Augustus's Later Years

[Germanicus]

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?

 

mmm...I suppose something to do with wanting to appear as mother of her country ? Cornelia mother of the Gracchiesque ?

[Primus Pilus]

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?

 

mmm...I suppose something to do with wanting to appear as mother of her country ? Cornelia mother of the Gracchiesque ?

 

Here are some samples of various Julio-Claudians from vroma.

 

And an excellent example of the 'older' Livia.

 

Paraphrasing the accompanying text of the photo... it seems that the representation of the older female can be interpreted as a message of fertility and motherhood. Its fairly clear that there are certainly different age representations of Livia. If we can believe Suetonius/Robert Graves perhaps Livia was so desperate to set herself up as a goddess in order to insure her own deification that perhaps she purposely displayed herself as the more mature matriarch. (though the example hardly shows her as an 'old' woman).

[M. Porcius Cato]

This kind of thing simply drives me nuts. I said, what do we make of that fact that Livia had herself portrayed as "older than Augustus." Then, PP talks about her portrayal as an "older woman", but her not being an "old woman." Nobody said she looked like an old woman, just older than Augustus!

 

Anyway, I don't think you were trying to twist my words, but there's no need to take down a straw man.

[Germanicus]

This kind of thing simply drives me nuts. I said, what do we make of that fact that Livia had herself portrayed as "older than Augustus." Then, PP talks about her portrayal as an "older woman", but her not being an "old woman." Nobody said she looked like an old woman, just older than Augustus!

 

Anyway, I don't think you were trying to twist my words, but there's no need to take down a straw man.

 

Yes, being misunderstood can be annoying - but I guess that's life when you're not face to face.

 

Anyway - to your question. Do you actually think she would have considered the "older than Augustus" thing ? Or was the reason just as PP suggested, and the fact that she was older than Augustus in representations largely a bi product ?

[Primus Pilus]

This kind of thing simply drives me nuts. I said, what do we make of that fact that Livia had herself portrayed as "older than Augustus." Then, PP talks about her portrayal as an "older woman", but her not being an "old woman." Nobody said she looked like an old woman, just older than Augustus!

 

Anyway, I don't think you were trying to twist my words, but there's no need to take down a straw man.

 

I wasn't trying to do anything other than continue the conversation. The example I provided does not show her as an old woman, but it was an example of her as clearly older than Augustus. Perhaps you were referring to other images, perhaps not. I have no clue. I am in complete agreement with you that she is clearly depicted as older than Augustus in this example as you suggested previously, but was also making it clear that I do not personally perceive this representation as 'old'. It really had nothing to with your point, I was just emphasizing my perception of her age. I'm a little surprised by the reaction, but do apologize for the unintended slight.

[M. Porcius Cato]

This kind of thing simply drives me nuts. I said, what do we make of that fact that Livia had herself portrayed as "older than Augustus." Then, PP talks about her portrayal as an "older woman", but her not being an "old woman." Nobody said she looked like an old woman, just older than Augustus!

 

Anyway, I don't think you were trying to twist my words, but there's no need to take down a straw man.

Yes, being misunderstood can be annoying - but I guess that's life when you're not face to face.

 

True enough. C'est la vie.

 

Anyway - to your question. Do you actually think she would have considered the "older than Augustus" thing ? Or was the reason just as PP suggested, and the fact that she was older than Augustus in representations largely a bi product ?

 

I don't think LIVIA would have considered whether she was being portrayed as older than Augustus, but I think any normal woman (i.e., your average non-power-luster) wants to look better than her husband! Maybe I'm just a sexist, but I'll bet my statistics about preferences are about right on that.

 

And the reason PP offered I think is right--she wanted to appear matronly, but surely that has to come into conflict with how glamorous she looked too. Apparently, for Livia, the look of power was more important than the look of glamour. That was sort of what I was getting at initially.

 

And, yes, I know I'm treading into hot waters here.... Maybe Livia was just having a bad day when the portrait was done.

[Primus Pilus]

This kind of thing simply drives me nuts. I said, what do we make of that fact that Livia had herself portrayed as "older than Augustus." Then, PP talks about her portrayal as an "older woman", but her not being an "old woman." Nobody said she looked like an old woman, just older than Augustus!

