Consciousness, Literature and the Arts

Archive

Volume 17 Number 2, August 2016

___________________________________________________________________

Panem et Circenses: The Metamorphosis of Greek Classical Concepts in 2^nd-century CE Roman Sculpted Mythological Couples

 by

Nava Sevilla Sadeh

Tel-Aviv University

Abstract

The mythological couple Mars and Venus are represented in several sculptural images dated to the 2^nd century CE. Some scholars contend that these images represent imperial couples seeking to imitate the divine couple Mars and Venus, with the intention of presenting the new imperial order as divinely sanctioned. Other scholars suggest that these images are not those of imperial figures but, rather,  wealthy members of society who imitated the contemporary trend of adopting mythological portraiture, attired as mythological figures, as a customary practice amongst the imperial class.

A prominent aspect in these figures is that of their Greek inspiration. The direct visual references to them were two statue types, known as Ares Borghese, a Roman copy of a Greek original dated to the late 5^th century BCE; and Aphrodite from Capua, a Roman copy of a Greek original dated to ca. 350-300 BCE. The Greek influence appealed to the Romans for their own purposes, usually political or religious.

This study explores the essence of the Greek influence and its metamorphosis in the Roman representations, focusing on the questions: What is the extent and nature of the assimilation of these concepts in the Roman images? Do these imitations reveal substantial concepts derived from the Classical epoch; or do they offer merely a visual and superficial external layer that reflects a different state of mind? These questions will be examined through a preliminary analysis of the Greek prototypes of the gods themselves and their images, in relation to the moral, aesthetic and philosophical concepts imbued in them, along with an analysis of the Roman sculptural figures through references to the meanings of the Roman gods and to the textual biographies of the emperors under discussion.

Keywords:

Kalokagathia, Ethos, Sophrosyne, Enkrateia, Andreia, Arete, Aidos, Hedonism, Panem et Circenses.

Introduction

The mythological couple Mars and Venus were represented in several sculptural images dated to the 2^nd century CE. The representation of imperial characters in the semblance of gods and goddesses was prominent in Roman art, and some scholars have commented that these images were indeed intended to be those of emperors and empresses.[1]

A distinction should be made here between representations of an emperor or empress as god or goddess, and their representation within the context of apotheosis, since each type of representation had a different purpose: whereas an apotheosis had a religious aim, a deliberate resemblance to a god had political purposes, since the imperial personalities were portrayed with the divinities’ attributes and power.[2] An additional distinction should be made between merely identifying with a god or a goddess, and merging with them. Identification is prominent on coins that bear the portrait of the imperial personality on the obverse, and an image of the divinity on the verso. Merging constitutes a fuller identification, in which the imperial character is represented in the guise of the divinity with that divinity’s attributes and unique signs.[3] Livia’s representation as Venus on an amulet dated to after Augustus’s death is considered to be the earliest representation of an empress in the guise of a goddess.[4] The imperial couple Livia and Augustus is represented in the guise of Mars and Venus Genetrix in a relief dated to the 1^st century CE.[5] Mythological funerary portraits similar to the Mars-Venus images were popular in the High Empire, and tombs of free citizens contained statues of the deceased portrayed as gods. Likewise, mythological sculptures were popular in the homes of the wealthy, serving as symbols of luxury and prestige.[6]

The sculptural pairs discussed are: the couple from Isola Sacra (Fig. 1);[7] the couple from the Louvre (Fig. 2);[8] and the couple from Ostia.[9] Aymard has contended that all these images represent imperial couples imitating the divine couple Mars and Venus, due to the importance of these divine figures in both the political and religious Roman life; the proximity between imperial politics and religion; the honor given to emperors and empresses; and, specifically, the renovation of the Divus Augustus temple in the Antonine period.[10] Mars and Venus were an inherent part of the Augustan propaganda, as Venus was conceived as the Iulii ancestress and represented the peace established by Augustus; and Mars as the ancestor of the Populus Romani via Romulus. The imitation of these gods in the imperial images was aimed at presenting the new imperial order as divinely sanctioned.[11] Of great importance in relation to the meanings of the discussed couple is the myth in Homer’s Odyssey, recounting the adulterous goddess’s betrayal of her husband Hephaistus with Ares, and thus their inflagrante (Homerus Odyssey 8.266-366).

The portrait heads in all of the discussed couples seem to resemble imperial types, mostly members of the Antonine dynasty. However, according to some scholars, they are not precise copies. Kleiner contends that although some scholars have identified the portraits in these couples as imperial personalities, she considers them, rather, to be wealthy society members who were imitating the contemporary trend of adopting mythological portraiture, including the practice of dressing up as mythological subjects that were customary amongst the imperial class.[12] 

Kousser concludes that the Mars-Venus portrait images should not be identified as imperial but as more probably depicting wealthy private couples who looked to imperial models and adopted them as idealizing portraits suitable for the commemoration of married couples in both houses and tombs.[13]

