propose a relatively wide chronological framework spanning from 45 to 35 BC. Even though there is some reference material in terms of coinage of Sextus from the period of 40-35 BC, it is not very helpful as the similarities between glyptics and coins are not so striking as before.1210 Perhaps one should follow Vollenweider and also propose to expand dates for the copies of Agathangelos’ work to the early 30s BC?1211 It would have been weird if Sextus or his supporters stopped to issue gems with his portraits just after 40 BC, however, because Sextus’ resources on Sicily gradually dwindled, which is observable for instance in the quality of the coins he produced, the same could be the case for intaglios and cameos. As luxury art, they were produced when sources of Sextus were abundant, but when they were limited, he must have restrained or even resign entirely from using this art form for his propaganda. 1210 Kopij 2017, p. 263. 1211 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 156-160. 1212 Vollenweider attributed many more portrait gems to Gnaeus and Sextus Pompey than me but I believe that some of them depict other people, compare, for instance: Vollenweider 1972-1974, pls. 74.2-4, 7-10 and 12; 117.1-2; 118.6; 119.2; 120. 1 and 6; 122.2-4 and 6-7; 124.1 and 5; 125.1 and 4-7; 126.1-3. This does not mean that she ignored the problem of identification, on contrary, she took it into account too, see: Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 169-173. Nevertheless, identification of portrait gems with historical figures is always problematical and can be distorted by personal experience and judgments. Therefore, it is inevitably to make mistakes. I am fully aware that many of my identifications might seem controversial to others, even though I tried to base them on arguments not related only to the portraits themselves but also to other factors (e.g. provenance, type of material used, potential political significance etc. see above). Finally, it is noteworthy to stress that some portraits at the first glance show resemblances to those of Ganeus and especially Sextus Pompey listed above, but they certainly present contemporary people to the leaders of the pompeians faction, even though some scholars suggest otherwise (cat. nos. 9.48-58, figs. 354-358).1212 A very good example of that is nicolo gemstone carved with a portrait of a young, bearded man with a prow in front of him (cat. no. 9.54, fig. 357). He was primarily recognised as Sextus Pompey and this identification was strengthened by the prow alluding to his successes in naval battles.1213 However, Weiß has recently convincingly argued that this image belonged to a private person who might have been an admiral in the Roman navy.1214 The same applies to another young fleet admiral presented on a cornelian intaglio now in London (cat. no. 9.55, fig. 358). It is perhaps due to a strong resonance of portrait gems and other means of Sextus propaganda (coins, sculpture) which considerably popularised his image, especially among soldiers. They could follow their leader and, for instance, when also carried the mourning beard as this would be a sort of phenomenon thanks which they expressed the same feelings towards the fact of Pompey the Great’s death or imitated Sextus’ coiffure. The more ambitious and wealthy (admirals or high-rank officers) could also follow the new leader (Sextus) in having had their own portraits cut upon gemstones. Both activities strengthened bounds between Sextus followers, so that glyptics proves particularly important in integration propaganda of the pompeians faction. 1213 Furtwängler 1900, vol. I, pl. XLVII.39; Lippold 1922, pl. LXXI.11; Vollenweider 1972-1974, pl. 113.9. 1214 Weiß 2009, no. 3. 1215 RRC, nos. 483/1-2: the first bears two pairs of ships on the reverse, while the second, a crewed single ship with a star in the field. 9.1.4. Use of heritage While discussing portraits of Gnaeus and Sextus Pompey appearing on intaglios and cameos, coins proved to be exceptionally useful for both, identification and dating of their portraits in glyptics. They are equally useful for identification, dating and even interpretation of few more gems related, I believe, to Sextus Pompey and his next propaganda activity. After the Battle of Munda, Sextus managed to escape Caesar and his supporters to the northern Spain and further he reached Massalia in southern Gaul. There, in 44 BC, the news of the death of Caesar reached him. Initially, he negotiated with Senate to come to Rome, but the caesarians faction was quicker and captured the city, thus Sextus decided to transfer himself with the rest of his army to Sicily. Already while in Massalia or shortly after his landing in Sicily (44-43 BC), small, but immensely interesting series of denarii was minted by Sextus Pompey and Q. Nasidius that on the obverse side present head of Pompey the Great surrounded by symbols of Neptune – trident and dolphin. It was struck in two variants differing with the images on the reverse sides (fig. 359).1215 Surprisingly, one finds very similar compositions on two intaglios that must have been inspired by these coins. The first one is in Chatsworth and is cut upon a beautiful and rare aquamarine, a stone type very much suitable for a marine subject due to its colour and name. It presents exactly the same head of Pompey the Great with anastole coiffure and a dolphin beneath,1216 while the second is in Bern and depicts more schematically carved, but still the very same head of Pompey the Great with a dolphin beneath and star with trident in the field (cat. nos. 9.59-60, figs. 360-361). 1216 Noteworthy is also a modern copy of this gem, also in the collection of Duke of Devonshire in Chatsworth, see: Zwierlein-Diehl 1986, no. 928. Sometimes it is erroneously considered as a copy of another, lost aquamarine gem, see: Trunk 2008, G.9a; Kopij 2017, p. 262. 1217 Vollenweider 1972-1974, p. 116. 1218 See: Kopij 2017, pp. 182-186. 1219 RRC, nos. 483/1-2; Morawiecki 1989, pp. 90-96; Trunk 2008, pp. 128-131; Kopij 2017, pp. 182-186. Vollenweider did not decide whether to link these two intaglios to propaganda practices of Pompey the Great and promotion of his bounds with Neptune, even identification with the god or to consider them posthumous portraits related to the coins of Sextus.1217 I believe the gems in question were a part of Sextus’ not Pompey’s propaganda and coins indeed are particularly helpful to prove that. But first of all, I should remark that according to my research, there is virtually no evidence for Pompey to use gems to reflect his alluding or identification with Neptune. Secondly, it is known that the coins of Sextus Pompey and Q. Nisidius were minted on a very specific occasion. There is a heat debate on the possible dates and meaning of the iconography the coins bear,1218 but ultimately, it seems that one creates the best explanation if combines the views of Crawford, Morawiecki, Trunk and Kopij together. The coins were issued in a relatively small series due to the particular circumstances (Sextus’ limited sources of silver while in Massalia) and the iconography perfectly responds to the needs of both moneyers. Q. Nissidius highlighted his bounds with Neptune as his father was the commander of pompeians’ fleet serving already to Pompey the Great and the moneyer could do the same for Sextus. On the other hand, Sextus by placing head of his father surrounded with symbols of Neptune on the coin replied to Octavian’s propaganda since his opponent started to promote himself as the son of divine Julius Caesar.1219 This is one of the most explicit examples of counterpropaganda practices in the history of Roman propaganda. Following this logic, it is clear that the two above-mentioned intaglios were produced for the same reason. Although, they do not exactly copy the images from coins, the differences are insignificant and can be ignored. The message encoded is the same: Sextus issues gems of this kind to show his connections with deified father through his identification with Neptune like Octavian had with deified Julius Caesar. The gems in question in fact fit a more general phenomenon of Sextus’ counterpropaganda to Octavian’s moves as will be shown later. It is noteworthy that those intaglios should be accounted to the reception of Pompey the Great’s portrait and propaganda too and when one turn his eyes to Octavian, one observes exactly the same practices applied by him as well (cf. chapter 9.3.1.1). It remains disputable when and where exactly the two intaglios in question were produced, but I presume that the most plausible moment was 43 BC when Sextus was already in Sicily. He was appointed praefectus classis et orae maritime by Senate that year thus, it seems reasonable for him to highlight his bounds with Neptune, but not directly, as it might have been a counterproductive move, rather with the use of his father as an interconnector, which was a more secure option and still a response to the propaganda practices of other Roman political leaders struggling for power.1220 The gems of this kind might have been gifted to loyal servants of Sextus Pompey and their small number suggest that they were given only to the chosen ones which only strengthens their propagandistic value. Perhaps the recipients were the veterans who served to his father already and their fidelity was appreciated by young commander that way. At the same time coins, so similar to these gems, were distributed to finance ordinary soldiers who fought on Sextus Pompey’s side.1221 One imagines that doing this Sextus showed that loyalty will be rewarded in the future too, which motivated his followers and integrated his party and army, let alone his own promotion as the son of deified Pompey. Such communications surely strengthened morale of his supporters. The gems described here were powerful propaganda tools exhibiting application of several sophisticated propaganda techniques such as comparison with a divine patron or even identification with him and especially transfer of auctoritas from father to son. 1220 However, see some other possibilities: Trunk 2008, p. 148; Kopij 2017, p. 262. 1221 Kopij 2017, pp. 185-186. Finally, the gems in question constitute another proof for my claim that Sextus employed gem engravers to cut propaganda gems for him. They could travel with him from Spain, where I referenced to the two portrait gems with the image of his brother or himself (cf. chapter 9.1.3 above), through Massalia to Sicily, where they finally could work in better conditions producing larger quantities of either portrait and propaganda gems. Judging some differences in composition, iconography and especially styles of the gems from Chatsworth and Bern, it is clear they were cut by two different artists. This supports my view that Agathangelos worked for Sextus while he arrived at Sicily and so could other gem engravers in a well-organised workshop already in the 40s BC. Perhaps the workshop was still active in the early 40s BC. This would explain such a big number of copies of Agathangelos’ work. Another object clearly related to the reception of Pompey the Great’s image, both in visual and propaganda sense, by his son Sextus is a lost gem known only from its impression executed by Tommaso Cades in the first half of the 19th century (cat. no. 9.61, fig. 362). It presents head of Pompey to the right flanked by lituus and capis. The gem faithfully copies the obverse of one of the coins issued by Sextus just after his arrival to Sicily (fig. 363).1222 As far as one can judge from the preserved impression, the stone appears genuine.1223 Much more problematic is another impression from Verona in which case one cannot decide if the gem was ancient or not as it literary mirrors the mentioned coin of Sextus in a very shallow engraving (cat. no. 9.62, fig. 364).1224 It is another time when Sextus transfers auctoritas of his father to himself which high level has been highlighted here through accompanying symbols of augurate. It remains a mystery whether Sextus referred to his father as an augur or to his own augurate, but most likely to both; he could demonstrate that like his father he was also appointed for this special and highly esteemed office. It seems reasonable to date the object (or objects) to the same year or slightly later as the coins (ca. 42 BC). This is another intaglio (or intaglios) that was most likely produced in the workshop organised by Sextus in Sicily and another one that drew inspiration from the contemporary coinage. The fact that so many motifs and portraits exhibit considerable similarities to coins of Sextus only strengthens the hypothesis that he could control or at least substantially influenced production of propaganda gems exploiting themes focused on his father, brother and himself. 1222 RRC, no. 511/3 (denarius of Sextus Pompey, 42 BC). See also a detailed discussion on this emission in: Kopij 2017, pp. 186-190. 1223 Some scholars doubt that, see: Vollenweider 1972-1974, p. 116; Trunk 2008, p. 148. However, compare this gem with earlier examples of Pompey’s portraits (cat. nos. 8.20-25, figs. 187-190) and it is clear that it is an ancient piece. 1224 The clear distinction between ancient and not ancient intaglios and cameos is sometimes largely problematic. Regarding Sextus Pompey’s potential exploitation of his father legend in glyptics, one should mention a plaster impression made by Tommaso Cades after an unknown gem featuring head of Pompey the Great with triskeles and inscription SEX•POM•. This one is clearly a post-classical creation and it copies the coin of Sextus minted ca. 38-37 BC (Trunk 2008, no. G11). Apart from the beard carried by Sextus Pompey, his pietas towards his father and later also brother was cherished and demonstrated with use of coins when he put their images on them. It is now clear that also gems discussed in this sub-chapter were produced for the same purpose. Similarly to the coins, their propagandistic value must have been considerable. It was perhaps regarded a great honour to receive such a gem from Sextus or using it on one’s own initiative but with his approval. Either way, so far, one finds Sextus Pompey as a conscious user of glyptic art for propaganda purposes to the highest degree among all already discussed Roman statemen. 9.1.5. Promotion of the faction In the two previous sub-chapters I have discussed portraits of Sextus Pompey as well as those of his brother and father that he most likely promoted on gems. There could be various motivations for such a considerable production of those gems like personal branding, transfer of auctoritas, comparison to the prominent ancestor and so on and all are propagandistic in character. As it is consistently proposed in this dissertation, many portrait gems bearing images of famous politicians like Julius Caesar, Pompey the Great and his sons etc. could be commissioned by their supporters, including soldiers to manifest their loyalty to them. Even if they did not wish to show their direct link with a political leader, it is also quite probable that those gems were produced to mark one’s allegiance to a specific faction. Furthermore, gems were possibly used to mark one’s identity as a member of the pompeians faction and thus promote it. Such a view was already proposed by Vollenweider and I believe she is right.1225 This is especially applicable to the period after death of Julius Caesar. As one sees here, in case of Sextus Pompey and his brother Gnaeus, there is a considerable production of their portrait gems. Many of them are difficult to attribute to a specific person and date with precision, but it is clear that one cause of this situation is that official portraits were copied by less skilful artists on private commissions, who distorted the original image during the production process. Coins, sculpture and gems alike were presumably their sources of inspiration. It is clear from other periods of Roman glyptics that gems were used to mark one’s allegiance to a specific community and carrying a ring with the image of a specific politician could be a part of this process. It is known from literary sources that gems with portraits of philosophers were used to manifest one’s views or membership to a specific philosophical school and in the 2nd century AD Clemens of Alexandria suggests Christians which motifs are suitable for their rings so that they could manifest their religion.1226 Because of a considerable number of pompeians portrait gems it is likely that they were produced for a similar purpose. This is a part of integration propaganda aimed to create bounds between a propagandist (in this case Sextus Pompey) and his followers as well as between each follower too. I do not find any other subjects on gems 1225 Vollenweider 1972-1974, p. 155. 1226 For a more detailed discussion on these issues, see: Spier 2007, p. 15; Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, pp. 16-17; Lang 2012, pp. 105-106. that could be used for a similar purpose except for some variants of symbolic constellations which will be discussed later (cf. chapter 9.1.8). 9.1.6. Commemoration In his study of propaganda practices of the members of gens Pompeia Magna, Kopij remarked that Sextus Pompey used to issue gems commemorating his military and other successes.1227 Actually, it is a well-established view that some maritime subjects, especially Scylla killing one of Odysseus’ companions, may represent or allude to the naval victories of Sextus Pompey in his clashes with Octavian’s fleet, for instance the one at Messina in 38 BC or another at Naulochus in 36 BC.1228 In this sub-chapter, I would like to challenge this view and suggest other, perhaps more plausible explanations for this kind of iconography and consequently re-evaluate Sextus’ propaganda emitted on gems. 1227 Kopij 2017, pp. 263-264. 1228 See, for instance: Vollenweider 1966, pp. 20-21. 1229 RRC, nos. 511/4a-d (denarii of Sextus Pompey, 42-40 BC). 1230 Cassius Dio, Historia Romana, 48.19.1; RRC, p. 521. The coinage in question exists in two types both employing Scylla on the reverse: RRC 511/2a-c and 511/4a-d (denarii of Sextus Pompey, ca. 38 BC). 1231 RRC, p. 739. 1232 For an extensive discussion of this issue, see: Morawiecki 2014, p. 93; Kopij 2017, pp. 196-198. 1233 Morawiecki 1989, pp. 97-98. First thing to notice is that the subject of Scylla indeed appears in the coinage of Sextus Pompey where the creature wields rudder with both hands.1229 This iconography is used for the denarii dated by Crawford to 42-40 BC who claims that they commemorated the fact that in 43 BC Senate granted Sextus the office of praefectus classis et orae maritimae and also his naval victory over Q. Salvidienus Rufus in 42 BC after which Sextus was acclaimed imperator for the second time (figs. 365-366).1230 According to Crawford, this was a propaganda coinage aiming to show his takeover of Sicily, identification with Neptune and continuation of a programme maybe already established while Sextus was in Messalia issuing coins (and gems) with his father surrounded with Neptune symbols on the obverse and a ships with some symbolism like a star on the reverses (cf. chapter 9.1.5 above).1231 However, it has been recently established that these coins should be dated a bit later to ca. 38 BC and related to the second battle at Scylleum and the times when Sextus was already well settled in Sicily since on the reverse side of those denarii is the Pharos of Messana – the main base of Sextus fleet.1232 The propagandistic message encoded on those coins would be the presentation of Sextus’ considerable naval power under auspices of Neptune1233 or general protection of Neptune over Sextus and his naval victories illustrated here by Scylla demolishing ships of his enemies. Moreover, Kopij also rightly observes some shift in Sextus propaganda claiming that these coins represent subjects related specifically to Sextus, not his father as it was before.1234 1234 Kopij 1989, pp. 197-198. 1235 See, the most recent study of this phenomenon in Massaro 2009. 1236 Vollenweider 1966, pp. 70-71. Whatever the exact date and reason for minting those coins, it is striking to observe that Scylla appears in glyptics on a number of intaglios which is traditionally linked with the evoked coinage.1235 However, there is a good number of reasons to think about it another way. The key to solve the problem is a deep analysis of all known gems representing this peculiar motif. I should start by asking a question why only the second type known from coins exists on gems, whereas the first one is absent? Furthermore, the fundamental difference between the image applied on coins and that on gems is that on coins Scylla is presented alone, while on gems it is always shown as just about to kill one or sometimes even two Odysseus’ companions whom she holds in her tentacle-like legs (cat. nos. 9.63-80, figs. 367-373). Another important observation is that these gems differ in quality, styles and techniques. Vollenweider was able to attribute the intaglio in Venice to Hyllos, son of the famous gem engraver Dioscurides and dated his work to 30s BC (cat. no. 9.63, fig. 367),1236 and another cornelian gem in Geneva is cut in a perfect style, quite close to Hyllos’ work too (cat. no. 9.64, fig. 368). Noteworthy is the fact that there are only three more gemstone intaglios presenting the subject: one housed in Verona (cat. no. 9.65), second in Paris (cat. no. 9.66, fig. 369) and the third was found by Sir Arthur Evans in Zadar, Dalmatia (cat. no. 9.67). All the other examples (13 in total, cat. nos. 9.68-80, figs. 370-373) that I was able to collect are made of glass of various types. Noteworthy is that one of them was found in Aquileia (cat. no. 9.68, fig. 370), while other come from collections that were most likely created in Rome (cat. nos. 9.69-79, figs. 371-372). A notable exception is a glass gem now in Malibu that is said to have come from Syria (cat. no. 9.80, fig. 373). Since I have already established that Sextus Pompey issued gems with his image almost only on gemstones, it is puzzling that so many gems presenting Scylla are made of glass and most likely origin from Italy, maybe Rome and Aquileia specifically – in any case, territories out of Sextus’ control. Furthermore, as pointed out above, the gems create heterogenous group in terms of their stylistic features. It is evident that they were created over decades and some might be securely dated to the times of Augustus which excludes to take them as a result of a specific, short and intensive propaganda action performed by Sextus Pompey in Sicily. Moreover, while discussing Sextus’ portrait gems and those of the pompeians I signalised that they probably ceased to be produced shortly after 40 BC and it seems that due to limited financial resources, Sextus resigned from investing in propaganda through gems and focused on his coinage only (cf. chapter 9.1.3). Actually, a good explanation for popularity of Scylla on gems dated broadly to the second half of the 1st century as well as in other forms of art was proposed by Sena Chiesa and Spier. They believe that the dynamic composition based on diagonal axises point to the Hellenistic prototype in sculpture, most likely created in Pergamon.1237 It is possible that gems specifically were inspired by the sculptural group presenting Scylla assaulting Odysseus’ ship found in the Sperlonga grotto.1238 Alternatively, the subject may derive from the painting by Nicomachus that was transferred to Rome as Pliny informs us.1239 Either way, it seems that gem engravers created all the intaglios listed above on their own initiative in various workshops spread across Italy and beyond, but there is no evidence suggesting that some of them were produced in Sicily on Sextus Pompey’s command. The example found in Aquileia testifies the best that gems with this subject were crafted in large production centres not related to any political figure. Besides, the popularity of Scylla on gems was due to the fact that maritime subjects were widely popular in glyptics those days (Hyllos preferred them). This was a general trend and gem engravers often took their inspiration from sculpture or paintings.1240 It is fairly possible then, that Scylla shown on the second type of Sextus Pompey’s coinage in question and the gems seem interconnected due to the common source of inspiration – sculptural group, while they do not share the same propaganda value. What is more, due to the fact that Octavian is undoubtedly presented in glyptics as Neptune, one may think that the glass gems possibly originating from Rome may have been created for him rather than for Sextus and would have been counterpropaganda to his actions undertaken through coins. This issue will be further developed later (cf. chapters 9.3.1.7 and 9.3.1.8). To conclude, although coins are often indicative for propaganda messages on gems this time, they seem to share only a source of inspiration, but not the precise meaning. 1237 Sena Chiesa 1966, no. 749; Spier 1992, no. 422 (with further literature on the Pergamene sculpture). 1238 Sena Ciesa, Magni and Tassinari 2009, no. 535. 1239 Pliny, NH, XXXV.109; Toso 2007, p. 213. 1240 Furtwängler 1900, vol. III, pp. 330-333 and 342-345; Plantzos 1999, p. 96. 1241 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 208-211. Concerning commemoration of important events on gems, Vollenweider proposed that intaglios and cameos were often cut to immortalize marriages, especially those presenting busts or heads of a man and woman confronted.1241 This is certainly true, and the Swiss scholar interpreted one red jasper gem in a private collection as presenting Gnaeus Pompey and his wife Claudia Pulchra (cat. no. 9.81, fig. 374). However, according to the stone type, style of engraving and especially woman’s coiffure, this piece should be dated to the 2nd century AD thus, under no circumstances it should be linked with the pompeians faction or Gnaeus Pompey specifically. I do not find any other examples of portraits of this kind on gems from the second half of the 1st century, which allows me to doubt Vollenweider’s theory even more. 9.1.7. Divine and mythological references Even though some ancient writers often presented Sextus Pompey as the commander of pirates and outlaws, who had nothing of the auctoritas of his father, a favourite of Neptune,1242 it is an undeniably fact that at some point of his political career, Sextus proclaimed himself as Neptuni filius and compared to the sea god.1243 This was a deliberate propaganda action aimed at raising his authority and popularity among the people once following his father.1244 As Morawiecki observed, the identification of Sextus with Neptune widely circulated in literature and coinage,1245 and consequently, some scholars wonder if the same could happened in glyptics.1246 One of the strongest voice in the discussion was Vollenweider who claimed that some gems presenting maritime subjects such as Neptune riding a biga of hippocamps (cat. nos. 9.82-85, figs. 375-378) or representations of tritons (cat. nos. 9.86-89, figs. 379-381), should be associated with Sextus Pompey and his propaganda. They would account to the technique aimed at raising his authority and confirming that he is under protection and support of the god very much like was his father.1247 Some scholars followed this view,1248 while others proposed to link these subjects to Octavian and, especially, the celebrations of his great victory at Actium.1249 I believe the latter hypothesis to be much closer to truth since there is some direct evidence in glyptics that Octavian identified with Neptune and the unusually large format, exceptional style and complex iconography of the gems listed above are much closer to Augustan classicism. Still, the most convincing explanation for me is that those gems were produced because of a general trend in Roman art that started to function already in the late 2nd 1242 Morawiecki 2014, pp. 61-62; Berdowski 2015, pp. 27-75. 1243 Barcaro 2008/2009, pp. 211 and 217. 1244 Morawiecki 2014, pp. 86-99. For a very detailed study of this problem, see: Berdowski 2015. See also Kopij 2017, passim. 1245 Zanker 1988, pp. 39-40 and 44; Morawiecki 2014, pp. 86-99. 1246 Zazoff 1983, pp. 285 and 293; Giuliano and Micheli 1989, pp. 31-32. 1247 Vollenweider 1966, pp. 20-21. 1248 For example: Zazoff 1983, pp. 285 and 293; Giuliano and Micheli 1989, pp. 31-32; Kagan and Neverov 2000, no. 29/10; Kopij 2017, pp. 263-264 (however, he stresses that because similar symbolism was used by Octavian and Mark Antony in their propaganda practices, it is difficult to tell if the discussed gems should be linked to Sextus Pompey). 1249 Toso 2007, pp. 209-210; Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 121. century BC and was related to the growing importance of the sea alongside to Roman expansion in the Mediterranean basin (cf. chapter 9.3.1.8 and 10.7).1250 The maritime subjects involving Neptune, Tritons, Nereids etc. were extremely popular which is testified not only by existence of the aforementioned large intaglios, either in gemstones and glass, but also insignificant small stones that were used by ordinary people.1251 The fact that many of them were found in Aquileia – a huge glyptic centre producing gems on a massive scale but not controlled or influenced by none of the key politicians at the time – only supports the view that if any of the gems with maritime subjects encoded some political messages, these could be only those related to Octavian, not Sextus Pompey.1252 I do not find even the slightest proof for Sextus Pompey to promote himself as Neptune through engraved gems. It seems that he mainly engaged coins to his propaganda activities in this respect which is consistent with my theory that because of limited financial sources, shortly after 40 BC he directed his propaganda efforts primarily to coinage rather than other art forms. It is more likely that Octavian responded to Sextus’ propaganda in coinage with his own counterpropaganda, which was organised on a much bigger scale due to his considerable financial means so that it included glyptic art as well (cf. chapter 9.3.1.7). 1250 On this particular matter, see: Gołyźniak (forthcoming). 1251 See some examples: Walters 1926, nos. 1297-1299, 2725 and 2738; Richter 1971, nos. 226-230; Maaskant-Kleibrink 1978, nos. 399-400 and 1167 (Nereid on hippocamp, signed by Dalion); Zwierlein-Diehl 1979, no. 1077; Zwierlein-Diehl 1986, nos. 346-350; Tomaselli et al. 1987, no. G.22; Tomaselli 1993, nos. 69-70; Weiβ 1996, no. 111; Weiβ 2007, nos. 214-216; 1252 For gems found in Aquileia, see: Sena Chiesa 1966, nos. 515-522. 1253 RRC, nos. 483/1-2 (denarii of Sextus Pompey and Q. Nisidius, 44-43 BC). 9.1.8. Political symbols In the sub-chapter on political symbols related to Pompey the Great I argue that similarities between gems and coins are sometimes only superficial and in fact, symbolic gems were not so much exploited for propaganda purposes by Pompey and his contemporaries as it would seem at the first glance. In case of Sextus Pompey one is probably not on a much better position to claim that symbolic gems were significantly involved in his propaganda. Sextus identified himself with Neptune and reflections of that phenomenon are clearly visible in his coinage. The issues minted directly by him or on his behalf often involve maritime subjects. One of them is a ship or groups of ships that appear on some coins related to his fleet (fig. 382).1253 This motif also gained great popularity on gems in the 1st century BC. Sena Chiesa proposed that this as well as some other naval themes should be linked with propaganda of the main political figures (Sextus Pompey, Octavian, Mark Antony, Marcus Iunius Brutus and so on) active after Julius Caesar’s death.1254 Perhaps indeed some of those gems could be related to propaganda of Sextus and his soldiers could use them as tokens manifesting their allegiance to his faction (cat. no. 9.90, fig. 383), but I do not find any object that would faithfully copy the subject appearing on the mentioned coins of Sextus or bear any specific emblem or symbol indicating a connection with him. It must be stressed that gems with such iconography could also illustrate someone’s profession or affiliation to a naval military unit that not necessarily served to Sextus because many are inscribed with names of their sitters (cat. no. 9.91, fig. 384). In those circumstances, it is highly speculative to point specific gems to be related to Sextus. However, sometimes the inscription and iconography combined may point to the allegiance of the gem’s sitter to the pompeians faction like in case of a chalcedony intaglio bearing a set of symbols consisting of a dolphin, rudder, cornucopia and globe and inscription: AGAPOM in which case POM may stand for Pompey (Pompeius) (cat. no. 9.92, fig. 385).1255 1254 Sena Chiesa 2012, pp. 260-261. 1255 See also commentary to this issue in: Gołyźniak 2017, no. 226. 1256 RRC, nos. 511/4a-d (denarii of Sextus Pompey, 42-40 BC). 1257 Weiß 2007, no. 637. Another interesting subject to discuss is the Pharos of Messana motif appearing on another coin issued by Sextus Pompey as it was the main port where his fleet stationed (fig. 386).1256 There is a series of glass gems presenting a sort of similar motif that could be issued by Sextus Pompey after his victory over Octavian’s fleet near Messana in 38 BC (cat. nos. 9.93-94, fig. 387). However, as Weiß rightly points out, although such an explanation is not impossible, gems with the lighthouse motif could be used as personal amulets bringing good luck and help in safe navigation to the port.1257 The latter option is perhaps more plausible since none of the gems bear exactly the same image as the coins and more importantly, Sextus does not seem to have had access to workshops producing glass gems, while in Sicily. Furthermore, in contrast to Sulla, Julius Caesar or Augustus, Sextus did not promote any specific programme of restoration of the Roman Republic that would concentrate on some collective goals so that its reflections would be visible in art and craftsmanship. The two examples discussed here illustrate how hard it is to identify propaganda subjects on gems due to the multiple explanations of their iconography and the political one is usually not the most plausible. 9.1.9. Luxury objects (State Cameos, vessels etc.) and religious propaganda There is no proof whatsoever for the members of the pompeians faction and its leaders to produce or commission State Cameos or carved vessels. Similarly, there is no record in literary sources testifying that Gnaeus or Sextus Pompey were engaged in religious propaganda. It seems that they did not follow their father who offered collections of gems to the Temple of Jupiter on the Capitoline Hill. This is most likely because during their political careers they were constantly on the move and even when Sextus settled in Sicily, he does not seem to have enough financial means to start collecting gems or commission luxurious products. In fact, in his case such activities would be counterproductive since his soldiers would have been disgusted by ostentatious manifestation of wealth giving the conditions, they had to face by themselves under Sextus’ command. 9.2. The republicans After the Ides of March 44 BC, the uproar among the population against the assassins of Julius Caesar caused Marcus Iunius Brutus (85-42 BC) and the conspirators to leave Rome. Brutus settled in Crete from 44 to 42 BC, while Quintus Cassius Longinus (85-42 BC) established his governance over the eastern provinces. These two became two key-figures of the republicans party that continued its politics against successors of Caesar. When the news from the Senate that nor Octavian neither Mark Antony had an army large enough to defend Rome reached Brutus in 42 BC, he called his fellow assassin and they soon landed in Italy to march on Rome starting the Liberator’s Civil War. They clashed with the caesarians twice in the engagement known as the Battle of Philippi. In the first fight, although Brutus managed to overcome Octavian, Cassius was defeated by Mark Antony’s forces and consequently committed suicide. The second fight was a disaster for Brutus who managed to flee from the battlefield alive but committed suicide shortly after. In the very short period of time between 44-42 BC there seems to be not enough time and financial means for a considerable production of propaganda gems on the republicans’ side. No information about Brutus’, Cassius’ or any other member of the republicans personal seal survived to the present. On the one hand, this may be totally accidental as a considerable amount of ancient literary heritage simply did not survive, but on the other hand, it suggests that these politicians did not treat glyptics as an important medium for transmission of their propaganda messages. In case of other statemen like Sulla, Pompey, Caesar or Octavian/Augustus there are several ancient writers describing or at least mentioning their seals and, in their cases, the archaeological material in the form of gems transmitting propaganda supports that information. Coinage seems the medium on which the republicans concentrated the most as it was probably the easiest way to reach masses especially soldiers.1258 In the early stages of his political career, Brutus wisely used to evoke his legendary ancestors - Lucius Iunius Brutus (first consul of Rome) and Servilius Ahala, and referred to Libertas in his coinage.1259 It is often the case that propaganda reflected in coinage also, at least partially, appears in glyptics, but I do not observe above-mentioned figures to appear in large quantities (if at all) in glyptics.1260 Shortly after assassination of Caesar, when already in Greece, Brutus issued another series of coins alluding to his famous ancestors, but this time he paired Lucius Iunuis Brutus with himself, while other representatives of the republicans faction addressed Libertas, Apollo and Victory in their coinages.1261 Among these themes, only portraits of party’s leaders are produced in greater quantities on intaglios which propagandistic value might have been of some significance. However, in this chapter, I going to examine all the traces of the republicans’ propaganda activities reflected on intaglios and cameos which includes also re-evaluation of previous scholarship that often overuse propaganda term. 1258 Evans 1992, pp. 145-148. 1259 RRC, nos. 433/1-2 (denarii of Marcus Iunius Brutus, 54 BC). 1260 An exception might be a portrait gem that Henig identifies with the so-called ‘Brutus’, see: Henig and MacGregor 2004, no. 5.32 and p. 62. 1261 RRC, p. 741. 1262 Vollenweider 1966, p. 39. 9.2.1. Gem engravers working for the republicans Gnaeus and Sextus Pompey probably used the services of gem engravers in order to produce propaganda gems, mostly those bearing their own images. What is more, it is likely that when Sextus settled in Sicily, he organised a gem workshop operating at least for several years after his arrival (cf. chapter 9.1.2). Because Roman statesmen like Brutus and Cassius were very mobile during the conflict following the assassination of Caesar, two scenarios are possible as to their employment of gem engravers. They may have occasionally used services of such artists when visited major cities either in Greece and Asia Minor, or like Sextus, they organised a sort of mobile workshop travelling with them. In case of the pompeians existence of such a mobile workshop is suggested by two portrait gems found in Spain, but in case of the republicans, the evidence is even weaker. Vollenweider proposed to link the engraver Philon with Brutus based on one silver ring presenting a portrait of a man with a cloak around his arms signed by the artist which she identified with Brutus (cat. no. 9.95, fig. 388).1262 She linked this ring with Brutus attendance to philosophical lectures in Athens, while briefly in Greece. Her opinion was accepted by some scholars,1263 while others hesitated to identify the portrait with a specific historical figure.1264 It is difficult to decide, but the head is indeed similar to Brutus’ portraits known from coins minted in 43-42 BC (fig. 389) thus, the proposal of Vollenweider cannot be automatically rejected.1265 Nevertheless, this is all evidence one can find. There is no more signed gems featuring portraits of either Brutus or Cassius even though the latter may have had more occasions to employ gem engravers for his propaganda since he resided in Asia Minor. All in all, it appears that none of the two leaders of the republicans created a sort of permanent workshop like Sextus might have done, but they used services of gem engravers only occasionally while travelling to the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire. 1263 Giuliano and Micheli 1989, p. 34. 1264 For instance: Furtwängler 1900, vol. I, pl. XXXIII.13, vol. II, p. 162; Gerring 2000, no. Vr/29; Boardman 2001, p. 361, no. 1006. 1265 For the coin, see: RRC, no. 506/1 (aureus of Marcus Iunius Brutus and (Pedanius) Costa, 43-42 BC). See a full discussion in: Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 142-143 and a recent commentary in: Wagner and Boardman 2017, no. 251. 1266 Yarrow also comes to the same conclusion, but she seems uncritically follow Vollenweider, which, as shall be shown below, does not guarantee results free of errors (2018, p. 39). 9.2.2. Portraits – personal branding induction and manifestation of loyalty If there is any category of glyptic material testifying to employment of engraved gems for propaganda purposes by Brutus or Cassius, or within the republicans, these are certainly portrait gems. No other category transmitted so many powerful messages either if understood as acts of personal branding or manifestation of loyalty. In case of the pompeians, portrait gems show that while Gnaeus was promoted on them only for a short period of time, Sextus enjoyed much longer activity in this field. Speaking about portrait gems presenting the republicans, the first observation is that among the bulk of gems, those depicting Marcus Iunius Brutus prevail any other.1266 This is hardly surprising since he was the first to stab Julius Caesar and thus became the symbol of the Republic or rather its last defender. While portraits of Cato the Younger on gems are quite problematic (cf. chapters 8.2.4 and 8.3.2), it seems that only Quintus Cassius Longinus enjoyed some promotion through gems alongside to Brutus which is in fact a bit surprising giving the fact that he controlled eastern provinces where glyptic art was firmly established for centuries and there were workshops producing various types of gems there. The only reasonable explanations for this are the following: Cassius was uninterested in glyptic art and limited its use only for his personal needs; Cassius had no financial means to spend on the most luxurious arts available; Cassius was much less popular than Brutus and only few (if any) manifested their allegiance to him using intaglios featuring his likeness. In any case, glyptic art delivers interesting evidence for the republicans to promote themselves through this media and most likely to their relatively high reputation within the society, especially if Brutus is concerned. The majority of the material amassed here was likely produced when they arrived at Italy back and conducted civil war with the caesarians. An extremely interesting remark was made by Saint Ambrose who recalled having read that certain persons who worn rings with portraits of Cassius and Brutus had been condemned to capital punishment when triumvirs defeated Cassius and Brutus.1267 This would mean that wearing gems with portraits of political leaders could have tragic consequences and was severely punished when one turned out to support the defeated side. Still, the most important thing is that Saint Ambrose indirectly informs us how important were intaglios of this type and how useful and popular they were in the political life of the Late Roman Republic. Furthermore, the situation described by the bishop of Milan suggests that Sextus Pompey indeed threw away his own ring and what is more his companions could use rings with his portrait engraved upon gems and did the same to avoid death once recognised as his supporters by the enemy (cf. chapter 9.1.1). 1267 Lapatin 2015, p. 114. 1268 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 136-151. 1269 Compare for instance: RRC, nos. 507/1a-b (aureus of Marcus Iunius Brutus and P. Servilius Casca Longus, 43-42 BC) and 508/3 (aurei and denarii of Marcus Iunius Brutus and L. Plaetorius Cestianus, 43-42 BC). In her monumental study Vollenweider broadly discussed portraits of Cato, Brutus, Cassius and their contemporaries.1268 She identified their portraits mostly through comparisons with coins. Today, it is known that some of the gems researched by her are not ancient and there are also serious doubts about identification of a numerous series of glass gems accounted to Brutus. The issue of portraits attribution is, of course, important, but I am going to focus on the propagandistic value, provenance and production aspects of the gems presenting the republicans too. Regarding portrait gems presenting Marcus Iunius Brutus, they are very problematic, and, in my opinion, many can be attributed to him purely hypothetically. One shall start with a group of 12 gems scattered among various collections across Europe and the USA (cat. nos. 9.96-107, figs. 390-395). They are made of various gemstones and five of them are glass gems. They present portraits of a young clean-shaven man having a distinctive physiognomy and coiffure. Because of the nose line, massive jaw and prominent cheek bones the overall similarity to portraits of Brutus known from some of his first coins can be suggested (figs. 396-397).1269 A glass gem in Geneva and a cornelian intaglio in New York present this man with a dagger in the field which suggests him to be Brutus, the assassin of Julius Caesar (cat. nos. 9.99 and 9.105, figs. 391 and 394). The fact that Brutus carries no beard in case of these portrait gems might seem problematic. However, even though since the very beginning, Brutus was presented on his coins with a slight or even full beard symbolising his mourning because of the fall of the Roman Republic or his adolescence,1270 this feature is often barely noticeable on those coins. Therefore, a reasonable explanation to beardless portrait gems of Brutus is that they were commissioned on private initiatives by Brutus’ followers. Because he was virtually a symbol of the opponency to Caesar’s tyranny, his image would have been suitable to carry by members of the republican party.1271 Apart from the mentioned coins, it is difficult to point a source for the representations on the gems in question. Perhaps some of them were free creations, therefore, even though they multiply the same head type, they differ much in details and styles. Some might have been cut after sculptural prototypes and if some of them were cut in Greece or Asia Minor, the engravers unaware of beard’s symbolism in Roman culture could have omitted it. Very little can be said about provenance of the intaglios in question, but one gem was found in Athens (cat. no. 9.96), which would also correspond with the ring engraved by Philon (cf. chapter 9.2.1 above), while glass gems may have been produced in Italy?1272 1270 Piegdoń 2012; Biedermann 2013. 1271 Yarrow 2018, p. 39. 1272 Cat. nos. 9.99 and 9.101 belonged to the collections once formed in Rome which suggests their provenance to be Italy. 1273 Compare: RRC, nos. 506/1 (aureus of Marcus Iunius Brutus and (Pedanius) Costa, 43-42 BC), 507/1a-b (aurei of Marcus Iunius Brutus and P. Servilius Casca Longus, 43-42 BC) and 508/3 (denarius of Marcus Iunius Brutus and L. Plaetorius Cestianus, 43-42 BC). 1274 RRC, p. 741. Much less problematic are next eight gems among which two are made of glass (cat. nos. 9.108-115, figs. 398-399). The identification with Brutus is almost certain giving the very close similarities to coin images: shape of the head, coiffure, facial features and delicately suggested beard (figs. 382 and 389-390).1273 I believe that those intaglios are contemporary to coins minted by Brutus while still on Crete in 43 BC or already in Italy in 42 BC. The reason for issuing those coins was mainly economical, that is to cover war expenses e.g. soldiers’ payments.1274 It is clear that figure of Brutus unified the republicans and probably this is the reason why his head appeared on denarii and aurei. It was not only a part of his own propaganda, but rather its integrational form. The gems discussed in this paragraph most likely served to exactly the same purpose. If issued by Brutus and gifted to his followers, they strengthened bounds between him and them. However, many could be made on private initiative. This is probably suggested by the fact that cat. nos. 9.108 and 9.110 were found in Rome or their provenance point to Italy as the place of production.1275 One imagines that once the republicans landed in Italy, many supporters raised and joined them. Some of them perhaps wished to manifest their allegiance by putting a portrait of the party leader – Brutus – upon their rings. 1275 Cat. no. 9.109 is said to have been found in Lebanon but it is hardly convincing, and the identification of the portrait is purely speculative, thus, I do not treat this gem as a sort of indicator for origins of the type in general. 1276 In fact, Vollenweider draw her hypothesis on suggestion of Paulsen, see: Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 139-141. 1277 Vollenweider 1972-1974, p. 140. 1278 Zwierlein-Diehl 1986, no. 537. 1279 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 139-141. The phenomenon suggested above finds more evidence in a few gems bearing portrait of Brutus accompanied with brief inscriptions (cat. nos. 9.116-119, figs. 400-403). In all four examples, the letters engraved compose shortcuts from the tria nomina of the gems’ sitters. These inscriptions were probably purposed to make an even clearer manifest of someone’s political views. Here, gems’ owners were associated with Brutus or wished to be regarded as such. In case of the cornelian from Oxford one notices that it clearly copies image of Brutus known from his coins, and in other three cases similarities are considerable too. The gem from the J. Paul Getty Museum in Malibu (cat. no. 9.119, fig. 400), is said to have come from Asia Minor which information, if true, confirms my supposition that gems of this kind were created as a bottom-up initiative rather than a direct propagandistic action designed by Brutus himself. Technically, in the collected material one finds more evidence for the effects of Brutus and other republicans’ propaganda activities rather than gems to be a part of it. Naturally, it cannot be entirely excluded that some gems were issued by Brutus and his close friends, and then gifted to the followers, but this seems to be a very limited action. There is a substantial group of gems presenting portraits whose identification is problematic, but they are often referred as presenting Brutus mostly due to the suggestion put forward by Vollenweider (cat. nos. 9.120-131, figs. 404-407).1276 The Swiss scholar observed some similarities in the physiognomy of the man depicted and indeed, he has similar to Brutus strong jaw, prominent cheekbones and slightly curved nose line,1277 however, he seems older than casual portraits of Brutus known from coins and gems (see above). Another argument for identification of this man with Brutus is the dagger represented on one example (cat. no. 9.131, fig. 407) which was taken as a symbol of Julius Caesar’s assassination.1278 Finally, Vollenweider noticed that these portraits are made mainly in glass (which is correct, 10 out of 12 are glass gems) and this suggests their use in propaganda actions of Brutus – his personal branding.1279 However, in my opinion, the resemblance to Brutus may be entirely accidental. The man depicted on the gems in question is much older than the political leader of the republicans and his face is fuller, more crude and beardless. All these features complicate identification but the mystery may be solved if one compares the heads with the so-called Corbulo portraits in sculpture.1280 Gnaeus Domitius Corbulo (ca. 7-67 AD) was a Roman general, brother-in-law of the emperor Caligula and father-in-law of emperor Domitian. He was quite popular due to his military merits, but emperor Nero became suspicious of Corbulo and his support among the Roman masses and made Corbulo to commit suicide. Actually, it was Furtwängler who proposed to identify the portrait gems of the discussed type with Corbulo.1281 One cannot be entirely sure if the gems present him so do the marble heads, but they seem to be related to Corbulo in a much higher degree than to Brutus. The dagger appearing on one of the examples may refer to Corbulo’s suicide. In any case, the gems with the so-called Corbulo head likely present another individual than Brutus which is also suggested by the provenance of the gems. It seems that 10 glass objects were produced in Rome or Italy which is not impossible for Brutus, but rather unusual giving the fact that only two glass gems present his more casual head type clearly referring to his coins (compare above). 1280 Megow 2005, p. 131, pl. 70a-d. 1281 Furtwängler 1896, nos. 5068-5071. 1282 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 145-147 (who claimed that all three might present Cassius). Finally, in the Beverley collection there is an exceptional cameo bearing head of Brutus in profile to the right (cat. no. 9.132, fig. 408). It is a glyptic masterpiece and one of the earliest Roman portrait cameos of all, though certainly cut by a Greek engraver, probably while Brutus stationed in the east. The cameo is small and suitable to be mounted in a ring, therefore, it is likely that it played not only decorative, but also political role and was used by one of the followers of the republicans as a manifestation of loyalty. Alternatively, the piece was made for Brutus himself who would have used it to raise his social status. Concerning Quintus Cassius Longinus portrait gems, these are not as abundant as Brutus ones. In fact, there is only one intaglio that might be linked to him with a reasonable degree of certainty (cat. no. 9.133, fig. 409), while another intaglio and one cameo are rather hypothetical to bear his likeness (cat. nos. 9.134-135, figs. 410-411).1282 The best example is a cornelian preserved in Munich which shows head of a young man with relatively short curled hair surrounded with the following items: a ballot urn, caduceus, six-rayed star and bundle of thunderbolts. Even though Cassius’ portraits do not exist on coins, the ballot urn alone suggests identifying his image on the intaglio because this was the family symbol employed on his coins as well as those minted by his predecessors (fig. 412).1283 The gem combines several propagandistic aspects. First of all, it is of exceptional quality and the portrait it bears must have been influential when shown to someone else. Moreover, the caduceus surely stands here for the wish of peace and indicates that only Cassius and his followers can guarantee it. Furthermore, the bundle of thunderbolts is a reference to Jupiter – chief god of the Roman pantheon, of capital importance to Roman legionaries whose support Cassius sought to. Finally, as probably rightly suggested by Vollenweider, the star stood for Dioscuri since Brutus and Cassius identified with them.1284 The scholar argued when the gem could be produced and pointed to Cassius visit in Sardes in 43 BC. This is probable as the city was a known centre for gem carving.1285 The gem was surely a powerful propaganda tool with a load of contents to be transmitted. Nevertheless, there was no significant production of gems with images of Cassius as it was the case of Sextus Pompey and Brutus. Most likely, he was not that much interested into investing in this sort of propaganda like Sextus possibly did and he was not so recognisable to have his likeness copied by his followers as Brutus had. The fact that he did not issue coins with his own image surely contributed to the latter. 1283 Vollenweider 1972-1974, p. 145; RRC, nos. 428/1-3 (denarii of Q. Cassius Longinus, 55 BC), see also commentary on p. 452. 1284 Vollenweider 1972-1974, p. 145. 1285 Tassinari 2008, p. 283. 1286 See: Vollenweider 1972-1974, pls. 102-110. The case of Cassius is interesting since it shows that sometimes one’s propaganda was largely limited if it goes to glyptics. Among other members of the republicans faction I do not find anyone who would promote himself to a larger degree and thus stand out the others. In contrary, having his own image cut upon a gemstone set in a ring was almost a habit for those who could afford such a luxury (cat. nos. 9.136-146, figs. 413-415).1286 While such attempts certainly acquired social distinction to the people using them, there is no serial production of either expensive gemstones and cheap glass gems that would inform us about their more complex propaganda use. 9.2.3. Use of heritage One of the basic techniques of propaganda used in ancient Rome was transfer of authority, usually from an illustrious ancestor or predecessor who was frequently a father of the propagandist. For the first time this was clearly the case of Sextus Pompey who used to put portrait of his father on his coins and gems even adding to it divine context (cf. chapter 9.1.4). Octavian also used to refer in his propaganda to his divine father Julius Caesar (cf. chapter 9.3.1.1). Brutus did the same regarding his legendary ancestor Lucius Iunius Brutus – first consul of Rome.1287 This was a clever move indeed since in the difficult times of the fall of the Roman Republic bringing back its founder on the coins was a powerful propaganda message. In Paris there is an agate intaglio presenting Lucius Iunius Brutus with lictors in a procession marching to the right (cat. no. 9.147, fig. 416). Richter recognised here Marcus Iunius Brutus himself and proposed that the gem was issued to commemorate his consulship.1288 In fact, the intaglio copies quite faithfully the reverse of denarius minted by Brutus in 54 BC with a strong, propaganda message of opposition to Pompey’s real or supposed intentions of achieving sole rule in Rome (fig. 417).1289 Bringing this subject to glyptics only enhanced its impact. It is not known if Brutus was responsible for creation of the piece in question, but it seems an exceptional and unparalleled object. Nevertheless, Brutus’ involvement in glyptics as a medium to transfer authority of his great ancestor seems very limited. Henig remarks that in Oxford there is a gem portraying the so-called ‘Brutus’ so it would be another example of transfer of authority through an ancestor and another one related to his coinage.1290 However, I believe that this intaglio depicts Brutus himself, not his ancestor and the inscription indicates gem’s owner who belonged to the republicans party and wished to manifest his allegiance to it (cf. chapter 9.2.2 above). I do not find any other gem which portrait would be close to that of Lucius Iunius Brutus known from Brutus’ coins. It seems that glyptics was not used for this propaganda activity then. Moreover, this observation allows to think that in contrast to Sextus Pompey and Octavian for example, Brutus did not practice his propaganda through gems or it was very limited. The fact that he was a kind of a symbol of the republicans and opposition to Caesar, most likely driven the whole production of gems with his portraits by his followers. In other words, he did very little to promote himself through gems, but his supporters used to manifest their loyalty to him using glyptic art. 1287 RRC, nos. 433/1-2 (denarii of Marcus Iunius Brutus, 54 BC) and 506/1 (aureus of Marcus Iunius Brutus and (Pedanius) Costa, 43-42 BC). 1288 Richter 1971, no. 471. 1289 RRC, no. 433/1 and commentary on pp. 455-456. 1290 Henig and MacGregor 2004, p. 66. 9.2.4. Promotion of the faction In the fierce rivalry between various political factions after death of Julius Caesar, each party used their own repertoire of symbols and values that were promoted so that each member could identify with them. This is the best to observe in coinage and Crawford briefly summarised the basic motifs that were promoted in the circle of the republicans. The most significant one was libertas – personification of freedom chosen because it was a natural antithesis to Caesar’s tyranny. Apollo and items related to him like the Delphic tripod – all also conveyed an allusion to libertas. Victory was another symbol unifying the faction of the republicans as it symbolised the wish for victory. Among other symbols there is a crab holding an aplustre commemorating Cassius’ victory in the Battle of Myndus.1291 All these motifs were promoted on coins however, I do not find them in glyptics, at least not in the same configurations as in the coinage (see also chapter 9.2.7 below). There is only one exception – head of Brutus that was put on coins clearly as a symbol of party’s leader. The analysis of Brutus portraits in glyptics proves that they circulated among the republicans and contributed to integration of party’s members. 1291 For a full commentary, see: RRC, p. 741. 1292 RRC, no. 508/3 and p. 741. 1293 Vollenweider and Avisseau-Broustet 2003, no. 27. 9.2.5. Commemoration Commemoration of important events such as military victories and individual achievements, promotions to the offices etc. was a vital part of every propaganda campaign and is often reflected in glyptic art of the epoch discussed in this dissertation. In the previous chapters one observed that indeed gems were employed to commemorate particular events, mostly military victories, but still, this is often a much more problematical issue than it appears at the first glance. Regarding important events related to the republicans, one of the most obvious subjects that instantly comes to mind is Caesar’s assassination. It has been immortalised on the denarius emitted by Marcus Iunius Brutus and L. Plaetorius Cestianus in 43-42 BC in the form of pileus between two daggers on the reverse side (fig. 418).1292 Similar symbolism have been applied to an engraved ring now preserved in Paris and was extensively commented by Vollenweider (cat. no. 9.148, fig. 419).1293 Its purpose was to commemorate assassination of Julius Caesar (dagger) which was the only way to preserve liberty of the people of Rome (pileus) and that act resulted in safety and salvation represented by the serpent that stands for salus publica. The head of Brutus appears of course due to his direct commitment to the assassination and because now Brutus leads the republicans towards a victory over the caesarians. As one observes, this ring had a powerful propaganda message encoded. Nothing is known about provenance of the piece, so one can make only more or less educated guesses regarding its origin and owner. It could belong or be gifted to one of high-rank officers in Brutus’ army which is suggested by the fact that although the bezel is made of silver, the hoop is bronze, so it was not worn by an aristocrat or an eques who preferred gold rings. There are at least four more gems engraved with a similar design but much closer to the mentioned coins. One of them is a red jasper intaglio in the Alnwick Castle that presents bust of Brutus flanked by two daggers and pileus below (cat. no. 9.149, fig. 420). The subject itself was surely inspired by Brutus coin and the history of Brutus was quite influential in modern times too. It has been observed that the motif was regarded by the Republicans, such as Thomas Hollis (1720-1774), as ‘a sacred effigy, heroic virtue itself’. Another stone with the same motif is in Tours (cat. no. 9.150) and one more was once in the famous Marlborough cabinet (cat. no. 9.151). Lippold published the intaglio by Antonio Pichler (1697-1779) depicting that motif accompanied with inscription: EID • MAR referring to the Ides of March (cat. no. 9.152). All four are 18th century creations which is suggested by the style, shape of the bust, drapery and especially types of daggers incised and there were many more such gems cut in the 18th century which impressions are to be found in Tassie’s dactyliotheca.1294 1294 See: Raspe and Tassie 1791, nos. 10665-10669 and 10679 bearing just a cap and daggers. 1295 Morawiecki 2014. 9.2.6. Divine and mythological references While discussing the magnificent portrait of I have remarked that there were some references to deities, namely to Dioscuri due to the star appearing behind the head and to Mercury, possibly represented by caduceus. The caduceus itself was an ancient symbol of peace and when another symbol related to Mercury appears together with it, it cannot be understood otherwise than a reference to the god. This is the case of a nicolo intaglio in New York, once a part of the famous Marlborough collection (cat. no. 9.153, fig. 421). It presents a beardless head of Marcus Iunius Brutus to the left and there is caduceus and tortoise behind it. This intaglio testifies to a popular practice of divine reference widely practiced by the rivals of the republicans.1295 It seems that either Cassius and Brutus adopted Mercury as their divine protector and helper. Moreover, the gem also conveys a message of Brutus as a bringer and guarantor of peace that should come with his victory over the caesarians. Another piece, now lost, presented head of Brutus accompanied with caduceus and star, the very same combination one finds on the cornelian with Cassius’ portrait (cat. no. 9.154, fig. 422). As Vollenweider observed, this was due to the fact that the two identified themselves with Castor and Pollux – the Dioscuri which is consistent with republican values. The reference to Mercury might seem unusual, but it was a common practice in the Hellenistic world to identify with the god, especially among the Ptolemies and Seleucids.1296 Giving the fact that both statemen controlled eastern provinces of the Roman Empire, it is most plausible to think that the two gems under discussion were created while they still were in the East. They are rare examples of the republicans’ propaganda, although, one cannot state whether they were created on the command of leaders of the party or by its members who believed in the success of Brutus and Cassius so much that they illustrated this hope upon their rings. 1296 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 143 and 145. 1297 Gołyźniak 2017, no. 236. The faith in victory was addressed by all the fighting factions at the time and expressed in the coinage of all types. Engraved gems were a part of this phenomenon too, but it is difficult to associate a specific object with one political option. In Krakow, there is an agate intaglio engraved with Victory with pileus cap on the head walking to the left, shouldering a palm branch and holding a shield (cat. no. 9.155, fig. 423). The goddess uses unusual attributes. The first brings about associations of pileus – the cap of freedom, the symbol used by Caesar’s assassins and opponents of Octavian, led by Marcus Brutus and Cassius Longinus. The shield may indicate the defence of the Republic. Alternatively, this image may be related to Augustus who in 27 BC was awarded clipeus virtutis from the Senate to honour his civil virtues. That shield was later displayed in the Curia Iulia where statue of Victory was located as well (cf. chapter 9.3.1.7). The pileus may represent Augustus’s intention to restore the Republic, which he highlighted so ably.1297 9.2.7. Political symbols Some commentary on political symbols used by the republicans party’s members in their coinage has been already given here. It is noteworthy that some of these symbols appear on the gems presenting portraits of Brutus and Cassius (cf. chapter 9.2.2 above). However, speaking about political symbols on gems one usually means their combinations as a sole subject-matter. According to my survey, there is not even one specific motif or object that would clearly indicate its relationships with the policy of the republicans. In contrast to Sextus Pompey or earlier propagandists, Brutus, Cassius and their followers does not seem to use symbolic gems for propaganda purposes e.g. for promotion of their ideas and values whereas their followers manifested their political views only by the use of portrait gems (mainly Brutus). This is probably due to little interest in glyptics by the leaders of the republicans themselves because they did have a well-organised political programme focusing on the restoration of the Roman Republic. However, in contrast to Julius Sulla, Julius Caesar or Octavian/Augustus its resonance was not so powerful to infiltrate private objects such as gems (cf. chapters 7.1.6, 8.2.9, 9.3.1.9 and 10.8). 9.2.8. Luxury objects (State Cameos, vessels etc.) and religious propaganda Even though Brutus and Cassius resided in the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire, there is virtually no proof that they used State Cameos and carved vessels in their propaganda practices or for such objects to reflect their political ambitions. There is only one cameo that might present portrait of Cassius, but one object alone is not enough to claim that it played a significant role in his personal branding, especially if one compares to the numerous portrait cameos issued by Octavian/Augustus. Furthermore, gems were not engaged in republicans’ religious propaganda since no information is recorded in the literary sources about them offering some gems in sanctuaries or temples. Both situations result from the fact that the republicans had limited financial means and they cultivated old-fashioned, Roman modest way of life, while issuing of expensive cameos stayed in contrast with it. 9.3. The caesarians The death of Julius Caesar did not bring restoration of a Senate-dominated Republic as it was hoped by the assassins. On the contrary, Rome plunged into a new civil war. At that time the relatively unknown youth Gaius Octavianus (63 BC-AD 14) emerged as the adopted son of Caesar. He swiftly took control over Caesar’s veterans and defeated another figure closely related to the dead dictator – Mark Antony (83-30 BC) – at Mutina in spring of 43 BC. Shortly after this, Caesar Octavian, as was the name Gaius adopted, marched on Rome and was recognised by the Senate as legitimate Caesar’s son and heir. He came to terms with Antony and along with Marcus Lepidus in 43 BC when the three formed an alliance known as the Second Triumvirate. It was aimed to avenge Julius Caesar’s death and to establish new division of power. Their party was commonly recognised as the caesarians. In 42 BC they defeated the republicans at the Battle of Philippi and their main opponents were either killed due to proscriptions (like Cicero in 43 BC) or committed suicide like Brutus and Cassius after the battle in 42 BC. The caesarians had to fight with the pompeians, but this problem was ultimately solved in 36 BC in the Battle of Naulochus. After this, the alliance definitely broke up, although the first symptoms of this appeared much earlier. The fierce rivalry between Octavian and Mark Antony ended in the naval Battle of Actium in 31 BC shortly after which Antony committed suicide with Cleopatra in 30 BC and Octavian could come back to Rome in the full glory of his triumph in 29 BC. In 27 BC he became Augustus, the first emperor of Rome which is usually taken as a start of a new era in the history of Rome. The relatively short period of only 17 years between 43 and 27 BC is particularly rich in terms of propaganda practices of all the three major parties: the pompeians, the republicans and the caesarians (of course along with many second-class individuals). The later fierce rivalry and clash between Octavian and Mark Antony resulted in a massive propaganda at all fronts which is well reflected in all kinds of arts and craftsmanship including engraved gems. In this sub-chapter, I am going to focus primarily on those two prominent figures adding some reference to the actions of Marcus Lepidus, who, nevertheless, was much less powerful. The evidence for propaganda actions of Mark Antony taking place in glyptics is less evident than that of Octavian which seems obvious but may be distorted due to the state of research. Generally speaking, while the studies of glyptic material from Italy and western part of the Roman Empire are more advanced, especially if it goes to the local and regional production of gems, if compared to the eastern gem production in the second half of the 1st century BC. Overall, being in Rome and having access to, organising or influencing the workshops operating in Italy in case of Octavian seem to result in a relatively large production of propaganda gems even though their quality is often low (e.g. cheap and massive production of glass gems). On the other hand, Antony certainly had access to the well-established workshops, located, for instance in Alexandria,1298 and his luxurious and lavish lifestyle encouraged gem production. Nevertheless, the number of gems one can connect with his propaganda is much inferior to the one of Octavian in terms of quantity, but not that much if quality is concerned. The short sub-chapter on Marcus Lepidus and several other figures should be treated here as an appendix since there is very little evidence for their engagement in the propaganda at this level that would be reflected in glyptics. 1298 Tassinari 2008, pp. 263-266. 9.3.1. Octavian On 15 March 44 BC Julius Caesar was assassinated and young Octavian (63 BC-AD 14) was named in his will as his adopted son and sole heir. Octavian swiftly proved to be extremely talented and efficient in every step he took. Along with Mark Antony and Marcus Aemilius Lepidus he formed the Second Triumvirate in 43 BC to avenge assassins of Caesar. Those were defeated at the Battle of Philippi in 42 BC and even though Octavian fought against the heir of Pompey the Great – Sextus – he also struggled with Mark Antony over the supremacy in the Roman Empire. This fierce rivalry ended up in 31 BC at the ultimate clash at Actium but alongside to the political rivalry, Octavian attempted to build a new political system – the Principate, which would allow him to rule solely and establish a sort of dynasty so that his achievements were long lasting. In 27 BC he was given titles Augustus and Princeps by the Senate. This event illustrates not only the success of Octavian’s policy but also marks a considerable shift in his propaganda activities. For this reason, I decided to split Octavian/Augustus’ use of engraved gems for propaganda purposes on two periods. The first one covers the years 44-27 BC and is presented alongside to the efforts of his political rivals: the pompeians, the republicans and most importantly Mark Antony. The second period relates to Augustus reign (27 BC-AD 14). All the gems discussed in this sub-chapter prove particular and unparalleled effectiveness of Octavian’s propaganda activities. There is no other Roman politician who exploited glyptic art for his promotional purposes as him and moreover, intaglios and cameos testify that his propaganda was very successful since the number of the gems that were produced probably on the commissions of his loyal followers is by far the largest among the observed ones in this dissertation. What is more, in case of Octavian, a full range of propaganda messages is encoded in the glyptic objects. There are the strongest proofs for his employment of gem engravers to cut intaglios and cameos for him, including highly personal and meaning private seals. Due to his pietas and modesty he did not use the gems in his triumph like Pompey did, but he donated some to the temples by himself or indirectly through his wife Livia and potential heir Marcellus. The scale of his portrait gems production was enormous, he promoted his family since the very beginning and his political faction was advertised in glyptics too clearly in order to consolidate the group of people with various backgrounds. Furthermore, the greatest accomplishments are commemorated on intaglios and cameos and they prove Octavian’s divine protection from the gods and even his identification with them. Comparisons to great figures like Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great are also noticeable. Finally, it seems that all the ideas promoted by Octavian such as peace, prosperity and abundance guaranteed to the people of Rome by him after his victory are reflected in glyptics as well and there is a very subtle use of luxury objects for the family and personal propaganda. To sum up, among so many others, only Octavian and later Augustus fully exploited propaganda potential of engraved gems and made glyptic art, which functioned on a highly personal level, a subject or rather one should say mean of his propaganda very much like he did with the coinage, architecture, sculpture, pottery etc. 9.3.1.1. Heir of Julius Caesar Upon his adoption in 44 BC, Octavian implemented his great-uncle’s name Gaius Julius Caesar. He also started to promote himself as the heir of the dictator because of rumours suggesting Caesar’s testament to have been falsified. He needed to confirm his bound with his uncle (now father), who had been promoted as Divus Iulius and Octavian himself accordingly as divus filius.1299 This peculiar propagandistic action was taken upon in various media, for instance, in architecture, as in 42 BC Octavian begun to build Temple of Caesar at Forum Romanum just after the Senate deified Julius Caesar posthumously.1300 In coinage, Octavian’s references to his deified father appear first in 43 BC and from time to time also later including examples where the unfinished Temple of Caesar is illustrated.1301 Those references exist even when Octavian became Augustus, as it is featured on coins minted in 19 and 17 BC.1302 Glyptics was much involved in this process too and it is observed that a number of gemstone intaglios and glass gems feature portraits of Octavian accompanied with various symbols making allusions to Julius Caesar.1303 Sena Chiesa rightly assumes that one of the reasons why Octavian issued so many gems with such an iconography is that he needed to strengthen his position among soldiers and veterans. Most likely, many of these gems were created on his command and distributed among soldiers and other followers of Octavian for he was little known at the time so that one could expect private individuals automatically issue gems of this kind upon his political revelation.1304 Apart from these, there are other classes of intaglios that make allusions to Octavian as the heir of Caesar and they also deserve attention. 1299 For a more detailed analysis of this matter, see, for instance: Zanker 1988, pp. 33-37; Hekster 2015, pp. 161-173. 1300 Pliny, NH, II.93-94. 1301 There are several issues illustrating this, see: RRC, nos. 490/2 and 490/4 (aureus and denarius of Octavian, 43 BC resepctively), 526/2 and 526/4 (denarii of Q. Voconius Vitulus, 40 BC), 535/1-2 (bronze coins of Octavian, 38 BC) and 540/1-2 (aureus and denarius of Octavian, 36 BC). It is noteworthy that at the same time Caesar’s head appears on coins of Mark Antony, however, without deified context but with an emphasis on the pontifex maximus office they both were appointed to, see: RRC, nos. 488/1-2 (denarii of Mark Antony, 43 BC). 1302 RIC I2 Augustus, nos. no. 300 (denarius of P. Petronius Turpilianus for Augustus, ca. 19 BC). See also RIC I2 Augustus, nos. 338 (denarius of Augustus, 17 BC, on reverse side – Julius Caesar with a six-rayed comet above head) and nos. 339–340 (aureus and denarius of Augustus, 17 BC, on reverse side – Julius Caesar with a six-rayed comet above head). 1303 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 192-199 and 203-205; Zazoff 1983, p. 281; Maderna-Lauter 1988, pp. 445 and 451-453; Gagetti 2001; Sena Chiesa 2009b, p. 90. 1304 Sena Chiesa 2012, p. 258. One of those are posthumous portraits of deified Julius Caesar appearing on some intaglios (cat. nos. 9.156-160, figs. 424-428). They usually present a unified image of a laurate head of Caesar oriented to the left or right accompanied with lituus and star in the field. The lituus is a symbol of augur office and power he held as pontifex maximus. The star is the so-called Caesaris astrum/sidus Iulium and it stands for the comet that appeared in the sky for one week after dictator’s death as described by Suetonius.1305 Additionally, in some cases Caesar wears cuirass or paludamentum highlighting his military prowess and power (cat nos. 9.158-159, figs. 426-427). Perhaps the famous lost work by Dioscurides, which is known only from modern copies, should be accounted to this class too, though if ancient, it could have been cut once Octavian became Augustus (cf. discussion in chapter 8.2.2). 1305 Suetonius, Julius Caesar, 88. 1306 RRC, no. 480/2a (denarius of M. Mettius, 44 BC). 1307 RRC, no. 480/5a (denarius of P. Sepullius Macer, 44 BC) and p. 494 for a discussion. It seems reasonable to date the gems listed here just after Caesar’s death and relate them to Octavian’s illustration of his special bounds with his divine father, although, it cannot be excluded that some of them were cut in the 30s BC. The portraits of Caesar from gems faithfully copy the one employed in dictator’s late coinage which is clear not only from the comparable stylistic features but also the corona aurea type and lituus location (fig. 429).1306 The only addition is the star which in fact appears in Caesar’s coinage in 44 BC shortly prior to his death, as Crawford states, as a symbol of belief in an imminence of a new age (fig. 430).1307 Therefore, it is clear that Octavian’s promotion of Caesar’s legend and political programme through the mentioned intaglios refer to his predecessor’s coinage and was possibly meant to widespread it which would have made easier to present Octavian as the continuer of Caesar’s politics. Such an action probably responds or is at least based on the same reasoning as the issuing of portrait gems of Pompey the Great by his son Sextus (cf. chapter 9.1.4). Sextus also promoted his father in the divine guise but that of Neptune. Here, Octavian puts emphasis on the divine nature of Divus Iulius whom he presents with the star – a symbol of his deification and bringer of a new era. The goal for Octavian was then not only to show his legitimacy for being heir to Caesar but also to claim being his sacred, divine successor. This sophisticated propaganda technique allowed Octavian to transfer authority of Caesar onto himself just like Sextus did in case of Pompey the Great. The provenance and history of the objects listed above as well as the material structure indicate that most of them were cut in Rome or more broadly in Italy which corresponds well with Octavian’s propaganda actions that concentrated on these territories those days. The Caesaris astrum/sidus Iulium symbol was a powerful reference to divine nature of Julius Caesar and the new era for Rome which advent was now connected to Octavian. It was not only applied to Caesar’s portraits on intaglios. There are some gems presenting portrait of Octavian accompanied with a star (cat. nos. 9.161-164, figs. 431-434). The nicolo intaglio from Krakow is the most interesting example among them (cat. no. 9.161, fig. 431). It presents portrait of young Octavian to the right as divus filius identified through the star behind his head. In this case, the symbol not only testifies his bond with Caesar (literary the adoption), but also highlights his divine origin. The portrait itself is comparable to the heads of Octavian from the early aurei issued by Mark Antony and Octavian in 43-42 BC (figs. 435-436) and the stylistic features of the intaglio in question allow us to date it to the same years or even just after death of Caesar.1308 Interestingly, the image is accompanied with an inscription L•V•N, which is an abbreviation of the name of ring’s owner. Most likely, he was one of Caesar’s followers that after his death decided to support Octavian. One may only make guesses about his personality (the three separated letters would suggest tria nomina of a freeman), but three possibilities are worth to mention. The first one is L(ucius) V(orenus) [homo] N(ovus)? – a centurion of the 11th Legion (Legio XI Claudia) mentioned in the personal writings of Julius Caesar.1309 The second is L(ucius) V(inicius) [homo] N(ovus)? – a Roman senator who was appointed suffect consul in 33 BC and was a supporter of Caesar and later also to Octavian.1310 The third is L(ucius) V(inicius) [homo] N(ovus)? – a Roman senator and a suffect consul in 5 BC (son of Lucius Vinicius, suffect consul 33 BC).1311 This piece proves that gems with Octavian’s likeness were used by his followers and the transfer of Caesar’s authority on Octavian is reflected in glyptics at the very early stage of his career suggesting that his propaganda was successful. 1308 RRC, nos. 492/1 (aureus of Mark Antony, 43 BC) and 497/1 (aureus of Octavian, 42 BC). See also: Gołyźniak 2017, no. 253. 1309 Caesar, Gal, 5.44. 1310 Broughton and Robert 1952, p. 241. 1311 Suetonius, Augustus, 64; Syme 1989, p. 87. Interestingly, a cornelian intaglio with similar iconography was found in Aquileia. It features head of Octavian flanked by cornucopiae upon a finger ring inside which there is a star flanked by comedy masks (cat. no. 9.162, fig. 432). Most likely in this case not only the portrait and the star but also the ring itself suggest Octavian’s bound with Caesar as the latter is the adoption ring (see below). Moreover, the idea of prosperity illustrated by two cornucopiae transfers from Julius Caesar to Octavian now because he is promoted here as the only one person who can continue Caesar’s politics and guarantee peace and welfare to the people of Rome. In the British Museum in London, there is another interesting portrait of Octavian/Augustus with a star in the field (cat. no. 9.163, fig. 433), which is however, a bit later than the intaglio from Krakow and maybe it copies the idea of Augustus as the heir of Julius Caesar from one of the later coins minted in 19 or 18 BC.1312 Finally, I should briefly comment an example where a star appears together with other symbols that might be interpreted as related to Octavian and Julius Caesar but other explanations are possible as well. This is the case of an intaglio in Padua depicting a finger ring with mask of Silenus atop, inside which is a star and below a cicada standing on a corn ear (cat. no. 9.164, fig. 434). The idea that the gem features Octavian and Caesar’s relationship due to the star standing for sidus Iulium and the ring for the adoption ring of Caesar as well as the cicada which was a symbol of immortality, is attractive but not wholly justified. As it is explained below, only a portion of similar compositions can be positively linked with Octavian while many of them were private amulets ensuring wealth, good luck and prosperity to their owners or were used for the betrothal rings (cf. chapters 9.3.1.4 and 9.3.1.9).1313 Having no direct reference to Octavian, e.g. his portrait like in the case of the cornelian from Aquileia discussed above, one cannot classify the object as transmitting equal political message. 1312 RIC I2 nos. 37a, 38b and 102. 1313 On the complexity and role of symbolic gems, see: Weiß 2017. 1314 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 195-197. 1315 Vollenweider 1972-1974, p. 197. 1316 Sena Chiesa 2012, p. 263. 1317 Sena Chiesa 2012, p. 264. One of the most powerful symbols testifying the connection between Octavian and Julius Caesar was the so-called adoption ring. It appears on a number of gems and because many of these also bear head of a young man identified with Octavian, Vollenweider believed that they were produced for propaganda purposes on the commission of Octavian ca. 44-40 BC.1314 The Swiss scholar noticed that symbolism accompanied those two elements is often similar to the one employed for Octavian’s coins.1315 However, the ring as a symbol itself is absent in the coinage which some scholars explain due to the private character of glyptic art that allowed for a more open and direct propaganda than the one occurring on coins.1316 Moreover, it is emphasised that the tradition of the family ring transfer was already present in the Hellenistic period as only the male successor could have received this honour. Passing a family ring was a powerful propaganda action since the whole authority of the predecessor and preceding generations were transferred onto the new owner.1317 Could then the ring presented on gems and traditionally linked with Octavian be the seal of Julius Caesar that passed down on him after dictator’s death? Cassius Dio reports some vague evidence for the use of Caesar’s seal by Octavian before the Battle of Philippi as a thing once belonging to the dictator was supposed to be a good omen for the new Caesar - Octavian.1318 Moreover, it is intriguing that the real popularity of Venus Victrix motif in glyptics starts at the point of Caesar’s death which could have been an effect of Octavian’s conscious promotion. Venus certainly was a connector between Julius Caesar and him, therefore, it seems logical for Octavian to take over the seal of Caesar and transfer Venus onto his side and show continuity. Perhaps the fact that there is so many gems featuring combination of Octavian’s head and a ring dated ca. 44-30 BC is another proof that makes one believe information passed by Cassius Dio. 1318 Dio Cassius, Historia Romana, 47.41.2. 1319 Gagetti 2001, pp. 129-150. 1320 Gagetti 2001, pp. 139-141. A thorough study of the ring of adoption motif on engraved gems was performed by Gagetti. She argues that the gems bearing this peculiar motif should be connected with Octavian and she relate them to his propaganda.1319 She also notices that although these gems remain in use until ca. 25 AD, they were generally produced around 44 BC and some of them were employed as seals.1320 Gagetti’s research is a base for my own investigations of this phenomenon which applies a slightly different methodology based on the iconology and image studies principles. It should be remarked that first one must separate the gems bearing portraits accompanied with the rings and other symbols from those intaglios that do not bear portraits but just the rings and other symbols. Application of such criteria leads to interesting observations, namely, that within the first group, there are only three gemstone intaglios bearing head or bust of a young male figure combined with the ring of adoption and other symbols (cat. nos. 9.165-167, figs. 437-438) and 25 glass gems with this sort of iconography (cat. nos. 9.168-192, figs. 439-446). If it goes to the gems presenting the adoption ring and similar sets of symbols but without the head, the proportions of the materials used are reversed, there are far more gemstone intaglios (cat. nos. 9.193-219, figs. 447-454) than glass (cat. nos. 9.220-236). An explanation to this situation may be that while the gems with portraits were almost certainly produced for Octavian’s propaganda purposes and therefore there is a clear sign of a serial, massive production of glass gems, many of those without the portrait were private amulets and gems possibly set in betrothal rings. Concerning the gems featuring Octavian’s head and the ring, the accompanying symbols often refer to the issues like peace, prosperity, abundance and joy that will be guaranteed by the new, young leader of the caesarians (cat. nos. 9.168-169, 175-178, 183-184, 187-188 and 191, figs. 439, 442 and 444-445). This group also includes examples where dextrrum iuncio appears which may signify peace, but also marriage or commemoration of the second triumvirate. Military symbols occur as well suggesting that those kinds of gems were suitable for legionaries, perhaps even produced to distribute them among Caesar’s veterans and soldiers (cat. nos. 9.179-180, fig. 443). In this case, such gems would have played a significant role in Octavian’s integration propaganda. Furthermore, some examples bear marine symbols like a dolphin which makes a reference to the hope in Octavian’s success in naval battles, presumably the ones fought with Sextus Pompey, but Actium cannot be excluded too (cat. nos. 9.168, 171, 181-182, 185-186, 189-190 and 192, fig. 441). Symbols related to the hope for a victory in general also appears in such combinations (cat. no. 9.188, fig. 446). In conclusion, gems of this type were produced between 44 and 31 BC and on the stylistic grounds, they cannot be precisely dated. Octavian’s portrait is incised too schematically to create a reasonable sequence that would follow development of his portraiture in coinage. Furthermore, one is not sure if all the gems bearing portraits of the young male figures should be identified with Octavian since one specimen from London shows a portrait that does not resemble Octavian and it is accompanied with an inscription suggesting a private individual (cat. no. 9.241, fig. 457). Be that as it may, the collected material clearly shows that gems presenting Octavian’s head and the ring of adoption were issued in vast quantities, mostly in glass so that one believes they were a part of Caesar’s heir propaganda machinery. Regarding the gems presenting finger rings and other symbolism but lacking Octavian’s head, they are more likely to be taken as private amulets presumably used on the occasion of marriage rather than to be a part of Octavian’s propaganda. This is suggested by the iconography often involving symbols of concord, abundance, prosperity and good luck – the same issues that are later promoted on similar grylloi/baskania gems.1321 Moreover, the iconography of these gems often includes a rabbit, which was especially used in the Roman times for decoration of nuptial rings related to marriage and wedding (cat. nos. 9.198, 203, 217-218, 221-225, 228 and 234, fig. 450), astrological symbols like Capricorn, crescent and star (cat. nos. 9.195, 201 and 235, figs. 448 and 451) or apotropaic symbols like Medusa (cat. no. 9.196, fig. 449).1322 Certainly, not all those gems were produced in a short period of 44-40 BC or even 44-31 BC, but they were still manufactured in the 1st century AD when they were gradually replaced by the grylloi/baskania gems. What is more, the private character and use 1321 Lapatin 2011; Weiß 2017. 1322 Fossing 1929, no. 1636. as amulets is suggested by the inscriptions appearing on several examples (cat. nos. 9.237-242, figs. 455-457) that indicate the names of the gems’ owners or wishes. The proposed solution is supported by the results of the study of provenance and history of the pieces selected for my database. It is clear that while the first group (with portraits) consists of the gems originating in most cases from Rome, the second one includes some examples found outside Rome, including Aquileia glyptic centre. This supports the view that not all the gems including ‘adoption ring’ should be regarded as Octavian’s propaganda gems. On the other hand, due to the fact that a portion of the symbolic gems lacking Octavian’s portrait includes military references in the form of legionary standards or military equipment, presumably some of those gems were used by legionaries, most likely Octavian’s supporters (cat. nos. 9.205, 208 and 226, fig. 452). Furthermore, some pieces include elements that can be explained only as a reference to Octavian, for instance a sphinx (cat. nos. 9.202 and 212, fig. 454). Consequently, one should conclude that Octavian cleverly added his portrait to the already existing phenomenon, combined it with the symbol of a ring which became the adoption ring and finally, he altered or filtrated remaining symbolism so that it would be more suitable for him. In other words, he added reference to him on a popular class of gems so that his propaganda was easily recognised and understood as it was anchored in the already existing language. Doing that way he increased effectiveness of his propaganda, especially among common people and soldiers, who would not decode sophisticated rhetoric and panegyric messages often in use by him as regards to other propaganda gems types. Finally, it should be noted that sometimes head of Octavian is replaced by the one belonging to the god Mercury (cat. no. 9.243, fig. 458). Such cases are often overinterpreted as Octavian in the guise of Mercury, but in fact, the symbolic repertoire accompanying the head of the god is very much consistent with his figure, thus, it is not Octavian depicted. Besides, it would be too early for Octavian to make a clear identification with Mercury at about 44-40 BC unless one accepts later dates. In conclusion, only those gems which present the motif of adoption ring combined with the head of Octavian can be more or less securely recognised as the effects of his propaganda, while the rest were possibly gems crafted for personal use of many individuals and some even used for sealing (cat. no. 9.244, fig. 459). Regarding the recipients of the propaganda gems, they should have been soldiers and veterans as well as ordinary followers of Octavian for whom the relationship between the young successor of the Caesar and their previous commander was important.1323 1323 Sena Chiesa 2012, pp. 258 and 264. 1324 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 199 and 203-205. 1325 Maderna-Lauter 1988, pp. 451-453; Sena Chiesa 1989, pp. 271-272. 1326 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 192-195. See also a valuable commentary in: Lang 2012, pp. 53-55. 1327 Gagetti 2001, pp. 136-138. In her study of Octavian’s portrait gems Vollenweider ascertained that there are several more compositions that illustrate Octavian’s bound with Caesar. In case of Octavian, the symbols like sella curulis or modius/aerarium symbolised either the same titles and offices as Caesar’s one as well as the execution of his will.1324 This view has been followed by other scholars.1325 They certainly were important aspects of Octavian’s propaganda, but I will try to prove that they were primarily used for commemoration of his own accomplishments, while the allusion to Caesar was secondary (cf. chapter 9.3.1.7). Another matter that should be discussed in reference to the highlight of Octavian and Caesar’s relationship in glyptics are their portraits presenting them probably as senators or consuls. This matter was already discussed in the chapter devoted to Caesar (cf. chapter 8.2.4) and indeed, Vollenweider is probably right that some gems of this type present Julius Caesar and Octavian since there are many gems testifying to that (cat. nos. 9.245-251, figs. 460-461).1326 Octavian depicted himself on gems in the same way as Caesar did because he wanted to be connected with him therefore, he presented himself in his guise.1327 The provenance and history of the objects listed here as well as the material structure (only glass gems) indicate that most of them were manufactured in Rome or more broadly in Italy which corresponds well with Octavian’s propaganda actions that concentrated on these territories. The issue of comparison to Caesar is sometimes taken up by scholars too directly without reflection on the historical events. A good example of that are several gems presenting, as supposed, head of Octavian accompanied with various objects including lituus (cat. nos. 9.252-255, figs. 462-463). The idea that augural staff represent connection to Julius Caesar is untrue since Octavian did not use this symbolism on his coins (in contrast to Mark Antony, cf. chapter 9.3.2.6). He was appointed pontifex maximus only in 12 BC, when he was Augustus. The collected gems involving lituus and portraits are probably private stones presenting augurs or other Roman priests whose schematically engraved heads resemble those of Octavian but ought not be identified with him. It has been rightly pointed out by Sena Chiesa that all the early portrait gems of Octavian present him as a youthful man and thus a subject of Caesar’s heirdom.1328 Octavian’s portrait gems will be discussed later since they are related to his personal branding and manifestation of loyalty of his followers and supporters, which is a separate propaganda activity. But there is a peculiar class of Octavian’s bearded portraits cut upon surprisingly large number of intaglios and cameos that were clearly intended to show the relationship between him and Caesar (cat. nos. 9.256-271, figs. 464-470). On the basis of comparisons to coins issued throughout the years 43-36 BC, Vollenweider convincingly identified those portraits with Octavian.1329 The analysis of the coinage demonstrates that Octavian not only mourned Caesar just after his death, but used to do this also later at some important points of his political career, for instance in 38 BC when he became Imperator Caesar Divi Filius (fig. 471).1330 Therefore, the dates for the gems in question should not be limited to the years following shortly Caesar’s death, but some may have been executed much later too as for instance the remarkable cameo in Vienna which is dated ca. 30 BC due to its classicising style and clear similarity to Octavian’s Actium type portrait (cat. no. 9.271, figs. 470 and 472).1331 The beard is here the sign of mourning following the assassination of Caesar. It illustrates Octavian’s pietas erga patrem in the same way as the bearded portrait of Sextus Pompey did upon the work of Agathangelos (cf. chapters 9.1.1 and 9.1.2).1332 An interesting point of view has been presented on those gems by Biedermann. He claims that portraits like these were not primarily created to show mourning or pietas erga patrem but at the same time, they testify to Octavian’s capacity to take the position of the political leader of the caesarians. In other words, the young politician tried to make himself looking more adult and thus to sympathise with older aristocrats as well as to raise his own authority.1333 I believe that two birds could have been killed by one stone and while issuing such portraits on gems, coins and in other media, Octavian first showed his pietas towards his father Julius Caesar clearly showing his bound with him and thus transferring his auctoritas onto himself, and secondly he proved his adolescence and raised his own authority. Both ways were clearly propagandistic and added some value to the political image of the young leader. 1328 Sena Chiesa 2012, pp. 261-262. 1329 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 218-222. 1330 RRC, nos. 535/1-2 (bronze coins of Octavian, 38 BC). 1331 Megow 1987, no. A4. 1332 Barcaro 2008/2009, pp. 76-77; Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 124. 1333 Biedermann 2013, pp. 36-37. Vollenweider suggested that Agathangelos could have created some of the gems in question,1334 but this seems unlikely since he cut gems for Sextus Pompey at the time and probably could be free of the commissions only after Sextus final defeat in 36 BC which is too late.1335 In my opinion, some of the cornelian intaglios are stylistically close to the works of Solon, who is attested to have been working for Octavian/Augustus (cf. chapters 9.3.1.2 and 10.2). Indeed, these portraits deserve much attention not only because of their iconography, but also because of the forms and materials they are made of. Regarding the latter, it is interesting to notice that with one exception all intaglios are cut in cornelian and their sizes differ a little. Only one intaglio is engraved in hyacinth, but it stands out the others also because Octavian is presented here wearing cuirass and paludamentum. This military creation may point to another important aspect, his prowess in the army matters which was important if those gems were distributed among soldiers and officers. Regarding the forms, interestingly there are two cameos bearing Octavian’s bearded portrait which fact testifies to the very early establishment of a regular gem workshop operating for him. It is very likely that the cameos were cut by the leader who possibly was a Greek immigrant cutter, whereas the mentioned cornelians cannot be attributed to one hand since there are some stylistic differences, but still, they are all close in terms of the quality of engraving. It seems likely they were all produced in one workshop by several assistants who helped to deliver the commissions on time. 1334 Vollenweider 1966, p. 39. 1335 See also a valuable commentary on this matter by Zwierlein-Diehl (1986, nos. 553-555). Unfortunately, workshop’s location cannot be established since only some vague information suggest that one intaglio was found in Naples or its surroundings and another perhaps in Palermo or Sicily (cat. nos. 9.256-257, fig. 464). It is plausible that Octavian’s encouragement for production of such gems was in fact a counterpropaganda to Sextus activities in Sicily. Perhaps like son of Pompey, he created a sort of a workshop at his side that produced gems that were granted to his loyal servants acquiring their loyalty and integrating his party. At this point one should remark several portrait gems that also show young, bearded, male figures, however, they cannot be identified with the same group but probably depict Octavian (cat. nos. 9.272-274, figs. 473-475). Interestingly, most of them are inscribed with the abbreviations of gem’s owner names who possibly are the people who supported the young leader of the caesarian faction. It is difficult to date these specimens precisely, but it is fairly possible that they are contemporary to the group discussed above. The small differences result from private commissions of people who wanted to show their loyalty to Octavian and the makers of those gems did not belong to the workshop organised by Octavian. Finally, regarding more allegorical attempts of showing the connection between Octavian and Julius Caesar, Vollenweider drew attention to a peculiar cornelian intaglio in a private collection presenting two naked heroes: one sitting on a rock and putting his hands on a sword in a sheath, while the second stands in front of him with crossed legs leaning on his spear (cat. no. 9.275, fig. 476). The Swiss scholar attributed this work to gem engraver Solon and she suggested the figures to be identified with Caesar (the sitting older hero) and Octavian (the standing, younger one).1336 The gem was first published by Furtwängler and then by Lippold but none of them attempted to identify the heroes with specific mythological figures, let alone the historical ones.1337 Recently the intaglio was republished as it once belonged to the celebrated Marlborough cabinet, with a commentary that the heroes might be Pylades and Orestes or Patroclus and Achilles or other similar groups in the act of mourning.1338 The mourning act itself represented on the gem could point to the news of Caesar’s death, but then, it is unreasonable to identify one of the figures as Caesar himself. The intaglio lacks any direct clue or suggestion for identification proposed by Vollenweider which seems based on a pure speculation, unless one recognises the standing figure as Theseus and the sitting one as his father with his sword that later helped the young hero to prove his legitimacy for the Athenian throne. Noteworthy is that Aegeus sits on a rock under which he later buried his sandals and sword. There is some evidence for Octavian to be depicted on gems in the guise of Theseus (cf. chapter 9.3.1.8) and the gem discussed here is cut very much in the manner of Solon who is attested to be one of Octavian’s gem engravers. If that is the case, the intaglio would be a subtle allegory illustrating the connection between Octavian and Julius Caesar and transfer of power from the latter to his heir. The intaglio would be certainly executed for a private use of Octavian or for someone from the inner circle of his followers. The sophisticated language of the propaganda message encoded in this specimen was not purposed for an ordinary Roman citizen and shows that gems played significant role in propaganda among the wealthy and influential people whom Octavian sought to drag on his side. 1336 Vollenweider 1966, p. 52. 1337 Furtwängler 1900, vol. I, pl. LXV.38, vol. II, p. 301; Lippold 1922, pl. LIII.10. 1338 Boardman et al. 2009, no. 176. 9.3.1.2. Gem engravers working for Octavian While remarking on a series of cornelians featuring bearded portrait of the young politician and another one perhaps making allegorical allusion to his relationship with Julius Caesar, one observes considerable stylistic similarities between these two. The conclusion is that they might have been executed in the same workshop. It seems justified to ask whether Octavian like probably Sextus Pompey organised a workshop cutting gems for his propaganda purposes? Some evidence suggesting that has already been presented above and the plausible artist responsible for presiding the workshop could have been the Greek engraver Solon.1339 1339 Regarding Solon and his workshop, see: Vollenweider 1966, pp. 47-56; Zwierlein-Diehl 1986, nos. 153-154; Plantzos 1999, pp. 96-97; Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, pp. 114-115. 1340 Vollenweider 1966, pp. 48-49; Zwierlein-Diehl 1986, no. 153. 1341 Vollenweider 1966, pp. 49-50. 1342 Plantzos 1999, p. 89. 