Marcus Aurelius statues - more pics

[Urselius]

I would go with the Marcus Aurelius id. Quite similar to the equestrian statue of him.

The nose, cheeks and beard are indeed quite similar, the treatment of the eyes and eyebrows is markedly different and the mouth is entirely unlike. The lower lip on the equestrian statue is almost invisible.

[Q. Vipsanivs Praetextatvs]

I think that depictions are all around Antonine dynasty.
Last year they found another statue from Hadrian and they have found antoher satue of Faustine (wife of Antoninus Pius). And now, probably, of Marcus Aurelius.

[SigniferOne]

Taken together these features would tend to make me place the date of this statue in the period 225-330 (with Julian the Apostate as a possibility outside the time frame).

Those are a couple of excellent 'reads' of the statue's minute details, +laudes.

It definitely has an otherworldly gaze, the oversize eyes, and a distinctively non-Antinine lower lip.

At first I was going to assume one of the Soldier Emperors, following your logic, but you discounted Julian so I ask -- why not him? We have almost no idea what he looked like, and he would've been deliberately Classicizing. He may fit as a viable suggestion because 1) it's a clearly Classically featured statue, and 2) you are absolutely right about its eery other-worldly Constantine gaze, hence a high certainty of 4th century AD authorship.

[Urselius]

Look at the sculpted head of Constantine the Great here:

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/ho/05/eust/ho_26.229.htm

Please note the extreme similarity to the head in question in the over-large eyes, the gaze turned upwards, the emphatic arch to the eyebrows, the lines between the brows.

Then look at the genuine Antonine portrait sculpture and compare. You will find: eyes treated naturalistically - the right size for the face, the gaze directed towards the viewer (if standing in front), naturalistic eyebrows, a serenely unlined glabella (space between the eyebrows).

These things matter, they are what art historians use to date Roman portrait sculpture. Admittedly these aspects developed long before Constantine, but they are not characteristic of Antonine sculpture.

[Urselius]

Taken together these features would tend to make me place the date of this statue in the period 225-330 (with Julian the Apostate as a possibility outside the time frame).

Those are a couple of excellent 'reads' of the statue's minute details, +laudes.

It definitely has an otherworldly gaze, the oversize eyes, and a distinctively non-Antinine lower lip.

At first I was going to assume one of the Soldier Emperors, following your logic, but you discounted Julian so I ask -- why not him? We have almost no idea what he looked like, and he would've been deliberately Classicizing. He may fit as a viable suggestion because 1) it's a clearly Classically featured statue, and 2) you are absolutely right about its eery other-worldly Constantine gaze, hence a high certainty of 4th century AD authorship.

Thanks.

I don't altogether discount Julian, there is a full length statue of Julian in Paris, the general facial features are not altogether unlike the statue above, though the face is a bit narrower and the nose higher bridged. The treatment of the hair is like that of Constantine. Having said that, the lip on the Louvre statue is quite prominent:

http://ancientrome.ru/art/artworken/img.htm?id=1297

Taken as a whole the recently unearthed statue looks to me suspiciously like one made deliberately to resemble an Antonine-period portrait - the curly hair and full beard - but executed at a later date. The sculptor being unable, or unwilling, to give up on the later developed conventions concerning the stylised treatment of eyes and eyebrows.

Given Julian's known penchant for antiquarianism, and interest in philosophy it is not altogether impossible to believe he might have deliberately directed sculptors to make portraits of himself to resemble those of Marcus Aurelius.

[Q. Vipsanivs Praetextatvs]

Sorry, what I meant is that it is an Antonine emperor, not a characteristic style from Antonine period.
From her features I'm totally agree with you.

I don't know if I have said it understandable... :?

[SigniferOne]

Taken as a whole the recently unearthed statue looks to me suspiciously like one made deliberately to resemble an Antonine-period portrait - the curly hair and full beard - but executed at a later date. The sculptor being unable, or unwilling, to give up on the later developed conventions concerning the stylised treatment of eyes and eyebrows.

Given Julian's known penchant for antiquarianism, and interest in philosophy it is not altogether impossible to believe he might have deliberately directed sculptors to make portraits of himself to resemble those of Marcus Aurelius.

What's furthermore, the recent statue has a very virile look, with the lower lip not only promintantly jutting out, but the lips parted as if in motion. The face has a sense of activity, and based on the shoulders and the leg fragment, it looks to be extremely athletic. And if you compare the Louvre statue with it, you'll find a lot of facial similarities underneath the dissimilar hair-styles. I could suggest that this is Julian in the look of an athlete.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

If you look at any 2 statues of caesar they are nit exactly alike...I think you can be pretty safe with the Marcus id...
The eyes areactually quite like the elder equestrian statue, the lips...well they are similar enough, hair beard..... :lol: :roll: but it makes a good conversation piece I guess.

