Augustus's Later Years

The Romans always seemed to depict their leaders fairly accurately but I can't recall seeing any representations of Augustus in his 60's or 70's. Are there any? Was there a prohabition on it in Augustus's case? I get the impression he remained pretty sharp right up untill his death.

He was pretty cut up about the loss of his legions in the Teutoberg forest. It was around this time that his two heirs apparent also perished (I forget their names but they should be easy to find, they were Julia's sons). I don't think he became senile or anything, but his spirit was broken.

I'm not aware of any of his later history being supressed, if that's what you mean. Taccitus wrote a fair bit about his later years.

Edit - The boys were called Lucius and Caius? (Gaius?). I'm not sure, she had 5 children in all.

Actually I meant as far as statuary or mozaics and things like that. I can see why he would always want to be depicted as he was in the famous Prima Porta Augustus statue,just wondered if there were any representations of him in his 60's and 70's. Kind of a silly question just was curious.

Kind of a silly question just was curious.

No, not a silly question - I'm curious too. He always looks the same age in the statues I've seen. But I've seen Julius Caesar statues of widely varying ages.

Are you kidding? Portray Augustus an old man? No - that wasn't done. Emperors had a say in how statues of them appeared. Caracalla for instance liked to be seen as Mr Nasty. Augustus wouldn't have appreciated anything other than the dignified young hero.

I've also just realised that he needed to be recognised. A statue was like a logo - if it differed too much no-one would know who it was.

I think Augustus' portrait is not veristic because a sea-change in portraiture occurred between the era of the republic and the principate. During the republic, you competed in part based on your power to persuade others that you could safeguard the state. Thus, candidates liked to be portrayed as older, wiser, and more august. They wanted to look senatorial for much the same reason that candidates today want to look "presidential". Interestingly, when candidates stood for office, they even carried the masks of their ancestors with them--as if to say, "I may be young and not so impressive now, but look at where I come from and what potential exists in me thanks to my lineage."*

Octavian's portraits were anything but senatorial; Augustus doesn't even look august. Instead his portrait looks like one of a Hellenistic despot--young, virile, athletic, and immortal.

Maybe Octavian never had his portrait updated so he really would appear immortal. Maybe he did it for brand recognition. Maybe he wanted to look like someone who really could be Caesar's (adopted) son and heir. All of these possibilities seem reasonable.

Here's another possibility though (one I favor): Octavian wanted to appeal to his power base, which really was the whole Mediterranean (where they liked young princes such as Alexander) and not just the voters in Rome (whom Caesar made irrelevant). One thing going for my hypothesis is that it explains another exceptional Roman portrait--Pompey's. Pompey, like Octavian, also had a large non-Italian power base and also modelled his portrait on a young Hellenistic leader--Alexander. It might be that as the center of Roman power shifted slightly away from the voters in Rome and toward the provinces, the need to portray oneself as an old Roman paterfamilias gave way to a more trans-Mediterranean esthetic.

Anyway, that's my guess.

__________________

* In case you've read Harry Potter, the Malfoys strike me as being dead-ringers for the old Roman aristocracy.

What baffles me though is that Augustus appears to take great pains not to appear as the dictator he was but as restorer of the Republic and just as First Citizen. Appearing as a wise, distingushed older gentleman would seem to reinforce that image better than the image of him as a military hero. Especially since his only real military expierience was against other Romans in a painfull civil war. Portraying him as older in his role as Pontifex Maximus for instance would seem to be much more appropriate. Maybe if that symbolism instead of the Emperor as military dictaor was used his system would have evolved differently. Was it really his intention to create a permanent almost absolute monarch for Rome? I like to think he was sincere and intended something else and it just got hijacked along the way. He probably was a lot more rutheless and power hungry though than my extermely limited understanding of him.

Here's another possibility though (one I favor): Octavian wanted to appeal to his power base, which really was the whole Mediterranean (where they liked young princes such as Alexander) and not just the voters in Rome (whom Caesar made irrelevant). One thing going for my hypothesis is that it explains another exceptional Roman portrait--Pompey's. Pompey, like Octavian, also had a large non-Italian power base and also modelled his portrait on a young Hellenistic leader--Alexander. It might be that as the center of Roman power shifted slightly away from the voters in Rome and toward the provinces, the need to portray oneself as an old Roman paterfamilias gave way to a more trans-Mediterranean esthetic.

