Timothy A.

Motz

The Second Life of the Barberini Togatus

in Baroque Rome

Introduction
In a well-known passage, the historian Polybius describes the prominent role played by ancestral im-
ages in Roman society:

“Next after the interment and the performance of the usual ceremonies, they place
the image of the departed in the most conspicuous position in the house, enclosed in
a wooden shrine. This image is a mask reproducing with remarkable fidelity both the
features and complexion of the deceased. On the occasion of public sacrifices they
display these images, and decorate them with much care, and when any distinguished
member of the family dies they take them to the funeral, putting them on men who
seem to them to bear the closest resemblance to the original in stature and carriage.”1

A statue formerly in the Barberini Collection and now in the Centrale Montemartini in Rome is often
cited as illustrating this passage in Polybius. This statue, known as the Barberini togatus (Figure 1),
shows a man wearing a toga and holding in either arm a portrait bust.2
In the earliest scholarly publication of this statue, Katherine Esdaille noted that it once had been
identified as the legendary Lucius Junius Brutus holding the heads of his sons whom he ordered exe-
cuted for plotting the restoration of the Tarquins.3 Esdaille herself identified the central figure as Ju-
lius Caesar holding a bust of Marius on his right, with an unknown ancestor on his left.4 Annie Za-
doks was the first to explicitly identify the statue as representing an aristocratic Roman holding busts
of his ancestors, while Olof Vessberg was the first to suggest a link between the statue and the passage
of Polybius cited above.5
Following those publications, photos of this statue have appeared frequently in introductory art
history textbooks, in textbooks of Roman art, and in monographs on Roman sculpture (usually with-
out comment6), to illustrate the idea that portrait busts functioned as ancestral portraits for the Roman
aristocracy.7 In effect, the statue has become a meme (an image used as a shorthand way to convey an
idea) rather than being discussed as a work of art. Such a theory, however, assumes that the Barberini
togatus is both intact and unaltered.
However, a re-appraisal of this statue has led me to conclude that it is a pastiche. Although the cen-
tral figure dates to the early first century C.E. and the head of the central figure has long been recog-
nized as ancient but alien to that figure, the busts held by the figure were probably created and added in
the early 17. century. This statue has had two lives and three meanings: the first in ancient Rome, and
the second in Baroque Rome—the third being the one commonly accepted today. I would like to first
examine the Barberini togatus itself. Next I will outline the social context in which the statue first ap-
peared in the Barberini collection. After that I will discuss what I believe was the true social context of
 KUNSTGESCHICHTE Open Peer Reviewed Journal • 2024

Figure 1: The Barberini togatus, first quarter of the 1. century C.E. and first quarter of the 17. century, H: 165 cm, Rome,
Centrale Montemartini, MC 2392.

2
 THIMOTHY A. MOTZ: THE SECOND LIFE OF THE BARBERINI TOGATUS IN BAROQUE ROME

the portrait bust in the early Roman empire. Fi-

nally, I will show how the comparisons that have
been cited for the Barberini togatus have been
misconstrued to erroneously support the tradi-
tional interpretation of the statue.

A Problematic Ancient Context

It must be said at the outset that there are sev-
eral things about this statue that set it apart
from other surviving Roman statues. First, it is
a very unusual statue—even odd. As I will show
later, there are statues showing figures hold-
ing portrait busts but there are no comparisons
for a life-sized figure standing and carrying two
life-sized portrait busts. Also, it doesn’t actually
show what Polybius described: the central figure
isn’t carrying or wearing masks, he’s holding two
portrait busts. Finally, as someone who worked
in art museums for thirty-five years and was in-
volved in moving and handling marble and
Figure 2: Statue of Augustus as Pontifex found in the Via
bronze sculpture, I can say that it is highly un- Labicana. Rome, Museo Nazionale delle Terme, first
likely that anyone would casually carry two full- quarter of the 1. century C.E., H: 207 cm.
sized portrait busts in this way no matter what
their material. They’re heavy.8 So the statue is
rather implausible.
It is also difficult to suggest a plausible original context for this statue. In the Roman world togate
statues (figures wearing togas), like loricate statues (figures wearing armor), were commonly erected
in public settings to honor public figures. The Barberini statue is unfinished in the back, which marks
it as having been placed in a niche on a public building—a common practice. It is difficult to explain
why a figure in a niche on a public building would be shown carrying portrait busts of his ancestors. It
could be assumed that anyone honored with a public statue had illustrious ancestors—that was, after
all, part of how he came to be a public figure in the first place. There would be no need to demonstrate
it. If the statue was intended as tomb sculpture and thus private, it would still be an honorific statue
and the portrait busts are strange additions. Why show a person carrying busts of their ancestors when
the statue would likely be placed in or near a family tomb filled with the remains of those very ances-
tors? The meaning that has been attached to this statue is one that originated in the modern era, not
one that would have made sense to a Roman viewer.
But to turn to the statue itself: A viewer’s first impression is that the statue was carved from one
piece of marble. If this were true, it would be unusual for the early first century C.E., the period to
which the statue is commonly dated. Such a date can be verified by examining the toga worn by the
central figure. The length and draping of togas changed over time, and by comparison with datable
monuments these changes allow statues wearing togas to be approximately dated. If we compare the
toga worn by the Barberini togatus to that worn by a statue of Augustus in the Palazzo Massimo alle