1343 Spier 1991, pp. 94-95. Solon was definitely one of the leading gem cutters of the second half of the 1st century BC but his intaglio presenting head of Medusa suggests that he was active already ca. late 60s-50 BC.1340 Vollenweider proposed that Solon first worked for Mithridates VI Eupator at the Pontic court, then for Mark Antony and finally he transferred his business to Rome after his downfall.1341 However, as Plantzos rightly points out, such a sequence, although attractive, is rather far-fetching since Solon’s other works exhibit much of the Augustan classicism’s spirit.1342 Besides, if the artist had worked for Mithridates, he would probably have migrated to Rome with Pompey the Great (cf. chapter 8.1.3). Solon is not reported by Pliny the Elder or any other ancient writer, so he cannot be hooked up at a certain point of time or unambiguously linked to a specific historical figure like Dioscurides. The only reference could be a portrait of Cicero reported to have been engraved by the artist, however, this work is known only from post-classical copies, so it is uncertain if he really cut that portrait and the whole thing is presumably a matter of a fabricated modern story (cf. chapter 8.3.2). Therefore, all one can tell about his potential employment for Octavian comes from his works. One of the first observation regarding Solon is an evolution in his style and capacities over time since Medusa Strozzi presents largely Hellenistic manner of engraving and composition, while later intaglios by Solon are essentially classicising. They put emphasis on harmonious, ‘Pheidian’ profiles, fine and delicate detailing and overall decorative character. The robes of his figures are usually richly textured and the bodies perfectly proportioned.1343 Moreover, in his repertoire, there is an observable preference for either the exotic subjects as well as those suitable for Octavian and his propaganda, especially if it goes to the busts of deities that possibly camouflage portraits of Octavian and Octavia (cat. nos. 9.277-279, figs. 478-480). The only explanation for that is the employment of Solon by Octavian and the influence coming from the new patron regarding these two matters.1344 1344 Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, pp. 114-115. 1345 Vollenweider 1966, pp. 48-52; For a list of Solon’s signed gems, see: Plantzos 1999, pp. 96-97, note 239. 1346 Plantzos 1999, p. 97. 1347 Vollenweider 1966, pl. 51.2. 1348 Vollenweider 1966, pp. 52-56; Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, pp. 114-115. However, see some little differences observed by Boardman et al. that suggest the busts of Octavian as Mercury and Octavia as Diana to have been cut by two different artists, which still does not exclude the same workshop (2009, nos. 158 and 745). The top-quality style and characteristic manner of Solon is to be find on a surprisingly high number of gems. Some of them are signed by him providing a basis for identification of unsigned gems.1345 It has been suggested that Solon was involved if not responsible for the creation of a class of large intaglios today mostly known from their ancient glass copies.1346 Among these, there is a particularly well accomplished study of a bust of a Maenad signed by Solon and now kept in Berlin (cat. no. 9.276, fig. 477).1347 This work is very close to two large agate plaques preserved now in the British Museum in London featuring Octavian as Mercury and Octavia as Diana (cf. cat. nos. 9.277-278, figs. 478-479). Vollenweider and other scholars noticed these incredible similarities and concluded that all three gems must have been cut by Solon or at least should be attributed to his workshop.1348 If that is the case, his employment for Octavian is almost certain and taking into consideration outstanding pieces he cut, he must have been the main gem engraver working for Octavian within the period of ca. 44-early 20s BC. The propagandistic value of the two agate plaques is high since on the one hand, they testify to Octavian’s promotion of family that later created foundations for the dynastic reign of the Julio-Claudian clan and even more importantly, he as well as Octavia are presented in the guise of deities. Similarly, it should be argued if an amethyst masterpiece intaglio in the J. Paul Getty Museum in Malibu, depicting bust of Apollo in a typical classicising manner with a square, idealised face, wavy hair cascading over a headband does not evoke Octavian and his relationship with that patron deity (cat. no. 9.279, fig. 480). These matters will be appropriately commented in the sub-chapters devoted to the family promotion and mythological and divine references (cf. chapters 9.3.1.5 and 9.3.1.8), but it should be noted that they help to understand the logic for creation of the next intaglios that also present Octavian in divine guises. One of them is the famous bleached cornelian intaglio presenting Octavian as Neptune stepping into a chariot drawn by four sea-horses through a turbulent sea. He holds a trident in his right hand while his left one grasps the reins. The dolphin (symbol referring to Venus and Neptune at the same time) acts as his companion, while under the hooves of the sea-horses there is a male figure (cf. cat. no. 9.280, fig. 481). This extraordinary piece has been widely discussed and is traditionally referred as an intaglio commemorating Octavian’s success in the Battle of Actium and consequently dated ca. 31-27 BC.1349 This date is often based on the fact that in the coinage of Octavian minted 31-27 BC there are numerous naval emblems celebrating the Actium victory.1350 However, in my opinion it is crucial to analyse the propagandistic message and potential of the gem first. The figure of the defeated enemy that appears under the sea-horses hooves cannot be identified from the depiction itself. Therefore, the most important is Octavian’s identification with Neptune which started even before his victory over Sextus Pompey at Naulochus in 36 BC and is documented in his coinage as well as ancient literary sources.1351 At that time Octavian practiced the old-fashioned Roman tradition of the evocatio to the deity that he wanted to support his case. Even though indeed Neptune was engaged in the triumphal procession after the Actium victory, it seems more reasonable to link the Boston intaglio with the Naulochus Battle.1352 It should be noted that the style of the gem is not fully classicising but has some Hellenistic character. The symbolism employed here is indirect and subtle. The victorious Octavian is presented in the way typical for a Hellenistic king rather than a Roman general.1353 Conceptually, the intaglio stays in a sharp contrast for example to the famous Actium cameo in Vienna where Octavian is presented not as the god, but a Roman triumphator (cf. cat. no. 10.92, fig. 888).1354 This may be only due to the fact that the engraver employed for cutting this piece did not utterly understand Roman concepts and created the image according to his own, Greek-Hellenistic rules which is so typical for Solon. The gem is inscribed in Greek ‘POPIL ALBAN’ (Popilius Albanus), which is likely the name of the owner of the gem, but this issue will be discussed later (cf. chapter 9.3.1.7). All this evidence suggests Solon to have been working for Octavian in the 30s BC and possibly also in the early 20s BC, but his position was probably later taken over (maybe after his death) by Dioscurides. 1349 Vollenweider 1966, p. 51; Laubscher 1974, p. 249; Maderna-Lauter 1988, p. 454; Giuliano and Micheli 1989, p. 36; Guiraud 1996, p. 126; Galinsky 1998, p. 22; Plantzos 1999, p. 96; Toso 2007, p. 209; Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 128; Morawiecki 2014, p. 205; Lapatin 2015, p. 248. 1350 Lapatin 2015, p. 248. 1351 Barcaro 2008/2009, pp. 225-236; Trunk 2008, p. 163; Morawiecki 2014, pp. 101-103. 1352 Morawiecki 2014, p. 103. 1353 Plantzos 1999, p. 96. 1354 Zanker 1988, pp. 97-98. Many other Solon’s works present subjects suitable for Octavian/Augustan propaganda like the nicolo intaglio featuring Theseus signed by him (cat. no. 9.839, fig. 671, see discussion in chapter 9.3.1.8) or a gem signed by him and depicting Diomedes with Palladion (cat. no. 552, fig. 559, see discussion in chapter 9.3.1.8).1355 Having stated that Solon most likely worked under the patronage of Octavian one shall consider if his workshop was responsible for the series of Octavian’s bearded portraits described above (cf. chapter 9.3.1.1). Almost all of them are cut in cornelian and they usually present the same, high-quality style differing in some minor details. They were not all cut by the same hand since few are clearly cut in a more schematic manner, perhaps by the assistants of the master, but it seems reasonable to consider them as originating from the same workshop whose leader might have been Solon himself. The same workshop could have manufactured the above-described intaglio presenting Octavian and Caesar as Theseus and Aegeus (cf. chapter 9.3.1.1) as well as several other intaglios with images of Apollo and Cassandra which are the next suitable subjects for Octavian/Augustan propaganda (cf. cat. nos. 9.792-808, figs. 653-659, chapter 9.3.1.8 and 10.318-337, figs. 982-985, chapter 10.5 respectively).1356 It seems that the workshop organised by Solon survived down to the Augustan era, but its leading role was definitely performed in the 30s BC. 1355 Vollenweider 1966, pp. 50-52; Zwierlein-Diehl 1986, no. 154. 1356 Vollenweider 1966, pp. 55-56. 1357 Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 121. 1358 Vollenweider 1966, pp. 37-38; Zwierlein-Diehl 1989; Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 121. 1359 Mobius 1964; Vollenweider 1966. Regarding other gem engravers working for Octavian, Zwierlein-Diehl suggests Thamyras to be the author of the intaglio from Boston discussed above.1357 Nevertheless, in the light of the presented evidence, it seems more likely that the piece was executed by Solon or in his workshop. Besides, Thamyras in his repertoire has some gems with Egyptian subjects which are unsuitable for Octavian propaganda and thus, it is problematic to see him as employed by the young politician.1358 Octavian’s victory at the Battle of Actium surely resulted with the influx of Greek gem engravers to Rome and many of them were employed to work for Augustus at this Imperial court.1359 This issue will be fully commented in the chapter 10.2. 9.3.1.3. Seals of Octavian In previous chapters one observed that seals were unique to their owners and all the prominent Roman politicians and statemen used to put extremely meaningful images upon their private seals. All the examples of famous seals brought to the attention in this dissertation so far had a massive political significance and transmitted powerful propaganda messages. Octavian was not different, in contrast, during his life he employed several seals some of which became official symbols of his dominance and reign. Having some credible information on them thanks to ancient literary sources it is possible to establish precisely the kinds of devices he used and the sequence of his private seals. One shall begin with family traditions that were so important within the Roman society at the times and beyond as in the Hellenistic world family rings had also considerable meaning.1360 It is speculated that just after assassination of Julius Caesar Octavian took over his seal with Venus Victrix and used it as his own (fig. 252). Cassius Dio reports some vague evidence for the use of that seal by Octavian before the Battle of Philippi as a thing once belonging to the dictator was supposed to be a good omen for the new Caesar Octavian.1361 It is a fact that the ring of adoption became one of the most significant symbols in Octavian’s early propaganda performed in glyptics, since there are many gems engraved with a combination of his portrait and the ring accompanied with other positive elements (cf. chapter 9.3.1.1),1362 thus, one supposes that Cassius Dio’s words hold some truth about the earliest seal used by Octavian.1363 Moreover, other archaeological material confirms that too because prior to death of Julius Caesar, Venus Victrix was probably prohibited to be used by ordinary citizens on their seals. The subject became vastly popular in the second half of the 1st century BC and later which was possibly due to Octavian’s promotion. Taking the seal of Caesar as his own by Octavian was a logical and purely propagandistic step since this act confirmed his claim to be the heir of Caesar. It was a powerful sign for the followers of the dictator so that they should support him. Moreover, the act of heritage itself was a powerful propaganda mechanism since Octavian can be (and maybe wanted to be) compared to Alexander the Great, who also received a signet ring from his father and gave his own to his successor Perdikkas.1364 It is noteworthy that while seriously ill, Augustus also gave Agrippa his ring appointing him his successor that way which should also be recognised as a propaganda act of transfer of power.1365 1360 Sena Chiesa 2012, p. 264. 1361 Dio Cassius, Historia Romana, 47.41.2. 1362 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 195-197. 1363 Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, pp. 11-12. 1364 Plutarch, Alex. 9.1; Diodorus Siculus, 17.117; Porphyry, Chronica, 3.1; Q. Curtius Rufus, 10.512; Aemilius Probus, In Eumenen, 2.1. 1365 Dio Cassius, Historia Romana, 53.30. 1366 Pliny, NH, XXXVII.4; Suetonius, Augustus, 50; Dio Cassius, Historia Romana, 51.3.6. 1367 Pliny, NH, XXXVII.4. Concerning next seals employed by Octavian, these are even better documented in the literary sources and glyptic material. Several authors attested the sphinx to be an official seal of Octavian in the early stages of his political career.1366 According to Pliny, Octavian used two identical seals with sphinx device that he found among the jewels of his mother Atia.1367 One believes that this was no coincidence because sphinx on his seal was a symbol of hope for regnum Apollinis prophesied by the sybil which embodiment was supposed to be Octavian himself.1368 It is clear that the choice of the device and the circumstances described by Pliny were deliberate propaganda action. The fact that Octavian found these seals among his mother jewels, who was miraculously inseminated by Apollo while dreaming in his temple, was supposed to testify to his connection with the god in the same way as the device itself did. It is not known when exactly Octavian started to seal his documents with sphinx device,1369 but already in the 30s BC there is a sharp increase in production of gemstone and glass gems featuring this motif in glyptics in general (cf. chapter 9.3.1.9) and Morawiecki observed that Octavian intensified referencing to Apollo well before the Battle of Actium so the seals were probably already in use before 31 BC.1370 These facts combined with another testimony from Pliny, that Octavian allowed his lieutenants (Agrippa and Maecenas) to open his correspondence and issue new letters on his behalf with use of one of his seals suggests that the motif became a sort of state seal and probably was popularised to such a degree among his soldiers and followers that it was worn as a symbol of loyalty and allegiance to his political party (cf. chapter 9.3.1.9).1371 Furthermore, it is believed that the same motif appears on some Augustus’ cistophori minted ca. 29-27 BC in Pergamum giving occasion to see how two Octavian’s private seals actually looked like and probably indicating the terminal date of their usage (fig. 482).1372 Instinsky reasonably argued that Octavian must have given Agrippa and Maecenas one of his sphinx seal while departed to the east to the war with Mark Antony and Cleopatra and Maecenas was left in Rome to take care of his business there or maybe even already while Octavian was engaged in the conflict over Sicily with Sextus Pompey.1373 1368 Instinsky 1962, pp. 28-29; Vollenweider 1966, p. 18; Zanker 1988, pp. 49 and 270-271; Barcarro 2008/2009, p. 37. 1369 See a discussion on this matter in: Instinsky 1962, pp. 23-27 and Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 12 - who claims that these rings were used by him at the culminating point of the rivalry with Mark Antony, that is in the years 31-30 BC. 1370 Morawiecki 2014, pp. 99-101. 1371 Pliny, NH, XXXVII.4; Instinsky 1962, pp. 23-25; Plantzos 1999, pp. 21-22; Lapatin 2015, p. 113. 1372 Sphinx appears on Octavian/Augustus cistophori probably minted in Pergamum ca. 29-27 BC (RIC I2 Augustus, no. 492) and also later on his aurei from 19-18 BC (RIC I2 Augustus, no. 511). See also, Sutherland 1970, pp. 90–99, pls. XVII-XIX. 1373 Instinsky 1962, pp. 25-26. 1374 Pliny, NH, XXXVII.4. It is disputable how long Octavian used his sphinx seals. Pliny informs that when gibes about the inscrutability of sphinx became too much, as the creature always brought its enigmas with it, Octavian adopted image of Alexander the Great as his next official seal.1374 It is not known whether this was a bust of Alexander as Heracles, or the casual type known from the coins of Lysimachus or maybe the classical type with the horn of Ammon as the original gem did not survive until present.1375 Henig believes that Dioscurides’ signed intaglio presenting Alexander the Great as Achilles may recall that seal used by Augustus.1376 Nevertheless, giving the fact that there is a considerable production of Alexander the Great portrait’s copies on gems in the age of Octavian/Augustus it seems more likely that the seal presented Alexander’s portrait rather than a figural motif which indeed may testify to his imitatio Alexandri (cf. chapter 9.3.1.8). Perhaps, the fragment of amethyst intaglio signed by Dioscurides and presenting Heracles from the Beverley collection in fact could have been meant to depict Alexander in the guise of the Greek hero and was the seal of Augustus (cat. no. 9.281, fig. 283)? Whatever the subject, it was surely adopted just after the victory at Actium in 31 BC and was a powerful propagandistic message comparing Octavian’s success to the conquer of the east by Alexander at the peak of his ‘Diadoch Style’.1377 In other words, this is one of the clearest testimonies for Octavian’s imitatio Alexandri.1378 This is also the next time when Octavian’s propaganda in glyptics addresses his comparatio to sort of a divine figure. With the first seal presenting Venus Victrix he referred to the goddess herself and most importantly divus Iulius. In case of the sphinxes, he alluded to Apollo as his divine protector and even father. Now, turning to Alexander the Great, he confirmed that his actions resemble those of the next deified figure whose auctoritas was transferred onto him. For Alexander was a point of reference to all prominent Romans seeking success in the east like it was in case of Pompey the Great and Mark Antony, both also expressing their comparatio or imitatio to Alexander through their seals (cf. chapters 8.1.4 and 9.3.2.7 respectively). Besides, by comparison to Alexander, Octavian created himself as the ruler dominating the whole world and introducing order and peace into the Roman Empire.1379 Finally, the image of Alexander could serve to Octavian on a more personal level since it is known that the Macedonian king suit him as an exemplar which Octavian many times highlighted by himself.1380 Due to the fact that sphinx appears on Octavian/Augustus’ cistophori minted between 29-27 BC, it is fairly possible that the sphinx seals and the one with the image of Alexander the Great were in use at the same time. They were replaced in 27 BC when Octavian became Augustus and had his portrait engraved as a new seal by the famous Dioscurides. That final seal will be fully discussed in the chapter 10.3. 1375 Instinsky 1962, pp. 33-34; Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 12. 1376 Henig 1994, p. 153. 1377 Zanker 1988, p. 79. 1378 Instinsky 1962, pp. 31-33; Kühnen 2005, pp. 26-27 and 131-134. 1379 Instinsky 1962, pp. 34-35. 1380 Henig 2007, p. 3. 9.3.1.4. Portraits – personal branding induction and manifestation of loyalty Octavian for sure employed a workshop of gem engravers to cut very special portrait and other gems for him and the leading role in it was probably that of Solon. There is much evidence for the politician to induce a considerable production of less ambitious portrait gems either presenting only his likeness and also in combination with an assortment of symbols in various contexts. The great number of glass gems bearing those motifs is interpreted by scholars as a serial production on a massive scale, which can be explained as an effect of Octavian’s propaganda.1381 It is believed that those gems took part in his personal branding as he wanted to make himself more recognisable among the followers of Caesar. For this reason, many portrait gems present his image accentuating his role as the heir of Caesar which has already been discussed above (cf. chapter 9.3.1.1).1382 It is important to notice that in case of the bulk of Octavian’s portrait gems every detail maters even the type of his image because the gems are likely not only to testify his own role in their production, but also to the reception of his image among his followers. Octavian is usually presented with a compact hairstyle and incisive profile according to the realistic style of the Late Roman Republic.1383 The very same portraits appear in his early coinage produced just after Caesar’s death with references to his role as the heir and it is assumed that gems and coins could be produced by the same artists (figs. 429-430).1384 1381 Guiraud 1996, pp. 128-129. 1382 Sena Chiesa 2012, pp. 261-262. 1383 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 199-203. As Vollenweider stated, this kind of portrait is also based on the early 1st century prototype that gained popularity over time and many young Romans presented themselves with a similar hairdo and facial features which sometimes makes identification of the portrait with Octavian problematic. In Vollenweider’s study there are some portraits that could be argued if indeed presenting Octavian and the same situation occurs in my database because portraits identification in glyptic art is always to some degree a matter of personal taste. 1384 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 199-203; Sena Chiesa 2012, pp. 261-262. Regarding the coins, see: RRC, nos. 490/1-4 (denarii and aurei of Octavian, 43 BC), 492/1 (aureus of Mark Antony, 43 BC), 493/1a-c (aurei of Octavian, 43 BC). 1385 Maderna-Lauter 1988, p. 445; Giuliano and Micheli 1989, pp. 36-37; Guiraud 1996, p. 129. It is generally believed that the gems shown in this sub-chapter were manufactured for Octavian’s clients and followers on the commission of Octavian himself.1385 This is certainly true, since the symbolism accompanying some of the portraits clearly suggests their production for specific social groups, for instance, soldiers of the Roman army. Nevertheless, one should also consider a potential production induced by the followers and supporters of Octavian. They surely wanted to manifest their loyalty and allegiance to the caesarians party, therefore, they put the image of their leader upon their finger rings. If that is the case, it means that gems, like any other branch of Roman art or craftsmanship prove that Octavian’s propaganda was largely successful. This is especially evident if one compares the number of portrait gems presenting him with those of Sextus Pompey, Brutus and Cassius from the republicans party and especially, his main opponent in the 30s BC – Mark Antony (cf. chapters 9.1.3, 9.2.2 and 9.3.2.3). The number of gems bearing portrait of Octavian is unprecedented but even more astonishing is the variety of the types involving innumerable kinds of symbols all which can be explained as related to his specific political actions.1386 It is clear that already discussed gems presenting Octavian as the heir of Caesar combined with various symbolism aimed to bring associations with peace, wealth, abundance and prosperity constitute beginning of a much larger phenomenon. It should be remembered that some of the gems amassed for this sub-chapter are problematic and can be overinterpreted e.g. depict private individuals rather than Octavian himself. Tried as it might, one cannot always make an unambiguous identification, but even those cases do not significantly distort the image of a wide phenomenon. In contrast, it is fairly possible that they inform about the reception of Octavian’s portrait who became a model which also help to estimate the role of glyptics in his propaganda. 1386 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 198-199, 203-222; Maderna-Lauter 1988, pp. 451-453; Sena Chiesa 1989, pp. 271-272; Guiraud 1996, pp. 128-129. The first group to be analysed are those gems which present only the heads of youths without any additional symbolism that in all likelihood should be identified with Octavian (cat. nos. 9.282-391). They are abundant and executed in both gemstones (cat. nos. 9.282-307, figs. 484-492) and glass (cat. nos. 9.308-390, figs. 493-498), however, the latter clearly prevail and there is even tiny evidence for full-metal rings to be engraved with Octavian’s image (cat. no. 9.393). The fact that together with two more triumvirs Octavian quickly took control over Rome and resided in the city for most of the time probably explains why there is such a big production of glass gems bearing his portraits. At the same time Sextus Pompey was based in Sicily and even though there is some evidence for him to organise a workshop producing gems for his propaganda purposes, among these products there are almost none glass gems (cf. chapter 9.2.2). This observation suggests that the major glass gem workshops operated in Italy and most likely in Rome itself and its surroundings. Moreover, analysis of the provenance and history of the gems attributed to Octavian in question confirms that too since many of them belonged to the collections formed in Rome and a portion of the material is positively recognised as even recovered within the city borders. Yet, it is noteworthy that other locations like Aquileia also yield with those kinds of gems, but these are insignificant in number. Having the access to those workshops, Octavian could produce a substantial number of glass intaglios on low costs which made his propaganda particularly effective.1387 In contrast to another group of Octavian portrait gems (see below), the ones depicting solely his head or bust cannot be said if distributed for a specific group of people. The overall idea of using those objects by his followers must be accepted. Furthermore, one should note that some of them were found outside of Italy – in France, Rehineland or Austria in military areas, e.g. in the legionary camps such as Xanten and Carnuntum and their surroundings (cat. nos. 9.282-284, 312 and 360-361, fig. 484). This implicates that portrait gems of Octavian were surely distributed or simply popular among his soldiers and travelled with them to those parts of the Roman Empire. Beyond the shadow of a doubt those specimens also evidence that Octavian gained considerable popularity of the troops previously loyal to Julius Caesar and this could be one of the reasons for employment of glyptic art in his propaganda. Interestingly, these gems were used for a long period of time. Even though produced between 44-30 BC, they are sometimes found in the early 1st century AD contexts (cat. nos. 9.312, 348, 360-361 and 379). 1387 Maderna-Lauter 1988, p. 451. 1388 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 199-203. 1389 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 192-199 and 203-222. As Vollenweider discussed in her monumental study, it is difficult or even pointless to propose precise dates for those portrait gems of young Octavian since his image does not change considerably over the years, however, it follows the coinage rather closely and thus, their dates span from 44 to ca. 27 BC.1388 It should be observed that compositional and even stylistic proximity to the early 1st century youthful Roman portraits makes one wonder if some of the gems taken for Octavian, should date to this earlier phase of glyptic art (cat. nos. 9.289-290, 296 and 364, fig. 487) and the other way around, sometimes Octavian’s portrait gems are misunderstood and taken for the private ones and dated to the early 1st century BC (cat. no. 9. 376, fig. 498). This is just to signalise the problem of portraits’ identification, which however, does not distort the overall image of the large production of the gems with his portrait experienced. Vollenweider noticed that portraits of Octavian often appear on engraved gems with various configurations of symbols. She distinguished several groups of such representations which according to her relate to specific moments of Octavian’s career or were manufactured to propagate him as the heir of Caesar, the Saviour of the world order, victor of the Actium Battle or even kosmokrator.1389 Her grouping has been generally accepted and followed by many other scholars.1390 In the following paragraphs I am going to present critical examination of Vollenweider’s sorting. The basis she created and some of her interpretations can be confirmed, however, new, sometimes more critical insights into the issues communicated through the gems in question is also presented. The propagandistic character of the gems under investigation in the following groups cannot be denied and that is the first, overall, conclusion. There is much truth in Vollenweider’s idea that gems of these kinds were manufactured to be distributed among soldiers, but certainly not all types were addressed to this group only. It must be highlighted that gems were markers of identity that was at the time closely related to the political leader or party one identified. Naturally Octavian may have directed the production of such gems, but it is equally possible for some of them were cut on the commissions of ordinary citizens who wished to manifest their political views and loyalty to the faction’s leader. Furthermore, analysis of the provenance and history of the gems in question suggests that like Octavian’s sole portrait gems, these were also produced in the workshops active in Rome and more broadly Italy, rather not somewhere else. Finally, these propaganda gems were usually well set in the already existing symbolic language exploiting it in its own way. In the beginning of this dissertation I have stated that one of the conditions for propaganda to be successful is the ability of the propagandist to use and even exploit the symbolic language already circulating within the society. From these gems presented below it is evident that Octavian masterfully set his propaganda messages in the language used in the Late Roman Republican period. 1390 Maderna-Lauter 1988, pp. 451-453; Sena Chiesa 1989, pp. 271-272; Guiraud 1996, pp. 128-129; Gagetti 2001. 1391 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 203-205. One of the first groups I would like to examine, are the gems presenting head of Octavian combined with modius and other symbols like corn ears, poppies and very occasionally the balance. I have collected three gemstone intaglios (cat. nos. 9.392-394, figs. 499-500) and four glass gems bearing this motif (cat. nos. 9.395-398, figs. 501-502). Vollenweider claimed that Octavian portrait is placed on those gems over aerarium and together with the balance these are symbols of Juno Moneta in which Temple there was a state treasury. According to the Swiss scholar, this series of gems refers to Octavian’s promise that he will fulfill Caesar’s will and distribute money and land among the veterans and soldiers loyal to him. The symbol of aerarium would have also symbolised that he wishes to ensure his soldiers payment for their service in the future, which possibly refers to the battle at Philippi.1391 For these reasons, Vollenweider dated the gems in question very precisely to 43 BC. If that interpretation was correct, the motif would be another one in Octavian’s propaganda repertoire including allusion to Julius Caesar and testifying his connection with him. However, Zwierlein-Diehl convincingly points out that the object interpreted by Vollenweider as aerarium is in fact modius - an ancient Roman unit for dry measures e.g. grain.1392 It usually exists on gems in combination with a balance, corn ears and poppies, rather than portrait head and was a popular subject not only in the 1st century BC, but also in the 1st century AD and later (see below). On a private seal, it would benefit gem’s owner with abundance and prosperity, but on a political one, like those under discussion, it may stand for those values and even more importantly, the public or world order (ordo rerum). It is noteworthy that on a denarius struck in 42 BC by L. Livineius Regulus, modius flanked by corn ears is represented with the head of L. Regulus (praetor) as a reference to the aedilician activities (fig. 503).1393 One of the key-powers of the aedile office in ancient Rome was to enforce public order. That order may be symbolised not only by the modius itself but also by the balance. It seems that on the gems with portraits of Octavian and modius this is the correct political message transmitted. Octavian is here presented as a guarantor of peace and prosperity and the only politician who may introduce public and even world order. Furthermore, after establishment of the Second Triumvirate, Octavian was responsible for grain supply in Rome, which modius may illustrate as well and this also strengthens the propaganda message encoded. Taking all this into account, the gems in question should be more widely dated as after 43 BC, as suggested by Weiß and their political significance is different than originally thought by Vollenweider.1394 The amount of the surviving intaglios suggests that their production was not extraordinarily large like in case of Octavian portrait gems, but probably still considerable since there are quite many glass objects with this subject. It seems likely that they were products of Octavian’s propaganda rather than gems cut on private commissions of his followers giving the complex message encoded. 1392 Zwierlein-Diehl 1991, no. 1957. 1393 RRC, no. 494/29 (denarius of L. Livineius Regulus, 42 BC) and commentaries on pp. 511 and 729. 1394 Weiß 2007, no. 385. 1395 Vollenweider 1972-1974, p. 200. Promotion or rather guarantee of abundance and prosperity by Octavian to his followers was in fact very intensive in glyptics. There is a vast number of gems, especially moulded in glass, which address this issue combining it with his personal branding e.g. portrait (cat. nos. 9.399-431, figs. 504-513). This class is distinguished on the basis of the propagandistic message transmitted and the symbolism that the gems share. Vollenweider commented on them very briefly stating that they might refer to the victory at Actium since globe is sometimes involved.1395 I believe that the globe, symbol of the domination on terra marique, represents the balance of power, thus peace, in the hand of Octavian who can guarantee that to the people of Rome. Apart from the globe, usually, the compositions in this class of gems involve the following elements: cornucopiae, corn ears, poppies, clenched fist, ants and globe (figs. 504-513). Other symbols appear very occasionally like a head of a goat (cat. no. 9.399, fig. 504), grasshopper and cicada (cat. no. 9.402, fig. 505). All of them relate to the issue of abundance and prosperity guaranteed by Octavian to his supported and they illustrate the faith put in him by the owners of those gems. One wonders if sometimes divine references are made since for instance, cornucopia was a symbol of Fortuna, corn ears and poppies as well as ants may stand for Ceres, the globe was a popular symbol of Jupiter and dolphin possibly stands for Venus the patroness of the Julian family or Neptune with whom Octavian identified in his counterpropaganda to Sextus Pompey’s moves.1396 This symbolism was adopted by Octavian from the symbolic gems that co-existed to the ones related to him in the second half of the 1st century BC (see below) which made his propaganda more successful. Noteworthy is a very low ratio of the gemstone intaglios (only five, cat. nos. 9.399-402, figs. 504-505) to the glass gems bearing these subjects (29 objects, cat. nos. 9.404-431, figs. 506-513). Regarding the portraits, these are relevant either to the early and later coinage of Octavian which suggests dating the gems of this class quite broadly to the years 44-27 BC.1397 Concerning provenance and history of the gems forming the group, like in other cases, these suggest that they were manufactured in Rome or more broadly in Italy and interestingly Aquileia yields with two specimens (cat. nos. cat. nos. 9.399-400). Perhaps a plausible explanation is that local gem engravers came to terms that this is a highly popular theme and decided to apply it into their own production not meaning their products to convey Octavian propaganda e.g. they were not encouraged to do that. If that had been the case, Octavian’s propaganda gems would have proven very successful and retransmitted without much investment needed from Octavian himself. 1396 Dolphin, as a maritime subject, is also often associated with Octavian’s victory at Actium in 31 BC, see: Maaskant-Kleibrink 1986, no. 29. 1397 Maaskant-Kleibrink 1986, no. 28. Another group of gems probably addressing the same issue of abundance, prosperity and balance of power guaranteed by Octavian can be distinguished based on the head of the politician combined with the balance as the most important element and supplemented by the same symbolism as discussed above (cat. nos. 9.432-445, figs. 514-516). It has been suggested that this configuration stands for aequitas or Aequitas – Roman personification of equality and fairness. Because of a pair of dolphins often accompanying it, those gems are usually interpreted as commemorating the Battle of Actium,1398 however, dolphins may stand for Venus either who was a patroness of the Julian family. Interestingly all the gems with this iconography known to me are made of glass and it is clear that many of them were made from the same matrix. They are likely to be a part of Octavian’s organised production that presumably took place in Rome or its surroundings, and what is more, their finds in France, Dalmatia and Nijmegen suggest that they were distributed or popular among soldiers (cat. nos. 9.433-434 and 444-445). 1398 Maaskant-Kleibrink 1986, no. 29. 1399 RIC I2 Augustus, no. 316. 1400 Deonna 1954. 1401 The exact image known from M. Durmius coin minted for Augustus is repeated on a carnelian intaglio in a private collection, see: Bagot 2012, no. 329. Regarding promotion of Octavian’s image within the context of guaranteed peace, abundance and prosperity, there is a small series of glass gems presenting his portrait over a crab accompanied with symbols like corn ears or stars (cat. nos. 9.446-449, figs. 517-519). A similar crab appears on the coins minted for Augustus ca. 19-4 BC by M. Durmius and the animal is presented on the reverse holding a butterfly in its claws (fig. 520).1399 This peculiar aureus has been puzzling scholars for ages since they have seen in it a reference to Augustus’ favourite motto festina lente, but in the early 1950s Deonna proposed to regard this symbolism as a representation of Cancer, the sign of the Zodiac and as an allusion to the concepts of happiness, prosperity and worldly conquest as well as brevity of life (the butterfly).1400 It seems reasonable to propose a similar explanation for the symbolism appearing on the gems in question.1401 The astrological significance of the crab is attested on one intaglio by the stars (cat. no. 9.446, fig. 517) and it is likely that this specific piece could have belonged to a follower of Octavian whose zodiacal sign was Cancer. In other cases, the reference to abundance and prosperity connected with Octavian is made clear by the corn ears accompanying the crab and the head. The next group of propaganda gems with head or bust of Octavian involves symbolism of a clearly bucolic character. It should be said straightforward that this is more typical for Augustus, especially after 27 BC, but it seems that positive ideas of wealth, prosperity, abundance and peace existed on gems on a small scale earlier. The specimens belonging to this group are interesting not only due to their iconography, but also because there are just two gemstone intaglios and one glass gem (cat. nos. 9.450-451, fig. 521 and 9.452, fig. 522 respectively). Besides, one observes that again, the provenance and history of those objects suggest their creation in the Italian workshops, but at the same time, one object was found in Xanten, which suggests their distribution among soldiers. The bucolic character is highlighted by such elements like a goat, aedicula on a rock or comedy mask. Cat. no. 9.452, fig. 509 is particularly intriguing since bust of Octavian appears on it to the front over a globe located inside of a sanctuary or a temple with laurel bushes on both sides of the building. Vollenweider suggested that the gem refers to the Domus Augustus on the Palatine Hill.1402 However, it clearly depicts a shrine or a temple, not a secular building, therefore, it might be the Temple of Apollo Palatinus erected after the victory at Actium but vowed by Octavian already in 36 BC in his return after the victory over Sextus Pompey at the Battle of Naulochus so that the intaglios from this group should be dated ca. between 44-27 BC. 1402 Vollenweider 1979, no. 177. 1403 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 205-207. It has already been noted in several places of this dissertation that provenance of some of the gems bearing portrait of Octavian combined with various symbols suggests their distribution or simply popularity among soldiers. Now, I am going to comment another class where military and legionary references are clearly suggested in the iconography. These objects are either gemstones and glass gems, but the latter are more numerous in proportion five to eight (cat. nos. 9.453-457, figs. 523-524 and 9.458-465, figs. 525-527). Vollenweider suggested that gems of this type were produced during the conflict between Octavian and Sextus Pompey,1403 however, one should not attribute them to one event only since their iconography includes elements suggestive of Octavian’s other military accomplishments, especially the Battle of Actium. For this reason, here, I am focusing on those objects that do not commemorate Actium victory, but they broadly refer to the issue of Octavian as the military commander and leader guarantying victory in the conflict with the pompeians and the republicans and later also Mark Antony. The objects related to Actium will be discussed in the sub-chapter treating with the issue of commemoration (cf. chapter 9.3.1.7). On the thirteenth gems under discussion here, head or bust of Octavian generally appears in military context which is highlighted, for instance, by paludamentum or symbols clearly signifying his military prowess like the legionary standards or legionary eagle. These elements make it clear that gems with this kind of iconography were manufactured for soldiers and perhaps were given to the veterans and legionaries loyally serving first to Julius Caesar and then to Octavian. They played an important role in integration propaganda. Sometimes, the symbolism employed involves modius and balance as the signs of abundance, prosperity and public order that should be achieved thanks to the victory of the civil war (cat. no. 9.453, fig. 523). Sometimes, the bucolic character of several specimens is suggested by masks accompanying other symbols and they were purposed to bring about associations with tranquillity that should come after Octavian’s victories (cat. nos. 9.454 and 460, figs. 524 and 526). One example includes a peculiar element which is a stork that symbolises pietas of Octavian towards Julius Caesar (cat. no. 9.454, fig. 524).1404 Trophies and other visualisations of the future military victories are also suggested on a few objects (cat. nos. 9.458 and 464 figs. 525 and 527). 1404 See a broader commentary to this issue in: Campagnolo and Fallani 2018, no. X.1.i, p. 256. Another quite numerous group of gems does not make direct reference to the Roman army and legions, but still, these objects were intended to show Octavian’s military prowess and ability to command the troops he inherited from Caesar. In these instances, Octavian is presented with a variety of symbols like a shield and spear (cat. nos. 9.466-488, figs. 528-529), shield and a rudder (cat. nos. 9.489-490, fig. 530) which may allude to his naval prowess and perhaps the victory at Naulochus or Actium, two spears protruding behind his head (cat. nos. 9. 491-505, figs. 531-532) and a trophy which probably makes an allusion to one of his victorious battles or a wish for such a victory (cat. nos. 9.506-507, fig. 533). Sometimes references to peace in the form of two clasped hands (dextrarum iunctio) may also stand for the Second Triumvirate (cat. no. 9.466) and symbols of abundance and prosperity like cornucopia rarely accompany the images too (cat. nos. 9.473) and so does sidus Iulium as a shield decoration (cat. no. 9.507, fig. 533) as well as Capricorn – Octavian’s zodiacal sign (cat. no. 9.501). Like in other categories, in this one glass gems clearly prevail the gemstone intaglios (8 to 33) and the analysis of their provenance and history suggests that they were produced in Italy, maybe more specifically in Rome. Some of them were found outside of Italy (cat. nos. 9.466, 472-473 and 493) which informs about their popularity among soldiers or even direct distribution, and they dispersed them throughout the empire. Analysis of the portrait types does not allow to establish a precise chronological framework since many of the portraits are schematic or executed too carelessly (especially those in glass) so that one assumes their production took place ca. 44-27 BC but only few of them were produced after the Battle of Actium. Octavian was extremely resourceful regarding his personal branding and he used to set his own portrait together with various symbols bringing positive associations to mind. Concerning his exploitation of glyptic art, he was successful in using the traditional methods of self-promotion and one of its elements was setting his image with his zodiacal sign which was Capricorn. It is more typical for him to refer to Capricorn on later intaglios and cameos when he ruled as Augustus, but prior to 27 BC he used to promote himself with this sign too. This was in consistency with a general trend of setting a portrait with one’s horoscope on a gem. Intaglios presenting head of Octavian with Capricorn are quite numerous (cat. nos. 9.508-518, figs. 534-539) and that symbolism became very popular especially after the Battle of Actium for which indicate military equipment and dolphin as supplementing iconographical elements (cf. chapter 9.3.1.7). Nevertheless, one should be weary that among the gems listed here perhaps some are private amulets rather than Octavian’s promotional intaglios because the astrological constellations are sometimes more elaborate than just Capricorn or Libra. These two elements are related to the politician, but the signs of Aires, Cancer, Leo, Piesces and Scorpion as well as the star and crescent cannot be linked with him and indicate private horoscopes (cat. nos. 9.510, 513-515, figs. 534-537). Alternatively, one imagines that Octavian’s followers used to combine their own horoscope with the image and horoscope of their leader on those gems which they used to express their loyalty and allegiance to him. Such an explanation allows them to stay in the political sphere and informs about Octavian’s propaganda effectiveness. In her study of Roman Republican portrait gems, Vollenweider made an interesting commentary on a group of gems presenting diademed, young, male portraits and busts sometimes holding a spear or sceptre in front of them and a Gallic shield (in a few cases) in the arm and she identified them with Octavian (ca. nos. 9.519-526, figs. 540-543).1405 She concluded that after the victory at Actium, he issued this series of gems presenting himself in a Greek manner as kosmokrator – ruler of the whole world. This hypothesis, although attractive since it would confirm that glyptics allowed bolder propaganda messages to be transmitted, cannot be accepted due to the considerable differences in physiognomies and coiffures of the portrayed persons. It is clear that the group includes representations of various people. Recently Plantzos re-examined those portraits and he convincingly argues that many of them belong to Late Hellenistic rulers (most likely Seleucids).1406 He observes that some indeed exhibit treats of Augustan classicism, so one wonders if these are client kings to Rome depicted on some of those gems, but by no means they should be identified with Octavian. The classicising influence suggests that those rulers could have taken Octavian/Augustus as a model, especially after his victory at Actium, which testifies to the effectiveness of his propaganda but is not one of its shades unless the image clearly involves laurel or oak wreath like in case of the intaglio in Krakow (cat. no. 9.521, fig. 541). This gem presumably shows the portrait of young Octavian. 1405 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 211-214. 1406 Plantzos 1999, p. 58. The few little oblique grooves on the band indicate a very schematically cut laurel or oak wreath. The profile of the face is similar to the previously described Octavian’s portraits. The oak wreath (corona civica) suggests the victory at Actium in 31 BC and the award for saving the lives of citizens by ending the Civil War received in 27 BC.1407 1407 Gołyźniak 2017, no. 256. 1408 Sena Chiesa 2012, pp. 261-262. 1409 See a discussion in Weiß 2007, no. 389. One of the biggest challenge of portrait gems is their identification. If the portrait appears with additional symbolism it is the latter that allows to make a more or less secure identification of a historical person depicted but sometimes iconography is vague creating even more puzzle. Things are even more complicated if gems presenting a sole portrait are concerned. Moreover, the schematic carving and low quality of some gems, especially the glass ones, is often a major obstacle. Comparisons with coins are helpful but only to some degree and cannot solve all the problems. In the mass of portrait gems gathered here there are controversial examples, but this issue is the most complex in case of gems featuring, what a researcher might accept as portraits of Octavian accompanied with inscriptions. However, some might be private portraits of youth individuals which exhibit the same treats as Octavian’s ones and they origin from the same early 1st century Italic tradition.1408 Apparently, portrait gems accompanied with inscriptions illustrate how complex is the issue of identification. I found several intriguing gems that, in my opinion, bear head of Octavian with various symbols and inscriptions, both confirming that identification. These include a cornelian in Berlin where Octavian is presented as Mercury with a lotus-petal diadem on the head (cat. no. 9.527, fig. 544) and the inscription probably suggesting the gem owner’s name.1409 Another example is a cornelian in Copenhagen where Octavian’s head is to the right upon a round altar with a festoon and between two palm branches (cat. no. 9.528, fig. 545). This set clearly indicates triumph after a military victory or another important accomplishment. The inscription is in Greek and consists of two letters: N and Λ. They might stand for Naulochus indicating the subject to be Octavian celebrating his triumph after defeat of Sextus Pompey in 36 BC. Alternatively, the inscription is an abbreviation of the name of gem’s sitter who appears to be a supporter of Octavian. The second interpretation seems more likely as similar situation appears on a glass gem from Perugia presenting head of Octavian flanked by two cornucopiae and there is inscription AL (cat. no. 9.529, fig. 546). On this specimen, Octavian is presented a guarantor of abundance and prosperity, very much like on a bunch of similar gems described above. The inscription is certainly the abbreviation of the gem’s possessor who must have been Octavian’s supporter. All these examples prove that Octavian portrait gems accompanied with symbolism were distributed among his followers or they commissioned them to manifest their loyalty to him and allegiance to the caesarian party. To make this clear, they tend to put their signature on the stones so that once the gem was used as a seal or simply carried as mounted in a ring, there were no doubts whom it belongs to and so that the owner is a supporter of Octavian. Sole heads taken for Octavian accompanied with the abbreviations of Latin tria nomina or more elaborated inscriptions also exist. I do not find examples of ancient gems presenting Octavian’s portraits with inscriptions directly suggesting his identification. The only exception could be a stone in the Chatsworth collection bearing portrait of Octavian and inscription: CAES AVG, but I think this inscription to be a later (modern) addition (cat. no. 9.530, fig. 547). There are many gems bearing portraits similar to Octavian and while some can link with him (cat. nos. 9.531-536, figs. 548-549), the others are possibly just private seals (cat. nos. 9.537-540, figs. 550-551). It was perhaps due to a strong resonance of Octavian’s portrait gems and other means of his propaganda (coins, sculpture) which considerably popularised his image, especially among soldiers. They could follow their leader and, for instance, ask the engravers to cut their private seal taking Octavian as a model. Doing that way, they expressed their allegiance to him and the party of the caesarians. Such activities strengthened bounds between them and Octavian and were logical since people sought protection in the midst of the civil war. In this context, it is noteworthy to mention that while searching for evidence of private use of gems with Octavian’s portraits by individuals and possibly his supporters, one encounters his portrait either alone or with some symbols on a few sealings found in various parts of the Roman Empire. In the hoard discovered in Artashat in Armenia, Neverov identified one sealing with portrait of Octavian (cat. no. 9.541), while in Cyrene a sealing presenting Octavian’s head with a prow and dolphin yielded (cat. no. 9.542, fig. 552). Two more examples have been found in Zeugma; one of them is even inscribed with gem owner’s name in abbreviation, while the second presents laureate head of Octavian and probably date after the Actium victory (cat. nos. 9.543-544, fig. 553). These four sealings testify that gems of the types discussed above were indeed used by supporters of Octavian throughout the whole empire. It is likely that they were used not only for utilitarian purposes but for self-propaganda of their sitters since far from Rome, they made it clear that they are supported by a prominent Roman politician, so it was a mutually beneficial deal. Finally, it should be noted that during Octavian activities between the years 43-27 BC several cameos have been created for him or the people from his faction (cat. nos. 9.545-551, figs. 554-557). Similarly to the series of his bearded portraits in intaglios and cameos (cf. chapter 9.3.1.1), they are important testimonies of a gem workshop active at the court of Octavian at that time. These cameos could be gifted to Octavian or distributed by him to his followers. They belong to the early phase of the production of the so-called State Cameos which will be more extensively discussed later (cf. chapter 10.9). Some of them were moulded in glass and in some cases (cat. no. 9.549, fig. 557) the level of workmanship is low which suggests that the originals were copied or equivalents were manufactured to supply the need of the market for such precious works of art among Octavian’s followers. After the victory at Actium many gem cutters transferred their businesses to Rome which is reflected in the provenance and history of the objects in question. Moreover, some glass cameos were found in Rome and several comes from the collections formed in this city which supports the view that production of gems related to Octavian primarily took place in that area. 9.3.1.5. Promotion of family Promotion of family members and the family as a future dynasty was a very important issue for Octavian since the very beginning of his political career. His aims to show the connection with Julius Caesar was one thing promoted on engraved gems (cf. chapter 9.3.1.1), but as mentioned while writing about Solon’s commitment for the potential workshop cutting gems for Octavian, he promoted much his sister in glyptics. The most astonishing example is the agate plaque depicting her as the goddess Diana paired with Octavian presented on a pair as Mercury (cat. nos. 9.277, fig. 478 and 278, fig. 479 respectively). This was a very subtle presentation but with a powerful political message heralding Octavian’s will of establishing a dynasty in Rome. It appeared in glyptics because of the highly private character of this art form which enabled to make more direct references to deities than coinage and the subtle and ambiguous language of propaganda could be used in it to express such ideas without fearing for a backfire reaction of the public opinion. In case of family promotion, Octavian’s propaganda took various forms. For instance, in the coinage, the motif of Aeneas carrying Anchizes out of Troy on his shoulders served as a reference to Julius Caesar, who first put this motif on one of his coins in 47/46 BC, and generally to the Julian family and its legendary history.1410 The subject was suitable for Octavian’s and later Augustus’ propaganda because it illustrated the bound with his predecessor and his pietas erga patrem.1411 Moreover, it may have worked as counterpropaganda to Sextus Pompey’s activities, who used to promote his own family by the image of Catanean Brothers, and also later to Mark Antony’s promotion as Neos Dionysus.1412 In glyptics the motif of Aeneas carrying Anchizes out of Troy and Diomedes rescuing the Palladion, which was another suitable motif for propaganda of the Julii, experienced a considerable burst of popularity during the second half of the 1st century BC. It seems likely that this popularity was connected or literary due to politics and propaganda activities of Caesar and Octavian/Augustus e.g. promotion of the family issue (cf. chapters 8.2.8, 9.3.1.8 and especially 10.7).1413 These subjects existed well before that and are present on 3rd and 2nd century BC intaglios first due to the fact that Diomedes was regarded a founder of 18 Italian cities and he played an important role during the Second Punic War.1414 However, Octavian/Augustus presented himself like Diomedes, that is a protector of the Palladion against Mark Antony which not only helped to create a powerful position of the Julian family, but also compared him to the mythological figure of the hero which raised his authority.1415 Moreover, Diomedes incarnated the imperium – total power so much sought by Octavian. The same applies to his identification with Aeneas.1416 It is noteworthy that Solon presented the subject of Diomedes stealing the Palladion upon one of his signed gems (cat. no. 9.552, fig. 559). Was it intended to glorify Octavian and propagate the Julian clan as he probably worked for the politician?1417 The work of Solon sparked a series of gems cut by the best gem engravers of the last third of the 1st century BC and there were some more reasons for Octavian to promote himself in the guise of Aeneas and Diomedes alike later, when he became Augustus. This issue will be fully discussed in chapter 10.7. 1410 Regarding the coin of Caesar, see: RRC, no. 458/1 (denarius of Julius Caesar, 47/46 BC). Concerning the coinage of Octavian, see: RRC, nos. 494/3a-b (aurei of L. Livineius Regulus, 42 BC); Ritter 1995, pp. 74-75; Hekster 2004, p. 171. 1411 Evans 1992, pp. 41-42. 1412 Barcarro 2008/2009, pp. 67-99. 1413 Vollenweider 1955, pp. 103-104. 1414 Moret 1997, pp. 281-290. On the history of this motif in glyptics and its significance as a part of the Trojan cycle, see also: Toso 2007, pp. 54-64. See also a useful commentary and some criticism to Moret, in: Weiß 2007, no. 273. 1415 Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, pp. 114-115. 1416 Toso 2007, pp. 71-73. 1417 Vollenweider 1966, pp. 49-50. The goddess Venus played a particular role, first in Julius Caesar’s and later Octavian’s propaganda. Caesar made her the mother of the Julian family (Venus Genetrix) and the strong promotion of her cult by him resulted after his death in a great popularity of another shade of Venus – Victrix, the one bringing success, in glyptics. The protection of Venus over the Julian clan was much exploited by Octavian too who also referred to her. It was suitable considering the fact that she was regarded as the mother of descendants of Aeneas for one of whom Octavian promoted himself.1418 Therefore, Venus Victrix appears on gems during the first decades of his political activity as the symbol of Caesar and Julian family in general as well as an expression of allegiance to the caesarians party (cat. no. 9.553).1419 Venus was perceived by the Romans as a progenitor of the nation, thus, she was taken as a sign of the divine privilege of the Romans to govern the world. She became a source of power and imperium for Caesar and in the same role she was adopted by Octavian to assert his power.1420 It is noteworthy that she appears in such an incarnation on some intaglios in the 30s or early 20s BC holding the sword of Mars – another key figure in Octavian’s propaganda of his legitimacy to rule the Roman empire (cat. no. 9.554, fig. 560). 1418 Zanker 1988, pp. 53-54; Sena Chiesa 2002, pp. 403-404. 1419 Maderna-Lauter 1988, p. 447. 1420 Vollenweider 1955, pp. 108-109; Laubscher 1974, pp. 246-247; Guiraud 1985. 1421 Vollenweider 1966, pp. 41-42. Concerning Venus and family promotion, notable is a series of intaglios cut in a strong Hellenistic spirit clearly indicating execution in a workshop lead by a Greek presenting, as it is supposed, Octavian and Livia standing together and looking to the right. Livia holds a cloak flowing over her head like the goddess Aphrodite/Venus which was most likely an intentional reference (cat. nos. 9.555-557, figs. 561-562). The outstanding size of these gems suggest a production for extraordinary purposes and a subtle reference between Octavian’s new wife married in 38 BC and Venus distribution among people from the inner circle of the later emperor who could understand and acknowledge the comparison. Vollenweider preferred to see in this pair Octavian and Octavia, which is also probable, but in my opinion to a lesser degree.1421 The comparison and even identification of Livia with Venus is well-attested in the later, Augustan glyptics and the intaglios under discussion seem to constitute the very beginning of that process (cf. chapter 10.10), while Octavia lacks divine comparisons except for the one with Diana. Moreover, another exceptional piece is now in the J. Paul Getty Museum in Malibu and it most likely presents Octavian’s and Livia’s identities hidden in an unparalleled gem depicting a woman, mostly nude, with her hair bound in a sakkos, seated on a rock, who gestures to a nude youth standing before her. The man has a drapery over one shoulder and carries a pedum visible near his shoulder (cat. no. 9.558, fig. 563). The identity of the pair has been the subject of scrutiny since gem’s first publication in the eighteenth century, but they are likely the goddess Venus and her lover, the Trojan Anchises.1422 The offspring of their union was Aeneas, the father of the Roman people with whom Octavian identified. The intaglio was cut in the 30s or early 20s BC and was clearly intended for a promotion of Octavian and his new wife as embodiments of the divine and legendary ancestors of Julian family and founders of Rome. The intimate character of the scene disqualifies a pair of Octavian and his sister as believed by Vollenweider. Furthermore, the Swiss scholar argued that the piece was cut by Aulos, however, Solon seems a more probable attribution on the stylistic and compositional grounds. He is attested to cut exceptional intaglios for Octavian’s propaganda and this piece seems to be his next work created for such a purpose. A plausible occasion for that seems Octavian’s wedding with Livia in 38 BC which could have required incomparable celebrations and extraordinary ways of its commemoration, e.g. intaglios like the ones discussed here. 1422 Vollenweider 1966, p. 42; Maaskant-Kleibrink 1978, no. 1166. 1423 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 208-211. 1424 Zwierlein-Diehl 1979, no. 789; Weiß 1996, no. 265. The promotion of family by Octavian in glyptics worked on two levels, through mythological references and by putting the images of the members of the clan, sometimes in the guise of deities. Regarding the second, one should mention a good number of intaglios that possibly present Octavian with his sister Octavia as confronted portraits (capita opposita) which was a popular subject on gems according to Vollenweider (cat. nos. 9.559-560, fig. 564).1423 Nevertheless, one must be very careful before drawing any conclusions since many of those gems may actually present private, double portraits. The schematic engraving and similarities in female coiffures in the second half of the 1st century BC, which were copied by ordinary citizens from the prominent Roman matrons often do not allow to estimate whether these gems had considerable political and propagandistic value.1424 On a personal level, the gems like these could have been executed on the occasion of marriage and functioned as gifts of love, but some are securely identified with Octavian and Octavia testifying to important role of glyptics in building a powerful and solid image of Julian dynasty. 9.3.1.6. Promotion of the faction The caesarians faction was quite large and the followers of Julius Caesar were split between Octavian and Mark Antony. At least in the beginning, that is after death of Caesar both leaders tried to attract his veterans and all the new followers through various propaganda media. For instance, they issued coins presenting harmony and peace between them contributing to the collective image of Caesar’s avengers.1425 Their supporters identified with those ideas and could consider themselves as avengers of Caesar too. However, since ca. 38 BC there is a clear separation between Octavian and Mark Antony as their propaganda focuses on their own accomplishments rather than joint faction.1426 Similar mechanism is observable in glyptics. Most of the kinds of portrait gems presenting heads of Octavian accompanied with various symbols could serve to manifest loyalty to him, but they certainly played an important role in construction of the bond between the politician (propagandist) and his audience, in other words, they were essential in integration propaganda. Those gems also attracted new followers and brought them to the side of Octavian.1427 1425 RRC, p. 743. 1426 RRC, p. 744. 1427 Maderna-Lauter 1988, p. 445. 1428 Maderna-Lauter 1988, p. 451. 1429 Ritter 1995, p. 86. 1430 See the commentary on this issue given below and Gołyźniak 2017, no. 72. It is noteworthy that Octavian portrait gems discussed above are very different to the portrait gems of Mark Antony. The clear discrepancy in their number is one thing, but it is important to notice that Octavian’s objects transmit a message of a common goal which is peace and prosperity to the people of Rome, while such issue is not addressed on the gems related to his opponent. Octavian’s gems reflect a well-thought programme responding to the needs of common people which was much more efficient rather than Antony’s self-focus. Moreover, in the propagandistic activities of Octavian reflected in glyptics a new trend is to be observed. Namely, he is the first who employed various kinds of gems: gemstone intaglios, glass gems, cameos - all probably designed to reach different type of audience. One imagines that cheap and massively produced glass gems were manufactured and distributed to the soldiers and middle class. Gemstone intaglios were probably created for more influential and wealthy people, while cameos were cut only for the member of Octavian’s inner circle.1428 I will come back to this issue in the conclusions of the dissertation (cf. chapter 13). Venus Victrix cut upon a gem may have served for promotion of the Julian family but it could have been recognised as a symbol of the caesarians as well.1429 Similarly, it is supposed that head of Apollo could have played the same role, first as a symbol of the populares and later caesarians since the cult of the god was much promoted by Octavian, but there are many other, more private reasons for his popularity in glyptics (cf. chapters 7.1.5 and 8.2.6) thus, linking him with a specific politician or a faction is largely problematic.1430 Finally, Sena Chiesa supposes that the gems engraved with combinations of symbols generally reflect the programme of Caesar and thus, they were used to recognised those who supported it also in the times of Octavian.1431 This issue is close to my conclusions about Octavian portrait gems and accompanying symbolism, but if the constellations of symbols are concerned alone, the matter becomes complex and not so easy to explain always with some reference to politics. Therefore, it will be discussed in detail in two other chapters as more suitable places (cf. chapters 9.3.2.8 and 10.8). 1431 Sena Chiesa 2002, pp. 398-399, 402-403 and 405-406. 1432 RRC, pp. 743-744. 1433 Zanker 1988, pp. 82-85. 9.3.1.7. Commemoration During the 30s BC focus of Octavian’s propaganda had changed considerably. In the early stage, he put much emphasis on the highlight of his connection with Julius Caesar, but since ca. 36 BC, his propaganda focused on his own figure and accomplishments. The reason for this was probably intensification of the rivalry with Mark Antony which one observes, for instance in the coinage since ca. 38 BC.1432 New themes became popular on engraved gems and the issues like commemoration of important military victories or showing divine references gained considerable popularity. The peak was reached just after the Battle of Actium which was widely celebrated within the whole empire in all the media possible, including glyptics.1433 At the same time, Octavian’s political programme firmly based on promotion of peace and prosperity to everyone under his command was promoted and his military victories made people believe that he is going to realise his promises with the support of gods. In this chapter I am going to focus on commemoration of events related to Octavian and his faction. First, various important political occurrences immortalised on gems will be outlined. Next, the military victories celebrated on cameos and intaglios will be discussed. Further, the objects illustrating Octavian’s appointments to important offices as well as titles and awards he was given shall be presented. Finally, commemoration of marriages will be in the focus of the last stage of this sub-chapter. It must be noted that in case of engraved gems and their propagandistic value it is often difficult to say whether an object, like a gem bearing a portrait of Octavian set together with bucolic symbolism was designed just to spread the image of Octavian as a guarantor of peace and prosperity (suggesting to classify it as personal branding) or this iconography was related with celebrations of some important political events and consequently commemoration of military victories and festivals organised after the triumphs like Vollenweider suggested.1434 Both options are equally possible, thus, one should keep in mind that peculiar categories of Octavian’s portrait gems could be classified to the chapter dealing with personal branding. Yet, the distinctive symbolism allowing to connect some of them with specific historical events inclines to allocate them here as this is more beneficial for establishment of a chronological framework for all those pieces. Similarly, some of the gems listed below may not only commemorate important political and military events, but also emphasise divine references of Octavian with Neptune, Mercury and so on and the other way around, some of the specimens assigned to the category of gems exhibiting divine and mythological references could be placed here. This is due to complex and multifunctional character of propaganda messages which often were designed to cover not only one issue but as many as possible to make their impact on the audience in the most successful way possible. The wide spectrum of issues encapsulated in intaglios and cameos produced for Octavian’s propaganda results in an excessive complexity in the eyes of a modern researcher, but they did not result in anxiety among their ancient recipients. On contrary, it helped to acknowledge Octavian’s domination and certainly made impression on the viewers because all the elements were connected to each other and the language used to transmit them was relatively easy to understand. 1434 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 214-222. 1435 RRC, nos. 492/1-2 (aurei of Mark Antony, 43 BC). 1436 RRC, nos. 492/1-2 (aurei of Mark Antony, 43 BC) and 493/1a-c (aurei of Octavian, 43 BC) and commentary on p. 740. Regarding political events promoted on engraved gems by Octavian, the most important was of course the establishment of the Second Triumvirate in 43 BC. The event was widely advertised not only in glyptics, but also in coinage. Although some issues referring to all three triumvirs had been struck in 43 BC,1435 it is evident that Octavian and Mark Antony promoted themselves more efficiently and eagerly than Lepidus.1436 In glyptics, this disproportion is even more evident and favourable to Octavian since actually there are no gems whatsoever that would depict Mark Antony commemorating the Second Triumvirate pact or at least one cannot identify such pieces (see below). In contrast, Octavian used to refer to the event on his gems, but it seems that promotion of the consensus was not his main goal; he preferred to show himself as a guarantor of the peace and the only person due to whom the pact was established for the common good of people of Rome. This is evident from the gemstone and glass gems alike which main elements are Octavian’s portrait combined with two clasped hands (dextrarum iunctio) standing for concordia and indirectly referring to the Second Triumvirate as well as some other positive symbolism (cat. nos. 9.561-571, figs. 565-566).1437 This motif stands in analogy for the series of aurei minted for all the three triumvirs by C. Vibius Varus in 42 BC (fig. 567).1438 1437 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 205-206; Maderna-Lauter 1988, p. 445. 1438 RRC, nos. 494/10-12. 1439 Sena Chiesa 2012, pp. 262-263. 1440 Maaskant-Kleibrink 1980, no. 1. 1441 Berges 2002, no. 336; Gołyźniak 2017, no. 254. 1442 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 205-206. Sena Chiesa points out that Octavian often used to combine his multiple activities in one piece since the corn ears, the most common element appearing on the gems commemorating the Second Triumvirate, suggest Octavian’s responsibility for grain supply (frumentationes) to the people of Rome.1439 I generally agree to this idea, but one should be aware that the gems bearing Octavian’s portrait combined with corn ears, poppies etc. but lacking the motif of two clasped hands (cf. chapter 9.3.1.4) account to this issue too since Octavian’s responsibility for grain supply already began in summer 44 BC.1440 Besides, the elements like corn ears, poppies and cornucopiae were universal symbols of abundance and prosperity that should be guaranteed by Octavian.1441 Like in case of portrait gems discussed above, one observes typical disproportion in gemstone and glass gems for Octavian’s glyptic production – the latter clearly dominate. What is more, similarly to the already discussed portrait gems of Octavian, some of the ones listed here were found far from Italy but in the lands controlled by Octavian and the findspots include military areas (cat. nos. 9.561-563 and 565). This fact probably points to distribution of those gems among Roman soldiers with whom they travelled to these far distances. The provenance and history of those gems suggest their production to be located in Rome or Italy in a broader sense. The series of gems commemorating the Second Triumvirate with emphasis put on the role of Octavian should be dated ca. 43-42 BC mostly by analogy to the coins and historical circumstances. Apart from the gems discussed here, there is a large group of gems presenting constellations of various symbols for which the central element is dextrarum iunctio and which are often interpreted as objects commemorating the Second Triumvirate.1442 However, in my opinion, it is not so obvious to consider them as such and more plausible explanations to their iconography can be offered. These will be presented and commented in the chapter devoted to the political symbols (cf. chapter 9.3.1.9). After the Battle of Philippi, the relationships between Octavian and Mark Antony became much colder. In 41 BC a conflict between the two emerged due to Antony’s current wife Fulvia. Ultimately, the peace was restored a year after in Brundisium as Fulvia died and Antony married Octavian’s sister Octavia in order to guarantee the new pact. There is an interesting class of gems, mainly made of glass that most likely were issued to commemorate this event but at the same time, they could promote the idea of unity achieved for the good of the people of Rome. They present heads of Octavian and Mark Antony in the capita iugata capture as Vollenweider noticed in the entirely Italic manner (cat. nos. 9.572-583, figs. 568-569).1443 Particularly interesting and unusual is a glass gem housed in Geneva because it presents one of the heads diademed (cat. no. 9.583, fig. 569). Could this be Mark Antony presented in the Eastern-Hellenistic manner stylised on a diadochy king? If so, this would probably testify to Octavian’s black propaganda aiming at presenting his opponent in an unacceptable attire for the Romans indicating his sole rule ambitions. Nevertheless, a more plausible explanation is that the piece present unidentified pair of Hellenistic rulers or even athletes since the portraits differ to the casual ones identified with Octavian and Antony within the group. Analysis of provenance and history of these gems makes it clear that all of them were found or purchased in Rome which probably points to their place of production as Rome (see especially cat. no. 9.582 originating from a cache of propaganda glass gems found in Rome) or more broadly Italy and consequently allows to connect them with Octavian rather than Mark Antony. The fact that the vast majority of them are cheap glass gems suggest their distribution or popularity among soldiers and common people so they must have served for propaganda purposes.1444 In contrast to other portrait gems, these had unquestionably political significance and judging by the style and material, some of them were produced from the same matrix (cat. nos. 9.576 and 578) which testifies to their serial production on a massive scale. The goal was not only to commemorate important political event which was the Brundisium Treaty, but also to propagate the peace established by two direct followers of Caesar and thus, continuation of his policy of pacification and order within the Roman Empire. Marcus Aemilius Lepidus was already practically excluded from such a promotion in 42 BC as coinage proves, therefore, it is very likely to connect the gems in question here with the Brundisium Treaty and propose to date them around 40 BC.1445 1443 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 178-179. 1444 Zazoff 1983, pp. 324-325; Maderna-Lauter 1988, p. 453; Gagetti 2001, p. 137. 1445 Regarding coinage, already since 42 BC triumviri and quattuorviri monetales focused in their promotion on the figures of Antony and Octavian, while Marcus Aemilius Lepidus was somehow excluded. See more on this issue in: Morawiecki 2014, p. 107. In the 30s BC Octavian’s propaganda changed its focus from the promotion of the connection with Caesar to Octavian’s sole accomplishments. Therefore, some of the most important events to advertise were victorious battles, especially the defeat of Sextus Pompey at Naulochus and Mark Antony at Actium. Regarding the earlier victories like the Battle of Philippi, one identifies virtually no gems commemorating this accomplishment. In contrast, the time around 30 BC and victory at Actium triggered a considerable production of propaganda intaglios and cameos made for Octavian and the propaganda techniques used were very diversified. A cornelian intaglio in Hannover presenting Octavian as Neptune driving a biga with hippocamps and sidus Iulium in the field probably commemorates his victory at Naulochus (cat. no. 9.584, fig. 556/570). It is a transitional piece because of the presence of comet symbolising here avenging of Julius Caesar and at the same time Octavian is presented as Neptune. His identification or comparison to the god started already before the Battle of Naulochus as the coinage and literary resources suggest.1446 At that time Octavian practiced the old-fashioned Roman tradition of evocatio to the deity that he wanted to support his case and the intaglio in question shows that he succeeded in that.1447 The propagandistic message is clear: Octavian not only managed to defeat one of his enemies and avenge Caesar, but he also won Neptune for his case. The second issue is even more exploited on another cornelian intaglio but housed in Boston which I already discussed extensively above and attributed to Solon, who might have cut gems for Octavian (cat. no. 9.280, fig. 481, cf. chapter 9.3.1.2). The identification of the figure depicted with Octavian has been probably best described by Beazley who stated: ‘The short hair and beardless face of the driver, perhaps also his youthful body, show that he is not Poseidon. The features are portrait-like and therefore mortal. At the period to which the gem belongs, no one but Augustus could have been figured as Poseidon: and the features, in fact, bear an unmistakeable resemblance to those of Augustus.’1448 One thing requires clarification here, namely, the inscription indicating gem’s owner named Popillius Albanus. Nothing certain is known about him, but the Popillii were an important family during the Republic, which members held consulships and achieved other honours in the 2nd and early 1st century BC.1449 It is possible that Popillius Albanus was a supporter of Octavian who might have received this gem from his patron and put his name on it to mark his ownership very much like Lorenzo di Medici did for many gems entering his collection. Finally, regarding the evocatio of Neptune by Octavian, as has been discussed earlier, the group of gems presenting Scylla, if related to politics at all, is more likely to be an example of Octavian’s counterpropaganda to Sextus 1446 Zanker 1988, pp. 39-40; Barcaro 2008/2009, pp. 225-232; Morawiecki 2014, pp. 101-103 and 205. 1447 Zazoff 1983, p. 293. 1448 Boardman (ed.) 2002, no. 105. 1449 Lapatin 2015, p. 248. promotional practices reflected in his coinage rather than to be a part of Sextus’ propaganda (cf. chapter 9.1.6). As to other gems commemorating the Battle of Naulochus, Vollenweider tried to justify some symbolic gems by their relationship to this success of Octavian, like those featuring combinations of Heracles’ club flanked by an arrow and a palm branch (cat. no. 9.585, fig. 571), but I believe these to be far-fetched theories which will be commented more extensively later (cf. chapter 9.3.1.9). However, one should keep in mind that Neptune was not the only deity supporting Octavian during his rivalry with Sextus Pompey. Diana Siciliensis was another figure acting in favour of Octavian. Her bust appears on a special aureus minted by the politician between 29-27 BC commemorating and recalling the Battle of Naulochus (fig. 572).1450 On a cornelian intaglio in Geneva the same bust is engraved together with a legionary standard and Capricorn (cat. no. 9.586, fig. 573). This combination of elements and proximity to the mentioned coins suggest the object to have some propagandistic value as to the promotion of Octavian’s military victories. The presence of legionary standard indicates the gem to be given or attractive to one of Octavian’s soldiers. 1450 RIC I2 Augustus, no. 273; Zanker 1988, p. 50. Octavian’s major success took place in 31 BC when he defeated Mark Antony and Cleopatra in the Battle of Actium and there are many intaglios and cameos that commemorate this event. However, before I start to present those, I am going to focus on a peculiar group of portrait gems with naval symbolism which is ambiguous and difficult to assign between the Naulochus and Actium battles. These gems usually depict head of a youth identified with Octavian and naval/marine elements like a prow, trident, dolphin or a war-ship added to it (cat. nos. 9.587-610, figs. 574-577). The head appearing on those intaglios parallels to Octavian portraits known from other contemporary gems discussed above (cf. chapter 9.3.1.4). The identification with him is supported by the fact that on several specimens appears Capricorn – his zodiacal sign (cat. nos. 9.591-592, fig. 575). Moreover, in several instances, military objects and symbols (eagle, spears, legionary standards) exist too exactly like on the portrait gems discussed above (cat. nos. 9.589, 593, 599-601, figs. 574 and 576). Symbolism referring to the issues of abundance and prosperity are present as well (cat. nos. 9.588, 597, 603, 605-606 and 610, fig. 577). For all these reasons, it should be concluded that the gems in question indeed present Octavian and were manufactured after one of his naval victories, most likely in Rome and Italy in a broader sense which is suggested by the provenance and history of the specimens. Like in other classes of similar portrait gems, the ration of glass gems prevails the gemstone ones (10 to 13) and it may be concluded that they were also distributed or popular among Roman soldiers which is suggested by the military elements in their iconography as well as some findspots (cat. nos. 9.589 and 597, figs. 574). The only problematic thing is their chronology. Vollenweider took them as presenting Octavian after the victory at Naulochus.1451 Some scholars follow her view,1452 while others suggest them to illustrate the success at Actium.1453 I believe that the gems in question appeared for the first time after the Battle of Naulochus when Octavian wanted to mark his supremacy on the sea after defeating Sextus Pompey and their production continued down to ca. 27 BC including a peak just after the Battle of Actium when this domination was realised. There is no single element suggesting linking those gems with one specific historical event, they illustrate a general propagandistic action instead, therefore, they cannot be dated very precisely. 1451 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 205-207. 1452 Vollenweider and Avisseau-Broustet 2003, no. 36; Weiß 2007, no. 388. 1453 Zwierlein-Diehl 1979, no. 805. 1454 See Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, pp. 126-127 and p. 420 for discussion in earlier literature. Concerning the Battle of Actium, it was the main subject of Octavian’s political propaganda for the years 31-27 BC. This ultimate victory over Mark Antony and Cleopatra was given a special status as a victory at several levels: Rome over the East, civilisation over barbarians, Apollo-Sol over Dionysus etc. No other event was so much promoted in various media and glyptics played a vital part in these advertisements since due to its private character, Octavian could fully present his idea of a divine sole ruler almost without limits on some very special cameos and intaglios, but the more universal propagandistic messages were also promoted through a mass of intaglios, especially the cheap glass ones. To realise that Actium’s victory took Octavian’s propaganda on a higher level, first I present several exceptionally cut intaglios. In Naples, there is a large cornelian depicting Octavian as Apollo-Sol with a veil flowing behind him, holding a torch and driving a quadriga, under which there is a personification of Nilus – standing for defeated Egypt or Mark Antony (cat. no. 9.611, fig. 578). This piece has been much discussed by scholars, but it is generally accepted a tremendously rich propaganda piece communicating the victory of Octavian identified with Apollo-Sol over barbarian East personalised as Mark Antony.1454 The divine reference is openly presented on this intaglio without any limits. Octavian is compared or even identified with Apollo-Sol who was considered as his divine father according to the legend passed to us by Suetonius, who stated that Atia, Octavian’s mother, was inseminated by the god in disguise of a serpent at his temple.1455 The propagandistic value is hence considerable since the object does not only commemorate an important historical event but it highlights the key-role of Octavian in the victory supported by the gods. To realise that one deals with a new level of propaganda one must pay attention to details. For instance, Mark Antony is depicted on the intaglio also in the divine/personified level so that the Battle of Actium could be promoted as the clash between two equal figures among which Octavian proved to be the greater one. Yet, Antony is compared to the personification of Nilus which is a somehow humiliating for him as he is not presented as Neos Dionysus. This act accounts to black propaganda and could have been done purposefully and consciously. One sees how sophisticated language Octavian’s propaganda used. But what is even more important in this extraordinary intaglio Octavian is presented as an introducer of a new Golden Age – aurea aetas, very much according to one of the Sybille oracles that prophesised establishment of a new era of Rome’s prosperity under a new king.1456 This idea is perfectly encapsulated here and it is much Hellenistic in character. The concept of sole rule was unacceptable in Rome for the whole period of the Roman Republic, however, now, Octavian starts to lay foundations for his future sole reign and establishment of the Julio-Claudian dynasty at the head of the Roman Empire. His inspiration was the Hellenistic east with its kings. To see how important was issuing of the pieces like the one described here, one must realise that they strongly affected private sphere as it is evident from another intaglio cut in nicolo housed in Krakow which basically encapsulates the same propaganda message, but in a more traditional way. The composition is based on a well-known head of Octavian in the centre surrounded with military equipment, but important elements are also the Apollo-Sol rays above the head and flower decorations signifying triumph (cat. no. 9.612, fig. 579).1457 This gem surely addresses Octavian’s identification with Apollo and the success in the Battle at Actium which was largely accomplished due to the direct intervene of Apollo.1458 Mythological symbols and scenes often offered contemporary Romans a chance to express their affinity with one political side and a part of this was imitation of its lifestyle. This is observable in visual arts and glyptics under Octavian/Augustus became a vital part of this phenomenon. In fact, it worked very much like decorations of the houses, sophisticated tableware, silverware and many other objects and spheres offering space for expression oneself.1459 In the next 1455 Suetonius, Augustus, 94. 1456 Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 127. 1457 See a more detailed discussion on this peculiar piece in: Gołyźniak 2017, no. 257. 1458 Zanker 1988, p. 50. 1459 Zanker 1988, p. 62. paragraphs one will see even more examples of private objects imitating and following the mainstream shaped by Octavian/Augustus. Regarding mythological and divine comparisons and identifications, another cornelian intaglio from Naples, the so-called Seal of Nero, offers a subject which might illustrate Octavian’s victory at Actium. This gem depicts Apollo punishing Marsyas while a young Olympos is kneeling bagging Apollo to exempt the punishment (cat. no. 9.613, fig. 580). As Lapatin states, this deeply carved stone presenting a complex composition and subtle modelling was possibly cut by Dioscurides, a gem engraver who worked for Octavian/Augustus at his court, possibly after Solon’s death or alongside to him in the late phase of his professional activity. This is deduced from gem’s style and quality that is comparable to other signed works of Dioscurides.1460 As it will be explained later (cf. chapter 9.3.1.8), Octavian tended to identify himself with Apollo and if one believes the gem to be engraved by one of the artists employed on his court, it makes sense to regard the piece as propagandistic. It would exemplify the god-like Octavian triumphing over satyr, a follower of Dionysus, which is possibly a reference to the victory at Actium. Again, Octavian’s propaganda shows Antony as a barbarian Easterner who was defeated and punished by a true Roman for his plans of bestowing his children with the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire. As Toso observes, the motif itself was more ancient and Sulla already used that allegorical myth to illustrate his victories in the East. Therefore, it seems likely that Octavian did it in the same way as both politicians cherished cult of Apollo to a considerable degree.1461 1460 Lapatin 2015, p. 247. 1461 Toso 2007, pp. 222-223. 1462 Dio Cassius, Historia Romana, 51.22. 1463 Gołyźniak 2017, no. 234. 1464 Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, pp. 116-117. 1465 Vollenweider 1966, pp. 55-56. The concept of comparison of the Actium’s victory to the victory of the Roman case over the barbarian one and establishment Roman supremacy over the world by Octavian is illustrated by the next two intriguing intaglios. The first one is an exceptionally large green chalcedony gem cut with a meaningful bust of Roma wearing a helmet and a robe while in front of her there is a column with Victory holding a palm branch and laurel wreath atop (cat. no. 9.614, fig. 581). The image of Victory is based on the statue of the goddess installed by Octavian in 29 BC in Curia Iulia,1462 which seems to have become a sort of source of inspiration for gem engravers (cf. below and chapter 9.3.1.8).1463 It has been suggested that the gem in question was made by Kleon,1464 who in turn possibly belonged to the workshop of Solon,1465 therefore, the connection of the piece with Octavian seems even more justified. The propagandistic message encoded in this piece is clear, it was cut to commemorate the victory at Actium and to thank Octavian for winning the case to the Roman state, but this is presented in a delicate and uncontroversial way since the piece expresses his pietas erga patriam.1466 One finds even more direct reference to victory at Actium in another intaglio carved in cornelian and presenting Roma seated on a throne, holding Victory, who stands on a globe, in her outstretched hand, while beneath her there is a prow (cat. no. 9.615, fig. 582). This is another case where Octavian’s pietas erga patriam is successfully illustrated. The prow beneath the throne suggests naval victory and most likely it is that at Actium. The idea is supported by the Victory figure copying exactly the statue from Curia Iulia. There are many more gems addressing the subject of Roma dated to the last third of the 1st century BC and early 1st century AD. Her role in Octavian’s propaganda was of key-importance not only around 30 BC but also later when he ruled as Augustus which shall be commented later (cf. chapter 9.3.1.8). 1466 Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 117. 1467 Hölscher 1967. 1468 Dio Cassius, Historia Romana, 51.22. 1469 Gołyźniak 2017, no. 234. 1470 RRC, nos. 546/4-7 (denarii of Octavian and L. Pinarius Scarpus, 31 BC). 1471 Maderna-Lauter 1988, p. 447; Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 129. 1472 Maderna-Lauter 1988, pp. 456-457. Victory/Nike, the goddess of victory, was another key-figure in promotion of Octavian’s military success at Actium.1467 Her statue was installed by Octavian in 29 BC in Curia Iulia,1468 and it became a sort of source of inspiration for gem engravers (cf. chapter 9.3.1.8).1469 This image was promoted by Octavian in his coinage just after the Battle of Actium (fig. 583).1470 The popularity of the goddess standing on a globe or flying to the air with a laurel wreath and palm branch in glyptics considerably increased since ca. 30 BC which can be explained only by the use of that image in political propaganda of Octavian.1471 There are both gems offering exceptional designs and those more standardised ones. Sometimes it is difficult to tell if the object refers to the Battle of Actium or later accomplishments, such as reclaim of legionary standards from the Parthians in 20 BC, but generally, most of the gems are iconographically close to the statue from Curia Iulia and thus automatically regarded as related to Actium (cat. nos. 9.616-623, figs. 584-589 and 591).1472 Some are given specific features making reference to Actium very clear. For instance, in Munich, there is a glass gem presenting Octavian holding Victoriola on his right hand, while a spear and a cloak is in his left one (cat. nos. 9.616, fig. 584). Before him there is a prow which indicates the naval victory at Actium. Octavian is depicted here as a victorious commander of the Roman army without divine references, but on another gem, this time kept in Berlin, he is depicted as a young hero riding biga with Victory which does not only highlight his military prowess, but also testify for another deity to support his case (cat. no. 9.617, fig. 585). Another interesting example is a chrom chalcedony intaglio from Berlin featuring Victory standing on an altar (decorated with garlands) to the right, holding a laurel wreath and a palm branch and beneath this there are serpents (cat. no. 9.618, fig. 586). For an individual, Victory was a symbol of good luck and here, it might also illustrate victory over evil, a sort of a charm.1473 However, remembering that Octavian’s mother Atia was inseminated by the god Apollo in the guise of a serpent in his temple while sleeping, one wonders if that depiction refers to this legendary story promoting Octavian’s relationship with his divine father.1474 There are many gems repeatedly depicting the military accomplishment like another glass gem from Munich where Victory dresses a trophy under which there are two captives (cat. no. 9.619, fig. 587). On another one, she stands on a globe (very much in the type of the Curia Iulia statue) to the front flanked by two warriors (cat. no. 9.620, fig. 588). In Copenhagen, there are two glass gems presenting the same type of Victory captured in profile, but she stands on a prow which makes a clear reference to the Actium victory (cat. nos. 9.621-622, fig. 589). Moreover, the same subject appears on Octavian’s denarii minted ca. 29-27 BC celebrating his victory at Actium (fig. 590).1475 It is noteworthy that since ca. 30 BC not only intaglios, but also cameos were often employed for propaganda purposes. The Curia Iulia type of Victory is presented on some glass cameos which is a clear sign of a serial production and wide distribution of these kinds of gems to the people of Rome (cat. no. 9.623, fig. 591). It is disputable if all the examples evoked above date ca. 30 BC or were manufactured slightly later or even for many years after the victory at Actium. Surely, the peak of production of such objects took place just after Actium when their impact was at its height. In every case, the propagandistic value was considerable, and the variety of motifs employed amazes today. The gems described above illustrate great significance of glyptic art in the promotional and commemorative activities of Octavian. 1473 Gołyźniak 2017, no. 234. 1474 Dio Cassius, Historia Romana, 51.22. 1475 RIC I2 Augustus, no. 264. While discussing the gems presumably commemorating Octavian’s victory in the Battle of Naulochus, I have pointed out to Octavian’s particular relationship with Neptune that he established around 36 BC or even earlier (see above). The connection between Octavian and Neptune was an important one also in reference to his success in the Battle of Actium. The god of the sea played a significant role in Octavian’s counterpropaganda to Mark Antony’s identification with Neos Dionysus alongside to Apollo, and it was generally more convenient to refer to Neptune in the naval subjects in contrast to Apollo.1476 Regarding glyptics, there is one peculiar motif presenting a figure of a youth shown as Neptune holding aplustre or a dolphin and with a cloak around his arm who puts his left leg on a prow. The subject became widely popular on engraved gems around 30s BC and slightly later. Because Sextus Pompey put a similar depiction of Neptune on his coins, some scholars associate the gems in question with him.1477 Nevertheless, as Maderna-Lauter and I below argue, some details and variations of the general type undoubtedly suggest to link those gems with Octavian’s propaganda and it is generally believed that they commemorated the Battle of Actium, however, in my opinion, this is a matter of some controversies.1478 The motif co-existed with casual gems presenting bearded Neptune in the same pose and with the same attributes.1479 The subject itself derives from sculpture, the so-called Lateran type of Poseidon/Neptune’s statue.1480 According to Furtwängler, the earliest examples of gems bearing this subject-matter appeared in the 3rd century BC but they were never exceedingly popular.1481 1476 Zanker 1988, p. 53; Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 129. 1477 RRC, 511/3a-c (denarii of Sextus Pompey 42-40 BC); Fossing 1929, no. 348; Vitellozzi 2010, no. 105. 1478 Maderna-Lauter 1988, pp. 454-455; Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 129; Barcaro 2008/2009, p. 232. 1479 For some contemporary gems, see: Walters 1926, nos. 1290-1291; Fossing 1929, nos. 340-343; Sena Chiesa 1966, no. 46; AGDS II, no. 361; AGDS I.2, nos. 1039-1043 and 1045-1049; AGDS III Göttingen, no. 232; Zwierlein-Diehl 1998, no. 68; Martin and Höhne 2005, no. 22; Guiraud 1988-2008, no. 1086; Gallottini 2012, no. 170. 1480 Weiß 2007, no. 158 with informative discussion on identification of various types of that motif and their identifications with Poseidon, Neptune and Octavian-Neptunus. 1481 Furtwängler 1896, nos. 468 and 526, although the figure puts its leg on a dolphin instead of a prow and probably holds Palladion, thus it might be Diomedes? No. 1439 is another very early example in the Berlin colelction with interesting inscription: L ANTON SΛLVIVS – L(ucius) Anton(ius) salvivus – long life to Lucius Antonius? 1482 RRC, no. 457/1 (denarius of A. Allienus, 47 BC). 1483 RRC, pp. 735-736. The reverse of a denarius minted in Sicily by A. Aienus for Julius Caesar is of key importance to understand the phenomenon of the gems in question. The coin was the first one to represent bust of Venus promoted as a mother of the Julian family on the obverse whereas the reverse shows Trinacrus, a son of Neptune, whose name probably derives from an alternate name of Sicily (Tinacria – ‘three cornered land’) (fig. 592).1482 The young sea god appears on the coin to signify Sicilian origin of the series,1483 but for Octavian he was a perfect figure to base his counterpropaganda to Sextus Pompey’s promotion as the son of Neptune. Trinacrus, as a son of Neptune incarnated the same relationship that Octavian had with Julius Caesar – the son and the father. In other words, making a reference to the young god from the coin struck for Julius Caesar, Octavian not only claimed to be a favourite of Neptune but he also recalled his relationship with Caesar as his sole heir. Going further, one wonders if that reference was established already once Octavian defeated Sextus and took control over Sicily. He would recall the issue of Caesar’s avenge and highlight his personal victory over Sextus. For this reason, it seems probable that the series of gems I am going to comment here might commemorate not only the Actium, but also Naulochus victory There are numerous gems presenting this subject without any specific references to the Battle of Actium except for the head of Octavian that is identified as a part of the figure and these objects are equally plausible to commemorate either Naulochus and Actium battles (cat. nos. 9.624-642, figs. 593-594). However, a deeper analysis reveals some interesting variations so one concludes that their dates probably span from ca. 36 BC onwards, though the peak of their production was certainly around 31-30 BC which is suggested by additional symbolism making this explicit. Whatever Octavian’s intention to refer to the coin of Caesar from 47 BC, he is almost certainly depicted on the gems in question as Neptune not Trinacrus, though. Concerning the specific variations, they add much information about the character of the whole phenomenon. For instance, I have collected several gems presenting Octavian in the guise of Neptune putting his leg on a prow but with additional military symbols like vexillum, spear, parazonium or sceptre and eagle held by the figure or appearing in the field (cat. nos. 9.643-649, figs. 595-596). These symbols either make a clear reference to a military victory e.g. the Battle of Naulochus or Actium or testify that the gems of this kind were distributed or popular among soldiers supporting Octavian like it was in the case of portrait and other propaganda gems (cf. chapter 9.3.1.4 and 9.3.1.7 above).1484 Even a clearer confirmation of that is a cornelian intaglio, said to have come from Rome but now in Berlin, bearing Octavian-Neptune motif with vexillum and inscription: T•IVL•FIR = T(iti) Iul(ii) Fir(---) (cat. no. 9.650, fig. 597). It is a shortcut of intaglio’s owner name who belonged to the Julian family and surely served in Octavian’s army. Apart from these, several examples bear the common motif with additional sign of Capricorn in the field or held by the figure (cat. no. 9.651-654, fig. 598). Furthermore, on a glass gem in Oxford, the figure of Octavian-Neptune probably holds a globe in his hand which symbolises his rule over the land and sea – terra marique, the power obtained thanks to the victory at Actium (cat. no. 9.655, fig. 599). On an onyx intaglio in Munich, the figure of Octavian-Neptune holds Victoriola on his outstretched hand which is in the type of Curia Iulia, clearly alluding to the Battle of Actium (cat. no. 9.656, fig. 600). Finally, in Vienna, 1484 It is noteworthy that cat. No. 9.644 was found in a military area (Xanten) which also suggests significance of these gems among soldiers. there is a cornelian intaglio presenting the same type of Octavian-Neptune also holding Victoriola and in addition, the figure puts his leg on a head of Africa symbolising defeated Egypt (cat. no. 9.657, fig. 561). All these examples show that the motif of a youth identified with Neptune should be understood as commemoration of Octavian’s naval victories, especially the one at Actium.1485 1485 Morawiecki 2014, p. 206. It is noteworthy to mention several more gems based on the same Octavian-Neptune motif, but presenting Octavian references to his other divine patrons. In Vienna, there is a gem presenting Octavian as Mars standing on a prow and leaning on a spear which subject also relates to the Battle of Actium (cat. no 9.658, fig. 602). In Berlin, a very similar depiction occurs on one intaglio, but in addition, the figure of Octavian-Mars is located inside of a temple (cat. no. 9.659, fig. 603), which alludes not only to the Battle of Actium in 31 BC but also to the early Battle of Philippi in 42 BC when Octavian defeated the assassins of Caesar. The object’s propagandistic message would then be not only commemoration, but also information of avenging Julius Caesar. The temple depicted on the gem may be the Temple of Mars Ultor that was under construction at that time. Finally, In Munich there is an intriguing jasper intaglio presenting Octavian as Mars wearing cuirass and paludamentum standing with his left leg on a prow, holding a bearded and helmeted head of Mars in the left hand and leaning on a spear with his right one; a man at his feet (cat. no. 9.660, fig. 604). The man on the ground is Mark Antony defeated by the god-like Octavian or personification of Nilus (like on the cornelian intaglio from Naples discussed above) symbolising conquered Egypt - an extremely powerful propaganda message. Apart from Mars, Octavian tended to identify with Mercury and this is illustrated on several gems in the context of the victory at the Battle of Actium (cat. nos. 9.661-662, fig. 605). In one particular case, Octavian-Mercury put his leg on a globe instead of a prow, but the propagandistic message is still related to Actium and it express the fact that this victory established his rule over the land and sea – terra marique (cat. no. 9.663, fig. 606). All these types distinguished suggest that Octavian used a well-known and deeply anchored symbolism for his propaganda that had been used for centuries. He adapted the motif of a Neptune standing with one foot on a prow to illustrate his naval victories at Naulochus and especially Actium and even tried to create new versions celebrating them and at the same time making an explicit reference to Julius Caesar and highlighting help received from various deities. The production of these gems most likely concentrated in Rome and surroundings as evidenced by the provenance and history of the objects analysed and the ration of gemstone intaglios to glass gems is clearly in favour of the latter (12 to 21). The same process might have been in use for many other popular motifs on the gems dated to the second half of the 1st century BC and the early 1st century AD. Vollenweider suggested that pictorial language of Octavian’s propaganda was sometimes quite sophisticated and thus, one finds many mythological motifs that at the first glance would not have anything in common with propaganda in fact propagandistic as they are playful allegories. This is the case with a gigantomachy subject which became extremely popular during Octavian/Augustus political activity and according to the Swiss scholar it was employed to commemorate the victory at Actium.1486 The motif of gigantomachy is indeed highly popular those days and several approaches exist. The most common is a depiction of Mars combating with a giant whom he is piercing with a spear (cat. nos. 9.664-676, figs. 607-609). The motif is more popular on glass gems rather than gemstone intaglios (2 to 10), and it is disputable if the figure of Mars can be associated with Mars, but on an important piece in Hannover, the head of a man fighting with the creature looks like Octavian, indeed (cat. no. 9.674, fig. 609). Therefore, the view of Vollenweider has been generally accepted without much criticism.1487 Perhaps indeed, the propagandistic character of at least some portion of those gems is possible as suggested by the analysis of literary sources which offer evidence for Octavian’s relationship with Mars.1488 The propagandistic message would be the defeat of Chaos and establishment of new world order. But it is necessary to discuss other possible explanations for the popularity of the motif on gems in the period and make wider observations. The subject of gigantomachy is not only limited to Mars but it involves other deities which are not closely-related to Octavian like Athena/Minerva (cat. nos. 9.677-686, figs. 610-611). She is nearly as often represented spearing a giant as Mars and the proportions between gemstone intaglios and glass gems are also similar (10 glass gems). If indeed related to Octavian, the propagandistic message here would be precisely the same as in case of Mars, but Athena/Minerva was not much promoted by him. Besides, so far, all the categories of gems were engraved with a meaningful motif or at least a classical one but given new meaning due to the symbolism referring to the battle of Actium or Octavian added. Here, one lacks such an element and the popularity of either Mars or Athena/Minerva fighting giants might be due to the archaising trend in art typical for the second half of the 1st century BC since 1486 Vollenweider 1966, p. 21. 