Lauren Day

Dr. Mickey Abel

May 1, 2015

An Explanation for the Variation Between Livian Portrait Typologies

Since the first discovery of her image on a small coin in the 16th century,1

portraits of Livia Drusilla, Augustus’s wife and first lady of Rome have been

discovered in nearly every medium, and have quickly gained scholarly interest. The

first portrait that was discovered and identified as Livia was on coinage in 1558, so

naturally coins were the first items that were studied by scholars and antiquarians2.

Since then, there has been an enduring scholarly tradition of categorizing her

portraiture, surprisingly first established by a mathematician named Johann

Bernoulli in the late 19th century. His 1886 book established the initial framework

and categorization of iconography for which the discourse around Livia’s portraiture

has been centered ever since3. Though the nuances between categories and

subcategories have long since been debated upon, the types are all based on the

iconographic hallmarks of the first lady’s image: her hairstyles and physiognomy. In

Portraits of Livia, author Elizabeth Bartman describes the four traditional typologies,

which include the Marbury Hall, Faiyum, Keil/Salus, and Diva Augusta categories,

chronologically. Other scholars such as Winkes, Kleiner, and Woods have shaped the

growing scholarship around her portraiture in recent years. 1 Elizabeth Bartman. Portraits of Livia: Imaging the Imperial Woman in Augustan Rome (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge UP, 1999), 6.2 Ibid, 13.3 Ibid, 8.

1

Although there has been such an emphasis on the study of what defines each

typology, there is a gap in the scholarship that fails to provide an explanation for the

variations between them and why these specific changes occurred. It is my

contention that the changes between types were determined by the will of the men

in Livia’s life. Whether it be her position in the Augustan program of cultural

renewal, her role as First Mother under Tiberian rule, or as the deified goddess and

grandmother of Claudius, her image was a tool that was used for each of their

political and personal purposes. This paper will outline Livia’s portrait types

chronologically, and the changes between the types will be explained in a historical

context. I assert that the variations between Livian portrait categories are first and

foremost the result of her deteriorating relationship with her son, Tiberius. Though

it is impossible to determine with definite accuracy the validity of my or other

scholars’ arguments regarding this topic, it is a stipulation that can be backed up

with historical and material evidence.

Marbury Hall

The earliest portraits of Livia began around 35 BCE, and are commonly

agreed to belong to the Marbury Hall type4 (See figure 1 and 2). This category is

characterized by her hairstyle, in which a large nodus (a bun-like knot) at the front

becomes a braid running along a centered part, across the crown of her head and

down to a low bun at the nape of her neck. The braid is wrapped around the bun

three times, making this her most elaborately ornamented style. A direct frontal 4 Rolf Winkes, “Livia: Portrait and Propaganda,” I Claudia II. (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2000) 32-33.

2

gaze and serious facial expression are associated with this type. I contend that this

ornamentation is symbolic and reminiscent of the period of time in which she

enjoyed the most influence, and the tendency toward visual simplicity signified a

reduction in power as Tiberius ascended politically. To understand this fully, it is

essential for our purposes to historically contextualize Livia’s role in the Roman

power structure during this period. It is this Marbury Hall typology that was widely

used under Augustus’s rule, and therefore for his new program of cultural renewal.

Livia’s visual and symbolic role in the imperial portraiture during this period was to

embody all the characteristics that a woman should aspire to have under the new,

revitalized moral program under Augustus.

Livia was held up as the model of feminine virtue and fecundity for the public.

Diana E. E. Kleiner explains that the “innovative nodus hairstyle encapsulated

Augustus’s military opposition to Mark Antony and [Livia’s] own war of appearances

with the ostentatious coiffure and clothing of Antony’s Egyptian consort Cleopatra”5.

Livia exerted powerful influence over her husband and over Rome. She patronized

the building of public buildings and temples, took advantage of her position as the

ultimate in feminine virtue and fertility in Augustus’s new social program. This early

portrait type represents Livia during her highest level of influence; a time in which

she was a power figure in her own right.

Faiyum

5 Diana E. E. Kleiner, “Family Ties: Mothers and Sons in Elite and Non-Elite Roman Art” I Claudia II (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2000) 49.

3

After Tiberius was officially designated as Augustus’s heir, a new typology

emerged (Figure 3) to signify this change in Livia’s status as mother of the heir. It is

my contention that the changes which occurred here are indicative of Tiberius’s

efforts to subordinate Livia in the public eye and therefore change their perception

of her. The influential nodus hairstyle that Livia was known for is removed in the

Faiyum type, and we see a progression toward simplicity. The nodus, in my

argument, would have been associated with the period of Livia’s power apex, so the

new Faiyum type is arguably demonstrative of Tiberius’s attempts to remove this

association by diminishing the emphasis on the nodus. It is not a far reach to make

this claim- as Elizabeth Bartman noted, imperial portraits were nearly exclusively

commissioned by those within the imperial family6.