The direct visual references to the Roman Mars and Venus images were the statue types known as Ares Borghese (Fig. 3), a Roman copy of a Greek original dated to the late 5^th century BCE; and Aphrodite from Capua (Fig. 4), a Roman copy of a Greek original dated to ca. 350-300 BCE.[14]

Kousser emphasizes that the “Greekness” of these sculptures in many respects – typology, style, and mythological reference – was a critical part of their appeal to their patrons.[15] It is important to note Kousser’s distinction:  that whereas Augustus’s Greek-inspired monuments were political in nature, esoteric in their references and of a novel, experimental character at the time, those of the Antonine patrons were more varied in their functions, more accessible, and more thoroughly integrated into the visual culture of their day. Thus, as Kousser notes, they serve as a useful case study in examining the incorporation of Greek forms and styles into Roman art. Likewise, these couples reflect the interest of the Antonine elite in the Hellenic tradition and its adoption and adaptation for their own purposes.[16] In her analysis of the Roman couples and their comparison to the Greek prototypes, Kousser concludes that the Antonine portrait couples depart from their Greek imperial prototypes in terms of visual form, and that they also served different functions, since the Greek original and the Augustan images had a public and religious function, whereas the Antonine statues were privately commissioned works of art for a decorative or funerary purpose.[17] Kousser also notes that while the Greek originals were interpreted by their viewers from within a civic and religious framework and the Augustan images within a political and allegorical one, the Antonine portrait couples were private and personal, and they conveyed messages of marital love.[18] In her discussion on the representations of ideal marriage on Roman sarcophagi, Kousser notes that Greek-inspired images served to express certain important aspects of Roman marriage more fully than could works of art of a more purely “Roman” character.[19] Kousser considers the theatrical performance as the primary means for transferring the Greek visual and literary culture into the Roman one.[20]

Regarding the influence of the Classical prototypes, the present study offers an exploration of the essence of the Classical reception, focusing on the questions: What is the extent and nature of the assimilation of these concepts into the Roman images? Do these imitations reveal substantial concepts belonging to the Classical epoch; or do they offer merely a visual and superficial external layer that reflects a different state of mind? These questions will be examined through a preliminary analysis of the Greek prototypes and the moral and aesthetic concepts imbued in them. The major part of the study focuses on a comparative analysis of the three Roman couples, subdivided in accordance with their common characteristics: those from Isola Sacra and the Louvre; and the couple from Ostia. The analysis will relate to the meanings of the gods Mars and Venus in the Roman perception, in analogy to the images of the emperors as derived from historical- biographical sources. The discussion will refer to literary sources as well as philosophical texts related to the Roman concepts and perspectives of the time. The study thereby seeks to uncover the essence of the Roman state of mind as reflected through these images.

The Archetypes: Classical Concepts Manifested in the Greek Models

Ares Borghese, a Roman copy of a Greek original dated to ca 430 BCE, is characterized by a generic archetypal appearance which is based upon the Doryphorus type by Polykleitos.[21] The inclined head and the chiastic stance suggest concepts related to the Greek ethos, such as modesty (aidos), self-knowledge and moderation (sophrosyne), and self-control (enkrateia). These qualities were considered as manly, and reflected the warrior’s courage (andreia) and excellence (arete), the noble qualities required of the warrior in order to fulfill his primary civic duty of defending the city state (Plato, Protagoras, 356-357).[22] Excellence on the battlefield was measured by triumph, while fear and defeat were considered as hideous (aischron) and thus failure (Aristotle, Rethorica, b 1.9.8.1366).

Bravery became cruelty on the battlefield, and thus The Homeric warriors were described using metallic metaphors such as bronze and iron, to indicate their belligerence (Hesiod, Works and Days, 140-155);[23] while the heroes of the Iliad fought each other ruthlessly and brutally.[24]

Ares embodied the archetype of the fury required of the warriors in order to attack the enemy, since the Greek polis in Antiquity was constantly engaged in military conflicts and the need to defend itself.[25]

War was considered in Ancient Greece as vital, essential, necessary, and even moral; a kind of raison d’etat of manliness. Poseidon even warns any who might seek to avoid battle that he would be abandoned and fed to the dogs (Homer, Iliad, 13.231-4).[26] The desire for revenge upon the enemy was considered as sweet, and the enemy’s defeat as joyous and delightful (Xenophon, Memorabilia, 4.5.10; Homer, Iliad, 18.109; Aristotle, Rethorica, 1370b;  Plato, Philebus, 49 d; Hesiodus, Works and days, 707-711; Theognis, 363; Thucidides 7.68.1).[27]

Aristotle considers revenge as justified, and what is justified is thus beauty – kalos (Aristotle, Rhetorica, 1367 a 20-23). This suggests the fundamental concept of kalokagathia, a term that connects between physical beauty – kalos and spiritual beauty – agathos. Physical beauty was considered by Homer as a valuable and desired quality for a warrior, and as part of his overall excellence. Indeed, the Greek aristocracy in the archaic period desired its youth to have beauty of both body and spirit, and to present a fine and cultured appearance.[28] Proper education, according to Socrates, would combine the study of poetry and music with gymnastic training, in order to attain an equilibrium between body and soul (Plato, Republic, II.369-427).