1487 Maderna-Lauter 1988, pp. 455-456; Weiß 2007, no. 39. 1488 Toso 2007, pp. 224-227. sole figures of giants also appear on gems those days (cat. no. 9.687, fig. 612) and Heracles is also rarely, but still presented at similar activity as Mars and Athena/Minerva (cf. chapter 9.3.1.8). Besides, the subject of gigantomachy circulated in glyptics already in the Hellenistic period.1489 1489 Zwierlein-Diehl 1986, no. 286; Weiß 2007, no. 39. 1490 For instance, Toso suggests Amymone on gems to be another subject related to the Battle of Actium (2007, p. 135). 1491 Sena Chiesa 2002, p. 409. There are many more themes in glyptics that might indirectly refer to the Battle of Actium and military success of Octavian in general. For instance, a glass gem in Vienna bearing Mars lying in a papyrus boat holding on his outstretched hand Victory with a trophy in the background is possibly an allusion to the Battle of Actium (cat. no. 9.688, fig. 613). Also, a portrait gem bearing a youth with a band on the head and prow below in Munich maybe refers to Octavian’s propaganda after the Actium, but it would be unusual to Octavian to be presented in a Hellenistic attire e.g. with diadem – attribute of the kingship, as discussed above, so it might be a tributary king depicted here (cat. no. 9.689, fig. 614)? On one of the glass gems in Geneva, Vollenweider saw the Actium Arch (cat. no. 9.690, fig. 615). In Paris collection there is an unusual amethyst presenting Octavian as Triptolemus which refers to his role as the restorer of the peace and guarantor of abundance and prosperity (cat. no. 9.691, fig. 616). Finally, a sard from the Beverley collection depicting a naked, bearded man (possibly Neptune) standing next to a column, atop which is a rudder, and holding Victory on his left hand, while a shield and cuirass lays on the ground is possibly an allusion to the victory at Actium (cat. no. 9.692, fig. 617). All these and many more subjects, especially the mythological ones might refer to Octavian and his propaganda after the Actium victory.1490 Apart from the figural scenes often involving mythological and divine figures connected to the celebrations of Octavian’s victory at Actium, there are many variants of gems presenting symbolic combinations that might refer to this theme.1491 For instance, on a cornelian intaglio found in Xanten, an eagle is engraved as standing on an altar and keeping a lituus in its left leg flanked by two dolphins, tridents and Capricorns (cat. no. 9.693, fig. 618). The combination of legionary eagle with naval symbols and zodiacal sign of Octavian/Augustus makes a clear reference to that battle and Octavian’s success. Moreover, the intaglio was found in the military context outside of Italy which suggests that such gems were popular among Roman legionaries or even distributed among them. Their production started from ca. 30 BC and continued for many years since Octavian made references to his accomplishment at Actium on many occasions, for instance in 27 BC when there was a real outburst of gems (especially cameos) commemorating the event. The example given here is intended just to signalise the phenomenon and symbolic gems will be discussed later (cf. chapter 9.3.1.9). The impact of political propaganda on glyptics under Octavian/Augustus was so great that many times one accepts it to be an explanation for various kinds of symbolic representations. Nevertheless, their interpretation requires more critical thinking as some of those taken as commemorating the Battle of Actium, in fact are private seals serving for different purposes. For example, a sard intaglio presenting Fortuna seated on a rudder and holding corn ears and cornucopia with a prow behind her accompanied with an inscription ‘AMICUS’ is interpreted by Berges as commemorating the Battle of Actium (cat. no. 9.694, fig. 619).1492 However, Fortuna was a popular symbol of good luck and while holding corn ears and cornucopia, she stands for prosperity too. The rudder was a typical attribute of her, while the prow may indicate profession or even naval military troop to which gem’s owner belonged to. The inscription is of key-importance here because it suggests the gem to be a gift for a friend. To sum up, this piece has nothing in common with Actium and was a personal amulet aiming to bring its sitter good luck (perhaps on a battlefield) and prosperity in life. 1492 Berges 2002, no. 92. 1493 Vollenweider 1979, no. 482. 1494 RIC I2 Augustus, no. 277 (aureus of Augustus, 27 BC). A whole series of gems presenting various symbolic combinations from Geneva were interpreted by Vollenweider in the context of the Battle of Actium (cat. nos. 9.695-700, figs. 620-622). Sometimes she stated that the presence of a palm tree and two birds sitting on prows is an allusion to Actium due to the palm tree to be an eastern element suggesting that (cat. no. 9.697, fig. 620).1493 However, the tree and palm branches were popular symbols standing for a wished or accomplished victory and they could refer to the private not political ones. Another popular subject often interpreted as illustrating Octavian’s victory at Actium is a warship either with soldiers travelling on it or legionary symbols (cat. nos. 9.699, fig. 621). One must keep in mind that the military character of the depiction does not automatically mean the Battle of Actium. Such subjects were surely suitable for legionaries serving in the Roman naval forces in general like the legionary eagle and other similar themes for the infantry units. Nevertheless, sometimes the additional symbolism like an eagle standing on a globe (cat. no. 9.700, fig. 622) somehow seems to recall devices known from Octavian coinage minted shortly after the Actium victory which suggest linking the intaglios with that event (fig. 623).1494 Finally, I should mention that since ca. 30 BC the Battle of Actium was probably promoted also on cameos. On the early examples, the defeat of Mark Antony usually was concealed within the mythological context. For example, on a cameo found in France and now in the Louvre Museum in Paris, Venus Victrix is paired with Heracles on both sides of a trophy (cat. no. 9.701, fig. 624). While Venus possibly stands for Octavian, as she was the mother of the Julian family, Heracles would represent defeated Antony who identified with a hero also through the legendary origins of his family to Anton, son of Heracles. The trophy indicates the victory on the Venus side and thus the whole concept may be an allusion to the Battle of Actium. For many scholars, this gem clearly refers to the Battle of Actium,1495 however, some are less optimistic for such conclusions.1496 It is true that without any direct evidence or iconographical element suggesting the object to be linked to the one side of the conflict, it is difficult to judge whether the piece had any propagandistic value. Nevertheless, because in other instances where such clues are present the identification with, for example, Octavian’s success at Actium comes to mind automatically in cases being similar to those. It is true that the language of Roman propaganda was vague and because of many obstacles and limitations, Octavian could not openly boast with his victory yet. This changed in 27 BC and there is a considerable production of the gems commemorating Actium and his new titles and the appointment to the Emperor of Rome released in glyptics which I will present in the chapter 10.5. 1495 For instance: Laubscher 1974, pp. 248-255. 1496 For instance: Hekster 2004, pp. 173-174. Hekster recognises the male figure as Heracles and according to him it would be pointless for Octavian to present his victory over Mark Antony-Heracles since the image of Antony-Dionysus would have served in a much better way. It is noteworthy that Ritter thinks this cameo to illustrate Pax Augusta (1995, pp. 137-139). 1497 Vollenweider 1972-1974, p. 199. Concerning the titles, offices and appointments that Octavian was given, and which are commemorated on engraved gems, one must list a substantial class of glass intaglios presenting his portrait over sella curulis often with additional symbolism like cornucopiae and corn ears (cat. nos. 9.702-708, fig. 625). The subject relates to Octavian’s consulship obtained in 43 BC and in addition the sella curulis symbol informed about his connection with Julius Caesar.1497 Moreover, the accompanying cornucopiae and corn ears make allusion to Octavian as guarantor of abundance and prosperity. According to the provenance and history analysis, this series of gems was probably produced in Rome on the commission of Octavian himself as many come from the same matrix. It must be observed that the series was not a new phenomenon. Again, Octavian used a deeply-anchored mechanism for his propaganda to be successful. Already under Caesar consuls and aediles tended to depict themselves on engraved gems over sella curulis and with accompanying symbols (cf. chapter 8.2.7). Another important event in Octavian’s life was the priesthood of Apollo obtained in 37 BC and inclusion to the collegium of quindecimviri sacris faciundis. There are several gems commemorating this, like a cameo in Cologne presenting the tripod and Apollo in the guise of a serpent (cat. no. 9.709, fig. 626). The piece commemorates this event and it also illustrates Octavian’s relationship with Apollo who was his divine father and inseminated Octavian’s mother Atia in the guise of a serpent.1498 As Zwierlein-Diehl points out, this cameo may have been related to this event or another important Octavian’s appointment to the collegium of Septemviri epulones in 16 BC and thus, it should be dated 37-16 BC.1499 The subject repeats also on a cornelian in Berlin (cat. no. 9.710, fig. 627). 1498 Suetonius, Augustus, 94. 1499 Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 128. 1500 Vollenweider 1972-1974, p. 210. Finally, I should briefly discuss commemoration of Octavian’s marriages reflected on engraved gems. These important events were usually portrayed on intaglios in the form of a pair of male and female heads confronted (capita opposita) and Vollenweider accounts many gems to present Octavian and Scribonia or Octavian and Livia which would have commemorated the marriages in 40 and 37 BC respectively.1500 There are indeed many gems bearing this subject and they can be related to these two events, however, for the political reasons, the marriage with Livia seems more appropriate for official propaganda (cat. nos. 9.711-729, figs. 628-629). The proportions of gemstone intaglios to the glass gems are in favour for the latter like it is the case for all other categories of propaganda gems distinguished (3 to 16). Nevertheless, the resemblance of the female haircuts at the time between the official portraits of prominent Roman matrons and casual private figures many times makes it difficult to distinguish which gems really commemorate Octavian’s marriage and which were private tokens of love and marriage. Sometimes the second can be distinguished due to the peculiarities of iconography (cat. nos. 9.730-732, fig. 630) or inscriptions clearly suggesting a private character of the objects rather than official propaganda (cat. nos. 9.733-735, fig. 631). Perhaps also some mythological subjects could recall the marriage of Octavian and Livia as proposed by Weiß in regard to the cornelian intaglio in Berlin presenting Venus (cat. no. 9.736, fig. 632), but such hypotheses seem to include too much speculation. Consequently, one cannot properly judge if there was a significant production of gems commemorating marriages of Octavian and the same is the case of Mark Antony and Octavia which will be discussed later (cf. chapter 9.3.2.6). 9.3.1.8. Divine and mythological references In the 40s and 30s BC there was a development of a strong trend in patronage of a specific deity or even several deities over various Roman politicians. In previous chapters one has observed that either Pompey the Great, Julius Caesar Sextus Pompey and even possibly Marcus Iunius Brutus and Cassius Longinus – all used to make references to their divine patrons in various ways which is reflected in their coinage, architectural plans and their realisations and, of course, engraved gems. In this regard, Octavian was extremely successful as a whole array of various deities: Venus, Mars, Victory, Mercury, Neptune and Jupiter – all acted on his side.1501 In glyptics the same phenomenon is reflected, and this sub-chapter is designed to illustrate that. 1501 Zanker 1988, pp. 53-57. 1502 Zanker 1988, pp. 39-40; Barcaro 2008/2009, pp. 225-236; Morawiecki 2014, pp. 101-103. 1503 Zanker 1988, pp. 53-54; Trunk 2008, p. 163. 1504 Barcaro 2008/2009, pp. 228-230. 1505 Barcaro 2008/2009, p. 236. While discussing commemoration of Octavian’s military victories such as the Battle at Naulochus and Actium, I have highlighted the key role of Neptune in Octavian’s propaganda practices. Just before the Naulochus in 36 BC in various ways Octavian promoted the view that Neptune is on his side in contrast to the well-established image of Neptuni filius that was associated with Sextus Pompey.1502 The victory in the battle with Sextus was the turning point because it confirmed that Neptune is in favour of Octavian; he was his protector and supporter.1503 In ancient literary sources, Octavian is often compared to the god,1504 and the same mechanism functioned on engraved gems. The famous intaglio in Boston depicting Octavian driving a sea-quadriga discussed above is the best illustration of that (cf. chapter 9.3.1.2). In fact, it is supposed that many more intaglios due to their outstanding formats, sizes and style, close to Augustan classicism, are related to this matter too. Sometimes these are mistakenly attributed to Sextus Pompey, but if they had any political significance, this must have been only due to their relationship with Octavian (cf. chapters 9.3.1.2 and 9.3.1.7). But the point of Octavian’s propaganda was not only to reach the divine status, but also to show his complete dominance on the land and sea.1505 For this reason, his image as Neptune, in the Lateran type, who stands with one leg on a prow, should be interpreted not only as a commemoration of the Battle of Actium,1506 but also as a clear sign of his dominance in the whole world which will result in abundance and prosperity to everyone. This is highlighted, for instance, by the globe appearing on some examples (cf. chapter 9.3.1.7).1507 Moreover, the concept was employed also for other deities like Mercury and Mars which was consistent with Octavian’s ideology at the time as each deity represented its different aspect – Neptune domination, Mercury peace and prosperity and Mars security and military power.1508 1506 Toso 2007, p. 209. 1507 Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 128. 1508 Morawiecki 2014, pp. 207-215. 1509 Zanker 1988, pp. 66-67. 1510 Zwierlein-Diehl 1986, no. 143. 1511 Zanker 1988, pp. 66-67. 1512 Zanker 1988, pp. 53 and 105-109. The victory in the Battle of Naulochus was not only due to the help of Neptune, but also Diana. In recognition to her help in the battle, Octavian dedicated her a temple and she was also promoted in glyptics.1509 I have already remarked on an intaglio presenting bust of Diana Siciliensis above (cf. chapter 9.3.1.7), which most likely refers to the Battle at Naulochus. Also, an important piece of evidence for Octavian’s veneration to Artemis/Diana is the fact that on a pair of the agate plaques from London, his sister Octavia was depicted as Artemis/Diana (cf. chapter 9.3.1.2). Some exceptional gems with Diana as the main subject were created in the third quarter of the 1st century BC, for instance by Apollonios II (cat. nos. 9.737-738, figs. 633-634), and one wonders if these were executions created due to the political influence, e.g. Octavian or free creations inspired by more ancient sculptural prototypes.1510 Another case is the cameo vessel housed in St. Petersburg where Diana is paired with Apollo and engaged into a complex scene probably reflecting the real role of midwives in the process of developing the imperial ideology of Augustus, which will be discussed later (cf. chapter 10.9). There is not much more material to look at in Octavian’s early political career. The reason for this can be the fact that propaganda messages encoded into mythological themes are difficult to spot. However, it should be also kept in mind that in his propaganda activities, Octavian focused primarily on Apollo as his patron deity and the temple dedicated through another man (L. Cornificius) to Diana was relatively insignificant so that it would not have taken on the splendour owed to Apollo.1511 Regarding other deities that acted in favour of Octavian, Mars played an important role either as the avenger of Julius Caesar or just a patron in military terms.1512 He appears to be a supporter of Octavian very early, before the Battle of Philippi, which is the best illustrated by his presence on Octavian’s coins clearly minted for the wish of victory in the forthcoming clash.1513 Mars was an important supportive deity to Octavian for his patronage over the Roman army. Because many portrait gems exhibit treats of being produced for Roman soldiers, it is not surprising that among them there is a large group bearing head of Octavian accompanied with various military symbols (shield, spears or trophy) which possibly refer to Mars too (cf. chapter 9.3.1.4). This kind of imagery was appealing for the soldiers and it helped to establish authority of young Octavian among them. Sometimes, this connection is more evident in figural scenes like the one engraved on a cornelian in Lisbon, where Octavian appears as Mars dressed only in a cloak, otherwise naked, with a round shield and spear in front of an aedicule placed on an altar (cat. no. 9.739, fig. 635). The shape of the gemstone employed, and its classicising style suggest dating to the Octavian/Augustan Age. It is difficult to say whether the figure can be identified with Octavian, but this seems possible and the shrine might belong to Artemis/Diana whom he venerated much after the victory at Naulochus so there would be a combination of these two in one piece. Interpreting mythological subjects as propagandistic ones is tricky, though. For example, another interesting cornelian is housed in Vienna and it depicts a male figure standing to the right, holding a round shield in his right arm and a sword in a sheath in the left hand, beside him is a trophy (cat. no. 9.740, fig. 636). Zwierlein-Diehl sees here a Roman general in the guise of Mars whose name would be abbreviated in three letters PRI appearing on the gem.1514 If that is true, it would be a perfect example of auto-presentation through a gem with full identification of the gem’s sitter with his patron deity. But such a level was reserved to very few, e.g. Octavian, and while one does not find any features pointing to him here, the gem probably depicts just Mars to whom the owner of the piece addressed his request for help and support and expected him to bring victory. 1513 RRC, p. 740. 1514 Zwierlein-Diehl 1979, no. 1096. The role of Mars as the avenger might have more powerful meaning in the context of propaganda of all three triumviri and especially Octavian. The god presented on some gems might be an embodiment of this idea. For instance, on a cornelian intaglio in Budapest, Mars stands to the front with a captive under a trophy (cat. no. 9.741, fig. 637). Such a depiction could make an allusion to defeated enemies like Brutus and Cassius after the Battle of Philippi in 42 BC. Moreover, on a series of gems Mars presents his military equipment with a special regard to the shield decorated with a star which might be in fact sidus Iulium making a clear allusion to the avenge of Caesar (cat. nos. 9.742-749, fig. 638). In this instance, Mars was regarded as the divine helper, supporter of the caesarians faction and assistant in the act of avenge. It is difficult to point specific dates and place of production for such items, but the analysis of their provenance and history suggest Rome or Italy. The Temple of Mars Ultor was accomplished in 2 BC in the Forum of Augustus in Rome in order to commemorate emperor’s victory in 42 BC at the Battle of Philippi over the assassins of Julius Caesar. Inside of it, there was a statue of the god which probably looked different than Mars presented on the gems in question (it was rather the classical type of Mars Ultor, extremely popular on engraved gems since then), thus, one believes that these were produced shortly after 42 BC.1515 The fact that some travelled to Dalmatia and other territories outside of Italy may point to their use by Roman legionaries. 1515 Gołyźniak 2017, no. 230. 1516 AGDS II, no. 531; Zanker 1988, p. 36. 1517 Zwierlein-Diehl 1998, no. 65; Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 129. Discussing the role of Mars in propaganda of Octavian and glyptics, one must mention his relationship with gens Iulia in general. This was one of the key aspects of Octavian/Augustus’ ideology. The origin of Rome was born from Mars through Romulus, along with the gens Iulia generated from Venus through the mythical Aeneas. Thus, Octavian/Augustus presented the young Romulus as the new founder of the city and he himself was his successor. This is well reflected in his coinage as well as in the wall painting decorations in Pompeii that possibly inform about the considerable influence of Octavian’s ideology.1516 Regarding engraved gems, the subject of Mars and Venus involvement into the origins of Rome and Octavian’s family is splendidly expressed for instance on the intaglio now in Cologne presenting a scene of Mars giving his sword to Venus (cat. no. 9.750, fig. 639). The propagandistic value of this gem is obvious since Venus was the patroness of gens Iulia and the sword that she is receiving may symbolise the vengeance accomplished at the Battle of Philippi in 42 BC.1517 The artist who created this remarkable intaglio also produced several other pieces that focus on the same theme. For instance, a sard now in Naples cut by his hand there is Mars seated on a cuirass and shield and being crowned by Victory with a laurel wreath – a composition clearly suggesting military victory (cat. no. 9.751, fig. 640). On his another sard, he carved Minerva holding a female head that might belong to the personification of Egypt or Africa and thus, the object would address the success in the Battle at Actium in 31 BC (cat. no. 9.752, fig. 641). From these three stones only, it is altogether clear that the artist responsible for them acted on the commission of Octavian and he used divine subjects as allegories to his patron accomplishments so that it was suggested that they were due to the assistance of Mars, Venus and Victory. The same mechanism functioned after the Battle of Actium since Mars is involved mostly indirectly in the triumph of the order over evil and chaos as has been discussed in case of gems presenting his engagement in gigantomachy and naval themes (cf. chapter 9.3.1.7). The role of Victory in Octavian’s propaganda was extremely important as she broadcasted his accomplished military successes or those wished ones if she appeared with symbolism suggesting a pre-battle situation.1518 It is supposed that bust of the goddess on some gems might be identified with Fulvia – first wife of Mark Antony and Livia – wife of Octavian respectively. They would illustrate the victory and avenge of Julius Caesar wished by the triumvirs in the war with his assassins.1519 Although attractive, the view cannot be entirely accepted as will be discussed later (cf. chapter 9.5.2). Victory’s cult was much widespread shortly after the Battle of Actium. Actually, she became one of the main symbols of this accomplishment due to her statue installed in the Curia Iulia building which was vigorously copied on engraved gems (cf. chapter 9.3.1.7).1520 Nevertheless, one must be careful while judging her depictions on intaglios and cameos. The same wish for victory as the triumvirs had their opponents and for instance, the intaglio from Krakow presumably illustrates that problem in the best way since it is plausible to reflect the caesarians’ hope for victory together with a more general idea of liberation of the Roman Republic from tyranny promoted by the republicans (cat. no. 9.753, fig. 642). Analogous situation is in coinage as some series of coins minted by Casca for Brutus in 43-42 BC depict the goddess as an illustration for the hope of victory in the forthcoming Battle at Philippi.1521 If there is no specific symbolism applied, it is difficult to tell whether some gems should be regarded as propagandistic and to which party they belong to.1522 Another matter is Victoria Augustii who may be securely linked with Augustus, but that issue will be discussed in the chapter 10.6. 1518 Vermeule 1958, p. 5. 1519 Sena Chiesa 1989, pp. 267-269. 1520 Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, pp. 129-131. 1521 Vermeule 1958, p. 8. 1522 Furtwängler 1900, vol. III, p. 291. 1523 Sena Chiesa, Magni and Tassinari 2009, pp. 44-45. 1524 Barcarro 2008/2009, pp. 49-57; Morawiecki 2014, pp. 206-208. The most intriguing case of divine and mythological references practiced by Octavian on engraved gems is the one concerning Mercury.1523 The relationship between the two is well-documented in ancient literary sources as well as in the coinage where the attributes of the god like caduceus often appear on aurei and denarii of Octavian.1524 However, it is rightly observed by Boardman that glyptic art offered much more space and allowed to do things which were not accepted in other branches of art and craftsmanship.1525 For this reason, Octavian’s head as Mercury with caduceus in front of him appears on an unparalleled large agate plaque once in the celebrated Marlborough collection and now on a display in the British Museum in London (cat. no. 9.278, fig. 479). The object has been attributed to engraver Solon about whom I have written above stating that he possibly worked for Octavian in the 30s and early 20s BC (cf. chapter 9.3.1.2).1526 It is tempting to think that the gem was paired with another agate plaque depicting Octavia as Diana since she is facing right, while her brother left. The two could be installed in Octavian’s palace as an antithetic pair for a display as their unusual forms and sizes exclude them to be used for sealing or any other pragmatic purpose. An important thing is that the gem presents Octavian as assimilated with the god not only alluding to him in one way or another, but the direct relationship or even full identification is the subject here. This was unthinkable in coinage or any other mean of propaganda. Most likely, the plaque was a highly personal gift from one of Octavian’s supporters or the other way around, it was commissioned by Octavian to depict him in the guise of a peaceful and bringing abundance and wealth deity – the issues he always tried to highlight in his relationship with Mercury.1527 Yet, this pairing is rather unusual since a natural partner to Diana was her brother Apollo with whom she represented a concept of world order – ordo rerum as a lunar and solar deity respectively. Together, they were often a subject of Octavian/Augustus propaganda in other media.1528 It seems then that the pair of agate plaques must have been cut in the early 20s when Octavian used to employ a whole array of deities to illustrate various aspects of his ideology, including the foundation of his dynasty, and he never made Apollo his chief divine patron.1529 1525 Boardman 1968, p. 28. 1526 Vollenweider 1966, pp. 53-54. 1527 Barcarrro 2008/2009, pp. 59-60. 1528 Morawiecki 2014, pp. 198-202. 1529 Morawiecki 2014, pp. 207-215. As a matter of fact, there is a surprisingly large group of gemstone and glass gems interpreted as depicting Octavian in the guise of Mercury. In this sub-chapter I would like not only to comment those which indeed include a portrait of Octavian, but also draw attention to details and conclude that some pieces are simply studies of Mercury and have nothing in common with Octavian’s propaganda activities. One of the most popular type of gem related to the issue of Octavian’s relationship with Mercury is his portrait combined with one or many attributes of the god like caduceus, tortoise and cockerel (cat. nos. 9.754-759, figs. 643-644). Sometimes these are accompanied with additional symbols like cornucopiae, corn ears, comedy mask and syrinx which stays in consistency with the previously discussed groups presenting Octavian as a guarantor of peace and prosperity (cf. chapter 9.3.1.4). It seems that allusions made to Mercury and even perhaps intended identification with the god was meant to enforce the propagandistic message encoded in those objects. Analysing the provenance and history of those pieces, it can be said that they were also manufactured in Rome or Italy in a broader sense and the ratio of gemstone intaglios to glass gems is as usually in favour to the latter (2 to 4) possibly suggesting a serial production. Another group consists of gems featuring head of a youth with petazos on the head and a variety of accompanying symbols (cat. nos. 9.760-773, figs. 645-649). That head may be also positively identified with Octavian due to some characteristic elements. For instance, many of those gems also address typical issues of promotion of peace, abundance and prosperity through such symbols as cornucopiae, corn ears and parrots, but on cat. no. 9.764, fig. 646) there is a prow that possibly refers to one of the naval battles – Naulochus or Actium. There are also configurations where there is a clear reference to the Second Triumvirate in the form of two clasped hands – dextrarum iunctio symbol (cat. no. 9.772, fig. 648). Finally, in Berlin there is an example of Octavian’s head wearing petazos flanked by Capricorns and with a globe beneath (cat. no. 9.773, fig. 649). This gem makes an allusion to Octavian’s role as the ruler of the land and sea. Another gem also in Berlin presents bust of Octavian as Mercury wearing lotus-petal diadem on his head and caduceus emerging behind his back, and inscription: OPT|ATUS (cat. no. 9.527, fig. 544). The inscription suggests the name of the gem’s sitter and surely supporter of Octavian.1530 In all these cases Octavian is presented in the guise of Mercury to highlight his peaceful nature and a guarantor of positive values such as abundance and prosperity and again, the provenance and history of the pieces in question suggest their production taking place in Rome or Italy but the ratio between gemstone intaglios and glass gems is equal (7 to 7). 1530 Weiß 2007, no. 389. Apart from these, there is a substantial group of problematic gems which bear a similar portrait, but the symbolism is limited only to that related to Mercury (cat. no. 9.774-782, fig. 650). Some of these may have been intended to depict Octavian as Mercury, however having no context and basing purely on iconographical clues, one must accept the view that interpreting them as simple busts and heads of Mercury is equally possible. Not less problematic is a group of gems presenting youthful head surrounded with various symbols, but the main one is the winged foot of Mercury (cat. nos. 9.774-791, figs. 651-652). Here, there is a mixture since many objects clearly relate to Octavian naval battles (symbolised by dolphins, trident, rudder etc. (cat. nos. 9.783, 785-788 and 790-791, figs. 651-652) and his relationship with Caesar (adoption ring – cat. no. 9.783, fig. 651), while other objects lack these elements, therefore, one wonders with they depict Octavian as Mercury or simply Mercury. Taking a more general look on the matter, it is evident that the number of gems presenting Octavian identified with Mercury is overestimated if compared to other deities like Neptune, Mars, Diana, Victory, Apollo and Jupiter, thus, one should critically examine all the evidence and if the identification of the subject-matter as related to Octavian is based only on the basis of the portrait itself, this is not enough and leads to overinterpretation of the gems presenting Mercury as objects of political propaganda. Besides, analysing Octavian’s propaganda activities on the whole, it is clear that in other media Apollo, Venus and Mars were the main subjects of promotion rather than Mercury, hence, I believe that his outstanding popularity in glyptics is due to overinterpretations of many portrait gems as shown above. Regarding Jupiter his relationship with Octavian is noticeable in coinage where a combination of a portrait of Octavian and a herm of Jupiter Terminus or Feretrius on one denarius appears, and another one represents Octavian-Jupiter Terminus or Feretrius herm combined with Octavian seated on sella curulis with Victoriola on his hand.1531 Many interpretations of these two issues exist, but it is generally accepted that Octavian is associated with Jupiter Terminus or Feretrius here to illustrate integrity of the empire and its borders and also legal inclusion of the eastern parts that were bestowed by Mark Antony to his children against the interest of Rome.1532 Although head of Jupiter Terminus was a popular subject in Roman Republican glyptics, one is unable to identify similar versions to these appearing on Octavian’s coins.1533 Perhaps, a point of reference between Octavian and Jupiter on gems is the globe - symbol of domination on the land and sea appearing in combinations with other symbols (cf. chapter 9.3.1.9).1534 The relationship between Augustus and Jupiter is much clearer, for instance on the famous Gemma Augustea or another cameo from Vienna which shall be discussed in detail in chapters 10.5-10.6 and 10.9. 1531 RIC I2 Augustus, no. 36 and RIC I2 Augustus, no. 270 (denarius of Augustus, 29-27 BC) respectively. 1532 Zanker 1988, pp. 55-56; Morawiecki 2014, p. 209. 1533 For Jupiter Terminus image in glyptic art on gems produced ca. mid of the 1st century BC and their contemporary coins images, see: Gołyźniak 2017, no. 87. 1534 Maderna-Lauter 1988, pp. 457-458; Sena Chiesa 2012, p. 260. All the deities described above as related to Octavian usually played a supportive role to him, except for Mercury, who is to be sometimes observed as more than that with attempts to the identification that was meant to establish Octavian’s image of a peace loving and a society carrying politician. Nevertheless, even these actions cannot be compared to the ones that Octavian and later Augustus addressed to Apollo.1535 Since the very beginning he used to refer to him in his coinage like the republicans did and after winning the Battle of Philippi in 42 BC, he proved that Apollo was acting on his side.1536 Various symbols of Apollo (a tripod, raven etc.) appear on coins as references to the liberators of the Roman Republic. It is observed that the same symbolism was taken over by Octavian in his coinage since ca. 37 BC which was a natural reaction (counterpropaganda) to Mark Antony’s identification with Neos Dionysus and Sextus Pompey’s with Neptune.1537 Similar symbolism functioned on engraved gems but without any specific context and points of reference, one cannot tell if some of them were used by followers of Octavian or the republicans for manifestation of specific political views and allegiance to one political party or another (cf. chapter 9.3.1.9). For this reason, the meaning of glyptic art in propagation of the connection between Octavian and Apollo might be underestimated here.1538 I have remarked on the fact that initially, Octavian used a sphinx motif for his personal seal that he inherited from his mother who, according to a legend, bore him after being inseminated by Apollo in the god’s temple while sleeping. This was not a coincidence, but a conscious propaganda act aimed at creation of a strong relationship between Octavian and Apollo (cf. chapter 9.3.1.3).1539 1535 Morawiecki 2014, pp. 204-215. 1536 Zanker 1988, p. 49; Morawiecki 2014, pp. 182-183. 1537 RRC, p. 744; Ritter 1995, p. 81; Kühnen 2005, pp. 121-122; Barcarro 2008/2009, p. 36; Morawiecki 2014, pp. 153-154 and 182-188; Campagnolo and Fallani 2018, no. X.5.i, p. 296. 1538 See more optimistic point of view on this matter in: Maderna-Lauter 1988, p. 447; Zanker 1988, p. 49; Barcarro 2008/2009, pp. 15-29. 1539 Suetonius, Augustus, 94. 1540 Vollenweider 1966, pp. 54-55. Even though symbolic gems are problematic due to the lack of direct connectors that would allow identify them with Octavian and his promotion of the cult of Apollo, one observes a considerable role the god played in Octavian’s propaganda practices aimed at celebration of the victory at Actium. I have already discussed several gems commemorating not only the victory itself but also promoting Octavian’s identification with the god (cf. chapter 9.3.1.7). In the repertoire of gems attributed to engraver Solon, Vollenweider notices bust of Apollo in Florence that was possibly cut by him or in his workshop and could be commissioned by Octavian after the Battle of Actium (cat. no. 9.792, fig. 653).1540 Similarly, I think it should be argued if an amethyst masterpiece intaglio in the J. Paul Getty Museum in Malibu attributed to Solon, depicting bust of Apollo does not evoke Octavian to some degree (cat. no. 9.279, fig. 480). It is a fact that after the Battle of Actium the image of Apollo became extremely popular in glyptics which suggests his special place in Octavian’s propaganda activities. The best illustration of this is a cornelian intaglio in the Hermitage Museum in St. Petersburg signed by Hyllos that depicts a diademed bust of Apollo to the right (cat. no. 10.8, fig. 854). This gem reproduces the head of Apollo from the statue by Scopas (4th century BC) which was transported from Ramnunta (Greece) to Rome in 28 BC and installed in the Temple of Apollo on the Palatine Hill. The type was then frequently copied (cat. no. 9.793, fig. 654) which resulted in several new versions where Apollo wears a laurel wreath (cat. nos. 9.794-796, fig. 655), there is his bow and quiver with him (cat. nos. 9.797-798, fig. 656), his cithara (cat. nos. 9.799-802, fig. 644/657) or a laurel branch (cat. no. 9.803, fig. 645/658). Overall, the image of Apollo and laurel were two symbols standing for Octavian/Augustus aurea aetas concept and therefore were suitable subjects for the glyptic objects at the time.1541 Apollo also symbolised new era and was responsible for the world order like Octavian/Augustus who after the Battle of Actium changed rhetoric of his propaganda putting emphasis on his capabilities to rule the Roman Empire (cat. nos. 9.804-807).1542 Sometimes still the subject of Atia’s insemination by Apollo reflecting his role as the divine father of the Julian clan was promoted like on an intaglio from Hannover (cat. no. 9.808, fig. 659). All those gems cannot be precisely dated and could be executed in the last third of the 1st century BC or even in the early 1st century AD, but it is altogether clear that the victory at Actium triggered their production as they were a part of the cult of Apollo either with epithet Acticus, Palatinus or any other – the patron deity of Octavian/Augustus.1543 More examples of this peculiar phenomenon shall be discussed in the next chapter since Apollo was an important element of the Imperial propaganda of Augustus. 1541 Wünsche, Steinhart and Weiß 2010, no. 42. 1542 Morawiecki 2014, pp. 198-205. 1543 Spier 2001, no. 23; Morawiecki 2014, pp. 189-199. 1544 For instance: Seneca, Troades, 188-189. For some more examples and commentary, see: Barcarro 2008/2009, pp. 162-169. There was a general trend in glyptics towards the end of the 1st century BC that Trojan War subjects became increasingly preferred. Among them, Aeneas and Diomedes had special meaning for Augustus propaganda and they will be discussed in the chapter 10.7. Concerning other mythological figures related to Octavian, Achilles comes to mind. In ancient literary sources there are some passages where he is compared to the hero.1544 Toso claims that the motif of Priam begging Achilles to give him the corpse of Hector might have reflected the concept of clementia. Since Achilles could embodied Octavian/Augustus, a gem bearing such a scene might have represented his clementia.1545 This view is supported by literary sources since Ovid writes about Octavian/Augustus’ clemency and compares him to Achilles.1546 After the Battle of Actium, Octavian was providing insurance for the future as a pledge that clementia would be shown to other defeated nations and conquered people, provided that they submitted to the might of Rome. Reflections of this concept are difficult to spot in glyptic material, but sometimes small details are helpful.1547 For example, on the cameo in the Hermitage Museum in St. Petersburg presenting Priam and Achilles, a sphinx sitting on a column indicates the subject to be related to Octavian as he used that motif for his personal seals (cat. no. 9.809, fig. 660). Sphinx may also reflect Egypt and the East in general that after Actium joined the rest of the Roman Empire. There could be many more gems showing Achilles but meant to be compared with Octavian since the hero was immensely popular in the last third of the 1st century BC. For instance, an amethyst in Cambridge presents Achilles sulking in response to having been wronged by Agamemnon or mourning Patroclus (cat. no. 9.810, fig. 661). Henig suggests the gem to have come from Solon’s workshop which is indeed possible and there could be equation between Octavian and Achilles.1548 Vollenweider proposed for several gems depicting Achilles at various activities to link them with Octavian since she noticed facial features and coiffure similarities on some of them to portraits of Octavian (cat. no. 9.811, fig. 662). However, already Furtwängler noticed some difficulties in making such identifications, although the subjects and quality of engraving in some cases clearly indicate Augustan Age (cat. no. 9.812, fig. 663). Furthermore, Weiß convincingly argues that this way of identification is misleading. The portrait type which Vollenweider attributed to Octavian so often was in fact employed for various Greek heroes and many of them had no connections with Octavian whatsoever. Instead, they derive from a 4th century prototype, thus, unless there is at least one element or the whole composition makes a clear allusion to Octavian, identifications with him should be treated as highly speculative.1549 1545 Toso 2007, pp. 25-26. 1546 Ovid, trist. 3.5.37-38 1547 Vahl 2007, p. 15. 1548 Henig, Scarisbrick and Whiting 1994, no. 196. 1549 Weiß 2007, no. 254. 1550 Ritter 1995, p. 190. Concerning Heracles, Ritter made an interesting observation that during the reign of Octavian/Augustus, one observes a considerable decrease in gems with motifs related to Heracles, including his image. This was due to new trends in art in general after the Battle of Actium and the fact that Mark Antony identified with the hero before.1550 This theory is only partially true for politics indeed strongly influenced glyptic production in the last third of the 1st century BC, however, images of Heracles are still present. Moreover, some scholars attempt to connect glyptic masterpieces presenting Heracles with Octavian. Vollenweider suggested that Anteros, who cut an amethyst with Heracles carrying a bull (cat. no. 9.813, fig. 664), worked for Octavian. She claimed that the hero should be identified with Octavian on the basis of facial features and coiffure which both, according to her, resemble portraits of Octavian.1551 On the same basis sometimes other gems presenting heads and busts of Heracles are linked with Octavian (cat. nos. 9.814-817, fig. 665). Nevertheless, as pointed out above, Weiß convincingly argues that similarity of some heads to Octavian’s portraits are coincidental or rather effects of scholars’ rampant imaginary. It is noteworthy that the famous cameo presenting Heracles wrestling with Cerberus by Dioscurides, now in Berlin, has also been suggested to fit Octavian’s propaganda programme (cat. no. 9.818, fig. 666).1552 Toso thinks that Octavian/Augustus could use the motif of Heracles when he performs one of the labours as this was exemplum virtutis and exemplum pietatis – both were positive values and might be useful for Octavian/Augustus.1553 However, this is not a very convincing explanation especially giving the fact that in other branches of art and craftsmanship Octavian does not exploit Heracles for his propaganda purposes.1554 Regarding Heracles, it is noteworthy to mention that he rarely appears as killing a giant or hydra with his club in a very similar way to Mars and Athena discussed above (cat. nos. 9.819-820, fig. 667). This fact makes my claim about very low political potential of such imaginary in Octavian’s propaganda as believed by other scholars (cf. discussion in chapter 9.3.1.7) 1551 Vollenweider 1966, pp. 43-44. Her view has been accepted, for instance by Toso, see: 2007, pp. 177-178. 1552 Vollenweider 1966, p. 60. 1553 Toso 2007, p. 191. 1554 The most recent analysis of this cameo does not support its propagandistic value too, see: Platz-Horster 2012, no. 25. 1555 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 205-206. Regrading comparisons to Greek heroes the next one concerning Octavian is Meleager. Although in this case there is no evidence in the literary sources for such a phenomenon, some gems present intriguing subjects that have been regarded as illustrating this issue. Meleager was a skilful hunter most famed for the Calydonian boar hunt and one of the Argonauts. Vollenweider noticed a gem presenting a young male head with a spear behind and head of a boar beneath (cat. no. 821, fig. 668). She associated it with Octavian and due to the accompanying symbolism identified him as Octavian-Meleager and took the piece as commemorating the Battle of Naulochus.1555 In my research, I have found three more examples presenting similar iconography (cat. nos. 9.822-824). Although Vollenweider’s hypothesis is attractive and has been accepted by some scholars,1556 in all the cases the head is schematically engraved, thus identification of the portrait with Octavian is uncertain and the symbolism is unusual for him. The reasoning of Vollenweider also includes the type of the head of Octavian with two spears behind interpreted as an allusion to Meleager, which numerous portraits we have already discussed above (cf. chapter 9.3.1.4). Those portrait gems might compare Octavian with Mars, however the four ones under discussion here are more likely private objects reflecting auto-presentation of their owners who wished to be compared with the Greek hero or the portraits involving the head of a boar simply present Meleager himself and have no political message encoded whatsoever. The fact that a sort of similar type (head of Octavian with two spears behind) have been positively identified with Octavian does not mean that one should automatically identify other similar compositions like the one with head of a boar discussed here, since one iconographical element can make a huge difference and I believe this is the case here. 1556 For instance, see: Toso 2007, p. 100. 1557 Vollenweider 1966, p. 52. 1558 Kagan and Neverov 2000, no. 35/16. 1559 Zwierlein-Diehl 1986, no. 465. 1560 Furtwängler 1888-1889, p. 51. 1561 For a fruitful discussion on this matter, see: Weiß 2007, no. 254. More problematic is a cornelian intaglio in St. Petersburg presenting a young, naked Greek hero leaning on a pillar and feeding an eagle with a hare and his dog sits behind him (cat. no. 9.825, fig. 669). Basing on the similarity of the head of the youth to Octavian portraits, Vollenweider interpreted the piece as Octavian feeding the Imperial eagle – an allegory to his protection of the Roman Empire.1557 However, this seems a quite far-fetched hypothesis. Other scholars take the figure depicted on this piece as Ganymede flirting with Zeus in the guise of eagle which is also unconvincing giving the fact that Ganymede was a shepherd, not a hunter,1558 or Meleager which is probably the most convincing identification.1559 I believe that the gem in question probably copies the theme of the famous masterpiece signed by Koinos which was based on a sculptural prototype.1560 It is another version like many others (cat. nos. 9.826-828) and it is not clear if all of them were meant to present Meleager, Actaeon or Hippolytus.1561 Be that as it may, their identification with Octavian’s propaganda is hazardous. Another case is Theseus. I have already discussed an intaglio possibly engraved by Solon or in his workshop presenting, in omy opinion, Theseus and his father Aegeus as an allegorical depiction of the relationship between Julius Caesar and Octavian (cf. chapter 9.3.1.2). This concept might have been illustrated by a series of exceptionally well-cut gems, some of them attributed to Solon and his workshop, presenting Theseus examining the sword of his father (cat. nos. 9.829-836, fig. 670) as well as ordinary and cheap glass gems (cat. nos. 9.837-838). Although many variants exist, they all follow one tradition and some of the pieces have heads resembling portraits of Octavian.1562 Naturally, these similarities might be just coincidental as it seems to be the case of other gems supposed to depict Octavian in the guise of various Greek heroes discussed above and the subject was quite popular in general at the time, but the conceptual aspect is far stronger in case of Theseus. Perhaps political message of Octavian as the heir of Caesar was implemented into the already recognisable subject to increase its success. Among these gems there is a nicolo intaglio signed by Solon, set in a ring and discovered in 1861 in Pompeii. It presents a male figure leaning on a club and holding a sword in a sheath (cat. no. 9.839, fig. 671). Vollenweider widely discussed the piece and interpreted the figure as Heracles and linked him with Mark Antony on the basis of his identification with the hero.1563 Moreover, she proposed that the ring once belonged to one of Antony’s followers, possibly a veteran from his army who resided in Pompeii instead of going to Egypt. However, as it has recently been established nor the subject, neither the dating of the gem was correct. In fact, the male hero should be identified as Theseus.1564 Furthermore, the idea of linking the object with one of Antony’s veterans is unconvincing and lastly, if compared to other works by Solon, the nicolo from Pompeii exhibits strong classicising influence which points to Octavian/Augustan Era.1565 As a result, if the gem had any political significance, it should be linked to Octavian, not Antony. 1562 Vollenweider 1966, p. 52. 1563 Vollenweider 1966, pp. 49-50. 1564 Hekster 2004, pp. 171-172. 1565 For a detailed discussion of Solon’s style of engraving, see: Plantzos 1999, p. 97. 1566 Kühnen 2005, pp. 26-27 and 131-134. 1567 Kühnen 2005, pp. 142-160. Finally, it should be mentioned that the victory at Actium encouraged Octavian to advertise new concepts for his political propaganda. As I have discussed above, most likely at that time he changed his personal seal from the sphinx to portrait of Alexander the Great which is probably the purest example of imitatio Alexandri possible in terms of glyptic art (cf. chapter 9.3.1.3). Adoption of this portrait, was a clear comparison of the Actium success to the conquest of the East by Alexander and on a personal level, Octavian regarded himself equal to the Macedonian king.1566 Comparisons between Octavian and Alexander are frequent and evident in contemporary literature.1567 It is interesting to observe that a considerable number of gemstone and glass gems presenting head of Alexander the Great is produced in the last third of the 1st century BC and perhaps early 1st century AD (cat. nos. 9.840-848, fig. 672). They are Roman imitations of the Hellenistic images, sometimes even cut as cameos (cat. nos. 9.849-851, fig. 673) and what is more the Petescia hoard contains an exceptional cameo presenting, as recently re-evaluated by Platz-Horster, diademed bust of Octavian/Augustus identified with Alexander the Great (cat. no. 9.852, fig. 674). This piece is unique and certifies that glyptics allowed promotion of much bolder propaganda messages to be transmitted than any other branch of Roman art. One supposes that majority of the gems in question was manufactured shortly after 30 BC. This production was possibly an effect of Octavian’s application of the image of Alexander as his personal seal and bringing the figure of the Macedonian king to the public so his propaganda of the victory at Actium was successful.1568 1568 Plantzos 1999, p. 62. 1569 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 214-215. For the coin, see: RIC I2 Augustus 271 (denarius of Augustus, 29-27 BC). 1570 Spier 2001, no. 21. 1571 Zanker 1988, pp. 41-42. Concerning Octavian’s imitatio Alexandri reflected in glyptics, Vollenweider suggested that the gem now in Lisbon presenting a young male figure leaning on a spear presents Octavian as Jupiter (cat. no. 9.853, fig. 675). She compared the image to the statue that stood on the Columna Rostrata erected after the Battle of Actium which also appears on coins minted ca. 29-27 BC (fig. 663).1569 Indeed, the subject is close to the mentioned statue and the engraving is of high level suggesting it to be a product of the Imperial Court workshop.1570 Nevertheless, as Zanker observes, in this image Octavian somehow follows Pompey the Great who brought to Rome the mantle of Alexander the Great from the East as he uses one like this too.1571 Therefore, he should be recognised on the intaglio in question as Alexander the Great who conquered the East as well. On a cornelian intaglio in London Octavian might be also presented as Alexander the Great as he stands next to a horse wearing chlamys and holding a sceptre (cat. no. 9.854, fig. 676). In this case the references to Alexander’s peculiar attributes were probably meant to identify the youth, whose head is given Octavian’s features, with the famous Macedonian king. Apart from such direct allusions to Alexander, indirect connections between him and Octavian are also noticeable, and they concern glyptic art too. For instance, Plantzos remarks that Olympias, mother of Alexander, was sealed (inseminated) by Ammon in the very same way as Atia, mother of Octavian was which is an interesting and possibly deliberate imitation of the story by Octavian.1572 Vollenweider suggested that at least some gems presenting Achilles may hide allusions to Alexander the Great and their popularity was due to promotion of Alexander by Octavian.1573 Henig believes that Dioscurides’ signed intaglio presenting Alexander the Great as Achilles may recall that seal used by Augustus (cat. no. 9.855, fig. 678), but the subject seems more popular (cat. no. 9.856) and as discussed above, Alexander’s portrait seems more suitable (cf. chapter 9.3.1.3).1574 Furthermore, it is rightly observed by Toso that Achilles was widely popular in the Late Roman Republican glyptics in general as he was an attractive image for Roman soldiers and generals in the army. Even though there was some kind of bound between the hero and Octavian (see above) perhaps Alexander the Great could somehow get in between the two, for instance on the famous gem presenting Achilles signed by Dioscurides.1575 Nevertheless, in my opinion, such motifs are extremely vague and having no context either archaeological or the one drawn from literary sources, the discussion on them is based on pure speculations. Imitatio Alexandri was vigorously practiced by Octavian also during his reign as Augustus and as it will be shown, the moment when legionary standards were regained from the Parthians in 20 BC was the next occasion enlarging the scale of this phenomenon. 1572 Plantzos 1999, p. 20. 1573 Vollenweider 1966, p. 61. 1574 Henig 1994, p. 153. 1575 Toso 2007, pp. 31-34. 1576 Vollenweider 1955, pp. 100-101. 1577 Sena Chiesa 2002, p. 490; Sena Chiesa 2013, p. 68. 1578 Sena Chiesa 2002, pp. 410-411. 9.3.1.9. Political symbols According to a popular view, political leaders of the caesarians party used the same symbolism on engraved gems as Julius Caesar did in order to show their intentions to continue his programme of ordo rerum – focusing on promotion of peace and prosperity that should be guaranteed by their reign.1576 Because on gems produced at the time there are many symbols related to deities such as Mercury or Heracles, it has been somehow automatically accepted that these elements refer to Octavian and Mark Antony respectively.1577 Moreover, it is believed that some combinations stand for peculiar virtues promoted by these political leaders such as virtus, dignitas, pax and concordia.1578 In case of Octavian, there are also some symbols very peculiar for him like the sphinx or Capricorn. Nevertheless, it should be examined what kinds of configurations indeed had propagandistic character and which did not since they could have been also used for personal purposes as seals or amulets. One of the symbols appearing on engraved gems that is often given political significance and is linked with establishment of the Second Triumvirate are two clasped hands (dextrarum iunctio) which was a symbol of Concordia, in that case, between the three leaders of the caesarians party or a symbol of peace guaranteed by Octavian.1579 This is due to the fact that the motif appears in coinage of the triumviri but in case of Octavian and Mark Antony also on the issues commemorating reconciliation after the Brundisium War.1580 In fact in glyptics, the subject of dextrarum iunctio was vastly popular in the whole 1st century BC and especially in the second half of that century and beyond in the Imperial period. As has been discussed above, the gems with such iconography could be used as betrothal gifts or simply amulets guarantying wealth and prosperity to their owners (cf. chapter 9.3.1.4). Moreover, some gems exhibit a close connection between Mercury and the subject of two clasped hands which can in fact stand for the god himself if they hold a caduceus or Mercury stands on them (cat. nos. 9.857-861, fig. 679). Therefore, I think that most of the gems involving dextrarum iunctio motif produced in the second half of the 1st century BC were used as private amulets. The only exceptions are those gems where the symbol is set together with a head of a youth probably identified with Octavian, sometimes in the guise of Mercury (cf. chapters 9.3.1.4 and 9.3.1.8). Only these may have some propagandistic meaning unless they depict once again, simply Mercury. In the absence of science, the propagandistic value of these and other gems cannot be properly measured. 1579 Vollenweider 1955, pp. 100-101; Richter 1956, no. 563; Vollenweider 1984, no. 334. 1580 RRC, nos. 494/10-12 (aurei of C. Vibius Varus, 42 BC) and no. 494/41 (denarius of L. Mussidius Longus, 42 BC) and nos. 529/4a-b (quinari of Mark Antony and Octavian, 39 BC). 1581 Maderna-Lauter 1988, p. 463. A similar situation is with symbolic gems presenting combinations related to Apollo who was the main divine supporter of Octavian, especially shortly before and after the Battle of Actium. Within the vast number of gems presenting symbolism related to this deity, raven seems to be of special importance and it exists in combination with symbols that may have some political significance.1581 Among them are the globe – symbol of domination on the land and sea (cat. no. 9.862, fig. 680), eagle – which may stand for the imperial power (cat. no. 9.863, fig. 681), bust of Athena which signifies military power (cat. no. 9.864, fig. 682), a palm branch symbolising victory (cat. nos. 9.865-866, fig. 683) or a burning altar, that may symbolise celebrations after the successful battle (cat. no. 9.867, fig. 684). Apart from these, during the political domination of Octavian/Augustus a number of gems in my opinion being private amulets intended to bring good luck, prosperity and blessing of Apollo as well as other deities was produced, even though they are sometimes taken as reflecting Octavian’s promotion of a new age – aurea aetas (cat. nos. 9.868-870, fig. 685). Even the examples listed by us above which might have some political significance are uncertain as the globe and eagle may stand for Jupiter as well, bust of Athena her blessing, a palm branch a private victory, probably the wished one and the burning altar one of the basing elements of the nature – fire. There are multiple explanations for such combinations and having no direct indicator or context to link them with a specific politician, e.g. Octavian, it is impossible to rightly judge their propaganda value. However, it is a fact that production of gems bearing combinations involving symbols related to Apollo considerably raised during Augustus reign, which may indicate to their political use, but this issue will be more extensively discussed in the chapter 10.8 while addressing the aurea aetas concept. At some point of the 30s BC, Octavian employed the sphinx motif as his personal seal. According to Pliny the Elder, Suetonius and Dio Cassius, he took two identical rings from his mother Atia, which is not a coincidence, but a purposeful propaganda action referring to her miraculous insemination by the god Apollo and later birth of Octavian.1582 For the sphinx was the symbol of the regnum Apollonis prophesied by the Sybil and soon it became a frequent element in the whole Octavian/Augustan art.1583 Octavian was purposed to be a new Apollo who will introduce peace and prosperity to the roman Empire.1584 In Augustan context, sphinx is often explained as a symbol of victory over the East, the harbinger of the Golden Age and the guardian of the New World.1585 Indeed, there was a significant increase in production of gems bearing sphinxes at the times of Octavian/Augustus political dominance and this is certainly to some degree a result of his propaganda. For he not only used the symbol as his own private seal, which could be influential and encourage his followers to use it as one of the tokens of his party, but he also promoted it in his coinage.1586 Furthermore, Pliny informs that the two seals of Octavian/Augustus could have been used by Maecenas and Agrippa to open and seal 1582 Pliny, NH, XXXVII.4 and 10; Suretonius, Augustus, 50; Dio Cassius, Historia Romana, LI.3.6. 1583 Zanker 1988, pp. 49-50. 1584 Morawiecki 2014, p. 181. 1585 Sagiv 2018, pp. 148-149. 1586 Sphinx appears on Octavian/Augustus cistophori probably minted in Pergamum ca. 29-27 BC (RIC I2 Augustus, no. 492) and also later on his aurei from 19-18 BC (RIC I2 Augustus, no. 511). See also, Sutherland 1970, pp. 90–99, pls. XVII-XIX. the letters on his behalf.1587 Basing on this, some scholars even suggest that sphinx became a universal symbol of the Roman Empire and was used as the official state seal.1588 1587 Pliny, NH, XXXVII.10. 1588 Sena Chiesa 1966, no. 1217. 1589 Weiß 1996, no. 391. 1590 Henig 1975, no. 171. 1591 Gołyźniak 2017, no. 300. Surely, sphinx had a considerable political significance in the times of Augustus, but not all depictions of this creature on gems dated to that period should be taken as propagandistic and the whole phenomenon is often too bloated. Weiß and Zwierlein-Diehl rightly point out that the variant of a female sphinx with straight wings and head having hair braided around the head and tight in a bun at its back, resembling the one belonging to Octavia, was the motif used by Octavian and perhaps his followers, however, it is not altogether clear if these gems were produced in one workshop in Egypt as they claim since my provenance and history analysis suggest many examples to be cut in Italy (cat. nos. 9.871-896, figs. 686-687).1589 Indeed, this type is the most popular one appearing on both, gemstone and glass intaglios and even on several cameos which must be contemporary (cat. nos. 9.897-900, fig. 688). Another popular type is the same female sphinx as described above but with caduceus in front of it (cat. nos. 9.901-908, figs. 689-690). This version probably introduces another deity related to Octavian – Mercury or attest politician’s will to restore peace within the Roman Empire. The combination of Apollo and Mercury on one gem as deities supporting Octavian is the best illustrated on a cornelian now in Berlin where a female sphinx sits to the right while Mercury with a caduceus and money bag stands above and there is cockerel below (cat. no. 9.905, fig. 689). Henig suggests that these kinds o gems were used by followers of Octavian, perhaps distributed to them directly from their patron.1590 However, it must be highlighted that it is difficult to estimate how big was the scale of this propaganda action and the actual use of the sphinx motif by the followers of Octavian. I have collected several examples where the female sphinx in the Octavian/Augustan type is accompanied with an inscription (cat. nos. 9.909-915, fig. 691). In most of the cases, they refer to gem sitters’ names. There is no evidence from them for some particular relationship with Octavian and they could be used as private seals because sphinx was considered a warden of the secret and as such, he was a perfect device to protect the message or content of the sealed letter or document.1591 It is noteworthy that sealings with that device are found throughout the Mediterranean basin (cat. nos. 9.916-917, fig. 692). The motif of sphinx in glyptics at the time around 1st century BC/AD and especially under Octavian/Augustus was not limited only to the variants discussed above. There are representations of the creature completely eastern in character where the sphinx has modius on the head, upturned and curved wings or even a bearded male head (cat. nos. 9.918-932, figs. 693-695). Moreover, occasionally sphinx plays with a human head which is a reference to the famous myth of Oedipus (cat. nos. 9.933-943, fig. 696). Although some scholars propose to regard such depictions as related to Octavian/Augustus,1592 I believe they were used as private seals or in acts of auto-presentation rather than had any propagandistic significance in contrast to the female version described above. Finally, it is noteworthy that the sphinx motif in all the variants was continuously used also in the Roman Imperial era which supports my hypothesis of its primary significance as a seal device, especially in the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire (cat. nos. 9.944-945). 1592 For instance, Berges 2002, no. 115. 1593 Suetonius, Augustus, 94. 1594 RIC I2 Augustus, no. 545 and see also a companion aureus - RIC I2 Augustus, no. 544. 1595 Zanker 1988, p. 48. A similar view has also been expressed by Sena Chiesa, see: 2002, pp. 410-411 and 2012, p. 265. Another important and frequently used symbol in Octavian’s propaganda was his zodiacal sign – Capricorn. Suetonius tells a popular story about young Octavian being a student in Apollonia and having his horoscope read by astrologer Theogenes. The interpretation was so positive that ‘from this moment Octavian had such great faith in his own destiny that he made public his horoscope and later minted a silver coin with the Zodiac sign Capricorn, under which he was born’.1593 This could be a denarius struck by Octavian ca. 28-27 BC with his portrait and Capricorn sign on the obverse and crocodile on the reverse side, which commemorated the Battle of Actium (fig. 697).1594 Shortly after 30 BC Capricorn was employed in official propaganda of Octavian and later Augustus especially on gems and coins. Zanker believes that Octavian’s followers would have worn glass gems representing this zodiacal sign in rings as cheap substitutes for precious stones.1595 Although propagandistic value of such gems was considerable this view is only partially true for there are several other explanations for popularity of Capricorn on gems. Capricorn is engraved on intaglios already in the 2nd century BC and since the very beginning it was used as an astrological symbol standing for one’s horoscope (cat. nos. 9.946-949, fig. 698). These early examples suggest that also many later gems were used as private astrological amulets, especially those where Capricorn is accompanied with stars, crescent and other astrological symbols or conjoined with other zodiacal signs like Taurus, Pisces or Scorpion (cat. nos. 9.950-959, fig. 699).1596 1596 For a more extensive discussion on this issue, see: Dwyer 1973; Weiß 1994 and 2010. Regarding Scorpion, Weiß suggests that its combination with Capricorn may symbolise Augustus and Tiberius zodiacal signs (1996, no. 402), however, giving the fact that combinations with Taurus or Pisces also exist, it seems more reasonable to regard them as just astrological amulets having no political significance. 1597 Hamburger 1968, p. 20. 1598 Henkel 1913, no. 1167; Vollenweider 1979, no. 583; Plantzos 1998, pp. 37-38. It is noteworthy that similar compositions exist on much later gems dated to the 1st-3rd century AD, see, for instance: AGDS III Braunschweig, nos. 180-181; Henig and Whiting 1987, nos. 314-317; Guiraud 1988, nos. 812-813; Casal Garcia 1990, nos. 416-418. 1599 RIC I2 Augustus, nos. 477, 480, 488, 489 and 493. According to Hamburger, in ancient Rome, to be born under the sign of Capricorn was regarded as a lucky omen, therefore attributes of Fortuna like the rudder and cornucopia often accompany the creature on some gems to illustrate a positive private horoscope.1597 This is the best illustrated on a glass gem in Copenhagen featuring a male head between a Bull and Capricorn (cat. no. 9.957, fig. 700). However, not in all instances this is true as will be explained later. The next functions of Capricorn on gems were sealing and gifts. There are several gems presenting the creature with inscriptions pointing to the names of intaglios’ owners (private seals) or specific wishes suggesting them to be love gifts (cat. nos. 9.960-961, fig. 701) as well as actual sealings where a motif involving Capricorn was reproduced (cat. nos. 9.962-965, fig. 702). Another plausible explanation for Capricorn’s appearance on gems is that as early as the time of Julius Caesar, Roman legions bore, in addition to their cognomen, an emblem, often related to the zodiacal sign of their founder or of their own foundation date – dies natales. Therefore, gems with Capricorn may have belonged to Roman soldiers and could have been used by them as an emblem of specific unit they belonged to rather than a sign of political allegiance to Octavian/Augustus.1598 This is suggested by military symbols combined with Capricorn on several examples (cat. nos. 9.966-969, fig. 703), however, one cannot exclude that those symbolise Octavian and his military victory as well. There is a class of gems presenting Capricorn with symbols of victory like a palm branch, trophy or a laurel wreath (cat. nos. 9.970-974, fig. 704). These often include naval elements like a rudder or dolphins which actually may point to the Battle of Actium. Moreover, some specimens from Munich and Hannover (cat. nos. 9.975-976, fig. 705) clearly copy the reverse of the cistophori of Augustus minted throughout 27-20 BC with Capricorn and cornucopia within a laurel wreath which motif commemorated the Battle of Actium (fig. 706).1599 The naval symbols accompanying Capricorn are quite popular on engraved gems dated to the last third of the 1st century BC and early 1st century AD (cat. nos. 9.977-988, figs. 707-708). Elements like dolphins, trident and rudder place such subjects into the marine category, perhaps pointing to Neptune and thus, one associates them with celebration of Octavian’s victory at Actium. Analysing provenance and history of those gems it is clear that they were produced in Italy and exported from the peninsula by soldiers as some are found in military areas alongside the limes (cat. nos. 9.981 and 985-987). It is noteworthy that this symbolism also occurred on Octavian portrait gems (cf. chapter 9.3.1.4). Similarly, a portion of the gems bearing Capricorn present the creature surrounded with symbols of prosperity like cornucopiae, fish and parrots (cat. nos. 9.989-998, figs. 709-710). Bucolic elements also appear (cat. nos. 9.999-1000, fig. 711). All these configurations possibly make references to abundance and prosperity that would have followed Octavian’s victory at Actium. There are also intaglios presenting Capricorn swimming to the side over two clasped hands (dextrarum iunctio) with additional symbolism like a poppy, corn ears and star (cat. nos. 9.1001-1002, figs. 712-713). These examples are interpreted as referring to the Second Triumvirate or peace and world order established after the Battle of Actium,1600 but is also possible that they were amulets of a prosperous marriage wished to a person whose zodiacal sign was Capricorn. It is believed that several other configurations involving Capricorn appearing on engraved gems were issued to celebrate the victory at Actium. One of them is a highly popular motif of Capricorn swimming to the side over an altar decorated with garlands and bucrania and sometimes combined with some maritime symbols like a trident, prows, dolphins etc. (cat. nos. 9.1003-1011, figs. 714-715). 1600 Lang and Cain 2015, no. III.16, p. 116. 1601 For instance: RIC I2 Augustus, nos. 521-522. As one can see from this overview, stating the role of Capricorn in Octavian’s propaganda, especially celebration of the victory at Actium is not easy. I believe that the reasoning presented and the fact that there are so many similarities in terms of iconography between the examples listed here and Octavian portrait gems discussed above as well as coinage make it possible to accept that most of the gems types discussed were produced for propaganda reasons. As to the gems presenting Capricorn without any other symbols (cat. nos. 1012-1020, figs. 716), these might have multiple explanations as stated above and one of them might be political propaganda of Octavian as some of those Capricorns are very close to the ones one finds on aurei of Augustus struck ca. 19-18 BC (fig. 717),1601 however, without any context, this cannot be measured in any reasonable way. Another situation is with combinations of Capricorn, globe and other symbols which refer to Augustus domination on the land and sea, but these will be thoroughly analysed alongside to the relevant coinage in the next chapter. Regarding other symbolic gems possibly presenting the subjects related to Octavian’s propaganda scholars often point to a depiction of an eagle standing on a round, decorated altar. It is repeated in many variants on both gemstone and glass intaglios, but the most popular one is the type involving various military elements or symbols of victory like a legionary standards, palm branch and laurel wreath (cat. nos. 9.1021-1046, figs. 718-720). Eagle represented Roman State and Imperial power and when placed within military and victorious context, at the first glance, it seems plausible to symbolise Octavian’s victory at Actium and the altars probably illustrate immobilia erected in celebration of this event and Octavian consecratio to various gods for their help and support during the battle.1602 The consecratio issue is even further developed, for example, on a glass gems in Perugia and Geneva where eagle stands on an altar decorated with the garlands placed within a temple with a frieze decorated with a lotus flower – a symbol of conquered Egypt (cat. nos. 9.1047-1048, fig. 721). The whole composition appears to make an allusion to consecratio of the Temple of Apollo Palatinus that commemorated Octavian/Augustus’ victories at Naulochus and Actium.1603 For some scholars, the connection of the image involving eagle standing on altar with Octavian’s propaganda is confirmed by the sign of Capricorn appearing on several examples (cat. nos. 9.1029, 1033-1034 and 1045, fig. 720). Moreover, on some gems there are laurel branches flanking the altars possibly symbolising the ones planted on the Palatine Hill near the entrance to the House of Augustus from which the laurel wreaths for all the Roman emperors were later created in the sign of the connection between Octavian/Augustus and Apollo (cat. nos. 9.1021, 1024-1025, 1039 and 1041-1042, fig. 718).1604 All this evidence suggests these gems to be a part of Octavian’s propaganda issued most likely between 29-27 BC and also later as a part of commemoration of the battle of Actium and his connection with Apollo. As to the target group, these gems were intended or suitable to reach soldiers serving in Octavian’s army because of military symbols appearing on some gems and also because eagle was the main emblem of the Roman army. The production of those intaglios was considerable, even massive considering a large group of glass gems bearing this subject. Most of them must have been produced in Italy to which points analysis of the provenance and history of many pieces. 1602 Hölscher 1967, p. 181; Vollenweider 1979, no. 438; Weiß 1996, nos. 337-338. 1603 Vitellozzi 2010, no. 419. 1604 Alföldi 1973, pp. 49-50. The picture of the above described subject-matter seems complete at the first glance. Nevertheless, some details require more attention. First of all, one observes variants of that motif but without any symbolism that could suggest military victory (cat. nos. 9.1049-1052, fig. 722). Sometimes cornucopia is doubled and paired with other emblems upon altar and such designs recall altar decorations, like the one in Boncellino.1605 Secondly, it has been mentioned that in some cases protomes of Capricorn decorate the altars, but heads of rams and bucrania or rather heads of bulls appears too which is problematic. Moreover, on the one hand, some of the altars are decorated with scenes like quadriga and Pegasus, which has no connection to Octavian at all, but on the other hand there are also lupa romana or Victory in the type of Curia Iulia on the decoration parts which can be easily connected with the politician (cat. nos. 9.1022, 1024-1025, 1028-1031, 1033-1036, 1039-1040 and 1043-1044). Furthermore, there is a large group of gems presenting just the altars without eagle standing on them (ca. nos. 9.1053-1069, fig. 723), which still can be connected with Octavian as proved by Weiß,1606 but their existence suggests no connection to the military success. Apart from that, configurations where a parrot stands on a crater positioned on the same type of altar also exist alongside to other unusual configurations (cat. nos. 9.1070-1074, fig. 724). Finally, the motif of an eagle standing on altar exist on sealings (cat. no. 9.1075, fig. 725). Taking all this information into consideration, it is clear that not all the gems presenting highly decorative altars with or without eagle standing on them should be taken as referring to Octavian’s propaganda. Some of these gems were used as private seals and amulets as proved by the existence of sealings and astrological symbols (Capricorn, Taurus, Aires). The primary meaning of such symbolism was bounty, good luck and victory.1607 Most likely, Octavian’s propaganda messages were hooked and adjusted into a well-established language having positive connotations. As a result, the gems discussed here boosted promotion of Octavian’s positive image very much the same way as other casual objects did because the same iconography appears for instance on the oil lamps dated to the same period of time.1608 1605 Fossing 1929, no. 1616. 1606 Weiß 1996, no. 420. 1607 Gołyźniak 2017, no. 278. 1608 Weiß 1996, no. 420. 1609 Weiß 1996, no. 343. Adjusting propaganda messages to the already existing language used by the Roman society is also observed on another version of the motif often involving a highly decorated altar but this time with a cockerel of Mercury atop or cockerel combined with other symbols (cat. nos. 9.1076-1091, figs. 726-728). Giving the fact that Octavian was identified with Mercury (cf. chapter 9.3.1.8), one supposes that some gems with that motif played a role in his propaganda activities as he would be indirectly depicted here as Mercurius Augustus.1609 Perhaps these gems were meant to signify the victory at Actium as it is suggested, for instance, by a warship, trophy and palm branch appearing on some examples (cat. nos. 9.1076, 1085 and 1088, figs. 726-728). However, as Vollenweider stated, the iconography of those gems might refer to Romana avis and generally to Octavian/Augustan policy.1610 1610 Vollenweider 1979, no. 448 and an interesting discussion in: Maaskant-Kleibrink 1986, no. 45. 1611 Weiß 1994, pp. 358-360. 1612 Henig, Scarisbrick and Whiting 1994, no. 233; Zanker 2000, pp. 84-85. 1613 For instance: Sena Chiesa 2002, pp. 400-401; Sena Chiesa 2012, p. 260 and individual commentaries to the pieces listed in the catalogue part. 1614 Furtwängler 1900, vol. III, pp. 353-354. Apart from these, there are many more combinations of symbols on engraved gems that supposedly had some propagandistic meaning. One of such examples is a depiction of a goat standing on a short ground line with one fore-leg raised in profile in front of which there is a cornucopia and a globe (cat. nos. 9.1092-1101, fig. 729). The combination of goat and cornucopia brings to mind associations with Amalthea. However, the globe signifies world domination or imperial power that was reached by Octavian after his victory at Actium in 31 BC. The cornucopia then symbolises abundance and prosperity that would follow the end of the Civil War (aurea aetas). The goat may be related to Octavian’s birth-sign – Capricorn since a similar composition appears on Augustus aurei and denarii struck ca. 18–17 BC.1611 For all these reasons, it seems reasonable to think that the gems in question are the next examples of Octavian’s propaganda activity in glyptics and perhaps they were worn by his supporters.1612 It is noteworthy to observe that again, the symbolism employed is not reinvented but rather reinterpreted since alongside to the combinations described here, simple sets of a goat and cornucopia exist on contemporary gems too and they most likely served to their owners as amulets ensuring prosperity and abundance (cat. nos. 9.1102-1103, fig. 730). Another issue are gems presenting various combinations of symbols signifying personal victory represented by a palm branch, abundance, wealth and prosperity (corn ears, cornucopiae, poppies etc.) having references to various deities for their blessing and protection (Mercury – caduceus, Jupiter – globe, Fortuna – rudder, Annona - modius etc.) and even averting all kinds of evil (Heracles’ club) which are abundant in the last third of the 1st century BC (cat. nos. 9.1104-1116, figs. 731-732). Although many scholars take these combinations as addressing ideology or ‘cultural programme’ introduced by Octavian/Augustus promoting the new golden age of peace and prosperity to all Romans after the terrible period of Civil Wars,1613 I prefer to follow Furtwängler who stated that many of these gems served as private amulets for common people that were later gradually replaced by the so-called grylloi/baskania gems.1614 Some of the examples bear inscriptions clearly suggesting their private use (cat. nos. 1117- 1118, figs. 733-734). On the other hand, some subjects make clearer references to the current political situation like the motif of bust of Isis within a laurel wreath which due to Cleopatra’s identification with the goddess may stand for Octavian’s victory at Actium (cat. nos. 1119-1120, fig. 735) or eagle over sella curulis signifying imperial power (cat. no. 1121, fig. 736). It is often believed that similar gems continued the policy of Julius Caesar who established new world order (ordo rerum), one cannot exclude that a portion of these gems indeed reflect Octavian/Augustus policy and ideology but this issue was much more promoted after 27 BC when Octavian became Augustus and usually through different kinds of iconography that will be presented in the chapter 10.8.1615 1615 See also discussion in: Gołyźniak 2017, no. 216. 1616 Suetonius, Augustus, 71. 9.3.1.10 Luxury objects (State Cameos, vessels etc.) and religious propaganda Regarding engraved gems used as luxury objects by Octavian and the inner circle of his supporters these are not numerous prior to 30 BC as there are only a few portrait cameos identified with the future emperor of Rome (cf. chapter 9.3.1.4). It seems that the Battle of Actium was a major landmark in production of cameos, cameo-vessels and small works in the round that turned out to transmit the most complex and sophisticated propaganda messages. However, they communicate different ideas than all the gems presented so far as related to Octavian’s propaganda, hence, they will be discussed in the next chapter. There is very little evidence for Octavian to engage in religious use of engraved gems like his predecessors did (for instance Pompey the Great or Julius Caesar, cf. chapters 8.1.1, 8.1.2 and 8.2.1). Although Octavian/Augustus had had some gems cut for him by top artists of the epoch who travelled to his court from Alexandria and the East, he does not seem to be seriously engaged in collecting of gems and the collections of the Ptolemies could have been already exploited by Caesar, thus the information given us by Suetonius about Octavian’s modesty, who among the great treasuries of Alexandria took only one agate cup (possibly a muhrrine vessel) is most likely a misleading act of propaganda which survived many years after the emperor.1616 9.3.2. Mark Antony Mark Antony was a supporter of Julius Caesar and served as one of his generals during the conquest of Gaul and the later Civil War. Antony was appointed administrator of Italy while Caesar eliminated political opponents in Greece, North Africa, and Spain. After the death of his patron, he fought for his legacy with Octavian, but ultimately it was far more reasonable for both to establish an alliance in 43 BC known as the Second Triumvirate, to which Marcus Aemilius Lepidus was invited as the third part. This resulted in the defeat of the republicans faction in the Battle of Philippi in 42 BC, however, the rivalry between Octavian and Antony never ceased and thus the pact survived, except for the Brundisium War in 40 BC until 36 BC when a new Civil War between the two was declared. In 31 BC Antony was defeated in the Battle of Actium and a year later he committed a suicide. During all these years, Antony led a sumptuous lifestyle, especially while in Egypt with Cleopatra. One would expect from him to spend large sums of money on luxurious arts to which engraved gems account, but the evidence for Mark Antony’s use of intaglios and cameos for propaganda purposes does not meet those expectations. For sure, there was some engagement into propaganda with the use of gems by Antony, especially if portrait gems are concerned, but even those sometimes were cut on the commissions of his followers or after his death, possibly as a memorial of a dead father at the Numidian court where his daughter Cleopatra Selene lived with Juba II. Besides, one does not observe Mark Antony to perform such manifests with the use of engraved gems as in case of Sulla, Pompey the Great, Julius Caesar or Octavian/Augustus, even though he surely had means for that while in Alexandria where Ptolemies patronised glyptic art for centuries and where one of the most important gem workshop operated.1617 Yet, there are some gem engravers that could have worked for Antony and some unprecedented spheres of glyptic art that were so far politically unexplored. In this chapter I shall focus on both matters in order to deliver the most objective judgment of Mark Antony’s use of gems for propaganda purposes possible. 1617 On this patronage, see: Plantzos 1999, pp. 63-64. On Alexandria as a glyptics centre, see: Tassinari 2008, pp. 263-268. 1618 Vollenweider 1966, pp. 12-16; Plantzos 1999, pp. 63-64; Tassinari 2008, pp. 263-266. 1619 Vollenweider 1966, p. 18; Toso 2007, p. 4. 9.3.2.1. Collecting and personal seals Engraved gems were widely fashionable among the Ptolemies in Egypt who supported many artists to cut intaglios and cameos for them primarily in Alexandria, but possibly also beyond.1618 One expects like in case of Mithridates VI Eupator substantial collections of gems and related objects to be treasured there. This is partially confirmed by the fact that among the six dactyliothecae belonging to Julius Caesar there could be some jewels brought to Rome by him from Egypt,1619 and that after the Battle of Actium, Augustus came to Rome from Alexandria with vast treasuries. Among the second, there were some engraved gems and vessels that he offered to the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus in the way Pompey the Great and Julius Caesar did before him (cf. chapter 10.1).1620 However, Antony had never been mentioned by Pliny the Elder, Suetonius or any other ancient author as interested much in gems, their collecting or performing offers like those mentioned above. Even while in Egypt, he does not seem to use Ptolemies treasuries for similar purpose, but this might be due to the simple fact that he did not have to do that there because of the completely different habits in the east. Yet, even before his arrival to Alexandria, he did not practice collecting of gems and what is even more important, none of ancient writers mention his private seals which could be coincidental, but on the other hand, his contemporary Octavian/Augustus is well described in the matter of his personal seals. 1620 Suetonius, Augustus, 30; Toso 2007, p. 4. 1621 On this matter, see: Tassinari 2008, pp. 263-266; Giuliano and Micheli 1989, pp. 24-26. 1622 Vollenweider 1966, pp. 30-32. 1623 Zwierlein-Diehl 1986, no. 144, pp. 99-100. 1624 Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, pp. 111-112. 9.3.2.2. Gem engravers working for Mark Antony Even though there is no information in the literary sources for Mark Antony to have collected engraved gemstones, that does not mean he did not commission or buy them from the artists. Many scholars suggest some gem engravers to work under Antony’s patronage especially in Alexandria.1621 Among gem engravers who were active at the time Antony resided in Egypt, one of the first to mention is Aspasios. Vollenweider was the first to link the engraver with Antony. She claimed that he first worked for Juba I and later for the Roman general and travelled with him through Greece to Egypt. This would have been reflected by the subjects appearing on the gems signed by the artist: Athena – linked to Antony’s visit in Athens, Dionysus – matching his identification with the god and finally Sarapis – related to his stay in Egypt (cat. nos. 9.1122-1124, figs. 737-739).1622 As it has been already discussed above, Aspasios probably worked for Pompey the Great since he cut a portrait resembling the general in an imitatio Alexandri tradition and possibly for Juba I (cf. chapters 8.1.3 and 8.3.1). So far, the best analysis of this and three other signed works of Aspasios has been delivered by Zwierlein-Diehl who proposed to date his activity to ca. 50-30 BC.1623 If one accepts his commitment to Pompey, the dates should be expanded a bit to the late 60s BC which is still probable. Provenance and history of the gem bearing bust of Athena suggest that Aspasios indeed worked in Rome at some point of his career. Even though Vollenweider’s proposal is attractive, it remains largely hypothetical.1624 It is difficult to accept the idea of a link between Antony and Athena actually based only on one gem, while he did not use her image for his propaganda activities either in other glyptic works or his coinage. Bust or rather one should say herm of Dionysus is more probable since indeed, Antony openly identified himself with the god, but as Zwierlein-Diehl points out, this is a rather archaistic image which was popular in the Roman Republican glyptics throughout the 1st century BC and Jenkins is of the same opinion.1625 The bust of Sarapis might be the best candidate for a work commissioned by Antony since only recently discovered by Henig cameo presenting Mark Antony and Cleopatra as Sarapis and Isis sheds some new light on their divine identifications (cf. chapter 9.3.2.7). Overall, I believe that Vollenweider’s hypothesis lacks substantial objective proofs to be true, although, it cannot be simply rejected, and one might still imagine Aspasios working for Antony at some point of his career. 1625 Zwierlein-Diehl 1986, no. 144, p. 99; Jenkins and Sloane 1996, no. 111 – with a commentary to the doubtful genuineness of the intaglio. 1626 On this matter, see: Volenweider 1966, pp. 32-36; Vollenweider 1972-1974, p. 181; Giuliano and Micheli 1989, pp. 24-26; Toso 2007, p. 201. 1627 Henig 1997a; Plantzos 1999, pp. 86-87; Joyce 2002. 1628 Vollenweider 1966, p. 36; Zwierlein-Diehl 1986, no. 156. Much less problematical seems gem engraver Sostratos and his repertoire of gems, especially cameos which concentrate on the subjects of Dionysus/Bacchus and figures related to this god (cat. nos. 9.1125-1126, figs. 740-741). The themes of his works appear to be consistent with ideology of Mark Antony and his identification with the deity, which has been observed and commented by Vollenweider and others.1626 Of course, Sostratos’ gem production can be explained as a part of a much wider phenomenon, because in the 1st century BC Bacchic themes became especially popular first in the Hellenistic east and later in Rome due to their relationship with gender expression.1627 Besides, he engraved also other images like Nike/Victory riding a biga (cat. no. 9.1127, fig. 742). However, if one pays a close attention to Sostratos’ career, one discovers that indeed political motivations may stand for the themes he had chosen for his gems. One of the late works by him is Nike slaughtering a bull, a subject much promoted by Augustus symbolising his regaining of legionary standards from the Parthians (cf. chapter 10.5). Can it then be proposed that after the Battle of Actium Sostratos transferred his business to Rome and served to Augustus?1628 If that is the case, there is no point to deny his earlier commitment to Mark Antony. Nevertheless, I should notice here that sometimes overinterpretations occur. A cameo in the Beverley collection at the Alnwick Castle presenting Heracles subdued by Eros/Cupid is a good example of that. Vollenweider attributed this piece to Sostratos according to the style and subject-matter, in which she saw an allegory to Mark Antony as defeated by his passionate love to Cleopatra (cat. no. 9.1128, fig. 743).1629 The explanation proposed by the Swiss scholar is far-fetching. If Sostratos indeed worked for Antony, he would have never created work like that, unless he cut the cameo under patronage of Augustus and it would be an example of black propaganda practice intended to mock the opponent. However, considering Sostratos’ potential arrival to Rome after the Battle of Actium, there was no need to create such a composition since Antony was already defeated and Augustus focused his propaganda on celebration of his triumph. In fact, the motif of Heracles subdued by Eros/Cupid was extremely popular in the 1st century BC on intaglios and cameos as it will be shown later and should not be connected with Mark Antony in any terms (cf. chapter 9.3.2.7). It denotes the victory of love over strength. Also, the attribution of the Beverley cameo to Sostratos is based on subjective criteria and is not accepted anymore.1630 1629 Vollenweider 1966, p. 36. 1630 On this, see the most actual interpretation of the piece in: Scarisbrick, Wagner and Boardman 2016a, no. 35. 1631 See, for instance: Zazoff 1983, pp. 288-289. 1632 Plantzos 1999, p. 94. 1633 Boardman 1968, no. 18; Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 121. 1634 Apart from these, see also a cameo in Naples presenting a bust of young Heracles attributed by Lapatin to Gnaeus (2015, pl. 108, p. 250 – with more literature). The next artist that is sometimes recognised as working for Mark Antony is a Roman engraver Gnaeus.1631 Plantzos even claims that he cut not only gems but also coin dies for Antony. He bases his view on the similarity between an amethyst in the J. Paul Getty Museum possession but once in the Ionides and Rosarena collections that carries image of Antony and some coins minted by him and bearing his portrait (cat. no. 9.1129, fig. 744).1632 This art piece shows Mark Antony clean shaven and with much idealised features: his hair is neatly arranged on the head, his eye is big and wide open, his nose is hooked and slightly bowed, but not so sharply as on his other portraits, his lips are full and slightly open and his cheek is less prominent than normally and smoothly modelled so that the overall impression is an elegant and carefully carved portrait. The identification of the portrait on Gnaeus’ gem is beyond doubt correct, but one wonders if this intaglio was indeed cut for Antony himself. Boardman recognises it as a posthumous portrait and some other researchers agree to his proposal.1633 I believe the British scholar to be right too, and as has already been broadly discussed, above, it is far more probable that Gnaeus worked at the Numidian royal court rather than for Mark Antony specifically. This can be deduced from the subjects appearing on his other signed gems like the head of Heracles shouldering a club and bust of Cleopatra Selene (cf. chapter 8.3.1 above and 9.5.1 below).1634 The stylistic features of all Gnaeus works also support this view for they are closer to Augustan classicism rather than Hellenistic manners.1635 Actually, this is observed by Plantzos himself regarding, for instance, Gnaeus’ gem presenting Diomedes.1636 The portrait in question could be commissioned by Cleopatra Selene who wanted to commemorate her father that way and that portrait might have been indeed based on one of Antony’s coins.1637 Summing up, there is no direct or even indirect evidence for Gnaeus to have worked for Mark Antony which is another suggestion for his poor involvement into gem engraving and its use for his propaganda purposes. 1635 See a good discussion on this issue in: Vollenweider 1966, pp. 45-46 who does not link Gnaeus with Mark Antony, but with the Numidian royal court, as well as: Zazoff 1983, pp. 288-289. 1636 Plantzos 1999, p. 94. 1637 Vollenweider 1966, pp. 45-46; Boardman 1968, no. 18, pp. 27-28; Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 188-189; Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 121. 1638 Vollenweider 1966, p. 43; Zazoff 1983, p. 288. 1639 Zwierlein-Diehl 1986, no. 157, pp. 117-118. 1640 On Solon and his works, see: Vollenweider 1966, pp. 47-56; Plantzos 1999, pp. 96-97. 1641 Vollenweider 1966, pp. 49-50. There are a few more candidates to be gem engravers working for Mark Antony, although, similarly to the ones discussed above, usually, their potential commitment is based on the subject-matter relation to Antony. For instance, Teukros cut an amethyst, now in Florence, which bears Heracles and a Nymph, and basing on the subject Vollenweider and Zazoff proposed to link the gem to Mark Antony (cat. no. 9.1130, fig. 745).1638 Although indeed, Antony identified himself with the Greek hero, as Zwierlein-Diehl argues the style of Teukros’ work is comparable to another amethyst in St. Petersburg and essentially classicising in character. The gem should be dated to the last quarter of the 1st century BC and thus, cannot be related to Mark Antony and his propaganda.1639 The last figure to mention here is Solon, an engraver of gems active in the second half of the 1st century BC.1640 In 1861 in Pompeii a ring with nicolo intaglio was found which presents a male figure leaning on a club and signature of Solon. Vollenweider widely discussed the piece and interpreted the figure as Heracles and linked him with Mark Antony on the basis of his identification with the hero.1641 However, according to my research, majority of his works were created for Octavian/Augustus and the gem in question bears Theseus, not Heracles, thus it should not be connected with Mark Antony (cf. chapter 9.3.1.8). In conclusion, in this subchapter I have amassed a substantial group of gem engravers traditionally linked to Mark Antony. However, as my research on their signed or attributed works as well as their potential employments reveals, in fact only Aspasios and Sostratos might be responsible for cutting of some gems for Antony. Even for those two the evidence is scanty and ambiguous. Gnaios, Teukros and Solon had nothing to do with Antony and the overall image is that Roman general did not patronised glyptic art either while in Italy and later in Egypt to any considerable degree. This is the first argument for my claim that he barely involved glyptics into his propaganda which seems to have been based on more traditional and less sophisticated means like coins. 9.3.2.3. Portraits – personal branding induction and manifestation of loyalty Previous chapters served as an introduction into the further analysis of Mark Antony’s use of engraved gems for propaganda purposes. He does not seem to be interested very much in this kind of art and his patronage, if existed at all, was limited. Perhaps it was more due to Cleopatra who continued the ancient tradition of the Ptolemies to issue gems presenting subjects related to Antony. A significant group of gems, either made of gemstones and glass, consists of those bearing portraits of Mark Antony. Their number cannot be compared to the prolific production of or related to Octavian, but still it is considerable. Vollenweider analysed most of the objects in her monumental study, but some are newly discovered stones.1642 In order to answer the question of the usefulness and importance of these objects for Mark Antony’s propaganda, I shall carefully analyse the types of portraits in existence, the materials they are made of and all their provenance information available. Only then one could specify whether they were a part of Antony’s own propaganda actions or should be considered as their reception by his followers. 1642 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 174-190. 1643 See also a fruitful discussion on this matter in other media than glyptics in: Piegdoń 2012; Biedermann 2014. 1644 RRC, no. 480/22 (denarius of P. Sepullius Macer, 44 BC). As discussed with portraits of the pompeians (Gnaeus and Sextus Pompey), the repuclicans (Marcus Iunius Brutus and Quintus Cassius Longinus) and Octavian above, around 44 BC there was a clear trend among the young prominent Roman politicians to carry a beard which could basically be a sign of adolescence or stand for mourning after the dead father or the collapsing Republic (cf. chapters 9.1.3, 9.2.2 and 9.3.1.1).1643 In case of Mark Antony, there are three gems that possibly carry his likeness and one that was attributed to him in the previous scholarship, and they are all bearded (cat. nos. 9.1131-1134, figs. 746-749). Cat. no. 9.1131 is a cornelian presenting a youthful bust of a bearded man wearing toga. As Vollenweider observed, the facial features, shape of the nose and coiffure are consistent with coins minted by P. Sepullius Macer in 44 BC after death of Caesar (fig. 750).1644 The man on the coin is Mark Antony as an augur and through comparison one identifies the figure from the intaglio with him as well, although, he lacks lituus and capis.1645 The three other gems are known only from their modern impressions in plaster and glass. While cat. nos. 9.1132 and 9.1133 are close to each other, cat. no. 9.1134 differs, and I think Zwierlein-Diehl is right doubting in the identity of the man to be Mark Antony. This has been suggested basing on the inscription referring to Gnaeus who cut a posthumous portrait of Antony (cf. chapter 9.3.2.2 above), which is however a misleading modern addition from the first half of the 18th century.1646 1645 Vollenweider 1972-1974, p. 174. 1646 Zwierlein-Diehl 1986, no. 542. 1647 RRC, pp. 493 and 495. 1648 Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 124. 1649 Cf. RRC, nos. 488/1-2 (denarii of Mark Antony, 43 BC), 494/2a-b (aureii of L. Livineius Regulus, 42 BC), 494/5 (aureus of P. Clodius, 42 BC), 494/8a-b (aureii of L. Mussidius Longus, 42 BC), 494/11 (aureus of C. Vibius Varus, 42 BC), 494/14 (aureus of L. Mussidius Longus, 42 BC), 494/17 (denarius of P. Clodius, 42 BC), 494/32 (denarius of C. Vibius Varus, 42 BC) All in all there are three more or less certain examples of the bearded portraits of Mark Antony. Noteworthy is the fact that on these stones he does not carry a fully developed beard but rather iuvenes barbatuli. Crawford suggests that the coins I have referred to here were issued immediately after the disaster that came with Caesar’s death and they illustrate reaction of Antony to this tragic event.1647 If that is the case, the beard would be the mourning one and carried by Antony as a commemoration of his great patron rather than a sign of his full capacity to rule (adolescence) since he was already 39 years-old.1648 This was a deliberate propaganda action aimed first to show that Antony will avenge Caesar and second that he was deeply connected with him and because of that he should be the new leader of the caesarians faction. The gems discussed here were probably contemporary to the coins minted by P. Sepullius Macer or were executed slightly later but rather not after 42 when another image of Antony was introduced in coinage and other media and perhaps not even after 43 since the series of aurei and denarii from these issues present another version of the bearded head of Antony in terms of composition (bigger head, more massive and fleshy jaw, more tidy coiffure, even less visible beard etc.) (fig. 751).1649 These last coins were minted after the establishment of the Second Triumvirate. This means that although there is no reliable information on the actual place of production, it is highly possible that the gems in question here were cut in Rome or more broadly Italy. It is unknown whether it was Antony who commissioned them for his personal branding or the image was popularised on gems by his followers who wanted to express their loyalty to him, but the first option, due to the relatively short period of production time (as a reaction to the coinage) makes the first option more likely. What is more, the fact that the images from gems do not exactly copy the iconography of the coins makes such a claim even more probable. If the gems were manufactured on private commissions, they would probably have followed the coins entirely since there were limited sources for inspiration. In 43 BC Antony formed the Second Triumvirate with Octavian and Lepidus and was charged with the reorganisation of the eastern part of the Roman Empire. This pact was widely celebrated for instance through coinage and gems (cf. chapters 9.3.1.7 and 9.3.2.6),1650 but each of three promoted themselves separately too. There are several gems that bear Antony’s portrait resembling very much the one put on his own coins in 43 BC and those minted until ca. 40/39 BC which comparison suggests linking them with his promotion after the establishment of the Second Triumvirate (cat. nos. 9.1135-1142, figs. 752-753).1651 Regarding gemstone intaglios, cat. no. 9.1135, fig. 753 is a cornelian intaglio once in the celebrated Marlborough collection which closely copies the image of Antony from the mentioned coins. Another example exhibiting considerable similarities to the coins images is a red jasper intaglio in London (cat. no. 9.1136, fig. 754). Cat. no. 9.1136 - a lost intaglio that was once in the Sir Arthur Evans Collection and was said to have been found in Greece. If the provenance information is reliable, this would be interesting because in 42 BC before departing to Anatolia, Antony resided in Athens and thus the gem might be related to this stay. One more gemstone intaglio with portrait of Antony, dated ca. between 43-39 BC, is known only from a glass impression in Würzburg – cat. no. 9.1138, fig. 755. Zwierlein-Diehl thinks it is a posthumous portrait basing her judgment on the closeness to the work of Gnaeus,1652 but I believe that this portrait is far closer to the image appearing on coins issued by Antony himself in 40 BC (fig. 756).1653 1650 Regarding the coinage, see: RRC, pp. 740-741. 1651 RRC, nos. 488/1-2 (denarii of Mark Antony, 43 BC), 516/1-5 (aurei and denarii of Mark Antony, 41 BC), 517/1a-8 (aurei and denarii minted by Mark Antony and his officers, 41 BC), 520/1 (denarius of Mark Antony, 40 BC), 528/1a-3 (aurei and denarii of Mark Antony, 39 BC). 