spin

1. the Louvre Octavian
2. the Capitoline Octavian
3. the Bevilacqua Augustus
4. the Athens Augustus
5. the Via Labicana Augustus
6. the Prima Porta Augustus


spin

Rick Sumner

Excellent. Far more helpful. I'll get back to you after I've had a chance to investigate, and will cheerily retract if it is borne out here. Though I'll state from the outset that I think the Prima Porta Augustus is useless for this. The influences are too obvious, the tendency to bring him in line with Alexander (dig that hair? Why do you think it changed from the Actium style? The shift was almost certainly quite intentional. Augustus was fond of Alexander), and to bring the entire family into a harmonious portrait of semblence far too embedded into statuary. Once you hit Prima porta, you stop seeing even a loose effort at honestly showing Augustus.

I'll also touch on the fifth in your list, the Via Labicana. It depicts Augustus as pontifex maximus, a role he didn't obtain until after the original Prima porta (he became pontifex maximus in 12 BCE), and the serene expression, exuding confident leadership, is unmistakable as relying on the prima porta style.

Your chronology is wrong, I'm afraid, and one that would have taken you ten minutes to deduce from a cursory investigation of the canonical Augustan statue. We'll still see if you're right about what we can see. But it would appear I was right in suggesting you don't have a clue if you're right or not. The late Augustan Prima Porta (actually, probably post-Augustan) is a copy. Of a work made nearly forty years prior. If you're seeing it as chronologically (by appearance) later than Augustus as pontifex maximus, you only continue to compound my point.

Just to clarify for anyone unaware, the prima porta Augustus was erected in the teens of the first century CE. Based on a statue made in 20 BCE. A period of nearly 40 years with no notable change in the depiction of Augustus. The style is named from a statue that was likely commisioned by Tiberius after Augustus had died.

I'll get back to you on the rest after some investigation. The earlier statues are particularly interesting, because they predate the later Augustan style, and have far more hope of being realistic.

Rick Sumner

Which are you calling the "Athens Augustus?" I find two from Athens, one known as the "Equestrian Augustus" by virtue of being the only one of him riding, and another bronze statue. I hope I'm correct in assuming you mean the latter.

What's interesting to me is that the corona civica (your number 3) seems to have the prima porta hair style, while the Athens statue seems to have the Actium 'do. But I can't find decent enough images to find out for sure, so I'll reserve judgment at this point.

What date are you arriving at for the corona civica? It's a good example of the problem here, because our markers for dates have to do with styles and hair-dos, not Augustus' appearance. And when you hit the major shifts in statuary style, where there's some overlap from one to the next, it's easy to end up with a jumbled mess.

I'm waiting on The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus, which I understand has a nice discussion on the corona civica in particular.

Rick Sumner

At the risk of driving the moderatorial team nuts with another split, it might be worthwhile to split the discussion of Augustan statuary off.

spin

I'd recommend that we keep this thread together as a good example of a Rick Sumner derail.

At least he finds the Augustus statuary food for reflection on history, though it is trappings that concerns him and their political implications, which he seems to take as worthy to be considered historical.


spin

Rick Sumner

You were the one who brought it up. Perhaps you shouldn't do so when 1) It's not terribly relevant and 2) You don't actually know if it's accurate or not.

You just sound like a guy who just got caught out And who apparently can't date the statues he cites.

Though it's not so much a derail as it is a side discussion. I'm still researching for the far more interesting historiographic questions.

Though I suspect you've spent about as much time developing your historiography as you have researching Augustan age art. So I'm probably going to benefit more from the research than I am any further discussion.

Is this the part where I get to tell you you're clueless? And follow it up with sober advice about the need to familiarize yourself with the available material? I'll be honest with you spin, I really don't care much about Augustan statuary one way or the other (though the Livia pieces are fascinating. . .they're obviously collector's items, but who is the consumer, and why do they want them? Such an oddity, wife of Augustus or not). What I did care about was finding out if there was any correlation between the vituperative rhetoric you spew and your knowledge of the subject matter. And indeed there is. You get more arrogant when you don't know what you're talking about. . .trying to mask your ignorance behind pomp. The correlation is inverse.

You don't know the first thing about Augustan statuary. It took me less than two weeks and four books to establish that. You make mistakes that are covered in the first chapter of any introduction. It is what it is. Anybody who wants to can check that out themselves. Apparently you can't be bothered, but that just tells me how much credence I should give any claim you offer, since the greater confidence you speak with the more likely it is you're guessing, or just repeating something you heard once.

spin

For some reason you think that you, who have run everywhere you could to avoid the real discussion, can by wasting enough time come to some limp moral victory in some peripheral matter.