 

Anyway, I don't think you were trying to twist my words, but there's no need to take down a straw man.

Yes, being misunderstood can be annoying - but I guess that's life when you're not face to face.

 

True enough. C'est la vie.

 

Anyway - to your question. Do you actually think she would have considered the "older than Augustus" thing ? Or was the reason just as PP suggested, and the fact that she was older than Augustus in representations largely a bi product ?

 

I don't think LIVIA would have considered whether she was being portrayed as older than Augustus, but I think any normal woman (i.e., your average non-power-luster) wants to look better than her husband! Maybe I'm just a sexist, but I'll bet my statistics about preferences are about right on that.

 

And the reason PP offered I think is right--she wanted to appear matronly, but surely that has to come into conflict with how glamorous she looked too. Apparently, for Livia, the look of power was more important than the look of glamour. That was sort of what I was getting at initially.

 

This is an interesting case of full circle because... if we assume this reasoning to be true, and I personally agree that Livia's intention here was indeed to appear more regal or matronly, etc. over glamorous, than the appearance of Octavian consistently as a young man becomes even more difficult to understand. In spite of my/our previous notions that age of imperium, or image consistency may have been a major factor in Octavian's portraits, we also know that the Romans revered their elders (both Patriarch and Matriarch and not limited to a single sex). They also correlated the wisdom obtained with age as a prerequesite for office. (the Princeps and imperial family excluded of course).

 

With that being understood, wouldn't it make sense in theory for Octavian to establish himself as a more wisened ruler? Perhaps this youthful appearance is far more influenced by an Alexandrian idea of youthful supremacy. Complete conjecture of course, but interesting.

[Furius Venator]

I think the idea of a 'young vigorous' Augustus being his public face is very possibly correct. I'm not exactly sure that he would have been keen to be seen as an Alexander exactly (Pompey was but didn't care about being portrayed as middle aged so long as the got his hair right!). Also nhere was a Roman thing with youthful ability, it was seen to Pompey and Augustus' credit that they succeeded to high office young.

 

As to Livia I suspect the point is she didn't need or want to be seen as a youthful beauty (associations with licentious behaviour) but as the very embodiment of Roman female virtue.

Edited April 4, 2006 by Furius Venator

[M. Porcius Cato]

I think the idea of a 'young vigorous' Augustus being his public face is very possibly correct. I'm not exactly sure that he would have been keen to be seen as an Alexander exactly (Pompey was but didn't care about being portrayed as middle aged so long as the got his hair right!). Also nhere was a Roman thing with youthful ability, it was seen to Pompey and Augustus' credit that they succeeded to high office young.

 

Sure, everybody agrees that Octavian's portrait was of a young vigorous guy, which must have been what he wanted because he had that portrait plastered all over the empire. The unresolved question is--what's the rule (or rule-of-thumb) for determining how emperors had themselves depicted?

 

As to Livia I suspect the point is she didn't need or want to be seen as a youthful beauty (associations with licentious behaviour) but as the very embodiment of Roman female virtue.

 

OK, but again the issue here is this: her portrait is going to be seen by people who have seen Octavian's portrait; why the heck would SHE be the one portrayed as oldER and (frankly) uglier? My guess accords with the spirit of Suetonius: Livia was the arch-power-luster in the family, and she wanted to appear august even more than Augustus did.

[Furius Venator]

Regarding Livia.

 

First if Augustus is portrayed as young then if Livia is to be portrayed as younger she will not embody the traditional ideals of Roman womanhood and further will run the risk of being seen as a mere flighty piece. Given that Augustus' female family members had a reputation for licentiousness then one can see two reasons why she might steer clear.

 

Second, isn't it a bit presumptious to assume that because she's female she should be more obsessed with good looks than dignity?

Edited April 4, 2006 by Furius Venator

[Horatius]

Primus Pilus said "Here are some samples of various Julio-Claudians from vroma." Nice link it included one that is new to me. http://www.hermitagemuseum.org/html_En/03/hm3_1_3c.html I have never seen a nike and orb on an original statue before.Be interesting to know the history of that peice. It is in excellant shape. Comparing it with representations of the original Phidias is interesting too. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...tue_of_Zeus.jpg http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/jmac/rs/7zeus.gif http://www.educnet.education.fr/musagora/m...es/sq3/zeus.jpg

[Primus Pilus]

Yesterday while playing in the apology thread I was also trying to get a bit of research done. This is not all conclusive of course, but might help form some more opinion.