The superiority of spiritual beauty over the physical in Platonic philosophy is fundamental (Plato, Symposium, 210-212.). Socrates, who confronts his pupil Hippias with questions on the nature of 'beauty', finally concludes that beauty is what is good in its essence: the useful is good, the good is the intrinsic value of things, and beauty derives from the good (Plato, Hippias Major, 290, 291).[29]

Aphrodite from Capua is a Roman copy dated to the 2^nd century BCE, probably sculpted by Scopas or Lysippus in the 4^th century BCE, located in the amphitheater of Capua and used as a cult statue. The goddess is represented half naked, with her lower body draped with a cloak, and her hands stretched out, perhaps originally holding a large object, possibly identified as Ares’s bright shield, providing a reflection of her body.[30]

The goddess’s nakedness has been conceived as a manifestation of equality between the sexes that reflected the rise in the status of women in the Hellenistic period.[31] However, this approach is debatable, since these images were made by men and thus do not reflect a female point of view.[32] The representation of the goddess of beauty and love in such a flattering way   nonetheless differs from the negative representations of female nakedness in the Archaic and Classical periods, which were aimed at representing sinners or attacked women such as Niobe or Cassandra, and in that respect this image of Aphrodite is equated with the masculine imagery. The goddess thus becomes, as indicated by Friedrich, more human and closer to the mundane realm.[33] The Aphrodite from Knidos’s twisted body, molded in convex and concave shapes, as noted by Andrew Stewart, reflects her ostensibly submissive character as a woman was perceived in Antiquity,[34] an approach even more accentuated in the Aphrodite from Capua through the exposure of her curved thigh. This appearance alludes to the goddess’s seductive nature, aimed at ensuring fertility and procreation, which was conceived as the main role of the goddess of beauty and love.[35] A very prominent feature in the image of the Aphrodite from Capua is her association with peace. The goddess uses the god of war’s shield as a mirror in order to reflect her majestic body, and by doing so she changes the purpose of this instrument and its original function in a way reminiscent of Aristophanes’s Lysistrata’s activity. While goddesses such as Hera, Athena, and Artemis are militant and belligerent, Aphrodite is totally detached from warfare, as understood from the lines in the Iliad that describe her leaving the battlefield wounded after trying to defend her son Aeneas during the Trojan War (Homer, Iliad, 5.166-351).[36] The love she offers to Ares could be conceived as stronger than the hatred that characterizes war.[37]

This goddess has two natures: her earthly one and her celestial one, in parallel to her definition in Plato’s Symposium as Pandemos and Ourania, reflecting her role as a mediator between the human realm and the divine (Plato, Symposium, 180).[38] Aphrodite’s aspect as a mediator is also reflected in her association as a celestial being with the planet Venus, which shines brightly at dawn and at twilight (Plato, Timaeus, 38d; Plato, The Laws, 821c).[39] Thus, Aphrodite is a cosmic power, as described by Phaedra’s nurse in the play by Euripides (Euripides, Hippolytus, 443-50). As such, Aphrodite is described in the Iliad as golden, bright, and radiant, and has a link to Eos, the goddess of dawn (Homer, Iliad, 5.370, 9.390). [40]

Aphrodite’s serpentine body composition, her sensuality, and coquettish practice suggest that, as the goddess of delight, she legitimates sexuality and pleasure,[41] possibly coinciding with a very prominent concept – the Epicurean hedonism of the 4^th century BCE. 

Hedonism was elaborated as a philosophical worldview

by Aristippus of Cyrene (435-356 BCE), the founder of the Cyrenaic school of philosophy. His underlying perspective is characterized by an indifference towards rule and regime, and he conceived of himself as a cosmopolite. Aristippus’s hedonistic theory is radical: pleasure, and mostly the physical and the momentary, was considered by him as superior, assuming that all beings seek to achieve pleasure and avoid pain.[42] The Cyrenaic approach rationalizes that physical pleasure is better than spiritual pleasure, and that physical suffering is worse than mental suffering. The Cyrenians’ consideration of momentary pleasure as superior was founded upon an epistemological basis according to which the past no longer exists and, hence, memory of the past is not substantial but irrelevant, and the future is uncertain: thus, the only thing that is worthwhile is immediate pleasure.[43]

The difficulties inherent in the Cyrenian concept of hedonism were discussed by the Epicureans. According to Epikouros of Samos, happiness is associated with hedon, and the fundamental pleasure is that of the physical pleasure aimed at initially satisfying a need, at eliminating the “pain of desire” or at nullifying suffering and pain.[44]  

