Gendered Physiognomy in Post-Augustan Portraits

       We’ll start by defining physiognomy as the determination of a person’s character through his or her physical features, such as “appearance, mannerisms, and gait” (D’Ambra, 226). It is for this reason that its definition is only further complicated in Roman portraiture, as physical features are regularly manipulated to portray the subject in a desired way, to associate him or her with high status, whether it be through skills, accomplishments, or family connections.

       Unlike the Greeks, the Romans saw portraiture as a “montage,” rather than an “organic coherence” of physical features that had to be “at least subliminally discernible within the overall context of the image” (Nodelman, 14-15). This “montage” of features was divided into types by Nodelman (22) that further distinguished Greek and Roman portraiture. The first type is the ego, the superficial mask of the persona that conforms to social norms and “wishes to make the proper impression” (Nodelman, 22). This conceals the second type, the more subtle “involuntary… twitching of the smaller muscles that is revelatory of quite other feelings” (Nodelman, 22). The third is what Nodelman simply calls presence (23), or the observer’s comprehension of the humanity of the subject given this contrast between “willful self-preservation” (23) through social conformity, and hidden private desires. Where the Greeks sought to convey organic harmony and to portray their subjects not only as products of nature but as isolated representations of pure emotions, the Romans chose to portray the subject in such a way that emphasized the importance of Roman society, through engagement with the observer, and through this complex three-tiered system of physiognomy that showcased the subject’s triumph over his or her natural impulses.

Physiognomy to express youth and fertility

Livia Drusilla fashioned her portraits to reflect the idealized feminine beauty of her generation, characterized by a heart-shaped face, a small mouth, large eyes, and a very straight, stylized nose. Her popularization of the nodus hairstyle was also adopted by Roman women in their own portraits, such as in FOF 34.

  *   *   *

       The primary role of the Roman woman never shifted from childbirth, what D’Ambra (222) describes as “the culmination of a woman’s life and her fulfillment of her marriage vows to her husband.” As a result, portraits of many Roman women serve to showcase their abilities to bear children, at least from the Roman perception. The gynecologist Soranus argued that normal feminine features were the surest signs of a woman’s ability to get pregnant, but Diocles insisted that masculine traits reflected the strength of a woman to endure pregnancy and childbirth (D’Ambra, 225). The most influential figure for early Augustan women, however, was Livia Drusilla, despite the fact that she did not produce any heirs for Augustus. She chose a physiognomic ensemble that emphasized and idealized her feminine qualities, resulting in her characteristic heart-shaped face, large eyes, small mouth, straight nose, and horizontal lines in her throat known as Rings of Venus, then a sign of feminine beauty in Ancient Rome.

Physiognomy to showcase life accomplishments

Scribonia (FOF 28; left) bears the same confident gaze endemic to Roman male portraits as is seen in the portrait of Marcia Furnilla (center), and in the numerous portraits of Roman senators, such as this one (right) from approximately 80 CE. A masculine gaze, as we see in the Furnilla portrait, shows “the eyelids and eyebrows [as] aligned to avoid quick and erratic movements that signal shamelessness or deception,” (D’Ambra, 226-227).

  *   *   *

       Physiognomy in Roman female portraits did not always portray the subject in an idealized fashion. The simple hairstyle and matured face of Scribonia (FOF 28) stands in stark contrast to the ornately coiled hairstyle and smooth, youthful features of Claudia Antonia (FOF 31), but the unique styles of both imply that these two women are from exceptionally powerful families, or at least fortuitous circumstances. D’Ambra (220) describes a Roman woman’s maternal capabilities as “crucial in a society in which the primary objective of marriage was to produce children, particularly sons, to keep the family name alive and to maintain its property.” Scribonia, as the mother of at least six sons who survived childhood, would no doubt have been proud of her accomplishments as a successful mother, and therefore as a successful wife and materfamilias.