Evidence of friction between Livia and her son dates back as early as the year

6 AD7. The conflict seems to be rooted in Tiberius’s resentment over Livia’s

influential role in his rise to power. Livia could be seen as a political puppet master

during her son’s youth with high-minded ambition; Kleiner notes that her political

strategies were rooted in both maternal and personal interest8. Her own personal

ambition proved to be too much for Tiberius, as she continually demanded a share in

power and aimed to become a quasi co-emperor9. She seems to have considered

these demands as due payment for her role in his political ascension and never 6 Elizabeth Bartman. Portraits of Livia, (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge UP, 1999) 52.7 Richard A. Bauman. Women and Politics in Ancient Rome (London: Routledge, 1992) 133.8 Diana E. E. Kleiner. “Family Ties: Mothers and Sons in Elite and Non-Elite Roman Art,” I Claudia II (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2000) 43.9 Richard A. Bauman. Women and Politics, 133.

4

failed to remind him of how he came to power. Suetonius noted that by the last three

years of Livia’s life, Tiberius had made only one, and noticeably brief, visit to see

her10.

Winkes argues that we should not read the mother and son’s relationship

in a context of hostility11. Winkes interprets Tiberius’s actions, such as his refusal to

award Livia with proposed honors, as simply an attempt to discourage any notions

of a co-regency in the public eye and to uphold tradition. However, I dispute this

argument for two main reasons: the first being that Tiberius, early in his reign, was

the first emperor to include women in their own right (as opposed to in the guise of

deities) to dynastic group portraiture. Initially, this did include Livia. This break with

tradition suggests that Winkes argument is faulty. The second reason I refute this

argument is the fact that Tiberius continually vetoed proposals to award his mother

with honors, and even deification after her death, when an impression of shared

power could no longer be possibly called in to question. In fact, as Bauman notes,

“there were seemingly no limits to Tiberius’s determination not to allow Livia to

become an institution”12 even in death. Further, he nullified her will and failed to

attend her funeral13. Bauman agrees that there was indeed a “deep-seated malaise”14

10 Diana E. E. Kleiner. “Family Ties,” I Claudia II (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2000) 44.11 Rolf Winkes, “Livia: Portrait and Propaganda,” I Claudia II (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2000) 34.12 Richard A. Bauman. Women and Politics in Ancient Rome (London: Routledge, 1992) 132.13 Rolf Wilkes, “Livia: Portrait and Propaganda,” I Claudia II (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2000) 34.14 Richard A. Bauman. Women and Politics (London: Routledge, 1992) 133.

5

at the core of their relationship that lasted even after Livia died, and this is the

context for which I believe it is important to analyze the visual variations between

her portrait types.

Kiel/Salus

Augustus’s death was the catalyst for another development in typology- the

Kiel/Salus, (Figure 4) which represented her new role as priestess. Portraits of Livia

in this type often emphasize her role as a mother figure by depicting her in the guise

of Ceres. We see her here with even further reduction in ornamentation15. A simple

middle part and now completely absent nodus denote a movement even further

toward simplicity. It is important in this argument to note that this was not a

popular hairstyle at the time, and did not come into fashion until years later16. One

may be tempted to read her as simply a trendsetter ahead of the fashion curve, but it

is important too to note that older women valued being depicted in the most

fashionable way possible just as much as young women did in ancient Rome. This

buttresses the argument that this tendency toward simplicity, to the point of being

unfashionable, is indicative of a symbolic reduction of power coinciding with

diminished ornamentation by the will of Tiberius.

Diva Augusta

15 Elizabeth Bartman. Portraits of Livia: Imaging the Imperial Woman in Augustan Rome (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge UP, 1999), 145.16 Susan Wood, “Mortals, Empresses, and Earth Goddesses: Demeter and Persephone in Public and Private Apotheosis” I Claudia II (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2000) 81.

6

The latest portrait type, which began at the end of Livia’s life, depicts the

woman as a goddess. Interestingly, although this type was used at the end of her life

she is depicted as younger than ever. This may in part be due to the idealization

commonly associated with deities, but I argue that this is an attempt to subordinate

Livia through infantilization in a culture that valued the wisdom and experience of

old age. The Diva Augusta type (see Figure 5) continued long after Livia’s death. It is

interesting to note the disagreement amongst scholars regarding the dates of her

portrait types – some, in fact, claim that the Marbury Hall type was not the first type

but the last. This further underscores the point that Livia showed little signs of aging

and never enjoyed the veneration and respect of her mature image. She died in

shame, executed for the alleged participation in her husband’s murder17. She would

not be deified until the death of Tiberius and the subsequent rise of her grandson,

Claudius’s ascension to power. We continue to see her portrayed in the Diva Augusta

type for long after her death, remaining forever youthful in the eyes of posterity.