However, Epicureanism also defined certain exceptions that prevent the perception of hedonism as promiscuity and addiction to an immediate satisfaction. Thus, hedon must be achieved by means of sophrosyne and discretion, and sometimes even through the giving up of certain pleasures or suffering a measure of pain in order to achieve a much valued delight.[45] Epicurus actually follows Aristotle, who claimed that exaggerations are the worst and should be avoided (Aristotle’s Ethics, 7, 1149 b 4-5); and Plato, who stated that pleasure should be avoided when it causes suffering; or, vice versa, to choose suffering when pleasure will profit from it (Plato, Protagors, 358).[46] The pleasure that causes real happiness is above all the spiritual delight that is superior to the physical, and only a spiritual life can bring about tranquility, which is ataraxia, and the real pleasure.[47] Only the gods dwell within an eternal ataraxia, and are unaffected by the mundane world. Following Plato, Epicurus notes that the human aspiration is to approach the sublime beauty of the gods. Hence the performance of rituals or participation in them is recommended in order to come closer to this sublimity.[48] This also suggests the Platonic and Neoplatonic aspiration to merge with the divine (Plato, Phaedrus, 251; Plato, Phaedo, 72-77; Plotinus, Aeneads, 1.6, 8; 6.7, 22).

A Hero and His Loving Mortal Wife

Two sculptural couples that share common characteristics are at the focus of this discussion: that from Isola Sacra dated to ca. 145-150 CE, and that from the Louvre dated to ca. 150-160 CE. Identification of the figures in the Isola Sacra couple has been varied. Aymard contended that they resemble Caracalla and his wife,[49] whereas Mikocki perceived them as Marcus Aurelius and Faustina the Younger, since an altar and dedications in honor of this emperor and his wife, placed in the Temple of Venus, served at weddings for worship and sacrifice by the bride and groom to this imperial couple, portrayed as Mars and Venus (Dio Cassius LXXII, 31).[50] The hairstyle and face of the man, moreover, have been compared to the portrait of Marcus Aurelius the Younger from the Forum Antiquarium, dated to ca. 145 CE.[51] The woman’s hairstyle resembles that of Faustina the Younger in a portrait dated to 147 CE.[52] Kleiner, however contends that this couple presents the portrait of an unknown Roman patrician and his wife.[53]

The portrait of the woman in the group from the Louvre recalls portraits of Faustina the Younger according to the hairstyle.[54] The image of the man in this couple was identified as Hadrian due to its resemblance to portraits of this emperor such as Hadrian’s portrait in the National Museum in Rome; likewise it could be compared to the portrait of Antoninus Pius in Formia. However, Kleiner contends that this couple presents an unknown Roman and his wife.[55] A very prominent feature in both couples is that the men bear arms, indicating that they are persons of power. It would thus be reasonable to assume that they were of a high military or political rank. This premise underlies the present discussion. The composition in the couple from Isola Sacra is frontal, albeit with a strong and significant difference between the stance of the woman and that of the man. The man stands in the pose of the Ares Borghese: he is nude, wearing a helmet, a paludamentum around his shoulders, and a spear in his left hand,[56] suggesting the appearance of a person of power. The woman is turned to the man, gazing at him, her arms outstretched to embrace him. Her similarity to the goddess of love can be seen in her pose, resembling that of Aphrodite from Capua; and, in contrast to the man, she is not nude but wearing a stola and palla.[57] The contrasts between the representations of the two figures are given reflection in utterances such as those of the orator Polemo, who declared that manliness presents a physical opposition to femaleness, with the body being stronger and muscular, the head bigger and proportional, and the stance upright.[58] Highly prominent is the adoption of features such as the Greek athletic sculptural stance that conveys a message of physical and spiritual equilibrium or sophrosyne, and the nudity as a kind of costume that encompasses qualities such as arete - courage, manliness, and excellence, that are revealed in agones – great trials of physical prowess.[59] This nudity is metaphorical and symbolizes his spiritual and physical might and impermeability, and thus his lack of need for any covering.[60] It is noteworthy, as indicated by Hallett, that in the sculpted representations of public ceremonies and historical events on official state monuments at Rome, nudity always tended to remain closely associated with the gods, and nudity suggests the ideal realm of the gods.[61]Answering the question – ‘why were a large number of Romans, including the emperor, sometimes portrayed nude and carrying weapons rather than in contemporary clothing’,[62] Hallett perceives the emperor’s nudity as signifying him as the active current ruler on earth.[63] Hallett emphasizes, while Roman emperors are often fully naked with their genitalia exposed, their nakedness is almost always qualified by the addition of items of clothing or other attributes, and unlike nude portraits from the Greek world, they are never represented with athletic equipment, but carry weapons, since the Roman emperor saw himself as self-consciously stepping back into the world of heroes.[64] Nudity, as indicated by Hallett, was adopted by Romans as a ‘costume’ that transported the individual represented outside the realm of contemporary life, and into the world of myth, and set the man portrayed on the same stage with the great heroes of the past, like Achilles or Herakles. Hallett refers to the Roman name for nude portraits holding weapons that was in fact, as reported by Pliny – effigies Achilleae – ‘Achillean portraits’.[65] However, the masculine figure in the Roman couple under discussion wears a paludamentum. This humanizes the Roman image, as opposed to the elevation of the Greek athlete and his godlike appearance. Likewise, the dreamy eyes of the Roman figure, which are very similar to Marcus Aurelius’s portraiture image, contrast the heroic nudity and its military nature. Indeed, Marcus Aurelius was considered to be noble and virtuous, living a moral life and dedicating himself to philosophy and thought (Historia Augusta, Marcus Aurelius, A, I.1; xvi. 3). As a stoic philosopher, Marcus Aurelius was the closest manifestation of Plato’s ideal of the philosopher-ruler.[66] Power was actually imposed on this emperor and he distanced himself from military duties. As the sources testify, Marcus Aurelius disapproved of glory and the royal life, and was characterized by honesty and righteousness, demanding of himself and others virtues such as honesty and modesty, moderation and generosity (Meditations, 10. 8; 6. 23). As a stoic thinker, Marcus Aurelius was disgusted by worldly pleasures and preached for the suppression of desire (Meditations, 2.16; 3. 3-4; 5.15; 8. 10; 9. 1; 10. 30).

