This over-life-size (8’ 4”)
marble portrait of the emperor Claudius (ruled AD 41-54) was found in Lanuvium (about
20 miles southeast of Rome) in 1865. It
was made early in his reign, ca. AD 42 or 43.
The statue presents two
incongruities. First, it obviously joins
the body of a young man with the head of a man in his 50s. Second, it presents the emperor in the guise
of the chief Roman god, Jupiter: the oak crown (the oak being the god's sacred tree),
the scepter in his left hand, and the eagle at his feet leave no doubt about this (his
right hand probably held a thunderbolt—the patera is a mistaken restoration). How were these (to us) odd combinations
received by the ancient viewer?
(1) The head shows the signs
of aging common in middle-aged people: forehead lines, bags under the eyes,
nasolabial folds. Claudius was indeed about
50 at the time of his accession in AD 41.
So the head seems true to life. By
contrast, the body is youthful. His nude
torso puts that youthfulness on display.
Realism was the mark of
Roman portraiture already under the Republic.
Roman elites kept ancestor masks (imagines) in their homes. Some Roman portraits are actually hyper-realistic,
with exaggerated features (including exaggerated defects): modern scholars call
these “veristic” and the style “verism.”
Why exaggerate? Verism projected
aristocratic virtues: maturity, experience, seriousness, determination… The logic is not unlike that of caricature: physiognomy reveals character, and character belongs to
ideology.
The combination of an old
head with a young body was also already common under the Republic. This statue (right) found at Tivoli (known as
the Tivoli General—note the military breastplate at his side) joins a realistic
head with a semi-nude body that is youthful and muscular. It is worth noting that this incongruity is a Roman
phenomenon: it is not found in Greek portraiture.
So the portait of Claudius
was nothing new... Yet in a way it was. For Augustus had set a pattern for
portraiture that was distinctly classicizing.
His statues and those of his successors Tiberius and Caligula are in the style of the Greek
art of the fifth and fourth centuries, i.e., that of Classicism, especially the High Classical
moment of Pheidias and Polyclitus. The
early Julio-Claudians are portrayed as ever youthful, more ideal than real (or veristic). They do not age. And, generally speaking, all their portraits
follow this classicizing pattern. After
all, they were a big ruling family, a dynasty.
They had a claim to rule, and their portraiture showed that they all
shared that claim.
So in reverting to the realism
of Republican portraiture Claudius was making a statement. He was staging a return to Republican values.
(2) Claudius’ assimilation
to Jupiter was similarly ideological. "Do not challenge my rule," he seemed to be saying, "unless you want to challenge the very order of the divine world!" The association of the rule of the Julio-Claudians
with that of Jupiter was traditional, a commonplace already in Augustan poetry. Iuppiter in caelis, Caesar regit omnia
terris: “Jupiter rules all in the heavens, Caesar rules all on earth” so runs a
line attibuted to Vergil in the Latin Anthology. Horace compared Augustus to Jupiter (Odes 1.12,
3.5), and so did Ovid.
Augustus is portrayed
as Jupiter on the Gemma Augustea (left), where he holds a scepter, with Jupiter’s
eagle at his feet.
If the portrait of Tiberius
in the guise of Jupiter (right) from the theater at Caere (modern Cerveteri) was
indeed recut from a portrait of Caligula, then this piece, too, was a model for
portrait of Claudius.
So the answer to the
question concerning the Roman reception of Claudius’ incongruous portrait is this: the
realism of the head and the link to Jupiter were traditional, part of the conventional language of images. But as such they
made a strong statement. Claudius was a Julio-Claudian,
a legitimate ruler, and he was
announcing a return to the values of the Republic. This program must be understood in its
context. Claudius followed Caligula, who
had been assassinated after only four years in power. He had been found hiding behind a curtain by
the Praetorians and made emperor. He
needed to show that he was not going to be another Caligula. Afflicted with a stutter and a limp, and
known more as a bookworm than as a statesman, he needs some powerful PR. So he chose to present himself as both an
old-fashioned Republican general (like the Tivoli General) and a Jupiter-like guarantor of order and stability. His
invasion of Britain in AD 43 was a renewal of the project of Julius Caesar in
55 and 54 BC. His big message was that
he was turning back the sundial, back to the good old days.
- Ryan Summers
No comments:
Post a Comment