1652 Zwierlein-Diehl 1986, no. 539. 1653 RRC, no. 520/1 (denarius of Mark Antony, 40 BC). 1654 Vollenweider 1972-1974, p. 177. 1655 Zwierlein-Diehl 1986, no. 542. Interestingly, there are four glass gems that should be most likely dated to the same period and related to Mark Antony’s self-advertisement (cat. nos. 9.1139-1142, figs. 757-758). Some of them (cat. nos. 9.1139-1141) were once in the collections formed in Rome which makes possible that they were produced in the city or its neighbourhood. They follow the image from the coins since their portraits are still well within the Roman Republican tradition for accurate, even brutally-realistic representation.1654 The earlier, bearded portraits betrayed some Hellenistic treats as observed by Zwierlein-Diehl.1655 Now one deals with purely Roman products. In addition, regarding one specimen from the Berlin collection, Weiß observes that the portrait on this gem is close to the one appearing together with the head of Octavia on another piece in the collection which according to the scholar was meant to celebrate the piecemaking after the Battle of Brundisium (cf. cat. no. 9.1193, fig. 755, and discussion in chapter 9.3.2.6).1656 This confirms the chronological framework proposed for the gems in question. Whether those glass gems were produced on the command of Mark Antony as a part of his personal branding cannot be established. Already in 42 BC he stayed in Athens and then departed to reorganise Roman eastern provinces in Anatolia and beyond, but some of his influential followers were left in Rome to oversee Antony’s position and react in case Octavian tried to gain full control over the empire. His followers (including soldiers) might have wished to manifest loyalty to their patron and commander by carrying gems with his portrait which is suggested also by the number of glass objects listed above, though the ration of gemstone to glass gems is equal (4 to 4). Alternatively, the objects could be manufactured in some independent workshops and delivered to the market making them available to every kind of client. Nevertheless, involvement of Antony in this process cannot be entirely excluded since he was personally concerned with his coinage production, so perhaps he did care for glyptics as well. 1656 Weiß 2007, no. 380 and cf. no. 371 (double portrait). 1657 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 183-189. 1658 See, for instance: RRC, nos. 541/1-2 (aurei of Mark Antony, 34 BC) and 543/1 (denarius of Mark Antony, 32 BC). 1659 Vollenweider 1972-1974, p. 183. Regarding portrait gems of Mark Antony produced after ca. 39/38 BC these are not abundant.1657 According to my research, only seven examples may be broadly dated to the 30s. BC (cat. nos. 9.1143-1147, figs. 759-761). They are distinctive due to their pure Roman character which means highly realistic or even verist images many times presenting a schematised big head with prominent cheek, creased forehead, hooked nose and somewhat receded mouth; the hair is long and tousled, the locks neatly combed, especially above the forehead. This image of Antony is consistent with the one appearing in coinage between 39 and 30 BC (fig. 762).1658 All these specimens are carved gemstones, and none is made of glass. Vollenweider suggested that because Antony became consul in 44 BC, he could put his image on coins freely and focused his propaganda activities on this media, while Octavian could not do that and therefore, he used to issue more gems, especially the glass ones.1659 This highly interesting observation would explain relatively small interest of Antony in glyptics in general, but one notices that in the 30s BC glass gems with his portrait are totally absent. This is probably due to the fact that he was in the east with access to the workshops producing only gemstone intaglios. At the same time, Octavian, who controlled Rome, produced many glass gems (cf. chapter 9.3.1.4). Concerning provenance, not much can be deduced from objects’ history. Cat. no. 9.1146 is kept in Palazzo Braschi in Rome and possibly was found in the city. It could have belonged to one of the followers acting on the behalf of Antony in Rome then. Cat. no. 9.1143, fig. 759 now in Paris, was once in the Seyrig collection which suggests it was purchased in the east (Syria?). As to the rest five gems one has no idea where they come from, but even those two first intaglios illustrate that either Antony could issue gems with his likeness while in the east and his followers in Rome still carried his portraits on their rings to manifest their loyalty. The first issue might be plausible since starting from 38 BC Antony focused his propaganda in coinage on his sole accomplishments like the triumph over Armenia.1660 It seems that portrait gems produced in the 30s BC were a part of that phenomenon too and the best proof of that is the intaglio now in Boston presenting an eagle crowning head of Mark Antony with a wreath, which I shall discuss later (cf. chapter 9.3.2.6). Another proof is a sealing in brown clay found in Artashat, Armenia which presents head of Mark Antony facing left (cat. no. 9.1148, fig. 763). This extremely valuable find proves that like in the Hellenistic times, at the time of Antony portrait gems were gifted to the governors of provinces as valuable diplomatic gifts which were supposed to bind the client king or governor with his patron.1661 The usage of such a gift for administrative purposes was mutually beneficial since the image of the propagandist, in this case Mark Antony, widespread, and his subdued showed that he is supported by a powerful figure representing Rome. One supposes that the original intaglio from which the sealing was taken was delivered during Antony’s victorious Armenian military campaign in 37 BC to its anonymous owner. 1660 RRC, pp. 743-744. 1661 On this issue in the Hellenistic Times, see: Plantzos 1999, pp. 111-112. Finally, while discussing portraits of Mark Antony on engraved gems and their usefulness for triumvir’s propaganda, I should mention that sometimes it is highly problematic to decide whether one deals with the actual portrait of Antony or not. Cat. nos. 9.1149-1158, figs. 763-765 are good examples of that. All have been recognised as Antony’s portraits, but in my opinion, they do not exhibit enough features to be taken as such. These stones probably present private portraits, some as Vollenweider suggests, belongs perhaps to officers serving in Antony’s army who wished to be presented in a similar way as their patron upon their portrait rings.1662 If this was true, it would be interesting to see that followers of Antony tended to identify with him on such a personal level, which cannot be observed anywhere else except for glyptics. For later periods it is evident that Imperial portraits set standards, especially if it goes to female portraiture, which were followed by common people. This would prove that Antony’s propaganda and self-advertisement were highly influential and successful since his followers not only carried his image upon their rings, but also have their own portraits stylised on their patron’s ones. It is noteworthy that sometimes portrait gems are completely erroneously attributed to Mark Antony too. For instance, Vollenweider recognised Mark Antony on a garnet signed by Menophilos (MHNOΦIΛOΣ EΠOIE) and suggested it to be related to the investiture of new Roman provinces established by Antony in winter of 37/36 BC.1663 However, by no means this portrait should be attributed to the politician. As discussed above, this is a much earlier work of ca. 150 BC and belongs to the group of very early Roman portraits executed in the Hellenistic east (cf. chapter 6.2.1).1664 1662 Vollenweider and Avisseau-Broustet 2003, no. 32. 1663 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 185-187. 1664 Spier 1989, no. H, p. 30; Lapatin 2015, p. 247. 1665 Vollenweider 1972-1974, p. 183. The discussion on potential gem engravers working for Mark Antony showed that the triumvir did not exploit glyptic art for his propaganda to a considerable degree. The research on his portraits appearing on intaglios, confirms that too and there can be several reasons for that. As suggested by Vollenweider, because Antony was a consul in 44 BC, he was fully legitimised put his own image on coins in contrast, for example, to Octavian and he focused his personal branding on this media instead of glyptics.1665 The evidence amassed here also suggests that most likely his followers tended to carry his portrait in their rings to manifest loyalty to their patron. Majority of Antony’s portrait gems production was probably due to them, but on the other hand, the findings of sealings with his portrait in Armenia and several other facts suggest that he was engaged to some basic degree too in the promotion of his own image through glyptics. 9.3.2.4. Promotion of family Engraved gems were frequently used to promote family members and to show family connections, especially if a propagandist wanted to transfer authority of his great predecessor onto himself (cf. chapters 9.1.4, 9.2.3, 9.3.1.1 and 9.3.1.5). In case of Mark Antony and his propaganda, direct references to illustrious ancestors do not exist, but the triumvir promoted much the legendary ancestry of his family from Anton – one of Heracles’ descendants (cf. chapter 9.3.2.7).1666 This is clearly observable on Antony’s coins,1667 but one does not find similar motifs to be engraved on gems. Moreover, at some point of his political career, Antony promoted his brother Lucius on some coin issues,1668 but this is also absent in glyptics.1669 The same is the case with a special issue of aurei bearing portraits of Antony and his son Mark Antony junior,1670 whose portraits are absent in glyptics or at least remain unidentified. Mark Antony’s marriage with Octavia was broadly celebrated in various media and perhaps in this case, glyptics may offer some hints for propagandistic value of some intaglios, but this shall be discussed later (cf. chapter 9.3.2.6). Vollenweider believed that some gems presenting a pair of Triton and Nereid could illustrate the relationship of Antony and Octavia,1671 however, they are likely to be a part of a much broader art trend and some were considerably transformed into depictions of Triton and Venus Pelagia due to the influence of Augustan cultural programme (cf. chapter 10.6). 1666 Ritter 1995, p. 71. 1667 Ritter 1995, pp. 74-75. See also: RRC, nos. 494/2a-b (aurei of L. Livineius Regulus, 42 BC). 1668 RRC, nos. 517/3-5c (denarii and aurei of Mark Antony and M. Cocceius Nerva, 41 BC). 1669 Neither Vollenweider (1972-1974, pp. 174-190), nor we were able to find even one example of a portrait gem that could be securely identified with Lucius Antony figure. 1670 RRC, nos. 541/1-2 (aurei of Mark Antony, 34 BC). 1671 Vollenweider 1966, p. 21. 1672 For instance, RRC, no. 543/1 (denarius of Mark Antony). 1673 Ritter 1995, pp. 76-77; Barcaro 2008/2009, pp. 109-110, 144-147 and 161-163. 1674 Sena Chiesa 1989, p. 272; Sena Chiesa 2013, pp. 67-68 and 70-71. 1675 See an extensive discussion on this problem in: Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, pp. 66-67. Nevertheless, regarding the family propaganda, Antony’s relationship with Cleopatra should be analysed in terms of its potential reflections in glyptics. This is probably due to the fact that Ptolemaic court had far more ancient traditions towards employment of gems for propaganda rather than Rome. First of all, I should note that coins testify to some propaganda of the relationship between Antony and Cleopatra.1672 The couple is often identified with pairs of various deities, notably Dionysus and Aphrodite, Osiris and Isis, Heracles and Omphale or even Paris and Helene.1673 Concerning engraved gems, Sena Chiesa and several other scholars proposed Tazza Farnese’s iconography to be a mythical allegory of the reign of Antony and Cleopatra in Egypt and the east,1674 but this is improbable and the outstanding vessel should be dated ca. 100 BC (cf. a discussion in chapter 9.3.2.7).1675 Among the mentioned pairs, Heracles and Omphale together often appear on gems and have been the most widely discussed as reflections of Antony’s and Cleopatra’s relationship. Yet, there are some contradictory conceptual issues. On the one hand, the Omphale myth was used to present even a stronger relationship between Mark Antony, a descendant of Anton (indirectly Heracles), with Cleopatra as Omphale but there were no negative connotations with Heracles being a slave at Omphale’s court, in contrary, the effort was undertaken to contradict this popular connotation.1676 On the other hand, some scholars argue if the myth of Heracles and Omphale was deliberately promoted by Octavian as a form of his counterpropaganda aimed to mock Antony seduced by Cleopatra like Heracles was seduced by Omphale.1677 Be that as it may, a very important voice in this debate, which I share, is that of Hekster, who observes that not every image presenting Heracles and Omphale together on engraved gems should be automatically interpreted as a reflection of either Antony’s personal promotion or Octavian’s counterpropaganda.1678 For instance, the symplegma scenes between Heracles and Omphale appearing on some ancient gems as well as other subjects referring to their relationship could be erotic gifts exchanged between the lovers.1679 The same can be said with the already discussed cameo from the Beverley collection that Vollenweider had taken for a propaganda piece (cf. chapter 9.3.2.1). In fact, without any direct evidence that the figures on display refer to Mark Antony and Cleopatra, and without any evidence that the design originated from Octavian/Augustus or the circle of people surrounding him, it is difficult, if not pointless, to interpret such scenes as having some propagandistic value. 1676 Ritter 1995, pp. 84-85 and pp. 101-102 regarding engraved gems. 1677 Toso 2007, pp. 157-158. 1678 Hekster 2004, pp. 175-177. 1679 See some examples: Zwierlein-Diehl 1973a, nos. 269-271 (with more literature). 9.3.2.5. Promotion of the faction Self-advertisement through gems in the Roman society was deeply rooted and popular, but it is noteworthy that glyptics was a perfect platform for people belonging to the close circle of a political leader to express their allegiance to him. Gems certainly helped to integrate a group of followers and as already noticed at many points of this dissertation, portrait gems served to this excellently. Considering the fact that Mark Antony seems to be not particularly active in self-promotion through gems, I believe that most of the gems bearing his portrait were commissioned by his followers who wished to mark their allegiance to his faction. Sometimes there seems to be a direct evidence for that. For instance, in Würzburg there is a glass impression after a lost cornelian intaglio featuring a bearded portrait of Mark Antony accompanied with three letters CAI probably standing for the tria nomina of gem’s owner (cat. no. 9.1159, fig. 766). This particularly interesting piece shows that apart from the subject, which is consistent with a series of similar portraits of Antony discussed above, here, the owner additionally put his signature so that it was clear that he supports Antony. Such situations are rare, but in case of other portrait gems of the great Roman statemen, one observes the same phenomenon which scale is also similar (cf. chapters 8.1.5, 8.1.7, 8.2.4, 8.2.6, 9.1.3, 9.1.5, 9.2.2, 9.2.4, 9.3.1.4 and 9.3.1.6). One more issue to consider is if there were any motifs suitable to carry by the casesarians from both sides (Antony’s and Octavian’s followers) in general? Ritter suggests that such a subject could be Venus Victrix and indeed, since Caesar promoted her, armed Venus repeatedly appears on engraved gems throughout the second half of the 1st century BC.1680 It cannot be fully demonstrated if she served as a sort of party’s token but I believe that Mark Antony did not prefer to use her, since Caesar promoted Venus as a divine patroness of the Julian family. Thus, she was automatically recognised more as a symbol of Octavian. It seems reasonable to claim that Antony used symbolism referring to his own family legend since he must have created a sort counterweight to Octavian’s one but he did that from a scratch and his position was more difficult than Octavian’s. Apart from that, it is worth to mention that Antony’s military career already flourished while he served as a cavalry chief under Aulus Gabinius in 57 in Syria. He was always appreciated for his outstanding military merits and prowess. Vollenweider drew attention to an unusual motif of a cavalryman wearing tunica and standing next to his horse whom she connected with Mark Antony (cat. no. 9.1160, fig. 767).1681 This is due to another stone, known only from a plaster impression, though bearing the very same motif but accompanied with inscription M•ANT•NYMP which can be read as M(arcus) Ant(onius) Nymp(hios) (cat. no. 9.1161, fig. 768). Most likely it refers to gem’s owner and as such points to his potential share of family bloodline with Antony. Vollenweider presumed that these gems present Mark Antony as a member of the College of Luperci due to his partial nakedness,1682 but in my opinion this might symbolise heroization and simply refer to Antony’s skills as a military commander. If that is the case, one would deal here with a clear example of propaganda that aimed to praise Mark Antony’s military command over cavalry. Moreover, the gem was probably carried by one of his family members which cannot be a coincidence. The subject itself is much copied in glass gems (cat. nos. 9.1162-1163) so one wonders if it was multiplied and distributed to Antony’s followers This question cannot be fully answered basing on incomplete data one has at his disposal at the moment, but there is some potential in the 1680 Ritter 1995, p. 86. 1681 Vollenweider 1979, no. 161. 1682 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 182-183. motifs like the one under discussion that they functioned as references of common people and especially soldiers to their patron who in this case could be Mark Antony. 9.3.2.6. Commemoration Commemoration of important events in the life of political leaders of the Roman Republic was one of the crucial propaganda practices that is reflected on engraved gems. Regarding Mark Antony, there are several major events that one would expect to be singled out in the glyptic material like the Second Triumvirate. Sena Chiesa believes that after the pact was established, both Octavian and Mark Antony started to use the symbolism referring to the political programme of Julius Caesar which basically concentrated on promotion of peace, harmony and pacification – ordo rerum, and this is observable in glyptics’ iconography.1683 I shall come back to this issue later, while discussing symbolic gems, but the first thing to notice is that actually, there is no gem whatsoever that would clearly refer to the Second Triumvirate as a pact between all three figures. Instead, one observes that both Octavian and Mark Antony focused on themselves, for instance issuing gems with portraits, sometimes referring to the Triumvirate act (cf. chapter 9.3.1.7), but even in this kind of activity, the interest of Mark Antony is rather unwitnessed. In this place I should also remark that sometimes, the propagandistic message may be encoded in a more camouflaged image such as that appearing on a glass gem in Vienna, which presents busts of Heracles and Mercury confronted (cat. no. 9.580, cf. chapter 9.3.1.5). Because in their propaganda activities Octavian tended to identify with Mercury and Mark Antony with Heracles, one wonders if this gem is another piece making allusion to the Brundisium Treaty. Another unusual configuration is a pair of youths presented as Heracles with a club and Apollo with a cithara to the front and inscription in the field BN (cat. no. 9.1174, fig. 769). In this case, if the gem has any political significance it would probably commemorate the Brundisium Treaty too, although, such early identifications of both politicians with their divine patrons would be unusual.1684 1683 Sena Chiesa 2002, pp. 405-406. 1684 LIMC V, p. 141 and 143 s.v. Herakles, no. 3072 (S. Woodford and J. Boardman). The Brundisium Treaty was of great political significance and was probably widely promoted, especially the issue of the marriage between Mark Antony and Octavia. It is fairly possible that the event may be reflected on some gems presenting confronted (capita opposita) male and female heads. Generally speaking, there are large quantities of gems of this type and many of them are made of cheap glass. They cannot be more precisely dated than to the second half of the 1st century BC and they are often believed to present leading members of the major families of the Roman Republic and the princes and princesses of the Imperial family during the early Principate.1685 Some of them may commemorate the marriage of Mark Antony and Octavia (cat. nos. 9.1160-1186, figs. 770-773).1686 It was an event of considerable political significance celebrated in various ways, for instance on coins, as Antony minted special issues commemorating this event and consistently kept putting his and Octavia’s portraits on his coins until 38 BC (fig. 770).1687 For this reason, many scholars believe that most of the evoked gems should be related to this event and perhaps some mythological pairs like Neptune and Amphitrite appearing on gems should be taken for propaganda messages encoded and related to Antony’s and Octavia’s marriage too.1688 Due to the high percentage of glass gems bearing this subject, Vollenweider proposed to regard them as propaganda pieces aimed to reach common people and inform them about the new peace and prosperity period that the marriage guaranteed.1689 However, it should be noted that the real impact of these gems cannot be measured in any reasonable terms. The identification of these portraits with specific historical figures (here Antony and Octavia) is difficult because of the reduced quality of the glass gems and the frequent slight variation in coiffure and physiognomy of people at the time among whom many stylised their appearance on the ones belonging to the main political figures. Moreover, on some of gems of this kind the heads are accompanied with caduceus – in political context, a symbol of peace (cat. nos. 9.1184-1185, fig. 772). However, it also appears on betrothal gems and rings so that one cannot be sure about its political meaning in every case. In fact, many of the uninscribed gems can be private objects having no connection with politics at all. A few gems bear inscriptions which make it clear that they do not have anything in common with Antony and Octavia. For instance, a sard intaglio in Hannover presents a pair of heads which due to the iconographical reasoning could be taken for Mark Antony and Octavia, but the inscription accompanying it sounds I ΛA PO Y (Hilario) and points to the name of the gem’s owner (cat. no. 9.1186, fig. 773). It is far more probable that this one was manufactured for a man named Hilarious as a commemoration of his private marriage not the political one 1685 Maaskant-Kleibrink 1986, no. 27. 1686 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 208-209; Weiß 2007, no. 371. See also a valuable commentary on this issue in: Zwierlein-Diehl 1990, pp. 549-550. 1687 For instance: RRC, nos. 527/1 (aureus of Mark Antony, 39 BC) and 533/1a-b (aureus of Mark Antony, 38 BC). 1688 Zazoff 1983, p. 284; Zanker 1988, p. 61; Toso 2007, p. 211. Toso (2007, p. 208) even claims that Neptune and Athena if paired may also reflect the marriage of Mark Antony and Octavia, but they were usually presented on gems in a quarrel over the Athens control, therefore this seems to be unsuitable (Rambach 2011). See also a discussion on similar matters in chapters 9.3.2.4 and 10.6. 1689 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 208-209. Some other scholars share this view too, see: Maaskant-Kleibrink 1986, no. 27. e.g. the option that the gem was used by a follower of Mark Antony who wished to commemorate his marriage and express allegiance to his faction is much less probable. It has been already signalised in this dissertation that gems presenting augural symbols constitute an important category in Roman Republican glyptics (6.1 and 7.1.6). The evidence from statues and other sources suggests that they were used by augurs and other priests, so they were symbols of these offices and as such helped to raise authority of their possessors. In 50 BC Julius Caesar as pontifex maximus appointed his loyal servant Mark Antony the augur. This was a great honour that helped him to develop his career and strengthen his position in Rome. Antony consistently referred to this office in his coinage.1690 Just after Caesar’s death, he even issued coins presenting him as an augur with mourning beard most likely to highlight that he was appointed to continue Caesar’s politics by himself (fig. 750).1691 The promotion from Caesar must have been particularly important for Antony since in 38 BC on one of his denarii, he once again refers to his augural office presenting himself as an augur.1692 According to Crawford, this was one of the first symptoms when Octavian and Antony coinages are going to part company and the two, after a short conciliation at Brundisium, start to focus their promotion on their own figures.1693 Later on, Antony’s coinage praises mainly his own accomplishments and stop to refer to him and his wife Octavia at the same time. For this reason, he came back to the issue of his priesthood. Actually, there are two glass gems, one in Cortona and second in Geneva bearing veiled busts of augurs holding lituus that that according to Vollenweider are plausible to be linked with Antony and his augural office (cat. nos. 9.1187-1188, fig. 775).1694 Nevertheless, in these cases, the figure or figures depicted are clean-shaven and if one recalls the very special issue of Mark Antony’s coins minted just after Caesar’s death, where he is presented similarly to the gems evoked, but bearded and with different facial features, it is less likely to believe in Vollenweider’s identification.1695 The glass gems under discussion here were certainly produced in Italy as their provenance history suggests. In 38 BC Antony was already in the east battling with Parthia, so if he was to be responsible for issuing gems of this kind, he must have done that through services of one of his followers left in Rome 1690 For instance: nos. 492/1-2 (aurei of Mark Antony, 43 BC), 496/2-3 (denarii of Mark Antony, 42 BC), 517/5c and 7-8 (aurei and denarii of Mark Antony, M. Cocceius Nerva and L. Gellius Poplicola, 41 BC), 520/a (denarius of Mark Antony, 40 BC), 522/1-4 (denarii of Mark Antony and L. Munatius Plancus, 40 BC). 1691 RRC, no. 480/22 (denarius of P. Sepullius Macer, 44 BC). 1692 RRC, no. 533/2 (denarius of Mark Antony, 38 BC). 1693 RRC, p. 743. 1694 Vollenweider 1972-1974, p. 176. 1695 Compare: RRC, no. 480/22 (denarius of P. Sepullius Macer, 44 BC). but this seems unlikely. Since the certain identification with Antony cannot be made, it is more likely that the objects depict priests rather than specific historical figures. Since ca. 38 BC Mark Antony started to promote only himself in his coinage and as it will be shown here in glyptics as well.1696 This promotion mainly focused on his military successes like the triumph over Armenia that he celebrated in 34 BC in Alexandria. With that event, one connects a remarkable cornelian intaglio said to have been found in Asia Minor and now in Boston which features head of Mark Antony to the left crowned by eagle standing on an altar with a laurel wreath (cat. no. 9.1189, fig. 776). The head is identified with Mark Antony due o its similarities with portraits known from gems and coins (cf. chapter 9.3.2.3 above). In addition to the image there is an inscription: ΠPOCΩΛAC. The letters probably indicate the gem’s owner who must have been a follower of Antony, perhaps one of officers in his army since the subject is suitable for a military men. To the Romans, eagles were symbols of victory, of the military legion as a whole, and of apotheosis and were widely present on engraved gems belonging to the legionaries.1697 The image of an altar topped with an eagle, which is quite common on Roman gemstone and glass gems, is interpreted as a symbol of the cult of the victor, bringing wealth and luck. In this regard, it is logical that the eagle crowns the bust as a victor. Given the military associations of eagle imagery, as well as Mark Antony’s role as a general of the Roman army, it seems reasonable to recognise this gesture as a reference to his triumph over Armenia.1698 1696 Regarding coinage, see: RRC, pp. 743-744. 1697 For a more thorough discussion on this matter, see: Gołyźniak 2017, no. 188. 1698 Vermeule 1966, no. 19. 1699 Vollenweider 1966, pp. 19-20. 1700 Zanker 1988, p. 47. Finally, regarding commemoration of Antony’s military victories, Vollenweider suggested that it is perhaps not a coincidence that gem engraver Sostratos, who supposedly worked at the court of Cleopatra and Antony in Alexandria, produced cameos with the Dionysiac subjects because they relate to Antony’s triumph over Armenia and overall the east.1699 His triumph would be compared to the one that Dionysus celebrated after his quest to India. Although there may be other explanations for popularity of Dionysiac subjects on 1st century BC gems, Vollenweider might be quite right in her theory. Zanker proved that in other media than glyptics there is a clear reflection of Antony to have made reference to Dionysus so maybe gems are a part of this phenomenon too.1700 The triumph Antony celebrated in Alexandria in 34 BC could be commemorated in various ways including cameos. One of such examples seems to be a lost piece once in the George Frederick Nott collection known only from the plaster cast made by Cades.1701 It presents a male portrait that due to the distinctive facial features is identified with Mark Antony, carrying ram’s horn belonging to Egyptian god Ammon (cat. no. 9.1200, fig. 784). In 37/36 BC Antony was terribly defeated by the Parthians, he organised his second expedition to Armenia which was largely successful. In order to blur the fruitless Parthian War, he organised celebrations in Alexandria of his victory over Armenia which was compared to Alexander’s conquests in the east. Considering the fact that over the Hellenistic period Alexander was depicted with ram’s horn of Ammon, the cameo in question could have been intended to depict Mark Antony as a new Alexander. This issue will be more widely discussed in the next sub-chapter, but here I would like just to remark the possible circumstances the cameo could have been created. 1701 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 187-188. 1702 Morawiecki 2014. 1703 Ritter 1995, pp. 70-71; Barcaro 2008/2009, pp. 138-140. 1704 Ritter 1995, pp. 72-73; Kühnen 2005, pp. 101-102. 1705 For example, RRC, nos. 494/2a-2b (aurei of L. Livineius Regulus, 42 BC). See also some commentaries to this issue: Ritter 1995, pp. 73-76; Barcaro 2008/2009, pp. 104-105. 1706 Ritter 1995, p. 73. See, also, the criticism toward this idea expressed by Hekster (2004, p. 172). 9.3.2.7. Divine and mythological references As correctly observed by Morawiecki, after the death of Julius Caesar references to various deities and mythological figures became a standard among young political leaders.1702 Mark Antony was not an exception and during his career he used to compare or identify with a number of them. Shortly after Caesar’s death in 44 BC Antony was struck by the skilfulness of young Octavian who promoted himself as a son of deified Julius Caesar (cf. chapter 9.3.1.1). In order to respond that propaganda action, he had to create his own legend, which would be counterpropaganda for Octavian’s and others’ actions (mainly Sextus Pompey, cf. chapter 9.1.4), and he focused on his familial ancestry which was based on the figure of Anton – one of the descendants of Heracles.1703 Several ancient writers compare Antony to Heracles seeing even some physiognomic similarities between the two or at least mention his relationship with the hero through Anton.1704 There is no doubt that some early coinage of Antony was purposed to help him to build his legend since Heracles appears on some special issues.1705 Some scholars see also an indirect allusion to Heracles through a lion appearing on a gold medallion of Antony struck in 38 BC but this was related to imitatio Alexandri not Heracles and will be discussed later.1706 Antony also expressed his particular veneration to Heracles by erecting the statue of the hero called after him Heracles Antoninianus.1707 It should be stressed that this Heracles was much different in propaganda terms than for instance Heracles Pompeianus. While Pompey flirted through Heracles with Hellenistic traditions seeking to comparison with Alexander the Great, Antony focused more on the relationship between Anton/Heracles and the beginnings or Rome.1708 Hekster rightly comments that Antony did not fully identified with Heracles, but his intention was to show his bound with the hero so that he could raise his own authority and be regarded as equal to Octavian and other political rivals.1709 1707 Barcaro 2008/2009, pp. 140-141. 1708 Ritter 1995, pp. 71-72. 1709 Hekster 2004, p. 174. 1710 Vollenweider 1966, p. 19; Vollenweider 1972-1974, p. 184. 1711 Ritter 1995, pp. 116-117. 1712 Cf. also discussion on this matter in chapter 8.1.9. 1713 Hansson 2005, p. 138. Overall, the use of Heracles for his propaganda by Antony is clear in various media, therefore, a number of scholars somehow automatically started to link some engraved gems presenting Heracles with Mark Antony and his propaganda. Vollenweider suggested that Heracles on gems in the 40s and 30s BC may have stood for Mark Antony in general or at least should have been associated with the politician and gems with his busts and heads may have been produced in Alexandria for Antony’s supporters (cat. nos. 9.1190-1192, fig. 777).1710 This view gained some supporters who even saw busts and heads of Heracles on gems to serve as tokens used by followers of Antony to express their allegiance to him.1711 Indeed, busts and heads of Heracles were particularly popular on gems those days, but if one analyses these motifs in a wider spectrum, it is obvious that they were quite popular throughout the whole 1st century BC and well down into the Imperial era.1712 There is no particular outburst of these in the 40s and 30s BC which would indicate their special status and connection with Antony. Furthermore, when Antony transferred himself to Egypt, his propaganda focused on his identification with Dionysus/Bacchus rather than Heracles. Therefore, one of course cannot entirely exclude that some gems presenting Heracles could be automatically associated with Antony if within the society this idea was widely accepted, but on the other hand, glyptics does not deliver clear proofs for such a situation to be actually occurring. It should be taken into account that individuals generally identified with Heracles as their patron deity or as an example worth to follow on a private level.1713 Concerning figural scenes, Vollenweider recognised Mark Antony on one of intaglios in Paris (cat. no. 9.1193, fig. 778) basing her reasoning on the similarity of the piece with Solon’s work now housed in Naples (cf. cat. no. 9.839, fig. 671).1714 Nevertheless, I have already proved that if Solon’s work had any political significance, it was created for Octavian and on the gem in question here, one does not find any direct reference to Mark Antony including the facial features or coiffure of the hero depicted. Vollenweider also remarked on the already evoked here cameo from the Beverley collection that she attributed to Sostratos, who could have worked for Antony while he was in Egypt and claimed it to represent Antony seduced by Cleopatra (cat. no. 9.1128, fig. 743).1715 But neither the attribution is convincing nor the explanation for the subject-matter. In fact, a broader analysis of the motif reveals that many variants exist, and it must have served as an allegory to more general conspectus, like the victory of love over strength (cat. nos. 9.1194-1196, fig. 779).1716 Regarding other possible motifs involving Heracles that could have served as propaganda messages, the already evoked work of Teukros is often given to have some political significance as it might present Antony and Cleopatra (cat. no. 9.1130, fig. 745).1717 Also, a gold ring with a nicolo intaglio signed by Solon and presenting a male figure with a club found in Pompeii is often regarded as a propagandistic piece illustrating the relationship between Antony and Heracles; it is even suggested that it belonged to one of Antony’s veterans.1718 As already discussed there is no ground for the connection between Solon and Mark Antony (cf. chapter 9.3.2.2), but maybe it has not been completely explained why the idea of linking this subject with Antony emerged at all. This view was based on the similar image appearing on a denarius struck in 47-46 BC which Vollenweider assumed to be Heracles Antoninianus (fig. 780).1719 However, Crawford rightly argues that the subject on the coin refers to Heracles Pompeianus which is suggested by the head of Africa that appears on the coin’s obverse that indicates the place where Pompey’s followers (including the moneyers responsible for the issue) fled after Pompey’s death.1720 This also stays in consistency with a more general issue that Antony did not aimed to be identified with Heracles, but rather to show his family connection with the hero and since Solon’s work does not exhibit this idea, it should not be linked with Antony’s propaganda.1721 1714 Vollenweider and Avisseau-Broustet 2003, no. 31. 1715 Vollenweider 1966, p. 36. 1716 On this, see the most actual interpretation of the piece in: Scarisbrick, Wagner and Boardman 2016a, no. 35. Regarding the subject itself, see also valuable commentaries in the following: Zwierlein-Diehl 1986, no. 385; Weiß 2007, no. 28; Toso 2007, pp. 188-189. 1717 Vollenweider 1966, p. 43; Zazoff 1983, p. 288. 1718 Vollenweider 1966, pp. 49-50; Laubscher 1974, pp. 251-252; Zanker 1988, pp. 45-46; Ritter 1995, pp. 79-81; Toso 2007, pp. 172-173. 1719 Vollenweider 1966, pp. 49-50. For the coin, see: RRC, no. 461/1 (denarius of Eppius and Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio, 47-46 BC). 1720 RRC, pp. 737-738. 1721 Megow 1985, pp. 484-484; Hekster 2004, pp. 173-174. The analysis of potential reflections of the relationship between Heracles and Mark Antony, whichever one believes (full identification or just familial reference), in glyptics, reveals that there is only some vague evidence for that phenomenon to have indeed occurred. A raise in popularity of the motifs like busts and heads as well as figural representations of Heracles and Anton seem too insignificant to link them with Mark Antony and it is difficult to point some individual pieces that could testify that directly and unambiguously.1722 1722 Toso 2007, p. 191. Regarding representations of Anton, a valuable commentary is given by Toso, who notices that this subject was continually present in glyptics from the 3rd century BC to the 3rd century AD (2007, p. 185). So the situation is like with the busts and heads of Heracles described by us above. 1723 Barcaro 2008/2009, pp. 155-160; Plutarch, Ant., 90.5. 1724 Toso 2007, p. 49. 1725 Toso 2007, p. 49. 1726 Toso 2007, pp. 28-30. 1727 Ritter 1995, pp. 79-81; Morawiecki 2014. Regarding other mythological figures, some ancient writers compared Mark Antony to Paris, usually in a negative way to create the image of a coward Antony like Paris that used to flee the battlefield in the Trojan War to take refuge in the arms of his beloved.1723 This image was of course a black propaganda created by Augustan writers and Toso wonders if the representations of Paris on gems can be linked to the same phenomenon.1724 However, representations of Paris exist on Roman Republican gems already in the 3rd century BC and thus are nothing special in the 40s and 30s BC. His popularity in glyptics does not raise during Antony’s and Octavian’s fierce rivalry. Moreover, Pairs is often shown with Venus due to their common story of the golden apple of discord which suggests that he was put on gems for private reasons rather than political ones.1725 It has been also put forward that the motif of Ajax carrying the corpse of Achilles from the battlefield could symbolise Mark Antony and Julius Caesar’s relationship and continuation of Caesar’s politics by Antony, but Toso makes it clear that such ideas are overinterpretations. The motif is popular already on 3rd century BC gemstones and the theme stood for the representation of a close relationship between two soldiers reflected on a gem by a sophisticated allegory encapsulated in this mythological motif.1726 Turning now to divine patrons of Mark Antony, like his contemporaries he demonstrated that he is supported by various deities, but Dionysus prevailed them all. This was his respond to a general trend since Sextus Pompey identified himself with Neptune and Octavian with Apollo (cf. chapters 9.1.7 and 9.3.1.8 respectively).1727 Antony started to identify himself with Dionysus since the victory in the Battle of Pharslus in 42 BC and since the very beginning, he attempted to create his own image independently claiming he is a Neos Dionysus.1728 For sure, meeting Cleopatra, who identified herself with Isis motivated Antony to go the same way.1729 This was a much different process than propaganda of his family relationship with Heracles, a stronger one with emphasis on Antony’s figure, not presenting himself as a humble servant to the god. In case of Antony, this is highlighted, for instance, by the title autokrator that appears on his coins from 37/36 BC.1730 Moreover, identification with Dionysus was related to Antony’s propaganda of military accomplishments in the east, like the triumph over Armenia in 34 BC which were compared to Dionysus’ Indian triumph and Alexander’s conquests of the east in coinage and beyond (cf. chapter 9.3.2.6).1731 Taking all of this into account, one wonders if engraved gems could contribute to Antony’s propaganda efforts in this respect. 1728 Barcaro 2008/2009, pp. 102-103. For a detailed analysis of the beginnings of Antony’s identification with Dionysus, see: Morawiecki 2014, pp. 107-119. 1729 Plantzos 1999, p. 86; Morawiecki 2014, pp. 119-124. 1730 Plantzos 1999, pp. 43-44; Barcaro 2008/2009, p. 119. 1731 For a detailed analysis of these two propaganda processes reflected in the coinage of Antony, see: Morawiecki 2014, pp. 124-152. 1732 Toso 2007, pp. 196-197. However, see also commentary of Zwierlein-Diehl to the cameo with this subject in Vienna (2008, pp. 190-193). 1733 Toso 2007, pp. 204-205. 1734 Anth. Pal. IX.756. 1735 Neverov 2005, p. 189; Henig 2007, p. 34; Gołyźniak 2017, no. 61. Many scholars declared Mark Antony’s relationship with Dionysus to be reflected on engraved gems. For instance, Toso observes that on many cameos and intaglios bearing Dionysian/Bacchic themes Dionysus often appears together with Ariadne which is possibly a reflection of the sacred marriage between Antony and Cleopatra.1732 Interesting is the notice of the researcher that actually, Antony could not have been the first Roman political leader who exploited that theme. For Gaius Marius while celebrating his triumph over Jughurta also referred to Dionysus, so the tradition of this kind of identification may have been deeply rooted in glyptic art.1733 I believe that ancient literary sources add some valuable information to the issue under discussion since it is reported that one of Cleopatras carried a finger ring with a gem engraved with the figure of Methe – a personification of drunkenness and a member of Dionysus thiasos.1734 The source does not specify which one it was, but the context of the description and the overall promotion the cult of Dionysus under Antony suggest Cleopatra VII, his wife.1735 This illustrates that even the motifs which at the first glance appear insignificant from the political point of view may have actually contribute to the establishment of connection between Antony and Dionysus. The more this idea was promoted in various ways, the more acceptable it was for common people. There are many more motifs which could play the same role as representation of Methe cut upon Cleopatra’s ring. For instance, there is a peculiar group of gems presenting a highly popular subject of a dancing satyr with a pantherskin, thyrsus and vessel at his foot, which on the one hand may reflect some propaganda activities of Antony towards establishing a sort of intimate connection between Dionysiac subjects and him that would further commemorate some of his military victories accomplished thanks to his divine nature of Neos Dionysus, for instance, that at Ephesus in 42 BC (cat. nos. 9.1197-1198, fig. 781).1736 But on the other hand, there are many other explanations for these subjects to have appeared on gems including quite simple like drawing of inspiration from the sculpture by gem engravers.1737 Without any sort of context explaining us how these stones functioned and circulated within the society, they remain to us only archaeological objects rather than cultural ones.1738 1736 Weiß 2007, no. 112. 1737 This applies, for instance, to the dancing satyr motif, which might be in fact based on a Praxitelean prototype, see: Gołyźniak 2017, no. 232; Wagner and Boardman 2017, no. 163. 1738 See an important voice of Zwierlein-Diehl in the discussion on this matter in: AGDS II, no. 375. 1739 Henig 2015/2016; Henig 2017, pp. 28-29. 1740 Henig 2017, pp. 28-29. All these mythological and divine relationships between Mark Antony and Cleopatra seem to be present in glyptics, although their propagandistic value is difficult to be measured today without cultural context within which they circulated. Nevertheless, there are examples of a more direct and unambiguous reference towards divine nature of Antony and Cleopatra as the rulers of Egypt and the eastern part of the Roman Empire. In a private collection in Stockholm Henig has recently discovered a remarkable cameo presenting Mark Antony seated on a throne with a phiale and presumably thyrsus, which were originally intended to identify him with Neos Dionysus/Osiris, and Cleopatra depicted as Isis with a large cornucopia seated on his side (cat. no. 9.1199, fig. 782). The English scholar presented the cameo first in 2015/2016 and even more interestingly, in 2017 he has notified about some evidence for the piece to have been recut possibly after the Battle of Actium.1739 The cameo is a very rare example of Mark Antony’s direct propaganda reflected in glyptic art, though, one wonders if that was Cleopatra who decided on this, since her figure seems bigger than Antony’s one. As has been said, the gem was later recut possibly to remove reference to Antony and Cleopatra after the Battle of Actium and to reinterpret the subject itself into an ordinary depiction of Isis and Osiris (for this reason, a part of thyrsus has been removed and head of Antony recut in a crudely way).1740 While discussing commemoration of Mark Antony’s military accomplishments, I have mentioned a cameo perhaps presenting him as Jupiter-Ammon or simply as with horn of Ammon added in the way it occurs on portraits of Alexander the Great (cf. chapter 9.3.2.6 above). The very similar head appears on some denarii struck by Antony and his moneyer in 31 BC combined with Victory on the reverse side which configuration expresses hope for the victory in the forthcoming clash with Octavian and also reflects Antony’s imitatio Alexandri (fig. 783).1741 In glyptics such references are rare and basing on single objects, it is difficult to judge their true propagandistic value, but they exist suggesting Antony’s wish to be presented as the new Alexander (cat. no. 9.1200, fig. 784). The most clear proof of that is a remarkable cameo in Paris which addresses Antony’s identification with Alexander the Great (cat. no. 9.1201, fig. 785). It presents head of a man with slight beard and long hair wearing an ornate casque and laurel wreath on his head. In the top of the helmet there is a walking lion. Vollenweider discussed this cameo in detail pointing to Mark Antony (identified through the walking lion which may symbolise Antony’s zodiacal sign or Heracles from whom Antony’s family descended)1742 as the person depicted here in the guise of Alexander the Great and while the general idea could be accepted, some details require attention.1743 The helmet is entirely Roman and decorated with a laurel wreath. The latter is unusual for Roman Republican glyptics but here, it can be explained as a reference to Julius Caesar and his deification or future victory Antony wished to accomplish. The slight beard the man carries is probably the mourning beard that Antony put on his images known from coins minted in 44 BC (cf. chapter 9.3.2.3). It is another reference to Caesar. As Vollenweider pointed out, this piece may illustrate Antony’s idea of the continuation of Caesar’s politics regarding the eastern part of the Roman Empire and the planned war with Parthia.1744 This representation if combined with the extraordinary gold medallion struck in 38 BC makes it clear that Antony unambiguously presented himself iconographically as a successor of Alexander the Great.1745 The planned eastern campaign by Caesar was intended to compare his accomplishments to those of Alexander, however, his assassination prevented that. Instead, here, Antony undertakes the same subject and combines both being the continuator of Caesar’s politics and aspiring to be a successor of Alexander the Great. The cameo is completely exceptional in stylistic terms since in Rome such pieces had not been produced in the 40s BC. Yet, giving the fact that the mourning beard seems here a 1741 RRC, nos. 546/1-3c (denarii of Mark Antony and L. Pinarius Scarpus, 31 BC). 1742 Lion as zodiacal sign of Mark Antony appears on his coins in 43 BC, see: Kühnen 2005, pp. 104-105. 1743 Vollenweider and Avisseau-Broustet 1995, no. 36. 1744 Vollenweider and Avisseau-Broustet 1995, no. 36. 1745 For a detailed discussion on Mark Anrony’s imitatio Alexandri, see: Kühnen 2005, pp. 101-120. clear sign of veneration to Caesar, which was not the main subject of Antony’s propaganda after 38 BC and even after 43 BC it is difficult to observe it, for instance, on his coins, I believe that this artwork must have been created in the late 40s BC. Finally, I should briefly discuss a potential Mark Antony’s propaganda message encoded on a glass gem in the Berlin collection which depicts a male figure seated on a diphros and holding in his right arm cornucopia, while on the left, extended hand Victoriola that is about to crown a statue of god Mars standing on an altar (cat. no. 9.1202, fig. 786). The object was interpreted by Furtwängler as a representation of a genius, however, the inscription appearing under the ground line makes the piece interesting as it reads: MAR•VIC. Perhaps, it refers to a legionary Marcus who wished to be victorious on the battlefield, but the scene seems to be too complex for a regular legionary gem and the inscription may actually indicate Mar(k) (Antony) Vic(tor). If that is the case, he would be presented here in the guise of Genius Populi Romani who offers his victory to Mars, divine patron of the Roman army. The intaglio would bear a powerful propaganda message still suitable for a legionary and perhaps a gift to one of the officers in Antony’s army. Interesting is the divine nature highlighted not only in the figure of Antony himself, but also by his pietas towards Mars whom he offers his victory. Noteworthy is also that Victory appears on some coins of Antony minted just before the Battle of Actium as a sign of a wished victory over Octavian (fig. 783).1746 Perhaps, the intaglio in question is a part of the same phenomenon. 1746 RRC, nos. 546/1-3c (denarii of Mark Antony and L. Pinarius Scarpus, 31 BC). 1747 Vollenweider 1955, pp. 100-101. 1748 Sena Chiesa 2002, p. 490; Sena Chiesa 2013, p. 68. 1749 Sena Chiesa 2002, pp. 410-411. 9.3.2.8. Political symbols According to a popular view, political leaders of the caesarians party used the same symbolism on engraved gems as Julius Caesar did in order to show their intentions to continue his programme of ordo rerum – focusing on promotion of peace and prosperity that should be guaranteed by their reign.1747 Because many of the symbols related to deities such as Mercury or Heracles, it has been somehow automatically accepted that these elements refer to Octavian and Mark Antony respectively.1748 Moreover, it is believed that some combinations stand for peculiar virtues promoted by these political leaders such as virtus, dignitas, pax and concordia.1749 The whole argumentation is based on similarities between gems and coins, which however, exist only at the first glance. A more scrupulous analysis reveals that many of these combinations on gems were intended to bring protection and blessing from various gods and prevent affection of the Evil Eye on gems’ owners. I have already discussed much the nature of symbolic gems in several previous chapters (cf. chapters 7.1.6, 7.2.5, 8.1.11, 8.2.9, 9.1.8, 9.2.7 and 9.3.1.9), therefore, here, I focus only on the peculiar subjects which to some degree may potentially had something in common with Mark Antony, but still, the evidence I have gathered suggests that majority of the gems bearing similar compositions were private amulets rather than means of propaganda. This view is supported by the fact that Antony did not promote a complex political programme like Julius Caesar and Octavian did. His propaganda was primarily focused on his own person and the classes of gems commemorating his successes or highlighting his comparatio or imitatio of Alexander the Great are best proofs of that. The analysis of symbolic gems potentially referring to Mark Antony should start with combinations of symbols involving elements related to Heracles. These basically involve Heracles’ club as the main symbol which is often combined with corn ears, rudder or a palm branch (cat. nos. 9.1203-1205, fig. 787). It has been suggested that Heracles’ club allows to identify the gems it appears on as being issued under the influence of Mark Antony or even belonging to the members of gens Fabia.1750 However, this element had apotropaic properties too and was believed to help avert all kinds of evil that could reach gem’s sitter. Besides, symbolic gems involving Heracles’ club were manufactured in large quantities in a variety of materials and all parts of Italy (including a vast production in Aquileia) and beyond already in the beginning of the 1st century BC (cf. chapter 7.1.6). The other elements accompanying this symbol usually may be interpreted as wishes for prosperity, abundance, good fortune etc. Noteworthy is that inscriptions appearing on the gems of this kind usually refer to the names of their owners (cat. no. 9.1206, fig. 788), which suggests their personal use as amulets rather than political functions. Summing up, these combinations work well on the personal level rather than a political one. Besides, in the coinage of Antony, there is no example that would take Heracles’ club as a basis of the subject-matter and there is not even one identical set of symbols that gems, and coins would share. 1750 Middleton 1991, no. 27; Weiß 1996, no. 426 (with more literature). 1751 For the coins, see: RRC, nos. 544/1-39. A peculiar class of gems are those bearing warships with soldiers on board and other elements such as legionary standards, aequila etc. (cat. no. 9.1207, fig. 789). Because indeed a very close motif appears on a series of aurei and denarii struck just before the Battle of Actium in 32 and 31 BC by Mark Antony, they are usually associated with him (fig. 790).1751 However, Sena Chiesa rightly points out that naval themes in various forms (ships, prows, aphlustre etc.) were used on coins of Brutus and Sextus Pompey too (cf. chapter 9.1.8), therefore, they seem quite problematic for there is not one specific political leader that could be clearly and only associated with these themes.1752 Besides one cannot exclude that gems engraved with warships were used by legionaries serving in naval units of the Roman army in the very same way as those bearing legionary eagles. So they were tokens of profession rather than means of political propaganda.1753 1752 Sena Chiesa 2012, pp. 260-261. 1753 Gołyźniak 2017, no. 226. 1754 For instance: RRC, nos. 520/1 (denarius of Mark Antony, 40 BC) and 529 (aurei and denarii of Octavian and Mark Antony, 39 BC). 1755 RRC, p. 743. 1756 In this particular case, Aubry suggests the inscription is a name of the gem’s owner who was a freed slave, see: Aubry 2009, p. 17. 1757 RRC, nos. 516/1-5 (aurei and denarii of Mark Antony, 41 BC); Campagnolo and Fallani 2018, no. X.2.i, p. 260. 1758 RRC, p. 742. Finally, there are many gems that bear combinations of symbols similar to those used by Antony on his own coins and these are more likely to transmit some propaganda messages.1754 These usually involve such elements like: cornucopiae, globe, palm branch etc. On the evoked coins, those symbols refer to reconciliation between Octavian and Mark Antony after the treaty they sealed in Brundisium in 40 BC and it is noteworthy that they do not refer to the continuation of Caesar’s new world order, but were put there because caduceus, cornucopiae and other elements were typical symbols of peace/Concordia and prosperity that these two politicians aimed to guarantee to their followers and people of Rome.1755 On gems, these symbols are highly popular (cat. nos. 9.1208-1212, figs. 791-792) and were certainly suitable for personal amulets rather than appear on them due to political reasons. This view is supported by the inscriptions that sometimes appear with them too which indicate mostly names of gems’ owners (cat. no. 9.1213, fig. 793).1756 Nevertheless, some of them might indeed carry some political messages. A good example of that are the gems presenting combinations of symbols involving a stork – symbol of pietas (cat. nos. 9.1214-1216, fig. 794). The bird appears rarely on gems and coins, but crucial here is the emission of Mark Antony from 41 BC where Pietas appears on his aurei and denarii together with storks (fig. 795).1757 These coins were minted to celebrate consulship of Antony’s brother – Lucius Antonius, thus, one figures out that the personification and the stork were intended to show Antony’s pietas erga fratrem.1758 Basing on this, some scholars deduces that stork combined with other motifs symbolising peace, prosperity and abundance were manufactured for the same purpose as the special issue of Mark Antony’s coins, that is to commemorate consulship of his brother and were distributed among common people and his supporters to increase popularity of his brother.1759 This view, although attractive is based purely on a comparison of sets of symbols that seem similar in coinage and glyptics, but could have had completely different meanings in these two various media. Because gems were strictly private objects it is likely for the stork on an intaglio to have referred to a private issue rather than a political one especially giving the fact that there is no specific clues suggesting linking such an iconography on gems with Mark Antony in contrary to coins where his head appears on an obverse side. In private terms, perhaps gems with iconography involving stork were intended for auto-presentation since pietas was one of the key virtues cherished by the Romans. Therefore, a gem’s owner would want to highlight his pietas which for many could testify to his religious way of life and that was a thing to be proud of. If put on a small intaglio, it was discreetly promoted. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that on the above-mentioned coins stork is combined with Fortuna, whereas on the evoked intaglio (cat. no.1216, fig. 794) the bird is set together with a cornucopia, the main attribute of that personification. In conclusion, if there is any political message encoded on that intaglio, it appears largely speculative from a perspective of a contemporary researcher, however, such allusions could have been much less enigmatic for the Romans who knew the context. 1759 Vollenweider 1979, no. 427; Weiß 1996, nos. 340 and 440 (with more literature). 1760 Vollenweider 1984, no. 176. For the coins, see: RRC nos. 489/5-6 (quinarii of Mark Antony, 43-42 BC). 1761 On some possible explanations of the lion on gems, see: Henig 1997b, p. 45; Gołyźniak 2017, no. 194. 1762 Mobius 1964; Plantzos 1999, pp. 101-102; Tassinari 2008, pp. 263-266. A similar case is with a lion as a symbol of Mark Antony and indirectly his familial origins from Anton and therefore, Heracles. One has seen that the animal, if figured as a symbol related to the mythological Greek hero, may help to identify Mark Antony on a cameo from Paris (cf. chapter 9.3.2.7). Vollenweider, who so often compared gems and coins devices noticed, that a lion a sole symbol appears on some gems in the same way as it does on coins of Mark Antony (cat. no. 9.1217, figs. 796-797).1760 Nevertheless, I believe that this is just a coincidence and there are numerous, less complex, explanations for the lion to be present on gems, so if there is no clear reference to a propagandist or a politician, one should treat interpretations linking the lion with propaganda as highly speculative.1761 9.3.2.9. Luxury objects (State Cameos, vessels etc.) and religious propaganda It is believed that during the Hellenistic period Alexandria was one of the major locations for workshops producing engraved gems.1762 For this reason, it was expected that Mark Antony’s stay in Alexandria should have contributed with a large amount of the so-called State Cameos and other relevant objects that on the one hand would reflect his passion for luxury life and on the other hand his intentions to glorify his successes. Overall, it is observed that only very few cameos, which iconography and quality might be considered as exceptional, can be connected to Antony. There is not such a production as it was in the previous centuries for Ptolemies. Moreover, there is a considerable discrepancy in cameo portraits of Antony and Cleopatra (cf. chapter 9.5.1). These facts seem to support a general view that Antony used coinage as the main channel for his propaganda, while glyptics was used in minor scale in such terms. One should add that despite a surely abundant collection of gems built by the Ptolemies in Alexandria, there is no information whatsoever about Antony to have used intaglios and cameos for some religious propaganda or other purposes like Pompey the Great or Julius Caesar did before him. This might be another proof for the claim that Caesar’s six dactyliothecae were in a substantial part based on treasuries brought to Rome from Egypt. All this evidence suggests that Mark Antony interest in glyptics was only surficial, but it was Cleopatra who had a larger interest. Whether she was responsible for employment of Sostratos at the Alexandrian court cannot be securely established, but it seems likely as does the employment of other gem engravers to cut Cleopatra’s portrait gems. It is difficult to say whether these pieces were created due to the political reasons e.g. propaganda or were meant for the personal use of the Queen of Egypt and her court. Perhaps both since cameos with the image of Cleopatra are found as far as in Georgia, where they could get during one of Antony’s military campaigns in Armenia in the 30s and exchanged with local rulers as diplomatic gifts.1763 1763 Lordkipanidze 1961, no. 61. 1764 Regarding Lepidus propaganda in the coinage, see: RRC, nos. 489/1-6 (denarii and quinarii of Mark Antony and Marcus Aemilius Lepidus, 43-42 BC), 494/1 (aureus of Marcus Aemilius Lepidus and L. Livineius Regulus, 42 BC), 494/13 (aureus of Marcus Aemilius Lepidus and L. Mussidius, 42 BC) and see commentary on p. 740. 9.3.3. Marcus Aemilius Lepidus (triumvir) Marcus Aemilius Lepidus (ca. 89/88-13/12 BC) was one of the main supporters of Julius Caesar and continuator of his policy after dictator’s death in 44 BC. In 43 BC he became a part of the political pact established together with Mark Antony and Octavian but since the very beginning he was largely marginalised. His propaganda activities practically include only his coinage and it is not known much about him using other media.1764 In this chapter I would like to present that evidence suggesting that use of engraved gems for propaganda by Lepidus is scarce. There is no evidence whatsoever in ancient literary sources for Lepidus to have employed gem engravers and the archaeological material does not support this too. This supports information obtained from other archaeological material and makes one believe that his position within the Triumvirate was insignificant. 9.3.3.1. Portraits – personal branding induction and manifestation of loyalty There are only two portrait gems presenting Marcus Aemilius Lepidus that can be credibly identified with the triumvir after their comparison to his image appearing on coins (cat. nos. 9.1218-1219, figs. 798-799).1765 Both present him as pontifex maximus with lituus in the field. The example from Vienna is particularly interesting for the unusual frontal capture and nakedness which brings to mind comparison with athletes perhaps aimed to highlight physical prowess? Both gems are probably related to the coins minted in 43 and 42 BC where Lepidus is presented and there are augural symbols exhibited as references to his pontifex maximus office (fig. 800).1766 Nothing certain can be said about provenance of these gems and it is difficult to establish whether they were created on the commission of Lepidus himself or by his followers who wished to show their allegiance to him. In any case, these stones transmit powerful propaganda message because like in case of Mark Antony and Octavian, Lepidus is presented as an heir to Julius Caesar’s policy since he replaced him as pontifex maximus after death. This practice observable in coinage and glyptics accounts to transfer of auctoritas and it presented Lepidus as an important political leader. This however did not last long since already in 42 BC Lepidus’ image very rarely if at all appears on coins and it seems that the same happens regarding glyptic art. There are two more portrait gems that might depict him, however, their attribution is less certain than in previous cases (cat. nos. 9.1220-1221, figs. 801-802). Furthermore, Neverov suggested that within a sealings hoard found in Artashat in Armenia, there is one presenting Lepidus (cat. no. 9.1222, fig. 803) but this is disputable and without holding the object in hands, one cannot decide whether the identification of the person is correct or not. 1765 For the coins, see: RRC nos. 492/2 (aureus of Mark Antony, 43 BC), 494/1 (aureus of L. Livineius Regulus, 42 BC), 494/4 and 7a-b (aurei of L. Mussidius Longus, 42 BC) and less similr heads on nos. 494/10 and 13 (aurei of C. Vibius Varus, 42 BC). 1766 RRC, nos. 489/1-6 (denarii and quinarii of Mark Antony and Marcus Aemilius Lepidus, 43-42 BC), 494/1 (aureus of Marcus Aemilius Lepidus and L. Livineius Regulus, 42 BC), 494/13 (aureus of Marcus Aemilius Lepidus and L. Mussidius, 42 BC) 9.3.3.2. Political symbols Regarding constellations of symbols on gems, if considered as political, they are usually associated with Octavian and Mark Antony rather than Lepidus (cf. chapters 9.3.1.9 and 9.3.2.8 respectively). In his much-limited propaganda actions, Lepidus used to propagate his pontifex maximus office by adding augural symbols and raven to his portrait on his coins and gems.1767 On the very same coins he also applies an image of Vestal virgin which was an allusion to the legendary ancestry of the gens Aemilia (fig. 800).1768 A similar depiction occurs on some engraved gems which, however, cannot be precisely dated to the specific propagandistic action of Lepidus (cat. no. 9.1223, fig. 804), although, some researches tried to do so.1769 For engraved gems were private objects and those bearing the Vestal virgin motif may have not only reflect someone’s allegiance to Lepidus political faction, but more plausibly, refer to one’s affiliation to gens Aemilia. The issue of family symbols was already touched at several places in this dissertation and the motif in question might be related to this matter too rather than to Lepidus’ propaganda since there are not large quantities of gems with that motif and none has any reasonable clue to link it directly with Lepidus. 1767 Campagnolo and Fallani 2018, no. X.5.1, p. 292. 1768 Hekster 2004, p. 171. 1769 Vollenweider 1979, no. 125; Guiraud 1986, pp. 338-339. 1770 Cf. the number of portraits dated ca. between 50-30 BC illustrated in: Vollenweider 1972-1974, pls. 103.1-11, 105.1-3, 106.1 and 4, 107.1, 5-7, 108.1-5, 109.1-7, 110.1-2, 128.1-3, 138.1-3 and 139.1-2 and 5-7. 9.4. Less significant politicians In the period between death of Caesar in 44 BC and the Battle of Actium in 31 BC there were many politicians trying to promote themselves, but the leaders of the mentioned three political parties discussed above were the most successful in propaganda. Regarding glyptic art, major acts were due to the leaders and sometimes resulted from the bottom-up initiatives of their followers as described above. Portrait gems were very fashionable like in the first half of the 1st century BC and they illustrate some attempts of personal branding performed by a number of individuals (cat. nos. 9.1224-1266, figs. 805-806). The material gathered here as well as by Vollenweider in her monumental study gives us the idea how considerable was the production of either gemstone and glass portrait gems during this period.1770 Most of the portrait gems present private individuals at various stages of their lives (cat. nos. 9.1224-1249, figs. 805-806). There is a small group where private individuals promoted themselves as priests, which supports the view that this kind of self-presentation was meant to highlight special social status also in regard to the triumvirs and other major politicians discussed above (cat. nos. 9.1250-1251, figs. 807-808). Furthermore, there is a small group of objects featuring private portraits with some accompanying symbolism that possibly like in case of major political figures was supposed to highlight particular issues (cat. nos. 9.1252-1256, figs. 809-813). On cat. no. 9.1252, fig. 809 a head of a young man is surrounded with a prow, spear and goat probably suggesting him to be a military commander (spear) entrusting his destiny to Fortuna (rudder) and Ceres whom he might have sacrificed a goat. Cat. no. 9.1253, fig. 810 features a well-known type of a private individual’s head combined with a prow suggesting him to be a fleet commander. Another man presents himself with a Silenus mask and club of Heracles which indicate his profession as an actor (cat. no. 9.1254, fig. 811).1771 Victorious athletes were immortalised on intaglios, but there are also examples clearly meant for a promotion, however, the additional symbolism remain obscure to us today (cat. nos. 9.1255-1256, figs. 812-813). There is a fairly numerous group of portrait gems accompanied with inscriptions indicating their names and even though it is impossible to decipher and identify most of them today, their role as markers of distinction is clear (cat. nos. 9.1257-1262, figs. 814-815). Finally, there is some evidence from the hoards of sealings for portrait gems o have been used as private seals (cat. nos. 9.1263-1266, fig. 816). 1771 See a detailed discussion in: AGDS II, no. 416. It is clear that there is no series of the same person portrayed that would suggest an intentional propagandistic action e.g. personal branding on a massive scale like it was in case of the leading statemen. Basing on this, it is concluded that all the minor Roman politicians could achieve was commissioning of their private seals bearing their portraits which was already a considerable financial effort. Surely, this kind of self-advertisement was not for everyone and raised social status, but one cannot point to any other activity involving engraved gems that would have resulted in any splendour added to the politician or raising his popularity. The only exception to the rule seems Juba II whose involvement in glyptic art and even studies of gemmology has been partially discussed above (cf. chapter 8.3.1). Here, I would like to bring about his portrait gems that exist in six examples (cat. nos. 9.1267-1272, figs. 817-818). They are made of both, gemstones and glass, and their production certainly was an effect of Juba II’s personal interest in glyptics, but since he was strongly influenced by Augustus, he could try to imitate his advertisement through glyptics issuing his own portrait gems too. 9.5. Women and their propaganda significance on engraved gems So far, I have primarily focused on key male figures of the Roman Republican politics, but it seems that in the second half of the 1st century BC women also played an important role in everyday propaganda. The wives of political leaders served as supporters to their husbands and what is even more important also as the examples to follow. The second role seems to be particularly important and successful since there are many gems that one cannot tell if they bear private portraits or the official ones because ordinary women used to imitate the hairstyles or even stylize their facial features on these prominent female figures. If it goes to propaganda techniques which apply to them, basically, one distinguishes two: personal branding and raising or transfer of authority through a comparison or a complete identification with divine figures. The first was meant to make those women popular and recognisable, while the second took them on a higher level of propaganda and was consistent with the techniques used by their male counterparts. For instance, to be credible, in Egypt Mark Antony and Cleopatra needed to get a divine rank together since Cleopatra was the link with the gods, true creator of Antony’s divine image of Neos Dionysus and she was a powerful figure herself with big ambitions. In case of Octavian, he needed his sister Octavia and wives (especially Livia Drusilla) to support his construction of family divine origins by comparing them to deities like Diana and especially Venus. Later in order to build a dynasty, he needed divine role of Livia who guaranteed continuity of his lineage and secured the future of the Julio-Claudian family. 9.5.1. Portraits – personal branding Regarding production of female portrait gems in the second half of the 1st century BC, it was Furtwängler who first remarked on this great-scale phenomenon also pointing for a special place of the gems presenting Roman matrons such as Livia Drusilla, Julia and Octavia.1772 Vollenweider delivered much more rich information, however, even she did not grasp the scale of the whole phenomenon and what one might figure out from proportions of the identifiable and unidentifiable gems.1773 Because she focused mainly on the first category, the image one may have from this period portraiture on gems is distorted. I am going to touch both kinds of portrait gems produced in the second half of the 1st century BC because such an approach offers more objective judgment of the phenomenon and allows to measure potential significance in propaganda activities at that time. In order to expose the material and problem 1772 Furtwängler 1900, vol. III, p. 318. 1773 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 223-228. of identification of the portraits the best way, first a commentary if given on the production of identifiable gems and then on those which cannot be securely identified with historical figures. The first person whose portraits are present on engraved gems in relatively large quantities is Octavia (69-11 BC), the elder sister of Octavian. She was much promoted by her brother in various media on a variety of occasions since she was a part of Octavian’s political game and played an important role in his dynastic plans.1774 There are many portraits of her on engraved gems, majority of which are carved on gemstones rather than glass gems (cat. nos. 9.1273-1285, figs. 819-821 – for the gemstones and cat. nos. 9.1286-1289, fig. 822 – for the glass gems). Naturally, some of the listed examples doubtfully present Octavia, but even if one or two gems are private portraits, it is an undeniable fact that many intaglios and cameos with her likeness exist.1775 Octavia did not play the key role in Octavian’s policy and she was not as independent as Livia, but she was important for Octavian to create his divine ancestry of Julio-Claudian family and to create his own divine-like image, especially when he struggled for power with Mark Antony and thus, she appears as Diana on an agate plaque discussed above (cf. chapter 9.3.1.2). It should be stressed that Octavia was important for Octavian’s policy as since 40 BC she was wife of Mark Antony. Her marriage with one of the triumvirs was surely one of the reasons why she was promoted in various media, including glyptics (cf. chapter 9.3.2.6).1776 As a sole figure, she was promoted more due to the family reasons and in the same way as Julia, daughter of Augustus and Livia, his wife, were. Provenance study of the gems presenting Octavia alone does not provide many useful clues except for that some objects origin from the collections formed in Rome which may indicate that a substantial portion of Octavia’s portrait gems was produced in the city or more broadly in Italy. There are two cameos that may depict her (cat. no. 9.1289-1290, fig. 822-823) and Neverov identified one of the sealings from the hoard discovered in Artashat in Armenia with her too (cat. no. 9.1291, fig. 824). Various dates are proposed for the gems presenting Octavia, however, they do not exceed a period between ca. 40 BC and 10 BC. In contrast to Livia, there are no posthumous portraits of Octavia whatsoever which only strengthens hypothesis that she was advertised on gems as a part of Octavian’s plan of the promotion of the Julio-Claudian family. 1774 On these matters, see: Wood 2000, pp. 27-35 and 41-63 (with more literature). 1775 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 226-227. 1776 Wood 2000, pp. 27-28. The most important female character in Octavian and later Augustus propaganda that aimed to create a strong Julio-Claudian dynasty was definitely Livia Drusilla (58 BC-AD 29), his third wife whom he married in 37 BC. Only a few portrait gems (intaglios, cameos and glass gems) featuring her portraits are known from the period spanning between 37-27 BC since majority of them were produced after Octavian was proclaimed Augustus in 27 BC and especially in the early 1st century AD when she was much promoted as the priestess of his posthumous cult (cf. chapter 10.10). Even though production of Livia’s portrait gems prior to 27 BC is not considerable it is still important because these gems were intended to build a strong image of the Imperial family (cat. nos. 9.1292-1296, figs. 825-826).1777 On those gems, Livia is not presented with divine attributes or references yet. She is the wife of Octavian and that was her role in the first years after their marriage. 1777 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 227-228. Zazoff 1983, p. 325 mentions portraits of Scribonia on gems, however, these are problematic and, in my opinion, misinterpreted. There was no point to promote Scribonia on gems and coins by Octavian since he focused on his actual wife Livia and does not seem to be interested in the earlier promotion of his family before, he established the Julio-Claudian clan. 1778 See a useful commentary in Wood 2000, pp. 35-40 and 63-75. Regarding glyptics, see: Zazoff 1983, p. 325; Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 125. 1779 Megow 1987, p. 288. 1780 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 223-226. Promotion of women belonging to the Julio-Claudian family focused mainly on Octavia and Livia, while Octavian’s daughter Julia (39 BC-AD 14) received much less attention not only in glyptic art but also in other media.1778 I was able to collect only a few portrait gems that might depict her, most of them executed on gemstones rather than glass gems (cat. nos. 9.1297-1302, figs. 827-828). Some of these portraits are known to us only from modern impressions and there is no cameo depicting her.1779 It seems that portraits of Julia only supplemented those of Octavia and Livia and because Julia was born to Octavian and his second wife Scribonia, she received less attention. Apart from women related to Octavian, one does not observe any larger concentrations of female portrait gems. It has been suggested that some objects produced at the time may represent Fulvia (ca. 83-40 BC), wife of Mark Antony, Servilia, Porcia, Hortensia or Pompeia, daughter of Pompey the Great and many others (cat. nos. 9.1303-1312, figs. 829-830).1780 However, because their images are scarce on coins and in other media, identifications of their portraits on gems remain largely speculative since apart from these, there were many private portraits of anonymous female figures executed in similar styles, wearing similar coiffures and even copying idealised facial features. Many of them are presented on glass gems of poor quality (cat. nos. 9.1313-1330, figs. 831-832). and some bear inscriptions pointing to the gems’ owners names (cat. nos. 9.1331-1334, fig. 833). This makes identification of those portrait gems pointless, but for a more global perspective, the most important is the existence of considerable and distinguishable groups of portrait gems belonging to the women related to Octavian. They show that propaganda phenomenon in glyptics did not exclude them and in fact only those can be explained due to the political reasons. There is one more portrait gems category that escapes the traditional sorting since those objects present Cleopatra of Egypt. Her portraits on gems exist but they are not particularly numerous and can be identified if compared to the coins (cat. nos. 9.1335-1337, fig. 834). Some of her portraits are cut in extraordinary and rare gemstones like the beryl now in Venice which points to the production in Alexandria, where such materials were more obtainable. Perhaps there are more portrait gems with Cleopatra’s likeness, but they remain unidentified, thus, the scale of their production cannot be properly judged. Moreover, as it will be shown in the next sub-chapter, a substantial proportion of Cleopatra’s portrait gems present her in the guise of Isis, which was a natural continuation of the old Ptolemaic tradition (cf. chapter 9.5.2 below). Finally, it should be noted that the tradition of Cleopatra and more broadly Ptolemaic dynasty was further cultivated by her daughter Cleopatra Selene at the Numidian court of Juba II. It has already been discussed that the king promoted very much glyptic art by himself and employed gem engravers to cut intaglios for him. One of these artists was Gnaeus who executed posthumous portrait of Mark Antony (cf. cat. no. 9.1129, fig. 744 and discussion in chapter 9.3.2.2). The same artist also cut a remarkable portrait of Cleopatra Selene, daughter of Antony, which is now in New York (cf. cat. no. 8.177, fig. 290 and discussion in chapter 8.3.1). The fact that these two figures were featured on intaglios produced by the same artist cannot be a coincidence and shows that posthumous cult of Antony was promoted by his daughter. Furthermore, there are some other portraits of Cleopatra Selene (cat. nos. 9.1338-1340, fig. 835) which can be interpreted as a form of personal branding practiced through gems. 9.5.2. Divine and mythological references In the quest for identification of propaganda gems I try to present an evolutionary model starting from simple, but effective auto-presentation activities focusing mainly on personal branding and self-promotion reflected mainly in portrait gems. Other propaganda activities usually appear if the position of a propagandist is well-settled so that he can extrapolate to other activities and start to transfer and use authority of his predecessors and ancestors or make references to divine nature of his patrons. All these activities usually end up with a full identification of a propagandist with a peculiar deity. Regarding Roman female historical figures, Vollenweider put forward an idea that many busts and heads of various deities should be in fact interpreted as those historical figures in their guises.1781 Such a view was proposed because of the comparison of images appearing on coins and gems together. One of the motifs analysed that way by the Swiss scholar was bust of Victory. Indeed, similarities between these two classes of archaeological material are far reaching, but this does not mean the reasons for that were the same in both cases. First, it should be noted that the proportion of gemstone intaglios compared to glass gems is clearly in favour to the latter (cat. nos. 9.1341-1358, figs. 836-837). Secondly, some of the gems are inscribed with three initials of the Roman names, possibly possessors of the gems (cat. no. 9.1359, fig. 838). Even a small selection of the material presented in the catalogue makes it clear that there were many types differing in small details and the subject was popular throughout the whole 1st century BC, not in a specific period. Therefore, I believe that far closer to the truth is the view proposed by Furtwängler, who set the subject of the bust of Victory on gems within a wider class of busts of deities such as Diana, Nemesis Apollo etc. He observed the same similarities between gems and coins but proposed to explain them as effects of work of the same artists.1782 Moreover, a detailed analysis of Apollo’s heads and busts case conducted by Maaskant-Kleibrink reveals that the images from coins and gems were often based on the same prototypes and therefore, they are similar.1783 This prototype for busts of Victory on coins and gems could be a Hellenistic sculpture.1784 Therefore, the fact that on coins, used by Vollenweider for comparison to the gems, exist references to Roman matrons, does not bind in the case of gems. If bust of Victoria on coins and gems alike had any political meaning it could be different than identification with the goddess. Sena Chiesa observed that the motif appears on coins of Caesar and may stand for Victoria Caesaris.1785 Whether the gems were produced for the same reason, e.g. to commemorate Caesar’s military victories cannot be said, but such an explanation is more plausible than identifications with historical figures. Finally, it should be born in mind that bust of Victory upon a gem could simply mean a wish for personal victory or good luck and thus, had no propaganda meaning whatsoever. 1781 Vollenweider 1972-1974, p. 225. 1782 Furtwängler 1900, vol. III, pp. 289-290. 1783 Maaskant-Kleibrink 1989/1993. 1784 Platz-Horster 2012, no. 234. 1785 Sena Chiesa 2002, p. 199. The case of bust of Victory on 1st century BC gems shows that deciphering of a proper meaning for the image cut upon a gem is often problematic and obscure. Nevertheless, there are some motifs that allow to be more optimistic as to their potential propagandistic significance. One of them is bust of Diana which appears on 1st century BC gems quite often in various configurations (cat. nos. 9.1360-1363, fig. 839), sometimes carved by the best artists like Pamphilos (cat. no. 9.1363, fig. 839). Similar images appear on coins (fig. 840),1786 but there is a very peculiar large agate plaque now in London, but once in the Marlborough collection, presenting a distinctive idealised portrait bust of a Roman lady as Diana with a dress falling from one shoulder and a spear in front of her (cf. cat. no. 9.277, fig. 478). Generally, the gem is considered to present Octavia, sister of Octavian, in the guise of Diana and it is paired with another large agate plaque showing Octavian as Mercury also now in London. Vollenweider suggested that both gems were carved by one of the top artists of the time – Solon, who possibly worked for Octavian around 30 BC (cf. chapter 9.3.1.2).1787 Nevertheless, a more detailed analysis shows that although very similar, those two pieces are not identical in the stylistic terms and were possibly cut in the same workshop, but not necessary by the same hand.1788 While most of the scholars focus on the objects themselves, much less attention was given to the propagandistic value of these gems. I have already explained the intaglio featuring Octavian as Mercury which relates to the issue of his identification with the god in glyptics as well as in other media (cf. chapters 9.3.1.2 and 9.3.1.8). This was a popular and powerful propaganda message aimed at strengthening his position and respond to divine identifications of Sextus Pompey and Mark Antony, a sort of counter-propaganda. But Octavian seems to go further and engaged in his propaganda activities other members of his family. To give them the same rank as his own, he seems to present them as deities as well, therefore, Octavia is paired with him as Diana on another agate plaque. The intention was to create a unified image that laid foundations for creation of a new dynasty that would rule Rome in the future. The subtle references to the gods were popular in glyptics because this peculiar form of art was more private and even though its limited audience may seem an obstacle for propaganda to be successful, apparently it was easier to promote some issues first in the circle of the close followers through gems and only then more openly to everyone, for instance through coins. It has been suggested above that the gem in question could be displayed in pair with Octavian/Hermes plaque and together, the two promoted the idea of a strong Julio-Claudian family legitimised to rule from the gods. The Octavia/Diana plaque does not seem to be just an exception since in London, there is an intriguing cameo presenting a similar bust of Diana that should probably be identified with Julia, daughter of the future emperor Augustus (cat. no. 1786 RRC no. 372 (denarius serratus of A. Postumius Albinus, 81 BC). 1787 Vollenweider 1966, pp. 53-54. See also: Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, pp. 114-115. 1788 Boaerdnam et al. 2009, no. 158. 9.1364, fig. 841). If the identification is correct, this is another proof for Octavian’s efforts towards creation of a unified family image based on the identification with the gods. Regarding Julia, she was believed to be promoted in the divine guise like Octavia. In her case, two possible identifications were proposed by Vollenweider: Agathe-Tyche and Athena (cat. nos. 9.1365-1372, figs. 842-843 and 9.1373, fig. 844 respectively).1789 Nevertheless, recently, Weiß convincingly argues that such an identification is impossible, although the motif itself may have some propagandistic meaning e.g. illustrate Pax Augusta and overall guarantee of peace and prosperity.1790 In case of a gem from Paris presenting bust of Athena, Vollenweider believed that the griffin related to Nemesis on the helmet points to Augustus and thus, indirectly to his daughter Julia and her banishment in 2 BC. However, this view has been dismissed by Lapatin and we believe that indeed there was no point in commemoration of this event in a so precious medium as an expensive cameo.1791 If by any chance the cameo presents a Julio-Claudian princess, it should be Octavia since she is compared to Athena by some ancient writers.1792 1789 Vollenweider 1979, no. 209; Vollenweider and Avisseau-Broustet 2003, no. 67. 1790 Weiß 2007, no. 196. 1791 Lapatin 2015, p. 251. 1792 Barcaro 2008/2009, p. 118. Concerning construction of a homogenous dynastic image by Octavian and later Augustus, his wife Livia played the most significant role since she was often compared to Venus Genetrix – mother of the Julio-Claudian clan. Because of her key importance and the fact that majority of the gems promoting her in this guise was produced under Augustus reign, her case will be discussed in the next chapter. Overall, it is clear that already before Octavian became Augustus, he started to promote his family, especially women on intaglios and cameos because he needed to build up a strong image of a dynasty that was destined from the gods to rule Rome. His efforts will be continued after 27 BC and when glyptics became one of the key branches of art for that promotion. Finally, on the opposite side to Octavian there is only one female figure who probably promoted herself through engraved gems, the late spouse of Mark Antony – Cleopatra VII of Egypt. Her images as identified with Isis are popular on intaglios and cameos and the existence of the latter suggest that at least part of these Claopatra-Isis busts and heads may have been commissioned by the queen (cat. nos. 9.1374-1378, figs. 845-846). Another argument in favour of some political significance of gems presenting Cleopatra-Isis are the sealings found in the Edfu hoard which suggest that the image was employed by the Egyptian administration.1793 In fact, Cleopatra’s promotion as Isis may be a part of a more ancient phenomenon present at the Ptolemaic court at least from the 2nd century BC.1794 The reason why Cleopatra promoted herself in the guise of Isis is to justify her legitimacy to rule the Egypt and her creation must have been successful perhaps even official since she is presented as such also when paired with Antony (cf. chapter 9.3.2.7) and references to Antony when she is presented alone also exist like in case of a garnet in a private collection where bust of Cleopatra-Isis is surrounded with a vine (cat. no. 9.1377, fig. 845). Nevertheless, it must be stressed that the scale of this phenomenon cannot be properly judged since as Zwierlein-Diehl and I myself observe, some of the Isis busts and heads can show just the goddess, whose cult was increasingly popular in the late 1st century BC in the Roman Empire.1795 1793 Smith 1988, p. 14 (with more literature). 1794 On this issue, see: Boardman and Vollenweider 1978, no. 290; Plantzos 1999, pp. 52-54. 1795 Zwierlein-Diehl 1986, no. 270; Gołyźniak 2017, no. 86. 10. Augustus (27 BC-AD 14) The year 27 BC was a landmark in Octavian’s politics as he was appointed Augustus by the Senate and this resulted in a considerable change in his propaganda. Military and other accomplishments of the first emperor of Rome were still a base for the self-promotion, but religious devotion became increasingly important now. Subjects like Res Publica Restituta, Pax Augusta and Aurea Aetas turned out to be fashionable and Augustus used to emphasise his modesty and respect for old Roman traditions. As Zanker observes, glorification of the princeps now was more stimulated by the Senate, city councils and private individuals while emperor’s self-promotion was restrained.1796 This general trend is observable in glyptics, however, not to the same degree as in other branches of Roman art and craftsmanship because the more private character of glyptic art always allowed to do more without being stripped from modesty and piety. A general observation for the last decades of the 1st century BC and first ones of the 1st century AD is that extraordinarily complex and powerful messages are replaced by solemn compositions and united, peaceful and prosperous tone of Classicism, although, still rich and meaningful symbolism was still in fashion.1797 The art of this age became eclectic and regarding glyptics, the Imperial Court workshop was established which driven the new trends that were eagerly taken by lesser workshop. For this reason, even the insignificant private seals follow the large-scale works, and all speak the same propaganda language.1798 These aspects were also important elements of Augustus’ propaganda since gems like architecture and art of the period in general reflected the needs and goals of the ruler.1799 The empire was reborn under the firm grip of one man who apart from carrying for his own public image must have establish his own dynasty and glyptic art reflects well his attempts towards this. 1796 Zanker 1988, p. 92. 1797 Sena Chiesa 2012, p. 266. 1798 Henig, Scarisbrick and Whiting 1994, p. 91. 1799 Zanker 1988, p. 5; Fulińska 2017, pp. 67-68. 10.1. Collecting There is some ambiguity in the literary sources regarding Augustus direct involvement in gem collecting and their deposition in the temples of Rome like in case of Pompey the Great and Julius Caesar. As explained before, most likely when Octavian reached Alexandria there were very little gems there since the rich collections of the Ptolemies could have been already exploited by Caesar many years before (cf. chapter 8.2.1). Thus, the information given by Suetonius about Octavian’s modesty, who among the great treasuries of Alexandria took only one agate cup (possibly a muhrrine vessel) is most likely a misleading act of propaganda which was consistent with his new image of modest and piety ruler that survived many years after his reign.1800 However, Suetonius describing various accomplishments of the first emperor mentions that he offered a considerable amount of gold, pearls and other precious stones to the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus.1801 Basing on this evidence some scholars concluded that Augustus was somehow involved in gem collecting.1802 Indeed, when Octavian reached Alexandria, he must have encountered some jewels accumulated during the reign of Cleopatra and Antony since he decorated the statue of Venus Genetrix in her Temple at the Forum Iuli with pearls once belonging to the queen of Egypt.1803 Interestingly, Marcellus (42-23 BC), son of Octavia and the first Julio-Claudian prince appointed by Augustus to be his future heir, bequeathed one dactyliotheca of gems to the Temple of Apollo at the Palatine Hill.1804 There is no specific information about his interest in glyptic art and the origin of his cabinet despite a brief mention in Pliny’s Historia Naturalis,1805 but the fact that he placed his collection to the temple of special meaning for Augustus suggests that this was a deliberate act of propaganda when the future emperor shows his modesty and abandons his private fortune which could be directed by Augustus himself. 1800 Suetonius, Augustus, 71. 1801 Suetonius, Augustus, 30. See also commentaries to this issue in: Furtwängler 1900, p. 304; Vollenweider 1966, p. 18; Plantzos 1999, p. 105; Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, pp. 108-109; Casagrade-Kim 2018, p. 104. 1802 Giuliano and Micheli 1989, p. 31. 1803 Toso 2007, p. 5, note 17. 1804 Pliny, NH, XXXVII.5. 1805 Lapatin 2015, p. 118. 1806 Pliny, NH, XXXVIII.4 – who mentions that the stone donated by Livia was sardonyx, while Herodotus describes that the ring of Polycrates of Samos was emerald (3.40.41). See also: Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 10. A similar case might be Livia who was said by Pliny to have offered the famous stone once set in the ring of Polycrates of Samos, but now in a drinking horn to the Temple of Concord in Rome, however, even the writer doubts whether it was indeed the same stone as mentioned first by Herodotus.1806 Be that as it may, from our perspective it is important that such events were recorded by Pliny which means they were important and must have made big impact on the audience, otherwise he would not have bothered about them. In this case, not the number of gems donated but its quality and historical value was important, and Livia like Marcellus probably made that offer for purely political reasons building up their positive public image. I believe that all the performances described here were purely propagandistic in character and the intention was to build positive image of all donators. In the times of Augustus private collections of gems could also be created for example by Maecenas, one of Augustus’ advisors, who was generally interested in glyptic art as stated by Macrobius and Pliny mentions his seal featuring a frog that scared people around because the image announced monetary imposts.1807 1807 Macrobius, 2.4; Pliny, NH, XXXVII.4. See also an extensive commentary to the possible meanings of frog on gems in: Campagnolo and Fallani 2018, no. V.1, p. 88. 1808 Möbius 1964; Vollenweider 1966, pp. 47-80; Plantzos 1999, pp. 94-95. 1809 Vollenweider 1966, p. 36; Zwierlein-Diehl 1986, no. 156. 1810 Zanker 1988, pp. 201-210. 1811 Vollenweider 1966, pp. 41-43. 10.2. Gem engravers working for Augustus As proven in the previous chapter, Octavian already prior to becoming Augustus employed gem engravers to cut propaganda gems for him. Although one does not have ultimate proofs, it seems very likely that Octavian controlled glyptic production in Rome to some degree or at least strongly influenced the craft basing on the number of propaganda gems produced for him. The evidence for Augustus to organise a glyptic workshop at his court after 27 BC is much more certain. It is supposed that the victory at Actium resulted in influx of gem engravers from Alexandria and other eastern workshops to Rome where the artist could find new patrons and customers for their craft.1808 Among the artists who supposedly migrated to Rome to work for Augustus is Sostratos, a gem engraver previously working for Cleopatra and Mark Antony (cf. chapter 9.3.2.3). His signed work presenting Nike slaughtering a bull is believed to be an allusion to Augustus success in retrieval of legionary standards from the Parthians celebrated around 20 BC or his victory over Armenia which about 20 BC became a client kingdom of the Roman Empire (cat. no. 10.1, fig. 847).1809 The glyptic art under Augustus was strongly influenced by the ideology promoted by the emperor, thus, one observes that the repertoire of motifs cut by several more artists was often adjusted to or shaped by it. For instance, this is the case of Aulos, who is known to have been working for the Numidian king Juba II (cf. chapter 8.3.1), and whom one attributes intaglios presenting Nike slaughtering a bull as well as bust of Kassandra (cat. nos. 10.2, fig. 848 and 10.3-4, figs. 849-850 respectively). The subject-matter of these gems is consistent with Augustan ideology which concentrated on allegorical motifs related to the mythical foundations of Rome as the emperor wanted to be perceived as new Romulus.1810 For this reason, Vollenweider suggested Aulos to have been one of the carvers working for Augustus her theory seems reasonable.1811 Similarly, Gnaeus, who for sure have been working for Juba II (cf. chapters 8.3.1, 9.3.2.2 and 9.5.1), might have cut some gems for Augustus as well and the intaglio presenting Diomedes stealing Palladion is the best proof of that (cat. no. 10.5, fig. 851).1812 Another artist is even more interesting since Felix not only could have worked directly for Augustus but he possibly also executed private commissions, for example that of Calpurnius Severus with an intaglio featuring rape of Palladion, which was possibly a gift to the emperor or a sort of imitation of Augustus’ lifestyle by this individual (cat. no. 10.6, fig. 852 and see a discussion in chapter 10.7).1813 This work of art is a perfect example illustrating how successful was Augustan propaganda. The new ideology was widely accepted and the fact that citizens of whatever rank attempted to please their ruler or follow his example only confirm that. 1812 Zazoff 1983, p. 288. 1813 Vollenweider 1966, p. 43; Zazoff 1983, p. 287; Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, pp. 119 and 122. 1814 Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 121. 1815 But see also other opinion: Vollenweider 1966, pp. 49-56. 1816 Zwierlein-Diehl 1986, no. 154. 1817 Henig 1994, p. 153. 1818 Pliny, NH, XXXVII.8; Suetonius, Augustus, 1; Instinsky 1962, pp. 35-38. 1819 Vollenweider 1966, pp. 58-60; Plantzos 1999, pp. 86 and 96-97. Zwierlein-Diehl suggests that Thamyras could have worked for Augustus and be the author of the famous intaglio from Boston presenting Octavian as Neptune,1814 however, as proved above, this attribution is unlikely (cf. cat. no. 9.280, fig. 481 and discussion in chapter 9.3.1.2). As argued above, the next very plausible engraver working for Augustus is Solon. I have explained his potential contributions to Octavian’s propaganda and it might be possible that he continued to work for Augustus in the early 20s BC but I believe he played the main role at the court workshop in the 30s BC (cf. chapter 9.3.1.2).1815 Most likely his position became secondary when Augustus employed Dioscurides at his court, but still, Solon’s intaglio presenting Diomedes stealing Palladion fits more Augustan propaganda rather than Octavian’s actions.1816 Regarding Dioscurides, he is the first engraver about whom one has reliable testimonies in the archaeological material and literary sources combined to have been appointed official Roman imperial gem engraver.1817 Pliny and Suetonius alike inform that Dioscurides originally from Aigai in Asia Minor, cut the seal for Augustus with emperor’s own portrait.1818 This issue will be broadly commented in the next sub-chapter (10.3). The analysis of all known genuine surviving works of the artist shows that only a few of his cameos and intaglios like the ones presenting Diomedes stealing Palladion (cat. no. 10.7, fig. 853) or Heracles (cat. no. 9.818, fig. 666) bear subjects consistent with Augustan ideology.1819 Like Plantzos, I am not entirely convinced to the view that Dioscurides indeed first worked for Julius Caesar and later was overtaken by Augustus since Solon seems to play the dominant role in Octavian’s production of propaganda gems in the 30s BC, but this popular view cannot be entirely dismissed.1820 It is known that Dioscurides had three sons (Hérophilos, Eutyches and Hyllos) who all probably worked in the workshop founded by their father and on the commissions from Augustus, especially if portraits of Julio-Claudian princes are concerned.1821 Their individual works will be fully commented in the next sub-chapters, but it is noteworthy that the subjects they embarked upon are many times reliable to Augustan political and cultural programme. The best illustrations of that are two intaglios signed by Hyllos, one presenting bust of Apollo Palatinus and the second a bull trampling on a thyrsus (cat. nos. 10.8-9, figs. 854-855, cf. also discussion in chapter 9.3.1.8). As to the latter, Furtwängler thought the combination of a bull with thyrsus to have represented Dionysus so that he did not recognise the subject as having any political significance.1822 Yet, it was all too clear for Vollenweider that the bull standing on a thyrsus may be an allegory of Augustus’ victory over Mark Antony.1823 This hypothesis is possible giving the fact that Hyllos as son of Dioscurides worked for Augustus and could use allegorical subject to commemorate the Actium victory. It is noteworthy that together, Dioscurides and his sons created a sort of dynasty of gem engravers delivering top quality works of glyptic art to the Imperial Court. 1820 Vollenweider 1966, pp. 57-58; Plantzos 1999, p. 97; Henig 2007, p. 4. 1821 Vollenweider 1966, pp. 65-70; Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, pp. 117-121. 1822 Furtwängler 1900, vol. I, pl. XLV.11, vol. II, p. 218. 1823 Vollenweider 1966, pl. 78.1–2 and 4, pp. 70, 118–119. 1824 Vollenweider 1966, pp. 74-80. 1825 Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 122. 1826 Plantzos 1999, pp. 63-64 and 97. As suggested by Vollenweider, there were other artists working with them in the same workshop as well.1824 One of them was Epitynhanos whose works in terms of style, composition and quality are very close to these of Dioscurides so that it is clear that he must have been a pupil of this famous artist and he produced cameos with portraits of Julio-Claudian princes (cf. chapter 10.10).1825 In conclusion, Augustus was able to create an official Imperial Court workshop which produced gems to fulfil his needs and desires for luxurious jewellery. This procedure was a well-organised mechanism serving for emperor’s propaganda since the artists under Augustan patronage cut their gems with images consistent with ideology promoted by their patron. The form of this patronage is very similar if not the same to the one known from the Hellenistic world where rulers often employed gem engravers to cut gems for them.1826 The official glyptic workshop active at the Imperial Court not only helped to express, present and promote Augustan ideology and cultural programme, as the works of Dioscurides and his sons were copied by less skilful Roman engravers, but also employment of top artists in this field clearly raised Augustus’ social status. He could afford to have used services of the best artist available who generated fashion and official style, while promoting a positive image and ideology of the ruler. Moreover, employment of Solon, Dioscurides and others resembles to some degree Alexander the Great’s employments of one specific artist for each branch of art and can be perceived as a form of imitatio Alexandri. 10.3. The final seal of Augustus Dioscurides was the main gem engraver working for Augustus which is deduced from the fact that Pliny and Suetonius tell us that he cut the final seal of the emperor featuring his portrait and this seal was later used by other Roman Emperors from the Julio-Claudian family.1827 Cassius Dio also mentions that Augustus used a seal with his own likeness to seal all kinds of documents and letters he issued, but according to him, this seal was used by Roman emperors until Galba took the throne.1828 Augustus final seal is considered lost, although several have been proposed to be taken as such among which the most plausible seems an exceptional ruby intaglio with wreathed head of Augustus to the right in the Guy Ladrière collection in Paris (cat. no. 10.10, fig. 886), thus, the testimony from Pliny is particularly valuable since he highlights that Augustus’ portrait on the stone presented excellent likeness to the actual image of the emperor.1829 According to Plantzos, this probably should not be understood as it sounds, but most likely Pliny meant that Dioscurides’ work was entirely Classicising in character and the portrait must have been strongly idealised, canonical and follow the general type established by Augustus.1830 For this reason, Zwierlein-Diehl supposes that it could look very much like Augustus’ Prima Porta portrait type.1831 1827 Pliny, NH, XXXVII.4; Suetonius, Augustus, 50. 