3
 KUNSTGESCHICHTE Open Peer Reviewed Journal • 2024

Terme in Rome (Figure 2), for example, we can

see that the togas are similar in size and draping.
In particular, the sinus or loop of cloth on the
proper right side reaches to just above the knees
of both figures, the umbo, a loop of cloth pulled
out over the chest, is present in both statues, and
the togas are of approximately the same length
and volume. Such togas date both statues to the
early first century C.E..9
Having established an approximate date for
the central figure, it is appropriate to note that
Polybius was describing the customs of the Ro-
mans of the mid 2nd century B.C.E. Roman soci-
ety changed enormously in the interval between
the Republic of Polybius’s day and the early 1.
century C.E. Principate. By the beginning of the
reign of Augustus the Roman upper classes had
been decimated by nearly a century of civil war
and many of the old families had disappeared.
It is reasonable to wonder how many of the cus-
toms of the old aristocracy would have survived.
Would Polybius’s description of a Roman fu-
Figure 3: Breaks and joins visible on the front of the Barberini neral have had any relevance for a Roman offi-
togatus. Possible repaired break is shown in green, joins in cial of the reign of Augustus?
red. Compare to Talamo (as Note 12), fig. 36.

Technical Considerations
But to return to the statue itself, as Amanda Claridge has pointed out, sculptural workshops of this
period usually had to join together several pieces of marble to create life-sized statues. In the statue of
Augustus cited above, for example, both arms and the veiled head were carved as separate pieces.10 It
is not until the second century that the wide availability of large blocks of marble made elaborate life-
sized monolithic statues economically possible. From that point onwards we see statues with extended
arms supported by struts or by features like palm stumps or trophaea (a suit of armor set upon a stake
as a token of victory). It would have been unusual for the Barberini togatus to have been carved from
a single block of stone during the first century.
A close examination bears out these observations.11 The Barberini togatus was not in fact carved
from a single block of stone, and it shows one possible break and join lines in several places (Figure
3).12
Before proceeding with an inventory of the breaks and joins, however, I would like to define a break
and a join and to distinguish both of them from a carving mark. There appears to be a visible break line
running across the figure just above the knees. This appears to be a clean break that was simply put back
together or possibly a flaw in the stone. There is no mortar fill visible.
At the base of the statue, the figure’s left foot is attached to a flat piece of marble, the upper surface
of which is different in texture from the plinth under most of the statue (Figure 4). The smaller piece