The meanings of Mars in the Roman perception are significant. The importance of Mars in Rome was greater than that of his counterpart in Greece. Contrary to Ares, who was an unpopular god in Greece, Mars was considered as the great defender of the Romans, in war as in peace, and many events were celebrated in his honor.[67] Furthermore, his powers lay beyond that of being solely the god of war. Mars was considered to be the forefather of the Roman nation, being the father of the twins Romulus and Remus. He was also revered as the god of agriculture, and was associated with rural divinities such as Flora and Sylvanus. As such, farmers would pray for his blessing (Titus Livius, 30).[68] Hence, whether this representation is of Marcus Aurelius in the guise of Mars, or of some unknown patrician in this guise, as claimed by Kleiner, it would seem to be in accordance with the god’s broad implications in Roman thought.

Since the image of the woman in this couple resembles that of Faustina the Younger, an examination of her character is in order. Faustina was considered as the perfect wife, who gave birth to thirteen children, even acquiring the title Mater Castrorum, being held in much admiration by the army (Historia Augusta, Marcus Aurelius, xxvi. 9). After her death she gained apotheosis and great honor.[69] Marcus Aurelius has described his wife as obedient, loving, and un-coquettish, in accordance with the Roman ideal of womanhood that praised virtues such as chastity, innocence, and loyalty (Meditation, 8.17).[70] Thus, this figure combines the preferred female features with the composition referred to Aphrodite from Capua, while avoiding nudity. As discussed in reference to the image of Aphrodite from Capua, perceiving female nudity as equating that of the athletic sculptural nudity and thus as a reflection of social equality, is questionable, since it reflects solely the male approach to female nudity. Thus, since male nudity was considered as heroic, a strong dichotomy arises that accentuates the contrast between the heroic appearance of the male figure and the worldly appearance of the female figure, deprived of any divine splendor and obedient to her somewhat indifferent partner. Her image would nonetheless seem in accordance with the Greek concept embodied in the image of Aphrodite from Capua – that of the loving woman associated with peace. Thus, her submissiveness becomes her source of power. The association of Venus with peace is reflected in literature in the prologue of the poem De Rerum Natura by Lucretius, in which the poet requests the goddess to ensure peace, and points out that only she can cause Mars to restrain his anger (Lucretius, De Rerum Natura, 1.31-37). Venus embodies the Epicurean principles of delight or hedon and tranquility or ataraxia that this poem conveys. Moreover, nature itself is dominated by Venus. The earth, the sea, and the sun are all submissive to her; and she tempers humanity with her beauty and love (Lucretius, De Rerum Natura, 4.1058-1120). Venus was a highly venerated goddess in Rome, and was considered as the ancestress of the Roman nation. In Rome, in addition to being the goddess of love and beauty, in equivalence to the Greek Aphrodite, she was also considered a rural goddess, protectress of farmers, and thus of gardens; the goddess of success and luck, as Venus Felix; the goddess of marriage and marital fidelity and, vice versa, the goddess of prostitutes; and she was associated with happiness, vivacity, and youthfulness.[71] The lascivious aspects of this goddess were redirected by the senate by dedicating an idol named Venus Verticordia, meaning “Venus turns the hearts from dangerous passions”, aimed at diverting thoughts of debauchery by virgins and married women and relocating them in morality and chastity. This was also the purpose of the rite of Venus Obsequent.[72] Those broader aspects of Venus might be reflected in the female image in the sculptural couple from Isola Sacra, who seems to be restraining her military spouse.