Well at least I can say I've seen a lot of them first hand. You are trying your darndest to reduce the statues of Augustus simply to politics. Where has the corona civica got you as a dating mechanism? Obviously, nowhere. You are still basing your triumphalism on equivocation over the latest two statues I listed. I tell you what, you keep looking to find out what you can. It'll keep you out of trouble and you won't have to deal with your mumblings at the start of this split thread. You've already shown that the sort of analysis you can do with regard to the finesse of statuary in Augustan history is simply light years more in the realm of history than anything you could contemplate in the field of christian literature qua history.

So off and investigate the corona civica. It'll give you loads of leeway. :wave:


spin

Rick Sumner

What exactly do you think the "real discussion" is? Because you keep bringing it back to why I think there was an historical Jesus which was not, at any point in this thread, or the parent thread, the topic of the conversation.

The topic here is the development of historiography. It sprang from questions relating to the HJ/MJ debate, but was not contingent upon that debate in itself. Hence my interest in developing a historiography that isn't restricted to that subject, and my bafflement at your unwillingness to put down the baggage.

But let me try and bring us back to the start, and attempt to phrase what you're trying to say, before coming to it more fully. Feel free to clarify, but please do so with more tangible terms than "anchor," and "known." As we see in the Augustan statuary, the anchor isn't necessarily as tethered as you think it is.

So here's what I'm getting from you: The absence of an outside vector means that we need to use the NT to define itself. Consequently, with no small amount of circularity, we find ourselves using the NT to define the NT which we then use to critique it, based on that definition.

Because of the circularity intrinsic to that (the lack of anything outside of the circle for our investigation) we are loathe to make any claims in any direction on the matter. Our speculations can only be tested by our speculations, and consequently are of no value.

Would you consider that accurate?

The victory isn't moral, it's academic, and, despite your proclamations to the contrary, directly germane to the thread. The split was suggested because the meat of the subject is independent, but the conclusions apply here quite well.

You cited the statuary of Augustus in the sense of an "anchor" a "tether" to the "known." Except it doesn't work very well in that light, and you use it as one not because you've successfully anchored it, but because it's convenient. You have no idea if it's anchored or not. It might be. You just have no idea if that's the case.

While I might envy you the opportunity to have done so (and indeed I do. . .did you have occasion to see any of the sardonyx cameos of Livia I spoke of? Some of them are in the same museums, though a great many are in the hands of private collectors. . .things are fucking amazing), that isn't terribly relevant. I've seen Michaelangelo's David first hand (never did anything for me. . .all king and no shepherd). That doesn't make me an art historian.

I am doing nothing of the sort. They can be reduced to mere politics no more than Virgil's Aenid can. They're a story, and not constrained by something so fleeting as current politics.

For another example, there is a marble bust of a young Octavian in a private collection in La Alcudia, Mallorca. It dates from 30 BCE, making it contemporary with the Capitoline Octavian. Except it looks nothing like it. . .if not for the distinctive hairstyle you wouldn't know it's the same man.

The problem with using statuary (especially Augustan statuary. . .you'd have had a better shot with Cicero) is that there is no way to tell where the story ends and the history begins. A problem not unlike that of textual investigation.

I'm not sure if you're referring to the presence of the crown, or the name of the statue. Perhaps you could clarify.

I'm basing it on your general ignorance of the statuary. I knew I had you once you sent me to a website and the Ara Pacis. The trusty Google ad hoc was transparent. If you weren't so arrogant prior to your ignorance I'd have probably just given you the graceful bow-out you were obviously hoping for.

But the mix-up of dates was hardly the only mistake I pointed out. Just the most flagrant. The Primaporta style so permeates Augustan statuary that to confuse its history is comical when you're purporting to be familiar with it.

What specific mumblings do you have in mind? So far you haven't really shown that you even understand what I'm trying to say, judging by your unwillingness to leave such a restricted topic when we're looking at a broader question of historiography.

In some respects. In other respects that's not necessarily true. Augustan statuary helps us see what Augustus' message was. But so does Virgil. And Horace. And tons of other things, really. And ultimately (as the myriad explanations for the Augustan Age attest) we still end up with some of the same problems. How much did Augustus orchestrate, and how much was just being in the right place at the right time? There are as many answers to that as there are to anything in the NT. And no objective way to tell the good from the bad.

The "anchor" for Augustus isn't anything as tangible as you suggest. It's the cultural shifts at either end of the Age of Augustus we anchor it in. Few people can be said to have had such immediate, far reaching, and all-encompassing effect ever in history. Actium and Augustus' death provide us markers to set off a period unrivaled by any other epoch of history. It might be the only "period" that we can confidently speak of as being real rather than arbitrary. Compare it with the rather broad and largely useless "Second Temple Period" we refer to so much here. Such was his effect that even poets and playwrights stopped writing the same style within a decade of Actium. He changed the world. Or if he didn't, he was at least in the right place to get the accolades for it.