I am more intrigued by what they haven't found yet.....the city must be a treasure trove of finds....an archaologists dream! :o )

[PhilusEstilius]

The picture put forward by Duncan with the comment that Commodus looks like his farther, I might question as possibly being a picture of not Commodus but Lucius Verus.

[Urselius]

To quote from:

A Newly Discovered Portrait of the Emperor Julian
R. Jonas
American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 50, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 1946), pp. 277-282

"The very full moustache forms an arch above the mouth. The upper lip is hardly visible; the lower lip is strongly accentuated and protrudes below the moustache. The corners of the moustache unite with the side curls of the beard. The face has the serene expression of a philosopher. The brow is very high and domed. there are two creases running parallel to the arched eyebrows... Two longitudinal wrinkles are visible above the root of the nose."

And especially:

"The remarkable features are the unequal height of the eyes.... the way the lower lip protrudes below the huge moustache..."

I think that the point about the lower lip and, if I am not much mistaken, the slight inequality in the height of the eyes applies to the new head.
The eyes and eyebrows are definitely unequally set in the new sculpture the left (on the right when viewing) eye is deeper top to bottom and the left eyebrow is higher than the right.

A contemporary description of Julian by Ammianus Marcellinus:

"He was of medium stature, his hair was soft, as if it had been combed, his beard rough and pointed. His eyes were fine and flashing, an indication of the nimbleness of his mind. He had handsome eyebrows, a straight nose, rather a large mouth with a drooping lower lip. His neck was thick and slightly bent, his shoulders broad and big. From top to toe he was well-knit, and so was strong and a good runner."


Anyone want to employ me as a Roman art expert, then? :lol:

Seriously, it would be far more important to get another sculpture of Julian than yet another of M. Aurelius or S. Severus. Also the state of the statue, seemingly taken apart but not deliberately defaced, would fit with Julian's status after his death. Lauded with an inscription (Zosimus) "Julian lies here, back from the flowing Tigris: At once a noble king and a strong spearman." And at the same time execrated by his successors for his religious policy. A war hero and an Antichrist - take apart his statues and bury them, but do not deface them.

[john m roberts]

Colossal statue heads often have strangely proportioned and exaggerrated features because they are intended to be viewed from a distance and from below. This head might appear very different if we could view it from the intended distance and angle.

[Urselius]

Colossal statue heads often have strangely proportioned and exaggerrated features because they are intended to be viewed from a distance and from below. This head might appear very different if we could view it from the intended distance and angle.

Have a look at the Hadrian head from the same site:

http://www.sagalassos.be/

This is equally colossal but it is quite different from the Aurelius/Julian head. Look at the treatment of the beard and hair - quite distinct. The eyes do not have irides marked, and are lentoid, not given an exaggerated vertical dimension like in the other statue. The brows are not arched. The brow and glabella are perfectly smooth and have no hint of lines. Even the fabric and finish of the stone is distinct from the other head.

The Hadrian head is recognisably of Hadrian and of Antonine date. That of "Aurelius" has some gross characteristics of those known to be of Aurelius - curly hair and full straggle tipped beard, but is of definitely later date stylistically and has characteristics - the drooping full lower lip and unequal sized eyes which strongly suggest Julian. No known head of Aurelius has a projecting strongly everted lower lip, indeed on most there is no visible demarcation between the lip and the skin below it.

Looking closely at the foot of the "Aurelius" statue, its surface carving is not the same as the head, it is much more like that of the Hadrian statue.

Constantine the great re-used Trajanic reliefs on his arch in Rome, Trajan's head was removed and replaced with that of Constantine. I suspect that the "Aurelius" statue had its head replaced at the time of Julian, the replacement retaining the "trademark" hair and beard of the earlier emperor but the face being given the salient features of Julian.

If you crop and view the heads side by side, you can see the great differences in sculpting methodology between them. They weren't executed a few decades apart, but perhaps more than a century. The Hadrian sculpture is more technically sophisticated (especially the drilling needed to create those 3D curls in the hair) but the "Aurelius/Julian" sculpture, though more stylised, has much more animation and is by far the more powerful evocation of the humanity of the person portrayed.

[SigniferOne]

I would amend Urselius' comment just a little bit -- what the "Aurelius/Julian" statue has is not more humanity, but more virility. Hadrian seems classically reposed, while "Aurelius/Julian" seems poised for instant activity.

All in all, not really a contradiction to Julian's short but brilliant reign.


PS. I would add that adding the notion of intense virility to Marcus Aurelius is not exactly something one would think of as appropriate. If anything, he was even more philosophical and classically reposed than Hadrian, as per his writings and his equestrian statue.

No, the "Aurelius/Julian" is a statue of someone very vigorous.