Walking into the Vatican’s Braccio Nuovo, a somewhat “modern” intervention that aggressively destroys the original intention of Bramante’s Cortile del Belvedere, the visitor is meant to find a suitable compensation within a misguided architectural butchering. Standing pass the doors and looking at the deep gallery, a careful observation of the placement of the pieces yields a partial satisfaction that a former Gadeyne student will most certainly device. The statue of Augustus Prima Porta and Polykleitos’ Doryphoros are on opposite sides of the gallery, one bay distance from being exactly infront of eachother. I say we experience a partial satisfaction since, ideally, they should be placed directly across from eachother, creating a Roman Axis. In the Prima Porta statue Augustus is portrayed at full length in a military outfit, in his role as Imperator: leader of the Roman army. He wears the cuirass or armor, as well as the paludamentum or the cloth of the commander, and is standing barefoot addressing the troops. He is looking to the right and his right hand is raised in an adlocutio pose, or that of a rhetorical address; while the other arm is said to have carried a scepter (a spear is also attributed). To his right bottom, as a supporting structure, we have Cupid riding a dolphin.
This statue of Augustus was discovered on the 20th of April 1863, in the grounds of the Villa Ad Gallinas, that is said to have belonged to Augustus’ wife Livia , located in the vicinity of the ninth milestone along the Via Flaminia, on a hill above the so called Prima Porta, an arch of late Imperial time. According to tradition, the villa had a laurel grove that sprung from a branch carried by a white pullet that was dropped into the lap of the young Livia Drusilla by an eagle.The use of the villa aside from a country retreat and the place where Livia lived her last days seems to have been also of a semi-official character, since it was where the Julio-Claudian family gathered laurel leaves for their wreaths and where the sacred hens of Livia were kept until the death of Nero and the end of the dynasty. These curiosities seem to inform and contribute to various views concerning the original purpose and placement of the statue and to its long-gone attributes (spear, scepter, laurel leave, etc) The exact find-spot of the statue at the time of its discovery seems to have not been preserved in the archeological records of the time but there is an accordance that it was not found in its original setting, which has caused countless suggestions dealing with the initial position of the statue within the villa grounds. The most plausible one seems to be also the most obvious. Located in the northeastern corner of the atrium, there are the remains a structure (1.8m wide and 1.2m deep, only 0.4m preserved height) that is the only found in the villa that fits the description of a statue base, built of brick and riveted with marble, today only preserved at its bottom. This structure can clearly be dated to be earlier than the 2nd century black mosaic in the atrium floor which was laid around its edges and later than the reticulatum wall of late Republican or early Imperial date (thought to be the 30’s BC) against which it was set. More specifically, part of a fresco was recovered in the area that lay between the “base” and the wall, preserved because of the sheltering from the structure while all the other paintings in the atrium have long disappeared. It dates from the from the AD 1 to around 25 before any repainting of the 3rd or 4th style took place, and provides a secure date for the completion of the “base” during the time of Tiberius, confirming some of the theories regarding the statue’s origin that place him in the center of the reworking of this particular copy of an earlier statue of his adopted father. Furthermore, this placement also seems to be a strategic one, since any visitors coming to the villa and walking past the atrium would see the emperor firsthand in an adlocutio pose greeting or addressing them.