1828 Dio Cassius, Historia Romana, 51.3.5-7. 1829 Pliny, NH, XXXVII.4. 1830 Plantzos 1999, p. 97. 1831 Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 12. 1832 Giard 1975, p. 70. However, the ruby intaglio from the Guy Ladrière collection meets all the conditions one would expect from an imperial seal. It is cut in exceptional material since Roman ruby intaglios are exceedingly rare and the stone’s size is rather big for a regular ruby. Moreover, as Giard observed, Augustus nose from the Ladrière ruby is very much like the one described by Suetonius, which suggests the engraver to be close to his subject, and the leaves of the wreath are of the form more typical for oak rather than laurel.1832 Thus, the image, even if in the classical Prima Porta type, is clearly individualised and the quality of engraving is exceptional especially giving the extreme hardness of corundum material used. The problem is that one does not expect a personal seal of Augustus to be signed by Dioscurides and the material of which it was made is not specified in ancient literary sources. Furthermore, the orientation of the portrait on the Ladrière ruby seems wrong for a seal as it should be facing right on an impression, not left. Finally, it is noteworthy that Dioscurides’ style usually displays subtle refinements as observed not only in case of his figural compositions but also portraits like the one of Demosthenes cut in amethyst in the Sangiorgi collection.1833 This is not totally absent in case of the ruby gem in question and might be a result of the difficult material used, but I agree with Giard who noticed that Augustus’ head from the intaglio depicts him in his elderly and it resembles the one known from the coins minted from 2 BC onwards (fig. 857).1834 Such a late date for Dioscurides’ work is unacceptable. The previous seals of Octavian have been described above and it is reasonable to follow Instinsky’s and Zwierlein-Diehl’s views that the new seal with Augustus’ own portrait was cut for him in 27 BC. The new seal combined with new image of Octavian would match his new rank of the emperor and title of Augustus.1835 Therefore, in my opinion, the Ladrière ruby might be a later work of one of Dioscurides’ sons rather than Dioscurides himself. It is expected that the Imperial Court workshop produced many exceptional intaglios with Augustus’ image and the ruby described here is definitely such a product.1836 1833 Wagner and Boardman 2017, no. 107. 1834 For example: RIC I2 Augustus, no. 210 (denarius of Augustus, 2BC-AD4); Giard 1975, p. 71. 1835 Instinsky 1962, pp. 36-38; Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 12. 1836 Although on other grounds, Giard came to similar conclusion, see: Giard 1975, p. 72. 1837 Pliny, NH, XXXVII.4; Baldus 1987; Plantzos 1999, p. 60; Rush 2012, pp. 5 and 57-58. Whatever the final seal of Augustus looked like, it was a clear propaganda manifestation since no one else before and after him used to have his own portrait depicted upon a private seal except for Alexander the Great. So, even though the image of the Macedonian king from the previous seal was replaced by the princeps, the way he introduced his new seal might be viewed as another clever variation of imitatio Alexandri because Alexander the Great also used to employ one specific artist who could engrave his image upon gems – Pyrgoteles and now Augustus did the same with Dioscurides.1837 The propagandistic value of Augustus’ new seal could not be higher since doing this way, he confirmed his absolute dominance in the Roman Empire and the focus was given to his own person. Lack of modesty in this act seems strange and inappropriate to the general principles of Augustan propaganda, but glyptics proved before to be a very peculiar branch of art that usually allowed to realise desires that would not have been accepted in other media. Supposedly Augustus could then fulfill his personal goal, but even more important is that his portrait became an official symbol of the Roman State. The importance of this is the best illustrated by the fact that when seriously ill, Augustus gave his ring to Agrippa appointing him his successor.1838 The seal was now a symbol of continuity of the Roman Empire, hence, it was used by all the emperors from the Julio-Claudian dynasty or even up to the reign of the Severan one.1839 1838 Dio Cassius, Historia Romana, 53.30. 1839 Dio Cassius, Historia Romana, 51.3.4-7; Instinsky 1962, pp. 37-38. 1840 For instance Platz-Horster suggests date 30-20 BC for a glass cameo in Berlin since according to her the portrait is in the Actium type (so-called ‘Alcundia’), see: Platz-Horster 2012, no. 338. 1841 Zanker 1988, pp. 98-100. 1842 RIC I2 Augustus, nos. 29a-32. 10.4. Portraits – personal branding induction and manifestation of loyalty In the chapter devoted to Octavian, I have made clear that his portraits combined with a variety of symbolism constituted one of the most significant and meaningful categories of propaganda gems. The aim was personal branding combined with creation of a positive public image. After the battle of Actium this trend in Octavian’s propaganda still existed, but it had been gradually replaced with more classical portraits of Augustus that bear just his likeness and only seldom some additional symbols (cat. nos. 10.11-26, figs. 858-860). There is no clear shift in the iconography though or at least one cannot point it as in case of sculpture because very often Octavian/Augustus’ images were schematically cut upon tiny gemstones and the quality of glass gems might be another misleading factor. Therefore, some of the portraits gathered here could have been executed in the late 30s or early 20s BC,1840 however, most of them are distinguishable because they follow the new type of Augustus portrait – Prima Porta – introduced around 27 BC.1841 The harmonious proportions combined with calm, noble, elevated expression of the face and careful, neat arrangement of hair on the head resulted in a utterly Classicising portrait, much different from the previous youthful image based on the Roman Republican canons. One finds these features on Augustus images which after 27 BC were cut upon gemstones and moulded in glass gems until his death alike. Some examples are very close to coins, for instance the emerald in Leiden (cat. no. 10.19, fig. 859) mirrors the image from aurei minted ca. 19-18 BC (fig. 861).1842 While earlier massively produced cheap glass gems dominated over the gemstones, now the proportions are more equal which probably is due to the fact that Augustan propaganda was not so intensive, at least in terms of glyptics, as before, that is during the Civil War. It is clear that official art inspired much the common one and most likely, the Imperial Court workshop created pieces that were copied and disseminated by common engravers. As already mentioned, gems simply bearing portraits of Augustus were common, but the new image required an element that would highlight divine power of the emperor in a very subtle way. This was obtained by putting a laurel wreath on Augustus head and intaglios made of gemstones and glass bearing this image are abundant (cat. nos. 10.27-41, figs. 862-864). The wreath was originally decoration of triumphators, but under Augustus it became customary emperor’s insignium and on a personal level, it visualised his relationship with Apollo. Nevertheless, the popularity of bare heads and busts of Augustus on intaglios and cameos (see above) might be explained as a deliberate intention. For the emperor wanted his image to be popularised in a simple form without any divine or triumphal references to make it more acceptable by the people of Rome.1843 This way Augustus did not separate himself from common people which should be treated as a propaganda practice. 1843 Zwierlein-Diehl 2008, p. 124. 1844 This view seems justified because as Zanker states: ‘Apparently many private individuals used the new symbols on their seals, judging from the dolphins, ships, and prows that occur, together with the victor's likeness, on stones and glass paste from seal rings.’ (1988, p. 84). It is noteworthy that some of the gems are cut in exceptional materials like ruby, sapphire and emerald which were virtually unknown before in Roman glyptics. It is evident that conquest of Egypt and establishment of peace in the eastern provinces of the Empire resulted in recovery of long-distance gem trade. Accessibility to the new materials, which must have been crazy expensive, suggest that these objects were produced in the Imperial Court workshop or on private commissions of the wealthiest and the most influential people who proudly carried them to show their sympathy to the princeps or tried to follow Augustus’ example setting their tastes for exceptional and rare gemstones.1844 Some of them could have been gifted to the Emperor surely also when the grantor counting on his support when in need. Only a few bear signatures which are clear testimonies of this practice (cat. nos. 10.42-43, fig. 865). What is more, it seems that sometimes identification with the ruler was more advanced as some private portraits on gems are clearly based on Augustus’ official image (cat. nos. 10.44-47, fig. 866). Manifestation of loyalty by using a seal with emperor’s image is also noticeable on sealings in distant provinces like Cyrenaica and Syria/Mesopotamia. In the archives of Cyrene and Zeugma one encounters sealings with Augustus’ image which were possibly used by authorities of the cities (cat. nos. 10.48-52, fig. 853/867). This illustrates that local aristocracy tended to highlight its relationship with the emperor, who usually appointed them as local authorities. This was mutually beneficial because they could show themselves as being supported by the emperor and Augustus became increasingly popular thanks to them as they popularised his image in a positive way. The same mechanism functioned well in other branches of art and craftsmanship since many cities founded statues of Augustus and installed them in important public places and emperor’s image repeatedly appeared on silverware and Arretine terra-cotta vessels alike.1845 It is noteworthy that in case of Zeugma, the images from the sealings are comparable to the ones present in the local coinage and in case of one example, Augustus’ portrait is accompanied with inscription ANT (cat. no. 10.52, fig. 867) suggesting Antioch as the name of a province?1846 These are further proofs for the view that a portion of gems with Augustus portraits were cut in local workshops throughout the Empire and then used by local governors, although analysis of the material amassed in the catalogue part suggests that like before, most of such intaglios were manufactured in Rome and Italy, including highly important gem cutting centre in Aquileia. Concerning manifestation of loyalty and portraits of Augustus, an interesting specimen is a double-sided intaglio from the Berry collection featuring an unfinished male portrait and the zodiacal sign of Augustus – Capricorn (cat. no. 10.53, fig. 868). A private person clearly manifested here his support to the emperor using one of the main symbols of his propaganda, unless Capricorn is a private horoscope. But more evidence for such an act comes from another stone in the British Museum featuring Capricorn and inscription: IVL DAVAMAGVS suggesting the intaglio owner to have been a member of the Julian family who manifested his affiliation to the Imperial family (cat. no. 10.54, fig. 869). 1845 Zanker 1988, p. 267. 1846 Compare: RPC I, no. 4251, pl. 161. 1847 Jucker 1982; Möbius 1985; Megow 1987, pp. 1-20; Giuliano and Micheli 1989, pp. 38-39; Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, pp. 146-147. 1848 Megow 1987, p. 2; Guiraud 1996, p. 130. During the reign of Augustus, the most significant change in terms of portrait gems is the unprecedented in the Roman glyptic art outburst of cameos.1847 Although single cameos were produced for Pompey the Great, Cassius, Octavian and Mark Antony (cf. chapters 8.1.5, 9.2.2, 9.3.1.4 and 9.3.2.3 respectively), these were possibly carved in the east. Once Augustus won the battle of Actium, many skilful Greek gem engravers migrated to Rome where they sought to new commissioners. Establishment of Imperial Court workshop was a continuation of Hellenistic traditions and contributed to the raising popularity of this glyptic art form which was meant to support Augustus promotion of the Julio-Claudian dynasty (cf. chapter 10.10 below).1848 Cameos were perfect for the new type of power established in Rome because they were luxurious products expressing prestige and power of the ruler and his inner circle, hence, their social significance was considerable.1849 As a result, many pieces featuring portraits of the first emperor of Rome have been created those days. These include his standard portraits without attributes and wreaths (cat. nos. 10.55-63, figs. 870-871) and the laureate ones (cat. nos. 10.64-75, figs. 872-874). It can be only speculated that Dioscurides and his sons were authors of some the most valuable cameo portraits showing Augustus. According to Megow, who so far researched this issue to the greatest extend, those cameos were powerful means of propaganda since they could have been displayed by the emperor and gifted to his followers, family members and friends as a form of valuable donations and contributed to his personal branding.1850 On the other hand it seems very likely that private commissions were equally popular since cameos with portraits of Augustus have been found in Aquileia, Izmir and other locations outside of Rome (cat. nos. 10.68-70).1851 Some of them have been found in Rome or Italy in a broader sense. Important are also the glass cameos that were probably commissioned by the people of Rome and all this evidence together suggest that the cult of Augustus as the Emperor of Rome was practiced with use of gems throughout the whole reign of Augustus as individual objects’ dates vary and sometimes are difficult to be precisely established, yet all belong to the same phenomenon. 1849 Sena Chiesa 2012, pp. 272-273. 1850 Megow 1987, pp. 138-139. 1851 Sena Chiesa shares the view of Megow about usefulness of these cameos in Augustus’ propaganda, see: 2009, pp. 90-91. 1852 Pliny, NH, XVI.5. 1853 Later, it became a prerogative for the Roman emperors to be awarded the Civic Crown, for example Tiberius, see: Flory 1995, p. 53. 10.5. Commemoration and State Cameos In 27 BC Octavian was granted by the Senate the title Augustus and received an oak wreath (corona civica) for finishing the Civil War and rescuing all his fellow citizens (ob cives servatos). This reward was exceptional because according to Pliny, during the Roman Republic it was regarded as the second highest military distinction to which a citizen could aspire only for rescuing a comrade in battle.1852 But one should remember that the corona civica was also regarded as the emblem of pater patriate. Although Augustus received this title considerably later in 2 BC, the oak wreath received by him in 27 BC might have symbolised his paternal role to the people of Rome. In other words, it emphasised Augustus’ role as the sole leader of the Roman Empire.1853 He became the Emperor of Rome and the year 27 BC marked a substantial change in public image that Augustus wanted to propagate. His main success in the battle of Actium was still promoted, but in a different way than before, more subtly and dignified. For the emphasis was put on the success of the great man itself, hence, in art and propaganda glorification was now closely connected with self-promotion rather than punishment of Antony and conquest of the East.1854 The new image of Augustus has already been discussed above and the testimony for its widespreading in glyptics is overwhelming if compared to the production of portrait gems in the preceding centuries. Commemoration of various events was equally important for Augustus since it helped him to establish the image of always successful ruler and true leader of the Roman Empire. 1854 Zanker 1988, p. 79. 1855 Hannestad 1988, p. 40. 1856 Lapatin 2015, p. 251. 1857 For a detailed discussion of the Imperial Eagle Cameo from Vienna, see: Zwierlein-Diehl 2008, no. 4. 1858 Zanker 1988, p. 93. 1859 RIC I2 Augustus, no. 277; Maderna-Lauter 1988, pp. 457-458; Zanker 1988, pp. 93-94. There is a good number of cameos and intaglios commemorating appointment of the titles Augustus and Princeps to Augustus by the Senate (cat. nos. 10.76-91, figs. 875, 878-883 and 886-887). One of them is the Imperial Eagle Cameo now housed in Vienna (cat. no. 10.76, fig. 875). It is one of the largest surviving cameos from antiquity perfectly encapsulating the right status of the cameos cut in the Imperial Court workshop. This piece is not only a glorification of the Roman power and State, but it also alludes to Augustus divine patron – Jupiter for whom eagle was a scared bird and oak the sacred plant. On the cameo, the animal stands on a palm branch making an allusion to the victory at Actium in 31 BC for which Augustus obtained corona civica – the highest military award possible, as he saved many lives of his fellow Roman citizens.1855 This extraordinary artwork was possibly meant to be displayed judging by its dimensions and exceptional workmanship. The touch of a Greek Hellenistic hand is noticeable in the quality of engraving and the selection of the material proves the item to be of the highest status possible.1856 It is justified to think that this cameo is an Imperial Court workshop product perhaps commissioned by Augustus to immortalize his success in the pursue of the sole rule.1857 Zanker even thinks that the cameo was the first work of art illustrating this and the motif was then frequently copied or served as a source of inspiration for gem engravers and coin dies makers alike.1858 The oak wrath and eagle became now universal symbols of the Imperial power that was approved by the chief god of the Roman pantheon and they appear on a special issue of aurei struck in 27 BC (fig. 876) as well as became a decorative element in relief and sculpture.1859 Augustus is also sometimes presented on his coins as wearing the oak wreath on the head throughout his whole reign (fig. 877),1860 and he does so on several cameos manufactured probably shortly after 27 BC, some even faithfully copy the images from coins as their rims are milled in the same way (cat. nos. 10.77-80, figs. 878-880). This element is extremely important because as Zanker states, under Augustus it had acquired a new meaning. It was originally rooted in the military sphere, but the oak tree was sacred to Jupiter. The eagle of Jupiter on the mentioned cameo from Vienna and aurei from 27 BC carries the oak wreath in order to display Augustus badge with the god. This idea is best illustrated by another cameo from Vienna presenting Augustus as Alexander the Great-Jupiter (cf. chapter 10.6). It is possible that some of these portrait cameos could have been carved around 20 BC on the occasion of the retrieval of legionary standards from Parthians as they could intentionally repeat the new image of the great emperor.1861 Intaglios were also cut with this image, but in a different variant since head of Augustus usually appears within the oak wreath (cat. nos. 10.81-83, figs. 881-882). This image is traditionally interpreted as allusion to the battle of Actium, but its primary propaganda message was commemoration of the events from 27 BC.1862 Owing to their special, luxurious value, cameos and intaglios were far more valuable and meaningful objects of propaganda if given to a supporter or displayed publicly. The relationship between Augustus and Jupiter could be understood and accepted in a private sphere to which gems belonged, in the far more monarchical way than in official, public means like coins. Zanker suggests that the crown was more like the Hellenistic diadem – a symbol of royal power to which Augustus aspired.1863 The relatively small number of Augustus portrait cameos with oak wreath on the head compared to his laureate and bare portraits supports the view that even in 27 BC and later, Augustus’ propaganda must have been carefully tailored to the means and channels it used. The fact that a few glass cameos and intaglios bear his oak-wreathed image indicates that the official art was influential and ordinary people wished to have their patron illustrated that way too which accounts to the widespreading cult of princeps. 1860 RIC I2 Augustus, nos. 33a-b, 35-38, 46-49, 278, 285, 293, 298, 308, 316, 409, 411 and 414. 1861 Gołyźniak 2017, no. 716. 1862 On the possible references to the battle of Actium, see: Zwierlein-Diehl 1986, no. 561. 1863 Zanker 1988, pp. 93-94. In 27 BC Senate granted Octavian not only with new titles but also with a golden, honorific shield (clipeus virtutis) which was displayed in the meeting hall of the Curia Iulia ever since. The shield was inscribed with four the most important Roman virtues: virtus, pietas, clementia and iustitia and was quickly introduced to Augustan propaganda repertoire. Like the corona civica and eagle, this was the next modest symbol alluding to the basic old Roman values and honours which were consistent with the new image of Augustus. It is observed that starting from 27 BC Augustan propaganda had different character and many times its impetus was initiated by the bottom up activities of single individuals.1864 For every single Roman citizen was free of choice of his intaglio device, yet during the reign of Augustus, some motifs experienced particular popularity and were deliberately chosen which can be explained only as the results of highly successful propaganda campaigns.1865 A good illustration of this is Victory presenting clipeus virtutis appearing on a number of intaglios produced in the Age of Augustus which resemble the depictions known from coins (cat. nos. 10.84-89, figs. 883-885).1866 She is in the type of Curia Iulia imitating the statue placed there by Octavian after his victory at Actium (cf. the discussion in chapter 9.3.1.7) and sometimes stands on a globe confirming Augustus domination on the land and sea.1867 Many of these gems are made of glass which points to their serial and massive production for common people. This is a perfect example of the considerable influence of official art on ordinary craftsmanship which is evident after 27 BC as such gems were intended to commemorate Octavian’s titles nominations and honours, he received. 1864 Zanker 1988, p. 92. 1865 Zanker 1988, pp. 265-266. 1866 For the coins, see: RIC I2 Augustus, nos. 31-32, 45-49, 61-62, 88-95. 1867 She appears as such on several series of aurei minted ca. 18-17 BC, see: RIC I2 Augustus, nos. 121-123. 1868 Platz-Horster 2012, no. 33. 1869 Furtwängler 1900, vol. III, p. 318; Richter 1956, no. 649; Sena Chiesa 2009b, pp. 83-84. The employment of clypeus virtutis in glyptics was log-lasting and sometimes received more sophisticated form and was used for complex compositions like two cameos featuring laureate portrait of Augustus between two Capricorns dated ca. 10-14 AD according to the portrait analysis (cat. nos. 10.90-91, figs. 886-887).1868 In these cases, Augustus astrological sign of Capricorn was utilised too, and the heraldic composition may point to the Hellenistic origins so that the artists, although working on Roman commissions approached the subject according to their Hellenistic habits which might be coincidental or deliberate if the pieces were intended for Augustan propaganda.1869 The cameo now in New York is said to have been found in Egypt, while the one from Berlin was purchased in Rome. If this information is reliable, the uniformity of glyptic art under Augustus is surprising despite the large geographical distance between two cameos. The majority of Octavian’s victory at Actium in 31 BC reflections on gems have already been discussed in chapter 9.3.1.7, but the fact is that this great success was very much promoted not only just after the battle, but for many next years. This is observed in the architecture and sculpture and the coinage of the first Roman Emperor.1870 However, the approach to the celebration of this particular success changed much after 27 BC when Octavian became Augustus. The Actium Cameo in Vienna illustrates this in the best way possible because it uses a new pictorial language encapsulating both, the panegyrics and social effects of the victory to the people of Rome (cat. no. 10.92, fig. 888). It was now also focused on glorification of the princeps thus, the sea-chariot pulled by four tritons is driven by Genius Augusti not Octavian-Neptune semi-god like it was the case of intaglio in Boston (cf. cat. no. 9.280, fig. 481 and discussion in chapter 9.3.1.2).1871 The piece combines all the symbols introduced in 27 BC in one meaningful and thus powerful image since the tritons hold globes surmounted with Victory holding corona civica, the clypeus virtutis framed by an oak wreath and two Capricorns flanking another golden shield framed by an oak wreath. The message transmitted here is clear – without the victory at Actium, there would not have been restoration of the Republic and consequently guarantee of peace and prosperity to the people of Rome.1872 All of this is due to one man – Augustus who is not a connector between the people and the gods anymore, but a principal author of the common success. 1870 Zanker 1988, pp. 82-84; RIC I2 Augustus, nos. 260-263. 1871 Furtwängler 1900, vol. III, p. 318. 1872 For a detailed analysis and discussion of this cameo, see: Zwierlein-Diehl 2008, no. 5. Another cameo, housed in St. Petersburg, may be deciphered in the same way because head of Augustus is surrounded with the following symbols: Capricorn, clypeus virtutis, caduceus, trident, hand with aplustre and altar with laurel branches (cat. no. 10.93, fig. 889). The inscription one reads as follows: OCT. CAES. AVG. MA. RQ. VOT. PVB. TER is a modern addition hence, it has no significance. Although there are references to all Augustan patron-deities, his head is in the centre of the composition and is clearly the most important element of the iconography. It is noteworthy that Apollo, so far, the most important supporter of Octavian is presented on an equal level with other deities. Morawiecki claimed that this is because Augustus never wanted him to dominate the pantheon of Roman gods, but to my mind Augustus wanted to emphasise his primary role in the success which is consistent with his new ideology and attempts to elevate his own legend to the divine level. The idea of the Battle of Actium as the starting point for the restoration of the Roman Republic and for Augustus personally the moment of his unquestionable dominance is well expressed in the glyptic art, for instance by outstanding popularity of Victory in the type of Curia Iulia on intaglios and cameos dated to the late 1st century BC (cat. nos. 10.94-97, figs. 890-891). Sometimes a reference to the act of vengeance of the death of Julius Caesar or the connection with him is illustrated by the adoption ring being involved in such iconography (cat. nos. 10.98-99, figs. 892-893). Zwierlein-Diehl draws attention to this aspect because little gems like the one in Oxford (cat. no. 10.98, fig. 892) encapsulate the whole propagandistic programme of Augustus. It does not only highlight his patrimony and relationship with Caesar, but it also remembers about his mission to avenge him and Victory not only informs about the victory at Actium, but also about the realisation of this act of vengeance goal, while the ring also communicates about the patronage of Venus over the Julian family.1873 It should be added that since 27 BC Augustus also styled himself as Imperator Caesar divi filius – the Commander Caesar, son of the deified one. With this title, he boasted his familial link to the already deified Julius Caesar, and the use of the title imperator signified a permanent link to the Roman tradition of victory. Furthermore, the name Caesar was merely a cognomen for just one branch of the Julian family and now Augustus transformed it into a new family line that began with him which is basically equal to the founding of a dynasty.1874 This whole capacious political programme is reflected in the visual language employed for the evoked intaglio and it must have been widely successful as one finds sealings in distant provinces bearing iconography suggesting similar messages to be transmitted and thus testifying to the acceptance of the new ideology by local governors (cat. no. 10.99, fig. 893). 1873 Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 129. 1874 Eck 2003, p. 50. 1875 Regarding coinage, see: RIC I2 Augustus, nos. 263-264 (Victory on a prow) and 268 (Victory on a globe). Victory is also frequently depicted as standing on a prow or globe (cat. nos. 10.100-118, figs. 894-896) and the analysis of provenance of these gems suggests their distribution primarily among Roman soldiers, perhaps given them during the celebrations in 29 or 27 BC since similar depictions are fairly popular on Augustus coins minted around these dates (figs. 897-898) but their production probably continued well after 27 BC.1875 Some of these gems are inscribed and one learns that these kinds of images were popular among members of the Julio-Claudian family (cat. nos. 10.112, fig. 895 and 10.117, fig. 896). The concept of world domination obtained by Augustus and Victory shown as a bringer of Augustus’ successes is the best illustrated on two glyptic objects where the emperor holds a globe, while the goddess is about to crown him (cat. nos. 10.119-120, figs. 899-900). Concerning Victory and her significance in the promotion of Augustus and his military success, she also appears on intaglios throughout his whole reign also with some additional symbolism like a female head, dextrarum iunctio as well as when engaged in some peculiar activities for her e.g. driving a chariot and crowning a trophy (cat. nos. 10.121- 127, figs. 901-903) and it is noteworthy that the repertoire known from glyptics mirrors the one employed in official propaganda in the coinage (figs. 904-905).1876 1876 For instance: RIC I2 Augustus, nos. 1a-b (Victory crowning a trophy) and 260-261 (Victory riding a biga). 1877 Vollenweider 1966, p. 60; Megow 1987, pp. 172-174. 1878 Wagner, Boardman and Scarisbrick 2016a, no. 6. 1879 Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 130. 1880 Hölscher 1983. 1881 Furtwängler 1900, vol. III, p. 264; Weiß 2007, no. 51. 1882 See, a detailed discussion on this matter in: Gołyźniak 2017, no. 228. The motifs described above belong to the category of simple, but effective propaganda communications, however, sometimes complex allegories expressed in a sophisticated, even poetic language were targeted to the Imperial Court and people related to it. According to Zwierlein-Diehl this is the case of the famous Beverley Cameo depicting a naked youth riding Capricorn and fishing with a rod (cat. no. 10.128, fig. 906). In this allegorical scene Octavian might be camouflaged as the victor at Actium supported by Venus (represented by a dolphin caught on the rod). Vollenweider and Megow recognise his portrait,1877 however, this is uncertain.1878 Zwierlein-Diehl sees here a Pan and argues the cameo to be a work of Dioscurides.1879 As suggested by Hölscher, there is indeed a strong evidence that the victory at Actium was celebrated on similar cameos.1880 Moreover, it is interesting to see a young Julio-Claudian prince in the guise of Pan on an intaglio signed by Epitynchanos (cf. chapter 10.10) so it is perhaps true that the subject acquired some political significance under Augustus. Nevertheless, Furtwängler already explained the relationship of Greek Hipparchos and Aigokeros with Pan, which is possibly illustrated on a burnt cornelian in Munich (cat. no. 10.129, fig. 907), and Weiß further argued that the motif in glyptics, although rare, was fairly ancient and Capricorn on the Beverley Cameo indeed makes a reference to Octavian/Augustus as his zodiacal sign.1881 A very similar depiction occurs on a cornelian intaglio found in Augsburg (cat. no. 10.130, fig. 908) and interestingly, in Krakow, Berlin and Hannover there are three intaglios featuring Cupid riding Capricorn or hippocamp in a similar composition (cat. nos. 10.131-133, fig. 909). The presence of Cupid only strengthens connections of this peculiar subject with Augustan propaganda since he was son of Venus, the patroness of Julian family and thus, those gems might portray Octavian as son of Julius Caesar and victorious political leader after Actium who brings peace and prosperity to the Roman Empire. This is suggested by cornucopia, an unusual attribute for Cupid in case of the gem from Krakow (cat. no. 10.133, fig. 909).1882 Augustan propaganda on engraved gems was not limited only to the celebrations of the victory at Actium and the honours and titles granted to Augustus by the Senate in 27 BC. In 20 BC the emperor succeeded in a diplomatic mission to Parthia because its ruler Phraates IV of Parthia (37-2 BC) returned the legionary standards lost by Crassus in the Battle of Carrhae in 53 BC. This was not a military success, but it was a great boost of morale for Rome and was celebrated as much as Actium’s victory and conquest of the east in all the major media: coinage, sculpture and architecture.1883 In glyptics this subject was also much exploited. The best example is a cameo in Vienna featuring Augustus as Alexander the Great-Jupiter standing frontally, holding a bundle of thunderbolts in his left hand, while by the right one he grasps a sceptre. On his left there is a trophy and defeated barbarian, on his right an eagle (cat. no. 10.134, fig. 910). This piece transmits several powerful propaganda messages which basically work on three levels at the same time. First of all, the seated barbarian under the trophy symbolises submission of Partia to Rome which was a purely propagandistic creation of Augustus because in realty, two empires remained equal, but such a communication would not have made any impact on the Romans, on contrary it would have been disappointing. Furthermore, Augustus is presented here in the guise of Jupiter holding his sceptre and with eagle, his sacred bird on the side. This is consistent with the Imperial Eagle Cameo and propagandistic programme related to it described above. Finally, Augustus is also presented as Alexander the Great – the conqueror of the East which is another example of his imitatio Alexandri. The complex subject, sophisticated language and exceptional workmanship suggest the cameo to be a product of Imperial Court workshop and it was possibly intended to be exhibited publicly to glorify the emperor and immortalise his success.1884 Another exceptional glyptic object related to the return of legionary standards by the Parthians is the cameo carved with bust of Augustus from the Lothar Cross in Aachen (cat. no. 10.135, fig. 911). In this case, Augustus is presented as military commander wearing paludamentum and laurel wreath, and he grasps a sceptre topped with an eagle. Again, a reference to Jupiter through the eagle and sceptre is noticeable, but the bird was also put on the top of legionary standards which makes here a clear allusion to the event from 20 BC. This is another splendid product of the Imperial Court workshop speculated to be a work of the famous Dioscurides.1885 It is clear that such 1883 Regarding, coins, see: RIC I2 Augustus, nos. 287-292, 304-306, 314-315, 413 and 416. Concerning sculpture, the best example is the decoration relief on the breastplate of the famous Prima Porta statue of Augustus and the regained legionary standards were installed in the temple of Mars Ultor (Avenger), see Zanker 1988, p. 186. 1884 For a detailed discussion, including the explanation of the magical characters added to the cameo later, see: Zwierlein-Diehl 2008, no. 3. 1885 Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 148. pieces were intended to impress various social groups, from nobility (because of their exceptional forms and sophisticated language) to soldiers who may have easily identify with their emperor and commander. Concerning the celebration of the ‘victory’ over Parthians in glyptics, it is evident that official imperial art strongly influenced ordinary craftsmanship. There is an immense number of intaglios featuring various illustrations of this issue. Intaglios featuring Victory with a trophy and laurel wreath stands on an altar flanked by two barbarians wearing trousers, surely the Parthians, raising legionary standards to her constitute one example (cat. nos. 10.136-137, figs. 912-913). Sometimes Victory is replaced by eagle, a symbol of imperium and Roman State, in the same configuration (cat. no. 10.138, fig. 914). Combinations linking the Parthian submission with the previously obtained titles of Augusts and Princeps through symbolism such as clypeus virtutis also exist and Victory is particularly often employed signifying the event as an important military victory with references to defeated Parthians (cat. nos. 10.139-144, figs. 915-918). In this context particularly interesting is a glass gem in London that bears a female figure who is a combination of Venus Victrix (due to the way how her body and dress is presented) and Victory (according to the wings and activity with the shield). She wears a Phrygian cap on the head and inscribes a shield, while next to her is a trophy with two barbarians wearing Phrygian caps seated beneath (cat. no. 10.144, fig. 918). The gem makes an allusion to the eastern success of Augustus and the union of two the most important female deities for Augustus in one figure is a unique but powerful propaganda message as it was meant to bring straightforward associations with the emperor. Finally, some symbolic gems may hide political messages related to the reclaim of legionary standards from Parthia in 20 BC (cat. nos. 10.145-147, figs. 919-920). These are problematical and may refer to privet issues like hope for victory and wish for good luck, however, sidus Iulium and Capricorn are frequently used elements possibly informing about references to Augustus and his political programme. A much related to the Augustus’ diplomatic success with the Parthians was his victory over Armenia which about 20 BC became a client kingdom of the Roman Empire. There are several subjects repeatedly broadcasted on gems and coins alike commemorating this success of Augustus. The most significant is a motif of Nike slaughtering or sacrificing a bull that often appears on gemstone and glass intaglios (cat. nos. 148-161, figs. 921-922). The subject itself is fairly ancient and ultimately derives from the Late Classical prototypes. For example, the reliefs of the Nike balustrade on the Acropolis at Athens include two Victories sacrificing a bull.1886 As Spier observes, noteworthy are big glass gems that clearly follow a common prototype.1887 It has been attributed by Vollenweider to the engraver Aulos, who indeed worked on similar compositions and in similar style and perhaps was among the cutters whom Augustus commissioned his gems (cf. chapter 10.2).1888 Moreover, Sostratos also incised a cornelian intaglio featuring Nike scarifying a bull and thus, he has been accounted to the group of gem carvers working for Augustus (cf. chapter 10.2). It appears that shortly after 20 BC the subject in question became fashionable and introduced to the popular art and craftsmanship as evidenced from the decoration of a silver vessel found in Boscoreale and now in Paris.1889 It is another example when the official propaganda promoted some motifs which later were copied and used on a daily basis by common people. In terms of glyptics, it could be that the works of Aulos and Sostratos introduced it on the command of Augustus and then were widely copied by regular artists and craftsmen on gemstone and glass gems. It is noteworthy that they use exactly the same image that occurs on aurei minted by Augustus in 19 BC in Pergamum with a legend: ARMENIA CAPTA, hence, the whole series were supposedly produced around this date too with the intention of commemorating the success (fig. 923).1890 A similar case could be the sphinx which also appears on Augustan aurei commemorating conquest of Armenia and also in glyptics (cf. chapter 9.3.1.9).1891 1886 Richter 1920, no. 189. 1887 Spier 1992, no. 424. 1888 Vollenweider 1966, p. 42. 1889 Spier 1992, no. 424. 1890 Maderna-Lauter 1988, p. 460; Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 130; For the coins, see: RIC I2 Augustus, no. 514. 1891 RIC I2 Augustus, no. 513. 1892 For Armenia or Parthia, see: Sena Chiesa 1966, no. 695. For Parthia, see: Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 130. For Phrygia, see: Sena Chiesa 1966, no. 697; Henig and MacGregor 2004, no. 4.36; Weiß 2007, no. 217. 1893 Wünsche, Steinhart and Weiß 2010, no. 41. 1894 AGDS I.3, nos. 2212-2213. Although, Zwierlein-Diehl suggests that lack of the Phrygian cap points to Parthia specifically, see: Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 130. Another popular subject in Augustan glyptics that most likely relates to the successes in the East is a depiction of a female personification sitting on a rock or ground to the left, in front of whom is a trophy, behind her a pillar with a vessel atop and a tree in the field (cat. nos. 10.162-177, figs. 924-926). The identification of the figure is uncertain since scholars proposed so far, the following eastern provinces: Parthia, Armenia and Phrygia,1892 and sometimes also a nymph.1893 It might be that no specific province was addressed by this iconography and the female figure presented on these gems is a general personification of the East conquered by Augustus.1894 Furthermore, an important voice in the discussion was taken by Alföldi, who noticed that similar representations are those of Ilia receiving an oracle about the future greatness of Rome.1895 Perhaps then, the images on gems were a clever propagandistic combination of the two and meant that the success in the east is the best proof of the greatness of Rome and confirms the capacity of the empire to rule the world. It is interesting to observe that series of intaglios with this kind of iconography was produced in Aquileia (cat. nos. 10.162-165) and analysis of provenance of other examples suggest that many were cut in Italy. One intaglio was found in the military context in Xanten which suggest that these propaganda gems were addressed to Roman soldiers (cat. no. 10.169, fig. 924). 1895 Alföldi 1963, no. 6. 1896 Henig 1994, p. 156. 1897 Hölscher 2011, p. 68. Regarding other military accomplishments of Augustus commemorated on engraved gems, Roman victories over the Germans seem to be quite popular and advertised on gems. A good illustration of that is an onyx cameo in Berlin presenting a personification of a province, possibly Germania, in the type provincia capta that is seated on the ground supporting her head with the left hand; behind her there is a Germanic shield which suggests the identification, and a tree or a twig in the background (cat. no. 10.178, fig. 927). A similar study where the triumph over Germania is even more emphasised by the horse belonging to the Roman soldier literary smashing the personification under its hoof, was once in the Marlborough collection (cat. no. 10.179, fig. 928). In both cases, it seems reasonable to date the cameos to the early 1st century AD. Another interesting cameo is preserved in Paris and depicts Augustus wearing cuirass and paludamentum with a globe in his hand (cat. no. 10.180, fig. 929). This image shows the emperor as the military commander with the symbol of ultimate power so that it is all clear who rules the world. The military prowess of Augustus is also emphasised and documented on the glass gem in Hannover featuring the emperor riding a biga (cat. no. 10.181, fig. 930). By far, the greatest glyptic artwork of the early 1st century AD transmitting a highly important political message is the famous Gemma Augustea housed in Vienna (cat. no. 10.182, fig. 931).1896 It is one of the most impressive ancient State Cameos cut in two-layered Arabian onyx. Although recut on the edges, it represents 25 figures arranged in two rows, a compositional trick steemed from the Hellenistic art.1897 The lower one depicts the triumph of the Roman army over barbarians (Celts and Germans) as the legionaries erect a trophy with help of Mercury and Diana to the side and their captives sit on the ground with their hands bound behind their backs resembling Marsyas punished by Apollo on the previously discussed intaglio commemorating the Battle of Actium (cf. chapter 9.3.1.2).1898 In the upper register there is Augustus in the centre half-cladded and seated on a throne associated with Jupiter whose eagle is at his feet and whose sceptre the emperor holds in his hand like in case of the previously discussed cameo from Vienna (cf. above). In addition, he holds lituus in his right hand which implies his office of pontifex maximus and his foot are on the golden shield – clypeus virtutis. Megow believes that the head of Augustus on this cameo offers the most realistic image of the first Roman emperor.1899 Behind Augustus there is Oikumene, the personification of the civilised world crowning him with the oak wreath. Above the head of Augustus there is a solar disc alluding to Apollo-Sol decorated with his zodiacal sign – Capricorn and a star – sidus Iulium recalling deified Julius Caesar. Behind Oikumene there are several figures interpreted variably as Okeanos, Neptune, Saturn, Earth or Tellus – together they symbolise the land and sea as being the subject of Augustus rule. On the right side to Augustus sits Roma – personification of the city behind whom stands a young Roman general usually identified as Drusus or Germanicus and there is another Roman triumphator (Tiberius) wearing toga and getting in a chariot driven by Victory. 1898 Rambach 2011, p. 133. 1899 Megow 1987, p. 8. 1900 For a detailed description, identification of the figures and possible meanings of this extraordinary cameo, see: Zwierlein-Diehl 2008, no. 6 (with extensive bibliography). 1901 Pollini 1993, p. 285; Sena Chiesa 2012, p. 269; Lapatin 2015, p. 252. The precise dating and specific meaning of this magnificent cameo has been much scrutinised over centuries,1900 but it is generally accepted that Gemma Augustea transmits propaganda message focused on Augustus as the ruler of Rome and his family together as bringers of peace and prosperity to the Empire through military efforts. The iconography of the lower row combined with the figures of Tiberius and Drusus or Germanicus suggest that the Roman victory over Germans or Pannonians was meant. This in turn allows to date the cameo ca. 9-12 AD when the first two were dispatched to the Rhineland to pacify the province experiencing constant threat from the Germans. At the same time, there was an uprising in Dalmatia and Pannonia provinces which were also pacified by those two. In 12 AD there was a triumph over the mentioned provinces and the accomplishments were much celebrated owing to the previous tragic Battle of Teutoburg Forest in 9 AD, when three Roman legions were completely destroyed in Germania by Arminius, leader of the Cherusci tribe. It is supposed that Gemma Augustea was commissioned by Livia and gifted to Augustus in order to erase painful memories of the terrible defeat from 9 AD (consolatio).1901 It is certain that it was executed by one of the leading carvers employed in the Imperial Court workshop and many scholars attribute it to Dioscurides, although, its date seems too late for him, thus one of his sons or disciples is more suitable. The perfect elaboration of the stone, rich detailing, a perfect combination of the Roman theme with somewhat Hellenistic approach to the subject with subtle highlight of the emperorship sole power point to Hyllos, one of the three sons od Dioscurides, active in the late Augustan and Tiberian reign.1902 The cameo speaks a panegyric language and illustrate Augustus’ dynastic ambitions since Tiberius and Drusus or Germanicus are involved in the scene. Moreover, it highlights the universal ideas promoted throughout the whole reign of the princeps – Pax Augusta and Aurea Aetas through the abundant symbolism mentioned above. Furthermore, one may decipher here even a comparison of Augustus to Alexander the Great as he conquered the civilised Mediterranean world like his great predecessor did.1903 But on a more spiritual level, the gem displays the establishment of the cult of Roma in the west and confirm divine patronage of Divus Iulius, Apollo and Jupiter over the emperor and his whole family. Therefore, the propagandistic message is extremely powerful as it combines all the aspects of Augustan promotional activities and the intention for continuity of his work by his successors in one piece.1904 1902 Zwierlein-Diehl 2008, pp. 117-118. 1903 Galinsky 1996, p. 120. 1904 Guiraud 1996, pp. 116-117. 1905 Sena Chiesa 2012, p. 269; Lapatin 2015, p. 252. 1906 Pollini 1993, p. 286. Owing to the fact that Augustus did not allow himself to be worshipped as a god in Rome, in contrast to the eastern provinces where such tradition had been established centuries ago by Hellenistic kings, Sena Chiesa suggests and Lapatin gives us an option that the cameo may have been intended for a close friend or a relative to Augustus in the inner court circle or the recipient was a client king resided in the east.1905 However, one should take into account the highly private character of glyptics art which as I have already mentioned several times allowed to promote oneself more directly and openly than coinage and other propaganda media. For this reason, it appears plausible to me that Gemma Augustea was made for Augustus rather than someone else but if so, it is reasonable to ask about its propagandistic value. It might seem to have been limited considering the fact that it would have been inappropriate to display it publicly so only the very few people could possibly see it. But only the highly educated elite social class well versed in the literary and rhetorical traditions of Graeco-Roman culture could read the iconography, interpret it correctly and appreciate not only the great workmanship but also the idea hidden behind it.1906 Coming back to the titles and offices granted to Augustus during his reign, there are several gems engraved with a specific portrait of Augustus - capite velato - with the veil on the head and wearing toga, usually captured en face since they were intended to commemorate his appointment to the pontifex maximus office in 12 BC (cat. nos. 10.183-187, figs. 932-933). These can be securely dated around this year. Most of them are cameos of superb quality that were possibly manufactured in the Imperial Court workshop for Augustus, but regular cheap glass gems occur too – all of them should be accounted as propagandistic and testify either to the limited circulation of the best cameo pieces and the wide replicas issued for ordinary people. Finally, in Florence, there is an intriguing sard intaglio engraved with a scene presenting Augustus seated on sella curulis positioned over a pedestal decorated with a Capricorn. He is watching an equestrian parade (with legionary standards) and there is a Victory behind him climbing on a ladder in order to crown him with a laurel wreath (cat. no. 10.188, fig. 934). The gem depicts an unusual scene for glyptics which is transvectio equitum – an ancient parade of young men (iuventus) of the Roman equestrian class that took place annually on 15 July.1907 The emperor Augustus revived the ancient ceremony, combining it with a recognitio equitum or probatio equitum in order to scrutinize the character of the equestrians themselves.1908 On this intaglio the custom is subordinated to Augustus which is symbolised by Victory about to crown the emperor with the laurel wreath. The piece illustrates well the shift in Roman politics now focusing on its sole ruler who oversees all aspects of public life. 1907 Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 131. 1908 Suetonius, Augustus, 38. 1909 Zanker 1988, p. 167. 10.6. Divine and mythological references In the chapter devoted to Octavian, his relationships with impressive amount of deities was thoroughly explained mostly in the sense of his counter-propaganda practices aimed at responding actions of his opponents like Sextus Pompey and Mark Antony. Mythological and divine references were extremely important at this point of his career, while after 27 BC he focused on the more narrative mythological foundations of the New Rome that he was a central figure. This was an inevitable step in evolution of Augustus propaganda because his new position required different messages to be emitted to the audience, which was now stimulated to accept a sole ruler and in the course of time also his family, court and successors.1909 These aspects shall be presented and commented in the next sub-chapter. Nevertheless, it does not mean that references to various mythological and divine figures ceased to be used outright. It is difficult to judge if some gems discussed here should have been linked to the earlier phase of Octavian/Augustus’ propaganda. Gems expressing the bound between Augustus and Apollo, Jupiter, Mars as well as other deities after 27 BC were not as abundant as before that date but were still manufactured for sure to communicate continuous blessing and approval from the divine powers to the Roman Emperor. This is reflected on several already discussed cameos and intaglios above which, however, main role was to commemorate important events from Augustus’ life and career. For example, one has seen him in the guise of Jupiter on the cameo in Vienna (cf. cat. no. 10.134, fig. 910 and discussion in chapter 10.5). Here, I shall focus on those motifs and subjects that clearly or supposedly transmit similar powerful propaganda messages. Regarding mythological figures related to Augustan propaganda, most of them like Aeneas, Diomedes and so on were related to the mythological beginnings of Rome and hence promoted by Augustus. There is little content that would act separately as a good illustration of other Augustan propaganda practices. Perhaps to some extent such a figure is Telephus who rarely appear on Roman intaglios and cameos, however, he experiences a short-lived popularity in Augustan Era (cat. nos. 10.189-197, figs. 935-938). Some scholars are reserved to consider his usefulness for Augustus propaganda,1910 but it is noteworthy to remember that Telephus was related to Aeneas and thus, he might have made sense for Augusts promotional practices.1911 This is most likely the reason why the hero appears on some rather extraordinary cameos (cat. nos. 10.190-191, figs. 936-937) and one finds his story to be a subject for wall paintings in Herculaneum, reliefs and coins.1912 A particularly interesting is the intaglio found in Djemila illustrating a combination of these two myths - Romulus and Remus with the Telephus’ story (cat. no. 10.192, fig. 938).1913 All this evidence is not entirely convincing, but one imagines that imperial propaganda stimulated artists to undertake subjects suitable for Augustus and the myth of Telephus could account to that. 1910 Toso 2007, pp. 184-185. 1911 Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 134; Sena Chiesa, Magni and Tassinari 2009, no. 526; Gołyźniak 2017, no. 251. 1912 Furtwängler in: Roscher’s Lexikon, s.v. Herakles, col. 2247; Hafner 1969, pp. 231-237. 1913 Leglay 1957. Concerning divine figures, Apollo naturally took the leading role in promotional practices of Augustus. I have evoked many examples for his tremendously important role in the victory at Actium (cf. chapters 9.3.1.7 and 9.3.1.8), but he was equally important after that success. In 28 BC Octavian dedicated a new Temple of Apollo Palatinus which had been reinstituted during the ludi seculares games in 17 BC. Augustus’ private house was directly connected with the temple so one can hardly find a better illustration of a close relationship between Augustus and his patron god. For this temple Augustus installed the famous sculptural group of ‘Myron’s herd’ which was reproduced on special coin and gems issues that I shall discuss fully later (cf. chapter 10.8) and a statue of Apollo possibly by Scopas was transported from Ramnuta (Greece) to this new cult place of the god. It seems that the statue was highly influential as the head of Apollo, now called ‘Palatinus’, was a highly popular subject on engraved gems not only at that time, but throughout Augustus’ reign. As discussed in the chapter 9.3.1.8, there is some evidence suggesting that the first creations were deliberately induced by Augustus himself, as he might have commissioned a beautiful cornelian intaglio by Hyllos, now in St. Petersburg (cat. no. 10.8, fig. 854) and works of Eutyches and Solon (cat. nos. 9.792 and 794, fig. 653), which were later copied by ordinary gem engravers (cat. nos. 9.793, fig. 654 and 795-808, figs. 655-658).1914 Sometimes Apollo is presented with laurel wreath on his head – a symbol, which alluded to the aurea aetas concept proving usefulness of this motif for Augustan propaganda.1915 Other versions were equally important from propaganda perspective, like Apollo Daphnephoros holding caduceus, which possibly illustrated Pax Augusta idea promoted by the emperor after 27 BC.1916 This is also deduced from a fact that, for instance, Apollo Palatinus classical image was employed for other variants of Apollo heads and busts like the one with cithara – so popular in glyptics of the Augustan Age. Finally, one finds figural representations on gems that might actually present Octavian or Augustus in the guise of Apollo like in case of two extraordinarily large intaglios in private collections and one more object in Vienna (cat. nos. 9.804-808, fig. 659). The meaning of such pieces was surely to propagate the new image of the emperor identified with the god. 1914 Spier 2001, no. 23. 1915 Wünsche, Steinhart and Weiß 2010, no. 42 1916 Maderna-Lauter 1988, p. 460. While discussing the cameo from Vienna commemorating Augustus involvement in the retrieval of legionary standards from the Parthians (cf. chapter 10.5), the emperor was compared with Jupiter in a very direct way. One finds another comparison in this type on a gem in Vienna where Octavian or Augustus is presented as Jupiter Veiovis who puts his leg on a globe and feeds eagle (cat. no. 10.198, fig. 939). The intaglio shows not only emperor’s capability to rule the world, but he is also presented as the feeder of the Roman Empire, the one who cares for the state and people of Rome as eagle became at the time a universal symbol of the Roman Empire. The regain of legionary standards in 20 BC was one of the most important and exploited events in Augustus career as the Roman Emperor. I have already pointed out many gems commemorating this particular success, but the role of god Mars in this event has not been properly explored yet. His involvement is confirmed by a substantial evidence extracted, for instance, from the decoration of breastplate on the Prima Porta statue, where perhaps the embodiment of Mars Ultor himself is involved in the central scene as he receives legionary standard from the Parthian king.1917 Several gems present Mars in a victorious attitude, usually as crowned by Victory or holding her on his outstretched hand and with a trophy in the background which implicates success of the Roman State (cf. cat. nos. 9.688, 741 and 751, figs. 613, 637 and 640). It has already been suggested that some of them could commemorate the Battle of Actium but since their precise dates cannot be established, they may signify the successful negotiations with the Parthians too. A particular case is a glass gem in Vienna featuring Mars riding a she-wolf that suckles Romulus and Remus (cat. no. 10.199, fig. 940). This piece illustrates the important role of Mars in the propaganda of mythological foundations of Rome which was much advertised by Augustus after 27 BC (cf. chapter 10.7). 1917 Zanker 1988, pp. 189-190. 1918 Zanker 1988, p. 53; Middleton makes an interesting observation on one gem from Dalmatia which presents a similar subject but is possibly a Hellenistic creation. The sunburst decoration of the shield presented by the hero on this gem is interpreter as a sunburst symbol of the Macedonian dynasty, see: Middleton 1991, no. 19. 1919 Gołyźniak 2017, no. 230. A highly interesting is the motif appearing on a series of gems where Mars presents his shield decorated with a comet that he puts on an altar, column or other postument which were commented in chapter 9.3.1.8. This image possibly alludes to the statue of Mars Ultor a centre-piece placed in the temple of the god on the Forum of Augustus inaugurated in 2 BC surrounded by legionary standards regained from the Parthians. Because of these special decorations, it is possible to some gems in question to commemorate not only avenge of Julius Caesar, but also inauguration of the temple. The god played an important role in Augustus’ propaganda machinery as the avenger (Ultor) of Julius Caesar which is deduced from the shield decoration that might be the comet – sidus Iulium.1918 But the political message encoded then could be that Caesar had been avenged by Augustus thanks to the assistance of Mars and also the emperor could fulfil Caesar’s plan to conquest the East also thanks to the god.1919 Intriguing are also gems like a sard in London and a cornelian in Florence that might actually show Augustus in the guise of Mars with a spear and shield in front of an aediculae (cat. nos. 10.200-201, figs. 941-942). The highly decorative basis for the aediculae, the style and iconographical elements suggest dating the piece to Augustus’ reign for sure, but it is uncertain whether one should take the motif as reflecting the bound between Augustus and Mars or just a simple representation of a Greek hero. As to other male deities promoted as Augustus divine patrons, there is a clear drop in the interest in Augustus presenting himself in the guise of Mercury or Neptune compared to pre-27 BC period. Naturally, some extraordinarily gems could have been commissioned by the emperor or his court in order to promote cult of those deities like the amethyst intaglio in Vienna (cat. no. 10.202, fig. 943), but the evidence for using such objects for propaganda purposes is near to nothing. It seems that new themes like Diomedes with Palladion and Aeneas dominated Imperial court glyptics so that the previously popular themes lost their importance unless they were conflated into one combination with these new trends like on a cameo in London where Augustus is presented as Mercury in front of a small figure of Athena that might actually be Palladion (cat. no. 10.203, fig. 944).1920 1920 Plantzos 1999, pp. 95-97. As it goes to female patronesses of Augustus and deities favourable to him, Athena/Minerva was one of them. An interesting intaglio is a sard in Berlin presenting bust of the goddess wearing aegis and with a helmet on the side (cat. no. 10.204, fig. 945). As Weiß argues, this specimen probably was cut by an engraver working in Solon’s atelier as suggested by the composition and style which are similar to the busts of Octavian as Mercury and Octavia as Diana (cf. chapter 9.3.1.2). Since Solon is supposed to work for Augustus at some point of his career, it looks like other cutters working with him also preferred themes that would have been suitable for emperor’s propaganda. As it goes to the workshop of Solon and gems produced for Augustus, in Lisbon there is a fragment of another extraordinarily big sard plaque very much like the mentioned before busts of Octavian and Octavia in the guise of Mercury and Diana but presenting winged Athena/Minerva (cat. no. 10.205, fig. 946). In this instance, the goddess has some eastern features like the sphinx-like crest on the helmet and wings of Nemesis or Victory which on the one hand may point to Octavian/Augustus as he used to seal his documents with a sphinx device, but on the other hand the creature is in the Egyptian type the fact that makes it difficult to link with the emperor unless understood as a reminiscence of his eastern conquest. However, in Florence, there is another similar plaque, but in glass, also from Solon’s workshop presenting unusual bust of Athena/Minerva too (cat. no. 10.206, fig. 947) so that the odd elements may be more due to eastern origins of the engravers working on those gems rather than a deliberate propaganda or any other motivation.1921 1921 Vollenweider argued the gem to be work of Hyllos, but Zwierlein-Diehl (1986, no. 301) and Spier (2001, no. 22) convincingly discussed it to be product of Solon’s workshop. Another product of Augustan Age where Athena’s helmet is richly decorated including the sphinx-like crest is a cameo in London, inv. no.: 1866,0504.119. 1922 Concerning coins, see: RIC I2 Augustus, nos. 250a-b (denarii of Octavian, ca. 32-29 BC). 1923 Zwierlein-Diehl 1998, no. 65. During the reign of Augustus, Venus, the mother of the Julian clan and patroness to Julius Caesar, was an increasingly popular theme on engraved gems. The type of Venus Victrix experienced special popularity in glyptics as well as in other media e.g. coinage throughout the period as it was probably still recognised by many as one of the symbols of Caesar and Augustus alike (cat. nos. 10.207-217, figs. 948-950).1922 Typically for Augustan epoch, even canonical subjects like this one were often given new, exceptional forms, like in case of a citrine intaglio from a private collection where Venus Victrix is accompanied with a large crater and cuirass placed upon it (cat. no. 10.217, fig. 951). This meaningful image communicates about Augustus’ victory in the Battle of Actium over Mark Antony-Dionysus. Venus, solely or with her son Cupid, appeared on cameos and intaglios of high quality probably produced for the use of inner circle of Augustus court (cat. nos. 10.218-220, figs. 952-954). Moreover, the goddess was also engaged in complex scenes that clearly had propagandistic meaning. I have already evoked the large sard intaglio from Cologne cut by an artist who according to the subjects employed for this and his other gems must have worked for Octavian/Augustus (cat. no. 9.750, fig. 639). It features Mars presenting his sword to the enthroned Venus who is crowned by Victory with a laurel wreath. This exceptional work is difficult to date since it might relate to the Battle of Actium, however, the context of the scene would have fitted 27 BC and appointment to the title Augustus as well. The gem combines four deities extremely important for the first emperor of Rome.1923 The scene is focused on the act of sword presentation from Mars to Venus which is possibly a political allusion to the transference of power from Mars to Julian family e.g. Augustus who could not be presented here directly so that there is his representative – Venus with Cupid. The goddess is crowned by Victory with a laurel wreath that became a symbol of the Imperial Power which is also a significant element of the whole composition. Maybe the gem was not meant to commemorate a specific historical event but is arguably an allegory of Augustus raise to power that is confirmed and sanctioned by Roman deities. The sword obtained from Mars by Venus is also an element of a complex depiction of the goddess seated on an altar with spear and helmet in her hands, a shield in front of her and with a column behind in the field with an urn atop on an intaglio from Hannover (cat. no. 10.224, fig. 955). This object illustrates how successful was Augustus’ political and cultural programme and the official images sent to the public in visual art, like the one discussed above, penetrated craftsmanship of the period to a considerable degree. A clear promotion of the cult of Venus under Augustus is evidenced from her head appearing on several coin issues struck either ca. 32-29 BC and 16 BC (fig. 956).1924 Exactly the same diademed head of Venus is broadcasted on gemstone and glass intaglios alike (cat. no. 10.225, fig. 957). The considerable success of Augustan cultural and political programme is reflected on a series of gems presenting Venus Pelagia (of the sea). There was a general trend in the 1st century BC glyptic art to promote maritime subjects which resulted from the growing significance of the sea in Roman life as the conquest of the Mediterranean basin progressed. One of the particularly popular subjects was a pair of Triton riding with a Nereid through the sea, but during the Age of Augusts, gem engravers often replaced the Nereid with Venus (cat. nos. 10.226-232, figs. 958-960).1925 This change resulted from massive broadcast of Venus as the patroness of the Julian family so that she became a universal symbol of the Roman Empire. In pair with Triton, the deities became heralds of Augustus victory at Actium. Many of the gems presenting Venus Pelagia with Triton are regular intaglios circulating among common people which suggests how considerable was the influence of Augustus’ ‘cultural programme’ in private sphere. That influence is also reflected in outburst of other marine subjects involving Venus like the one when she is entitled Epithragia and rides Capricorn – Augustus zodiacal sign (cat. nos. 10.233-236, figs. 961-962).1926 The example housed in the British Museum in London is particularly interesting since the cameo is set in a led mount that served as a pendant (cat. no. 10.234, fig. 962). It is tempting to suggest that it was gifted to one of Augustus’ followers or was carried by an officer in the Roman army who was awarded with it for his particular merits perhaps by the emperor himself. 1924 RIC I2 Augustus, nos. 251 and 367-368 (denarii of Octavian/Augustus, 32-29 BC and 16 BC respectively). 1925 To the list of objects provided in the catalogue, one may also add: Henig and Molesworth 2018, no. 112. 1926 For a more detailed analysis and description of this issue, see: Gołyźniak (forthcoming). Victory was of key importance for Octavian propaganda on gems as the heraldess of his military accomplishments, especially the one at Actium (cf. chapter 9.3.1.7). Her significance after 27 BC was equally tremendous as I have already explained while discussing gems commemorating the events of 27 BC and other important successes of Augustus. It remains only to add that throughout the whole reign of Augustus, Victory frequently appears on engraved gems, especially in the type of Cuiria Iulia that is standing on a globe, flying or advancing with a palm branch and laurel wreath (cat. nos. 10.237-245, figs. 963-964). It remains unclear though, when her representations had political messages encoded or are just illustrations of private wishes for victory since one finds many examples inscribed with the names of gems’ owners (cat. nos. 10.238-239, 241 and 244-245). It is possible that these images were put on gems because their owners followed general trends in Augustan art and craft that repeatedly used the same motifs for quite long period of time. It means that private commissions could copy a popular image without its primary propagandistic value because it was already so deeply rooted in society’s consciousness. A similar phenomenon is observed on Arretine bowls which are often decorated with the motifs from the early principate in the early 1st century AD when nobody was concerned with Augustus victory at Actium anymore.1927 So even though the propagandistic value of such gems as evoked here was probably close to zero, they are important proofs for successfulness of Augustan propaganda. For if it was not successful, those motifs would not have experienced such a popularity after ca. 30 BC until death of Augustus. Naturally during the reign of Augustus exceptional pieces were crafted too. A good example of that is a sardonyx cameo in Florence presenting bust of Augustus crowned by Victory with a laurel wreath (cat. no. 10.246, fig. 965). In this instance, the goddess is evoked to remind of Augustus successes and such cameos were surely princely gifts circulating within the inner circle of Augustus’ followers or at his court. 1927 Łuczewska 2002, p. 65. 1928 Zazoff 1983, p. 335. A kind of novelty in Augustan propaganda in glyptics is the use of image of the goddess Roma. She was associated first with the city of Rome as she personified it, but under Augustus she became a general embodiment of the Roman State.1928 Her cult spread in the western part of the Empire in response to the eastern initiatives for establishment of the Imperial cult. As a result, dea Roma started to be promoted by Augustus as an integral part of his own propaganda because doing this way, he made his attempts more convincing and acceptable for the people unaccustomed with the sole rule ideology. A reflection of that process is the image of Roma seated on a throne, altar or cuirass with Victoriola on the outstretched hand or holding parazonium that begins to appear on engraved gems during the times of Augustus (cat. nos. 10.247-250, figs. 966-967). Another kind of the motif involving Roma is her head appearing, for example, on a sard intaglio in Berlin (cat. no. 10.251, fig. 968). The propagandistic message included in this artwork was supposedly the glorification of the Roman state as such and military victories of Augustus thanks whom Rome rules the world, however, it remains an open question whether the victory at Actium, over Parthians or another one was meant to be commemorated at the same time.1929 Generally, the trend for Roma appearance in glyptics took a considerable strength over the 1st and 2nd century AD, but these first symptoms discussed here are noteworthy because the stimulation could be done by Augustus himself already during his reign.1930 Analysing the archaeological context of these and later examples, it is clear that most of them were exported outside Italy, mostly to the Gaul in order to intensify romanisation process. In conclusion, one supposes that Augustus primary goal was to influence non-Roman people and encourage them to be connected with his Empire which might have worked by donations of such gems to the local aristocracy in the provinces. 1929 Maderna-Lauter (1988, p. 469) and Zwierlein-Diehl (2007, pp. 116-117) suggest Actium, but this is uncertain. 1930 Regarding the examples of 1st-2nd century gems with the image of Roma, see: Sena Chiesa 1966, nos. 646-652; AGDS IV Hannover, no. 773; Guiraud 1988-2008, nos. 93-101 and 1009-1112; Henig and MacGregor 2004, nos. 4.38-4.40. 1931 Weiß 1996, no. 227. Finally, the last female divine figure to consider in this chapter is Virgo who is sometimes suggested to be related to Augustus propaganda. Indeed, Virgo becomes popular in glyptics during the reign of Augustus, however, she exists on earlier gems too (cat. nos. 10.252-259, fig. 969). Weiß argues that because the female deity is often combined with Capricorn – the zodiacal sign of Augustus and Taurus – the zodiacal sign of Julius Caesar she might be a part of Augustus propaganda practices on engraved gems signifying prosperity for the people of Rome because of the actions of these two politicians.1931 However, it should be highlighted the in Roman mythology, the figure was often associated with Ceres and as such she was understood as a personification of abundance and prosperity. On some gems she appears as a pantheistic goddess combining Ceres-Fortuna-Iustitia-Virgo in one (cat. no. 10.260, fig. 970). She was also sometimes identified with Iustitia and Astrea holding the scales of justice in her hand (cat. no. 10.256). Moreover, she is not combined only with the mentioned zodiacal signs, but sometimes Aires and other signs are involved (cat. no. 10.259) and the combinations of those signs alone also frequently appear on gems (cat. nos. 10.261, fig. 971). All this evidence suggests that the gems with her depictions were used as amulets which combined private horoscopes with the wish for abundance and prosperity, thus, their political significance was rather small. 10.7. Mythological Foundations of the New Rome According to Zanker, about 17 BC Augustus started another wave of public opinion’s stimulation. The victory over Parthians was celebrated throughout several last years so that the subject was much exploited, and a new impulse was needed to strength not only the leading role of Augustus as a sole ruler of Rome, but also to lay foundations for his Julio-Claudian dynasty.1932 The first steps to do that, however, were taken when Octavian proclaimed his heritage from Julius Caesar automatically taking on his mythological descendance from Venus and Aeneas.1933 For already Caesar issued coins presenting head of Venus on the obverse and Aeneas running out of Troy with Palladion and his father Anchises on the left shoulder, and son Ascanius/Iulus on the side on the reverse in 47-46 BC.1934 In 42 BC Octavian followed his suit placing Aeneas carrying Anchizes on his left shoulder on his aurei.1935 Both issues were related to the promotion of the mythological beginnings of the gens Iulia, but in case of Octavian, two more things mattered: by adding this image to his repertoire, he expressed either his pietas erga patrem (Julius Caesar) and pietas erga deos (Venus and Aeneas).1936 In the course of time, the subject of Aeneas experienced growing popularity that culminated ca. 2 BC when Forum of Augustus was inaugurated. Among the rich statuary decoration, there was a group presenting Aeneas carrying Anchizes and leading his son Ascanius/Iulus by his hand in one of the niches paired with Romulus statue on the opposite side so that while Aeneas was exemplum pietatis, Romulus was exemplum virtutis.1937 It is taken for granted that the statuary group was highly influential and resulted in numerous copies and pastises in various art forms including glyptics.1938 This was certainly true and the official image worked its way down to all the strata of the Roman society as there is so many gems of either good and poor quality presenting this theme (cat. nos. 10.262-276, figs. 972-974).1939 It is noticeable that in glyptics extraordinary versions of the Aeneas group exist on single gems exhibiting unparalleled skill of the engravers like in case of the cornelian in a private collection which could be attributed to Felix, one of the artists working for Augustus (cat. no. 10.277, fig. 975). This peculiar object probably includes propagandistic message encoded for which speaks the star on the sky presumably signifying 1932 Zanker 1988, p. 167. 1933 Zanker 1988, p. 193. 1934 RRC no. 458/1 (denarius of Julius Caesar, 47-46 BC). 1935 RRC 494/3a-b (aurei of L. Livineius Regulus, 42 BC). 1936 Evans 1992, pp. 41-44; Toso 2007, pp. 71-73; Barcarro 2009, pp. 71-72. 1937 Zanker 1988, p. 203. 1938 Laubscher 1974, p. 258; Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 134. However, it does not mean that the subject was absent in the previous centuries on intaglios, see an early example: Maaskant-Kleibrink 1978, no. 217. 1939 Evans 1992, p. 51. Divus Iulius while helmeted Roma with a torch on the walls of Troy may prophesise the new city (Rome) to be founded by Aeneas and his offspring, unless the figure is a Greek warrior setting the city on fire.1940 It is likely that the more general production in casual workshops was stimulated by such masterpieces. 1940 Wagner and Boardman 2017, no. 136. 1941 Zanker 1988, p. 203; Evans 1992, p. 50. 1942 Evans 1992, p. 46. 1943 Evans 1992, pp. 48-50. 1944 Barcarro 2009, p. 99. 1945 Zanker 1988, pp. 203-210. Zanker and Evans rightly observe that in the early Augustan examples Aeneas is presented in the Greek manner as he is nude, and his father carries no Penates, while later he is more Roman as he wears armour to show vengeance of Julius Caesar’s death and the Penates are present.1941 This is hardly observable in glyptics as the second type clearly dominates, therefore, one presumes that most of the gems with Aeneas theme was produced during Augustus reign and possibly not before ca. 20 BC. Yet, exceptions are occasionally made like in case of the cornelian intaglio once in the Ionides collection that features an early version of the myth in addition with cicada on the ground that might be a symbol of a specific Roman family (cat. no. 10.278, fig. 976). This detail is particularly interesting as it makes an allusion for support of that anonymous family to Julius Caesar or Octavian/Augustus because the subject-matter could not be chosen completely accidentally. Overall, the role of these objects was to propagate Octavian/Augustus ancestral roots identified with Julius Caesar, Aeneas and Venus and also to show him as re-founder of the city of Rome after the many years of the Civil War.1942 Furthermore, when later Aeneas is equipped with Palladion or his father with the Penates, the whole act is a sacred one pointing to Augustus’ special role as Pontifex Maximus.1943 Finally, Aeneas was a useful figure for Augustus because he was associated with continuity of dynasty (Julius Caesar), which could be easily reinterpreted in new circumstances to the continuity of the Julio-Claudian dynasty.1944 The production of gems with this subject fits in the general trend observable in other branches of Roman art and craftsmanship and the impulses induced from the Imperial Court were taken on further by ordinary people who decorated their houses with paintings presenting Aeneas or used Arretine bowls featuring this myth and signet rings engraved with it.1945 The second extremely useful and appealing subject for Augustan gem engravers as well as those less skilful ones but working at the time of his reign was Diomedes stealing Palladion. As proved by Moret, Plantzos, Toso and Weiß, the subject was deeply rooted in Greek and Roman glyptics because Diomedes was recognised in Italy as the founder of numerous cities, but under Augustus it was largely reinterpreted.1946 The particular popularity of this motif was like in case of Aeneas, due to strong promotion of the mythological foundations of Rome, now rebuilt or literary refound by the princeps combined with the mythical descendance of the Iulii family from Venus.1947 It is noteworthy that the subject appears on several large intaglios signed by glyptic masters that surely date to the times of Augustus, which enabled for creation of didactic and narrative scenes that imply double sacrilege on the part of the Greeks, atrocities committed against the Trojans (mythological ancestors of the Romans) which thanks to Augustus should be rewarded at present day as the Romans repaid evil deeds of the Greeks by the victory at Actium or the one over Parthians (cf. chapter 10.2).1948 The Actium success may make sense because in some versions a small statue of Neptune on a pillar appears in front of Diomedes. The historical significance of these large gems was beyond doubt far reaching as they were numerously copied by common gem engravers (cf. below). In fact, they are perfect examples of the considerable influence that Imperial Court workshop had on the whole production of gems. The official images issued by such artists like Solon, Dioscurides and Gnaeus are perfect examples of Augustus integrational propaganda because the subject of Diomedes stealing the Palladion was related to the general concept of Roman power, imperium and pietas towards Venus. It is noteworthy that the Romans considered the fall of Troy as necessary to the raise of Rome which happens right now under the guidance of Augustus. The steal of Palladion was an important part of the whole story, thus, several top artists approached the subject. The unity of the strongly classicising style, exceptional workmanship made great impact on the viewers of these gems which by no means were employed for sealing, rather for a display in the private chambers or treasury of Augustus. A particularly interesting is the intaglio cut by Felix though (cat. no. 10.6, fig. 854), because apart from artist’s signature, on the gem appears the name of Calpurnius Severus. A detailed analysis of the two inscriptions revealed that the latter has been added by another hand than the artist’s signature,1949 therefore, a conclusion might be drawn that the gem was a gift, possibly from the commissioner (Augustus?) to his follower (Calpurnius Severus) in recognition of particular merits of the latter or sympathy. One imagines such a gift to make a great impression among the supporters of the 1946 Moret 1997; Plantzos 1999b; Toso 2007, pp. 55-60; Weiß 2007, no. 273. 1947 Zazoff 1983, p. 296. However, Toso notices that the motif was popular much earlier and could have been used by other politicians like Pompey the Great or Julius Caesar because it was a universal subject related to the Roman power and imperium (Toso 2007, pp. 61-64). 1948 Laubscher 1974, pp. 256-258; Plantzos 1999, p. 95. 1949 Boardman et al. 2009, no. 165. Emperor, thus the new possessor of the gem wanted to put his name on the piece to make his mark on it. Such an interpretation is supported by the fact that many Calpurnii were in the service of Augustus and Vollenweider even proposed that ‘Severus’ means servant to Augustus so the name could fit for instance L. Calpurnius Piso, indeed a servant and follower of Augustus and Tiberius.1950 As Boardman and others notice, the subject of Diomedes stealing Palladion was a very common one on gems, presumably based on originals in other media which only supports my view that glyptics was an integral part of Augustan propaganda machinery (cat. nos. 10.279-317, figs. 978-981).1951 Henig argues that it does not seem possible to arrange the numerous representations of the theme on gems in a satisfactory chronological order, which is true, but the better examples like the cornelian intaglio in Cambridge and the nicolo gem in the Beverley collection (cat. nos. 10.279-280, figs. 978-979) definitely follow the masterpieces produced for Augustus cut in the spirit of the neo-Classical or Pasitelean phase of Hellenistic art.1952 The rest may have been produced throughout Italy and even in the provinces as an effect of progressive romanization of the local elites and ordinary people. 1950 Vollenweider 1987, p. 278. 1951 Boardman et al. 2009, no. 165. 1952 Henig, Scarisbrick and Whiting 1994, no. 197. 1953 Plantzos 1999, pp. 95-96. 1954 Furtwängler 1900, vol. III, p. 344. 1955 Maaskant-Kleibrink 2017, and on the striking similarities between Cassandra’s heads and busts and Apollo’s ones, see especially p. 43. The same narrative elements as in case of Aeneas group and Diomedes one finds on the gems presenting Cassandra, a daughter of king Priam and Queen Hecuba of Troy. Her heads and busts became a fashionable decorative theme for many intaglios produced in the Late Republic and early Empire (cat. no. 10.318, fig. 982).1953 Already Furtwängler remarked that she became very popular in Augustan glyptics and suspected this to be due to her role as a priestess of Apollo, whose cult was very important in the Augustan Age.1954 Recently, the subject of Cassandra on engraved gems has been thoroughly analysed and commented in detail by Maaskant-Kleibrink, who among many useful observations, noticed that indeed her heads and busts are present in the same captures and manners as those of Apollo.1955 Moreover, the new role assigned to Apollo Palatinus by transferring the Sybilline books to his temple at the Palatine founded by Augustus resulted in incorporation of Cassandra to his cult as she was a famous prophesier. This relationship is illustrated on a substantial group of gems presenting Apollo approaching Cassandra during her dream or the princess sleeping beside Apollo’s tripod (cat. no. 10.319, fig. 983) which resemble the pair of Mars and Rhea Silvia but this issue will be commented later. This is not a coincidence because both motifs could circulate in Augustan times as a reference to the miraculous insemination of Atia, Augustus’ mother, by Apollo while she was sleeping in his temple.1956 1956 Suretonius, Augustus, 50. 1957 Vollenweider 1966, pp. 55-56; Neverov 1976, no. 116; Henig in the note by Cohon R. 1994, Ancient masterpiece joins collection, The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art, Newsletter, March 1994: 2. 1958 Maaskant-Kleibrink 2017, p. 46. 1959 Zanker 1988, p. 195. These were certainly some of the reasons for Cassandra’s popularity on gems those days, but it is noteworthy that she predicted that her cousin Aeneas would escape during the fall of Troy and found new nation in Rome which places her within the Trojan cycle and makes another figure suitable for Augustus propaganda aimed at promoting him as the refounder of New Rome. There are numerous examples of Cassandra kneeling or sitting in front of Palladion that clearly indicate her role in the Trojan cycle and prophesy of foundation of New Rome (cat. nos. 10.320-337, figs. 984-985). It is noteworthy that some examples of those as well as gems from previously mentioned groups were engraved by top quality engravers, including those working for Augustus like Hyllos, Solon or Aulos as stated by Neverov, Vollenweider and Henig (cf. chapter 10.2).1957 Therefore, it is possible that a part of the production was induced as propaganda campaigns by the Emperor who on the one hand promoted the story of his divine origin and on the other hand his prophesised role of a refounder of New Rome. Perhaps the works commissioned by him were quite influential and like in case of other themes promoted by the Imperial Court, they found their way into the ordinary workshops producing gems so that the myth was widespreading by countless replication on its own reaching vast amounts of people. The main reason why Cassandra on gems was an attractive motif for common people in the time of Augustus was that she herself was a talisman propelling people towards a golden future guaranteed by Augustus.1958 The mythological aspect of Augustan propaganda consisted of two essential myth combined together. The first one was the Trojan cycle which major figures (Aeneas, Diomedes and Cassandra) I have described above, while the second was the legend focused on Romulus as Augustus was compared to him and even regarded as new Romulus refounding the New Rome.1959 These two narratives were interchangeable because one often notices the same mechanisms which could transmit the same propagandistic message. The starting point for the Romulus myth was Rhea Silvia, the mother of the twins Romulus and Remus. According to Livy’s account of the legend she was the daughter of Numitor, king of Alba Longa, and descended from Aeneas. Here one notices the first link between the Trojan cycle and the Roman tradition that turned out very useful for Augustus’ propaganda. Rhea Silvia becomes a particularly popular motif on intaglios in the late Roman Republic and Early Empire and she is usually represented as a cladded woman sitting on the ground in front of whom there is a large hydria with corn ears and sometimes a tree emerges behind her with eagle of Jupiter holding a sceptre above her head (cat. nos. 10.338-360, figs. 986-987). Sometimes, she is represented as such also with lupa romana suckling the twins or Faustulus watching the babies (cat. nos. 10.361-364, figs. 988-989). The subject perfectly transmitted the basic propaganda message from Augustus to his people. Rhea Silvia informed about the mythical foundations of the Julian family that descended from Aeneas, Venus and Mars combined and the reign of the new ruler – Augustus- is also sacred by Jupiter, the chief god of the Roman pantheon. The bird is about to drop the sceptre – which act symbolises the power to be transferred on Romulus who will found Rome and this in turn recalls Augustus and his refoundation of the city. Additional symbols like hydria or basket and corn ears symbolised prosperity and abundance guaranteed by Augustus.1960 Another motif including Rhea Silvia on gems is her dream during which Mars ascended to inseminate her (cat. nos. 10.365-368, figs. 990-991). This story resembles in a great deal the one about Atia and Apollo which is at the same time another link to the Trojan cycle where Cassandra played the same role as Rhea Silvia. On some gems the story of Atia and Apollo is recalled even more directly under the guise of the Rhea Silvia myth as Apollo appears on the gem as serpent like in the story told by Suetonius. All in all, the significance of the gems presenting Rhea Silvia was large and important for Augustan propaganda and the number of surviving examples ether in gemstones and glass produced in various parts of Italy and beyond as suggested by provenance analysis makes it all clear that Augustus strongly promoted his ideology through glyptics and the response for it was very positive. 1960 Weiß 2007, no. 247; Gołyźniak 2017, no. 249. 1961 For a complete study of this motif in glyptics, see: Dardenay 2009. 1962 Dardenay 2009. Another subject related to the myth of Rome’s foundations was lupa romana suckling the twins Romulus and Remus. This subject became extremely popular in the Late republic and Early Empire, however, its career in glyptics has more ancient roots.1961 Although some scholars are reserved to take this motif as propagandistic and explain its popularity due to the bucolic character of the scene as often on gems Faustulus is depicted watching over the she-wolf and the twins,1962 in my opinion the outburst of gems with this iconography in the times of Augustus is not a coincidence and should be explained by political reasons.1963 Generally speaking, lupa romana subject on the gems produced ca. 50BC-AD 50 divides onto three main categories: lupa romana suckling the twins alone (cat. nos. 10.369-388, figs. 992-993), Faustulus (sometimes accompanied by more shepherds) discovering lupa romana suckling the twins (cat. nos. 10.389-433, figs. 994-995) and finally, a combination of both but with Roma, Mars or Victory engaged into the scene (cat. nos. 10.434-449, figs. 996-999). It is noteworthy that the motif is sometimes accompanied with a bird – eagle, which like in case of Rhea Silvia probably informs about Jupiter’s support for Augustus case (cat. nos. 10.381, 384, 387 and 448) or a woodpecker that points to Mars (cat. no. 10.447, fig. 998).1964 The other time, the scene is arranged on a ship probably suggesting a naval victory (Actium?) and accompanied with inscription COMUNIS clearly implying a common purpose and unity under Augustus (cat. no. 10.449, fig. 999).1965 Moreover, the she-wolf motif is paired with Aeneas story on such important monuments as Ara Pacis Augustae which suggests that the two were linked together according to Augustus deliberate propaganda programme. Promotion of Aeneas on gems and lupa romana motif at the same time under Augustus in glyptics is then not coincidental.1966 The confirmation of this comes from additional elements that accompany the motif on some gems like the sitting figure of Roma or her head, head of Mars and Victory etc. (cat. nos. 10.434-448, figs. 996-997). All these symbols allude to the Roman power and were added to highlight divine support for Augustus case and privileged position of the Romans to rule the world. Sometimes even the whole scene is arranged on a ship which is a clear allusion to Augustus victory at Actium or lupa romana motif engages Victories – another clear indication of a military victory (perhaps Actium) (cat. nos. 10.442, fig. 996). The motif was widely popular on gems not only in Italy but also in Roman provinces as suggested by the provenance analysis. This provokes to think about it also as a universal symbol of the Roman Empire and perhaps people in the provinces willingly carried such gems to manifest their affiliation to Rome and Emperor. This is confirmed by the presence of inscriptions being abbreviations of gem sitters’ names (cat. nos. 10.385 and 391, fig. 992). 1963 See also a similar opinion in: Campagnolo and Fallani 2018, no. IX.3.v, p. 174. 1964 Evans 1992, pp. 63-64; Campagnolo and Fallani 2018, no. X.6.i, p. 296. 1965 Wagner and Boardman 2017, no. 202. 1966 Zazoff 1983, pp. 295-296. Finally, it is noteworthy to see that in the times of Augustus the image of Romulus appears in glyptics. It was unpopular during the Republican times because he recalled kingship so much hatred by the Romans, but it was Julius Caesar who already changed that image of Romulus for the mighty ruler, founder of Rome and brave general.1967 These virtues were later exploited by Augustus who took Romulus as his example also because he was descendant of Aeneas which supported Augustus own claim.1968 The statue of Romulus was placed in the Forum Augustus in front of that of Aeneas, hence, gems with this mythological figure were produced during his reign too and they were widespread not only in Italy but also in provinces, especially Gaul, for which one has evidence (cat. nos. 10.450-455, fig. 1000). The same subject was used also in the wall painting as evidenced in Pompeii.1969 The phenomenon sparked under Augustus endured for the following centuries in glyptics, although, it never reached considerable range in contrary to coinage.1970 1967 Evans 1992, pp. 102-103. 1968 Zanker 1988, pp. 201-210. 1969 Schefold 1957, p. 289. 1970 See, for instance a similar representation in: RIC II Hadrian, nos. 266c-g and i and 370; RIC III Antoninus Pius, nos. 90b-c and 698; RIC IV Severus Alexander, nos. 85-86, 96-97, 103-104, 223-224, 481-483 and 626a-b. 1971 Zanker 1988, p. 167; Campagnolo and Fallani 2018, no. X, p. 250. 1972 Zanker 1988, pp. 167-172. 1973 Maderna-Lauter 1988, pp. 447-448. 10.8. Promotion of peace and prosperity Apart from commemoration of military victories of Augustus and celebration of refoundation of the New Rome by the emperor, it was crucial for his propaganda to create a specific climate of security and prosperity so that the people of Rome believed that indeed the new world order was established and new Golden Age (aurea aetas) just begun. This became a focus of Augustus’ propaganda after 20 BC and official arts all strongly influenced ordinary artists and stimulated people through the decorations of altars, temples, statues, coinage, gems and other luxury objects which all now employed rich symbolism including allusions to abundance, prosperity and peace guaranteed by the princeps.1971 This was the time when references to Julius Caesar, father of Augustus were suitable to be recalled alongside to the relationships with Aeneas, Mars and Venus described above in order to promote family issues and show continuity which at the time resulted with peace and prosperity.1972 Fertility and abundance were obtained through the gods who sanctioned Augustus moves giving him a chance for establishment something which was durable and solid in contrast to the turbulent period of the Civil War (saeculum aureum).1973 For instance, the secular games to Apollo in 17 BC were a perfect occasion to manifest Pax Augusta and reflections of all these issues can be found in glyptics like in any other branch of art and craftsmanship. For it is indeed a special complex symbolic language applied those days based on a variety of signs and codes that at the first glance could be taken just as decorative elements, but in fact transmit powerful propaganda messages or introduce the ground for more important issues to be accepted.1974 In terms of glyptics, this mechanism is observable since Sulla as during his domination symbolic gems appear that scholars often interpret as related to promotion of specific ideas and qualities like virtus, dignitas, pax, concord, ordo rerum and they should be linked to the Roman political leaders if aimed to express a specific political programme (cf. chapters 7.1.6, 8.1.11, 8.2.9, 9.1.8, 9.2.7, 9.3.1.9 and 9.3.2.9).1975 It is even sometimes suggested that such gems were used to identify with the politics of the leader and were carried in order to manifest someone’s support for his case.1976 This seems especially true for Augustan Age because the production of symbolic gems was so considerable those days and indeed, political connotations may be one of the explanations for their popularity, but on a more sophisticated level that includes them into a wider ‘cultural phenomenon’. It might be argued that due to strictly private character of engraved gems, it is easy to make a mistake that often leads to overinterpretation and many subjects taken somehow automatically as propagandistic, are in fact combinations used for private amulets that should ensure the owners good luck, abundance, prosperity and blessing of various deities. On the other hand, there are combinations that clearly promote imperial qualities and the Golden Age of Augustus so that it is clear that these two categories mingled together and the boundary between them is often blurred. Still the ultimate conclusion is that in the Age of Augustus the universal symbolism employed for gems’ decorations followed general trends encouraged by the Imperial Court and its popularity definitely informs about successfulness of Augustus ‘cultural programme’. 1974 Furtwängler 1900, vol. III, pp. 352-353; Zanker 1988, pp. 172-183. 1975 Sena Chiesa 2002, pp. 408-411. 1976 Sena Chiesa 2012, p. 257. 1977 Sena Chiesa 2013, p. 68; Gołyźniak 2017, no. 42. It is a fact that the number of symbolic gems produced under Augustus prevails those produced earlier and the range of combinations of symbols is wider than ever before. There are several main elements that worked as points of reference enclosed by additional symbols. One of them was cornucopia – symbol of abundance used for political reasons on engraved gems and coins already by the Ptolemies in the Hellenistic period.1977 In the 1st century BC Roman glyptics cornucopia or cornucopiae were popular symbols on gems standing for abundance and prosperity also often brought by Fortuna. On Augustan gems the symbol was particularly popular and combined with many other positive elements like modius, poppies, corn ears, rudder, animals such as mouse, peacock, parrot or butterfly and objects such as caduceus, torch, globe and even astrological signs, especially Capricorn (cat. nos. 10.456-486, figs. 1001-1005). According to some scholars, these combinations illustrate Augustan aurea aetas and felicitas temporum with reference to Augustus domination on the land and sea.1978 This view is based on the fact that many elements can be linked with deities acting in favour of Augustus like the globe – Jupiter, caduceus, marsupium and cockerel – Mercury, raven, lyre and tripod - Apollo and so on and the fact that Capricorn, the astrological sign of Augustus is also often present on them supports this idea. A great number of these gems, often made of glass, suggest their serial production and analysing the provenance and history of those pieces, it is clear that many of them were manufactured in workshops active in Italy including Aquileia. According to Vollenweider, this would be another argument for giving them some political significance.1979 The fact that so many gems bearing cornucopiae and other symbols were produced in Aquileia, a workshop that was not directly controlled by Augustus suggests that these kinds of gems were popular civic objects which targeted by Augustus’ ‘cultural programme’ and ideology.1980 The trick is that most of the iconographical elements listed above can be explained as having significance for a private user too so that even ordinary people could easily identify with imperial values. Even the elements that at the first glance do not seem to fit like the peacock, which is difficult to be explained in Augustan context unless it is a symbol of Juno and represents fertility, the rudder, which may, of course, allude to the Battle at Actium but is plausibly an attribute of Fortuna signifying good luck, the globe suggesting domination and power, but it was also associated with Jupiter and may have ensure god’s blessing, the parrot bringing about Bacchic climate rather difficult to be explained as Augustan symbol unless indicating support of that deity after the Actium’s victory to Augustus’ case and finally Heracles’ club could also do both: recall Augustus’ victory over Mark Antony and avert all evil forces due to its apotropaic character. All these elements worked well either for a private individual and his personal wishes as well as for official imperial rhetoric. 1978 Vollenweider 1979, no. 458; Vollenweider 1984, no. 330; Weiß 1996, no. 417; Weiß 2007, no. 595. 1979 Vollenweider 1955, pp. 100-101. 1980 Henig 1994, p. 154. 1981 Vollenweider 1979, nos. 451 and 487. Similar rules work for other popular combinations of symbols in the times of Augustus. The aerarium was another popular centre-symbol on Augustan symbolic gems that was combined with a variety of elements like corn ears and poppies signifying prosperity and wealth (cat. nos. 10.487-500, figs. 1006-1007).1981 As Maaskant-Kleibrink observes, indeed aerarium might be engraved on gems, which is suggested by the fact that head of Octavian sometimes appeared in juxtaposition with that symbol earlier (cf. chapter 9.3.1.4), and thus, the political significance of these gems could be considerable. It was possibly later when the symbol was reinterpreted as modius under the influence of coinage of the 1st century AD.1982 Moreover, among the countless combinations, there are those which can be linked with Augustus on the basis of additional elements like dolphins that refer to the Battle at Actium or Venus and birds pecking fruits, which were, for instance, popular decorative elements on Ara Pacis Augustae as well as eagles symbolising imperial power and Jupiter’s favor (cat. nos. 10.490 and 494-497).1983 On the other hand, modius is combined with elements like Heracles’ club, parrots, lizard and astral symbols as well as occasionally inscriptions suggesting strictly private character of some of these gems which were certainly used as popular amulets (cat. nos. 10.488-489, 494 and 498). 1982 Maaskant-Kleibrink 1986, no. 79. 1983 Zanker 1988, pp. 179-183; Campagnolo and Fallani 2018, no. X, pp. 250 and 256. 1984 Sena Chiesa 1978, nos. 165 and 167; Weiß 2007, no. 602. 1985 Sena Chiesa 1978, no. 165. 1986 Zahlhaas 1993, no. 49. 1987 Vollenweider 1979, no. 426. 1988 Sena Chiesa 1978, no. 166. The same applies to another popular symbol often assigned to Augustus propaganda of peace and prosperity – dextrarum iunctio (cat. nos. 10.501-509, fig. 1008).1984 It is combined either with symbols used in Augustus propaganda like legionary standards, cithara of Apollo or caduceus of Mercury (cat. nos. 10.503-505, fig. 1008), but on the other hand, again, inscriptions suggest the use of similar gems as personal amulets or betrothal rings (cat. nos. 10.508-509).1985 Very similar situation occurs with a combination consisting of a clenched fist holding poppies and corn ears (cat. nos. 10.510-515, fig. 1009). Generally, it is believed to symbolise bread, wealth and glory,1986 but it is also sometimes taken for an emblem of caesarians and followers of Augustus.1987 There are many more symbolic gems which meanings are ambiguous and can be explained either as related to Augustan propaganda and as private amulets. A palm tree combined on a gem with a globe could signify military victory and Augustus domination as suggested by Sena Chiesa in case of intaglio from Luni,1988 but astrological elements on the same gem indicate Jupiter, the ruler of the sky, which still fits Augustan rhetoric, but might be seen as a private wish for victory and Jupiter’s blessing at the same time (cat. no. 10.516, fig. 1010). On a sard intaglio in Hannover, a finger ring is presented, and it automatically brings about associations with earlier gems related to Octavian’s propaganda (cf. chapter 9.3.1.1), but now it occurs in combination with a swan, butterfly, corn ear and hoppergrass – elements that cannot be directly linked with Augusts, however, they make sense if treated as symbols of private wishes and issues (cat. no. 10.517, fig. 1011). Another case are the gems bearing Heracles’ club set with various symbols among which some would be plausible for Augustan propaganda (dolphins, marsupium, Isis crown) and for instance celebrate his victory at Actium,1989 but it seems more reasonable to take them as personal amulets averting Evil Eye and ensuring fertility, prosperity and good luck to the owner (cat. nos. 10.518-521, fig. 1012). The other instances are for example cista mystica, a motif that could be related to the ludi seculares celebrations (cat. nos. 10.522-524, fig. 1013), while a combination of a helmeted head surrounded with a charging bull, Capricorn, ram, palm branch, shield and bundle of thunderbolts (cat. no. 10.523, fig. 1014) or the one including a lyre with two birds atop (cat. no. 10.524, fig. 1015) are equally possible to be related to Augustus and his ideology as well as private wishes. 1989 Zwierlein-Diehl 1979, no. 932; Weiβ 1996, no. 418. 1990 Vollenweider 1979, no. 430; Weiß 207, nos. 588-589; Gołyźniak 2017, no. 302. 1991 See also alternative hypothesis suggesting these gems to be related to personal matters: Middleton 1991, no. 19. 