       These two women express their pride in two different ways: Claudia Antonia does so in an idealizing way that will be explained in the section regarding the affirmation of preexisting family associations; Scribonia, on the other hand, takes a veristic approach and showcases her age and experience over her youth and fecundity. Scribonia likely drew inspiration from the Roman senators who made this style so well known, in an effort “through emphasis on the marks of age… [to] call to attention to their long service… and their faithfulness… in intended contrast to the meteoric careers and dubious methods of the individualistic faction-leaders” (Nodelman, 11). This passage also suggests that Scribonia may also have been intending to distance herself from her ancestor Pompey the Great; however, “her stern and reserved expression as ‘masculine’ in no way casts doubt on her gender and sexuality, [but rather] it indicates that she has acquired the ‘superior’ qualities demanded of respectable matrons that complement those of their fathers, brothers, and husbands but do not challenge their mastery” (D’Ambra, 227). While the portrait of Scribonia is more veristic than usual for a female portrait, it is nowhere near as veristic as the portraits of the Roman Senators; nor does it contain the same level of severity, as her straight, thin mouth nevertheless echoes Pompey’s subtle smirk. While she “[borrowed] masculine aspects to elevate [herself]” (Nodelman, 12), she retains some subtle reminders of her femininity and biological ancestry.

Physiognomy to affirm preexisting family associations

The physiognomy of the Emperor Claudius (right; 10 BC - 54 CE; reign 41 - 54 CE) is characterized by large ears, sunken eyes, a heavy brow, a long nose, a weak chin, and a triangular face. Despite his physical disadvantages which led to numerous political disfunctions, Claudius was a successful patron of numerous large-scale building projects, and was notorious for his interest in reviving Classical, notably Greek, themes, which may have carried on in the Classicizing coiled locks in Claudia Antonia's (FOF 31; left) portrait.

  *   *   *

       The highly unusual style in FOF 31 can be noticed at first glance, and this uniqueness implies that this woman could be of a very influential family. The hairstyle is incredibly specialized, with a low forehead framed by tiny ringlets, a wavy top part, and long coils in the back overlain by a bun. The coils are what set this portrait apart from the others, as they show a level of flamboyance most Roman women (at least under Augustus) would avoid given its associations with more eccentric characters like Cleopatra; however, they also give a Classicizing element to the portrait, and that, along with the large, sunken eyes, sad expression in the brow -- perhaps also an indicator of gravitas, a quality prided by the conservative aristocracy (Nodelman, 14) -- and weak jaw, indicate a heavily Claudian influence. It is therefore a fair judgement to say that this woman is Claudia Antonia, the daughter of the Emperor Claudius.

Physiognomy to establish new family associations

While Scribonia (FOF 28; first row) is a descendent of Pompey (bottom row), she bears far more physiognomic similarities to her husband's ancestor Crassus (third row); her husband, however, does not reciprocate the gesture. M. Crassus Frugi (FOF 39; second row) is not more physiognomically similar to his wife's ancestor, Pompey.

  *   *   *

       Where physiognomy can be used to affirm preexisting family associations, as in the case of Claudia Antonia and the Emperor Claudius, it can also be used to set new associations. Returning to Scribonia, we can see that her masculinized physiognomy is directed at a particular individual: M. Licinius Crassus, ancestor to her husband, M. Crassus Frugi. The flat occipital region, straight brow, severe expression, straight mouth and hooked nose of Scribonia all serve to express a family connection to Crassus. This may be because Roman women were incorporated into her husband's family and literally walked to her husband's house on the day of her marriage.

     While the distinct roles of men and women are somewhat blurred in the Roman public sphere starting with the reign of Augustus, they remain distinct in terms of how they are physically represented and through what actions they are remembered. Men continue to be portrayed the most often during marriages, or political or military accomplishments, and women continue to be portrayed during marriages or the political or military accomplishments of their husbands; however, the consistent use of particular physiognomies in female portraiture became more prevalent after the rise of Augustus given the public portraits erected in honor of Livia and Octavia. Roman women choose to depict themselves within the context of marriage and motherhood, albeit through different physiognomic systems, and based on the portraits of Claudia Antonia and Scribonia, we can infer that women of higher social rank were more likely to defy physiognomic conventions. Through analysis of these portraits, we have learned that sex and gender were not synonymous in ancient Rome, and that masculine and feminine features alike could highlight a woman’s success as a materfamilias.