The exact dating of the statue seems to be also filled with controversy. There is a fair certainty that the statue is a copy in marble of a bronze original of the 20’s BC, which is might be verified by the pictorial program in the cuirass. Furthermore, although relatively nothing is known of the supposed original bronze statue, recent findings in the Sanctuary of Athena at Pergamon have produced a base with feet positions that more or less match those of the Prima Porta statue, suggesting that the original might have been situated there. This original in bronze might been different in details from the marble copy, with an undecorated cuirass and with military boots. This would be in accordance with a supposed the dating of the marble copy to the time of Emperor Tiberius, commissioned by him as an act of reverence to his adopted father, and also as a political maneuver to identify himself with Augustus (the way Augustus has done with Caesar) by the inclusion in the marble copy of the cuirass pictorial program which places him in the center of the story as a principal character under the service of the emperor. This reworked copy of the statue would have been a posthumous monument to Augustus after his deification, which explains why he is barefoot, although he shown the same way in numismatic depictions dated shortly after 31 BC. I find the dating of the marble copy to be under the reign of Tiberius as the most comprehensive when all the archeological and historical evidence is calibrated, referring to its original finding place in the villa of Livia (could have been a present from Tiberius to his mother after Augustus death in honor to the woman who had campaigned for him for so long to become the next emperor), to the verified dating of the supposed “statue base” found in the atrium, to the cuirass depiction (placing Tiberius as choice of the intermediary general responsible for the retrieval of the Standards), to finally the posthumous references to Augustus the Divine (something that the emperor was not comfortable with, but did allowed in thin veiled references). Considering all these evidences or assumptions, the dating of the statue to the first years of Tiberius reign seems to be the most attractive theory.
On the other hand, the written speculation on the original bronze statue is more difficult to digest. If the statue is a copy of an original with an undecorated cuirass, how is this original dated to 20 BC (the retrieval of the Standards date) if there are no references to that date but the cuirass imaginary? This is extremely problematic, because it would mean that original statue could have had a decorated cuirass of the same kind, since Augustus was very eager in advertising his “victory” (reached by means of diplomacy since no Roman legion had ever defeated the Parthians) over the Parthians, his first major political triumph that he could claim as his basis to rule over a non Roman, after the defeat of Marc Anthony and Cleopatra at Actium in civil war. Augustus desire to advertise this victory over foreign forces takes hold of him and sees how instrumental for political reasons this can be, deciding to commemorate it in other ways. This is evident in the Arch he constructed next to the temple of the Divine Julius Caesar in the Forum as a symbol of this event, and also in the placement of the Standards in the room to the left on the Temple of Mars Ultor in his own forum. So it is plausible that the original statue would have had a decorated cuirass with the Parthian story, seeing how important this was for Augustus legitimacy as a ruler. Furthermore, it is also plausible that the original bronze would have been barefoot since depictions of the emperor in that same ways appear as early as 31 BC in coins, and does not necessarily reflect his portrayal as divus. It could have been simply that Tiberius chose to replicate the statue in the same manner as a present to his mother while recognizing the story as his own achievement under Augustus command. This would mean that no physical alterations in the statue’s imaginary were made from the original, just interpretative ones, with it being a monument to Tiberius military efforts as well as Augustus’ life. Asides this, the exact justification for the dating or alterations to an original might never be known. The statue of Augustus Prima Porta can be considered the essential example of Augustan classicism. His political campaign claimed a change and distancing from the values of the Republican age which had caused three violent civil wars in Rome. It became evident that to express this change a new iconographic depiction in his propaganda art would have to be created. As his choice, he brakes with the old Republic modes of representation which only favored mature and old looking models as symbols of social and political importance, and decides to go back to the time when youthful beauty was most admired as a symbol of enthusiasm and optimism present in a young ruler (Augustus being a young man himself at the age of 31 when he takes charge of the Roman world). The evident style to choose from was of Classical Greece, which he then adopts as his official sign. This is clearly seen in the Prima Porta statue which takes boldly as its model the most famous statue of the period: Polykleitos’ 5th century BC Canon, the Doryphoros. While the features of the youthful emperor are clearly modeled on the Doryphoros, such as the arrangement of the hair very close to the scalp and the overlapping of the locks in a manner of movement and counter-movement which is a resolution of opposites present in the classical aesthetic (contrapposto theme), also the simplification of facial details and the smoothening of the skin, it is possible to see individual traits