 

I keep coming back to the afore-mentioned age of imperium as an important point of consistency in which princeps are depicted. This works in several cases, but is not across the board. We mentioned Octavian and Vespasian earlier and age of imperium could work as the basis for their particular imagery. Augustus is an oddity because of the extreme length of his rule. The obvious changes to his physical appearance over this time is not really displayed as we have discussed, but in the case of Vespasian, its quite likely that not much would've changed in the perception of the average Roman from his age of imperium (60) to his death (70).

 

What we generally find with the emperors is that there is a massive campaign to promote the new leader upon his recognition as heir and/or immediately after his actual succession which certainly makes sense. For Octavian/Augustus, again his case his odd because of the circumstances associated with the civil wars and the final destruction of the Republic. It's difficult to understand exactly how old Octavian is supposed to look in his various statues, but in my eyes he looks considerably younger than the 36ish he would have been at the time of the second settlement in 27 BC. His imagery was already being presented all over the world well before. Obviously after this time, statues continued to be spread around the empire, but his default age of appearance had already been established. Looking closely at the existing Augustan busts I can start to see that he may indeed appear more as a thirty something in many of them, which would have been massively produced after the culmination of his power. However this still does not account for why he still appears as a younger man in statues depicting his status as Pontifex Maximus (which didn't occur until 13 BC at the age of 50ish). Again all we are left with in theory is age of imperium, vanity, uniformity of image, perhaps even cost as choices.

 

Because Augustus is difficult to pin down for a multitude of reasons I started looking for a better test case. I think Marcus Aurelius is an excellent example. He was named heir to Antoninus Pius by Hadrian at the age of 17 and succeeded Antoninus at the age of 40. While there are some busts that could arguably depict Aurelius as younger than 40, the great bulk of his images are of the middle-age 'stoic' appearance. If he appears a bit younger in some, perhaps its the rendition of the artist or any number of minor factors. The main thing is that there is no great collection of statues of him upon being named Caesar at 17, nor much in between. (Though here is one of him presumably around that age) Unfortunately coinage imagery just isn't generally of the quality to depict subtle differences in age (unless we are talking about the difference between a Geta and Septimius Severus for example)

 

Here's an image of Marcus Aurelius as Caesar. Does he look much different than how he looked in later statues? Hard to tell from a coin image.

 

After Marcus we have Commodus who was given joint imperium at the age of 17. However, because he succeeded his father at the age of 19, we could be satisfied that statues between the two points would be comparable. Commodus is clearly depicted as a fairly young man in a great deal of sculpture. We sometimes make the mistake of thinking that Commodus ruled a very short time, but he in fact ruled for 12 years from 180 - 192 making him about 31 when he was assassinated. The interesting thing here is we do see some fairly different imagery of him but its largely because of the association with Hercules and not necessarily a change in age.

 

Here's some Commodus images. Just scroll through.

 

What we have really is a situation where we can't make a determination. Other than Augustus there was no emperor who came to power as a youth, and lived into old age. Most came to power already advanced in years, and those who didn't (Gaius, Nero, Commodus, even Titus and Domitian...) never quite made it.

 

A nice collection of imperial images Rome or Bust

[Primus Pilus]

I threw this list together. I'm not sure if it really tells us anything.

 

(looked like heck as a post so I made it a word document)

ageofimperium.doc

[Furius Venator]

It does seem (at a quick glance) to indicate that 40 was the optimum age for succession. The chances of being a 'bad' emperor rising dramatically as one approaches either extreme. Vespasian being an exception This may of course be sheer coincidence.

 

I'm not sure exactly what it tells us about their portraits though. Perhaps their own self image came into that a lot, some being happier to be percieved as men of wisdom and years, others preferring to think of themselves as embodying youthful drive.

Edited April 5, 2006 by Furius Venator

[Julia C]

Augustus wasn't too handsome in his older years. His health was always poor and his face was spotted. He certainly wouldn't want to appear that way in his portraits.

 

Livia, on the other hand, held herself as the austere patrician matrona. It was essential for her to let herself fit that traditional mold, because she was often used as the embodiment of the ideal Roman woman.