17 Susan Wood. “Mortals, Empresses, and Earth Goddesses” I Clauda II (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2000) 81.

7

Figure 1

Figure 2

8

Figure 3

Figure 4

9

Figure 5

10

Bibliography

"Anagogical Interpretation | Biblical Criticism." Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica. Web. 11 Mar. 2015. <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/22340/anagogical-interpretation>.

Bartman, Elizabeth. Portraits of Livia: Imaging the Imperial Woman in Augustan Rome. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge UP, 1999. Print.

Bauman, Richard A. Women and Politics in Ancient Rome. London: Routledge, 1992. Print.

Boundless. “Augustan Art.” Boundless Art History. Boundless, 03 Jul. 2014. Retrieved 11 Mar. 2015 from https://www.boundless.com/art-history/textbooks/boundless-art-history-textbook/the-romans-8/the-early-empire-72/augustan-art-365-11066/

Cannon, Aubrey. “Gender, Status, and the Focus of Material Display” The Archaeology of Gender ed. D. Walde and N. Willows (Calgary 1991)

Cokayne, Karen. Experiencing Old Age in Ancient Rome. London: Routledge, 2003. Print.

Corbier, Mireille. “Divorce and Adoption as Roma Familial Strategies,” Marriage, Divorce, and Children in Ancient Rome (Oxford: 1991).

Davenport, Cyril James Humphries. Cameos. London: Seeley & Co., 1900. Print.

Dixon, Suzanne. “A Family Business: Women’s Role in Patronage and Politics at Rome, 80-44 BC,” Classica et Mediavalia 34 (1983).

Dixon, Suzanne. “The Marriage Alliance in the Roman Elite,” Journal of Family History 10 (1985).

Dixon, Suzanne. The Roman Mother (Norman 1988). Print.

Eck, Werner, and Deborah Lucas Schneider. The Age of Augustus. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2003. Print.

Higgins, Reynold Alleyne. Greek and Roman Jewellery. 2nd ed. Berkeley: U of California, 1980. Print.

page 170 – Cameos

11

page 173 – Ch 17: Roman 27 BC-AD 400. Introduction gives a background of archaeological evidence (lack thereof) and brief historical context.

Johns, Catherine. The Jewellery of Roman Britain: Celtic and Classical Traditions. Ann Arbor: U of Michigan, 1996. Print.

Kampen, Natalie. “Between Public and Private: Women as Historical Subjects in Roman Art” Women’s History and Ancient History (Chapel Hill 1991). Print.

Purcell, Nicholas. "Livia and the Womanhood of Rome." Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society Proc. Camb. Philol. Soc. 32 (1986): 78-105. Web.

Rogers, Frances, and Alice Beard. 5000 Years of Gems and Jewelry. [New, Rev. ed. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott, 1947. Print.

page 36 – “Cameo Portraits”, “Jewels of the Roman Empire” (47), “Cameo Cutting” (52), also 75, 76, 139, 140, 143, 145, 153

Rose, Charles B. Dynastic Commemoration and Imperial Portraiture in the Julio-Claudian Period. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Print.

Severy, Beth. Augustus and the Family at the Birth of the Roman Empire. New York: Routledge, 2003. Print.

Smith, R. R. R. "Roman Portraits: Honours, Empresses, and Late Emperors." Journal of Roman Studies J. Rom. Stud. 75 (1985): 209-21. Web

Spaeth, Stanley Barbette. “The Goddess Ceres in the Ara Pacis Augustae and the Carthage Relief ” American Journal of Archaeology Vol. 98, No. 1 (Jan., 1994) , pp. 65-100 Published by: Archaeological Institute of America

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/506222

Spaeth, Stanley Barbette. The Roman Goddess Ceres (Austin 1996). Print.

Thomson, Kristen. I, Claudia. Toronto: Playwrights Canada, 2003. Print.

Walker, Susan, and Andrew Burnett. The Image of Augustus. London: British Museum, 1981. Print.

Wood, Susan. Portraits of Livia: Imaging the Imperial Woman in Augustan Rome by Elizabeth Bartman; Livia, Octavia, Iulia: Porträts und Darstellung by Rolf Winkes . American Journal of Archaeology Vol. 103, No. 4 (Oct., 1999) , pp. 721-723 Published by: Archaeological Institute of America

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/507100

12

Zanker, Paul. The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus. Ann Arbor: U of Michigan, 1988. Print.

13