Similar to the composition of the couple from Isola Sacra, that from the Louvre too is frontal, but the contact between the two figures appears to be tighter.[73] The loving gesture of the woman seems to be more prominent and the man less indifferent to her, seemingly humanizing them both. The resemblance of the male image to portraits of Hadrian, and also to Antoninus Pius, suggests an analogy. As the sources tell, Hadrian was physically tall and sturdy and mentally brave and courageous ((Historia Augusta, Hadrian, XXVI 1-3). He received a military education and is famous for his heroism and military campaigns as an army commander (Historia Augusta, Hadrian, 52 III. 6, 9). These features are represented by the helmet, balteus, and parazonium that he wears, while a breastplate rests on a tree trunk beside him.[74] Upon becoming emperor, however, Hadrian dedicated his efforts to keeping the peace rather than conquering more territories and expanding the empire (Historia Augusta, Hadrian, V. 1.3; X. 2; XXI. 8). It is also attested that he promulgated law enforcement and maintaining public order (Historia Augusta, Hadrian, XVIII. 1-11). Antoninus Pius too was valued for his aspirations for peace and his attempts to avoid warfare. He was known to cite Scipio, who declared that he would prefer to save the life of one citizen than exterminate thousands of enemies (Historia Augusta, Antoninus Pius, IX. 10). Indeed the title Pius was conferred upon him by the senate in reflection of his kind and merciful nature (Historia Augusta, Antoninus Pius, II. 3-8). Of the two, it was Hadrian who sought honor and respect for his position, and who demanded that the senate honor him as a god. Many colonies were named Hadrianapolis after him (Historia Augusta, Antoninus Pius, XVI. 1; VI. 1; XX. 4). Hadrian’s nature was ambivalent – both severe and welcoming, serious and humorous, cruel and merciful (Historia Augusta, Hadrian, XIV. 11). He was also known as a hedonist who both fornicated with women and desired men (Historia Augusta, Hadrian, XI. 7). Indeed, all these contrary characteristics can be found in the image from the Louvre: both the military aspect and that of his image as a mighty and honored ruler. Furthermore, the very representation of him as Mars next to a woman represented as Venus is arrogant, conveying the lustful nature of this emperor together with his militaristic nature. However, in reference to the image of Mars, and similar to the male image in the couple from Isola Sacra, whether the representation is that of Hadrian or Antoninus Pius in the guise of Mars, or whether it is an unknown patrician, tends to accord with the god’s broad  signification in the Roman conception.

The woman is presented in the same pose as the Venus from Capua and dressed in a manner very similar to the woman in the couple from Isola Sacra. She too turns to the man in a gesture of submission that accentuates her inferiority. However, as stressed before, her submissiveness is actually her source of power, if conceived in accordance with the Greek concept embodied in the image of Aphrodite from Capua – that of the loving goddess associated with peace, and her association with the broad implications of Venus. If this couple indeed alludes to Hadrian and Sabina, it represents a kind of hypocrisy, since the intimacy and the loving semblance portrayed in the sculptural couple is very different from the real life of the imperial couple. The ancient sources tell us that alienation and indifference dominated their relationship, and although Hadrian treated his wife politely, he would complain about her bitterness (Historia Augusta, Hadrian, XI. 7). The prominent feature in the sculptural couple from Isola Sacra and the Louvre is that of the unequal relationship between the man and the woman, with the woman portrayed as submissive and obsequious to the indifferent man, who is attired as a military commander.[75] These features indicate that this sculptural group is representational in nature, and its purpose was official and political, in accordance with the typical social codes of the contemporary spectacle society.[76] Aspects of Roman society-as-spectacle are the focus of the discussion of the two following sculptural couples.

In the Guise of the Divine

The sculptural couple on which I focus here was discovered in the basilica in Ostia, is dated to ca. 175-180 CE, and has been considered as representing an emperor and an empress. It was suggested that the portraits are those of Marcus Aurelius and Faustina the Younger, or Commodus and Crispina.[77] Indeed, the male image resembles portraits of the young and beardless Commodus, as well as his portraits in the guise of Heracles. Kleiner has suggested that this couple fails to match any Roman imperial type, and represents an unknown Roman and his wife.[78] The man and the woman turn to each other equally, in contrast to the couples discussed previously. This indicates a different approach, possibly considering the two as equal. The man wears a helmet, balteus, and parazonium, and the similarities between him and images of Commodus invite a comparison. Of Commodus it was said that it would have been better if his father, Marcus Aurelius, had not begot him (Historia Augusta, Marcus Aurelius, XVIII, 5). Another story tells that when Faustina conceived him and his twin, she dreamt that she was giving birth to snakes, each one crueler than the other (Historia Augusta, Commodus, I.3). Indeed, since his childhood Commodus had been corrupt, cruel, greedy, and profligate (Historia Augusta, Commodus, I.7). As the sole commander of the army he acted mindlessly, and drained the empire’s resources for his own selfish and decadent way of life. He was bloodthirsty and hated by the senate (Historia Augusta, Commodus, III. 3-9). Upon handing over management of public affairs to his favorite, Perennis, he devoted himself to a life of pleasure and licentiousness, and amused himself with hundreds of concubines and young boys he had bought or taken by force (Historia Augusta, Commodus, III. 3-9). Commodus would slay his victims with his own hands, even murdering his sister Lucilla and wife Crispina, and he slaughtered wild animals in the Roman arenas. He would torture people for his own sadistic amusement, and murder anyone who fell out of favor with him. Even his close friend Perennis was eventually brutally murdered by him (Historia Augusta, Commodus, III. 3-9). Commodus was identified with the mighty power of Heracles, represented himself as this god, and performed ritualistic sacrifices to himself as a god (Historia Augusta, Commodus, III. 3-9). Despite all his monstrous deeds he received titles such as Pius and Felix, and several months were named after him (Historia Augusta, Commodus, VIII. 1, XI. 6) Commodus was eventually assassinated by his mistress Marcia together with Laetus, the commanding officer of the Praetorian Guard, and although the crowd demanded that his body be thrown into the Tiber, he was nevertheless buried in Hadrian’s mausoleum (Historia Augusta, Commodus, XVII. 1-2, 4.). This dichotomy testifies to the hypocrisy rooted in Roman society, reflecting the mood of decadence that had spread amongst the Roman elite. As noted by Otto Kiefer, “culture” was merely a euphemism for the bestial and corporeal impulses of a population that cared for nothing but panem et circenses.[79]