4
 THIMOTHY A. MOTZ: THE SECOND LIFE OF THE BARBERINI TOGATUS IN BAROQUE ROME

is probably a post-antique addition. There is a

join line between the small base and the main
plinth, with a mortar fill that runs both between
the foot and the drapery and between the foot
and the small flat base. This suggests the foot is
also alien to the main part of the statue.13
Note both the texture and color of the mor-
tar fill between the various pieces of the addi-
tions and the main statue on this side of the fig-
ure. This particular mortar fill is the result of
restoration reported by E. Talamo. Although it
is particularly wide here, similar fill is used re-
peatedly wherever pieces have been added to the
central figure-on this side of the statue. Also no-
tice the narrow vertical troughs separating the
folds of the toga. These were likely made with a
running drill. That is a process in which the drill
is held at an angle to the surface to be carved
and ‘runs’, carving a round-bottomed trough
that is different from the V-shaped trough made
by repeated chisel strokes. The running drill
technique was used in both Greek and Roman
marble sculpture.14 Within the deeper running
drill channel here (Figure 5) you can see tool-
ing marks that are not present in the mortar fill.
Moving from the feet to the head (Figure
6), it easily can be seen that there is a ‘collar’ of
differently-colored marble between the base of
the neck and the neckline of the toga and tu-
nica. This has been noted by previous scholars.15
It would have been common in the first century
C.E. for a head to have been carved separately
and inserted in a more or less ‘stock’ togate fig-
ure, but in this case the alien ‘collar’ suggests Figure 4: Proper left foot, drapery, and added section of
that the head is alien to the rest of the statue. statue base of the Barberini togatus.
Figure 5: Running drill channel (left) and mortar join (right)
This has long been recognized. at the base of the Barberini togatus.
Notice, too, the careful mortar join between Figure 6: Neck of the (alien) head of the Barberini togatus
the differently-colored ‘collar’ and the neckline with mortar joins visible.
of the toga and tunica. It is particularly evident
on the left in the photograph, but it continues
around the base of the ‘collar’ to the right in the photo. It has the same color and texture as the wider
mortar joins on the base of the statue. This, too, is part of the conservation done in the early 1990s.
Moving now to the bust held in the figure’s proper left hand, it is easy to see that there is a difference
in both the color of the marble and the carving of the drapery of the bust on either side of the join line.

5
 KUNSTGESCHICHTE Open Peer Reviewed Journal • 2024

Figure 7: The bust held in the left hand of the Barberini togatus.
Figure 8: Detail of the join on the left side of the Barberini togatus.

The carving on the right side in the photo appears to be fresher, and although it may not be visible here
(Figure 7), it is possible to see rasp marks in places.
When we look at an overall view of the left side of the statue (Figure 8), it can easily be seen that
the newer portion of the drapery of the bust and the hand and arm holding it have been joined to the
central part of the statue.16 It is also obvious that there is something wrong with the length of the fore-
arm, which is quite short.
Further, a careful examination of the other side of the head and bust (Figure 9) shows a careful join
line between it and the drapery of the central figure. There are three points to make here:
1. I would suggest that the hand, arm, drapery attached to it, and the drapery on the proper left side
of the bust are post-antique but the head and the proper right side of the bust is ancient but alien.
2. Petra Cain has suggested that this bust has been recut from a female portrait. She points to the
draped chest area (which would be unusual for a male portrait), and the signs of recutting in the
hair from a female to a male style.17
3. Elaine Gazda has suggested to me in correspondence that this bust could be a reused portion of a
freedmen’s funerary monument.18
Taken together, these three ideas suggest that the bust is a reused portion of a funerary monument that
was re-cut to become a male portrait and joined to the central figure to create the assemblage we see
today. As I will show, in the context in which the togatus appeared in Baroque period Rome this is not
as bizzare a suggestion as it might seem.

6
 THIMOTHY A. MOTZ: THE SECOND LIFE OF THE BARBERINI TOGATUS IN BAROQUE ROME

Figure 9: Join lines around the head of the bust held in the left hand of the Barberini togatus.
Figure 10: Proper right side of the Barberini togatus, showing the join line between the central figure and the bust and
palm trunk.

The palm trunk and bust on the proper right side of the statue are, I believe, also added, with the
join lines as shown in Figure 3. These join lines were not mentioned by Talamo as part of the conserva-
tion work done by staff at the Centrale Montemartini.19 The gaps between the sections of marble are,
however, much more narrow and less obvious than those on the proper left of the statue, to the point
where the two sides of the statue appear to have been worked on by different people.
The palm trunk is an anomaly on a statue purporting to be of the first century C.E. At this time a
togate statue would typically be in the pose of an orator: the right hand, free of the enveloping toga,
is used for gesturing; the left hand holds a scroll or is sometimes extended with an open palm. As de-
scribed above, the normal practice during the late first century B.C.E. and first century C.E. would be
to carve the central figure from one block of stone, adding the projecting arms and perhaps the head as
separate pieces. In that case, a palm trunk is unnecessary. By the early second century C.E. large blocks
of marble seem to have been readily available and statues begin to be carved from a single block. In that
case, struts of all kinds (including palm trunks) are left in place to strengthen the projecting pieces. So
in this statue (which by its toga can be dated to the early first century C.E.) we see a sculptural tech-
nique commonly used about a century later.
In fact, if we examine the juncture of the central figure with the bust and palm trunk (Figure 10) we
can see a narrow join line. This is not a line carved by a chisel or a running drill. There are none of the
characteristic marks left by either tool. Instead, it most resembles the mortar joins on a masonry wall.

