,
22 tweets,
6 min read
Read on Twitter
Okay, we need to have a chat about Roman portraiture. My feed is now full of horrifying #Nero reconstructions and I highly suggest that you don't look directly into his eyes because he might steal your soul. Thanks to @p_historians and @Lindsay_Powell for photos.
First off, what I shall henceforth refer to as The Interpretation, side by side with the marble portrait it was apparently heavily based on. All credit for THAT to Césares de Roma. The bust is in the Capitoline. Nero did not look like this and here's why: #classicstwitter 
If you look carefully at the bust, you'll notice some pretty obvious discoloration. That's because EVERYTHING except for the eyes, nose, and fringe of hair along the forehead is a 17th century restoration. IT IS NOT ANCIENT.
This sort of early modern restoration isn't uncommon, and there is more than one bust of a "bad emperor" that is in suspiciously good condition, that I would argue is post-antique. For quite a long time it was fashionable to have bust series of Suetonius' 12 Caesars...
...but when an emperor suffered damnatio memoriae (another post-antique term but commonly used now - widespread destruction of references and images of the subject) that made it even more unlikely that an intact bust would be found. So, lots of folks commissioned.
These busts could include fragments, like this one, but were often based on physical descriptions in Suetonius and/or coin portraits. This one, from the @artinstitutechi (67-68 CE) is a good example. Coins were much more likely to survive and, unless your name was Geta...
...were not as likely to be affected by damnatio. Nero had pretty fine coin quality so his tend to hold a lot of detail (Domitian's were the best combo of quality in material and artistry). You are probably wondering at this point why I bring up the coin, as it isn't flattering.
Nor is this graffito (thanks @p_historians). This brings me to my second major point - Roman "likeness". Photo from wiki, along with this gem of a caveat: "Original author died over 1800 years ago, thus public domain." HOORAY!
When the Romans thought of portraits, they did not think of an exact physical likeness. That wasn't even a thing until photography started becoming popular - not because it was impossible, but because there were SO MANY MORE COOL THINGS you could do in a portrait.
Think filters. Most of us are selective with our profile pics - lots of people see them and we want to communicate certain things. The Romans weren't any different in that respect - in fact, imperial portrait "types" relied on repetition of traits in place of ideology...
...and widespread dissemination. We think that the initial portraits were designed in Rome, and then sent out to workshops to be copied - via coins, statues, paintings, gems, etc. The graffito was found in Rome, which would have been overrun with imperial imagery.
So, it makes sense that the features more or less line up. It tells us what Nero wanted to emphasize. First, he has a very fleshy face. This contrasts with most of the Julio-Claudians, who favored idealism. Nero was hearkening back to Pompey and the Hellenistic style.
Starting with Alexander, Hellenistic portraits wanted to emphasize opulence and abundance - ergo, fleshy faces and styled hair. The Interpretation neglects to include any substantial styling, which would have DEFINITELY been in an authentic portrait. Boy liked to be stylin.
The comma curls, practically an Augustan calling card, are here relegated to natural waves in the hair. As for Nero being a redhead...Suetonius calls him "subflavo" which is not quite golden but definitely blonde so...I dunno where that came from.
We also get a really horrendous neck beard. The short-cut beard was a symbol of military service, as that's when Roman men weren't expected to be perfectly groomed. We see it on a lot of emperors when they are trying to look macho.
It would not have been the carefully groomed face carpet that The Interpretation posits. Rather, we can expect the sort of long stubble one might get if not shaving every day. Yes, I know that's ridiculous with how much time he spends on his hair...
...but realistic isn't the point. The point is that he has dynastic Julio-Claudian features (comma locks, sometimes the nose and eyes), Greek sensibilities (hair, fleshy face), and Roman military clout (soldier beard).
That leaves us with Suetonius, and how much we can rely on him for an accurate description. The thing about Suet. is that he's basically a rumor mill working off of the same portraits as everyone else BUT including Roman phrenology.
If you go back and read some passages, you'll notice that bad emperors all start to have the same features after a while. Domitian starts out really pretty but gets sickly as a "symptom" of his inner character.
Much like in actual portraiture, Suetonius uses physical characteristics as props. The fact that we as modern readers aren't often inclined to recognize that is a byproduct of photography and believing in the purity of "historical" writing.
Anyways, I quite like this portrait from the Uffizi and I think it's much closer to what Nero would have looked like. You get the same fleshiness, but the 3D medium makes it much more refined.
Now please, I beg you. The next time someone says they want to make a realistic version of what an emperor actually looked like, tell them to talk to an actual ROMAN art historian, so we can explain why that's a terrible idea. #classicstwitter