This term embodies the policy of supplying cheap or free food as well as spectacles such as theatre, games, races, musical contests, and bloodthirsty combats for the amusement of the population, in order to distract them from involvement in state affairs. The emperors kept the masses in a constant state of anticipation of these events, which led to an uncontrolled desire and demand for more and more entertainment. The emperors even vied with each other over the number of spectacles. The Roman calendar at one time included about 150 holidays, and the different emperors would add as many more as they wished. Thus, as noted by Carcopino, the Roman public enjoyed at least one day of holiday for each working day, and so the emperors retained their power and rule.[80] The emperors themselves participated in the events, and Commodus was known to shoot arrows at the predatory animals from his seat, injuring them and filling the entire stage with blood, to the approving shouts of the enthusiastic spectators.[81] The bloodthirsty spectacles culminated in the public mass spectacle executions in the arena, during which the crowd became totally ecstatic.[82] Juvenal aptly described the atmosphere of decadence as panem et circenses (Juvenal, X. 72).

Kiefer raised the obvious question: Why did not a single intellectual in Rome ever protest against this collective sadism?  The fact is that gladiators were venerated as superstars and as desirable lovers for distinguished ladies. Faustina, wife of Marcus Aurelius, was accused of such affairs, and gossip says that Commodus was actually the offspring of a gladiator.[83]

In light of all this, whether the image in the sculptural group under discussion is that of Commodus or of an unknown patrician, the hypocrisy is indeed accentuated. As explained earlier, the significance of Mars in the Roman world was greater than that of his counterpart in Greece, and he was considered as the great defender of the Romans, in war as in peace, and as possessing powers far greater than those of being solely the god of war. Moreover, we recall that this male figure is based on that of Ares Borghese, which itself is based on that of the Doryphorus, who is imbued with such moral traits as sophrosune, aidos, encrateia, and arete. In view of Commodus’s disturbed personality, and the harm he caused the empire, his representation in the guise of Mars must be considered as hollow and decadent. If the image represented is not that of Commodus, as Kleiner suggests, then the hypocrisy will be more moderate but nonetheless substantial, in view of the dichotomy between the many values inherent in the image of Mars, and the decadence of Roman society as related to the image of a Roman aristocrat represented as a god.

The main difference between this group and the previous ones lies in the female image. The resemblance to Aphrodite from Capua in the previous couples focused on the figure’s posture and modest attire.  In this group from Ostia the imitation is complete, since not only are the Greek goddess’s stance and posture imitated, but also the nakedness of her upper body, and the manner in which her gown is draped around her hips. The woman becomes Venus herself, and the question thus arises as to whether this image bears the same significance associated with the great goddess. Imitations such as this of the naked goddess had already become popular from the beginning of the 1^st century CE in funerary portrait sculptures of respectable wives. D’Ambra interpreted these images as reflecting the aspiration to resemble the goddess and her charm and fertility.[84] Indeed, fertility was considered a highly desirable quality (Soranus, Gynaecia, 1.34-35). Mikocki suggests that the nudity of the figure from Ostia alludes specifically to the fertility of Faustina, as a mother of thirteen children.[85] However, the feminine and sensual Venus-like body of this figure could also allude to another feature of the goddess – that of temptation and sexual freedom. As noted earlier, as the concubine of Mars, and as the official goddess of sex, Venus was revered by prostitutes.[86] Indeed, the malicious gossip that was spread about empresses might indicate a licentious aspect of the female image in this group. Regarding Faustina the Elder, for instance, a sentence in the Historia Augusta suggests that she lived a lascivious lifestyle (Historia Augusta, Antoninus Pius, III. 7). Gossip was widespread about Faustina the Younger too. Mikocki contends that the intention of the couple from Ostia was to represent the dark side of this empress’s life, and not her modest nature.[87] The Historia Augusta provides details of her promiscuous life. As told, Faustina was even more libidinous than Messalina, Claudius’s wife, and a long list of her lovers is provided, such as gladiators, actors, and aristocrats. It is also told that she betrayed her husband with Lucius Verus, whom she murdered by poisoning, after he had told her daughter about their affair (Historia Augusta, Marcus Aurelius, XIX, XXIII, 7, Verus, X. 1). As noted, it has been suggested that Commodus’s father was not Marcus Aurelius but one of Faustina’s gladiator lovers (Historia Augusta, Marcus Aurelius, XIX. 1-7).[88]  Crispina, Commodus’s wife, was also accused of adultery and accordingly executed (Historia Augusta, Commodus, V. 8-11). Sexual freedom was indeed a modus vivendi in ancient Rome, with concubines, adultery, and prostitution commonplace among both patricians and plebeians.[89] Many women adopted the motto of “live your life as you wish”, and thus considered it in order to betray their husbands.[90] The satirical poet Juvenal, who portrayed in his poems the perverse lives of his time, declared that “lawlessness is now at its height” (Juvenal, I. 151)