1992 Campagnolo and Fallani 2018, no. X, pp. 250 and 256. One of the best illustrations of this process in glyptics is also a cameo fragment showing a decorative pedestal base, see: Henig and Molesworth 2018, no. 115. All the above discussed combinations seem problematical yet they certainly have some Augustan spirit and thus, may be related to his propaganda. There are many more symbolic gems dated to the Age of Augustus that are more explicitly related to emperor’s propagandistic actions of the figure of princeps. For instance, a highly popular theme those days is a burning altar or fountain flanked by various symbols referring generally to the concept of Pax Augusta and aurea aetas (cat. nos. 10.525-551, figs. 1016-1018). These gems are often decorated with symbols known from other propaganda media like coinage, for instance a charging bull or heifer which also exist on Augustan gems separately (cf. below), therefore, taking them as propaganda pieces does not appear unreasonable. Some scholars even attempt to link them to specific events like construction of aqua virgo by Agrippa or Octavian’s victory at Actium,1990 but it seems more reasonable to take them just as reflections of Augustan ideology promoting peace and prosperity due to his accomplishments, a sort of carefully designed ‘cultural and political programme’.1991 This view is also supported by the fact that similar decorative elements were applied in Roman architecture, relief, wall-painting and even the Arretine bowls due to the considerable influence of official art.1992 The private commissioners were eager to decorate their personal objects (including rings with gems) according to the general trends created by Augustus and his court which should be taken as a successful response to imperial propaganda.1993 1993 Łuszczewska 2002, p. 61. 1994 RIC I2 Augustus, nos. 125-130. 1995 RIC I2 Augustus, nos. 174-175. 1996 Sena Chiesa 1978, no. 160. 1997 Weiß 2007, no. 557. 1998 For a thorough discussion on this subjects, see: Gołyźniak 2017, no. 262. Regarding themes presented on Augustan symbolic gems that are clearly propagandistic in character one points to several main types. One of them is Capricorn swimming to the side with globe between its legs and sometimes additional elements like a palm branch, cornucopia, dolphin or trident (cat. nos. 10.552-573, figs. 1019-1020). The difference between the earlier gems bearing Capricorn and those amassed in this part of the study is a much greater uniformity of the type and only seldom references to the naval victories which in case of a dolphin might stand for Venus as well. The type employed on gems very often mirrors the image one finds on aurei and denarii minted for Augustus ca. 18-17 BC,1994 and those struck ca. 12 BC (fig. 1021).1995 The presence of globe signifies Augustus’ dominance on the land and sea and is a symbol of his imperium.1996 Provenance and history analysis suggests most of these gems to be manufactured in Italy, including Aquileia, but they were later dispersed outside the peninsula most likely by soldiers or merchants. As Weiß suggests, these gems were surely used to manifest one’s support to Augustus and could be especially popular among soldiers.1997 Concerning other political symbols appearing on Augustan engraved gems, I have already discussed the Imperial Eagle Cameo from Vienna featuring the sacred bird of Jupiter employed as a political symbol of Augustus reign. The eagle signified imperial power that comes from the chief god of Roman pantheon. It became a popular subject on engraved gems produced during Augustus’ reign often combined with other positive elements highlighting full and everlasting power of Augustus like the globe, Victory, laurel wreath, bundle of thunderbolts and so on (cat. nos. 10.574-609, figs. 1022-1023). It is noteworthy that many gems presenting imperial eagle set it with military symbols like legionary standards (cat. nos. 10.585 and 594) and gems with this type of iconography are found in Roman provinces which suggests they were appealing for soldiers who carried them there. Another subject used in Augustan propaganda in glyptics is the heifer (cat. nos. 10.610-631, figs. 1024-1025). There are multiple explanations for appearance of cattle on engraved gems,1998 but in the times of Augustus a special type was employed that mirrors the image from a special issue of aurei which was consequently inspired by the group of four heifer statues executed by Myron (fig. 1026).1999 The most famous representation of the cow in antiquity was the bronze statue by Myron (mid-5th century BC), which stood on the Acropolis at Athens.2000 The sculptor also made statues of four heifers. During the reign of Augustus, these were transferred from Athens to Rome where they were installed in front of the Temple of Apollo on the Palatine Hill. It is very likely that the heifer appearing on gems and coins alike is based on these statues. Top gem engravers like Apollonios cut their masterpieces with this theme (cat. no. 10.626, fig. 1024). The rustic animals like cows/heifers, suckling calves and even herds of cattle should be accounted to the idyllic subjects which are typical for Augustan glyptics and communicate the idea of terre nourriciere.2001 Apart from that it is noteworthy that the marvellous heifer was sacrificed to Diana which resulted in Rome’s role as caput rerum according to the prophecy of the divine sanction of Rome’s empire in Italy.2002 As Diana was one of the patroness to Octavian/Augustus, this explanation for popularity of the heifer on gems in the Augustan Age is also possible. 1999 Rambach and Walker 2012. 2000 Zwierlein-Diehl 1998, no. 156; Rush 2012, pp. 78-86. 2001 Henig, Scarisbrick and Whiting 1994, p. 91. See also a detailed commentary to this issue in: Campagnolo and Fallani 2018, no. IX.1.ii, p. 128. 2002 Evans 1992, pp. 151-152. 2003 However, the subject itself is much more ancient, see for instance: Zwierlein-Diehl 1986, nos. 37-38; Boardman 2001, pls. 498–499. 2004 Weiβ 1996, no. 311. 2005 RIC I2 Augustus, nos. 166–169, 176–178, 186–189 (aurei and denarii of Augustus, Lugdunum, 15–10 BC) and no. 228 (quadrans of Augustus, Lugdunum, 15–10 BC). 2006 Zanker (1988, pp. 225–227), Megow (1989, p. 449) and Platz-Horster (1994, no. 315) link the bull with Mars Ultor, while Weiß (1994, pp. 262–269) and Zwierlein-Diehl (2007, pp. 141–142) see it as an astrological symbol. There are more examples of connections between gems and coins minted in the Age of Augustus. One of the most common devices on Augustan era gems is the butting bull (cat. nos. 10.632-662, figs. 1027-1030).2003 As explained by Weiß, the motif is not related to the unbearable power of Mars shown during the Battle of Philippi – a common view among scholars.2004 It resembles the bulls appearing on the coins struck by Augustus in Lugdunum in the years 14–10 BC a great deal (fig. 1031).2005 The subject was even employed on a splendid chalcedony intaglio carved by Hyllos, one of the Imperial Court masters (cf. chapter 10.2). Hyllos’ work or his concept alone were copied by ordinary gem cutters (cat. no. 10.649, fig. 1028). It is true that some variants present the bull mainly as the zodiacal symbol Taurus and consequently such gems were plausibly personal amulets (cat. nos. 10.650, 656 and 658, fig. 1029). However, some of the bulls might illustrate Augustus’ relationship with Venus (and through her to be allusions to gens Iulia and Julius Caesar).2006 It might be coincidental, but the fact is that many of the intaglios presenting butting bull motif cut in the times of Augustus are made of sardonyx, onyx, agate or banded agate (cat. nos. 10.632, 638, 640, 642-644, 650-651, 655 and 658) – the kinds of gemstones which were, on the one hand considered as aphrodisiac, but on the other hand as referring to Venus.2007 Thus, the charging bull (or rather Taurus) motif on gems should be recognized as an aspect of Augustus’s complex visual propaganda. Sometimes inscriptions being abbreviations of the gem sitters’ names accompany this peculiar subject (cat. nos. 10.641-643 and 657, fig. 1027 and 1032) but it cannot be said if this was due to the conscious manifestation of loyalty towards Augustus or simply marking of someone’s personal horoscope or amuletic properties of the intaglio. 2007 Pliny, NH, XXXVII.54. 2008 Henig, Scarisbrick and Whiting 1994, no. 507; Weiß 2007, no. 509. 2009 For the coins, see: RIC I2 Augustus, no. 316. 2010 Vollenweider 1972-1974, p. 204; Weiß 1996, no. 428. 2011 The corn ears and the plough appear in Roman Republican coinage in the 1st century BC usually as symbols of Africa, see: RRC, nos. 357/4a-b (C. Norbanus, 83 BC), 443/1 (Caesar, 49–48 BC) and 525/2–4c (Ti. Sempronius Gracchus, 40 BC or later). 2012 Vollenweider 1979, no. 476. 2013 Gołyźniak 2017, nos. 183 and 303. There are many more symbolic gems bearing subject-matters that can be explained either as private or political. For instance, a crab if appears on Augustan gems, can be explained as the astrological symbol of Cancer,2008 however, many gems feature the same composition as a special issue of aurei minted for Augustus in 19 BC (fig. 520) which makes one wondering if those examples could have had some political significance (cat. no. 10.660, fig. 1033).2009 Another case is a plough (cat. nos. 10.661-662, fig. 1034), which appearance on the gems dated to Augustan times according to Weiß might relate to the land distribution to veterans and soldiers.2010 It can also signify victory over Africa since the item appears as such on several coin issues in the 1st century BC,2011 or as Vollenweider proposed for earlier gems, refer to the revolution of Gaius Marius (157–86 BC) and Lucius Cornelius Cinna (130–84 BC), and more precisely to Gaius Norbanus Balbo (d. 82 BC) who was said to have supplied the people of Rome with corn.2012 Thus, later gems (Augustan) could refer to the concept of aurea aetas. Nevertheless, since the subject is often combined with symbols of prosperity and abundance, but no specific political elements are involved, in such a configuration it is also likely be another amuletic theme ensuring these qualities or confirming the landowner status of gem’s sitter.2013 10.9. Luxury objects (State Cameos, cameo vessels etc.) and religious propaganda As my survey on the use of gems as luxury objects shows above, primary to Augustus intaglios, cameos, cameo vessels and small figurines cut in the round were limited and in fact it was only the late 1st century BC and early 1st century AD when these artforms became fashionable, although the idea of their purpose was purely Hellenistic, transferred from Alexandria to Rome.2014 The definition of State Cameos as these large gems are usually called was given in the beginning of the dissertation. Apart from the sort of educational and panegyric functions, these objects seemingly raised social status by giving to their owners auctoritas maximas as stated by Pliny the Elder.2015 Only the Emperor was able to hire the best engravers who could produce pieces of this kind. For this reason there is such a large production of portrait cameos under Augustus most of them bearing heads and busts of the members of the Julio-Claudian family (cf. chapters 10.4 and 10.10). Apart from these, cameos like Gemma Augustea were occasionally produced too and if one believes that piece to be indeed a gift from Livia to Augustus, it becomes clear how big change took place as regards to the way the Imperial family perceived itself (cf. chapter 10.5). Glyptics was a perfect medium for realisation of Imperial desires of Augustus and his circle. On the one hand, cheap glass gems and gemstone intaglios transmitted official propaganda messages on a daily basis, but on the other hand, State Cameos allowed the Emperor and his circle to celebrate their victories, successes and private events to the full as well as to immortalize their own images very much like it was on the Hellenistic royal courts due to the private character of glyptics which helped to keep these celebrations in secrecy from those who might react unfavourably.2016 As a result, emperor’s needs were satisfied and his vigorously cultivated reputation of modesty was maintained intact. 2014 Furtwängler 1900, vol. III, p. 314; Megow 1987, p. 4. 2015 Pliny, NH, XXXVII.23, 85; Sena Chiesa 2009b, p. 85. 2016 Hölscher 2011, p. 68. 2017 Many of these Hellenistic/Roman cameos and cameo vessels are controversial pieces due to the uncertain identification of the figures they depict and their dates. See the most recent discussion on this problem with useful tables showing various interpretations assigned in: Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, pp. 59-68. See also another interesting commentary on this matter in: Sena Chiesa 2012, pp. 266-267. Good illustrations of that are the Ptolemaic cameos with double-portraits as well as vessels like the famous Tazza Farnese and Coupe de Ptolémée that find their parallels among the cameos and vessels produced under Augustus times and reign of the Julio-Claudian dynasty.2017 State Cameos are discussed in this dissertation in individual chapters showing their propagandistic potential and role they played in establishment of the Julio-Claudian family identity and position within the Roman society. It is difficult to say whether State Cameos and related luxury object were available to a wider public, for instance by their exhibition in the Imperial palace, Senate or temples as suggested by some scholars.2018 Nevertheless, it seems more probable that they were not so openly displayed and could be treasured in Augustus private house or delivered only to the people from the inner circle.2019 This is suggested by the intimate subjects they portray, the highly sophisticated and complex symbolic language they use as well as allusions to divine honours not yet accepted in the Roman society.2020 Also, in some cases, the history of their provenance suggests that they were transferred from Rome to Constantinople when the latter became the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire which further suggests their highly private status and use at the Imperial Court only. Their propagandistic value was still considerable since those pieces affected a narrow, but highly demanding group of close followers of the Emperor who would not have been satisfied with casual intaglios and cameos. Their access to the objects unavailable to everyone already made them special and participation in a top-quality artistic experience could be more profitable for Augustus than any other way of making an impression on those people, except for direct gifts. 2018 Guiraud 1996, p. 116. 2019 Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, pp. 146-147. 2020 Sena Chiesa 2012, p. 268. 2021 Del Bufalo 2009. 2022 Furtwängler 1900, vol. III, pp. 336-341. See also on this matter: Laubscher 1974, p. 247 who is of the same opinion as Furtwängler. A very special and specific group of Augustan glyptic products were cameo vessels. They were more significant than muhrrine vessels brought to Rome by Pompey the Great from the East because apart from being luxurious objects testifying wealth and economic capabilities of their owners, they transmitted powerful propaganda messages carved in the relief form.2021 Furtwängler noticed that many of them were made on the occasion of the birth of Imperial family members which place them in the intimate sphere and celebration of important family events.2022 However, it does not always seem to be a cheerful occasion to be commemorated on such vessels as suggested by Simon and Zwierlein-Diehl in case of the onyx kanne from Saint-Maurice d’Agaune Abbey (see below). Moreover, the recent discovery of the Bonhams Vase allowed to reinterpret the Portland Vase iconography and link the two with other Roman cameo vessels bearing Bacchic themes which points to their wedding-gift function. Like in case of State Cameos, the complexity of the scenes presented on the cameo vessels, mythological allusions and rich sometimes ambiguous symbolism employed often results in various interpretations proposed by scholars.2023 Be that as it may, the artistic virtuosity reflected in the carved relief decoration suggests them to be products of the Imperial court workshop or on the commissions of the aristocratic families loyal to the emperor aiming at making impression on him by their gifts. Augustus special esteem for the vessels cut out of the precious stones is attested by Suetonius who claims that after the Battle of Actium, the emperor took only one muhrinne vessel from the Alexandrian treasury.2024 Several vessels of this type survived until present giving us the most direct insight into the Roman Imperial private propaganda.2025 2023 For instance the Portland Vase has been interpreted by Zanker as a wedding gift (1988, pp. 253-254) while Zwierlein-Diehl thinks the vase was made ca. 30 BC and the subject is miraculous insemination of Atia by Apollo and birth of Augustus (2007, pp. 170-174). 2024 Suetonius, Augustus, 71. 2025 Most of these vessels were made within the chronological horizon spanning from ca. 50/40 BC to AD 50/60, see more on this matter in: Whitehouse and Painter 1993, p. 4. 2026 See a detailed analysis of this piece in: Zwierlein-Diehl 1999; Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, pp. 169-170; Platz-Horster 2012, no. 86. 2027 Lapatin 2015, p. 257. In Berlin there is an alabastron (perfume vase) made of four-layered sardonyx carved with two scenes: the one is a religious ritual involving three women holding an infant male, while the second presents Venus Victrix seated on a rock with a trophy and aedicula to the sides and there is a barbarian captive beneath her (cat. no. 10.663, fig. 1035). Because Venus was the divine ancestor of the gens Iulia, one quickly realises that the mythological scenes are related to Octavian/Augustus and his family. The new-born child is usually identified with Marcellus, who was the first successor designated by Augustus himself, thus, the object is regarded as commemorative of his birth in 42 BC.2026 There is no agreement to the identification of the female figures holding the child as they might be the members of the Julio-Claudian family or Roman birth goddesses Carmenta, Porrima and Posverta or the three Fates prophesising the great future to the child and the whole Julio-Claudian family.2027 It is equally problematical to date the object precisely, but if indeed the child depicted on the vessel is Marcellus, even as early date as ca. 40 BC is possible. Giving the function of the flask (perfume vase), it is likely that the object was a gift from Octavian/Augustus to his sister Octavia on the occasion of giving a birth to the new member of their family. This seems to be supported also by the fact that one of the women presented has coiffure similar to the one used by Octavia at that time (hair braided around the head and tight in a bun at its back), while the other two female characters have their hair tight at the top of their heads which is more typical for the divine figures those days. Could then Octavia be cleverly composed into the scene? The references to familial stories are clear on a particularly intriguing amphoriskos made of sardonyx housed in the State Hermitage Museum in St. Petersburg (cat. no. 10.664, fig. 1036). The vessel is decorated with the figures of Aphrodite/Venus, Apollo and Artemis surrounded with Cupids. The scene is traditionally interpreted as an allegory of might and love, but the three main figures are certainly consciously set together to represent Octavian (Apollo), his sister Octavia (Artemis/Diana) while Aphrodite/Venus is here the patroness of the Julian family. The iconography was chosen in the same spirit as the two agate plaques celebrating Octavian and Octavia as a pair of gods (cf. chapter 9.3.1.2), but the presence of Aphrodite/Venus puts emphasis on the family issue which was much more important during Augustus, reign. Consequently, it is difficult to precisely date this vessel as it would fit either 30s and 20s BC propaganda practices.2028 2028 Dominguez-Arranz 2015. 2029 Simon 1998; Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, pp. 174-177. 2030 Whitehouse and Painter 1993, p. 3. 2031 Simon 1986, pp. 163-164 and 247. Another interesting example of a cameo vessel produced under Augustus is the onyx kanne from the Saint-Maurice d’Agaune Abbey (cat. no. 10.665, fig. 1037). This is another object decorated with a mythological scene involving Venus and Anchises – clear references to Augustus ancestral story. The dating, meaning of the iconography and function of the piece remain uncertain, but recently Zwierlein-Diehl analysed it thoroughly pointing to its propagandistic value. Most likely the vessel was commissioned by Augustus to commemorate death of Gaius and Lucius Caesar.2029 Apart from the vessels cut in the multi-layered onyxes or sardonyxes, in the Augustan times there was a considerable production of the cameo glass vessels and the well-organised workshop might have been managed by Dioscurides himself, at least in the beginning. The best-known example by far is the famous Portland Vase housed in the British Museum in London (cat. no. 10.666, fig. 1038), which was most likely found in a monumental tomb just outside Rome in Monte del Grano.2030 It is decorated with two scenes variably interpreted by scholars. It is not even fully agreed if they are related to the same narrative or present two separate stories. The most attractive and interesting from our point of view is the political explanation proposed by Simon who suggests that the vase was made after ca. 30 BC, perhaps by Dioscurides himself or in his workshop, for Augustus in order to commemorate his mythical birth-story.2031 The figures depicted would be on the one side Gaius Octavius, father of the future emperor, and Attia, his mother who was miraculously inseminated by Apollo in the guise of a serpent (in this instance a sea-serpent – ketos) during her dream. The whole act would be observed by Aeneas from whom Augustus claimed to descent and noteworthy is a presence of Cupid who might signify Venus, another divine patroness of the gens Iulia. On the other side of the amphora, there are Octavian, Octavia and Livia presented, while the original bottom-disc has been broken and replaced with a new one in 1810 presenting bust of Paris or Priam.2032 The explanation proposed here is one thing, but it is also problematic to propose a definite function for the Portland Vase. For it has been viewed as a funerary urn for the ashes of the heirs of Augustus (Marcellus, d. 23 BC, Lucius Caesar, d. 2 AD or Gaius Caesar, d. 4 AD) or quite on contrary as a wedding gift.2033 2032 For a detailed analysis of the history of the Portland Vase, its iconography including various explanations and usage proposals, see: Harden (ed.) 1988, nos. 29-30; Whitehouse and Painter 1993; Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, pp. 170-174. 2033 Harden (ed.) 1988, pp. 63-64. 2034 Mosch 2010. 2035 See some examples discussed in: Whitehouse and Painter 1993 as well as: Auction 1999, lot 85. A recently discovered Bohnams Vase in a private collection, which is a comparable piece to the Portland Vase most likely from the same workshop, finally allows to establish a more certain interpretation of the iconography and function of both vessels which not necessarily has something to do with politics and Augustan propaganda (cat. no. 10.667, fig. 1039). First thing to notice is that the Bonhams Vase is higher and has two registers which implies that longly-suggested rework of the Portland Vase already in antiquity indeed took place. The subject of the upper register on the Bohnams Vase is the myth of Antiope, while the lower one presents Amazonomachy. Analysing the myth scene depicted on the vase it is clear that both sides of the vessel are complimentary and tell one story which suggest doing the same in case of the Portland Vase. Another finding is that Amazonomachy from the lower register links to the Antiope myth in the upper one and on the Bohnams vase there is a procession that is a part of the Myseteries of Dionysus. The Antiope myth accounts to the history of Thebes as her father was the nocturnal Thebean king. Having known that von Mosch reinterpreted the iconography of the Portland Vase figuring out that it depicts the wedding of Kadmos and Harmonia and the story of the foundation of Thebes.2034 At the same time, the vase presents the birth of Dionysus which stays in consistency with similar cameo vessels that usually bear Dionysian subjects.2035 As a result, the whole political-historical interpretation of the Portland Vase as a mean of Augustan propaganda has to be rejected. The vessel was not meant to celebrate the foundation of the New Rome under Augustus by bringing back the history of his birth and his connections with mythological figures like Venus, Apollo, Achilles and Aeneas and bring about emperor’s intention for establishment of a dynasty and continuity of the principate. It seems indeed as von Mosch suggests that more likely the piece was a wedding gift ordered by someone from the Roman upper class.2036 Without a seemingly reference to the Imperial court it cannot be taken into account that the vase was at least used by Augustus or someone from his inner circle, even though these types of vessels were extravagant, rare and luxurious. The Portland Vase is then one of the best examples of how introduction of new objects and data can completely ruin the achievements of almost two century scholarly work. It is also a good illustration of an overinterpretation of archaeological object which is so frequent in terms of glyptics and Roman propaganda as has been proved at many points in this dissertation. 2036 Mosch 2010, p. 212. 2037 Harden (ed.) 1988, no. 31. 2038 Whitehouse and Painter 1993, pp. 9 and 14. 2039 Harden (ed.) 1988, no. 32. One may point to several more objects as belonging to the same category as the Portland and Bonhams Vases. Among them, there is the Getty Cup which in terms of technology, style and composition seems very close to the Portland Vase and is dated to the end of the 1st century BC or early 1st century AD (cat. no. 10.668, fig. 1040).2037 It presents a Bacchic theme which propagandistic value seems close to zero unless one finds a reclining woman (Ariadne) as similar to Attia in her dream and generally speaking, the Bacchic, peaceful subject would be relevant for Augustan propaganda after 20 BC which focused on the promotion of peace and prosperity. Nevertheless, it cannot be excluded that this cup was made for a private use of a Roman nobleman rather than for Augustan Imperial court and its decoration simply fits the function of the vessel, although, possibly it had been manufactured in the same workshop as the Portland and Bonhams Vases.2038 The same is probably the case of two decorative cameo glass panels found in Pompeii which also bear Bacchic themes. The first one presents the appearance of Dionysus to Ariadne, while the second Ariadne’s Initiation into the mysteries. Both objects are dated to the early 1st century AD and are most likely products of the same workshop as the Portland and Bonhams Vases and the Getty Cup.2039 The Getty Museum in Malibu possess another intriguing artefact – a cameo glass bottle decorated with a scene of Horus, son of Isis paying a homage to his mother and to Toth for bringing him back to life after he had been bitten by a scorpion (cat. no. 10.669, fig. 1041). In case of this object, a claim that it transmits a propaganda message might actually be justified. As Harden observes, the depiction on the bottle is a reference to Horus and Heliopolis from which Augustus in 10 BC transported two obelisks and re-installed them in Rome (one of them in the Circus Maximus), thus, the vessel might commemorate this important propaganda event and reflect a combination of the power of a solar god with imperium of Augustus.2040 2040 Harden (ed.) 1988, no. 36. 2041 Henig 1994, pp. 154-156. 2042 Megow 1987, p. 2. 2043 Giuliano and Micheli 1989, p. 39. 10.10. Promotion of family and successors Promotion of family members and the family as a dynasty was a very important issue for Augustus since the beginning of his political career and became one of the main aims of his propaganda practices in glyptics after 27 BC.2041 As has been discussed above, he used to refer to his divine origins from Venus, Apollo and Aeneas through Julius Caesar and his mother Atia. During his fierce rivalry with Mark Antony, his promotional actions in glyptics involved his sister Octavia whose propagandistic potential and role in glyptics, which should be accounted to counter-propaganda phenomenon, was described above. When Octavian became Augustus, the focus of his family propaganda was put onto his wife Livia and successors he designated one after another. For this reason a good number of intaglios and cameos were produced for various occasions in order to promote members of the Julio-Claudian family. Megow is certainly right when he says that cameos were related to the dynastic propaganda because the biggest concentrations of their production took place during the Julio-Claudian, Flavian and Severan dynasties’ reigns.2042 Augustus was the first one who wanted in Rome to create a continuous reign hence, first he tried to make his case seen as sanctioned and favoured by the gods. Once his historical-mythological claim was settled, he could intensify promotion of the most important members of the Julio-Claudian family. The gems bearing portraits of the members of Augustus’ family could be distributed among aristocracy and soldiers to increase support for their case in the future. But the first step to take was promotion of the emperor and empress Livia.2043 There are several gems presenting this pair in a clearly propagandistic context. For example, four intaglios, three from Paris and one from Bern bear portraits of Augustus and Livia in the capita iugata capture to the side as victors over Egypt (cat. nos. 10.670-673, figs. 1042-1043). They are depicted as a pair of gods – Augustus in the guise of Dionysus with the ivy wreath on the head (it is possibly even a diadem with just leaves attached) and sceptre in front of him, while Livia wears a lotus flower on the head identifying her with Isis. Under their busts there is a crocodile – symbol of defeated Egypt that mirrors the one presented on series of his coins minted ca. 20 BC-AD 14 in Nîmes (fig. 1044).2044 This type of a crocodile looks a bit different than the one from the series of denarii and aurei struck shortly after the Battle of Actium in 28-27 BC to commemorate it.2045 The identification of the imperial pair with Dionysus and Isis is entirely unusual and rather impossible for the official art, though, it clearly addresses evocatio of the gods previously acting on the side of Antony and Cleopatra. Like after the Battle of Naulochus, when Octavian dragged Neptune on his side, now the Battle of Actium proved that Dionysus and Isis in fact acted in favour of Octavian. I believe that the gems are local (Alexandrian?) products commissioned or gifted to the followers of Augustus in the late 1st century BC to express imperial family’s relationships with the deities native and more popular in the eastern part of the Roman Empire. Only a few examples bearing this vague and unusual iconography are known which hardly supports Vollenweider’s idea of the type to be a part of a serial production induced by Augustus.2046 2044 RIC I2 Augustus, nos. 154-161 (dupondii and ases of Augustus, 20 BC-AD 14). 2045 RIC I2 Augustus, nos. 275b (denarius of Augustus, 28 BC), 544-545 (denarius and aureus of Augustus 28-27 BC). 2046 Vollenweider 1984, no. 293. 2047 Platz-Horster 2012, no. 31. The next two cameos are indicative of more open propaganda practices to be employed on gems too. In Berlin there is a multi-layered sardonyx cameo presenting heads of emperor Augustus and his wife Livia in the capita iugata capture to the left (cat. no. 10.674, fig. 1045). As Platz-Horster rightly observes, originally the piece presented most likely Cleopatra VII and her father Ptolemy XII or Mark Antony, however, surely after the Battle of Actium it has been recut to represent the victorious Imperial couple – Augustus and Livia.2047 This is an extraordinary propaganda piece since the original design was reshaped into the new one and it shows the great esteem and value of cameos of this type. It is noteworthy that Augustus wears a roman casque surmounted with eagle – symbol of the Imperial power designated to him from Zeus-Jupiter and it is additionally decorated with a laurel wreath signifying his connection with Apollo and overall imperial status. Livia is also presented with a laurel wreath and veil which makes her allusion to Venus Genetrix, the type of portrait so popular on the Augustan cameos for her in the late 1st century BC-early 1st century AD (cf. below). Promotion of the Imperial couple in glyptics might have reached a considerable degree as there are several glass cameos presenting Augustus and Livia together. A good example of that is the specimen in Vienna featuring laureate bust of Augustus combined with the one of Livia in the capita iugata capture to the left (cat. no. 10.675, fig. 1046). Intriguingly, the empress is not laureate as on the cameo from Berlin and other known examples (cf. below) which probably suggests a relatively early date (shortly after 27 BC?) for the piece as clearly Augustus is the most important figure here and Livia seems to be just a filler without any attribute signifying her importance and power. Although the above-mentioned cameo in Venna suggests inferior role of Livia in the propagandistic actions in glyptics, this is just the one case phenomenon because in fact, one finds a surprisingly big number of cameos and intaglios with her likeness, many of top quality, surely executed in the Imperial curt workshop. It is noteworthy that Livia expressed her interest in glyptic art because as Pliny informs, she offered the famous ring of Polycrates to the Temple of Concord alongside to some more gems.2048 The earliest portraits of Livia from the Augustan period are dated from ca. 30 BC onwards and usually present the classical type of her portrait, that is the head in profile with her hair in a plait along the top of her head and gathered in a plaited coil at the nape (cat. no. 10.676-696, figs. 1047-1050). On the iconographic and stylistic grounds, these portraits usually account to the ‘Marbury Hall’ and ‘Fayum’ types which fact suggests quite long-lasting production of these gems, perhaps even until the death of Augustus in 14 AD.2049 Noteworthy is a high number of cameos in top quality engraving as well as the glass ones which suggests those gems to be produced either in the Imperial Court and casual workshops. Some of them could have been gifted to the empress from Augustus or other people from the inner circle on various occasions, but some were surely distributed among the supporters of the Imperial family.2050 Sometimes portraits of Livia are executed in atypical material like cornelian and captured to the front as it is in case of the cameo now in Berlin but found in the Petescia hoard or other pieces from Naples (cat. nos. 10.676 and 682, fig. 1047). These were certainly products of the Imperial Court workshop cut for personal adornment of Livia or gifted to her.2051 2048 Pliny, NH, XXXVII.8. 2049 Wood 2000, pp. 87-91 and 94-96. 2050 Platz-Horster 2012, no. 345. 2051 Platz-Horster 2012, no. 4. 2052 Vollenweider 1966, p. 81; Vollenweider and Avisseau-Broustet 2003, no. 76. Promotion of peace and prosperity by Augustus in art and craft of all kinds is well attested including glyptics (cf. chapter 10.8). It seems that the image of Livia could have been involved into this aspect of Augustan propaganda on gems too. Vollenweider proposed to consider identification of Livia on a series of large glass gems presenting bust a female goddess with a veil and laurel wreath on the head holding a cornucopia on her arm (Venus or Agathe Tyche, cat. no. 10.697, fig. 1051).2052 Nevertheless, Maderna-Lauter, Weiß and Zwierlein-Diehl convincingly proved that the depiction should be interpreted as Fortuna or Pax and while it still belongs to the mentioned Augustan propaganda programme, it ought not to be directly linked with the Empress.2053 2053 Zwierlein-Diehl 1986, no. 267; Maderna-Lauter 1988, pp. 461-462; Weiß 2007, no. 196. 2054 However, some scholars interpret such busts and heads as Livia in the guise of Juno or Hera, see: Henig 1990, no. 66; Henig Scarisbrick and Whiting 1994, no. 527; Kagan and Neverov 2000, no. 17/5. 2055 Vollenweider 1966, pp. 12-16; Henig and Molesworth 2018, no. 32. 2056 See a detailed discussion in: Flory 1995, pp. 43-68; Gagetti (forthcoming), p. 35 2057 See a detailed study of this issue in: Flory 1995, pp. 47-53; Gagetti (forthcoming), pp. 36-37. 2058 Sena Chiesa 2004, p. 793; Gagetti (forthcoming), p. 35. 2059 Flory 1995, pp. 46–47; Sena Chiesa 2004, pp. 795–796; Gagetti (forthcoming), pp. 35–37 2060 Flory 1995, pp. 60 and 62. It seems that as from 20 BC onwards Augustus increasingly promoted the idea of his divine ancestry, about that time first portraits of Livia as Venus, that is in the role of the mother of the Julio-Claudian family began to appear.2054 The most typical depiction of the empress in the guise of Venus is her bust or head veiled and diademed captured in profile (cat. nos. 10.698-708, figs. 1052-1053). These portraits always present an idealised image of Livia with delicate and calm facial features, hair swept back over her ear and she often wears stephane instead of a diadem. It is clear that the prototype for such a depiction were Hellenistic cameos presenting Ptolemaic queens in the divine guise and the intention was to conflate the ruler with a deity.2055 Another version where Livia is compared if not entirely identified with Venus are her portraits with laurel wreath on the head (cat. nos. 10.709-714, figs. 1054-1055). The attribute that Livia wears on the head makes these portraits exceptional and difficult to date. In the later times, many female members of the Julio-Claudian family were depicted almost exclusively on cameos as wreathed (in many kinds of wreaths made of ears of corn, poppies, myrtle and so on). It has been a matter of a long dispute between scholars, but generally, these wreaths are linked with several feminine qualities, among all fertility.2056 The role of Livia in establishing this kind of portraiture is crucial. The laurel wreath on the mentioned cameos considerably differs from the corona laurea used by males; it is not fastened at the nape of the neck by ribbons which makes it a typical attribute of Venus.2057 Its form highlights the semi-divine character of Livia Augusta like the chiton that she often wears.2058 It is believed that the unusual combination of a female portrait with a totally male attribute was the invention of the Augustan Age,2059 however, it is disputable if the image was in use already during the reign of Augustus or the laurel wreath’s use testifies to Livia’s role as the priestess of Augustus, her fecundity and maternal abilities.2060 This is because after the death of Augustus in 14 AD, according to his will, Livia became a member of gens Iulia and called Augusta. Her adoption into the Julian family made her the direct descendant of Venus and the second founding mother of the gens. This new role was followed by a new image of the empress that incorporated the laurel wreath.2061 It was most likely invented by the empress herself. It clearly expresses her badge with Augustus and highlights her semi-divine nature as well as the highly influential position in the Imperial court. To understand and appreciate the powerful propaganda message encoded on the cameos bearing this kind of image, one must remember about Livia’s role as the mother of emperor Tiberius. She was important for Tiberius’ dynastic claims to power because she was the link between the emperor and his descendants and Augustus, and therefore, her image was eagerly advertised during his reign.2062 It seems that Livia aspired to promote herself on her own too. As Flory observes, the cameos like the one in Boston could be commissioned by the empress herself (cf. chapter 10.11).2063 On the other hand, as shown above, Livia was sometimes promoted alongside to Augustus in a divine guise so that her sole promotion as an empress and wife of the emperor cannot be excluded. 2061 Since 27 BC, the plant was gradually restricted to the use of Augustus and his own bloodline, see: Flory 1995, p. 52; Gagetti (forthcoming), pp. 36–37. 2062 See: Wood 2000, pp. 108-124. The image of Livia was used by other members of the Julio-Claudian dynasty in order to justify their claim to power, see: Sena Chiesa 2004, p. 797. 2063 Flory 1995, p. 60. 2064 A series of gems presenting this scene and confirming its popularity at the time has been illustrated by Vollenweider (1966, pl. 6.7-10). Sometimes identification of Hebe is clear when the female figure wears a Phrygian cap like on a cameo in London (inv. no.: 1867,0507.31). 2065 On the other hand, Platz-Horster does not believe the subject to have any political significance (2012, no. 175). 2066 Henig, Scarisbrick and Whiting 1994, no. 523. Concerning Livia’s identification with Venus reflected on engraved gems, a particularly interesting is a series of intaglios and cameos produced in the early 1st century AD presenting a woman nourishing or kissing an eagle (cat. nos. 715-723, figs. 1056-1058). The scene is sometimes interpreted as Hebe feeding/kissing Zeus in the guise of an eagle,2064 but in many cases, the bird puts one of its legs on a globe indicating the theme to have political significance. The most plausible explanation is that while the kissing scene may indeed illustrate the mythological story of Hebe and Zeus, the other gems present an allegorical scene of Livia in the guise of Venus as mother of the Julio-Claudian family descending from the goddess and feeding the Imperial Eagle – symbol or embodiment of the Roman Empire.2065 It is noteworthy that the theme sometimes appears on extremely costly materials like the sapphire cameo reworked from a pendant in Cambridge (cat. no. 10.721, fig. 1057) which quality of engraving makes it clear that the piece was produced in the Imperial court workshop.2066 In some instances, there is cornucopia in the field which perhaps suggests welfare, prosperity and abundance under the reign of the Julio-Claudian family (cat. nos. 10.716 and 718-719, fig. 1056).2067 Perhaps many of these gems like the ones presenting laureate portrait of Livia were produced just before or shortly after death of Augustus in 14 AD in order to support Tiberius’ claim for the Roman throne. In a similar way should be interpreted several cameos and intaglios depicting busts of Livia as Ceres wearing a crown made of corn ears and poppies and a veil on the head (cat. nos. 10.724-727, fig. 1059-1060). Those were certainly cut after death of Augustus and their function could be establishment of the empress image as the new political leader continuing politics of her husband Augustus and ensuring peace and prosperity of all sorts. 2067 Kagan and Neverov (2000, no. 155/62) suggest these cases to be related to Cleopatra VII, but identification of the female figure with Livia-Venus seems far more convincing. 2068 Spier 1992, no. 432. 2069 Kiss 1975; Eck 2003, p. 50. Among other female characters that were promoted by Octavian and later Augustus in the late phase of his reign Antonia Minor was one of the key figures. In 16 BC, Antonia married Roman general and consul Nero Claudius Drusus (38-9 BC) who was the stepson of her uncle Augustus, second son of Livia Drusilla (58 BC – AD 29) and brother of future Emperor Tiberius (14-37 AD). They had several children, but only three survived: the famous general Germanicus (15 BC – AD 19), Livilla (13 BC – AD 31) and the Roman Emperor Claudius (41-54 AD). There is a surprisingly large number of gems presenting her portrait (cat. nos. 10.728-744, figs. 1061-1062). On many of them Antonia’s head is decorated with diadem which may indicate to the empress identification with Venus, a common practice among the Julio-Claudian empresses starting from Livia Drusilla. Alternatively, she is represented here as a priestess of the cult of the deified Augustus. In the Jean Paul Getty Museum in Malibu, there is a chalcedony bust presenting Antonia Minor as such with a diadem decorated with a portrait of Augustus and veil (cat. no. 10.739, fig. 1061).2068 Gems like these were created after 14 AD, for the successors of Augustus worked hard to demonstrate their connection to him and hence their right to rule. This was especially the case of Claudius, son of Antonia Minor. Cameos such as the ones described here were part of the production of commemorative luxury goods at the Roman imperial court. Construction of a dynasty required from Augustus considerable propaganda efforts and its crucial part was promotion of an heir. It is evidenced that Augustus promoted his potential successors using sculpture or coinage.2069 Engraved gems could be used for this purpose too. Astonishing number of cameos portraying young members of Julio-Claudian dynasty survived to our times. On the one hand, they could be created to commemorate important events in their careers and be gifts from the Emperor. On the other hand, they could be given to aristocrats and influential people to ensure their support for the potential successors of Augustus. Another case are intaglios, with portraits of Julio-Claudian princes. These were most likely intended to be delivered to ordinary people to make them more recognisable. The illness of Augustus in 23 BC brought the problem of succession to the forefront of political issues and the public, hence, since that moment onward one observes great intensification in promotion of Julio-Claudian princes in art. Nevertheless, first steps were taken earlier since the first one appointed as the heir of Augustus was his nephew Marcellus (42-23 BC). He accompanied Augustus in Spain during the Cantabrian Wars and together with Tiberius, Marcellus became tribunus militum in 25 BC. The same year he came back to Rome and married Augustus’ daughter Julia (39 BC-AD 14). Promotion of Marcellus as the official heir to Augustus is evident in sculpture and coinage and glyptics also delivers some evidence for this propaganda exploit.2070 There is known a glass impression after ancient intaglio presenting young Marcellus seen from behind with head turned to the left with military equipment of god Mars - shield, spear and sword (cat. no. 10.745, fig. 1063). Zwierlein-Diehl suggests that the type of portrait used derives from the Hellenistic tradition where it was primarily used for apotheosis. Therefore, it is likely that the gem was cut in 23 BC at the point of Marcellus’ death or shortly after, perhaps to commemorate him. Zwierlein-Diehl also believes that the original intaglio could have been engraved by Dioscurides himself on the commission of Augustus.2071 This is the only known and securely attributed gem with the likeness of Marcellus known to us today. It seems that glyptics was relatively late employed for propaganda and on a very special purpose. Maybe if Marcellus had lived longer, there would have been more gems related to him. 2070 Regarding Marcellus promotion in sculpture and coinage, see: Vollenweider 1972-1974, p. 100; Kiss 1975, pp. 24-31. 2071 Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 125. 2072 Dio Cassius, Historia Romana, 51.3.5-7. It is disputed if after death of Marcellus, still seriously ill Augustus turned his eyes to Agrippa designating him as his successor. This view is based on several facts. After the death of Marcellus, Augustus immediately married his daughter Julia to Agrippa. Moreover, Agrippa was granted a five-year term of administering the eastern half of the Empire with the imperium of a proconsul and the same tribunicia potestas granted to Augustus which was a clear show of favor for the general. It is also noteworthy that already earlier Augustus presented one of his sphinx seal to Agrippa and Maecenas so that they could open and issue correspondence on his behalf which was an act of considerable trust put in Agrippa.2072 Finally, while seriously ill Augustus passed his final signet ring to Agrippa which should be viewed as unquestionable proof for his intention to make him his successor.2073 Apart from this, there is also some evidence in the glyptic material itself for promotion of Agrippa as Augustus’ successor. There are several intaglios and cameos featuring portrait of Agrippa (cat. nos. 10.746-751, figs. 1064-1066). Among them, the most significant is the double side agate cameo in Paris that bears bust of Agrippa wearing paludamentum and corona rostrata on the one side and bust of Julia on the other one (cat. no. 10.746, fig. 1064). This gem was most likely issued to commemorate their wedding in 23 BC and it is noteworthy that Agrippa is presented with the attribute pointing to his military prowess that he received after the Battle of Naulochus.2074 The same image also appears on coins issued between the years 20-10 BC recalling the victory at Actium as a common effort of Augustus and Agrippa (fig. 1067).2075 There is a great resemblance between the images known from coins and those appearing on gems, thus precise dates for their manufacture cannot be established and perhaps some of them were made as a part of posthumous honours to Agrippa like it was in case of Marcellus.2076 Concerning more allegorical depictions that might reflect Agrippa and Julia relationship, Toso believes that some maritime subjects on gems like Neptune and Amphitrite or tritons and nereids are suitable to conceal promotion of the couple in the divine guise.2077 Nevertheless, as Plantzos rightly observes, these motifs became fashionable much earlier and these fashion shifts might have been responsible for production of these gems rather than political reasons with some exceptions of Venus Pelagia and Venus Epithragia discussed above (cf. chapter 10.6).2078 2073 Dio Cassius, Historia Romana, 53.30. 2074 Barcaro 2008-2009, pp. 224 and 233-235. 2075 RIC I2 Augustus, nos. 154-161 (dupondii and ases of Augustus, 20-10 BC), 397, 400, 406-409, 412 and 414 (denarii and aurei of Augustus 13-12 BC). 2076 In a private collection in Rome, there is an exceptional intaglio presenting bust of a male figure wearing a breastplate decorated with lupa romana and the twins, typically taken for Agrippa (Wagner and Boardman 2017, no. 149). However, the depiction makes an impression of a post-classical sculptural bust copied onto the intaglio with abnormal form of the armour and paludamentum, nor the face and hairstyle are distinctive for Agrippa, neither the style of engraving exhibits ancient spirit. 2077 Toso 2007, pp. 208-211. 2078 Plantzos 1999, p. 96. Once Augustus was healed in 23 BC for several next years, he did not make it very clear to whom he plans to pass the Empire. He was on good terms with Agrippa, but in 17 BC he adopted his two grandsons Gaius and Lucius Casesar (20 BC-AD 4 and 18 BC-AD 2 respectively), sons of Agrippa, whom he raised as his own sons and prepared to be joint-heirs of his emperorship. Thanks to Augustus’ protection, the two experienced accelerated careers reaching the office of consuls in 1 AD. Both developed successful military careers and were promising politicians. It is evident that Gaius and Lucius Caesar were strongly promoted as heirs to Augustus in official art and propaganda.2079 This also included glyptics and among several Julio-Claudian princes, Gaius and Lucius experienced the most intensive and spectacular promotion through glyptics. First of all, there is a considerable amount of their portraits appearing on intaglios and cameos (cat. nos. 10.752-768, figs. 1068-1071). It is noteworthy that some of the cameos are masterpieces executed by top quality engravers employed at the Imperial Court like Epitynchanos (cat. no. 10.757, fig. 1069). Sometimes the brothers are depicted in the divine guise as Dioscuri (cat. no. 10.752, fig. 1068) and they are also sometimes laureate (cat. nos. 10.762-763) or wear paludamentum signifying their military prowess.2080 The laurel wreath under Augustus became a universal symbol of Imperial power, thus portraits laureate portraits of Gaius and Lucius might signalise their appointment to the heirs of the emperor. These series of portraits were probably made to popularise images of the heirs of Augustus and maybe gifted to Roman aristocracy that would support their case also in case of Augustus death. 2079 Kiss 1975, pp. 35-65. 2080 In case of the glass intaglio in the British Museum collection presenting two laureate heads over an altar, these seem to be relatively youthful which practically exclude to take them for Sulla and Pompeius Rufus as suggested by Vollenweider (1972-1974, pl. 34.13). We propose to identify them with Gaius and Lucius Caesar for which point also the type of gem (glass) and style. 2081 See a detailed study of this gem in: Vollenweider 1963-1964; Zazoff 1983, p. 219; Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, pp. 131-132. 2082 RIC I2 Augustus, nos. 206-212. 2083 Zwierlein-Diehl 1973a, no. 515. Interestingly, there are a few more gems bearing subjects involving Gaius and Lucius Caesar. While it is doubtful that on the agate intaglio found in France Lucius Caesar is depicted as Diomedes as Moret suggests (cat. no. 10.769, fig. 1073), on the cornelian intaglio in Florence the brothers are depicted together as presenting two shields and spears and they are surrounded with symbols of Pontifex (simpuvium) and Augurate (lituus) and inscription: CL CAESAV[G] (cat. no. 10.770, fig. 1074). On this piece Gaius is shown as Pontifex, while Lucius is an augur. The gem transmits a powerful propaganda message since the two depicted figures are princeps iuventutis – the leaders of young Roman community and designated heirs of Augustus.2081 The image from the intaglio mirrors that one appearing on a series of denarii and aurei minted for Augustus between 2 BC-AD 4 (fig. 1075).2082 Another exceptional piece is a sardonyx intaglio in Vienna that presents Gaius Caesar as princeps iuventutis riding a horse to the right (cat. no. 10.771, fig. 1076). In this case military prowess and ability to take leadership by Gaius had been heralded clearly to prepare the ground for his forthcoming rule as a successor of Augustus.2083 The princeps makes a gesture of salutation to the Roman soldiers which is a reference to his popularity in the army. Zwierlein-Diehl suggests that the gem was meant to commemorate Gaius first military campaign in 8 BC.2084 Less direct references to Gaius and Lucius Caesar are also possible. For instance on the cornelian intaglio in Munich Victory-Virtus is engraved standing beside a column inscribing a shield decorated with a star, while another one lays against the pillar (cat. no. 10.772, fig. 1077). As Weiß points out there is no coincidence in the fact that the goddess inscribes two identical shields and the stars in their centre parts most likely refer to Gaius and Lucius Caesar as Dioscuri.2085 The comparison between Gaius and Lucius Caesar and Dioscuri is a subject of another cornelian intaglio housed in Geneva where the brothers are presented as horse riders (cat. no. 10.773, fig. 1078). 2084 Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 131. 2085 Wünsche, Steinhart and Weiß 2010, no. 66. 2086 Others can be less securely attributed to these artists, se: Gołyźniak 2017, no. 717. 2087 Zwierlein-Diehl 1979, no. 1035. As one can see, Gaius and Lucius Caesar were the main subjects of Augustus promotional activities in the late 1st century BC and early 1st century AD. The situation in glyptics generally matches the one in coinage and other branches of art, especially sculpture proving that gems were useful means of propaganda. It is noteworthy that apart from the brothers, Augustus also showed favor to other Julio-Claudian princes, although not to the same degree as one judges from the number of glyptic objects related to those and preserved until present. Among the other Julio-Claudian princes Drusus Maior (38-9 BC) clearly stands out. There are many intaglios and mainly cameos bearing his portrait in a head or bust forms (cat. nos. 10.774-787, figs. 1079-1082) among which there are some examples showing him in cuirass and paludamentum – a clearly military context highlighting his military prowess (cat. nos. 10.778 and 787, fig. 1079) as well as those where he wears laurel wreath on the head signifying his membership to the Imperial family (cat. nos. 10.779, 783-784, figs. 1080-1082). Moreover, it is evidenced that some of these gems were executed by top quality artists employed in the Imperial Court workshop like Heróphilos, son of Diosurides who cut portrait of Drusus Maior now in Vienna and most likely another cameo preserved in Krakow (cat. nos. 10.779 and 784, figs. 1080 and 1082).2086 As rightly observed by Zwierlein-Diehl, not all portrait cameos and intaglios with Drusus Maior likeness were manufactured while he lived, because some may have been cut in posthumous honours to him on the commission of his brother Tiberius.2087 Therefore, it cannot be properly measured how big portion of glyptic production was for the private use of the Imperial family and which were purposed to deliver images of Augustus successors to Roman citizens. Although Drusus Maior was not intended to take the throne after Augusts, he experienced a very special treatment from the emperor due to his outstanding military successes. Since cameos were frequently regarded as very precious and special gifts, some of them might have been Augustus’s keepsake to Drusus Maior, for instance, on the occasion of his election to consul in 9 BC or for the mentioned military merits. On the other hand, others could have commemorated the popular prince and general after his death – the laurel wreath might suggest this as it symbolised the divine nature of the Julio-Claudian family.2088 Another popular Julio-Claudian prince on engraved gems is Germanicus (cat. nos. 10.788-792, figs. 1083-1084). Some of his portrait gems are dated to the early 1st century AD and they could have been produced due to the considerable popularity of Germanicus in the Roman army as he is often presented wearing cuirass and paludamentum. One portrait cameo with his likeness was cut by Epitynchanos, who specialised in these kinds of objects and surely worked in the Imperial Court workshop (cat. no. 10.790, fig. 1084). There are few more portrait gems that cannot be securely attributed to a specific Julio-Claudian prince, but their existence suggests that they were intended to popularise their images and strengthen position of the Julio-Claudian family within the Roman society. 2088 Sena Chiesa 2009b, pp. 90-91; Gołyźniak 2017, no. 717. The early deaths of Lucius Caesar in 2 AD and Gaius in 4 AD forced Augustus to change his dynastic plans and find a new successor. He had chosen Tiberius (14-37 AD), son of Livia from her first marriage with Tiberius Claudius Nero (85-33 BC). He was in favor of Augustus from at least ca. 12 BC when he married his daughter Julia who became a widow once Agrippa died that year. In 6 BC he shared Augustus’ tribune powers, but shortly after he went into retirement and departured to Rhodes. Meanwhile, Gaius and Lucius Caesar became most obvious successors of the emperor, but after their deaths Tiberius was recalled to Rome in 4 AD and was officially adopted by Augustus and appointed his heir. There was a condition that Tiberius will adopt Germanicus as his own heir though, which might explain why the latter was frequently presented on gems issued in the Imperial Court workshop (cf. above). These political events are perfectly reflected in the glyptic products related to Tiberius. There are known more than 20 examples of intaglios and cameos featuring his portrait as a young heir to Augusts that should be dated not earlier than 4 AD and perhaps not later than 14 AD with a few exceptions that were cut just after death of Augustus (cat. nos. 10.793-818, figs. 1085-1091). The cameos clearly prevail intaglios and there are many interesting compositions. Similarly to other Julio-Claudian princes, portrait gems of Tiberius were often cut to emphasise his military prowess and merits to make him an appealing figure for Roman soldiers. Tiberius is frequently depicted wearing cuirass and paludamentum (cat. nos. 10.796 and 812-816, figs. 1087 and 1090), but in some cases he is also presented wearing aegis and with a spear which is a clear allusion to Augustus imitatio Alexandri or a reference to Jupiter as the patron deity of the young prince (cat. no. 10.800, 802 and 817). A special piece is a glass cameo found in Aquileia where Tiberius is presented with an oak wreath on the head (cat. no. 793, fig. 1085). This symbol refers to his military role too as it was the second highest award in the Roman army. It is noteworthy that many more portrait gems present Tiberius with a laurel wreath on the head in comparison to other Julio-Claudian princes, which as Megow suggests was a sign of Augustus adoption and appointment to his successor (cat. nos. 10.795, 800-802, 808-809 and 817, figs. 1086 and 1091.2089 As one can see, glyptics was frequently employed to promote Tiberius which is continued shortly after Augustus death since portraits of Tiberius with mourning beard are present on intaglios and cameos too (cat. no. 10.799, fig. 1088).2090 These objects were produced in order to show connection between the new emperor and Augustus and to illustrate continuity of the Julio-Claudian family.2091 2089 Megow 1987, no. A.43, p. 177. One should also add here a splendid cameo presenting a laureate head of Tiberius from the Content collection, see: Henig and Molesworth 2018, no. 73. 2090 Perhaps an amethyst cameo from the recently republished Content collection depicts young Tiberius with a veil on the head, thus, as a priest of Augustus cult or continuator of his sacral roles, see: Henig and Molesworth 2018, no. 71. 2091 A very special kind of promotion of Tiberius and his family as well as perhaps other Julio-Claudian princes was a considerable production of phalerae depicting the emperor and his children. This peculiar phenomenon escape chronological framework of this dissertation, but Boschung offers a thorough study of these exceptional glyptics pieces (Boschung 1987). They were surely intended to impress and influence high-rank officers in the Roman army which is related to the growing importance of the military forces in acceptance or election of the forthcoming emperors. 2092 Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 155. 10.11. Divus Augustus Augustus died in 14 AD and almost instantly he was deified. The cult of Divus Augustus was venerated for centuries until the state religion of the Roman Empire was changed for Christianity in 391 AD. His image was recalled on coins by the future Roman Emperors as well as statues and temples devoted to his figure were erected for many years after his death. Prior to the erection of a separate Temple of Divus Augustus, the main cult place of the dead emperor was the Temple of Mars Ultor on his Forum.2092 Cult of Augustus was one of the key issues of Tiberius’ propaganda because like Augustus he had to strengthen his position issuing images in various media highlighting his bound with predecessor. Livia played a significant role in these propaganda activities too since she served as a connector between Augustus and Tiberius.2093 Glyptics was one of the most important media where cult of Divus Augustus could develop freely mostly because of its private character but also because it offered the very special and luxurious attire suitable for veneration of the first emperor of Rome. There are several groups of objects that addressed this issue. 2093 Wood 2000, pp. 108-124. 2094 Megow 1987, pp. 21-22. 2095 Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, pp. 155-156. 2096 Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 156. One of the most significant is a substantial group of intaglios and cameos presenting posthumous portraits of Augustus usually wearing corona radiata on his head to signify his divine nature or with laurel wreath symbolising imperial power and connection to Apollo (cat. nos. 10.819-832, figs. 1092-1096). All these gems are of exceptional quality indicating their production in the Imperial Court workshop and some may be regarded as works of sons of Dioscurides. Megow observes that sometimes posthumous portraits of Augustus exhibit features of Tiberius which is an important factor not only for dating them to the beginning of his reign, but also to regard them as pieces created for political reasons.2094 For Tiberius and other Julio-Claudian emperors, who purposefully based their own portraits on the classical type of Augustus ones in sculpture and glyptics alike, the goal was to show the connection between them and Augustus. Zwierlein-Diehl believes that a new type of Augustus image was established shortly after his death which became fashionable in glyptics, coinage and sculpture alike. It would fit more the royal attribute as it was the corona radiata already in use by the Ptolemies and some of these portraits were manufactured during the reign of emperor Claudius (41-54 AD).2095 However, in case of Augustus, the corona radiata attribute also indicated his relationship with Apollo-Sol which was already highlighted during his life on gems (cf. chapters 10.5 and 10.6). The corona radiata was a clever way for indicating Augustus role as close as possible within Roman society to the king. In his case this royal attribute was related to his role as the re-founder of the city of Rome and the New Romulus but at the same time, it was a symbol of his own divine nature as the star/comet was for divus Iulus.2096 Totally exceptional artworks were produced too and the famous Cameo Blacas featuring idealised bust of Augustus seen from behind but with the head in profile to the left is the best example of that (cat. no. 10.828, fig. 1094). Augustus’ face is ailing yet ideal and noble and has ageless majesty. On the left shoulder the emperor wears eagis decorated with Gorgoneion and mask of Phobos – an attribute of Jupiter, the guaranty of the imperial power and one of Augustus’ divine patrons. Apart from these, the emperor is equipped with a spear and sword- belt – attributes of Mars. He also originally wore a laurel wreath (alluding to Apollo and signifying imperial power) on his head that had been replaced with the current setting of jewels in the Medieval times. Augustus is depicted on this masterpiece as semi-divine figure in the Hellenistic manner full of pathos as the capture from behind points to his apotheosis. He is the re-founder of Rome descendant to Mars and Romulus blessed by Apollo and protected by Jupiter. This cameo then communicates an important propaganda message that turns into panegyric tones.2097 The same image but in a smaller scale and with wide-open eyes suggesting intensity of Augustus’ gaze, which according to Suetonius greatly impressed his contemporaries, is the subject of another important cameo now kept in New York (cat. no. 10.829, fig. 1095).2098 It is evident that both pieces were produced in the Imperial Court workshop and Furtwangler even attributed them to Dioscurides, which however is impossible, but one of his sons could create those cameos.2099 Apart from the stylistic hints there is a good reason to believe that both objects were manufactured in the early phase of Tiberius reign as his portraits in the same type also occur on gems (cf. chapter 10.10). 2097 Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 158. 2098 Suetonius, Augustus, 1. 2099 Furtwängler 1900, vol. III, pp. 314-316. 2100 For a detailed analysis of these objects, see: Conticelli, Gennaioli and Paolucci (eds.) 2016, pp. 39-53. 2101 Harden (ed.) 1988, p. 22. 2102 Harden (ed.) 1988, p. 22. Another kind of glyptic object related to the cult of Divus Augustus are his posthumous round-heads/busts carved in gemstones or moulded in glass (cat. nos. 10.833-836, figs. 1097-1099). Until present only very few of them survived.2100 The specimen kept in Paris is particularly interesting due to the globe emerging behind Augustus’ head signifying his domination on the land and sea as well as protection from Jupiter (cat. no. 10.835, fig. 1099). The surviving heads were possibly mounted into the busts made of other materials or were once a part of whole figurines made of precious stones. There are no criteria for deciding where these heads of statuettes were made, but the most plausible place seems Italy and Rome where the Imperial Court workshop must have existed. Alternatively, the widespreading cult of emperor was more acceptable in the eastern part of the empire, thus workshops active in Alexandria might have participate in the production which seems confirmed by a small head of Augustus in blue glass found in Egypt, now in the Graeco-Roman Museum in Alexandria.2101 According to Harden, the use and function of those heads and statuettes remains obscured as they could have been displayed in public or kept private due to political and religious reasons.2102 However, Suetonius may give us some hints as he writes about emperor Caligula and his children as follows: ‘He [Caligula] had to wife Agrippina, daughter of Marcus Agrippa and Julia, who bore him nine children. Two of these were taken off when they were still in infancy, and one just as he was reaching the age of boyhood, a charming child, whose statue, in the guise of Cupid, Livia dedicated in the temple of the Capitoline Venus, while Augustus had another placed in his bed chamber and used to kiss it fondly whenever he entered the room.’2103 2103 Suetonius, Caligula, 7. 2104 Gołyźniak 2017, no. 715. 2105 Zwierlein-Diehl 2008, no. 8. 2106 Zwierlein-Diehl 2008, no. 8. 2107 Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, pp. 157-158. Basing on this it is very likely that figurines of Augustus were precious objects used for cult of his figure by the members of the imperial family and prominent Romans related to it. They could have been commissioned and dedicated in the temples as well as kept privately for house cult of the emperor or even distributed by Tiberius and other emperors to promote cult of Augustus and commemorate him.2104 Shortly after death of Augustus in 14 AD the Senate established a collegium of priests (sodales Augustales) with a Flamen and Priestess as the main figures responsible for the cult of deified emperor. The first Flamen was Germanicus, while the first Priestess became Livia who according to Augustus will was promoted as Iulia Augustua.2105 The involvement of Livia in the cult of Augustus is the best illustrated on several State Cameos presenting her as priestess of Divus Augustus (cat. nos. 10.837-842, figs. 1100-1078). The empress is usually depicted as veiled which indicates her role as the priestess and with divine references too since she wears corona muralis of Rhea-Cybele, a wreath of corn ears and poppies belonging to Ceres, stephane of Venus or laurel wreath also alluding to that goddess. She usually holds in her outstretched hand bust or head of Augustus over cornucopia or alone with laurel wreath or corona radiata on the head. On the spectacular cameo in Vienna (cat. no. 10.838, fig. 1100), she is represented as seated on a throne with shield decorated with a lion – another reference to Cybele added in the 16th century (confirming identification with the goddess already at that time). She wears a himation leaving one of her shoulders bare which identifies her as Venus Genetrix – mother of Julian family.2106 She is represented in the same guise on another famous large cameo in Boston which is cut in turquoise – the sacred stone of Venus (cat. no. 10.840, fig. 1102).2107 Not only the exceptional workmanship but also unusual materials like turquoise point to the production of such pieces in the Imperial Court workshop. One of the examples listed in the catalogue was found in Rome which also strengthens this hypothesis. Apparently, Livia perhaps together with her son Tiberius could have been responsible for production of such masterpieces since the issue promoted on them is not Augustus but Livia herself which strengthens her position. In addition, the gems served to prove continuity of the Julio-Claudian dynasty through her to Tiberius, so that he also benefited from them. It seems likely that gems of this type were used only within the inner circle of the Imperial Court since only the loyal servants of the first emperor of Rome could accept such far reaching divine comparisons and strongly promotional activities. The ultimate proof for Tiberius and Livia advertising actions in glyptics is a cameo in St. Petersburg featuring busts of Augustus with a corona radiata on his head and Livia with her head decorated with a laurel wreath facing each other, above whom there is a laureate bust of young Tiberius (cat. no. 10.841, fig. 1103). This splendid work of early Imperial glyptic art was executed shortly after death of Augustus and transmit a powerful propaganda message of Tiberius being the rightful heir of divine Augustus through his mother Livia also given some divine respect through the laurel wreath. Tiberius head is also laureate completing the connection and semi-divine aspect of the emperorship. On another cameo in Florence there is only Tiberius and Livia presented with their busts set together (capita iugata) where the new emperor is crowned with a laurel wreath totally in the manner of Augustus, while Livia is presented with stephane of Venus and corn ears and poppies crown of Ceres clearly indicating her role as the mother of the Julio-Claudian family (cat. no. 10.842, fig. 1104). She is represented here as Livia Augusta reaching the same status as the emperor which implies again that not only Tiberius but most importantly Livia was responsible for issuing such gems at the time mainly to promote herself and secondarily her son Tiberius.2108 2108 Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, pp. 158-159. Part IV – Summary and conclusions 11. Provenance, provenience, production and distribution of propaganda gems Having presented the evidence supporting hypothesis about political significance of engraved gems in the Roman Republic and especially under Augustus, it is now time to conclude the research. Table 1 shows that 16% of the analysed material in total although expected to transmit propaganda messages in fact should not be linked with political activities. This number mirrors the scale of overinterpretations of specific intaglios and cameos detected and discussed throughout the dissertation. It is by no means a definitive amount since many more objects may be not related to propaganda and self-promotion at all. Because it is often difficult to define what propaganda gems are (cf. chapter 5.2), this statistic should be treated only as orientational. The 84% gems analysed can be possibly linked one way or another with politics of the Roman Republic and Augustus and they were the base for the detailed analysis of the structure of the material concerned in the study provided in chapter 12. One of the reasons for creation of a large database for the thesis (cf. Volume 2: Catalogue) was to inquire whether the provenance and provenience of the objects in question provide us some additional information about gems production and distribution and consequently their political use. These aspects are crucial in determining the actual scale of the phenomenon. As has already been signalised, lack of any archaeological context in case of engraved gems is very common and makes studying them extremely difficult. But even if the information on object’s provenance is available, there is a good number of further limitations to the knowledge of its real origins. As well expressed by Boardman: “No work of art is more portable and likely to be found far from its place of origin. No artist can have been more mobile than the gem engraver, with is drill and a pocket full of pebbles. No other ancient works are so indestructible, and although this means that many are preserved in almost ‘mint’ condition, it also indicates their suitability for very long periods of use, passed on to heirs or successors in office, or simply as precious objects. Datable contexts are therefore strictly ante quos non and many are demonstrably very much later than the probable date of production.”2109 Despite all of this, I still believe that it is absolutely necessary at least to try to reconstruct context of Roman Republican and Augustan gems evoked in this thesis in any possible way.2110 This would mean a brief summary of the 2109 Boardman 2001, p. 16. 2110 Sagiv 2018, pp. 21-22. Very few scholars investigate provenance information of gems, however, Hansson proved some methods to bring interesting results (2005) and they were inspirational for my own analysis. provenance and provenience information of the objects discussed and presentation of a few models how these gems could be produced and distributed within the Roman society. Let us start from a few useful definitions. Provenance is thereafter understood as archaeological origin, a findspot of a piece, whereas provenience is the history of ownership of a work of art e.g. engraved gem. In glyptic studies these two things are closely interconnected and while the findspot information is usually unavailable, the provenience may allow to reconstruct it to some degree. It is then inevitable to at least outline the existing types of object’s ‘context’ that is information about its archaeological origins. Various meanings of the term ‘context’ specifically in relation to ancient jewellery have been discussed by Rudolph.2111 As Hansson proved, his definitions and methods can be successfully applied to the studies of engraved gems.2112 Rudolph distinguishes controlled context, in which case full documentation of the actual physical environment in which a certain object has been found exists. The controlled context is used when all the archaeological data about the object is available and its find place as well as circumstances are known so that provenance is complete. This is very rare for gems though, but some examples can be given and they provide interesting information. 2111 Rudolph 1996. 2112 Hansson 2005, p. 43. 2113 Platz-Horster 2012, no. 27. 2114 Check context information of individual objects out in Guiraud 1988 and 2008. 2115 Gonzenbach 1952, nos. 37 and 40. 2116 Maaskant-Kleibrink 1980, nos. 1 and 31; Bosman 1994, no. 40. For instance, cat. no. 10.130 engraved with a youthful Pan riding a Capricorn and fishing with a rod was found in 1990 on the school courtyard of the St. George Public School, Jesuits Street 14 in Augsburg.2113 Dozens of gems that might be related to propaganda activities were recorded in France and among them are several bearing portrait of Octavian alone or accompanied with additional symbolism (cat. nos. 9.282-283, 348, 433-434, 466, 472-473 and 754) as well as other subjects suitable for Octavian/Augustus’ promotional practices (cat. nos. 9.664-665, 863, 1023, 1050, 1105 and 10.108-112, 394, 451, 558, 575-576, 613-616, 640, 677).2114 The same applies to a few gems of the same kind recovered in Vindonissa (cat. nos. 9.1049 and 10.489)2115 and Velsen (cat. nos. 9.470, 561 and 563).2116 More controversial are the gems found or reported to come from specific locations like the Aquileia glyptic centre or several regions of Roman military activities like Carnuntum, Xanten or Nijmegen. In such cases, the information on objects’ provenance is less certain but it is still very probable that the gems were originally found in those places or at least the neighbourhood. Map 1 illustrates all the places where it was possible to determine exact or nearly exact findspots with the most reliable provenance information available and consequently, maps 5, 9, 14, 18, 21, 25, 29, 35, 39, 42, 44, 46 and 49 show the same thing for individual political factions and historical figures. Although insignificant in number (only 7% of all gems analysed in the study – cf. table 2, chart 1), these objects communicate tremendously important information regarding target groups for Roman Republican and especially Octavian/Augustus’ propaganda gems. Roman Republican and Augustan gems related to the political issues can be found in German museums located close to the Roman limes which supports the idea that some of them were targeted to the soldiers and it is noteworthy that almost all are related to Octavian/Augusts propaganda actions.2117 Among them, the most significant are the gems found in Xanten and the surrounding area.2118 There are two specimens featuring the subjects possibly related to Julius Caesar but the vast majority presents images that one can link to Octavian/Augustus propaganda actions.2119 These objects make one aware that gems were particularly durable works of art that remained long in use. The Roman military camp was found in Xanten in 15 BC so the specimens related to Octavian/Augustus are all likely to be used by soldiers supporting him whereas those possibly related to Julius Caesar might have been used by his veterans or passed to another generation of soldiers from the previous one. 2117 For instance: Cologne (Römisch-Germanisches Museum) – cat. nos. 9.312, 651, 709, 1011 and 10.823 and 834; Cologne (Kunstgewerbemuseum) – cat. no. 9.935; Cologne (Archibishop Diözesanmuseum) – cat. no. 10.733; Mainz (Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseum) - cat. no. 9.109; Trier (Rheinischen Landesmuseum) - cat. nos. 9.221 and 10.577; Auerberg - cat. no. 9.783; Bonn (Rheinischen Landesmuseum) - cat. nos. 6.207, 8.23, 2118 Platz-Horster 1987, 1994 and 2009. 2119 Subjects possibly related to Julius Caesar – cat. nos. 8.141 and 159; Subjects related to Octavian/Augustus – cat. nos. 9.193, 450, 589, 597, 643, 693, 981 and 10.169, 282, 333 and 795. 2120 The Roman military camp in Carnuntum was found during emperor Claudius’ Reign around 50 AD. See a study of gems found there - Dembski 2005. 2121 Maaskant-Kleibrink 1986, p. XVIII. Similarly, Carnuntum yielded with a few gems related to Octavian/Augustus propaganda (cat. nos. 9.284, 360-361) which possibly stayed in a long use even more than 50 years after their production.2120 Interestingly, these gems are next examples showing the popularity of such specimens among Roman soldiers who actually could be one of the main target groups for propaganda gems. Nijmegen is recognised the oldest city of The Netherlands since already in late 1st century BC it housed a Roman military camp founded by Augustus that later transformed itself into a city.2121 Inhabited for centuries, already in the 17th century Nijmegen yielded with intaglios of all kinds including Roman Republican and Augustan ones. There were many notable collectors, whose local purchases and archaeological discoveries delivered material enlarging their cabinets of antiquities (Johannes Smetius, Johan in de Betouw (1732-1820), D.H.J. van Schevichaven (1790-1831), P.Ch.G. Guyot and G.M. Kam (1836-1922). The last one was actively excavating in Nijmegen and surroundings. As a result, the collection of engraved gems kept in the G.M. Kam Museum in Nijmegen represents mostly the material found locally.2122 Therefore, the gems related to political propaganda from this museum collection are further proves of their intensive use by Roman soldiers and the vast majority of them are related to Octavian/Augustus.2123 2122 Check out a detailed history in: Maaskant-Kleibrink 1986, pp. IX-XIV. 2123 See some gems related to earlier periods: cat. nos. 6.212 and 310, 7.43, 8.80 and 126 and especially a series related to Octavian/Augustus: cat. nos. 9.379, 426, 445, 931, 999, 1091, 1182 and 10.499. In conclusion, giving the fact that most of the listed locations are within the Roman military zones, mainly forts and camps alongside the limes but also places where Roman army stationed to keep order in a province, it is tempting to suggest that gems of these kinds were primarily distributed among soldiers and they travelled to those locations with them. Noteworthy is the fact that with a few exceptions all the objects with controlled context I was able to collect come from the western part of the Roman Empire, but this is most likely due to a considerable discrepancy between the intaglios and cameos published in Western Europe and Asia Minor as well as the Near East. The intensive archaeological activity alongside the limes and generally speaking within Roman military zones surely contribute to predominance of the material originating from these areas rather than the civil ones as well. Another class of material suggesting similar conclusions and supplementing the lack of original gemstone or glass intaglios found in the East Mediterranean are sealings occasionally found across the territories controlled by the Romans in the 1st century BC and early 1st century AD (cat. nos. 6.147 and 198-199, 8.19 and 219, 9.244, 541-544, 1148, 1222, 1263-1266, 1291 and 1337, 10.48-52 – the locations are: Cyrene, Zeugma and Artashat, cf. map 1). These are more likely to be used by clerks in provinces (mostly the eastern ones) which is another target group of propaganda gems. It has been consistently suggested throughout the thesis that using of a seal with image of an influential Roman political leader was beneficial to both, a local governor as he transferred authority of his patron onto himself as well as to a propagandist who was ensured about loyalty of his supporter in a province and he became more recognisable thanks to this (cf. also a summary discussion to this issue in chapter 13.6). Finally, the sealings collected here makes one aware that propaganda gems, even if not in large quantities, still reached eastern provinces and they were very useful there. The second type of context distinguished by Rudolph is the generic context, in which case it can be established more or less beyond doubt that an object has been found at a specific site or region. Analysing archival material available as well as all the information of objects provenance included in the collections catalogue as well as other sources it was possible to suggest next specific locations for propaganda gems findspots. Basically, in my research I focused on two types of information given in the mentioned sources. The first one is provenance information based on the places indicated by collectors, scholars and others as ‘said to have been found’ in specific locations. Map 2 shows the results of a collection of such information. It is noteworthy that it is partially consistent with the results of the reliable provenance (cf. map 1 for general results and maps 6, 10, 15, 19, 22, 26, 30, 32, 36, 40, 47 and 50 for individual political factions or historical figures), especially if the limes areas are concerned, but it adds considerable amounts of material as possibly originating from Italy (especially Rome, Central Italy and Campania) plus much less in the East Mediterranean region. Naturally, there are severe limitations because, for instance, the relatively high presence of the sites from Dalmatia and Greece result from that fact that Sir Arthur Evans was among those more conscious collectors who left any information on gems’ findspots. All in all, this kind of provenance information adds 4% to the number of propaganda gems with potentially reconstructed provenance (cf. table 2 and chart 1). The second type is the information is ‘purchased in’, usually in a specific place, which is less reliable because the location given is essentially not a findspot, but it is still possible to mirror it or at least one assumes that the findspot was not far away from the market place indicated. Map 3 presents Rome to be the only major place of purchases of propaganda gems among the 16th-19th century collectors, but interestingly other locations like Perugia or Chiusi are reported too and so they are in case of the ‘said to have been found’ provenance information (compare maps 2-3; see also maps 7, 11, 16, 23, 27, 33, 37 and 51 which illustrate ‘purchased in’ provenance information for individual political factions and historical figures). Noteworthy is a low ratio of gems reported to have been acquired by collectors in the East Mediterranean with one except for Smyrna (Izmir). If reliable by any chance, this provenance information adds next 2% to the total number of propaganda gems with reconstructed provenance information (cf. Table 2 and Chart 1). Of course, one should keep in mind that the results presented here are just hypothetical and by no means should be treated as certain. It is impossible to verify information like ‘said to have been found’ or ‘purchased in’ recorded usually in the 18th or 19th century with any other method today. One does not know to which extent the information passed by 18th and 19th century collectors and scholars are trustworthy. Surely some agents of the art market fabricated provenance information entirely in order to sell their objects for better prices or to prove modern fakes to be genuine ancient pieces. Nevertheless, unless one finds no evidence for guilt, one should not simply dismiss the information given. In case of some collectors and scholars at the same time like Paul Arndt, one feels more secure because of his distinctions between gems ‘said to have been found’ and those ‘purchased in’ which informs about his high consciousness on provenance information for archaeology. Moreover, Arndt admits some of his gems to have been purchased not in popular markets like Rome, but also less distinctive ones in Berlin, Brussels or Barcelona. Such cases are not rare and therefore, I decided to show the results of either provenance ‘said to have been found’ and ‘purchased in’ because they are not significant enough to distort the whole image, whereas their input is supportive for the claim that most of the propaganda gems were created in Rome or generally speaking Central Italy and Italy where one expects the greatest concentrations of such material due to the biggest markets for such objects. In other words, the results fit analyses based on other kinds of evidence. To the category of controlled context belong also many objects in the collections of local archaeological museums which are held to originate from the region in question, even if further information on find circumstances is lacking. One assumes that these objects have been locally found and presented to the museum. Much more risky is to acknowledge the history of the big and small collections of engraved gems scattered across the Europe, Near East and the USA. Basing on their histories and especially those of their benefactors it is sometimes possible to make suggestions contributing with interesting results concerning propaganda gems’ provenance but only if some general patterns are to be observed. This means that usually one can deduce which places were particularly popular among the collectors of gems throughout centuries. Even though based on less objective grounds it remains disputable if the investigations on this level can tell anything about glyptic centres and local workshops existing in the Roman Republic and under Augustus and consequently help to assess the scale of gems’ use for political purposes. Because studying of engraved gems is closely interconnected with history of collecting, it is necessary to start from Italy since many collections now in the local museums can reveal a lot of important information and then, expand to collections created outside the Italian Peninsula which, nevertheless, exhibit strong connections to the main Italian glyptic centres. Below, I briefly (because of lack of space) discuss almost all museum and individual collections of engraved gems which are likely to deliver some provenance information and which are present in the catalogue part of the thesis arranged either geographically and historically to later summarise this investigation with conclusions on potential provenance information one can draw. To start with Italy, Roman Republican gems are traditionally divided on the etruscanising and hellenising groups which is due to continuation of older, archaic traditions and consequently the gem production centres are usually limited to the North-Central Italy and Southern Italy combined with Sicily (cf. chapter 2.1).2124 While this division is still useful in some respects, the more recent research proved that there seems to be three main areas where gems were produced on a major scale: Northern Italy with Aquileia as the main centre, Central Italy (Latium) with Rome as a centre and Southern Italy where the Campanian cities of Pompeii and Herculaneum could be the most successful workshops and Tarent could be of some importance too.2125 One of the most important for the study of Roman gems in general and the material used in this thesis specifically is obviously the collection of intaglios and cameos held by the Museo Archeologico di Aquileia. It is very likely that a glyptic centre operated in this area since the very beginning of establishment of the Roman colony there (181 BC) or even earlier and the first engravers migrated to this area from Southern Italy.2126 Sena Chiesa published a substantial, but still only a selection of nearly 1600 pieces in 1966.2127 These gems were mostly not found during the controlled archaeological excavations, nevertheless, they all provenance from the area of Aquileia according to the museum records and history of donations.2128 Furthermore, Sena Chiesa and Tassinari found out that a good number of gems kept now in the local museums in Altino, Como, Concordia Sagittaria, La Spezia, Oderzo and Este in all probability come from Aquileia.2129 The collections from Udine and Trieste originate from Aquileia glyptic centre as well which is confirmed by more recent studies.2130 Almost 100 2124 Furtwängler 1900, pp. 212-299. 2125 Maaskant-Kleibrink 1978, pp. 99-196; Zazoff 1983, pp. 261-268; Hansson 2005, pp. 41-45; Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, pp. 144-146; Tassinari 2008, pp. 261-270. Even though Tassinari does not find sufficient objective evidence for placing a sort of workshop in Rome, she point out that such an idea comes to mind quiet straightforwardly (2008, p. 255). 2126 Sena Chiesa 1966, pp. 13-18 and 2009a, p. 18; Zwierlein-Diehl 207, p. 144; Tassinari 2008, pp. 261-263 (with full bibliography). 2127 Sena Chiesa 1966. 2128 Sena Chiesa 1966, pp. 1-2. 2129 Zazoff 1983, p. 262; Tassinari 2009, p. 262. 2130 Sena Chiesa 1966, p. 2; Zazoff 1983, pp. 261-262; Henig, Scarisbrick and Whiting 1994, p. 91; Tassinari 2008, p. 262. Regarding the gems in Udine, these were presented to the museum by private collectors like Luigi Torrelazzi or Francesco di Toppo, whose material, however, can more or less securely traced down to Aquileia, see: Tomaselli 1993, p. 19. Similarly, the collection of gems in Trieste was created through donations of private collectors like Salvatore Zannini, but their material is very likely to origin from Aquileia, see: Ciliberto and Giovannini 2008, pp. 29-31. intaglios and cameos now in Vienna provenance from Aquileia too due to the Habsburg excavations conducted at the site in the 19th century.2131 Perhaps a substantial portion of gems kept in the Museo Archeologico Nazionale and Museo Correr in Veince also come from Aquileia.2132 The same seems to be truth for the gems from the Museo dell’Istituto di Archeologia dell’Università di Pavia, but in this case local products might also belong to the cabinet.2133 Much closer to the Aquileian products is the glyptic material housed in the Musei Civici in Padua.2134 The scale of production of gems in Aquileia is beyond compare to any other certain single find spot and there is some evidence that glyptic products were exported out of the North-Eastern Italy region.2135 Most of the gems found in Luni are likely to origin from Aquileia or might be local products.2136 Much more complex is the provenience of the gems housed in Verona, but at least a part of the cabinet might origin from Aquileia.2137 Similarly, the gems from the Museo Civico di Ferrara are likely to come from Aquileia, but it cannot be excluded that they were purchased in Rome.2138 Even more complex is the provenience of gems kept in the Museo Civico Archeologico in Bologna because the vast majority of the objects were donated by powerful collectors buying glyptic objects in various locations and consequently a portion of their material could come from Aquileia, but there is also some evidence for a local products.2139 Concerning a large assemblage of intaglios and cameos in Torino, according to provenience information no reliable conclusions can be drawn as to objects’ provenance due to a high number of contributing private collectors who were purchasing gems all around the Europe and the Middle East.2140 However, sometimes positive results might be obtained thanks to a scrupulous analysis of transactions at the art market. A good example of that is the most illustrious Polish dealer and collector of intaglios and cameos – Constantine Schmidt-Ciążyński.2141 It has been recently suggested that perhaps about 140 gems from Schmidt-Ciążyński collection may originate from Aquileia since the collector is attested to buy his pieces specifically there and in the neighbourhood (Venice, Treviso), and the archaeological, stylistic and technical observations point to the same conclusion.2142 Finally, 2131 Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 144; Ciliberto and Giovannini 2008, pp. 33-50. 2132 Nardelli 2011/2012, p. 35. 2133 Tomaselli et al. 1987, pp. 19-25. 2134 Agostini, Bidoli and Lavarone (eds.) 2004, p. 13. 2135 Henig 2007, p. 10-11. 2136 Sena Chiesa 1978, pp. 13-46; Zazoff 1983, pp. 261-262. 2137 Sena Chiesa, Magni and Tassinari 2009, pp. 1-4. 2138 Agostini 1984, pp. 11-14. 2139 Mandrioli Bizzarri 1987, pp. 22-24; Tassinari 2008, p. 259. 2140 Bollati and Messina 2009, pp. 9-14. 2141 For the most recent Constantine Schmidt-Ciążyński’s biography and collection study, see: Gołyźniak 2017. 2142 Gołyźniak 2017, pp. 46-47. it is noteworthy that one encounters products of Aquileian glyptic industry in Slovenia, Dalmatia, Pannonia, Austria, Magdalensberg, Switzerland, Germany, Gaul, The Low Countries, Britannia and even distant eastern territories like Greece, Egypt and Gandhara.2143 2143 Henig 2007, pp. 10-11; Tassinari 2008, p. 262. 2144 Zazoff 1983, p. 265. See also history of the Medici collection as well as provenience information concerning other glyptics objects housed in Florence: Tondo and Vanni 1990, pp. 8-32; Gennaioli 2007, pp. 41-94. 2145 Vitellozzi 2010, pp. 35-44. 2146 Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 144. 2147 Vollenweider 1966, pp. 74-75, note 60; Lapatin 2015, pp. 246-247. 2148 Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 144. See also a detailed study of Platz Horster devoted to this particular gem class (2010). Going down to the south on a map, one encounters a hugely important collections of gems housed in the Museo degli Argenti and Museo Archeologico in Florence. Even though owned by eminent families like the Medici, if it goes to extracting provenance information, little can be obtained unless several Roman State Cameos are concerned, which most likely origin from Rome. Concerning average gems though, Zazoff suggests that many may have been produced in Aquileia. It seems that the collections from Florence display a dichotomy because the Tuscany region is located between the Northern and Central Italy, therefore, the products of both, Aquileian and Roman workshops mixed together there.2144 The vast cabinet of gems housed in the Museo Archeologico Nazionale dell’Umbria in Perugia was originally presented to this institution by Mariano Guardabassi (1823-1880). According to the survived archival materials it can be stated that the collector acquired most of his objects locally in Perugia and Umbria region as well as in Rome.2145 Analysing the structure of the collection, the increasing number of gems having perhaps some political significance is noticeable and many of these have been included to my thesis database. Rome was certainly the next major if not the biggest glyptic centre in Italy.2146 There is sufficient epigraphic evidence to claim that gem engravers worked in the capital city of the Roman Empire and a plausible location for their workshops is Via Sacra.2147 Naturally during Augustus’ reign the Imperial Court workshop headed by Dioscurides and producing State Cameos for the use of the emperor and his circle was active in Rome. Zwierlein-Diehl believes that single workshops could operate in Rome and they specialised in specific kinds of gems, like the small biconvex chrome chalcedony intaglios.2148 This might be true since these gems specifically are very often engraved with the subjects deriving from sculpture and there was no better place to seek inspiration for the gem cutters than Rome at the time. Moreover, archaeological finds of some caches of glass gems suggest that Rome was a plausible location for their production.2149 Maaskant-Kleibrink is certainly right pointing out that due to a simple manufacturing process glass gems could be produced almost anywhere,2150 but one should bear in mind that Rome was the place with the biggest market for both regular gemstone and glass intaglios in Italy so the high demand surely resulted in high supply e.g. numerous individual workshops perhaps organised in a sort of a guild like it was in the Hellenistic East.2151 In addition to that, it is unlikely for the best gem engravers known from their signed masterpieces to work elsewhere than Rome even though sometimes their products are found in other locations like Solon’s signed nicolo featuring Theseus excavated in Pompeii (cat. no. 9.839, fig. 671). Gems were highly portable objects and as one could see earlier, they travelled with their owners to far distances, therefore, archaeological finds of gems say more about their users than producers (cf. above).2152 2149 Gliozzo et al. 2011. Henig published a cache of 66 defective glass gems that he thinks date to the Second Triumvirate and were found in the East Mediterranean (1975, p. 2), but the truth is that no provenance information on them is available and considering several gems to be related to Octavian/Augustus propaganda practices, it seems more likely that they origin from Italy (Rome?), see: Henig 1975, pp. 81-83. 2150 Maaskant-Kleibrink 1978, p. 100. 2151 Plantzos 1999, p. 40; Hansson 2005, p. 118. 2152 Hansson 2005, pp. 117-119. 2153 According to my inquiry, the following museums in Rome hold colelctions of engraved gems: Baths of Diocletian Museum (Righetti 1957-1959), Vilia Giulia Museum, Palazzo Braschi Museum, Museo Nazionale Romano (a selection of gems from this museum was published by Righetti (1955a)), Musei Sacro e Profano (Righetti 1955b). Selected portrait gems from individual institutions were published by Vollenweider (1972-1974). Apart from these, Bibliotheca Vaticana and Vatican Coin Cabinet also possess cabinets of engraved gems among which Vollenweider published portrait gems (1972-1974) and Righetti a selection of the most valuable pieces (1954-1956). 2154 Gallottini et al. 2012, pp. 19-20. The vast majority of Roman gems was bought from other private collectors and in Florence. 2155 Wagner and Boardman 2017. It is disappointing how few museum collections from Rome are published.2153 A sort of exception are the Musei Capitolini and the recently published Santarelli cabinet, but only just a few Roman gems possess provenance information suggesting their origins in Rome, while the vast majority comes from the art market and were purchased only recently.2154 Similarly, the celebrated Sangiorgi collection although created in Rome much earlier offers an array of objects with a very diversified provenance.2155 It is probably the best illustration how limited is sometimes one’s capacity in reconstruction of gems’ provenance information through analysis of their history and provenience. The last major area in Italy where some glyptic production centres possibly existed are the Campanian cities (Pompeii and Herculaneum) and Southern Italy. Regarding the former, there is sufficient archaeological and epigraphical evidence to claim that gems were cut in Pompeii (Casa di Pinarius Cerialis) and Herculaneum (Casa ‘del Gemmario’), and glass gems could be manufactured in an industry close to Naples.2156 The gems found during the long-lasting excavations in Pompeii and Herculaneum are now preserved in the Museo Archeologico Nazionale in Naples and most of them have certain provenance information recorded.2157 They are accompanied there by outstanding cameos that however most likely origin from Rome, but through Medici and Farnese collections were deposited there.2158 Furthermore, a specific Romano-Campanian style is noticeable pointing to strong relationships between these workshops and the ones located in the Central Italy. It is noticeable not only in Roman Republican glyptics, but also in coinage.2159 It is by all means possible that other glyptic centres were located further south, for instance in Taranto where there was ancient tradition for goldsmiths and gem engravers workshops, but Roman Republican gems have been found in Brundisium, Bari, Cumae, Paestum, and Lecce as well.2160 Regarding Bari, the collection housed in the Museo Archelogico of that city consists of the objects purchased from local collectors or reported during local excavations, but some pieces come from Taranto as well.2161 A sort of confirmation of independence of the region in general is its distinctive Hellenistic-Roman style.2162 Finally, probably several independent goldsmith and gem workshops operated in Sicily from the 3rd to 1st century BC since the island is known for a location of those already in the Classical period if not earlier.2163 The most plausible locations are Palermo and Syracuse.2164 2156 Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, pp. 144-145; Tassinari 2008, pp. 266-268. For individual workshops, see: Tassinari 2008, pp. 268-269 (Pompeii) and 269-270 (Herculaneum) with more literature. It is disputable if some of the findings in Pompeii and Herculaneum in fact were not ancient collections of gems, see: Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, pp. 144-145. 2157 Pannuti 1983 and 1994. 2158 Pannuti 1983 and 1994. 2159 Maaskant-Kleibrink 1978, pp. 108-109; Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, pp. 104-107. 2160 Zazoff 1983, p. 267; Giuliano and Micheli 1989, pp. 27-29; Hansson 2005, pp. 54 and 112; Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 107. 2161 Tamma 1991, pp. 3-4. 2162 Maaskant-Kleibrink 1978, pp. 108-109; Zwierlein-Diehl 207, pp. 97-98 and 107. 2163 Boardman 2001, p. 191. 2164 Furtwängler 1900, vol. III, p. 213; Zazof 1983, p. 267; Giuliano and Micheli 1989, pp. 27-31; Tassinari 2008, pp. 252-253. 2165 See the most recent evaluation of this issue in: Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, pp. 264-279. Because gems were vigorously traded since the 15th century or even earlier, but especially in the 18th and 19th centuries, the objects now preserved in the European and the USA museums are usually based on the cabinets created by popes, emperors, royal families as well as private collectors and a surprisingly large amounts of gems related to Roman propaganda is expected to have been purchased in specific locations, notably Rome.2165 Rome seems to be an inexhaustible source for collectors of gems over the centuries up to the 70s or 80s of the 19th century because as Count Tyszkiewicz writes in his memoirs, before Rome became the capital city of the united Italy, its gem market was well supplied with intaglios and cameos found in the local vineyards, gardens, fields and pastures just outside the contemporary city. Only when Rome developed and started to expand to the long-abandoned territories, this supply almost ceased which forced Tyszkiewicz to develop close relations with numerous dealers importing gems from the Near East.2166 As already stated, gems with more or less reliably stated provenance information in larger collections formed in preceding centuries also belong to the category of generic context, as such information can generally no longer be verified, and additional documentation is now lacking. Of course, one should be aware that although such an information is surprisingly common it is not always credible. Rome as a major gem trade centre from the Renaissance times successfully absorbed the material found in other parts of Italy for sure, however, one presumes that its impact was the most considerable regarding the Latium region because there were many other gem trade centres in Italy like Naples, Florence, Venice, Genoa, Torino and Milan. Today, it is often difficult to judge whether one should believe the provenance information from those days or not, but sometimes one can control this situation with positive results, especially if object’s provenance stays in consistency with a more general picture and similar objects have the same provenance confirmed from other sources. Besides, if there is no other data available, sometimes one must trust in this as there is no other logical way to proceed. 2166 Tyszkiewicz 1898, pp. 43-44. 2167 AGDS I.1, pp. 10-11. 2168 Maaskant-Kleibrink 1986, pp. V and IX-XIII; Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, pp. 272-273. Over the centuries several public institutions in Germany created significant collections of gems usually thanks to purchases or donations of large private assemblages or gradual accumulation of the material by local dynasts of dukes, princes and members of nobility. The huge cabinet belonging now to the Staatliche Münzsammlung in Munich has a complex history reaching the 16th century and there were many donators and contributors, most notably the Dukes of Bavaria.2167 For instance, in 1704 Elector of the Palatinate, Wilhelm von Pfalz-Neuburg (1658-1716) purchased an important collection of mostly Roman Imperial gems created by Johannes Smetius (1590-1661) in Nijmegen.2168 How many Smetius’ gems were locally recovered remains unknown, alas. One of the most important and at the same time representative in the catalogue part of this dissertation is the outstanding collection formed by Paul Arndt (1865-1937), an assistant first to Heinrich Brunn and then to Adolf Furtwängler.2169 He was primarily known as a collector of ancient sculptures, a large part of which are now kept in the Glyptothek of Munich, as well as in Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek in Copenhagen. His superb collection of ancient gems since 1956 has been a part of the Staatliche Münzsammlung cabinet in Munich. It consisted of round 1100 intaglios, 1200 glass gems and 100 finger rings which Arndt amassed mostly through purchases while in Rome, but some were also acquired in Athens and other locations.2170 It can be said that his collection is representative for the glyptic production of the Roman Republic which is confirmed by my statistics (cf. chapter 12). The stylistic groups one distinguishes among them are consistent with the material known from the Stosch, Bergau or Dressel collections (see below), all of which were created from the objects acquired in Rome, therefore, it is likely that Arndt collection of Roman Republican and Augustan gems reflects what sorts of gems were produced or at least utilised in antiquity in the capital city of the Roman Empire.2171 Following this logic, the substantial number of glass gems preserved now in Munich would suggest that workshops producing them were located there as well. 2169 On the figure of Paul Arndt, see: Zazoff and Zazoff 1983, pp. 212–218 and 230-235; Hansson (forthcoming). 