7
 KUNSTGESCHICHTE Open Peer Reviewed Journal • 2024

The shape of this bust is unique.

In the course of firsthand exam-
ination of dozens of Roman free-
standing and herm busts while re-
searching my dissertation20 I have
not seen anything comparable. It
can also be seen that the toga of
the central figure has been chiseled
back where it meets the head of the
bust and there are rasp marks on
the toga where it meets the neck of
the bust (Figure 11), but no corre-
sponding rasp marks on the neck.
There is also a rather obvious mor-
tar join visible between the hair of
the bust and the folds of the toga
(Figure 12).
If we look next at the right side
of the statue there is a join where
the arm meets the tunica sleeve
that is difficult to capture in a pho-
tograph. More obvious (Figure 13,
left) is the mortar join between
the arm and the fold of the toga.
The mortar has a slightly differ-
ent color from the stone, and it has
been smeared in places onto the
fold of the toga on the left in the
photo. In contrast, if we examine
the juncture of the head of the bust
and the arm (on the right in Figure
13), we see quite clearly a chiseled
line forming a tiny V-shaped valley
with flat sides.
The mortar join continues
under the arm and down the back
of the statue where the palm trunk

Figure 11: Detail showing rasp marks on

the toga of the Barberini togatus where it meets the neck of the right bust.
Figure 12: Mortar join between the head of the bust and the toga of the Barberini togatus.
Figure 13: mortar join between the right arm and the fold of the toga of the Barberini togatus (L) and chiseled line between
the head of the bust and the right arm (R).

8
 THIMOTHY A. MOTZ: THE SECOND LIFE OF THE BARBERINI TOGATUS IN BAROQUE ROME

Figure 14: Togatus Figure, H: 167.7 cm. The Cleveland Museum of Art, Purchase from the J. H. Wade Fund 1929.
Because the toga worn by this figure lacks an umbo (a loop pulled out from the crossways fold), it probably dates a
generation earlier than the Barberini togatus. Nonetheless, it gives a good idea what the Barberini statue looked like
before the 17. century additions. The heads and forearms on both statues were carved separately and held in place with
mortar and either fell off or were removed when the mortar weakened. As with the Barberini statue today, this statue was
once displayed with an alien head (in this case of the emperor Vespasian), since removed.
Figure 15: Togate statues (small, medium, and large) in the Leptis Magna museum in Libya.

joins the toga. Because the statue is displayed against a wall and the back is not lit, this is difficult to
see and impossible to photograph.
Petra Cain notes that the bust on this side of the statue is draped, as is the bust on the statue’s left
side (see above). There is no sign that this bust was re-cut from a female portrait and Cain cannot see
a convincing explanation. If my suggestion is accepted that the bust on the other side is ancient but
alien, the explanation is simple. The bust on the statue’s right side dates to the 17. century. The Baroque
sculptors merely copied the drapery on the ancient bust they had already put in place.
If we compare the Barberini statue to other togate statues (Figure 14) of roughly the same period,
the original appearance of this statue and the additions to it become apparent. A common pose for to-
gate figures in the early empire is one in which the proper left hand is held close to the body at waist
level, while the right arm is extended. As mentioned earlier, during the early empire both arms of such
a statue would have been carved separately and mortised into sockets. The Barberini togatus emerged
from the workshop of its original creator as such a togate statue. Long after its creation, however, when
the original arms had been lost, the core of the figure was joined with new pieces to produce the statue
we now see.

The additions and alterations are visible when the statue is examined closely, but are
they Roman or post-antique?
It is difficult to explain why such a pastiche would have been made during the Roman period, even
during the late Empire There is no ancient comparison for a togate statue holding two portrait busts—
and anomalies in ancient works of art without clear provenances are suspicious. It would also be an
anomaly for a statue joined together in this way to have survived intact into the modern period. There
are instead numerous togate figures in museums and excavation storerooms missing their arms and
heads to testify that ancient mortar joins rarely survive (Figure 15).

9
 KUNSTGESCHICHTE Open Peer Reviewed Journal • 2024

So when were these alterations made, and

why? To answer that question we must look at the
context in which the togatus first appeared in his-
torical records.