that identify him as Augustus, such as the reversed triangular composition of the face with the broad cranium and narrow chin, the wide ears, esquiline nose, the almond-shaped eyes by ridges that define the brow, and the crap-claw locks of hair in his forehead. These features become the official portrait style of Augustus until his death in the year 14 AD, at the age of 75. This style of portraiture takes its name from this statue as the Prima Porta Type. The pose of both statues is also similar in its contrapposto state, but there are major physical as well as conceptual differences. The similarities are characterized by the weight of both statues being rested on the right side and the left drawn black, and their heads turn slightly to the right. The ways the statues are conceived in relationship to the space around them are very different since the Doryphoros is steeping forward and the Prima Porta is standing in place. The Greek sculptor in the case of Polyclaitos, thought of his figure as moving through the space implying an intrusion into the world of the spectator; while the Roman artist was only concerned with the immediate periphery infront of the statue since it was placed on a niche. Therefore Augustus in some ways is being more classical than Polykleitos in his standing pose, while other times disrupting all classical balance by the extension of the right arm in an act of activating the space and dominating the viewer. He also does this by planting the feet more firmly on the ground than the Doryphoros, therefore commanding more authority and respect. Another aspect of the pose of the Prima Porta that is derived from older models of classical sculpture is its adlocutio gesture, that of a rhetorical address. This commanding gesture of laterally projecting the upper right arm, with an upward thrust of the forearm and hand is of the so-called Orator type (or Arringatore) from the second century BC. Eventhough the fingers in the right hand have been reconstructed after the initial finding there is still enough evidence to agree with the restoration as the adlocutio type, and not with the spear or laurel leaves that some experts attribute to it.
The statue, aside from stylistic references that tie it to Augustus’ cultural programme of classical revival, is clearly intended to express a strong political statement. The cuirass of the Prima Porta statue is therefore instrumental to understand Augustan ideology in relationship to art and politics for several reasons. One is because of its compacted totality, allowing all the information to be seen and digested from a single vantage point. It is also a midpoint on a line that starts with the Forum of Augustus and its sculptural decoration years earlier, and that will continue with the Ara Pacis ten years after. By using art as means to express his political and social ideology, Augustus carefully creates a series of individual representations and metaphors that must be read together to arrive at the underlying theme, but that at the same time function as image flashes with strong significance in their isolation. In other words to understand one of the multiple messages present in the cuirass of the Prima Porta, the observer did not need to be aware of the overall series of complex representations.
As stated before, the cuirass is divided into several sections, each with its own significance and representation that form and contribute to a larger storyline. This storyline is the underlying theme of most of Augustan art, that of the securing of the Pax Romana by the only person that could have achieved it: Augustus, after years of civil war and conflict in the provinces that in turn reinforce his own destiny, ancestry, and the will of the Gods as sole ruler of the Empire.
The center of the cuirass, and starting point of the narrative commemorates an event that occurred in the year 20 BC, when the standards and spoils of three legions that were lost under general Crassus in 53 BC to the Parthians in one of the most shameful Roman defeats ever, were returned after a series of diplomatic interventions. It represents a Parthian (bearded and in baggy clothes), or maybe the king Phraates IV himself, returning the lost standards to a representative of the roman army who wears a helmet, a cuirass and military boots, and is accompanied by the She-wolf. The identity of this person has come to have different interpretations, such as the god Mars, a personification of the army, Romulus, Augustus himself or and according to Suetonius, a sources of the time, the young Tiberius, who is said to have been the actual intermediary in the transfer. There is no accurate way to prove who this person really represents, but if the statue is someday accurately dated to be of around the beginning of Tiberius reign as it is one of the hypothesis, then there is a strong possibility that it might represent the Emperor in his younger days as a hero at the service of his future adopted father. At each side of the central scene, there are personifications of nations under the roman stronghold. To the right there is an unarmed seated figure said to be a representative of the Celtic tribes, holding an empty scabbard, a military standard with a boar and a dragon trumpet. To the left there is another seated figure which still has her sword, representing the nations that are still not totally under Rome’s control (some have speculated it to represent Hispania or Gaul). They are to represent the generalized attitude of Rome’s East and West conquered provinces, those who have already experienced the force of the empire and the other who have not yet, but eventually will. They represent Augustus dominion as an active general, responsible for these provinces that he has directly conquered.