So in some--even most (even hugely most)--there is no comparison between what we can accomplish with the study of Augustus and the Augustan age and Biblical Crit. But in most of those respects that's true everywhere. I couldn't study even Alex the Great with the same depth I can Augustus or the Augustan Age, because even his considerable impact pales in comparison. If Boswell is right in calling Caesar "the greatest man of any age," it is not unreasonable to suggest that Augustus is the reason for it (though if Cicero could do it over, I'd venture that neither of them would have happened. . .he's probably the real reason for both of them).

Though I've also learned that Augustan historians are, in general, a naive bunch. The framework many of them work within would get them laughed out of an SBL Seminar. How eager would you be to trust Suetonius' account of Augustus' last words? "History" isn't quite what you portray it as either, at least so far as the contemporary study of it goes.

spin

You give an answer yourself:
Sort of. From what basis can historiography stem?

Claim as you wish, you've done a good job of demonstrating the issue.

No, you're not. The absence of an outside vector gives us no basis on which to do history.

You won't eke wriggle room on this expression.

Rubbish. You have merely shown it problematical that I placed the Via Labicana Augustus before the Prima Porta Augustus. You have no doubt t hat they are later than the rest.

As I don't remember them, probably not.

In Washington?

I haven't seen the piece.

There are a number of examples, but you still haven't dealt with the earlier representations of Augustus.

I was referring to the oak crown.

Talking about ignorance, you assume because you know nothing about this stuff but what you can glean from your reading that everyone has to be like you. I have seen the Ara Pacis and much of the statuary. So stop showing your own parochiality and try to deal with what you know and can glean from your reading.

Grace isn't one of your virtues.

Whoa boyo, stop bullshitting. You have trouble because I gave you the Via Labicana before the Prima Porta. That's your problem. That's what you are basing your little song and dance on. :boohoo:

I didn't purport any familiarity. I gave you a personal reaction from my own first hand observation.

The stuff about you not needing a basis of evidence from the period in question to do historical research.

You are now going beyond the hard physical evidence, for which the statuary is a factor along with the coins and the inscriptions. We establish through these things that we have history to deal with. And that's what you've been doing with the statues.

You're now working with material that is anchored in the physical evidence. You've gone beyond the necessary basis to reflect on what is shown in the physical evidence. The mature statuary is naturally a series of political statements, just as the coins are. Yet, they are still the physical evidence necessary to base history on.


spin

Rick Sumner

Sort of. I indicated that we should move that to the back awhile ago though. We're probably not going to agree on it, so there's not likely to be much fruitful discussion on that front, unless we work our way back to it. It's why I started from things we would agree are relatively certain in history and tried to work backwards. I'm more interested (as I've indicated) in historiography generally. The application of History and Theory to the Journal of Roman Studies to use the examples I gave Celsus above.

Demonstrating what, exactly? You seem to be getting confused. I'm not interested in whether or not we can see Augustus at all in statuary, it was your claim about what we could see in the progression.

Okay. Then why? I'm trying to get through your reasoning on the matter.

Nonsense. I pointed out the problem with your application of the Ara Pacis, I pointed out problems with your use of the Corona Civica. And, to answer your second statement, I have reason to question the Corona Civica, as I indicated above I'll need more investigation. I'd still be interested in knowing where you date it.

And that I can tell some are later has very little to do with Augustus' features. It has more to do with changes in style. Other than the earlier pieces (the Capitoline Octavian is impressive and fantastically preserved), we can't even confidently state what Augustus' features really were.

Pity. Museum photographs are lighted to show off the pieces, for obvious reasons, I'd be interested to know if they're as striking in person.

Nope. In Florence. Though I was just a wee slip of a lad, and don't remember it terribly well.

Nice picture of it in The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Augustus, fig.54. He looks even younger than Capitoline (it's probably earlier, but hard to date), but the features are different. Some of that is owed to the marble rather than bronze. Some is owed to artistic license.

I'll cheerily grant that the earlier, more detailed sculptures are probably pretty close to the real deal. We still don't know what parts are enhanced by the chisel and what aren't, but it's at least an effort at his likeness. That doesn't bolster your claim, which was that we can observe the change in features.

It tells me when it's after. A good enough shot to identify the hairstyle would tell me more. Still waiting on the book I mentioned.

I know marginally more than nothing, but still, at present count, clearly more than you

Nope. You can't even identify the Primaporta style. The canonical Augustus. That's what I'm basing it on.

Really? Here I thought you assured me I was clueless and encouraged me to look at the available material. If those don't imply that you aren't clueless and that you have looked at the available material, I'm not sure what does.

"Period in question?" I'm not sure what you mean by this.

I don't need statues to identify Augustus though. If I had no archaeology, in fact, if I had nothing except the poets and playwrights, I could still tell you that something had rocked the culture of Rome to its core.

So any physical evidence is a requirement? What of Stateira II? Does she get a free pass by virtue of Alexander? How close do they need to be to get the free pass?

Sometimes the physical evidence isn't necessary. Why?

The simple questions lead to the better ones. But my interest in developing historiography is still sincere. And apparently not as limited as yours.