2170 AGDS I.1, p. 11. Concerning other locations, these are always indicated in individual entries in the Munich catalogues of engraved gems and they are very rare (AGDS I.1-3). The documentation of Arndt’s collection of gems is owned by the Institute of Classical Archaeology of the University of Erlangen. 2171 See a similar opinion on this matter in: Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 144. 2172 AGDS II, p. 9. See also the history of cameos from Berlin in: Platz-Horster 2012, pp. 11-28. 2173 On Philipp von Stosch, see: Zazoff and Zazoff 1983, pp. 3-67; Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, pp. 274-275 and especially Hansson 2014 (with earlier literature). The next highly important collection that might shed some light on Rome as a glyptic production centre or at least the biggest market for engraved gems from the 3rd century BC to the early 1st century AD is that in the Antikensammlung in Berlin. Its history is as ancient as the Munich one and the origins are related to the Dukes of Brandenburg. The first inventory of the Brandenburg gems was created in 1604 and since then, a good number of successful collectors and various individuals sold or donated new objects. However, the most important acquisition was made in 1764 by the Prussian king Frederic II the Great who purchased en bloc the collection formed by Philipp von Stosch (1691-1757).2172 Stosch was an instrumental figure in the 18th century gem trade and antiquarianism and he resided first in Rome and later in Florence.2173 The vast network of his contacts resulted in accumulation of a collection reaching 3444 objects. Stosch bought intaglios and cameos from various sources and mostly in private transactions, but a good portion of his Roman Republican and Augustan gems may have been bought specifically in Rome and Florence, thus, many of his intaglios and glass gems may origin from Latium and Tuscany regions. It is noteworthy that other collections deposited to the Antikensammlung in Berlin like those of Eduard Gerhards (1795-1867), Theodor Panofka (1800-1858), Jacob Salomon Bartholdy (1779-1825) and Emil von Vollard (1795-1878) were also created almost exclusively in Rome.2174 Another highly important assemblage of gems, which are now in the Antikensammlung in Berlin, was created by a German archaeologist and epigraphist Heinrich Dressel (1845-1920). His collection includes both, gemstone and glass gems as well as a few cameos.2175 According to Weiß, most of the Dressel’s gems were collected or purchased in Rome,2176 and Zwierlein-Diehl rightly notices that this collection is representative for the glyptic production in Rome especially if Roman Republican and Augustan periods are concerned.2177 2174 Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 278; Platz-Horster 2012, pp. 22-24. 2175 Weiß 2007. 2176 Weiß 2007, pp. 69-70. For a general picture of the gem trade in Rome in the second half of the 19th and early 20th century, see: Weiß 2007, pp. 65-69. 2177 Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 144. 2178 Weiß 1996. 2179 Weiß 1996, pp. 11-12. 2180 Weiß 1996, pp. 22-23. 2181 Weiß 1996, pp. 16-17; Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, pp. 144 and 278. Another prominent German collector of engraved gems was Friedrich Julius Rudolf Bergau (1836-1905).2178 He created an enormous cabinet that could number even ca. 7800 objects but mostly glass gems (to be more precise, ca. 800 gemstone intaglios and ca. 7000 glass gems). Only a tiny part of this assemblage survived as a donation of the daughter of the collector to the Germanishen Nationalmuseum in Nürnberg and a substantial part of 1898 glass gems (unpublished) is now in the Antikensammlung of the Institut of Archaeology, Erlangen University, while other parts were dispersed already in the end of the 19th century to the Antikensammlung in Berlin, Münzsammlung in Munich (through the hands of Paul Arndt), Institute of Archaeology, Göttingen University and Martin-von-Wagner Museum in Würzburg,2179 but mostly shortly after Bergau’s death when auctioned by his wife.2180 Bergau collection is considered to be another representative assemblage of the Roman Republican and Augustan gems originating from Rome since the collector purchased his objects almost exclusively in Rome.2181 The astonishing number of the glass gems amassed by Bergau suggests their huge availability there and maybe that workshops producing this kind of glyptic material were located in Rome or Latium in general. Many other German public institutions and museum hold considerable collections of gems which are also sometimes based on the cabinets created by outstanding individuals mostly in the 19th century in Rome. The Herzog-Anton-Ulrich Museum in Braunschweig possesses a collection of engraved gems among which there are many Roman Republican and Augustan pieces. Nevertheless, the formation of the assemblage started during the reign of Duke Charles I in the 18th century and up to now it was based on a gradual accumulation of the material and apart from a few exceptions, no information on provenance is available.2182 Regarding the collection of the Institute of Archaeology, Göttingen University, a part of it consists of the material from the Bergau collection discussed above (200 glass gems, Roman?) and there is no information whatsoever available as to the provenance of the rest part.2183 As to the gems housed in Kassel, they have been collected since the very early 18th century by the dukes of Hesse. Some of them like the Landgraf Charles collected gems during their grand tours when accompanied by a dealer of antiquities Antonio Capello. In this particular case, the Landgraf made most of his purchases in Venice which is why there are so many magical gems in Kassel today because they were imported to the city from the east Mediterranean. If it goes to the Roman Republican and Augustan gems, nothing more precise than ‘from Italy’ can be established about their provenance and the vast majority of the objects was stolen in 1813 during the Napoleonic campaign.2184 Another prominent collection of gems is preserved in the August Kestner Museum in Hannover.2185 The vast majority of the gem cabinet in Hannover come from the collection formed by August Kestner (1777-1853), a notable diplomat, art collector and co-founder of the Instituto di Corrispondenza Archeologica that later became known as the German Archaeological Institute, during his 36-years-long stay in Rome.2186 It is supposed that Kestner gems were purchased mostly in Rome and perhaps origin from the city and the Latium area as well as from Naples, even though the valuable notices on their provenance are now generally lost.2187 A few specimens come from the Alexandros Rhusopulos collection which was formed in Athens. Therefore, the Hannover collection should be (with some reserve, of course) regarded alongside to the Bergau, Dressel, Panofka and perhaps to some degree also Stosch ones as the most representative cabinets for the material dated to the Roman Republican and Augustan times and consequently the gems related to politics. This is also confirmed by the structure of the collection and the numerous groups of gemstone intaglios as well as glass gems cut in comparable styles, in the latter case also often moulded from the 2182 AGDS III Braunschweig, pp. 3-4. 2183 AGDS III Göttingen, p. 65; Weiß 1996, pp. 22-23. 2184 AGDS III Kassel, pp. 179-181. 2185 AGDS IV Hannover. 2186 AGDS IV Hannover, p. 3. 2187 AGDS IV Hannover, pp. 5-6; Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 278. same matrixes. Another major German collection of gems is located in the Museum für Kunst und Gewerbe in Hamburg.2188 The material comes mostly from Dr. Johanes Jantzen who bought his gems generally in Southern Germany and Switzerland.2189 The last major collection of gems in Germany is housed in the GRASSI Museum für Angewandte Kunst in Leipzig but very few objects have any provenance information recorded.2190 2188 AGDS IV Hamburg. 2189 AGDS IV Hamburg, p. 345. 2190 Lang and Cain 2015. 2191 Heidelberg (Institute of Archaeology) - Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, ill. 431; Stuttgart (Württembergisches Landesmuseum) - Vollenweider 1972-1974, pl. 123.2 and 4; Weimar (Goethe collection) - Femmel and Heres 1977. 2192 For instance, the Dreikönigenschrein from the Cathedral in Cologne is decorated with an array of gems including Roman Republican and Augustan ones that might transfer some political messages, see: cat. nos. 7.81, 8.67, 8.72, 9.750, 832, 935, 982, 995, 10.243 and 622. Another example of such situation is the Schrein der hl. Elisabeth in Marburg, see: cat. no. 10.249. 2193 Femmel and Heres 1977, pp. 7-67. 2194 Wünsche, Steinhart and Weiß 2010. Dr. Carina Weiß kindly informed me that a full catalogue of the Helmut Hansmann collection of engraved gems is scheduled for publication in the next few years. 2195 Martin and Höhne 2005, p. 2. 2196 Eichler and Kris 1927 (cameos); Oberleitner 1985 (mostly cameos); Zwierlein-Diehl 1973a, 1979, 1991 (intaglios) and 2008 (cameos). 2197 For instance, the collection of nearly 2000 gems formed by the Ulrich, Graf von Montfort zu Tettnag (d. 1574), later owned by the Archduke Ferdinand II (1529-1595) and kept in the Ambras Castle was transferred to Vienna on the command of the emperor Joseph II (1765-1790) in 1784, see: Zwierlein-Diehl 1973a, pp. 9-11; Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, pp. 270-271. Individual institutions possess single gems which provenance information is usually unavailable2191 and similarly bigger accumulations also exist now as decoration of religious objects lacking provenance information.2192 Among the private collections created by single individuals, Johann Wolfgang Goethe (1749-1832) purchased some of his Roman intaglios through his contacts in Italy.2193 Another considerable collection of nearly 800 gems was created by Helmut Hansmann (1924-1996). It is now preserved in the Staatliche Antikensammlungen in Munich, however, no information on the objects provenance is available yet.2194 Similarly, another anonymous German private collection has no provenance indicated, however, judging by the purchases’ sources it might be deduced that the gems come from Southern Germany and Switzerland.2195 One of the largest and the most significant collection of gems is housed in the Kunsthistoriches Museum in Vienna.2196 Its history reaches 14th century but it was in the 16th century when individual nobleman and Habsburg emperors, notably Rudolf II (1576-1612) and Matthias (1612-1619), started to form their own Kunstkammern. They ultimately melted into one cabinet owned by the Habsburg Emperors in Vienna.2197 The considerable means invested into art collecting by the imperial family enabled to purchase or obtain in other ways such masterpieces as the Gemma Augustea. However, as mentioned above, the Habsburgs also controlled the North-Eastern Italy area where archaeological excavations were conducted, for instance in Aquileia (cf. above).2198 Therefore, a small portion of nearly 2800 ancient pieces in total today housed in Vienna provenance from that territory. The other parts were donated by various collectors, among which the most significant was Franz von Timoni (donation in 1865).2199 As a result, a number of objects have no provenance information whatsoever and only single specimens are recorded to have been purchased in Rome, but also other markets like Paris, Vienna, Alexandria etc. No definitive and general conclusions as to objects’ provenance can be drawn then. 2198 Zwierlein-Diehl 1973a, p. 14. 2199 Zwierlein-Diehl 1973a, p. 11. For a detailed history of the Vienna gem cabinet, see: Eichler and Kris 1927, pp. 3-22 and especially Bernhard-Wahler contribution to Zwierlein-Diehl 1991, pp. 28-38. 2200 Vollenweider 1967, pp. 9-10 and 1979, pp. XIII-XV. 2201 Vollenweider 1979, pp. XV-XXI. 2202 Vollenweider 1967, p. 10. 2203 Vollenweider 1984; Willers and Raselli-Nydegger 2003, pp. 11-12. In Switzerland there are three institutions housing major collections of engraved gems: Musée d’Art et d’Historie in Geneva, University Museum in Bern and Historical Museum in Basel. Regarding Geneva and Roman Republican and Augustan gems, almost all examples were donated by an engineer and prominent art collector Walther Fol (1832-1890). He was educated in Geneva and Paris, but he spent most of his life in Rome where he worked and acquired his gems.2200 The structure of the Roman Republican and Augustan glyptics in Geneva (with a high number of glass gems of both, relatively good and bad quality) is strikingly close to that one known from the collections preserved in Hannover, Berlin or Munich (cf. above). In all these cases the amounts of gems related to Roman politics (either portraits and symbolic gems) is high.2201 It is not a coincidence since all of them are based on the collection created by single individuals spending most of their lives in Rome which means that the Fol collection could be representative for what was produced or at least utilised in Rome in the Roman Republic and Augustan periods. Another donator of some Roman Republican and Augustan gems to the Musée d’Art et d’Historie in Geneva was François Duval (1776-1854), however, in his case, nothing certain can be said about the provenance of his purchases.2202 The collection now housed in Bern is based on the Leo Merz (1869-1952) cabinet. Although the Swiss collector took part in auctions of notable collections (including many of the Fürstenberg gems), little provenance information can be extracted only in case of single specimens.2203 As to the gems from Basel, no more information about their provenance is available apart from that provided by Vollenweider in her book on Roman portrait gems.2204 2204 See: cat. nos. 9.1357 and 10.82. 2205 Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, pp. 269-270. For a detailed history of the French royal collection of gems, see: Babelon 1897, pp. CXII-CLXXIX. 2206 Vollenweider and Avisseau-Broustet 1995, p. 16; https://gallica.bnf.fr/html/und/objets/collection-honore-dalbert-duc-de-luynes-1862 [retrieved on 22 January 2019]. 2207 Babelon 1899; Vollenweider and Avisseau-Broustet 1995, p. 16; http://comitehistoire.bnf.fr/dictionnaire-fonds/pauvert-chapelle [retrieved on 22 January 2019]. 2208 Vollenweider and Avisseau-Broustet 1995, p. 16; http://comitehistoire.bnf.fr/dictionnaire-fonds/boisgelin [retrieved on 22 January 2019]. 2209 De Ridder 1911. Concerning France, the single finds of gems have already been evoked above as they reveal tremendously important data on their usage by Roman soldiers outside Italy. The French royal collection of intaglios and cameos, which is now housed in the Bibliothèque nationale de France, belongs to the most ancient ones. Its formation started already in the 14th century and the considerable financial means of French kings allowed to obtain many Roman Republican and Augustan masterpieces, especially if cameos are concerned.2205 Nevertheless, because majority of objects entered the cabinet relatively early little provenance information is available today. In the 19th and 20th century the Bibliothèque nationale de France was offered several important collections which had more provenance information to offer. One of them was that of Honoré Théodoric Paul Joseph d’Albert, duc de Luynes (1802-1867) donated in 1862 including 373 intaglios and cameos originating from various places, but regarding Roman Republican and Augustan gems, these were mostly purchased in Italy (Rome and Southern Italy to be more precise).2206 In 1899 Jean-Oscar Pauvert de la Chapelle (1832-1908) who from 1852 onwards resided in Rome presented his very selective collection of 167 intaglios and cameos, many originating from superb collections (Martinetti, Tyszkiewcz). There are many intriguing portrait and other political gems in his assemblage that in all likelihood were found in Rome or central and Southern Italy in a broader sense.2207 Another contributor was Henri Louis Boisgelin (1897-1985) who inherited the collection of Alexandre de Boisgelin and partially that of Louis De Clercq (1836-1901) who both amassed their specimens during their activities in the East Mediterranean.2208 A substantial part of the De Clercq cabinet is now preserved in the Louvre Museum in Paris.2209 Even though only rarely more specific provenance information is available, the fact that their collections were formed mostly in Syria allows to have at least some insight in the material from this part of ancient world. Finally, Henri Seyrig (1895-1973), a French archaeologist, numismatist, and historian of antiquities, delivered his collection to the Bibliothèque nationale de France in Paris in 1972-1973.2210 He was general director of antiquities of Syria and Lebanon and since 1929 he was appointed a director of the French Institute of Archaeology of Beirut for more than twenty years. During his flourishing career, he managed to purchase many interesting intaglios deriving not only from Syria and Lebanon, but also Egypt. 2210 Vollenweider and Avisseau-Broustet 1995, p. 16. 2211 Musée des beaux-arts de Tours (ed.) 1997, p. 6. 2212 https://www.beazley.ox.ac.uk/gems/danicourt/default.htm [retrieved on 22 January 2019]. 2213 Maaskant-Kleibrink 1978, pp. 11-12; Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, pp. 272-273. 2214 Maaskant-Kleibrink 1978, pp. 12-13. 2215 Maaskant-Kleibrink 1978, pp. 15-21. 2216 Maaskant-Kleibrink 1978, p. 32. Concerning other significant collection of gems in France, in 1904 the Musée des Beaux-Arts in Tours accepted to include to its cabinets the Signol collection of engraved gems. Because majority of its documentation is lost, very little can be established regarding objects’ provenance, however, there is a chance that substantial part were purchased in Rome and at auctions in Paris.2211 Noteworthy is also the Alfred Danicourt collection from Pèronne, however, no provenance information on the material it includes is available.2212 As Marianne Maaskant-Kleibrink states in the introduction to her study of the gems once in the Royal Coin Cabinet in The Hague (today in Leiden), in the 17th and 18th century gem cabinets sprang up in larger cities of the Low Countries. However, the most considerable one was created by King William I (1772-1843) in The Hague. His base were the intaglios and cameos held by the House of Orange to which the king added those purchased from such notable collectors as Thoms, Jacob de Wilde, Hemsterhuis, De Smeth, Van Hoorn van Vlooswijck, Crassier, Hultman, Lupus and Dorrow among others. Furthermore, he sent Colonel J.E. Humbert to Italy and North Africa to collect gems for him and the same task was appointed to Colonel Rottiers.2213 Maaskant-Kleibrink made it clear that any reasonable conclusions as to most of the gems from the former The Hague collection’s provenance cannot be drawn because of too scanty documentation available.2214 If one tries to learn something from the more recognisable collections, one usually fails. The Jacob de Wilde purchases of gems are unrecorded and their provenance is not stated anywhere.2215 However, the Thoms collection was considerable in number (ca. 1100 pieces) and probably consisted of the gems mostly purchased in Italy since on the contractors list are Cardinal Massimi, ‘Chevalier Oddam’, Sabbatini and Borioni. A conclusion Maaskant-Kleibrink proposes is that a great deal of The Hague gems must have come from the Thoms assembladge.2216 Giving Thoms’ sellers list and analysing the structure of the Roman Republican and Augustan intaglios published by Maaskant-Kleibrink, it is tempting to suggest that a substantial part of the material comes from Central Italy and perhaps from Rome and Florence to be more precise. Concerning the Frans Hemsterhuis collection, it proved to consist almost exclusively fakes.2217 Nothing certain can be established about the De Smeth and the Van Hoorn van Vlooswijck collections and their provenance.2218 Regarding Crassier, Hultman, Lupus, Dorrow, Colonel J.E. Humbert and Colonel Rottiers gem collections, nothing certain can be said about their provenance as well.2219 2217 Maaskant-Kleibrink 1978, pp. 34-39. 2218 Maaskant-Kleibrink 1978, pp. 40-45. 2219 Maaskant-Kleibrink 1978, pp. 46-49. 2220 Only a selection of the objects from this museum is available online, see: https://www.rmo.nl/en/collection/ [retrieved on 23 January 2019]. 2221 Cat. nos. 8.14 and 9.129, 189-190, 250, 398, 1248 and 1329. The objects from this museum are not accessible online neither, see: http://www.carmentis.be/eMP/eMuseumPlus?service=ExternalInterface&module=collection&moduleFunction=highlight&lang=fr [retrieved on 23 January 2019]. 2222 Cat. nos. 6.148, 238 and 9.43. Ittai Gradel kindly informed me that he works on a publication of Roman Augustan and Imperial cameos from the National Museum in Copenhagen, but the expected date of this publication is unknown. 2223 Fossing 1929, p. 13; Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 277. 2224 Fossing 1929, pp. 13-16. 2225 Fossing 1929, pp. 16-17. Unfortunately, nothing can be said about the provenance of the gems housed in the Rijksmuseum van Oudheden in Leiden since they remain unpublished.2220 Similarly, Roman Republican and Augustan gems from the Musée du Cinquantenaire in Brussels remain unpublished except for a few portrait gems published by Vollenweider.2221 In Denmark, two collections of engraved gems are known to include Roman Republican and Augustan gems. The one housed in the National Museum in Copenhagen remains unpublished, but several portrait gems are known from Vollenweider’s publications, unfortunately with no provenance information.2222 A much larger (more than 2000 objects) assemblage was created by the prominent sculptor and collector Bertel Thorvaldsen (1768-1844). It is now kept in the Thorvaldsen Museum in Copenhagen. He collected his intaglios and cameos in Rome during his many stays (1797-1819, 1820-1838 and 1841-1842).2223 According to Fossing, although no detailed documentation survived, it is clear that Thorvaldsen started to collect gems early but the vast majority of his gems was purchased between 1820 and 1838 and the sculptor was well supplied with gems from the ongoing excavations taking place in Rome and Etruria.2224 Being an artist often taking inspiration for his own works from gems, Thorvaldsen should be much appreciated for his connoisseurship because very little objects in his cabinet turned out to be modern fakes.2225 Another advantage of Thorvaldsen’s gem collection is that its founder did not dismiss fragmented and chipped gemstones as well as the unfinished glass gems.2226 For this reason, his assemblage adds much value into the research on gems provenance as well as production and distribution processes since indeed, the structure of the collection confirms that. The Thorvaldsen’s assemblage is another one after a few above-described German ones as well as the one created by Walther Fol which should be recognised as representative for what was produced in the Roman Republic and Augustan times in Rome and Latium and Etruria in a broader sense. 2226 Fossing 1929, p. 17. 2227 Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 273. 2228 Henig, Scarisbrick and Whiting 1994, pp. XIII-XIV; Boardman et al. 2009, pp. XI-XII. 2229 Henig, Scarisbrick and Whiting 1994, pp. XV-XVI; For a complete history of the Marlborough gems, see: Boardman et al. 2009, pp. 1-28 and 205-209. 2230 Henig, Scarisbrick and Whiting 1994, pp. XIII and XVI. 2231 Henig, Scarisbrick and Whiting 1994, pp. XV-XVI; Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 276. Concerning Sir Richard Worsley, he is a perfect example exhibiting why provenance studies of engraved gems might be misleading. Even though some of his gems certainly come from notable collections like Dukes of Mantua or Anton Maria Zanetti, his collection contains a high proportion of modern gems given fictious provenances to make them more credible, see: Henig, Scarisbrick and Whiting 1994, p. XVIII. In England, great cabinets of engraved gems started to be formed already in the 17th century. Among the early English collectors were Henry Stuart, Prince of Wales (1594-1612) and Thomas Howard, second Earl of Arundel (1586-1646).2227 The Arundel gems were bought in Italy from the Gonzaga Dukes of Mantua and together with a collection of Viscount Duncannon, Lord Bessborough, they formed a base for the celebrated Marlborough cabinet created by George Spencer, Fourth Duke of Marlborough (1739-1817) at Blenheim Palace who added to them many of his own acquisitions made in Italy and elsewhere.2228 The Marlborough collection comprised ca. 800 piece in total before its dispersion in 1899.2229 Due to its complex history and a number of sources the gems came from, frequently going from hands to hands, very little can be said about their original provenance. Most likely the Roman Republican and Augustan objects originally form the Arundel collection and perhaps Lord Bessborough cabinet may provenance from Italy as may do some other, individual pieces, however, even those are suspicious since Lord Arundel’s devoted agent Revd William Petty bought gems for him while travelling in Greece and Asia Minor.2230 The exemplary Marlborough and Henry Stuart’s collections were followed in the 18th century by the assemblages of many men of nobility like William Cavendish, second Duke of Devonshire (1672-1729), whose collection is now preserved in Chatsworth, Philip Stanhope, fourth Earl of Chesterfield (1694-1773) or Sir Richard Worsley (1751-1805).2231 There is no place here to describe the whole rich English gem collecting phenomenon, therefore, I will focus mainly on the assemblages that survived to our times in several main English museums.2232 2232 For a detailed history of British gem collecting, see: Henig, Scarisbrick and Whiting 1994, pp. XIII-XXIII; Spier 2001, pp. 20-23. 2233 Walters 1926, p. X; Henig, Scarisbrick and Whiting 1994, p. XIV. 2234 Walters 1926, p. X; Rudoe 1996. 2235 Walters 1926, p. X; Henig, Scarisbrick and Whiting 1994, p. XIX. 2236 Walters 1926, p. X; Henig, Scarisbrick and Whiting 1994, p. XVI. 2237 Walters 1926, p. X; Henig, Scarisbrick and Whiting 1994, p. XVIII. 2238 Walters 1926, p. XI; Weber Soros and Walker 2004; Gołyźniak 2017, p. 42. Regarding the British Museum, it preserves the largest collection of ancient engraved gems in the UK (more than 4000 pieces). Within it, there is a good number of Roman Republican and Augustan gems. There were many benefactors of those during museum’s long history. The founder of the institution, Sir Hans Sloane (1660–1753) possessed many gems which formed the base for the collection, however, very little turned to be ancient and even those have no provenance information available.2233 The next important contributor (1772) was Sir William Hamilton (1730-1803) who acquired most of his gems in Rome and especially Etruria.2234 Clayton Mordaunt Cracherode (1730-1799) bequeathed some 80 gems to the British Museum but none of them has traceable provenance, alas.2235 Charles Townley (1737-1805) was another important donator of gems (1814) but nothing is known about their origins.2236 Richard Payne Knight (1751-1824) also donated gems to the museum, mostly cameos. He collected them alongside to bronze sculpture and coins during his grand tour which included not only Italy, but also many more locations. According to his minute catalogue and notes, it is possible to deduce that many of his best purchases (including some Augustan cameos) were made through the agent James Byres who resided in Rome and Florence where he obtained gems from Cardinal Albani, Strozz, Borghese and Medici-Ricardi cabinets. As a result, one is unable to determine where do individual pieces come from, but there is a possibility that some origin from Italy (Rome and Florence).2237 In 1865 and 1872 the British Museum acquired two collections formed by Alessandro Castellani (1823-1884). This Italian jeweller and collector with an international reputation used engraved gems, notably Etruscan scarabs and their imitations in his own etruscanising jewellery designs. He collected primarily in Rome but having a wide network of contacts including many international collectors and dealers, he was able to purchase objects originating from other sources too. Nevertheless, Rome and Etruria are the most likely areas supplying gems for Castellani.2238 In 1867 the British Museum enriched its gem collection with the specimens obtained from Louis, Duke of Blacas (1815-1866). As an antiquarian he continued his family tradition in this business and enlarged the family collection considerably. Even though there is some evidence for him and his father to have bought gems in Italy, such a provenance cannot be attributed to any object in any meaningful way.2239 The most important from our perspective is the collection originally formed by Henry Howard, Fourth Earl of Carlisle (1694-1758). His cabinet of gems was presented to the British Museum between 1889-1891 by his descendants. It is noteworthy that the collector purchased his objects mainly in Italy, many come from notable cabinets like that of Cardinal Ottoboni.2240 2239 Walters 1926, p. XI. 2240 Walters 1926, pp. XI-XII; Henig, Scarisbrick and Whiting 1994, pp. XV-XVI; Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 276. 2241 For a detailed history of the collection, see: Henig and MacGregor 2004, pp. 5-12. 2242 Henig and MacGregor 2004, pp. 5-8. 2243 Henig and MacGregor 2004, p. 9. 2244 Henig, Scarisbrick and Whiting 1994, p. XX; Henig and MacGregor 2004, pp. 9-10. 2245 Henig and MacGregor 2004, p. 10. 2246 Weiss 2007, p. 69. 2247 Henig and MacGregor 2004, pp. 10-11. Like many museums with a long history, the Ashmolean Museum collection of Roman Republican and Augustan gems reflects passions of individual benefactors.2241 Individual objects like the ‘Felix Gem’ exhibit impressive provenience reaching down to the 15th century.2242 Nevertheless, only rarely one can deduce something from the history of the collections deposited. The cabinets presented by The Queen’s College and The Bodleian Library yield no provenance information. In contrast, it seems that the gems given to the Ashmolean Museum by John Henry Parker (1806-1884) were all purchased in Rome where he used to spend many winters.2243 One of the most significant enlargement of the Ashmolean Museum collection was due to Sir Arthur Evans (1851-1941). A substantial part of his Roman gems were purchased in the Balkans, Dalmatia and Greece where he was travelling and excavating. He also visited the Caucuses and Crimea but these are less likely to supply him with Roman Republican and Augustan gems.2244 Another significant contributor was Revd Greville John Chester (1830-1892). He used to travel across the Mediterranean, especially the eastern part of it, where he bought his gems.2245 One of the most important from our perspective donations was made by Charles Drury Edward Fortnum (1846-1899). He presented 828 finger rings in total and a good portion of his bequest were Roman rings with gems. Among those, many are Roman Republican and Augustan works either in gemstone and glass. It is noteworthy that the collector purchased his objects while in Rome (supplied by Castellani and Dressel among others) or Como.2246 Therefore, it is very likely that majority of his finger rings origin from Italy.2247 One more important contributor to Oxford’s holdings of gems was Captain E.G. Spencer-Churchill (1876-1964), however, none of them have more or less secure provenance information.2248 2248 Henig and MacGregor 2004, p. 11. 2249 Henig, Scarisbrick and Whiting 1994, pp. XIX-XX. However, see Lord Carnegie’s gem collection catalogue where some information on gems provenance is available (Carnegie and Carnegie 1908, p. VII as well as individual entries). 2250 Henig 1975, p. 1; Henig, Scarisbrick and Whiting 1994, p. XX. 2251 Henig, Scarisbrick and Whiting 1994, p. XVIII; Scarisbrick, Wagner and Boardman 2016a. 2252 Middleton 1998, pp. IX-XVII. As to the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge and Roman Republican and Augustan gems housed there, there is a such a great variety of their donators that one cannot deduce anything sensible as to their original provenance. Great many objects frequently changed hands and they came to the museum without any original provenance information. The most important donators like William Martin Leake (1777-1860), Joseph Mayer of Liverpool (1803-1886), Bram Hertz (1794-1865) or James Carnegie, ninth Earl of Southesk (1827-1905) entered the gem market in the 19th century when most of the trading was organised at auctions amassing variety of mixed material, usually unprovenanced.2249 As a result, only individual pieces might shed some light on ‘propaganda gems’ production and distribution. It is noteworthy to mention that Revd Samuel Savage Lewis (1836-1892), a librarian at the Corpus Christi College in Cambridge acquired his gems while travelling in Italy, Greece and the Near East but also at the markets in Smyrna, Naples, Paris and elsewhere.2250 His assemblage is now preserved in Cambridge and several pieces are evoked in this thesis. Unfortunately, none of them can be securely attributed to origin from a specific location. Lord Algernon Percy, first Earl of Beverley (1750-1830) was the founder of an outstanding collection of intaglios and cameos which is now housed at the Alnwick Castle and referenced as the Beverley Gems. The collection contain some Roman Republican intaglios and many Augustan masterpieces that can be provenanced down to the illustrious and ancient Grimani collection created in Venice which could suggest them to be found in Italy.2251 Apart from this little can be obtained regarding the original provenance of these pieces. Finally, the Royal Albert Museum in Exeter preserves a collection numbering ca. 100 cylinder seals, engraved gems and amulets. They were donated mostly by Lt. Col. Leopold Agar Denys Montague (1861-1941) and Dr. Norman Lace Corkill (1898-1966). Despite from seven Roman gems excavated at Exeter, the other ones (including those used in this study) have vaguely provenance indicated, mostly the Near East and the Mediterranean basin.2252 Finally, the recently published private complete Content cameos collection includes some Roman Republican and Augustan pieces which provenance is sometimes provided and if reliable, it suggests that propaganda gems were distributed among high-rank officers as well as the governors of Roman provinces.2253 2253 For a general information on the Content cameos collection, see: Henig and Molesworth 2018. 2254 Neverov 1971, pp. 55-56 and 1976, p. 8. 2255 Neverov 1971, pp. 55-56 and 1976, p. 8; Kagan and Neverov 2000, pp. 10-36. 2256 Kagan and Neverov 2000, p. 35. 2257 Neverov Neverov 1971, pp. 55-56 and 1976, pp. 8-9. 2258 Neverov 1971 and 1976; Kagan and Neverov 2000. In Russia the tradition for gem collecting starts in 1721 when Peter the Great (1682-1725) purchased several small cabinets in the Netherlands in order to equip his Kunstkammer which was the base for the State Hermitage Museum collection.2254 However, it was Catherine the Great (1762-1796) whose passion for engraved gems was so great that she inspired many others to follow her suit not only in Russia but also in Europe. The Empress managed to purchase the astonishing number of foreign cabinets (Natter, de Breteuil, Byres, Slade, Mengs, a part of the Lord Beverley collection, Louis Philippe, the Duke of Orléans, the Duke of Saint-Morys and J.B. Casanova).2255 Even though some parts of Catherine the Great’s collection can be traced as originating from Rome and Italy in a broader sense (Medici and Orisini cameos) in fact very little can be said about gems’ original provenance.2256 In the 19th century the State Hermitage Museum enriched itself with assemblages of J.B. Mallia, D. Tatishchev, L. Perovsky, A. Lebedev, V. Miatlev and Yu. Lemme among others. In that century also archaeological excavations in the Crimea and Caucasus regions yielded with many fascinating gem finds from the burials and kurgans, however, mostly Greek gems were found at that time rather than Roman Republican and Augustan ones. After the October Revolution in 1918 the Russian State nationalised almost all private collection. This resulted in the celebrated cabinets of the Shuvalovs, Yusupovs, Strogonovs, Nelidovs and the Polovtsevs entering the Hermitage. Even in more recent times private collections are donated there like the one created by a mineralogist G. Lemlein in 1964.2257 All in all, the State Hermitage Museum in St. Petersburg houses one of the greatest collections of gems in the world. Nevertheless, only small parts of it are published.2258 Due to complex history as well as the fact that majority of gems were purchased from the market, little information on the original provenance of the objects can be obtained. Another interesting collection of engraved gems containing Roman Republican and Augustan material is housed in the Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts in Moscow. According to Finogenova, except for a few objects found in the Northern Black Sea regions (mostly Greek gems), objects’ provenance is unknown.2259 2259 Finogenova 1993, pp. 62-64. 2260 Gołyźniak 2017, pp. 31-87. 2261 Gołyźniak 2017, pp. 40-43. 2262 Karapanou 1913. However, many gems may origin from completely different areas, see: Tassinari 2008, p. 299. A highly valuable collection of engraved gems is preserved in the National Museum in Krakow. It includes more than 260 specimens dated to Roman Republican and Augustan periods which offer a good overview of nearly all types of propaganda gems. The intaglios and cameos were almost exclusively donated to the museum in 1886 by Constantine Schmidt-Ciążyński (1818-1889), a prominent dealer and collector of works of art. He traded across the whole Europe but notably in St. Petersburg, Paris and London.2260 The structure of the collection and careful reconstruction of gems’ provenience confirm that Schmidt-Ciążyński purchased most of his objects at auctions and through direct purchases from other collectors. However, as has been already suggested, there is evidence for him to acquire intaglios and cameos in Aquileia and its neighbourhood (cf. above). Moreover, his numerous travels and longer stays in Italy, especially in Rome, but also, Naples, Genoa, Torino, Florence, even conducting the antiquities shop in Venice, have recently been positively confirmed. Therefore, on the list of his sellers, one finds the names of antiquarians and dealers residing mostly in Rome like Briganti, Capranesi, Castellani, Civilotti or Tyszkiewicz as well as other Italian cities (Berini, Biondelli, Boncompagni, Chiesa, Colomb, Conti, Fabriv, Foratti, Galiardi, Lambranzi, Lanti, Marsigli, Polini, Richetti, Rusca, Sartorelli and Zanetti).2261 As a result, one wonders if actually many of the Roman Republican and Augustan intaglios and cameos from this highly-respected cabinet originally come from Italy. Before one departures to the USA, a short commentary should be given on the European and Near Eastern museums holding smaller collections of gems. An assemblage of intaglios is housed in the Coin Cabinet of the National Museum in Athens however very few of them date to the Roman Republican and Augustan periods. As to their provenance, nothing more can be said except for the fact that there is a good probability that some of them were brought to the museum by various collectors, especially Konstantinos Karapanos (1840-1914) from the whole Greece.2262 Still, it is interesting to notice that Octavian/Augustus’ propaganda gems are the most representative among them (cf. cat. nos. 6.82, 8.33, 9.96, 562, 590 and 1093). It is noteworthy that several more gems listed in my database are likely to origin from Athens (cf. cat. nos. 6.95, 9.768, 11861360, 10.3 and 171). It is debated if gem engravers conducted their workshops in the Roman Republican and Augustan times in Athens or elsewhere in Greece.2263 However, especially in case of Octavian/Augustus these specimens are more likely to testify to widespreading of his propaganda gems across the empire together with soldiers fighting in his favour or that they were exported outside of Italy (where they were most likely produced in Rome and Latium area?), but not in great quantities. 2263 Tassinari 2008, pp. 298-300. 2264 Nardelli 2007, 2011, pp. 25-27 and 2011/2012. 2265 Gramatpol 1974, pp. 6-8; Dimitrova-Miličeva 1981, pp. 5-6; Gesztelyi 2000, pp. 5-9. A similar pattern can be observed regarding gems recovered from the Dalmatia region. Nardelli hypothesise if those found on many sites in Dalmatia, but mainly in Tilurium were not manufactured in Rome or at least that glyptic centre was powerful enough to influence local gem ateliers.2264 According to my database, this is very likely because Octavian/Augustus’ propaganda gems dominate there too (cf. cat. nos. 9.446, 764, 1077-1079 and 1227). If one adds the specimens purchased by Evans in Dalmatia, the number even increases (cf. cat. nos. 10.147 and 550). Naturally, one always should keep in mind that gem engravers were very mobile, thus, some of the pieces might be local works executed by travelling artists. Nevertheless, the ‘propaganda gems’ one finds in the collections of other Balkan countries (Hungarian National Museum in Budapest, Cabinet numismatique de l’Académie Roumaine in Bucharest and National Archaeological Museum in Sofia) also involve exclusively those related to Octavian/Augustus (cf. cat. nos. 9.741, 869, 914, 958, 969, 985-987, 998, 10.31, 571 and 607). The histories of these cabinets suggest that their formation usually involved gems found in various circumstances (if there is any provenance information provided at all): at archaeological excavations, by local people who presented them to the museums and even more serious collectors who usually were locals and they did not participate in the international gem trade much if at all.2265 Some local workshops producing intaglios and cameos are attested in the Balkan Peninsula, however, they operated in the Roman Imperial periods. In conclusion, the very few ‘propaganda gems’ from the Balkans are most likely imports rather than local products and they seem to have been manufactured in Rome or Italy in general. A single cameo possibly presenting bust of Antonia Minor from the Cathedral Treasury in Prague has no provenance information available (cf. cat. no. 10.738). However, another location where the situation looks similar to that observed in the Balkan Peninsula is Sardinia. One finds there several gems related to Octavian/Augustus’ propaganda (cat. nos. 9.565 and 761, 10.458, 510 and 557) which is another indicator of such pieces to travel with their owners – Roman legionaries, though island’s inhabitants always were loyal to gens Iulia too.2266 Does this mean that such gems now preserved in the Museo Archeologico Nazionale in Cagliari were originally manufactured in Rome? 2266 Cicu 2009, p. 341. 2267 Casal Garcia 1990, pp. 55-60. 2268 Henig and Molesworth 2018, no. 69. 2269 Cravinho 2017 (with more literature on Portugal gem collections). 2270 Spier 2001, pp. 19-26. Concerning Spain major collections represented in the catalogue part of the thesis are those held by the Museo Arqueologico Nacional in Madrid and Universitat de València. As to the former, its history reflects many benefactors among whom the most important seems to be King Carlos III (1759-1788) because he controlled Sicily and Naples Kingdoms and therefore some gems are plausible to originate from the Campanian cities of Pompeii and Herculaneum as well as from Southern Italy in general.2267 Nevertheless, there is usually no provenance available. A similar situation occurs in case of the gems from Valencia. Interestingly though, among the ‘propaganda gems’ represented in those cabinets, those related to Octavian/Augustus clearly prevail but there is one example of an intaglio possibly presenting Gnaeus or Sextus Pompey. If one adds to them the cameo probably presenting Julius Caesar and Venus, which is said to have been found in Tarragona,2268 one symbolic intaglio linked to Caesar as well and intaglios presenting Sextus or Gnaus Pompey published by López de la Orden (cf. cat. nos. 6.23, 8.143 and 233, 9.10-11, 380, 759, 929, 1019, 1101 and 1112 and 10.608), it becomes clear that even though scanty, this evidence suggests that gems having some political significance were exported or came to Spain alongside the moving Roman armies rather than were produced there (cf. discussion on the pompeians’ presence in Spain and gems related to them in chapter 9.1.3 and Julius Caesar cameo in chapter 8.2.8). As to Portugal, even a single ‘propaganda gem’ is unlikely to origin from there, at least according to my survey and publications of Cravinho.2269 The outstanding Calouste Gulbenkian collection now preserved in Lisbon was created merely through the art market purchases and even though it contains a good selection of Octavian/Augustan propaganda pieces, their original provenance cannot be established.2270 Regarding Asia Minor and the Near East, the largest and ancient glyptic industry was very active in Alexandria and smaller workshops surely operated in such cities as Sardis or Pergamon as well as in Syria and Palestine and royal courts of the Ptolemies and Mithridates VI Eupator.2271 Over the period spanning from the 3rd century BC to the early 1st century AD the Hellenistic and local glyptics dominated on these territories, therefore, there is no surprise that Roman gems related to propaganda are scarce not only among recorded finds of gems but also collections originating from this part of the Mediterranean basin. Except for single objects, which could be carried there by Roman soldiers, for instance, those loyal to Marcus Iunius Brutus and Quintus Cassius Longinus (cf. maps 32 and 34) or gifted to local authorities like the glass cameo presenting laureated head of Augustus found in Smyrna (Izmir) (cat. no. 10.70), there is no sign of production of specific types of Roman ‘propaganda gems’ on those territories. Moreover, even the number of glyptic products related to Mark Antony seems insignificant if compared to his main opponent Octavian (cf. chapter 12 and maps 39-41). One reason for this might be lack of Antony’s interest in this kind of art or a total domination of Cleopatra in promotional practices during the Civil War which concentrated on her own person (cf. chapters 9.3.2.1-9.3.2.9). Another reason is very little amount of glyptic material published from Turkey, Syria, Palestine, Egypt and other countries of the East Mediterranean and even published collections usually the private ones with virtually no information as to objects provenance.2272 Nevertheless, it is noteworthy to observe that regarding first attempts of the Romans in application of gems for self-promotion (e.g. portrait gems), the earliest ones were crafted by Greek engraves in the East Mediterranean during their numerous military campaigns (cf. chapter 6.2.1). Pompey the Great and Julius Caesar alike had some of their portrait gems cut in the east (cf. chapters 8.1.5 and 8.2.4 respectively). Although the gems themselves are not specifically indicative for their propaganda applications in the East, as mentioned above, sealings recovered from Hellenistic and later archives deliver some evidence for that phenomenon actually to occur (cf. above). 2271 Plantzos 1999, pp. 63-64 and 111-112; Tassinari 2008, pp. 263-266 and 279-286. 2272 This is the case of the following: Hamburger 1968; Middleton 2001; Konuk and Arslan 2000; Wagner and Boardman 2003. 2273 Richter 1956, p. IX; Henig, Scarisbrick and Whiting 1994, p. XX. 2274 Henig, Scarisbrick and Whiting 1994, p. XIX. There are many institutions in the USA holding collections of engraved gems that include objects important for this dissertation. The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York preserves a good number of both masterpieces and average works of glyptic art. There were many benefactors who contributed to it, primarily Luigi Palma di Cesnola (1832-1904) whose collection was formed mainly in Cyprus.2273 Charles William King (1818-1888) author of several books on engraved gems collected them passionately mainly in Rome where he used to spend winters adding to these some, he acquired at the London art market.2274 His collection was presented in 1881 by John Taylor Johnston.2275 Unfortunately, apart from these two examples provenance information of the objects presented by other donators like Julien Gréau, J. Pierpont Morgan, Helen Miller Gould, Benjamin Altman, Richard B. Seager, Milton Weil and especially William Geadney Beatty cannot be verified by careers of those figures or in any other way. Therefore, if any provenance information is given, one must either accept it as it stands or reject straightforward. It is noteworthy to mention that the prosperous museum itself purchased single gems from the art market, many times outstanding objects from celebrated collections like the Wyndham Cook, the Marlborough, the Story-Maskylene, the Southesk and Evans collections which were already discussed above.2276 2275 Richter 1956, p. IX. 2276 Richter 1956, p. IX. 2277 Beazley 1920; Boardman (ed.) 2002. 2278 Boardman (ed.) 2002, p. 3. 2279 See a full list in: Spier 1992, p. VII. The Museum of Fine Arts in Boston keeps another outstanding collection of engraved gems of which many specimens have been included into this thesis. There is no single catalogue of Boston gems and likewise the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, the institution was an active purchaser of antiquities since its inception but especially since 1885 when its curators and agents like Edward Robinson (1858-1931) or Edward Perry Warren (1860-1928) sought to the best works of ancient art including intaglios and cameos. The latter amassed a considerable collection of those in his residence at the Lewes House, East Sussex in England which were studied first by John Beazley and were recently republished by Boardman.2277 The outstanding Lewes House collection of gems was created by Warren through purchases made from multiple resources, thus, their original provenance (if provided at all) cannot be successfully verified.2278 In addition to this, some objects held by the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston entered it through collaborative excavations with the Harvard University as well as its own archaeological expeditions. Over the past fifty years the J. Paul Getty Museum in Malibu proved particularly successful in obtaining and purchase of engraved gems. A substantial part of its assemblage comes from relatively recent private donations.2279 Since these represent a new, contemporary wave of gem collecting, unfortunately the provenance of their purchases cannot be verified in any reasonable way so that one must either believe what is said or reject the spontaneous provenance information provided. Nevertheless, some general observations to the Roman Republican and Augustan material published by Spier reveals that even though many Getty’s objects are said to have been found in Tunisia, they were originally manufactured in Italy.2280 2280 Spier 1992, p. 77. 2281 Berges 2002, p. 12. 2282 Berges 2002, p. 70. 2283 Said to have been bought in various places like Athens, Istanbul, Cairo or Switzerland, see: Berry 1968, preface. 2284 Forbes make it clear that proveniences indicated on the card museum she worked on are doubtful, see: Forbes 1981, pp. XX-XXI. 2285 Cf. provenance information provided in the catalogue part of the study and individual entries in each chronological category. A sort of exception among the American museums holding collections of engraved gems is the University Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology in Philadelphia. This is because the core of its assemblage is over 3400 gems donated by Maxwell Sommerville (1829-1904). However, this huge cabinet includes all possible glyptic works including gems purchased in Asia and Oceania acquired by the collector during his numerous travels around the world.2281 The number of ancient pieces reaches 357 objects among which Roman Republican and Augustan works account to one of the most numerous group (unfortunately excluding cameos which remain unpublished). Considering unusual even for a collector of antiquities and works of arts mobility, it is difficult to verify credibility of most of the items, however, it can be fairly securely said that most of them come from Italy. Sommerville visited Rome several times in his life and wandered throughout Italy which makes this supposition more likely.2282 Finally, single objects have been used from the following American institutions: Walters Art Museum in Baltimore, Indiana University Art Museum in Bloomington,2283 Bowdoin College in Brunswick, Maine, Museum of Art in Cleveland, Oriental Institute in Chicago, Art Museum, Princeton University in Princeton,2284 New Jersey and The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art in Kansas City. With a few exceptions, all the specimens from those institutions have no provenance information verifiable. In addition to these, I used 50 gems that remain in private collections in Europe and the USA and I was unable to find out their provenance information too. I also used 58 gems which have been published but they remain lost since then, thus their provenance information could not be verified anymore.2285 A thorough analysis of the histories of all the collections listed above as well as history of gem collecting in general, made it possible to reconstruct provenance of 38% out of total propaganda gems discussed in the thesis (cf. table 2 and chart 1). Furthermore, I was able to distinguish several areas where the intaglios and cameos related to Roman Republican and Augustan politics could have been found or at least purchased. Map 4 illustrates them. The unquestionable leader is Rome where the greatest number of collectors are reported to buy their gems, some exclusively while others mainly. Rome definitely was the biggest trade spot for engraved gems for centuries due to its own inexhaustible resources until the unification of Italy in 1870s as reported by Count Tyszkiewicz.2286 As already mentioned, it certainly absorbed a lot of material originating from other parts of Italy and probably even beyond, but its own resources cannot be simply denied or ignored. Rome is the natural place where the biggest target groups of propaganda gems were located. It was a political centre and there was no better place where gems transmitting political messages or used for political purposes could be fully exploited. Rome was full of noblemen eager to invest in luxury products like intaglios and cameos and using them for their own promotion. Cheap glass gems were possibly utilised there too in the greatest degree among the ordinary people. Another important thing is that gems were private objects and their political use required from their owners to be politically active. Rome was certainly a place where considerable numbers of people were engaged in politics and thus wanted to manifest their views by using gems in the finger rings. It should be pointed out that the results presented here stays in consistency with archaeological observations concerning the stylistic, material and formal aspects of the 3rd-1st century BC and especially late 1st century BC-early 1st century AD.2287 2286 Tyszkiewicz 1898, pp. 43-44. 2287 Maaskant-Kleibrink 1978, pp. 99-196; Zazoff 1983, pp. 261-268; Hansson 2005, pp. 41-45; Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, pp. 144-146; Tassinari 2008, pp. 261-270. Apart from Rome itself, it is noteworthy to see that many collectors suppled themselves with gems in the close neighbourhood of Rome, that is in Central Italy. The region of Campania is also well represented but the fact is that it is often difficult to specify a concrete region, thus Italy in general also occupies a high position on the list. Because of Sir Arthur Evans meticulous notes, it is possible to suggest propaganda gems occurrence in Dalmatia and Greece, but their numbers are not considerable. Similarly, not many propaganda gems can be traced as originating from East Mediterranean which might be partially due to the already mentioned lack of published material and any provenance information. The last of Rudolph’s types of contexts is no context, in which case no information whatsoever exists on provenance and find circumstances and these cannot be obtained from any kind of archival or material analyses. This is the most frequent case for engraved gems (49% - cf. table 2 and chart 1) and it should be singled out here that it might affect the results of my investigations. Without context, it is often impossible to determine object’s function or its owner and chronology. Therefore, like in any other archaeological studies, glyptics seem highly speculative, but the researchers managed to collect enough data (cf. ‘state of research’ - chapter 2.1) enabling now for verification of some hypothesises about gems occurrences and findspots. Besides, those circumstances encourage at least an attempt of taking into account the results of provenance reconstructions discussed above. Otherwise, one ends up questioning everything because even 7% of gems having reliable provenance indicated above have also its drawbacks and uncertainties. All in all, a general conclusion might be drawn that the vast majority of gems related to politics one way or another was utilised and even maybe produced in Central Italy, which is here understood as a combination of Latium, Campania and Tuscany regions together. No definitive distinction of specific workshops is possible giving the speculative character of data analysed. It is noteworthy that the results of my provenance reconstruction based on provenience analysis are generally consisted with other data obtained. Rome and Italy in general are the most frequent locations reported by collectors in various archival resources to have found or purchase propaganda gems (cf. maps 2-3). At the first glance Rome and Italy are not the prime locations for gems with controlled context (cf. map 1), but the Campanian cities yield with some evidence as do several other places. Interestingly, in all four types of context reconstruction methods, Aquileia appears on the map, but it never contributes with huge amounts of gems one could interpret as propagandistic. Even though the centre is reported to produce several thousands of intaglios throughout its history, Roman Republican and Augustan portrait gems, which are the most relevant for political use, are scarce and they are likely to be imports rather than local products (cf. cat. nos.: 6.63-64, 160, 7.63, 78, 8.186, 9.162, 185, 311, 399-400, 587, 760, 10.67-69 and 793). Among them, the most numerous are those related to Octavian/Augustus (9.162, 185, 311, 399-400, 587, 760, 10.67-69 and 793) which proves his production of propaganda gems to be particularly efficient and influential since not only in Aquileia, but also in Sardinia as well as Dalmatia one encounters intaglios and cameos popularising him (cf. above). To conclude, all four methods of provenance reconstruction applied in this study together suggest more or less the same situation and hence, the last based on the provenience analysis, although speculative, should not be straightforwardly rejected. A general picture is that Rome and Central Italy were the areas where propaganda gems were produced or at least utilised to the greatest degree, whereas neighbouring provinces like Sardinia, Northern and Southern Italy or Dalmatia were under their strong influence, thus, the next considerable concentrations of propaganda gems occur there. Consequently, propaganda gems were transferred to further distances thanks to Roman soldiers who were their keen users and travelled with them either to the Rheinland, France, Greece, Asia Minor, East Mediterranean or even North Africa regions. Going into details, the analyses carried out above suggest that in the period spanning between 3rd and 2nd century BC, gems related to self-promotion and propaganda were mostly used in Central Italy, but some were also utilised or produced in the East Mediterranean (cf. maps 5-8). This supports the conclusions drawn before about the first attempts in glyptics’ applications for self-promotion in the East Mediterranean where prominent Roman generals penetrating and successively conquering these regions used services of Greek gem engravers working in this part of the world (cf. chapter 6.2). At the same time, local production of gems transferring individual or state propaganda messages yielded with many products in Italy (cf. 6.3). In the early 1st century BC the number of gems one might relate to politics is not large but given those one has some trends might be observed. For instance, only in case of Sulla several gems are likely to have been produced or used in the East Mediterranean which is possibly due to his engagement in the Roman conquests and military activities in this region yet, majority of the gems related to him come from Rome and other parts of Italy (maps 9-12). If it goes to Marius, the only information one could get suggest the propaganda gems related to him to be utilised in Rome and surrounding areas (map 13). The same applies to other, less significant politicians who promoted themselves mainly through portraits and family symbols (maps 14-17). The reconstructed provenance matches then the factual political situation since the rivalry between Sulla and Marius took place mainly in Rome and similarly other politicians were engaged in various political activities in the capital as well. There is a change during the rivalry between Pompey the Great and Julius Caesar. Only a few gems could be placed on the map but even those deliver interesting information. For in case of Pompey one observes some of them to have been possibly found in East Mediterranean, including Syria which became a subject of Roman governance thanks to Pompey’s activities in this area. Still, Rome and Central Italy dominate among the gems possibly related to him with their provenance reconstructed (maps 18-20). Interestingly, one intaglio with his portrait was found in Xanten which shows that propaganda gems remained in use even dozens of years after Pompey’s death. Regarding Julius Caesar, the vast majority of his propaganda gems are likely to have been used in Rome and Central Italy, but there is one interesting object said to have been recovered in Egypt (maps 21-24, cat. no. 8.122). This exceptional portrait attributed to Caesar could have been executed only in the East because it would be probably unacceptable in Rome due to too strong indications for sought to sole power, therefore, the information of its origin in Cairo makes it a very interesting piece perhaps indeed cut for Caesar during his stay in Egypt. Concerning gems produced for other statemen and nobility members a trend from the previous period is continued since Rome and Central Italy deliver equally much evidence (maps 25-28). As to the pompeians faction, not much can be said except for some vague traces of their activities in Spain to be reflected by a gem found in Lebrija, but a few more are housed in Spanish museums provoking to think that Gnaeus and Sextus Pompey could have used gem engravers’ services already when there. Furthermore, several gems are likely to origin from Southern Italy which would correspond to Sextus refuge in Sicily which was near (maps 29-31). In case of the republicans, noteworthy is the fact that single objects might come from Athens or Greece as well as from Asia Minor and Lebanon which corresponds with political activities of Marcus Iunius Brutus and Quintus Cassius Longinus in those areas. Still, probably when they come back to Italy to fight the caesarians, many of their supporters used gems with their images to manifest allegiance to their faction and as a result most of the propaganda gems originate from Italy (maps 32-34). As it will be shown in chapter 12, Octavian was the one who invested the most in propaganda on gems and this is well represented on the maps illustrating potential provenance of those which were possible to be reconstructed. One observes great concentration of the material in question in Rome and Central Italy, but supposedly because of Octavian’s army movements as well as far-reaching contacts, his propaganda gems were scattered across the whole Roman Empire, although there is a clear discrepancy between those found in its western part rather than the eastern one (maps 35-38). This might be due to the fact that in the 30s Mark Antony ruled in the East Mediterranean. Even though he does not seem to match Octavian in his propaganda efforts applied to glyptic art, still, several intaglios and cameos related to him are likely to origin from Asia Minor and East Mediterranean (maps 39-41). There are only a few gems one might link to Marcus Aemilius Lepidus and except for a sealing attributed to him from Artashat (Armenia), the gems one rates to him come from Rome (maps 42-43). In case of other Roman politicians contemporary to the mentioned factions, the trend from the previous periods continues which means most of the gems related to their promotional practices origin from Rome and Central Italy (maps 44-45). The same applies to women, however, it must be remembered that in this case it is difficult to judge to what degree female portrait ad other propaganda gems are indeed related to politics and not personal adornment. In any case, the biggest concentrations of such material occur in Rome and Central Italy and because I have proved that Octavian promoted his sister Octavia and his wife Livia in glyptics quite early, one supposes that this situation results from this process rather than any other (private?) initiative (maps 46-48). Finally, in case of Augustus one basically observes the same patterns as those known from Octavian’s activities. Rome dominates entirely with a secondary role of Central Italy and a good number of gems are said to have been found in military zones within the whole Roman Empire. The only two differences are the following: the scale of the whole phenomenon seems a bit smaller than before and one can now clearly point to locations in the East Mediterranean (Smyrna, Asia Minor, Cyprus, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt) where propaganda gems related to the first Emperor of Rome have been found or are said to have been found. This mirrors not only widespreading of the Imperial cult to which glyptic products certainly accounted and were used for, but also the increasing importance of glyptics as a propaganda medium in promotion of Augustus’ successors and especially his political and cultural programme as well as the lifestyle in general. More and more people were adopting the Roman way of life and the Imperial inner circle as well as local elites in Roman provinces were certainly beneficiaries of products created by Imperial court workshop. These were further replicated and used by ordinary people, usually in cheaper materials that they could afford. The result was a far-reaching unification of glyptic production under Augustus and a great success of his political agenda. Some of the final remarks in this chapter should concern possible ways of propaganda gems production and distribution. The evidence presented in the third part of the thesis clearly indicates that Roman political leaders invested considerable financial means in their patronage over gem engravers. This phenomenon evolved in time. In the 3rd and 2nd century BC one observes Roman generals and statemen infiltrating the East Mediterranean to imitate Hellenistic kings in employment of gem engravers to cut mainly portrait intaglios and cameos for them (cf. chapter 6.2.2). Such transactions were mutually beneficial as discussed in chapter 13.3. This trend continued in the early 1st century BC when some Greek masters transferred their businesses to Rome in order to work for new clients like Sulla, Marius and many other noblemen (cf. chapters 7.1.2 and 7.4.1). At the same time gem engravers were employed not only to produce luxury goods for their patrons, but they also start to cut their private seals transmitting powerful propaganda communications which is confirmed by ancient literary sources (cf. chapter 7.1.1). The patronage of Roman political leaders over gem engravers accelerated and expanded considerably during the rivalry first between Pompey the Great and Julius Caesar (cf. chapters 8.1.3-8.1.4 and 8.2.2 and 8.2.3) and then in the period of the post-caesarian and liberators’ civil wars (44-31 BC) (cf. chapters 9.1.1-9.1.2, 9.2.1, 9.3.1.2-9.3.1.3, 9.3.2.1-9.3.2.2). The final phase of this process took place in the times of Augustus since the first emperor of Rome successfully organised Imperial court workshop lead by Dioscurides and his sons who produced not only his personal seals, but also a good number of masterpieces as well as more utilitarian works that helped the emperor to introduce new ideology, new political system based on a sole rule and establish a dynasty with strongly promoted young successors (cf. especially chapters 10.2-10.3 and 10.9-10.11). It remains disputable to what extent Roman political leaders were responsible for production of other classes of propaganda gems. It seems unlikely that they controlled a significant part of glyptic production at the time or major centres like Aquileia (which is probably the best case showing that such industries operated totally independently) even though in case of Octavian/Augustus, the number of gems plausible to transmit his propaganda messages is high. It is more likely that they used services of the few the most prominent gem cutters and either by issuing their commissions, acting as examples followed by their supporters or in other ways, they strongly influenced the market and production of gems especially in Rome and Central Italy as evidenced also by the provenance research (cf. above). One may only make more or less educated guesses if they instructed gem engravers being not in the range of their direct employment to cut intaglios and cameos with subjects suitable to their propaganda efforts. Perhaps they did to some degree, especially giving the fact that so many glass gems are those one can link to various propaganda activities. Glass gems were particularly useful for propagandists since they were cheap in production and still transmitted their communications successfully to the recipients. The evidence presented in the third part of the study reveals that the main political leaders were followed by their less prominent counterparts (chapters 6.3, 7.4, 8.3 and 9.4). It is certain that gem engravers worked on private commissions of Roman nobility primarily producing portrait intaglios for them, but gems reflecting family allegiances were also popular (cf. also remarks in chapters 13.5 and 13.8). Noteworthy is the example of engraver Heius who in my and Boardman’s opinion is more likely to be a freedman employed by the Heius family rather than by Julius Caesar. His employment confirms considerable engagement into glyptic art of the Roman elites (cf. chapter 8.2.2). It is tempting to suggest that a good number of followers to the Roman statemen were engaged in the production of propaganda gems too. One easily imagines a follower of Julius Caesar or Sextus Pompey wishing to have a portrait of his leader engraved upon his personal ring in order to manifest his allegiance to his faction and loyalty (cf. chapter 13.6). This is the next reason why it is so difficult (if possible at all) to assess to what extent Roman political leaders were responsible for production of gems related to their propaganda activities. They could stimulate such a production either by their own example, donations of gems being products of artists controlled by them which were inspirational for others or simply by making suggestions to their followers Finally, the last observation is that production and usage of engraved gems by top Roman politicians resulted in a considerable influence of the market. This means by their actions they created trends and fashions for specific kinds of gems like the ones bearing their portraits or the symbolic ones like in case of Sulla, Julius Caesar and Octavian/Augustus (cf. chapters 7.1.6, 8.2.9, 9.3.1.9 and 10.8). In such cases promotion of general ideas or a well-designed ideology and political programme addressing the basic needs of ordinary people like peace and prosperity in the midst of civil war could be particularly successful. As a matter of fact one observes similar mechanisms in coinage, sculpture or relief so that when the audience was bombarded with the same messages it started to believe in them and replicate them on its own. The trends introduced by politicians became fashionable especially in the times when political consciousness and engagement of ordinary people was at such a high level as in the Late Roman Republic and under Augustus, so that the propaganda machinery started to be self-driving. In other words, at least in cases of the three above-mentioned Roman political leaders the glyptic material presented in the third part of the thesis supports a view that gem engravers could produce similar gems to those promoted by political leaders on their own because these were the highly-desired products at the market. Furthermore, the material gathered in the thesis also indicates that political actions that were not primarily concerned with glyptics but with other branches of art ultimately impressed their impact on this art form too. A good example of that is the installation of Myron’s heifers in the Palatine Hill by Augustus which was a subject of a very specific propagandistic action that ended up with a surprising (perhaps to Augustus himself too) popularity of this subject in glyptics (cf. chapter 10.8). Finally, all these reasons resulted in a considerable production of glass gems – cheap replicas that were massively produced at the time and they often transmit propaganda messages.2288 However, one is unable to determine if their production was somehow controlled by political leaders or not. The evidence presented in this thesis suggest a combination of two: the key political figures certainly 2288 Yarrow 2017, p. 87. stimulated their production but because of the high demand for such gems among the people, single workshops could easily produce them to meet that demand with their supply making a good business too. Of course, there were many more motivations for cutting engraved gems in the Roman Republic and Augustan periods like sealing, expressions of private believes, philosophical views or collecting, but the three main models of production discussed above are the ones most likely related to politics.2289 2289 Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, pp. 6-20; Casagrade-Kim 2018, p. 105. 2290 Zazoff 1983, p. 329. Regarding target groups of Roman engraved gems it is useful to evoke here a classification proposed by Zazoff. For the times of Augustus, he divides glyptic products into three main categories: 1. Aristocratic glyptics - portrait gems as well as those featuring classical subjects and those copied from statues and other media; 2. Popular glyptics – to which account propaganda gems and those bearing subjects related to the private sphere; 3. Universal glyptics (‘Reichsglyptik’) – mass production of gems bearing the most popular subjects including those suitable for legionaries, personal amulets and magical gems.2290 According to Zazoff, propaganda gems fall into the second class, which is an oversimplification. The research presented in the thesis demonstrates that propaganda gems reached all strata of the Roman society. The works of top artists active between the 3rd century BC and the early 1st century AD were usually commissioned by political leaders (as long as the Romans are concerned) because they could afford to use such luxurious and expensive services. The masterpieces portraits as well as panegyric gems cut for Augustus by numerous artists employed in his Imperial court workshop were limited in use and display to the very few. This group includes the emperor, members of his family as well as members of his inner circle – the closest followers. The number of created portraits of Augustus’ successors supports a view that some groups of gems were distributed to powerful aristocrats in Rome and beyond in order to ensure a successful succession. Moreover, some of the best pieces were surely sent abroad to the client kingdoms and rulers of the lands neighbouring with the Roman Empire as diplomatic gifts either to impress them and to ascribe their favor. In this instance, engraved gems certainly played a similar role to sivler or gold medallions which are discovered on territories that were not under direct Roman control but sustained close relationships. A good example of that are the Celtic tribes living in south-eastern Britain in the second half of the 1st century BC. In the tombs of their aristocracy silver or gold medallions depicting Augustus are sometimes found.2291 Henig notices that the very few gems predating the conquest of Britannia in 43 AD might have come there as diplomatic gifts or they were carried there by Roman soldiers and settlers to whom they passed down from predecessors.2292 Some good pieces may have been gifted to high-rank generals in the army because such expensive gifts surely created a long-lasting bound between a donor and a recipient. Even though majority of political affairs took place in Rome itself, it was highly important to sustain and care for good relationships with the local elites in provinces, especially those in the East Mediterranean where glyptic art was widely appreciated for centuries. Therefore, one observes propaganda gems to be found on those territories as well as used for sealing purposes there. Gems transmitting political messages or those which could have been used in any other way related to politics were surely sent to the provinces to strengthen bounds with local governors. The mechanism should be similar to that of diplomatic gifts. It was a mutually beneficial situation when a propagandist was ensured about loyalty and support of local elites, whereas their members strengthened their position showing connection with a powerful Roman politician (cf. also chapter 13.6). 2291 See, for instance a silver medallion with a portrait of Augustus discovered in in the Lexden Tumulus in Colchester: Foster 1986, pp. 90-92. 2292 Henig 2007, nos. 410, 467 and app. 48. 2293 Vollenweider 1955, pp. 100-101. It is also supposed that gems produced on the commissions or under the instruction and influence of Roman politicians were distributed to their followers for instance during the triumphs and other celebrations since gems played a very important role in integration propaganda.2293 The careful analysis of propaganda gems’ iconography reveals that many subjects included references to military units or victories making them suitable for Roman legionaries. This group probably included the most important recipients of propaganda in the times of continuous civil war. This is also suppo rted by the data obtained from the provenance analysis which reveals some concentrations of propaganda gems in military zones (cf. above). Some particular cases, like an intaglio featuring head of Pompey the Great found in Xanten (cat. no. 8.23), clearly demonstrate that a bound created between a propagandist and his follower materialised as an intaglio set in a personal ring was remarkably durable since it probably passed down within one family. Finally, mass products were delivered to the people of Rome and ordinary citizens in Italy and perhaps beyond. The amount of glass gems transmitting political agendas is vast and these casual and cheap products could not impress with their beauty and level of craft since they were moulded from matrixes. Nevertheless, they fulfill the very basic role of propaganda – they successfully delivered messages emitted by propagandists. They were utilitarian products also enabling the poor strata of the Roman society to participate in political life and to express their affinities with specific factions very much like regular, more expensive gemstone intaglios.2294 2294 Yarrow 2018, p. 35. 12. Statistics The results of provenance reconstruction discussed in the previous chapter, although based on very hypothetical grounds, suggest some possible trends either in production and distribution of gems presumably related to politics in the Roman Republican and Augustan periods. The possible ways of production and distribution have been discussed too, therefore, in this chapter some basic statistics are presented to show further evidence for the already proposed conclusions as well as those that will be more extensively displayed in the next chapter (13). The first general conclusion is that production of gems related one way or another to politics increased considerably over time (cf. chart 2). Even though there seems to be a fairly big production of those in the period called henceforth ‘Beginnings’, it should be excluded from general statistical analysis because it covers unproportionally long period of time (two centuries) in comparison to other periods distinguished and most importantly because even though there are some signals about political use of gems in the 3rd and 2nd century BC, most of the examples discussed in the dissertation are hypothetical and problematical, e.g. their political function is definitely only optional (for the specific reasons, cf. chapters 5.2 and 6), whereas since the early 1st century BC there are more certain grounds to claim that gems were integrational part of propaganda mechanisms. Concerning some further general observations, chart 10 shows that the most important category of propaganda gems were those related to personal branding and self-promotion as well as induction and manifestation of loyalty and support. The next significant category is formed by the objects illustrating religious, divine and mythological references made by individual politicians towards the gods and other supernatural figures they venerated the most. Gems bearing various combinations of symbols reflecting complex political programmes were also abundantly produced, especially by Octavian/Augustus. Furthermore, commemoration of important events, especially military victories was another popular promotional issue for which intaglios and cameos were employed. References to family legends, promotion of one’s orgio and use of heritage were less frequently addressed matters and while the first were popular primarily in the early phases (to be rediscovered once more only by Augustus), the latter concerned the most the period between 44 and 31 BC. As to other categories, products of gem engravers directly employed by Roman politicians seem to never reach considerable size and attention likewise production of luxury vessels, State Cameos etc., but their meaning and level of appreciation are not well reflected in their quantity, but in quality which cannot be properly measured by statistical methods. This issue was widely discussed in relevant chapters (cf. 7.1.2, 8.1.3, 8.2.2, 9.1.2, 9.2.1, 9.3.1.2, 9.3.2.2, 10.2 and 10.9). Finally, some categories distinguished like ‘promotion of faction’ are extremely problematic due to shared qualities with portrait gems and objects from other categories, therefore, only a few specimens clearly focusing on this propagandistic activity could be distinguished. Even though as informed the first chronological class proves problematical to include it to the general statistics, it is worth the effort to analyse some basic trends for potential political applications of gems in the 3rd and 2nd century BC. Chart 11 illustrates which areas of promotional practices are supposed to be the most appealing for the beginners. It is clear that auto-representative function of intaglios was the most successful and important one (42% of all analysed gems dated to this period) and it is suggested that it was the main reason why gems became such a common and powerful propaganda channel later in the 1st century BC. Commemoration of military victories and exhibition of physical prowess were these qualities that common users of intaglios desired to exhibit among their peers too. Personal branding was another very important area (34%) mostly because it offered social distinction to those who had their portraits cut by distinguished artists that sometimes signed their works (cf. cat. nos.: 6.78 and 86-87) and also because it was possible to make oneself more recognisable through distribution of such products as special gifts that created a durable bound between emitters and receivers. Even though patronage of Roman prominent figures over gem engravers seems insignificant (1%), its appearance itself is of major importance. This is related to Roman generals infiltrating East Mediterranean where they occasionally used services of Greek gem cutters. It is interesting to observe a substantial proportion of gems related to promotion of family and oneself through orgio (23%). As discussed in chapter 6.3.1, family symbols and scenes related to family legends appear mostly on gems dated to the second half of the 2nd century BC which correlates well with observations on occurrence of this phenomenon in Roman Republican coinage and art in general too (cf. also remarks in chapter 13.8). The first more or less reliable moment when gems became political tools was the early 1st century BC. This is confirmed not only by the archaeological material but also literary sources presented and analysed in chapter 7 of the dissertation. If compared to later times, the activities of Sulla, Marius and their contemporaries are insignificant which means that glyptics was still a very personal medium purposed to affect a few rather than masses (cf. chart 2). Among the political leaders active those days, Sulla dominates entirely whereas activities of Marius or Lucius Licinius Lucullus are marginal (cf. charts 3-4). Sulla is the only one figure with whom one may link specific phenomena like appearance of symbolic gems probably reflecting successfulness and popularity of his political programme (cf. chapter 7.1.6). Moreover, it can be put forward that his devotion to the cults of Venus, Apollo and other deities had some impact on his followers since there is an increase of gems bearing representations of these deities during his political domination (cf. chapter 7.1.5). Because Sulla frequently travelled to the East Mediterranean, one supposes that he contacted some Greek gem engravers there and this might have sparked his personal taste for luxury works of art such as engraved gems. In consequence, it is probable that the dictator employed artist named Protarchos to cut intaglios and especially cameos for him (cf. chapter 7.1.2 and charts 9, 12 and 13). There was certainly some production of Sulla’s portrait gems and maybe those which commemorated his political and military successes, however, they are difficult to identify and hence, the scale of their production cannot be properly measured. Regarding other political applications of intaglios and cameos one observes a considerable dispersion, which means that many single figures used to issue propaganda gems and the most popular way of doing this was production of portrait intaglios and objects purposed to self-promotion (cf. charts 10, 12 and 16). Even though Marius and Lucius Licinius Lucullus are testified to engage gems into politics during their triumphs or diplomatic missions and perhaps through collecting (cf. chapters 7.2.1 and 7.3.1), the only measurable output of propaganda gems related to them are their portrait intaglios (which are in some cases very problematic due to uncertain identification and even authenticity, cf. chapters 7.2.2 and 7.3.2 and charts 4, 12 and 14-15). Concerning less significant political figures, the first observation to make is that they attempted to promote themselves through gems using especially portrait intaglios for that purpose (cf. chart 16). The second observation is that there is a clear continuation in promotion of family and oneself by putting on personal gems images related to family legends and myths. Finally, it might be suggested that a few used intaglios bearing configurations of symbols reflecting their own political views or qualities which they wanted to proudly exhibit (cf. chart 16). There is a noticeable increase in production of engraved gems that one may link with politics in the next chronological period distinguished that primarily concerns rivalry between Pompey the Great and Julius Caesar (ca. 70-44 BC). The number of such objects almost doubled in comparison to the previous period (cf. chart 2). Furthermore, there is a clear superiority both in number and quality of the products related to Julius Caesar rather than Pompey (cf. charts 3 and 5). As to the structure of the main categories of gems used by all political factions, gemstone intaglios prevail glass gems (cf. charts 7-8) and consequently a few cameos are known from this periods, all relate either to Pompey or Caesar with a slight advantage of the latter (cf. chart 9). This probably results from the fact that both politicians were active in the East Mediterranean where they could have had their portrait cameos cut by Greek artists. Going into details, Pompey is more successful than Caesar as far as employment of gem engravers is concerned (cf. chart 17), however, it must be highlighted that the results presented in this dissertation are based on the scanty but the only available evidence (cf. chapters 8.1.3 and 8.2.2) so that in other circumstances one does not really know what the results would be. Pompey seems more successful also if religious, divine and mythological references displayed on intaglios and cameos are concerned, but in any other general category distinguished, Julius Caesar dominates (cf. chart 17). In case of Pompey and Caesar, the high percentage of gems (mainly portrait ones) one may connect with personal branding and induction and manifestation of loyalty and support (35% for Caesar and 24% for Pompey) is on the one hand due to the increasing investments in this kind of promotional practice, but on the other hand, the progressive engagement of their numerous supporters into the political affairs as well as mutual anticipation between the these two key-figures resulted in overall need for marking and display one’s political affiliation (cf. charts 18-19). Engraved gems were probably the best tools for such a task. There are noticeable differences too, namely, whereas Pompey focused more on the religious and mythological aspects of his propaganda movements in glyptics (45% - chart 19), Caesar’s main themes were his military successes and prowess (22% - chart 17). Moreover, Caesar used to make references to Venus as his divine ancestress (5% - chart 17) which could not be countered by Pompey as he had no distinguished family story to refer. Furthermore, there is a clear reflection of Caesar universal political programme aimed at establishment of ordo rerum and displayed by a wide range of symbolic gems. Finally some traces in investing into luxury objects as State Cameos which probably illustrates his fascination for Hellenistic kingship and desire for sole rule (16% and 2% respectively – chart 17). The latter two issues may result from a considerable financial advantage of Caesar over Pompey especially after taking over the public treasure by him which allowed to invest in sophisticated channels of propaganda to which engraved gems certainly account. Concerning contemporary statemen to Pompey and Caesar, their attempts in promotion through gems was usually limited to issuing portrait gems (52% - chart 20) but there is still a considerable production of intaglios making references to family legends and myths (30% - chart 20). Even though based on more speculative grounds, again, this phenomenon can be compared to the activities of Roman moneyers who frequently used to promote their families and themselves putting similar reference on the coins which production they were responsible for. Next, there is some evidence for patronage over gem engravers (12% - chart 20) which is a good indicator for the growing market for this art form and influx of Greek cutters from the East Mediterranean to Rome. Finally, single objects testify that not only political leaders but also their less successful counterparts engaged into commemoration of some peculiar private successes through glyptics (6% - chart 20). The most complex situation occurs in the period spanning between assassination of Julius Caesar in 44 BC and Octavian’s victory at Actium in 31 BC. The production of gems possibly related to politics soared and similar results have not been reached ever since (cf. chart 2). People’s commitment into politics reached its peak and the high number of competing factions contributed to the extremely high number of propaganda gems produced those days (cf. chart 6), however, it must be stated that it was almost a single-figure phenomenon – Octavian. As the chart 3 illustrates, his employment of glyptics for political purposes was the most significant in the chronology covered by the research and chart 6 shows that he was responsible for astonishing 72% of the propaganda gems produced from 44 BC to 31 BC in total. Chart 21 displays the immense discrepancy between Octavian and his peers in nearly all the thematic classes distinguished. Furthermore, Octavian’s considerable production was the only moment when production of cheap glass gems transferring political agenda dominated over gemstone intaglios (cf. charts 7-8) and one observes the first meaningful application of cameos (either regular and glass ones) for political purposes as well (cf. chart 9). This situation may be due to various reasons. First of all, Octavian was clearly the most keen user of glyptics for political purposes in general because his propaganda covered every art form. Secondly, the high number of propaganda gems related to him suggests a good access to organised workshops and a good number of individual artists producing intaglios and cameos. As discussed in previous chapter, there is some vague evidence to claim that such workshops were located in Rome and Central Italy, perhaps Campanian cities were of some importance too. It is noteworthy that the results of the research carried out in this dissertation confirm this and politics seems to be one of the main reasons why there is such an increase in gem production in the second half of the 1st century BC in general. It is tempting to suggest that since Octavian resided for most of the time in Italy and more specifically Rome controlling the western part of the Roman Empire, he had a good access to workshops producing gems in Italy and he stimulated their work, especially if it goes to the cheap glass intaglios and cameos. None of his peers got such results and for a comparison, while there are 54 gemstone intaglios and one cameo in total that one may perhaps relate to the faction of the pompeians, only 8 glass gems are likely to be linked with their promotional activities (cf. charts 7-8). Similarly the republicans get 27 gemstone intaglios and one cameo and 12 glass gems, while Mark Antony has proportions of 42 gemstone intaglios and 5 cameos to 32 glass gems (cf. chart 9). Sextus Pompey certainly had limited access to Italy and therefore, he probably must have based his production on the local engravers available in Sicily. Similarly, the republicans probably used the services of local gem engravers in Asia Minor and the East Mediterranean, though when they come back to Italy, the production of gems for their followers might considerably have increased. Regarding Mark Antony, it is impossible to say how many gems related to him were produced when he was still in Italy and which part of the whole production was created in Alexandria. If one adds to this a possibility that supporters of each faction probably engaged into production of propaganda gems on their own too commissioning, for instance, intaglios bearing portraits of their patrons, the result is a considerable puzzle and no definitive locations for gem workshops can be pointed out. Nevertheless, some general observations can be made and as suggested above, basing on the fact that there is such a significant production of gems likely related to Octavian’ politics, it seems they were produced mainly in Rome and Central Italy and the workshops of glass gems are likely to be located in this area rather than, for instance in Sicily, due to their shortage in case of Sextus Pompey’s propaganda gems. The outstanding efforts of Octavian in terms of production of propaganda gems are the best illustrated by chart 21. The products related to him and his politics are well-represented in all categories distinguished. Noteworthy is the exceeding number of intaglios bearing his portrait (either alone or in combination with rich symbolism) which indicates his efforts to became more recognisable among people of Rome as well as integration of followers of Julius Caesar around him. This is also confirmed by the high number of gems related to the issue called here ‘use of heritage’. The display of a strong connection with his predecessor was one of the key-points of Octavian’s propaganda in general reflected not only in glyptics but also other media (cf. chapters 13.5-13.7 and chart 24). Similarly to Julius Caesar, Octavian used the widest range of possible themes suitable for intaglios and cameos including promotion of his divine ancestors - Venus and Caesar (cf. chart 24). Gems proved particularly helpful in spreading the news of Octavian’s greatest victory at Actium, but other successes were also well celebrated in glyptics (19% - chart 24). He also made numerous allusions and references to his divine patrons (14%) but most importantly, nearly a quarter of all the gems that can be linked to his politics are those reflecting his political programme in the form of symbolic constellations (chart 24). This substantial share proves that either directly and indirectly Octavian influenced the current glyptic production in general. Concerning the pompeians, it is clear that their propaganda efforts in terms of glyptics were largely limited if compared to Octavian. They mainly focused on personal branding and a good portion of the material one relates to this faction could have been manufactured in a well-organised workshop (cf. chapters 9.1.2 and 9.1.3 and charts 21-22). It is noteworthy that similarly to Octavian, Sextus was quite successful if it goes to use of heritage by application of the legend of his father elevated to the divine status (6% - cf. chart 22). There are vague indicators for some political programme to be reflected on gems too, but its scale was marginal and probably not very successful (5% - cf. chart 22). As to the republicans, they probably used services of gem engravers (2% - cf. chart 23), but the core of the gems one links to them are those related to personal branding, self-promotion, induction and manifestation of loyalty (89% - cf. chart 23). Interesting thing is that even though the republicans remained active only for 2 years after Julius Caesar’s death, the number of gems related to them is relatively high. This is most likely not due to their own input, but their followers who commissioned such a big number of gems presenting heads of Marcus Iunius Brutus and Quintus Cassius Longinus. This is indicated by the fact that if one was to say where did these gems origin from, one would point to Italy rather than Asia Minor and East Mediterranean (cf. maps 32-34). What is more, the themes other than portraits are insignificant (cf. chart 23). This shows how rapidly glyptics reacted to the ongoing political changes but on the other hand, it makes one aware that without firm and unambiguous evidence for politicians’ own engagement into production of propaganda gems (lack of information on their personal seals, scarce information about potential employment of gem engravers), the archaeological material itself might be misleading and does not confirm this direct input alone. Regarding Mark Antony, employment of gem engravers is certainly due to the favourable conditions provided by Alexandria and the Ptolemaic court of Cleopatra VII which was supportive to glyptic art for centuries. Hence, so many products of Sostratos can be linked with this politician (8% - chart 25). The number of portrait gems is comparable to that commemorating Antony’s successes (27% and 25% respectively – chart 25), but there is a frequent use of his family legend and deriving ancestry from Anton and Heracles (18% - chart 25). The gems addressing religious and divine references are the effects of Antony’s late identification with Neos Dionysus (13%) to which one adds 4% of symbolic intaglios (cf. chart 25). The third triumvir – Marcus Aemilius Lepidus – is linked with insignificant number of gems among which portrait ones clearly dominate (cf. charts 21 and 26). The less significant politicians were not as successful in their promotional practices in glyptics as before and the only category they contribute is personal branding and self-promotion (cf. charts 21 and 27). A new distinctive group form women but the gems bearing their images, either human and deified ones are highly problematic (cf. charts 21 and 28). This is because of considerable problems with their identities which are very rare to be unquestionably determined. Still, it seems that the vast majority belong to the figures related to Octavian and in fact, they should be accounted for his promotional practices rather the independent ones. The only exception might be Cleopatra VII, but in her case, the evidence is very scanty to propose any meaningful conclusions (cf. the discussion in chapter 9.5). In 27 BC Octavian became Augustus, the first emperor of Rome, which opened a completely new chapter in production of gems related to politics. First thing to notice is that production of such objects remained almost at the same level during the reign of Augustus in comparison to the period of time when he struggled for sole rule (cf. charts 2-3). The new circumstances still required considerable efforts and investments and glyptics was no exception, but there is a marked decline in production of glass intaglios (cf. charts 7-8). Instead, one observes an unprecedented outburst of cameos, mainly those made of hardstones, but the glass ones also noted a considerable increase (cf. chart 9). It is then concluded that with establishment of Augustus’ sole rule there is a significant increase in quality of the propaganda gems. Furthermore, one observes a shift in the thematic trends as well. While portrait gems and those related to the promotion of a bound with Julius Caesar previously dominated (cf. above), now promotion of family, commemoration, religious, divine and mythological references as well as symbolic gems reflecting political and cultural programme of Augustus are the most significant (cf. charts 10 and 29). This is because glyptics mirrors well the basic changes in Augustus’ ideology. The uniformity of the Roman society was one of the most important issues now and so was a firm establishment of the secular and more importantly divine rights of the emperor to rule Rome. Finally, it was tremendously important to secure succession, therefore, promotion of Julio-Claudian family members became such an important issue as well (cf. discussions in chapters 10.6-8, 10.10, 13.8, 13.11-12). At the same time, there is a continuation of employment of gem engravers. In fact, there is enough archaeological and literary evidence for a claim that Augustus organised Imperial court workshop lead by Dioscurides and his sons (cf. chapter 10.2). Since only a tiny proportion of their works are signed, the statistics cannot reflect their factual input into production of propaganda gems properly (just 1% - chart 29). Nevertheless, it is very suggestive that the considerable increase of cameos is mostly an effect of the activity of this workshop (cf. chart 9). Dioscurides, his sons and their co-workers must also have been responsible for a substantial part of Augustus’ portrait gems, the ones promoting members of Julio-Claudian family, the State Cameos commemorating Augustus successes as well as those comparing and identifying him with deities and luxurious vessels, which were never manufactured before (cf. cart 29). Glyptics like any other branch of art was suitable to transfer Augustus’ ideology in the best, luxurious attire possible, therefore, it was much in use even after the hype of political rivalry in Rome that ceased in 31 BC. 13. Conclusions – the significance of engraved gems in Roman propaganda machinery Despite scepticism articulated by some scholars regarding creation of the holistic image of the Roman art and therefore, Roman propaganda, there is a number of activities that should be described as propagandistic if applied to Roman art.2295 In this section I would like to conclude in which areas engraved gems played a significant or supplementary role in Roman propaganda. Even though many activities are reflected in various media, it is clear that some were exclusively performed with the use of engraved gems giving them a very special cultural and political significance. There are also areas where gems were only supplementary to coins or sculpture, therefore, a comparison between gems and other categories of Roman art is made in every respect throughout the whole dissertation and especially here. Although the thesis primarily deals with engraved gems, it is essential to make such comparisons also because some mechanisms were universal to all branches of Roman art and this helps to prove gems’ usefulness for propaganda activities. Finally, according to the evidence presented in the third part of the thesis, there are also areas in which intaglios and cameos are traditionally accounted to propaganda means, but in fact it is highly difficult to prove that they had any propaganda value at all. It is my intention to present the conclusions as a sort of clasp interconnected with chapter 5.1 where I suggested some areas where gems were anticipated to play major or minor role in Roman propaganda. 2295 While for instance Hannestad even calls all Roman art propaganda (1988, p. 9) and Fulińska remarks that many other authors regard Augustan art as propaganda and Augustan propaganda as art (2017, p. 62), usually scholars are more cautious like Zanker, who says that it was the new cultural programme introduced by Augustus which required new visual language that is often called propaganda (1988, pp. 12-13) or Hölscher, who notices that one cannot create a holistic image of Roman art (2011, p. 11), but states that the idea and content always supreme over the style and technique which allows to draw a conclusion that art served politics well (2011, p. 50) and consequently, because of that there is such a unity in the Roman art in the times of Augustus (2011, pp. 77-79). One of the most important conclusions of this dissertation is that the use of engraved gems for political purposes evolved in time. It has been explained in chapter 6 that intaglios became attractive means of propaganda and self-advertisement because of their natural predispositions towards auto-presentation as well as highlight of the social status. In the 3rd and 2nd century BC gems were markers of identity not only as private seals but most importantly due to encapsulation of ideas, virtues and other self-oriented issues that were very private but publicly expressed with their help. This combined with other applications of intaglios and cameos observed first by the Roman conquerors of the east and then employed for their personal use raised their social status considerably so that in the early 1st century BC private seals of the political leaders in Rome are always described by ancient writers as transiting powerful propaganda messages (cf. chapter 7). This evolution is similar to the one observed in regard to the rings and their status within the Roman society. It is noticed that there was an increasing importance of the material the rings were made from iron through bronze and silver down to gold ones in the period of 3rd-1st century BC.2296 It is not a coincidence that the higher status of the ring in the Roman culture, the more important was the image engraved upon a gem set into it. It can be even suggested that because of the increasingly important gem images, the status of the rings raised as exceptional messages and designs required better settings.2297 It seems then that gems were predestined to be propaganda means and, as it is consistently proclaimed in this dissertation, their evolutionary usefulness for propaganda purposes is, to some degree, comparable with that of coins too, especially until the middle of the 1st century BC (cf. chapters 6-8).2298 After that point of time, many categories of intaglios and cameos are supplementary to other branches of Roman art and craftsmanship (including coinage), but the very specific objects (for instance the State Cameos) start to be created around 44 BC and they offer completely new areas for propaganda and self-presentation to the Roman political leaders to explore (cf. chapter 9). Ultimately, under Augustus, engraved gems became a vital part of emperor’s propaganda machinery fitting particularly well to the new imperial policy and being helpful in giving the Imperial court the highly distinctive social status as well as to promote successors to the throne and the Imperial family itself alongside to the values and ideas connected to them. 2296 Fourlas 1971, pp. 76-77; Hawley 2007. 