Such was the atmosphere of depravity alongside the requirement for a decent marriage, as embodied in Venus Verticordia and Venus Obsequent, and manifested in the Dexstrarum Junctio posture of holding hands to convey the loyalty and devotion incumbent upon marriage, as depicted in funerary reliefs.[91] Thus, the image of an empress or a noblewoman in the guise of Venus in the couple from Ostia bears a double meaning: one that praises fertility and being a good and devoted mother and wife; and the other that perceives the woman as sensual and erotic, and thus reflects the lascivious Roman state of mind. This image of the goddess of love and beauty seems to reflect her mundane aspect as Aphrodite pandemus rather than the sublime ourania, and thus deviates from the original concept of Epicurean hedonism, with moderation as its premise.

Summary

Assuming that the three sculptural groups under discussion are imperial couples, or at least wealthy members of society represented as the divine couple Mars and Venus, while referring to Kousser’s contention that the “Greekness” of these sculptures constituted a critical part of their appeal to their patrons, this study has sought to compare the original concepts imbued within the Greek prototypes with their manifestation in the sculpted Roman couples. The main question discussed is whether these imitations also manifest substantial concepts derived from the Classical epoch, or are these similarities only visual and superficial. The discussion has been based on philosophical and literary historical- biographical sources. As shown, the findings are varied but inconclusive.

The concepts imbued in the Greek prototypes are as follows: based on the Doryphorus type, the image of Ares Borghese conveys concepts related to the Greek ethos, such as modesty (aidos), self-knowledge and moderation (sophrosyne), self-control (enkrateia), the warrior’s courage (andreia), excellence (arete), and the good and the beautiful (kalokagathia), with Ares embodying the archetype of the fury required by the warriors when attacking their enemies.

The concepts imbued in Aphrodite from Capua are mostly those of peace and ataraxia connected with the Epicurean hedonism.

The couples from Isola Sacra and the Louvre share common features, such as the male figure represented as Mars, with military attributes; while the female figure shares the pose of the Greek prototype of Venus, albeit contrasting this in wearing the Roman stola and palla.

One main difference between the Greek prototypes and the Roman images is that while the faces of the former are generic, as typical in Greek sculpture, the Roman images seem to be in accordance with Roman portraiture of the time. Thus, the male images resemble in their facial features personalities such as Marcus Aurelius and Hadrian or Antoninus Pius, while the female images resemble Faustina the Younger and Sabina.

Another main difference is that while the Greek athlete is totally nude the Roman figure wears a paludamentum. This difference humanizes the Roman image, making the figure seem vulnerable and accessible. The dreamy eyes of the Roman image resemble those in Marcus Aurelius’s portraiture, humanizing this figure, and compatible with this emperor’s character as a stoic philosopher. However, such an appearance could also accord with Mars’s broader significance in Roman thinking, in contrast to Ares’s narrower significance.

The female images in both couples seem to accord with the Greek concept embodied in the image of Aphrodite from Capua – that of the loving woman associated with peace. The association of Venus with peace is reflected in literature in the prologue to the poem De Rerum Natura by Lucretius, in which the poet requests that the goddess bring peace, and points out that only she can cause Mars to restrain his anger. Venus thus embodies the Epicurean principles of delight or hedon and tranquility or ataraxia that this poem conveys. The male figure from the Louvre conveys the personality of emperors such as Hadrian or Antoninus Pius, since both were considered to be courageous leaders of men and were valued for their aspirations to seek peace. Perhaps the nature of Hadrian is more reflected in this figure as a militaristic emperor as well as a hedonist and in the pursuit of honor. Such a representation, however, tends to hypocrisy, given the alienation that characterized the relationship between Hadrian and Sabina.

The similarity between the male image in the couple from Ostia to portraiture of Commodus invites a comparison that reveals the gap between the broad significances of Mars as a great defender of Rome and his visual prototype associated with the Greek virtues, and the disordered personality of Commodus as reflecting the Roman decadence.

The main difference between the couples from Isola Sacra and the Louvre and the couple from Ostia lies, as discussed, in the nudity of the female image and the perfect semblance to Venus. This appearance reflects a double meaning: the normative desire for fertility, alongside a strong hint at the promiscuous sex life of empresses and noblewomen. Ultimately, this duality is a leitmotif in all of the sculptural couples discussed, and thus reflects the hypocritical nature of the Roman state of mind.