There is a conscious omission of battle scenes in Augustan iconography, since they are most widely representative of Hellenistic themes, and do not stress the concept of Pax he was so eager to bring across. The rest of the cuirass is decorated based on mythological figures and representative of the consequences of the main actions depicted in the cuirass. Now that the captured standards have been retrieved, and that East and West rebel nations have fallen under the rule of the Empire, is time for Sol the sun-god to transverse the sky in his four horse chariot. This occurs at the top of the composition and is preceded by Aurora, the winged goddess of Dawn and Venus who is sometimes referred to as the Morning Star, carrying the torch Aurora. All this happens under the mantle of Caelus, the sky-god. This top part of the cuirass is riddle with double meaning typical of Augustus’ style, in which Sol is a reference to Apollo, the god that Augustus believed had aided him to triumph over Marc Anthony in the battle of Actium and who became Augustus personal deity, as well as Venus which is another reference to his ancestry as part of the Julian family. At the lower part we see Apollo on the left riding a winged griffin and Diana on her hind on the right. In the lower center we have the reclining figure of Tellus, representing the Bountiful Earth with her cornucopia and a tympanon at her feet, the emblem of the Trojan mother Goddess and whom Augustus built a temple for next to his house on the Palatine. The image of Apollo is then present twice in the cuirass, one as Sol and another as Apollo himself, as well as that of Venus, once as flying with Aurora as the Evening Star and the other the support structure at the right of Augustus in which we notice a reference to her in Cupid riding a dolphin. Obviously these two gods were personally important to Augustus as to reinforce their presence by multiple appearances in such a compact depiction; to one he owed his ancestry line and to the other his greatest victory, the battle of Actium who features prominently in the sculpture with references of sphinxes on the shoulder flaps of the cuirass as well as the dolphin in the base, an attribution usually depicting remembrance of a naval victories.
As far as stylistic and its technical prowess of the statue we see that the sculptor has worked the single piece of marble in a very detailed way (apart from the simplified features of the Emperor). The cuirass is elaborately carved not only in the details supporting its message but also in the anatomical characteristics of the muscles in the chest, abdomen and nipples that have been incorporated into the composition. The padulamentum and sleeves are extremely detailed and carefully portrayed making the statue not just a tool to serve his political purposes, but also a work of art to rival the ones it took inspiration from, the perfect blend that Augustus always envisioned. The statue originally would have been painted in vibrant colors.
The statue of Augustus Imperator from the villa of Livia at Prima Porta is a complex work full of symbolism up to an excessive degree, and it might be in this word that we encounter the true personality of the first Roman Emperor. We get the sense that nothing was left to chance and every aspect carefully calculated to the most insignificant detail. The subsequent emperors would continue this tradition, if not precisely in the same stylistic manner, always in its orchestrated political connotations.
Reference Sources:
1. Galinsky, Karl. Augustan Culture. Princeton University Press, 1996 2. Galinsky, Kart (edited). The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Augustus, Cambridge University Press, 2005 3. Kleiner, Diana E.E. Roman Sculpture. Yale University Press, 1992 4. Boardman, John. The Oxford History of Classical Art, Oxford Univ Press, 1997 5. Ramage, Nancy H. and Ramage, Andrew. Roman Art: Romulus to Constantine. Prentice Hall, 2000 6. Beard, Mary and Henderson, John. Classical Art from Greece to Rome, Oxford Univ. Press, 2001 7. Allan Klynne and Peter Liljenstolpe. “Where to put Augustus? A note on the placement of the Prima Porta statue”. The American Journal of Philology. Vol. 121, No. 1, Spring 2000, pp. 121-128.
8. Reeder, Jane Clark. “The Statue of Augustus from Prima Porta, the Underground Complex, and the Omen of the Gallina Alba”. The American Journal of Philology. Vol. 118, No. 1, Spring 1997, pp. 89-118.