2297 Furtwängler 1900, vol. III, p. 215. 2298 Fourlas 1971, p. 82; Henig 1994. 2299 Lapatin 2015, p. 117. 2300 Pliny, NH, XXXVII.6. 13.1. Use of gems in triumphs Engraved gems played a significant role in triumphs which is known thanks to ancient authors. Already Ptolemy II exhibited gems, vessels made of precious stones and other objects incrusted with them in his famous procession in honour of Dionysus in the early of the 3rd century BC.2299 Regarding Rome, as evidenced, Marius took the risk and paraded with a gold ring probably with an engraved gem inside during his triumph which was in his case counterproductive though (cf. chapter 7.2.1). As Pliny the Elder informs, a vast collection of gems was displayed by Pompey the Great during his third triumph in 61 BC.2300 Even though Pliny much criticises Pompey for ostentatious parading with precious stones, as discussed in chapter 8.1.1, this was probably general’s intention.2301 Pompey was the first that introduced so general a taste for pearls and precious stones to Rome which is actually confirmed by the relatively high number of gems featuring his own portrait whether made on his own commission or those of his followers (cf. chapter 8.1.5). The most important thing, however, about Pompey’s gem display during his triumph is that the cups like the gems were consecrated in the Temple of Jupiter. As discussed, this precedence had powerful propaganda resonance since it was a great manifestation of Pompey’s pietas erga deos. Pompey as a propagandist did not keep his treasures only for himself, but he made them public objects, at least in the eyes of ordinary people. He fulfilled his duty towards Rome and showed his pietas erga patriam that way too. Furthermore, he appeared as a connector between the people and the gods. Besides, it is noteworthy that as Pliny states, this circumstance soon brought gems into private use and intaglios as well as the murrhine vessels were soon in a great request.2302 Everyone wanted to be like Pompey with the access to these highly popular objects which is the best illustration of his propaganda success. Although, I have found very little direct proof for Pompey to have distributed gems during the triumph to the watchers, it cannot be excluded that a special issue was created to commemorate this event (cf. chapter 8.1.1).2303 In any case, even exhibition of gems must have been influential since Pliny recorded this event in his book as a milestone for massive production of engraved gems in Rome.2304 Unfortunately, there is no direct testimony for the use of gems during other triumphs until the Imperial times. It is assumed that after Pompey, other politicians exhibited them just like any other spolia of war, works of art and precious objects. Perhaps Julius Caesar, who as Pliny states, followed the example of Pompey and offered his dactyliothecae to the Temple of Venus Genetrix, first exhibited them, for instance in 46 BC during his triumph? Noteworthy is the fact that Marcellus dedicated his cabinet of engraved gems to the Temple of Apollo Palatine which could be somehow related to Augustus triple-triumph in 29 BC? In the Imperial era, gems were abundantly used during triumphs as long as to the 3rd century AD. In 71 AD they made the triumph of Vespasian, Titus and Domitian over Judea exceptionally colourful and appealing and the same was the case when Aurelian celebrated his victory over Palmyra in the 3rd century AD.2305 2301 See also a valuable commentary and similar conclusions in: Isager 1991, pp. 212-229. 2302 Pliny, NH, XXXVII.7. 2303 Such a possibility has been proposed by Vollenweider (1955, p. 103). See also: Kopij 2017, p. 255. 2304 Casagrade-Kim 2018, p. 104. 2305 Casagrade-Kim 2018, pp. 102-103. 13.2. Collecting As evidenced in chapters 6.2.3, 8.1.2, 8.2.1, 8.3.1, 9.3.2.1 and 10.1, engraved gems constituted a part of the art collecting phenomenon in antiquity. Some scholars suppose that collectors of intaglios and cameos were active in Rome already in the 2nd century BC,2306 but as proved above, the most prominent Romans used to collect engraved gems into considerable amounts only in the 1st century BC. The first one was said to have been Marcus Aemilius Scaurus, praetor in 56 BC and Sulla’s stepson.2307 He was a proquestor in Syria between 65 and 61 BC where he might have accessed a number of Hellenistic gems.2308 Pompey the Great once visited the east and conquered much of it became a keen collector of engraved gems mostly due to overtaking the dactyliotheca of Mithridates VI Eupator, king of Pontus (cf. chapter 8.1.2).2309 As one can see, the tradition of collecting gems had been borrowed by the Romans from the Greeks (cf. chapter 6.2.3).2310 Similarly to the Greeks, the Romans deposited either single objects as well as whole assemblages in the temples. Livia was said to have offered the so-called ring of Polycrates to the Temple of Concord (cf. chapter 10.1),2311 while Pompey the Great offered his collection in the Temple of Jupiter on Capitoline Hill (cf. chapter 8.1.2).2312 Julius Caesar followed his example and dedicated his six dactyliothecae in the Temple of Venus Genetrix (cf. chapter 8.2.1)2313 and Marcellus, Caesar’s nephew, consecrated his cabinet of engraved gems in the Temple of Apollo on the Palatine Hill, which perhaps was a deliberate action related to his promotion as the future successor of Augustus (cf. chapter 10.1).2314 Such acts were powerful and deliberated propaganda actions.2315 The propagandist did not keep his treasures only for himself, but he made them public objects, at least in the eyes of ordinary people. Moreover, doing this he appeared as a connector between them and the gods. An offer made of such valuable objects was an important act for the good of everyone. Of course, today, one may only guess that, but making a deposit of gems in a temple probably did not mean the collection to be untouched anymore. Its founder might have used it once there was a need, especially a military treat from barbarians. An example of Marcus Aurelius, who auctioned off furnishings from the imperial palaces, jewels, murrhine vessels and other things to raise funds 2306 Tees 1993, p. 29. 2307 Pliny, NH, XXXVII.5. 2308 Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, pp. 108-109; Lapatin 2015, pp. 117-118. 2309 Pliny, NH, XXXVII.11. About Mithridates’ collection, see: Appian, Mith. 115. 2310 Möbius 1964, p. 14; Vollenweider 1966, p. 53; Plantzos 1999, p. 9. 2311 Pliny, NH, XXXVII.8; Planztos 1999, p. 108; Lapatin 2015, p. 110. 2312 Pliny, NH, XXXVII.11. 2313 Suetonius Julis Caesar, 47. 2314 Pliny, NH, XXXVII.11-12. 2315 Zazoff 1983, p. 329. for his military campaign in 168 AD, although escaping the chronological framework of the dissertation, is a good proof of that.2316 2316 Historia Augusta, Marcus, 17.4-5. 2317 Marcobius 2.4; Boardman 1968, pp. 23 and 27; Lapatin 2015, p. 109. 2318 Plantzos 1999, p. 10; Thoresen 2017, p. 163. 2319 Casagrade-Kim 2018, p. 105. 2320 Furtwängler 1900, vol. III, p. 220. 2321 Maderna-Lauter 1988, p. 442; Ritter 1995, p. 101. 2322 Maaskant-Kleibrink 1978, p. 365. 2323 Maaskant-Kleibrink 1978, p. 365. It has been proved that some collectors were very much into their collectibles and focused not only on the objects’ value but studied them like Juba II and Maecenas.2317 Actually, Juba II was believed to have written a manuscript on engraved gems. There seems to be enough evidence to claim that the King of Mauretania was an explorer and geographer who used to compile his knowledge in the writing forms and Pliny the Elder mentions him as one of the author he used to quote while writing his Historia Naturalis book 37 devoted to the gemstones.2318 The fact that a ruler or any other high born belong to a learned society might have bring positive associations with his figure. His authority must have risen especially among the elites, hence, collecting and studying were noble practices useful for propagandists. Besides, doing this way, Juba II tried to imitate Imperial Court practices where the best artworks of glyptic art (like Gemma Augustea) were treasured (cf. chapters 6.2.3 and 8.3.1). Another question concerns production of gems for collecting purposes (cf. chapter 11).2319 There seem to be no contradictory arguments to claim that some cameos and intaglios were crafted for specific collectors, perhaps even on their commissions that may have been related to commemoration of special events like a childbirth, marriage and so forth. Glass gems are especially appealing for such a theory. Furtwängler claimed that glass gems were not produced for collecting purposes.2320 A contradictory view has been presented by Maderna-Lauter and Ritter.2321 It seems evident that not a high number, but still, some ancient glass intaglios and cameos repeat the subjects or sometimes even copy the vary famous gems, notably those signed by famous engravers.2322 Perhaps then, collectors wanted to possess a piece due to its subject, artistic virtuosity, signature or any other reason, but they could not afford commission in a workshop of a famous engraver. Therefore, they bought copies in cheap glass. Be that as it may, this is another aspect that limits the studies of ‘propaganda gems’ phenomenon’s scale.2323 Regarding collections belonging to the most prominent Roman politicians, one wonders what could be their propagandistic value. If they were not displayed publicly and kept in the treasuries, their impact on people as a large group was relatively low if not none at all. However, gems were luxury goods and if more than the best cameos and intaglios were indeed in the possession of the imperial family or any other wealthy people, they probably indirectly impressed many by the fact of their existence itself and directly only few but usually, highly selective group of people like the main generals, advisors and friends who could see and appreciate them. Possession of such objects by itself added much value and authority to the propagandist and furthermore sharing them with the people from the inner circle could be regarded as an extraordinary honour and thus was a powerful propaganda action. On the other hand, the most prominent cabinets of gems were consecrated in the temples which affected many people as they were displayed in public places. 13.3. Employment of gem engravers Employment of gem engravers by leading Roman politicians is well attested both by the archaeological material that survived until present as well as the ancient literary sources. Both have been carefully studied and discussed in this dissertation. Even though the careers of individual artists could be more or less reconstructed first, by Stosch, then by Furtwängler and most importantly Vollenweider, Zwierlein-Diehl and Plantzos,2324 here, I focused more on their potential relationships with their patrons – specific historical figures like Pompey the Great, Julius Caesar or Augustus. While there is a lot of discussion on individual cases in many chapters (cf. 6.2.2, 7.1.2, 8.1.3, 8.2.2, 9.1.2, 9.2.1, 9.3.1.2, 9.3.2.2 and 10.2), the ultimate conclusion is that employment of a distinguished artist by a Roman politician was a serious and always beneficial act of propaganda.2325 It was mutually beneficial for the artist to be under the patronage of an illustrious politician as such a situation considerably boosted his career and ensured new commissioners.2326 Secondly, a politician also benefited enormously for his patronage over the art of gem engraving made him exceptional in the eyes of his peers and worth to follow by his supporters. The tradition of political patronage over gem engravers was transplanted by the first Roman conquerors of the east from the Hellenistic prototypes already in the 2nd century BC (cf. chapter 6.2.2). 2324 Stosch 1724; Furtwängler 1900; Vollenweider 1966; Zwierlein-Diehl and 1988, 1990 and 2007; Plantzos 1999. 2325 See also the opinion of Lapatin on the significance of signed gems in antiquity (2015, p. 122). 2326 Platt 2006, pp. 233-234. Moreover, like in case of Sextus Pompey (cf. chapter 9.1.2) and especially Augustus (cf. chapter 10.2), organisation of a workshop producing gems transmitting official political messages helped a lot to popularise specific ideas among common people. As argued in chapter 11, there are proofs for existence of a quite a number of gem workshops, the biggest ones possibly concentrated in Italy, but the smaller and mobile ones were scattered across the whole empire, nevertheless, there is little direct evidence for linking them with specific political figures. Basing on the statistical analysis (cf. chapter 12), it can be only suggested that the person who controlled Rome and more broadly Italy may have influenced production of engraved gems in the 1st century BC. This stays in accordance with the main observations on the Augustan glyptics which is clearly based on some universal issues promoted by the princeps and therefore, it presents such a unified model as other branches of Roman art and craftsmanship. This view bases on the Crocian theory of history of art – art and artists were always influenced or even shaped by political and social impulses and events. This means that often artists were commissioned to execute works of art and while they chose subjects and operated within their particular styles, they must have expressed the idea someone else (politician, ruler, commissioner) told them to express.2327 This seems very true in the times of Augustus, but interestingly, the first symptoms in glyptics are noticeable as early as the early 1st century BC when Sulla told an anonymous gem engraver to prepare his first private seal featuring the defeat of Jugurtha. However, it remains an unsolved issue to what degree the political leaders of Rome directly influenced production of common gems having possibly some political references because many of them, especially those bearing configurations of political symbols could be inspired by coinage, architecture, sculpture and so on. It remains difficult if not impossible to assess politicians’ input into a creation of the universal glyptic trends, but even if not directly inspired, gems of the 1st century BC are definitely severely influenced by the current political affairs. 2327 Binachi Bandinelli 1988, pp. 151-152. 13.4. Seals There are few objects that can tell us more about personal relationships between the propagandists and their supporters and followers than official seals of Roman Republican political leaders. First of all, intaglios used as seals often confirmed and illustrated someone’s authority like in case of Tiberius Gracchus who sealed the doors of the Temple of Saturn with his personal signet ring in order to be sure that money does not come in and out without his permission,2328 or Pompey the Great who by putting his seal on the swords of his soldiers prevented their further quarrels (cf. chapter 8.1.4).2329 In chapter 5.1.4, I have shown that engraved gems functioning as seals were also used to communicate political manifestos for thousands of years. In many respects their employment in the Roman world is similar to that of the Greeks. Greek poleis and their rulers used official or state seals already in the Classical period.2330 They were often state symbols representing the office itself and indicated authority of the position they represented.2331 In the Hellenistic period, seals were officially passed by the rulers to their successors which can be classified as a propagandistic act of transfer of authority. For instance, Alexander the Great gave his personal ring to Perdikkas.2332 Similarly, Augustus while seriously ill gave his ring to Agrippa,2333 and Tiberius was about to grant his successor with his ring, but ultimately hesitated to do that (cf. chapter 10.3).2334 The case of young Lucius Scipio evoked here many times clearly illustrates how serious the Romans were about their signet rings (cf. chapter 6.3.1). I have presented ample evidence for the most prominent Roman politicians to design their official seals so that they manifested their political messages (cf. chapters 7.1.1, 8.1.4, 8.2.3, 9.3.1.3 and 10.3). But the most important conclusion is that seals, due to their strictly private character allowed to go bolder with propaganda messages than any other medium of propaganda. It is noteworthy that portraits of living persons appear on gems much earlier than on coins and there is a whole array of subjects one might think unsuitable to be openly propagated in public sphere with the use of sculpture, architecture of coinage, but they were successfully promoted in glyptics. 2328 Plutarch, Tiberius Gracchus, 10.6. 2329 Plutarch, Pompey, 10.7. 2330 Boardman 2001, p. 448. 2331 Plantzos 1999, p. 21. 2332 Plantzos 1999, p. 22. 2333 Dio Cassius, Historia Romana, 53.30. 2334 Suetonius, Tiberius, 73.2. Apart from this, it should be kept in mind that a traditional and obvious message transmitted by a person in possession of a meaningful seal would be that he holds a public office or enjoys specific privileges due to his exceptional position within the society. The material of the sealstone and its setting type definitely mattered and if worn in public, fully visible on a finger as a personal adornment, the message encoded to the image engraved upon it would be even more powerful. It is not a coincidence that Augustus’ final seal was cut by the best gem engraver of the time – Dioscurides and one supposes the other personal seals communicated in the literary sources were products of the top artists too. Furthermore, the message encoded would still be transmitted even if the gem device had ceased to be used for sealing purposes because the symbolic function or value of the object itself would have remained untouched. This important point separates engraved gems from other types of personal jewellery, such as earrings or necklaces or unengraved rings.2335 What is more, according to the presented evidence, it is clear that the symbolic value of engraved gems was rapidly growing as the time passed so that in the last third of the 1st century BC, this function probably dominated over the utilitarian one. For this reason, not only outstanding State Cameos, but even regular intaglios were so successful in promotion of Augustus’ ideology and cultural programme. 2335 Hansson 2005, p. 127; Lang 2012, pp. 102-105. 2336 Platt 2006, p. 234. 2337 Pliny, NH, XXXVII.4. 2338 Plantzos 1999, p. 22. One more observation on gems functioning as seals are finds of sealing bearing portraits of Roman politicians across the Mediterranean basin. There must have been some seals that enabled clerks and authorities in Roman provinces to act on the behalf of a ruler or patron. Actually, there was no better method to confirm such a transfer than using a seal since it was considered the only reliable sign of authorisation and identification.2336 A confirmation of that comes also from Pliny who informs us about a situation during the Civil War, when Augustus allowed Maecenas and Agrippa to use one of his official seals bearing a sphinx in his absence.2337 For the Hellenistic period, there are known vast collections of sealings found in the archives; their analysis suggests that seals engraved with portraits of rulers were used by officials and clerks acting in their name.2338 I believe the same phenomenon occurred within the Roman Republic and Empire, but seals with portraits could be also used to raise authority of a local governor at the same time. For him, having a portrait of an important Roman politician or general on his seal could be beneficial since his people had seen that he is connected with a powerful individual in Rome. Such situations were mutually beneficial because the propagandist was reassured about the loyalty of his supporter and his image was spreading across the Mediterranean basin and beyond, while his supporter in a province benefited from the authority of his patron. 13.5. Personal branding and self-promotion It has been repeatedly highlighted throughout the thesis that engraved gems, and especially cameos were objects testifying the best way to the exceptional social status of their possessors. As Pliny states, they gave auctoritas maximas and because of that so many politicians vigorously promoted themselves by putting their own images on intaglios and cameos.2339 Although it was not highly recommended, it is evident that by the end of the 1st century BC many Romans carried more than just one finger ring probably in order to increase the impact their made on their peers.2340 The portrait gems seem to be particularly popular. According to the research on this kind of gems produced in the Roman Republic and under Augustus presented in the third part of the thesis, the answer to the question of whether or not engraved gems were engaged in personal branding and self-presentation activities is by all means positive. As Henig states, one did not depict the portrait of an ancestor, or a philosopher or a god by chance.2341 Portraits whether official or private did not just appear randomly, but they were destined to mean something, usually self-glorification, popularisation of a politician (by dissemination of his image), transfer of authority (if the person depicted was an ancestor of gem’s sitter) or relationship with the patron. It seems natural to use one’s own portrait for a seal as a sort of signature but in fact employment of portraits in Roman glyptics is a vastly complex phenomenon.2342 According to the study conducted here, it can be fairly stated that portrait gems from the Roman Republican and Augustan periods in many instances functioned very much like coins, sculpture and other branches of Roman art and craftsmanship in terms of propaganda and their propaganda value is comparable alike. 2339 Pliny, NH, XXXVII.23, 85. See also commentary to this issue in: Sena Chiesa 2009, pp. 83-85. 2340 Plantzs 1999, p. 112; Lapatin 2015, p. 116. 2341 Henig 1994, pp. 152 and 157. 2342 Plantzos 1999, p. 19; Tosos 2007, p. 16; Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 13; Lapatin 2015, pp. 113-114. 2343 Sagiv 2018, p. 15. 2344 Henig 1994, p. 158. 2345 Vollenweider 1955, 1966, pp. 17-22 and 1972-1974, pp. 48-50; Gesztelyi 1982, pp. 193-195; Plantzos 1999, p. 42 and 92-97; Lang 2012, p. 107; Rush 2012, pp. 163-166. First of all, in the Roman Republic already wearing a ring inlaid with an engraved gem was considered as evidence of power and high social status.2343 As Henig says, the signet-gem was the only one mark of distinction a Roman could use and parading with other luxurious adornments was excessive and criticised.2344 Due to this fact the phenomenon of gradual introduction of exceptional self-portraits by Roman generals and conquerors of the east must be viewed as an increase of the value of these objects which were meant to make even greater impression on the viewers – most likely their peers. A quick comparison between the portrait gems described in chapter 6.2.1 (Hellenistic tradition) and 6.3.2 (Italic-Roman tradition) makes one instantly aware that the idea of employment portrait gems for propaganda and self-presentation originates from the east. It is a generally accepted view that the Romans imitated Hellenistic rulers in use of gems with portraits for personal propaganda.2345 As Plantzos observes, majority of portraits from Hellenistic gems are less official than those on coins and the same can be said about their early Roman equivalents.2346 Since intaglios and cameos were regarded as strictly private objects, there were fewer official limitations regarding self-images. Therefore, for instance, in contrary to coins, gems enabled to put portraits of a living figure much earlier (cf. chapter 6.2.1).2347 Another observation is that much more gems with portraits of the Romans are accompanied with various symbols in contrary to their Hellenistic counterparts.2348 Therefore, they might have played even more significant role in terms of propaganda and especially in personal branding activities.2349 2346 Plantzos 1999, pp. 62-63. 2347 Henig 1994, p. 155. 2348 Plantzos 1999, pp. 62-63. 2349 Guiraud 1996, pp. 121-124. 2350 Henig 1994, p. 157. The best illustration of criticism towards ostentatious use of jewellery, in fact a gold signet-gem, is the evoked triumph of Marius, see: chapter 7.2.1. Application of portrait gems for personal branding starts already in the late 3rd-early 2nd century BC and is one of the first propaganda actions to be observed on engraved gems (cf. chapter 6.2.1). In many cases the emphasis of such early glyptic portraits was not to praise the physical appearance of an individual portrayed, but rather his character as well as ability to employ a talented artist since so many examples are signed. The gemstones selected for their production are also exceptional if compared to general trends of the Roman Republican glyptics. Portraits of this period frequently demonstrate a combination of realistic and idealized modes of representation. The goal, in such instances, was not necessarily the verisim but rather presentation of recognisable images often addressing issues of power and dignity. In the course of time, continuity had been added to these value as, for instance, in case of Sextus Pompey (cf. chapter 9.1.2) and Octavian (cf. chapter 9.3.1.1 and 9.3.1.4) which was in accordance with natural development of Roman propaganda in general. Portrait gems constitute a core of the investigations on propaganda on gems carried out in this thesis, since they are so abundant. This is primarily due to the very basic principle of portraiture in Roman art which meant the image of a portrayed person to be disseminated amongst his contemporaries and descendants.2350 Furthermore, the research presented confirms that personal branding in glyptics functioned on three levels. Portraits of political leaders absolutely dominate the production of portrait gems at the time and that production culminates in the times of Octavian/Augustus political activity (cf. chapters 7.1.3, 7.2.2, 7.3.2, 8.1.5, 8.2.4, 9.1.3, 9.2.2, 9.3.1.4, 9.3.2.3, 9.3.3.1 and 10.4). It is noteworthy to highlight that many times images of the leading politicians of the Roman Republic and Augustan eras are accompanied on gems with symbols pointing to their offices, titles, military victories or divine patrons. These examples have been carefully analysed and discussed as to their potential propaganda value and they seem to be indeed purposed for personal branding (cf. chapters 7.2.2, 7.3.2, 9.2.2 and 9.3.1.4). Moreover, some portraits and sets of symbols copy images known from coins which clearly testifies to their use in propaganda actions. Among the discussed politicians, Octavian was the most successful as it goes to both variety of the portrait gems types employed (particularly numerous are those with accompanying symbolism) as well as their number (cf. chapter 12). The gems combining his portrait and sets of symbols however almost disappear when he became Augustus because having no political rivals anymore after the Battle of Actium, he concentrated on the popularisation of his own image only. It is fairly clear that the majority of portrait gems were distributed among main politicians’ followers in order to create personal bounds between a patron and his clients. These gems were also intended to popularise the image of a specific politician very much like the coins did. It is possible that a portion was commissioned by the supporters themselves who wished to manifest their loyalty and allegiance to their leader too (cf. chapter 13.6). As it is shown in the third part of the study, portraits of the main players of Roman political scene like Pompey the Great, Julius Caesar, Sextus Pompey, Mark Antony and Octavian are abundant and often cut repetitiously (even massively moulded in glass from matrixes). Their numbers were probably significant enough to have at least some impact on the public opinion (cf. chapter 12). These numbers are obviously inferior to coins, but not so much if sculpture is concerned.2351 The comparison of the glyptic material with the sculptural one turns out particularly interesting if it goes to the portraits of Julio-Claudian princes on intaglios and cameos. There are many analogies in terms of compositions, iconography, attributes used and so on. It should be concluded that portrait gems were most likely produced in the Imperial court workshop and distributed within the inner circle of Augustan house and beyond (especially to the high-rank officers in the army to which points the fact that many young Julio-Claudian princes are depicted as military commanders wearing cuirass and paludamentum) to guarantee support to the future successors. Eventually, some of them served as gifts that the emperor could arrange for his favourites (cf. chapter 10.10). 2351 For instance, according to Hannestad, today, there are known ca. 250 surviving portraits of Augustus in the round (1988, p. 47). The leaders were followed by their less influential counterparts who wished at least to have their own likenesses cut upon their personal rings to raise their social status (cf. chapters 7.4.1, 8.3.2 and 9.4). Some of the gems bearing less popular politicians might be just private portraits made for personal adornment or sealing.2352 There are also exceptions like the portraits of Juba II appearing on several intaglios which testify to his personal interest into the glyptic art and were not necessarily intended for promotion. The importance of those individual, private portrait gems lies in the fact that so many figures commissioned them which clearly shows a serious interest of the Romans in this art form. That interest probably provoked political leaders like Octavian to invest his energy and financial means into production of propaganda gems on a massive scale as they could expect to find the audience. 2352 Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, pp. 143-144. 2353 Guiraud 1996, pp. 122-123. Finally, female portraits were gradually introduced since ca. the middle of the 1st century BC (cf. chapters 8.3.2 and 9.5), but they became significant in number and quality only under Augustus (cf. chapter 10.10). It must be noted that the propagandistic potential and value of the Roman female portrait gems are extremely difficult to judge because ordinary women based their own portraits on images of the leading figures like Livia or Octavia. As a result it is hard to estimate which portion was produced for the ladies from Augustus’ court and which are private portraits usually meant for personal adornment.2353 Concerning the female members of the Julio-Claudian family, their images on gems appear relatively often due to the role they had in Augustus’ political programme. The first emperor tended to be instrumental as far as it goes to his sister and this is well illustrated in the glyptic material analysed in this study. For example intaglios presenting heads of Octavia and Mark Antony facing each other were primarily meant to commemorate their marriage which, in fact, was sealing a political pact between Octavian and Mark Antony (cf. chapter 9.3.2.6). Also, Octavia is paired with Octavian as the goddess Diana to create foundations for his dynastic plans (cf. chapter 9.3.1.2). The portraits of Livia, Octavia, Julia or Antonia Minor were presumably cut on gemstones because of intense promotion of the Imperial family as a dynasty by Augustus and female figures were embodiments of the Roman virtues or sometimes even elevated to the divine status as in case of Livia. Livia after the adoption to the gens Iulia by Augustus at the time of his death was a strong link between him and the future emperor Tiberius. She was presented as the mother of the Julian-Claudian dynasty very much like Venus was the divine mother of the gens to secure continuation of the reign by dynasty created by Augustus (cf. chapter 10.10). It must be noted that other explanations than personal branding and promotion in terms of portrait gems are possible as well. Some portrait gems could be simply treated as seals or cut for personal adornment, thus, have little in common with propaganda. Besides, it is evidenced that at least Sextus Pompey and Octavian tried to stimulate public opinion with posthumous portrait gems of their predecessors (cf. chapters 9.1.3 and 9.3.1.1 respectively) but this issue will be fully addressed in chapter 13.7. Furthermore, followers of political leaders could have commissioned gems with their portraits in the act of manifestation of loyalty and support, which shall be discussed below (cf. chapter 13.6) and finally, the popularity of the main politicians could be so powerful that ordinary gem engravers simply cut their images on their products to meet the current demand of the market, especially during the fierce rivalry in the time of the Civil War. In conclusion, personal branding is one of the most common and successful propagandistic activity performed with the use of engraved gems which is also the case regarding other branches of Roman art. It mainly accounts for agitation propaganda, but some actions can be regarded as a form of integration propaganda too. As has been said, portrait gems are of key importance for this study of propaganda on gems because of their great number, accessibility (glass gems) and the fact that these objects are the easiest to detect and ascribe to specific propagandists. Of course, there is a number of limitations, but generally, one can identify a propagandist thanks to comparisons with coins and sculptures and hence to state which target group was intended to be concerned with a specific object. This is much more problematic in case of other propagandistic actions performed through gems. Personal branding is also concerned with self-presentation. The latter should be understood here as an action by which gem’s owner promotes himself by putting an image upon a gem so that it captures his best qualities, values, ideology, religious and political believes.2354 To my mind, this aspect is very clearly noticeable in the 3rd and 2nd century while later it mingled with other aspects of propaganda such as commemoration of important events and military victories as well as divine and mythological references (cf. chapters 6.1 and 6.3). Actually, most of the later used propaganda practices derive from self- or auto-presentation. According to the presented evidence, detection of those actions on later gems as well as their correct interpretation are highly problematical. Most of them concern the usage of family symbols on gems (cf. chapters 6.3.1, 7.4.2 and 8.3.3) and promotion of Roman generals, consuls, imperators and dictators on intaglios (cf. chapter 6.3.3). 2354 Like well-stated by Torelli 2002, p. 102. 13.6. Induction and manifestation of loyalty and support The evidence presented in the third part of the dissertation clearly demonstrates that engraved gems were used both to induce and manifest loyalty and support among the clients of the Roman political leaders.2355 As to the portrait gems, one imagines that a portion of the high number of gems presenting Pompey the Great, Julius Caesar, Sextus Pompey, Marcus Iunius Brutus, Mark Antony and Octavian/Augustus was distributed by those politicians to their clients (soldiers, followers, supporters etc.) in order to gain their support and bound them with use of precious objects that would be kept for a long time reminding of the occasion and person from whom it was gifted. According to Constantine Porphyrogenitus (905-959), seal rings bearing portraits of the emperor were presented as imperial gifts to the people of Cherson during the Constantinian period. On this basis Spier argues that many engraved gems featuring imperial portraits of the Late Antiquity were distributed among the people as well as gifted to officers in the army and sent abroad as diplomatic gifts.2356 Even though there is no such a confirmation in ancient literary sources for the earlier times and in respect to Rome, it is supposed that this mechanism indeed occurred in the Late Roman Republic and under Augustus. There is much evidence for gems to be diplomatic gifts in the Hellenistic times.2357 Regarding Augustus, some scholars believe that he sent intaglios and cameos to the client kings outside of the Roman Empire.2358 This seems to be confirmed by finds of gems with Augustus portraits out of the borders of the Roman Empire. Such objects could be later used by local dynasts, dignitaries or aristocracy also to strengthen their own position and for Rome itself, these gifts guaranteed good relationships with neighbouring countries which was in accordance with Augustus general policy aimed to ensure international security to the empire. Summing up, engraved gems, especially those bearing portraits of political leaders were likely produced on the commissions of those leaders. Even the massive production of glass gems, for instance those series featuring Octavian’s head combined with various symbolism, although difficult to be judged in these terms since their production might be an effect of some general trends of the market (cf. chapter 2355 Engraved gems are often evoked as being perfect illustrations of a friendship (Platt 2006, p. 244; Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, pp. 16-17; Rush 2012, p. 143; Lapatin 2015, p. 114), then being illustrations of political allegiances i somehow self-understandable. 2356 Spier 2007, p. 20 (especially note 34 for the passage from Constantine Porphyrogenitus De Administrando Imperio). 2357 Plantzos 1999, p. 111; Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 16 who notices that many gems with portraits of Ptolemies are found out of Egypt on the territories controlled by them. 2358 See for instance: Braund 1984. 11) in fact stays in accordance to his political programme which suggests supervision over their production. It would be difficult for several individual producers to reach such a uniformity. On the other hand, there is some evidence suggesting that clients commissioned intaglios and cameos which they used by themselves or gifted to their patrons as a sign of their loyalty and support. This was mutually beneficial either for a propagandist and a recipient; the clients expected to receive specific privileges, but the propagandist also benefited since his image has been made more recognisable among people actually without much of his effort. For every Roman political leader of the 1st century BC one points at least several portrait gems where his likeness is accompanied with inscription indicating the name of the gem’s owner. They illustrate that people wanted to unambiguously manifest that they are supporters of a specific political figure. Cassius Dio even suggests that Octavian’s and Mark Antony’s veterans used specific types of rings and gems for sealing which is the best testimony to the use of gems in integration propaganda.2359 2359 Cassius Dio, Historia Romana, 48.12.2 2360 Maderna-Lauter 1988, p. 451. 2361 Pollini 1993. 2362 Sena Chiesa 2009b, p. 86. The research presented in this thesis deals primarily with three types of gems: intaglio ringstones, glass gems and cameos. Each kind was produced to reach different audience and therefore, manifestation of loyalty and support could have worked at different levels depending on object’s type.2360 For instance, it is suggested by Pollini that Gemma Augustea could be a gift to Augustus from one of his clients.2361 The same applies to portraits of imperial family members who might have been gifted precious cameos and works in the round (including cameo-vessels) on particular occasions from their followers or members of the Imperial Court in hope for being privileged afterwards.2362 Furthermore, application of gems, especially those with portraits of prominent Roman politicians, in terms of manifestation of loyalty and support should be concerned at superregional level. One imagines that in the provinces local governors could seek to ways of strengthening their position and authority. A portrait of an important Roman politician worn upon a private ring sends a message that he is related to a powerful individual in the capital – Rome, and therefore, his authority ought not to be questioned. Such a situation was also beneficial for the propagandist himself (whether he was Sextus Pompey, Mark Antony, Octavian or any other stateman) since his image was widespreading through far distances actually without much of his effort. A slightly different kind of a problem is romanisation of provinces either close to and far from Rome which might be reflected on engraved gems. Wearing specific kinds of intaglios and cameos could be related to the identification with a new, Roman culture, usually regarded as superior to the local one. Doing this way, people used to manifest their political allegiances as has been discussed as well as they expressed their political views in general. They became more engaged in the political life which was crucial if they wanted to remain as important as they were before the Roman conquest.2363 2363 Brunt 1976; Badian 2000. 2364 Marshman 2015, p. 80. 2365 Henig and Molesworth 2018, no. 69. 2366 Zanker 1988, p. 62. Regarding gravestones applying official symbolism, see: Zanker 2000, pp. 87-88. Another example related to everyday life of the Romans strongly influenced by official art comes from Arretine tera-cotta bowls, see: Łuszczewska 2002. 2367 Zanker 1988, pp. 265-266. 2368 Zanker 1988, pp. 266-267. The problem of romanisation of provinces might be indeed underestimated. It is possible that Roman politicians wanted to establish connections by sending gems with their portraits or other devices related to them to provincial authorities inducing and expecting loyalty this way and making the Roman culture appealing to new members of the Roman Empire.2364 Henig hypothesises on the cameo bearing a jugate portrait of Julius Caesar and possibly Venus which is said to be from Tarraco in Spain, that it could belong to a member of the city elite since Tarragona was proclaimed a Roman colony by Caesar in 45 BC.2365 The possessor would have manifested his bound with Caesar and his new Roman way of life at the same time. Manifestation of political affinity could be also expressed by following the general framework offered by the official art. Mythological parallels between the propagandist and his audience are noticeable on engraved gems and using the same or at least similar symbolism for decorations, gravestones and personal seals (for example: Capricorn and sphinx in the times of Augustus’ reign, cf. chapter 10.8) might have been a part of this phenomenon.2366 As Zanker observes, allegiance was closely related to fashion based on official art that could be then limitlessly spread thanks to the use of cheap materials available for everyone (in case of gems this was glass).2367 Such an uniformity of forms and propagandistic transmission combined with a massive production (supposedly centralised) was a product of Augustus’ propaganda. As Zanker points out, even though one sometimes cannot tell whether this was more to the general rules of the market or deliberate actions induced by a propagandist, the results were positive for the first Emperor of Rome since his propaganda messages widely circulated within the society accustoming it to the new political order.2368 Augustus’ propaganda actions concerning gems seem to be successful also because there were kings imitating his actions at their own courts. A good example of that is Juba II, at whose court gems were possibly engraved like at the Augustan one and the style and quality of those gems are comparable to the products of Augustan classicism. Finally, in ancient literary sources one finds information about certain persons who worn rings with portraits of Cassius and Brutus and because of that they had been condemned to capital punishment when triumvirs defeated those opponents.2369 This clearly shows how serious the Romans were if it goes to manifestation of political allegiances and sympathies. Moreover, wearing portraits of Augustus after his death upon a ring was concerned a sacrilege and was punished by emperor Tiberius.2370 All these examples clearly show that engraved gems were powerful propaganda tools and played a very important role in establishment of intimate connections between a propagandist and owners of the gems produced on his command that could not have been done with use of any other kind of art. Besides, they could be very useful in control of people migration during the Civil War as probably rings with specific devices (most likely portraits) allowed to pass safely through territory controlled by the opponent or thanks them one could prove he can enter because he belongs to the same faction.2371 2369 Plantzos 1999, p. 111; Lapatin 2015, p. 114. 2370 Lapatin 2015, pp. 114-115. 2371 Bonner 1908, p. 400. 2372 A good example of a very long use of some gems are several Hellenistic intaglios found in Britain, see: Henig 2007, p. 8. See also commentaries to this issue in: Plantzos 1999, p. 22; Gagetti 2001, pp. 136-137; Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, pp. 10-11 2373 Henig 1994, p. 152. Interestingly Rush even thinks that some portrait gems were destined to be funerary objects created specifically to put them into a grave of a deceased person as a sort of his commemoration (2012, pp. 64-66). 2374 Valerius Maximus, III, 5. 2375 Cicero, Catil., III, 5.10. 13.7. Use of heritage According to the presented research, intaglios and cameos due to their preciousness were highly valuable objects and thus, they often remained long in use passed from one generation to another.2372 Gems were often treated as family heirlooms and it was considered a great honour to have a portrait of a distinguished ancestor on a seal.2373 As Valerius Maximus informs us, young Lucius Scipio disgraced himself by coming to an election in a soiled toga and thus his relatives removed the ring with the head of his father Scipio Africanus from his hand.2374 This symbolic action in fact smashed his early political career. In turn, Cicero rebuked Lentulus Sura for being implicated in the Catilinian conspiracy when he ought to be restrained by the portrait of his illustrious ancestor Cornelius Lentulus, engraved on his seal.2375 Carrying a family ring upon a finger was in fact a transfer of authority from previous generations to a new head of the family. The two examples evoked above show how important gems were and that they played a great propagandistic role as markers of distinction and special honours received.2376 This tradition was ancient and practiced already in the 3rd century BC if not earlier by Etruscans and Italic tribes concerning Italy alone.2377 It must have been important for the Romans since Octavian/Augustus first used the seal of Julius Caesar and then two identical gems bearing a sphinx device as his official seals that he inherited from his mother as a family heirloom (cf. chapter 9.3.1.3). Those sphinxes were further given to Augustus’ advisors Maecenas and Agrippa, which was an act of legitimisation their capacity to execute law and setting deals on the behalf of the Emperor.2378 Finally, it is perhaps not a coincidence that Julius Caesar, once reached Egypt and presented with personal things of Pompey the Great, decided to take his ring for himself.2379 He prevented it being delivered back to Sextus Pompey and further used as he was aware of the great value of such an object as a mean of propaganda. Regarding Sextus Pompey, another ancient author mentions him throwing his ring into the sea so that it would have not got into the hands of his opponents.2380 This also testifies to a great value of intaglios as means of propaganda. 2376 Furtwängler 1900, vol. III, p. 304. 2377 Hansson 2005, p. 139. 2378 Dio Cassius, Historia Romana, 53.30; Plantzos 1999, p. 22. 2379 Lapatin 2015, p. 114. 2380 Florus, Epitome, 2.18. 2381 Kopij argues that many portraits of Pompey the Great appearing not only on gems, but also in sculpture might have been created only after his death on the command of Sextus Pompey (2017, pp. 229-234 and 257-261). Engraved gems make possible to transfer authority, which was regarded as a sort of heritage too, in a more artistic way, that means by use of symbolism and devices associated with a great predecessor. In this respect, two Roman political leaders stand out. The first one is Sextus Pompey who used the authority of his father in order to gain attention and support. It is tempting to suggest that he could have issued propaganda gems documenting his connection with his father or even that he might have stimulated creation of his legend by commissioning gems presenting Pompey the Great’s portrait and commemorating his father’s victories very much in the spirit he did so in his coinage (cf. chapter 9.1.3).2381 Another example is Octavian who clearly highlighted in the iconography of his ‘propaganda gems’ that he is a descendant of Julius Caesar by the use of such symbols like the ring of adoption or Sidus Iulium (cf. chapter 9.3.1.1) as well as by using the seal of Julius Caesar as his own (cf. chapter 9.3.1.3). Similar process is observable on coins which also frequently bear images of the two, an authority and his successor combined with symbols related to the first.2382 Such actions were aimed to legitimise power in hands of those young political leaders. Furthermore, by issuing of posthumous portrait gems of their predecessors, both Sextus Pompey and Octavian alike tried to increase authority they were inheriting by stimulation of the images with additional symbolism highlighting the divine nature of their predecessors (dolphin and trident pointing to Pompey’s relationship with Neptune and sidus Iulium as a symbol of the divine nature of Julius Caesar). Finally, one more variety was to use the same patron deity as the predecessor for its own like Neptune in case of Sextus Pompey and Venus in the case of Octavian (cf. chapters 9.1.6 and 9.3.1.8 respectively). All these actions described here certainly helped to unite followers of Pompey the Great and Julius Caesar around them so that they became new political leaders of two fighting each other factions. A continuation of this practice took place also after Augustus’ death when Livia became vigorously promoted as the mother of Julio-Claudian family and connector between the future emperor Tiberius and Augustus (cf. chapters 10.10-11). 2382 Examples of that are denarii and aurei of Octavian (RRC, nos. 490/2, 534/2 and 540/2) and Sextus Pompey (RRC, 483/2, 511/1 and 511/3a). 2383 Furtwängler 1900, vol. III, pp. 227-232. 13.8. Promotion of family and oneself through orgio Regarding promotion of family and oneself through orgio, there is insufficient evidence to say with much certainty that engraved gems played a significant role in this matter. Although there is a good number of motifs occurring on gems that would be plausible for family propaganda, many of them are ambiguous and because of the lack of specific information on their applications, it is difficult to judge their propagandistic value properly. For instance, many mythological subjects on gems (usually those related to the Trojan circle) might be related to a sort of identification of people with their local homeland rather than to be used for self-promotion as has been shown by the example of Ulysses (cf. chapter 7.4.2). Cadmus, Heracles and many other Greek heroes were related to the place eponymous because they were believed to be founders of many Italian cities, as observed by Furtwängler more than a hundred years ago.2383 The same applies to the single representations of various animals which appearance on intaglios has multiple explanations, yet, in both cases, the political one should be treated as optional as the study in the third part of the dissertation proved (cf. chapters 6.3.1, 7.4.2 and 8.3.3). Gems are more problematic in this area of propaganda than other branches of Roman art and craftsmanship, especially, if compared to coins.2384 It is difficult to prove that symbols related one way or another to family propaganda on the basis that they were used as such on coins occur in the same sense on engraved gems. Analysis of numerous cases presented in the third part of the thesis shows that nor iconography, neither inscriptions confirm that directly and unambiguously. This is certainly due to considerable abbreviations and simplifies applied in case of gems. They are usually cut only with symbols, while coins have legends and images on the second side often explaining with whom the emblem should be linked.2385 Moreover, in case of coins it is sometimes possible to deduce moneyer’s intentions from other variants of the same story or myth presented on coins of his predecessors. Besides, there are sometimes considerable differences in coins’ and gems’ devices and sometimes intaglios seem to use different symbolism than coins too. A good illustration of that is gens Marcia and horologium emblem discussed in chapter 6.3.1. The case of Minucii Augurii shows that the same concept did not have to be approached in exactly the same way and images may differ in detail (cf. chapter 6.3.1). Yet, according to the presented analysis, it is striking that if family symbols appear on gems, the timing is correlated with that deduced from the Roman Republican coinage (starting from the ca. last third of the 2nd century BC and ceasing around the middle of the 1st century BC). Naturally, it cannot be entirely excluded that many more gems than those collected by me here were used as family seals or objects by which people manifested their allegiance to a specific family. However, the basic problem is the lack of sufficient context. Many symbols could be considered as reserved for specific families and recognised as such when they appeared upon rings carried by certain people. Possibly in Rome most of the people were aware which symbol was used by gens Metelia, Cassia etc. but this knowledge, excluding several exceptions, has not been recorded in the ancient literary sources. As a result, today one is in a great puzzle because there are just objects – gems, while the context so obvious for ancient people did not survive. Sometimes, like in case of the triskeles and gentes Marcellia and Lentelia or Pegasus and gens Titus, a sort of context may be deduced from a combined analysis of gems and coins, but this is very rare. The number of alternative meanings for various motifs that could be regarded as family emblems is considerable which makes their identification even more challenging. Taking all of this into account, the conclusion should be that indeed, gems were 2384 On the phenomenon of promotion of families through coins, see: Hollstein 1993. 2385 However, iconography of coins is also largely based on abbreviations and symbolises, though not to the same degree as the one from gems, which is one of the reasons for considering both categories as similar, see: Guiraud 1996, p. 97; Sagiv 2018, p. 34. employed for promotion of Roman noble families orgio however, it is impossible to establish the scale of that phenomenon. My investigations yielded with many case studies discussed to show some possibilities even if sometimes they seem limited or based on weak grounds. The situation reverses when promotion through orgio is concerned. As evidenced from the material gathered in the third part of the thesis, some Roman politicians like Sextus Pompey and Octavian used to highlight their parentage from Pompey the Great and Julius Caesar on gems successfully (cf. chapters 9.1.3 and 9.3.1.1. respectively). Moreover, as evidenced in the chapter 9.3.1.5, Octavian was particularly successful in the promotion of his family connection with Octavia on gems even paired with her in the divine guise. This was purposed to lay foundations for his dynasty. In the early 1st century AD Livia was energetically promoted on intaglios and cameos as the mother of the Julio-Claudian clan and often in the guise of Venus, mainly to guarantee the throne to Tiberius (cf. chapter 10.10). Regarding promotion of successors, as shown, all planned successors of Augustus from Marcellus to Tiberius were promoted in glyptic art and the scale of this phenomenon is comparable to the one known from sculpture (cf. chapter 10.10). 13.9. Promotion of faction As the analysis of various propaganda activities described in the third part of the dissertation reveals, regarding promotion of faction, a natural way of expressing someone’s affiliation to a political group seems to put a portrait of the leader upon a private ring.2386 This observation is confirmed not only by the archaeological material, but also by information one extracts from ancient literary sources. Pliny the Elder informs about a custom practiced under the reign of Emperor Claudius (41-54 AD) which was that a gold ring with his portrait enabled to enter audition with him without queuing.2387 This highly important testimony communicates that some rings, possibly with portraits cut in gems, were used to obtain some privileges reserved only for a small group of people. Moreover, the fact that they were concerned with the emperor makes them to be highly important objects. Concerning portrait gems and their usefulness in manifestation of allegiance to a specific political faction, it is noteworthy to conclude that, for instance, Marcus Iunius Brutus and Quintus Cassius Longinus were well-known politicians already before 44 BC so the gems with their portraits were most likely produced on the commissions of their followers who sought to manifest support to their case 2386 Henig and MacGregor 2004, p. 66. 2387 Pliny, NH, XXXIII.41. after the assassination of Julius Caesar and this is why there is so little gems with portraits of Brutus and Cassius accompanied with any sort of additional symbolism (cf. chapter 9.2.2). Besides, Brutus was a unifying symbol of the opposition against the caesarian faction during the second Civil War, hence, it would be natural to the members of the republicans to use his likeness as a sort of faction’s emblem. In contrast Octavian, who was not so well-known prior to 44 BC must be responsible for the production of much of gems featuring his portraits, especially those with additional symbolism, while only smaller part of portrait gems was manufactured by his followers. It is clear from the evidence collected in chapters 9.2.2 and 9.2.4 as well as 9.3.1.4 and 9.3.1.6 respectively that these two different starting points required two different approaches. In other words, while the republicans did not have to invest much in their propaganda on gems because it was a sort of a self-driving phenomenon, Octavian had to put much energy in his own promotion and most importantly integration of Caesar’s followers around himself. This is the explanation why he is so successful in production of propaganda gems among his peers. Another conclusion is that some gems could be accessible only for members of specific societies, classes and groups of friends or political parties. It is said that portraits of philosophers were put upon rings to manifest one’s membership to a specific philosophical school.2388 According to Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150-ca. 215 AD), Christians were advised to use rings with gems bearing specific symbols so that they could recognise each other without dangerous exposition of their religious believes.2389 It is very likely then that some portrait gems were used to promote faction and one’s membership to it. The surviving high number of portrait gems featuring political leaders such as Pompey the Great, Julius Caesar, Sextus Pompey, Mark Antony or Octavian might be partially a result of their followers’ actions, not politicians themselves as evidenced by context or inscriptions discussed in detail in the respective chapters (8.1.7, 8.2.6, 9.1.5, 9.2.4, 9.3.1.6 and 9.3.2.5). Technically, this phenomenon still accounts to propaganda and it suggests a highly developed machinery in existence already at the times of Pompey the Great. According to O’Shaughnessy, an ideal situation for a propagandist is the one when he does not have to invest more energy in his propaganda campaign since the audience takes actions on its own spreading his programme and messages.2390 Engraved gems testify to advanced propaganda in use in ancient Rome. 2388 Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, p. 17; Lang 2012, p. 104. 2389 Paedagogus II, ch. II. 2390 O’Shaughnessy 2004, p. 4. Concerning portrait gems and their usefulness for promotion of faction, it seems reasonable to think that some social groups used engraved gems for distinction and this usage by itself may have been typical only for a small group of people who could afford that, e.g. a political party of the optimates. The evidence presented in the third part of the study confirms the results of Vollenweider’s studies. A good number of portraits of optimates has been identified, while there are very few of those presenting representatives of populares.2391 The imbalance is clearly noticeable and thus, one wonders if it was a kind of privilege or requirement to have one’s portrait cut upon his ring in order to be recognised as a member of the optimates? Even if not a requirement, it might have been a useful method for social distinction and therefore, most of the optimates carried their portrait gems. The situation is unparalleled to any other branch of Roman art since none is testified to be in use for a collective purpose. 2391 Vollenweider 1972-1974, pp. 83-87. 2392 See, for instance, Vollenweider 1979 - which is full of gems given political significance of which many are wrongly taken as such. Apart from portraits there is a number of other devices that are traditionally taken as markers expressing someone’s affiliation to a specific political faction.2392 These have been examined in the third part of the thesis, but any reasonable conclusions can be drawn. In fact, in most cases, treating them as markers of political affiliation is highly speculative. The so-called political symbols abundantly appearing on intaglios and cameos have been re-examined and in many cases treating them as amulets is more plausible than objects having any political significance. The problem is the fact that many symbols could be used by two or three politicians/parties at the same time such as Neptune or more broadly marine symbols used by either Sextus Pompey and Octavian (cf. chapters 9.1.7 and 9.3.1.9 respectively). A similar problem occurs in the coinage, but usually, the legends appearing on them help to establish with whom one should relate a specific motif. Such situations barely exist in case of engraved gems, thus, they are much more confusing. Yet, it is observed that each stateman who proclaimed a sort of a wide-ranging political programme (Sulla, Julius Caesar and Octavian/Augustus) strongly influenced production of symbolic gems which in many cases possibly reflect the new ideas promoted. However, whether these objects were used to manifest affinity to a specific political faction by support or participation in the programme is hard to tell. A full discussion on this issue is offered in chapter 13.12. 13.10. Commemoration The evidence presented in the third part of the thesis clearly demonstrates that intaglios and cameos, like any other branch of Roman art, were frequently used to glorify politicians and their successes. Aside to the personal branding, commemoration of various events is the most popular propaganda activity reflected in glyptics. Engraved gems played an important role in construction of positive narration related to a political leader among the people of Rome. It is noteworthy that this kind of propaganda activity was put into a practice very early, already in the late 3rd-early 2nd century BC which is close to the similar use of sculpture (commemorative statues) and coinage. However, owing to their strictly private character, engraved gems created a special, intimate connection between a propagandist and his audience. Furthermore, commemoration of specific events, achievements and military prowess in general may have been intended to build a strong sense of special predisposition of a specific stateman to lead Rome and the Roman nation to rule the world. The evidence for that is particularly striking for the 3rd and 2nd century BC and often relates to the periods when Roman Republic was in a grieve danger like during the Second Punic War (218-201 BC) or the Celtic (121 BC) and Germanic (113-101 BC) threats (cf. chapters 6.3.3 and 6.3.4). A similar narration is propagated during the reign of Augustus (cf. chapter 10). This kind of activity then should account not only for agitation propaganda but also its integration form. The seal of Sulla presenting defeated Jugurtha, king of Numidia is one of the clearest proofs for using gems to commemorate propagandist’s successes and uniting people around him (cf. chapter 7.1.1). It is argued if representations of similar conceptual layer like intaglios featuring Romans fighting Gauls or any other kinds of barbarians were issued for the same purpose, for instance, by Julius Caesar (cf. chapter 8.2.7). The range of subjects commemorated by Roman political leaders is vast but generally, one distinguishes four spheres within which propaganda messages related to commemoration were transmitted. First and the most significant category of representations relating to the issue of commemoration are symbols and scenes presenting or alluding to military victories. In this instance engraved gems work like all the other branches of Roman art and craftsmanship. In architecture triumphal arcs and temples founded by Roman victorious generals since ancient times were the most significant, recognisable and influential means of propaganda.2393 In sculpture, equestrian statues in the beginning and other types of statues produced later were 2393 Evans 1992, p. 7; Hekster 2007, pp. 5-8. often aimed at commemorating a particular event, usually a military victory sometimes in a highly sophisticated way like the famous statue of Augustus from Prima Porta.2394 Paintings were for sure commissioned to commemorate military prowess of their founders, but they were also used as spolia of war by Pompey the Great and others.2395 Wall paintings account to this category too and sometimes the whole style might have considerably changed after an important victory that brought inspirations from the conquered regions.2396 Coins were very important medium used for commemoration of various political events including military victories. Even Arretine terra-cotta bowls were often decorated with military designs following a general trend in Augustan art and craftsmanship.2397 This brief overview proves that commemoration of important events and military victories in general was the second after personal branding propagandistic activity performed by Roman political leaders through visual art. Engraved gems are no exception and as illustrated in each chronological period distinguished in the third part of the study, there are many occasions immortalised upon their surface. Noteworthy is also that gems like paintings and other works of art were presented as spolia of war during triumphs, which might be regarded as commemoration too (cf. chapters 8.1.2 and 8.2.1). 2394 Zanker 1988, pp. 188-192; Hekster 2007, pp. 8-9. 2395 Evans 1992, pp. 8-16; Kopij 2017, p. 211. 2396 Pearson 2015 (I am grateful to the author for making her dissertation available to me in the electronic format). 2397 Łuszczewska 2002. Another conclusion is that gems rather than coins, sculpture or architecture are more likely to show discrepancies between propagandists. A good illustration of that is promotion of the second triumvirate. While all three triumvirs minted their coinage commemorating that political pact, only Octavian and Mark Antony were commemorated in this context (and the proportions are in favour of Octavian, cf. chapter 12) on gems. This situation portrays a relatively weak position of Marcus Aemilius Lepidus who had enough power to issue his own coinage related to this occasion, but not so much to invest in propaganda through other branches of Roman visual arts, including engraved gems. Alternatively, he recognised propaganda gems as unworthy to invest since the benefits could be of low scale for him. One also risks an opinion that Lepidus was neither not enough recognisable to be presented on gems by engravers producing casual objects in their workshops. The last conclusion regarding commemoration of military victories and important political events is that issuing ‘propaganda gems’ was in many respects similar to coins – most importantly, it was relatively easy due to a number of artists performing these crafts and could be quickly replaced with a new imaginary if there was a need (especially if glass gems are concerned). As to the other aspects of commemoration, there is enough evidence to claim that aside from military victories also other important political events were commemorated on gems. For sure, Roman politicians and public figures communicated this way the new titles they obtained as well as positions and promotions they received. Here, a situation is similar to coins which were often issued on an occasion of new position obtained, such as pontifex maximus or any other relevant secular or religious office. First examples of this phenomenon can be observed as early as in the 3rd century BC when a group of Roman generals or dictators with parazonium appear mostly on glass intaglios (cf. chapter 6.3.3) and priests of various kinds were also equipped with engraved gems bearing symbols of their profession set into rings (cf. chapter 6.1). In the course of time, this theme had been much explored especially in the Augustan Age, when it was reinterpreted in a wider context including Augustus’ successors presented as holding specific titles, positions and offices (cf. chapter 10.10). In this study I deal mostly with political themes and even though ceremonies such as marriages are generally considered private, in the political context they become social events often used for propaganda purposes. Special coin issues were minted on the occasions of the marriages such as the sestertii of Marcus Oppius Capito and Mark Antony struck in Achaea ca. 38-37 BC to commemorate Antony’s marriage with Octavia.2398 According to the presented material, it might be generally accepted that some intaglios and cameos constituted a part of this phenomenon too (cf. chapters 9.3.2.6 and 10.5). Marriages were usually promoted on gems in a similar way to coins, that is by putting portraits of the married couple upon the surface of the gemstone. A good example of that practice are gems commemorating marriage of Octavia and Mark Antony (cf. chapter 9.3.2.6) which in fact were aimed to strengthen the positive message of unity and peace between Mark Antony and Octavian. Nevertheless, the scale of those actions is difficult to be measured due to existing great number of gems bearing very similar subjects (usually heads of a man and woman confronted) but referring to private ceremonies of many individuals. The problem here is clearly uniformity of private portraits appearing on gems which were inspired by the official ones. 2398 RPC I, no. 1468. Intaglios and cameos were frequently used to commemorate political events of the global scale such as the second triumvirate or the Brundisium pact. A wide range of symbolism as well as figural representations like double-portrait gems presenting Octavian and Mark Antony were issued due to celebrate these events (cf. chapters 8.1.8, 8.2.7 and 9.3.1.7). Apart from that, my study suggests that gems, especially those bearing constellations of symbols, are plausible to reflect the universal policy of Sulla, Julius Caesar and later Augustus which were based on the issue of promotion of peace and prosperity. The traditional view towards such objects has been challenged in this study at each chronological period distinguished (cf. chapters 7.1.5, 7.2.5, 8.1.11, 8.2.9, 9.1.7, 9.2.7, 9.3.1.9, 9.3.2.8, 9.3.3.2 and 10.8). In conclusion, only limited number of gems bearing symbolic configurations can be explained in political sense. Many of them are more plausible to be amulets ensuring specific qualities, help and blessing of the gods as well as avert all kinds of evil and malice making them a category close to the so popular grylloi/baskania gems of the Imperial period (1st-3rd century AD). Still, those which bear references to political programmes actually reflect the common spirit and were probably created to integrate followers of Sulla, Julius Caesar or Octavian/Augustus by making clear a common case. It is expected that people who identified with the qualities and ideas proclaimed by those political leaders carried gems symbolising them. 13.11. Religious, divine and mythological references The critical analysis reveals that indeed intaglios and cameos bearing religious themes were connected to politics and therefore used for propaganda purposes, however, the scale of this phenomenon is smaller than it might have been expected. Simple motifs such as augural symbols or scenes presenting various rituals apart from their utilitarian function also communicated about person’s special status within a community. It is no coincidence that on some bronze statues evoked the figures wear rings with these kinds of motifs and these cases encourage to consider propaganda in action (cf. chapter 6.1).2399 2399 On the use of those symbols in political propaganda in coinage, see: Morawiecki 1996; Stewart 1997. 2400 On this issue see: Hansson 2005, pp. 130-135. In the course of the 3rd and 2nd century BC gems were used by a good number of people for auto-presentation purposes which stems from a more ancient tradition of Etruscan and Italic glyptics (cf. chapter 6.1).2400 As argued in this study, a wide range of mythological representations might have been carried upon rings due to the family origins from legendary ancestors, a trend that became even more stronger in the 1st century BC as also evidenced from coins (cf. chapters 6.3.1, 7.4.2 and 8.3.3). It is also expected for representation of mythological figures to be examples set as worth to follow by the young male representative of the Roman society. However, propagandistic value of gems in this respect cannot be properly judged because many mythological scenes are difficult to be identified as presenting someone’s connection with a particular figure. Perhaps if one carried a ring with a representation of his patron deity, this was a signal sufficient enough for others to recognise his divine support. This context is unavailable for us today and the iconography, which is a base for the research of such a problem, cannot tell us much more. A separate and more successful case is that of Mark Antony who presented himself as Heracles for Anton, Heracles’ son, was believed to be the founder of gens Fabia to which Mark Antony belonged to and reflections of that are barely, but still noticeable in glyptics (cf. chapter 9.3.2.7) As evidenced by intaglios and cameos discussed in the third part of the dissertation, divine and mythological references made by Roman politicians constitute the third most popular propaganda activity reflected by glyptic art. This phenomenon worked on two levels: first deities were presented as patrons to the propagandists and second, the propagandists made a direct comparation or even identification with a deity. A number of objects presents major politicians under the patronage of various deities like Pompey the Great and Neptune, Julius Caesar and Venus or Octavian and Apollo (cf. chapters 8.1.9, 8.2.8 and 9.3.1.8).2401 This is usually expressed through various symbolism which had been added to the main subject such as a portrait or a figure of a propagandist or when a deity was chosen as a personal seal device.2402 The best example of that is Julius Caesar promoting the image of Venus Victrix in his coinage. He also employed that image for his personal seal which was the clearest and best demonstration of her support to his case combined with allusion to his divine origins. Such acts definitely helped Caesar as propagandist to build his own legend (cf. chapter 8.2.3). One should also consider a possibility of promotion of the cult of those deities that were favourable to Caesar and his contemporaries. It is argued that such actions were undertaken by prominent Roman politicians with use of visual art,2403 which in case of engraved gems would result in the increase of the number of gems presenting specific deities. According to the ancient literary sources and statistics, such trends are observable for instance in case of Venus Victrix (Julius Caesar – cf. chapter 8.2.8), Neptune (Sextus Pompey – cf. chapter 9.1.7) and Apollo (Sulla – cf. chapter 7.1.5 and Octavian/Augustus – cf. chapters 9.3.1.8 and 10.6) (cf. chapter 12). 2401 Guiraud 1996, pp. 124-127; Toso 2007, p. 169. 2402 Vollenweider 1955, p. 103; Sena Chiesa 2012, p. 257. 2403 Weinstock 1971; Jaczynowska 1985. Using an image of a legendary ancestor or a well-respected historical figure, who was given divine status, as a seal or in any other way was another powerful message broadcasting the connection between him and propagandist too. A good illustration of this is production of gems presenting Pompey the Great as related to Neptune by his son Sextus (cf. chapter 9.1.4) or Octavian who alluded to Julius Caesar as his divine father in various ways (cf. chapter 9.3.1.1). Alexander the Great, who was considered almost a divine figure by the Romans, was also willingly used in propaganda of several Roman stateman. The reflections of comparison and identification made with him are present in glyptics (cf. chapters 8.1.10, 9.3.1.3, 9.3.1.8, 9.3.2.7 and 10.5) and account to typical imitatio Alexandri practice.2404 Using the same seal-device as Alexander also accounts to this phenomenon (cf. chapter 8.1.4) and the fact that Augustus used an image of Alexander as his own seal-device for some time communicates that he possesses all the assets to rule individually like Alexander the Great did and was a form of transfer of his authority onto himself (cf. chapter 10.6). 2404 Instinsky 1962, pp. 31-38. 2405 Toso 2007, p. 25. 2406 Zanker 1988, p. 62. 2407 Regarding sculpture, see, for example: Bonfante 1989; Stevenson 1998. 2408 Regarding the identifications with deities reflected in the coinage, see, for instance: Sextus Pompey – RRC, nos. 511/2b-c, 511/4a-d; Mark Antony – RRC, nos. 494/2a-b, 531/1a-b; Brutus – RRC, nos. 502/1, 504/1 and 506/2; Octavian – RRC, nos. 494/9a-b and 494/18. In the course of time political leaders of Rome not only highlighted special connections with specific deities but went further from comparatio to the full identification with their patrons. The trend of presenting oneself through comparison with a mythological or divine figure became increasingly popular in the 1st century BC and is well-reflected on engraved gems but has much deeper roots. People used to identify themselves with Greek heroes, especially those involved in the Trojan War because they were founders of the cities they lived in and were perfect examples to follow (cf. chapter 6.1).2405 But the reasons were also to raise individual’s authority by its transfer from a figure portrayed upon a gem. Moreover, there is evidence from gems for application of nudity as a sort of or substitute for heroization.2406 Such a mechanism is well-known from sculpture, but as shown in this study, engraved gems also participated in it.2407 The cult of physical prowess, courage and similar values was very strong in ancient Rome. Therefore, a practice of putting a hero-patron image upon a private ring was really popular those days. As Beazley observed, such practices were also cultivated under Augustus and later. This is why one observes war of images between Sextus Pompey, Mark Antony, Marcus Iunius Brutus and Octavian for each placed on their coins as references to his patron-deities or heroes (Neptune, Heracles/Dionysus/Jupiter, Apollo and Mars respectively) are abundant.2408 It is likely that the same war mechanisms were employed in glyptics as well at least from the early 1st century BC (cf. chapters 7.1.5, 8.1.9, 8.2.8, 8.3.5, 9.1.7, 9.2.6, 9.3.1.8, 9.3.2.7 and 10.6 for individual cases discussed). It is noteworthy that this phenomenon was not reserved only to the political leaders but ordinary people also put images of various deities and mythological figures upon their rings. This fact severely limits ability to estimate the actual outcome of propaganda efforts reflected in glyptics. Therefore, for example, in contrast to Vollenweider and Toso, I do not believe that one can recognise Augustus on many gems presenting Greek heroes alone.2409 I follow Beazley’s idea that single heroic figures were suitable subjects for a young legionary or athlete who had wished to follow them (cf. chapter 10.6). Unless the figure is engaged into a specific activity that may suggest a political connotation or reference to a specific event like the Battle of Actium (cf. chapter 9.3.1.7), it seems pointless to make completely hypothetical attributions. Similarly, my analysis of the problem carried out in specific chapters also proves that attributions suggested by Vollenweider or Moret on the ground of proximity of figures’ heads to historical portraits does not find sufficient objective support (cf. discussions in chapters 8.1.9, 9.3.1.8, 9.3.2.7 and 10.6). 2409 Boardman (ed.) 2002, no. 107, p. 68; Vollenweider 1966, pp. 49-50; Toso 2007, pp. 25-26. 2410 Zazoff 1983, pp. 295-298; Dardenay 2009. 2411 Maderna-Lauter 1988, pp. 449-450. Finally, glyptics evidently delivers evidence for Augustus, the first emperor of Rome, to have masterly exploited a technique based on allusions to the legendary foundations of Rome which obviously included application of divine references. One observes a considerable increase in the number of gems presenting the myth of Romulus and Remus as well as Aeneas, Diomedes, Cassandra and Rhea Silvia.2410 Moreover, representations of Athena or Mars fighting giants, the oath-taking scenes and bucolic ones, subjects regarded by many as propagandistic, appear in vast quantities those days too (cf. chapter 10.7). The frequent occurrence of these and many more subjects suggest that propaganda performed by Augustus in various forms was successful and the glyptic repertoire has adapted to the general shifts driven by Augustus ideology, and was then eagerly taken and duplicated by the people of Rome.2411 In other words, glyptics became a subject to the same trends as other branches of art, although, still, its strictly private character resulted in a harmonious existence of many private matters with the ‘state’ ones alongside. The ultimate form of propaganda with divine and mythological references were intaglios and cameos presenting portraits of deified Augustus, often accompanied with Livia, who became his main priestess, crafted to spread his cult like all other objects of art (sculpture, masks etc.) and supposedly utilised in shrines located in private houses of noble families (cf. chapter 10.11). 13.12. Political symbols and promotion of abstract ideas (ordo rerum, Pax Augusta and aurea aetas) In this place, I am going to elaborate on the issues related to the promotion of specific political programmes on engraved gems signalised in the previous sub-chapter. According to the research presented in the dissertation, the hypothesis on engraved gems’ role as indicators of social behaviours and moods has been confirmed. Many of the symbolic gems analysed in the thesis in contrast to a popular view of their direct propagandistic connotations were in fact used by the Romans to express their needs and wishes for peace and prosperity, especially in the late 2nd and 1st century BC. The rich symbolism employed is usually related to the gods to whom people went with their wishes in the first place and for the qualities they wanted to obtain. Deities were supposed to support people in the difficult times they must have lived in during the Civil Wars. Combination of these two aspects drives those objects closely to the category of amulets.2412 Furthermore, there is enough evidence to claim that symbolic gems were produced in various places (Aquileia, Rome and other glyptic centres), which means that propagandists did not control their production (cf. chapter 11). 2412 See also a well-balanced and similar oppinion on the Late Roman Republican symbolic gems in: Zwierlein-Diehl 1979, p. 7. 2413 Such a perspective had also been put forward by Zazoff 1983, p. 301. Nevertheless, it is evident that the issue was addressed in political programmes proclaimed by such statesmen as Sulla, Julius Caesar and Octavian/Augustus (cf. chapters 7.1.6, 8.2.9, 9.3.1.9 and 10.8), whereas other politicians did not embark on similar agenda (cf. chapters 7.2.5, 7.4.3, 8.1.11, 9.1.8, 9.2.7, 9.3.2.8 and 9.3.3.2)..2413 Sulla, Julius Caesar and Augustus noticed and tried to answer the social behaviour - the general wishes for peace and prosperity and included them into their political programmes. Therefore, a part of the symbolic gems should be considered as introducing or popularising the new ideology and gems of this kind were most likely used by those who identified with the programme of those specific leaders. The use of gems for promotion of new ideology can be compared to other activities of Roman political leaders. For instance, by founding new public buildings (Theatre of Pompey) or even creating whole complexes of building arranged, on the one hand, to provide people with new public space for religious practices and entertainment, and on the other hand, to praise their personal deities and show off power (Forum of Caesar and Forum of Augustus), those politicians tried to achieve the same goals.2414 The first one was to establish a favourable climate for introduction of their political reforms and the second to create an impression that thanks to them people of Rome live in peace and prosperity. 2414 Regarding Theatre of Pompey, see the last discussion in: Kopij 2017, pp. 208-217. Regarding civic functions of Forum of Caesar and Forum of Augustus, see, for instance: Zanker 1968 and 1988; Leland 1993, pp. 221-222; Meneghini 2015, pp. 19-32 and 100-106. 2415 Maderna-Lauter 1988, p. 447; Zanker 1988, pp. 167-185. 2416 Zanker 1988, pp. 172-183. 2417 Henig, Scarisbrick and Whiting 1994, p. 91. The first symptoms of such a process are observable during Sulla’s political domination (cf. chapter 7.1.6). When Caesar came to power, he put symbolism related to peace, prosperity and divine protection on his coins because that way he could show his care for people and that he would ensure their needs to be fulfilled once he introduces his ordo rerum. Quickly enough Caesar’s ideology penetrated glyptics too and thus, gems with symbolic configurations similar to those from coins started to appear during his dictatorship (cf. chapter 8.2.9). It is speculated if such gems were used just for personal needs or they were purposed to show support for Caesar’s political programme by their owners. According to the research carried out in the third part of the thesis, it is difficult to prove dictator’s own engagement into production of such pieces. It is more likely that his political programme was so much appealing to his followers that they made references to it on their own. In any case, Caesar’s propaganda was anchored in the already existing language of visual symbols which certainly made it easier to identify with the qualities which he promoted. But the promotion of ideology ought not to be perceived only by direct application of specific symbols and their combinations reflecting it. The second moment when symbolic gems were particularly popular and with all certainty contributed to the widespread of specific ideology and political system was the reign of Augustus (cf. chapter 10.8). In the time of Augustus, the large-scale monuments are even more clearly linked with much smaller objects such as intaglios and cameos by a sophisticated language exemplifying the piety of the age. Poetry, architecture, coinage and art were unified around two basic concepts: Pax Augusta and aurea aetas.2415 The best example for a successful combination of all these elements is, of course, Ara Pacis Augustae, which decoration is based on the harmony, nature and divine elements all of which are reflected on gems too (cf. chapter 10.8).2416 There is no coincidence that bucolic and daily life scenes showing the rebirth of soil raped for many years of civil wars were so popular in Augustan glyptics.2417 It is interesting to witness integration between official art and the private one in terms of glyptics too. The sacro-idyllic scenes are popular not only in glyptics, but also in mosaics and paintings (for example in Pompeii).2418 Similarly, all the divine themes related to Augustus appearing on gems should be interpreted not only according to their associations with his victories and story life, but also considering promotion of peace and prosperity. Combinations of symbols standing for these deities and political symbols (imperial eagle, Capricorn and sphinx) as well as scenes such as lupa romana were meant to transmit positive message of the Golden Age as well (cf. chapter 10.8).2419 2418 Guiraud 1974, pp. 116-117. 2419 Maderna-Lauter 1988, pp. 447-448. 2420 See also a well-balanced and similar oppinion on the Late Roman Republican symbolic gems in: Zwierlein-Diehl 1979, p. 7. Of course, the above-described processes do not mean that symbolic gems understood more as amulets rather than connected to the promotion of Caesar’s or Augustus’ ideologies ceased to be produced. The two categories co-existed and this is one of the reasons why today, it is so hard to establish the meaning of individual pieces.2420 Glyptics is particularly difficult to be properly assessed in these terms because in contrast to coins, where similar sets of symbols exist too, much information about their meaning is provided by the legends accompanying the images. Such legends barely exist on gems, therefore, assessment of their propaganda value is so difficult. In conclusion, symbolic gems were certainly used for propaganda purposes, but not to such a degree as it is usually claimed. It should be remembered that their political significance is only optional because there are many more equally plausible explanations to their iconography. Only in cases of Julius Caesar and Octavian/Augustus (and perhaps Sulla too) there are some categories that might be given political significance because both acted according to well-designed political programmes based on ideology they tried to popularise among their followers. 13.13. Luxury objects: State Cameos – carved vessels – works in the round 13.13.1. State Cameos Establishment of a new form of power in Rome by Augustus, which was in fact much closer to the Hellenistic kingship rather than old Republican values, required new art forms suitable to transmit new ideology and give it a proper entourage. Cameos - the Hellenistic inventions - perfectly met these requirements. There is a great outburst of cameo production in Rome at the time of Augustus (cf. mainly chapter 10.9 and individual pieces discussed in other chapters), but in fact, they had been infiltrating Roman glyptics earlier, mostly due to activities of several main political leaders in the east where they placed first commissions for their own portraits to be cut in relief technique in precious stones. Both, Pompey the Great and Julius Caesar had their portraits cut in cameos (cf. chapters 8.1.5, 8.1.12 and 8.2.10 respectively) and other politicians visiting or residing in the east like Brutus, Cassius and Mark Antony did the same even though there is much less evidence for their engagement in propaganda on gems as far as other categories of glyptic material are concerned (cf. chapters 9.2.8 and 9.3.2.9). Cameos added much splendour and raised social status of their owners as well as people whom they depicted. In the times of Augustus though, a special class of luxury cameos became highly popular. State or Imperial Cameos or its German equivalent Staatskameen is a term difficult to define but frequently used for gemstones of larger formats, typically cameos carved in relief technique that were related to the Imperial court of Rome, mostly produced in the Imperial court workshop. They have been discussed for centuries and fascinated many, but a clear-cut definition of these objects has not been established yet. Usually the concept of a State Cameo refers to both, objects presenting figural scenes and portraits.2421 In this study State Cameos are understood as objects presenting allegoric representations that in all likelihood transmitted powerful propaganda messages. This mainly applies to multifigure compositions such as the famous Gemma Augustea but portraits on cameos, even though analysed here alongside to the portraits on intaglios, should be regarded as State Cameos too since they were usually exquisite products of the Imperial court workshop. Moreover, many of these portraits are given individual features like various types of wreaths, military equipment and so on suggesting their purpose to be not just personal branding but also commemoration of military victories or divine references. In other words, to my mind, a State Cameo must use a sophisticated allegorical language, its quality is absolutely top and a reference to the Emperor, his circle or state is made in a sort of panegyric way.2422 Even Vergil suggests that State Cameos were historical pieces immensely important for propagation of the principate.2423 State Cameos should be recognised as the ultimate form of propaganda in terms of glyptic art. Noteworthy is that the material might be either a gemstone and glass; there is a plenty of glass cameos of great quality that should not be completely excluded from the class due to the cheaper material used.2424 2421 Regarding portraits, see: Seidmann G. 1993. For a general discussion, see: Maderna-Lauter 1988, p. 442; Toso 2007, pp. 9 and 17-18; Sena Chiesa 2009, pp. 83-85: Lang 2012, p. 102; Lapatin 2015, pp. 107-128. 2422 Megow 1987, p. 134. 2423 Vergil, Aen. 6.883. 2424 Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, pp. 146-147. State Cameos can be compared to historical reliefs used for decorations of architectural monuments. It has been debated whether such objects were made for the inner circle of Augustus and his successors or were openly exhibited and distributed to influence many. Some scholars suggest that State Cameos would have been made as gifts to a respected family in a Roman province or client kingdom.2425 Alternatively, they were cut specifically for a personal use of a close friend or relative in the inner court circle or the Emperor himself.2426 Another point of view is that they were exhibited in a proper place where a wider audience could admire them and appreciate the power of imperial family reflected on these objects. As proper places for such displaying are mentioned imperial palaces or the Senate house.2427 However, temples, especially of those deities who were closely related to the ruler cannot be excluded as well. There is evidence in ancient literature that whole dactyliothecae of gems were treasured there (cf. chapters 8.1.2 and 8.2.1).2428 On the other hand, history and provenance of some State Cameos like Gemma Augustea or Grand Camée de France testify that they were in use of the imperial family only as historical pieces since transferred from Rome to Constantinople.2429 2425 Pollini 1993. 2426 Megow 1987, p. 150. 2427 Guiraud 1996, pp. 116-121; Casagrade-Kim 2018, p. 104. 2428 Pliny, NH, XXXVII.11. 2429 Zwierlein-Diehl 2008, p. 25. 2430 Pliny, NH, XXXVII.23, 85; Sena Chiesa 2009b, p. 85. State Cameos started to be produced only under Augustus and the idea of their purpose was purely Hellenistic, transferred from Alexandria to Rome (cf. chapter 10.9). Apart from the sort of educational and panegyric functions, they were surely objects raising social status by giving to their owners auctoritas maximas as stated by Pliny the Elder.2430 Only the Emperor was able to hire the best engravers who could produce pieces of this kind. In this study, I have presented and discussed all known State Cameos that were produced under Augustus or slightly after his death due to the chronological limits of the dissertation. It is clear that those objects were highly influential works of art reserved to affect inner circle of the Imperial Court. All of them demonstrate wonderful visualisations of Augustus’ political programme and were powerful means of propaganda also aimed to popularise images of Augustus’ successors and other members of the Julio-Claudian family. Because of their special status and exhibition to limited but well-educated audience, State Cameos allowed to promote the ideas of Emperor’s glorification and continuity of the dynasty he founded at the level which could not be obtained in any other branch of Roman art. State Cameos are best illustrations of the double-game played by Augustus. His official attitude was completely different than realty normally kept indoors of his palace. State Cameos are some of the few objects allowing us to see the true face of Augustus and his imperialism.2431 The phenomenon of these masterpieces flourished well into the 1st century AD, especially during the reign of Julio-Claudian family thanks to the continuation guaranteed by Livia and Tiberius, so eagerly promoted on cameos (cf. chapter 10.10).2432 The successfulness of Augustus’ activities in this field are also confirmed by numerous examples of his posthumous portraits cut on exceptional cameos where he is given divine status (cf. chapter 10.11). 2431 Hannestad 1988, pp. 77-82. 2432 We encourage to read a well-arranged section on the issue in: Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, pp. 146-170. 2433 Henig 2007, p. 4. 2434 Kuttner 1995. 2435 Łuszczewska 2002. 2436 Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, pp. 169-178. 2437 Möbius 1964, pp. 31-33; Menes 2004; Pollini 1992; Sena Chiesa 2013; Lapatin 2015, p. 125. 13.13.2. Carved vessels Concerning vessels carved in precious stones, these also became one of the definitive forms of propaganda in glyptics and they started to be produced in Rome only under Augustus. Henig observes that there are great similarities between some glyptic objects of this kind and those of artistic metalworking.2433 Toreutics was often employed for Roman propaganda, especially in the times of Augustus and the famous Boscoreale Cups are the best examples of that phenomenon.2434 Similarly, the Arretine bowls were distinguished objects that either were subject to Augustus propaganda and reflect its effectiveness among the wealthy Romans.2435 In case of gemstones, vessels carved out of the multi-layered sardonyx as well as moulded in glass constitute a category of objects that like State Cameos stand out and give wide opportunities for their implementation to propaganda machinery. Although the most common use of gemstones in the Roman Republican and Augustan periods was for intaglios and cameos, they were sometimes also used to make vessels decorated with figurative reliefs. The agate, onyx and sardonyx vessels having complex and beautiful decoration usually presented whole narratives related to the ruling family and specific, highly important events. They were originally crafted at the Hellenistic court of the Ptolemies, but the concept and the form has been adopted by the Romans and much exploited especially under Augustus (cf. chapter 10.9).2436 These objects are rare and the examples that have survived have been sought after for centuries, such as the onyx Cup of the Ptolemies and the phiale known as the Tazza Farnese.2437 Their value was beyond measure and even glass vessels such as the famous Portland Vase were regarded as highly sophisticated due to the amount of work invested in their creation and the highest skills of the craftsmen that made them. Unadorned gemstone vessels were also produced and many more of these survive, in forms similar to those used for precious metal and fine wear ceramics.2438 According to Pliny, the most highly prized vessels in Rome were produced of a gemstone known as murra, which is today associated with fluorite.2439 It had fabulous purple streaks and the vessels made of it were suited for taking both hot and cold drinks, and could reach astronomical prices from 70.000 to even 1.000.000 sesterces for a single cup.2440 Beyond the shadow of a doubt, such vessels represented the height of luxury and were reserved for the use of the very wealthy as an alternative to the silver plates.2441 Even modest Octavian did not hesitate to take one precious object from the Ptolemies’ treasury after the battle of Actium – a murrhine bowl.2442 However, it was Pompey the Great, who brought about 2.000 murrhine vessels and other type of precious gems to Rome first after the defeat of Mithradates VI Eupator in 61 BC. He displayed them during his triumph and ultimately dedicated them to Jupiter Optimus Maximus on the Capitoline Hill (cf. chapters 8.1.1 and 8.1.2).2443 Pompey’s example was followed by the others, but according to my research, all the known surviving examples date to Augustan times (cf. chapter 10.9). Even though they were restricted to the inner circle of the first Emperor, their propagandistic value was considerable. According to the presented evidence, it is not easy to say whether they were produced on the commission of the head of state or the ones who tried to express their support for him. As discussed in chapter 10.9, some of the vessels definitely commemorated important events in the life of Imperial family, whereas the nature of others remains obscure. This applies, for instance, to the famous Portland Vase, which traditionally was considered a powerful propaganda object, however, in the light of the newly discovered evidence its decoration is likely to have a respond to different qualities. In any case, this vase as well as other cups and bottles presented in chapter 10.9 certainly contributed to the establishment of a new, proper image of the Imperial Court of Augustus. Even if they decorations are not directly related to propaganda issues, their presence itself was a powerful emanation of pathos and splendour. Similarly to State Cameos, carved vessels present the true unmodest face of the Imperial Court of Augustus. 2438 The best overview on this subject has been presented so far by Lapatin (2015, pp. 122-126). 2439 Pliny, NH, XXXVII.203; Lapatin 2015, pp. 122-123; Thoresen 2017, pp. 180-182. 2440 Pliny, NH, XXXVII.18-21. 2441 Henig 2007, p. 4. 2442 Suetonius, Augustus, 71. 2443 Pliny, NH, XXXVII.12; Appian, Mithr. 12. 13.13.3 Works in the round Politics was an extremely engaging part of Roman social life. It successfully infiltrated the private sphere and thanks to some works in the round carved in precious stones one investigates a phenomenon which may be called a private cult of political leaders which is in fact a bottom-up initiative and a part of propaganda machinery functioning under Augustus and after his death. It derives from an ancient tradition of honouring prominent dead Romans by displaying their death masks (imagines) in the atria of their own houses.2444 Such practices are well researched regarding Roman imperial period, when Roman emperors were cherished by their followers. Roman imperial cult was an institutionalized system of religious devotion which afforded sacrifice onto deceased and, in some respects, living emperors and their families. Emperor worship was practiced from the time of Augustus until the end of the 3rd century AD.2445 In Roman Republican times this kind of cult had much less official character, although, the mask of Scipio Africanus was stored in the temple of Jupiter, which was a public recognition beyond the shadow of a doubt.2446 Archaeology provides us with a number of interesting resources proving that cult of prominent Romans was present even in the houses of ordinary people. For instance, there are series of little terracotta and bronze figurines of Pompey the Great that could have been used for his cult in private houses belonging to his followers.2447 It is evident that such objects were produced in series from one matrix and the preserved fragments testify that Pompey was presented as a Roman general wearing paludamentum, at least on some of them.2448 Whether those figurines were made within the lifetime of Pompey or after his death is debated, but their existence proves that his propaganda actions were successful as they induced reactions from the target groups.2449 2444 Pliny, NH, XXXV.4-11; Hopkins 1985, pp. 255-256; Fejfer 2008, pp. 24-25. 2445 See, for instance: Burton 1912; Walker and Burnett 1981, p. 9; Price 1986; Gradel 2004; Brodd and Reed (eds.) 2011. 2446 Walbank 1986, pp. 120-137; Taylor 1931, p. 55. 2447 Kopij 2017, pp. 232-234. 2448 Bentz 1992. 2449 Kopij 2017, p. 234. 2450 Furtwängler 1900, vol. III, pp. 334-336. Glyptics delivers much evidence on the matter of the cult of prominent Romans and emperors in the private spheres too. In the times of Augustus starts a considerable production of little figurines, usually busts presenting the first emperor and members of his family (cf. chapter 10.9) in precious and semi-precious stones as well as glass. It was already Furtwängler who recognised those statuettes usually of very high quality as luxurious objects.2450 He stressed that the tradition of their production was borrowed from the Greeks. Little statuettes in the round were produced on the court of Ptolemies and then, the concept was probably transferred to Rome where the earliest examples can be dated to the 1st century BC and they perfectly fitted earlier Roman traditions described above.2451 In fact, gemstone figurines were a natural continuation from cameos modelled in high relief, simply removing the background altogether and continuing the engraving on the other side. Over half of the surviving examples represent deities and it has been suggested that such statuettes were made for use in the household shrines of the very wealthy.2452 The other part forms as mentioned, mostly heads and busts of the members of Imperial family with the primary role of Augustus himself. Suetonius offers a highly interesting account related to those little figurines. He describes that two children of Agrippina the Elder and Germanicus were taken off when they were still in infancy, and one just as he was reaching the age of boyhood, had his own statue, in the guise of Cupid, dedicated by Livia (his grandmother) in the temple of the Capitoline Venus, while Augustus had another placed in his bed chamber and used to kiss it fondly whenever he entered the room.2453 The mentioned figurine must have been one of those chalcedony busts presenting young princess as Cupids preserved in a relatively large number in various museum collections.2454 Another valuable author is Pliny the Elder who informs that he had seen a large jasper figurine of Nero in full armour that was 16 inches high.2455 This information combined with the number of statuettes and busts housed today in museum collections suggest they were indeed used in the private cult of the imperial family by the wealthiest followers and supporters of Augustus and his successors. Like the mentioned terracotta and bronze heads of Pompey the Great, they played a significant role in official propaganda but due to their extraordinary value, they were reserved only to the few. 2451 Furtwängler 1900, vol. III, p. 334. 2452 Padgett 1995, pp. 5-7. See, the most comprehensive study on this subject so far: Gagetti 2006. 2453 Suetonius, Caligula, 7. 2454 Gołyźniak 2017, no. 715 (with more literature). 2455 Pliny, NH, XXXVII.37. 13.14. Final remarks The conclusion of the research carried out on the problem of the use of engraved gems for self-presentation and propaganda purposes in the Roman Republic and under Augustus is that glyptics indeed played a significant role in propaganda machinery. Intaglios and cameos were frequently employed, first of all to popularise images of both the main political figures as well as those less successful ones. They were tremendously important in integration propaganda serving as tokens of allegiance to specific political factions. Moreover, gems often commemorated military victories, appointments to positions and offices and other major career points of a vast numbers of Roman statemen. They were also helpful in display particular qualities and virtues of the propagandists whether they used and issued them. Furthermore, intaglios and especially cameos guaranteed social distinction and enabled to create a powerful image of the Julio-Claudian dynasty suitable to the new form of reign in Rome. Thanks to them top politicians elevated their ancestors and themselves to the level of mythological figures and deities through comparison and even full identification with their patrons. All of this was possible due to the private character of glyptic art that often allowed to go bolder with propaganda messages than any other branch of Roman art and craftsmanship. The impact of propaganda practiced in glyptics on the public opinion seems weaker if compared to coinage or sculpture at the first glance. However, gems due to their unique forms, rare and exclusive materials used, unlimited charm of the gemstones employed and workmanship invested in giving them a proper shape and carving the image, powerful resonance and usefulness within the society, affected both, those who had sophisticated and high demands like nobility, high-rank officers and client rulers as well as ordinary citizens and regular soldiers. This makes glyptics in fact one of the most successful propaganda channel in ancient Rome.