What do you make of those which came after Augustus, that do seem veristic ? Like Nero, Tiberius to an extent.....perhaps not Claudius, but the Flavian Emperors certainly.

Your theory does fit with the sculptures of Julius Caesar after his death, mostly showing an equally virile, muscular, imperious man...with a full head of hair. Some of them even bear a striking resemblance to Octavian. (The one on the cover of my civil wars penguin classic for example)

What do you make of those which came after Augustus, that do seem veristic ? Like Nero, Tiberius to an extent.....perhaps not Claudius, but the Flavian Emperors certainly.

Good question.

Tiberius' portrait (at least the Intaglio one) seems in the Octavian mold, and Nero's is also less Roman and more Hellenist, so I think my account works for them pretty well.

The Flavian ones are certainly more verisitic than Octavian's, but overall they have the same idealized (less detailed) features as Octavian. Maybe that's just because they were mass-produced. Really, I've not studied these portraits and the time period well enough to project my power-base theory past the Roman revolution.

The Flavian ones are certainly more verisitic than Octavian's, but overall they have the same idealized (less detailed) features as Octavian. Maybe that's just because they were mass-produced. Really, I've not studied these portraits and the time period well enough to project my power-base theory past the Roman revolution.

Just some additional thoughts on the subject...

I think that part of the reasoning for busts and 'portraits' has to relate at least in small part to making mass recognition easy. Vespasian was already 60 years old when he eventually put an end to the civil war of AD 69. It wouldn't make sense to depict him as a younger man, when the first massive public consumption of him was at this age. Yes they could've portrayed him as the more youthful general that people would've been aware of under Nero and perhaps for have taken part in the Claudian invasion of Britain, but the association of him as emperor was only at the age of 60.

In the case of Octavian, while vanity and propoganda certainly play a part, we must also consider ease of recognition as a factor. Everyone in the Roman world knew of Caesar Augustus as the young heir of Caesar, son of a god and all that, not only did the consistent images help drive this point home, but anyone anywhere would immediately recognize a statue of him. I know the following is obvious but it helps make my point... unlike today where mass media allows us to watch people age and grow and present images of famous people throughout their lives, there was obviously no such mechanism in the ancient world. It may seem trivial, but presenting consistent images of important figures simply for the sake of making it clear who that person is, certainly must have had some advantages. I am not suggesting that it was a primary reason, nor that it takes any precedence over the use of propoganda/reassuring imagery but only that it is a minor condition to consider.

Additionaly, many individual artisans may only have been working off the works of other artists, having never personally laid eyes upon or been commissioned directly by the subject in question. Many representations in these cases, coinage is an obvious item included in this category, were required to conform to existing imagery because the artist had no other point of reference.

Well to add a modern connection to it: How many pictures or statues of Lincoln do you see him without a beard?

I think that the previous post about recognition is spot on. Octavian became emperor and that image of him is frozen in time as the image of Caesar.

In the case of Octavian, while vanity and propoganda certainly play a part, we must also consider ease of recognition as a factor.

Ease of recognition can explain the consistency of depictions, but it doesn't explain whether the person was depicted as a youth or an old man. Age at time of attaining imperium, however, can explain how the person was depicted--and that's probably the more important point you wanted to make, no?

In the case of Octavian, while vanity and propoganda certainly play a part, we must also consider ease of recognition as a factor.

 

Ease of recognition can explain the consistency of depictions, but it doesn't explain whether the person was depicted as a youth or an old man. Age at time of attaining imperium, however, can explain how the person was depicted--and that's probably the more important point you wanted to make, no?

Yes absolutely, a rather vital piece of information I implied with Vespasian but left out for our younger example.

Ahhhh, it's all falling into place.

I suppose for the purposes of the Imperial cult they needed plenty of ageless, recognizable god like statues too.

Now, given that emperor portraits were typically based on the emperor's likeness at the time of attaining imperium, what should we make of the fact that Livia's portrait is of a woman much older than Augustus?