The Acquisition of the Togatus by the Bar-

berini Family
As the name indicates, prior to its acquisition by
the Italian government in 1937 the togatus was
part of the Barberini collection.21 The earliest
known record of the togatus appears in an in-
ventory of the collection of Cardinal Francesco
Barberini compiled between 1626 and 1631.22
Entry number 112 reads, “Adi e fu a 6 Decbr
1627 Una statua did marmo bianco, alta p.mi 8
d’un Console Rom.o che tiene due teste in mano
cioé una con la mano destra, e l’altra conla sinis-
tra, donate dal S.r Conte Stabile Colonna.”23
This obviously refers to the togatus statue under
Figure 16: Statue of Carlo Barberini, the Elder in the
discussion.
Palazzo Senatorio, Rome. Loricate torso is Roman; The Conte Stabile Colonna was Filippo I
the head and limbs are by Gianlorenzo Bernini and Colonna (1578-April 1639), who was the hered-
Alessandro Algardi, after 1630.
itary Gran Connestabile at the court of Naples.24
It is certainly not a coincidence that on October
14, 1627 Anna Colonna, the daughter of Filippo I Colonna, married Taddeo Barberini,25 the son of
Carlo Barberini (1562-1630), brother of Maffeo Barberini (Pope Urban VIII), who was at that time
the lieutenant general of the papal army.26 A marriage of the son and daughter of noble families in
Rome in the early 17. century would not have been left to the two young people alone. This is import-
ant for an understanding of the Barberini togatus.

The Meaning of the Barberini Togatus

The marriage of Anna Colonna to Taddeo Barberini was an alliance of two powerful families in 17.
century Rome and not simply a marriage. Likewise, a gift from one important family to another at that
time and place was not simply a gift. There was symbolism inherent in such a gift. Particularly since
we can surmise that the togatus was created expressly as a gift for the Barberini family, we can won-
der what that symbolism was. What was Filippo I Colonna saying about the union between those two
families?
Both the marriage and the gift of the togatus occurred after the election of Maffeo Barberini to the
papacy as Urban VIII in 1623. It was during the reign of Urban VIII that the Barberini family gained
its wealth and power. This ascendancy happened during a time of increased sculptural production in
Rome. As a result, a large corps of trained sculptors existed in Rome during this period. These sculp-
tors sometimes restored ancient statues in the collections of the noble families of Baroque Rome.

10
 THIMOTHY A. MOTZ: THE SECOND LIFE OF THE BARBERINI TOGATUS IN BAROQUE ROME

As Jennifer Montagu has pointed out, some sculptors

even specialized in such restoration, using ancient mar-
ble or tinting new marble to match that of the Roman
statue, carving new limbs where necessary, masking the
joins and adjusting the polish.27 In doing all of this, they
attempted to duplicate the original carving style. All of
the best-known pieces of ancient sculpture which were in
the private collections of Rome at this time would have
been restored in this way. For collectors of this period
it was essential that such restorations be carried out be-
fore an ancient statue was put on display. It would have
been highly unusual if the Barberini togatus had sur-
vived intact until the 17. century, and equally unusual if
the statue had been acquired during this period but not
restored.
In fact, at least one other ancient statue was altered
in a similar manner for the same family and may pro-
vide some insight into the intentions of the artist or pa-
tron. After the death of Carlo Barberini in 1630, a por- Figure 17: Comparison between the right bust
trait statue of him was created re-using the torso of a held by the Barberini togatus and a bust of Carlo
Roman loricate statue (Figure 16). Jennifer Montagu Barberini by Francesco Mochi, after1630, H: 84
cm. Museo di Roma, Rome, MR 1097.
has pointed out that there was no pressing need to reuse Figure 18: Comparison between the left bust held
an ancient statue. The restorations and the portrait head by the Barberini togatus and a portrait of Filippo I
were carved by Bernini and Algardi, prominent artists Colonna in the Palazzo Colonna di Paliano.
of the period, and when compared to the papal building
and sculptural programs being carried out in Rome at this time, it seems unlikely that cost was a factor.
The reuse of the ancient statue must be significant.28 By combining the Baroque head with the ancient
torso, the Baroque sculptors assimilated the historical Carlo Barberini with the legendary Roman em-
perors. We can perhaps see something similar in the transformation of a Roman statue into the Bar-
berini togatus.
I see some resemblance between the bust held in the right hand of the togatus and a bust of Carlo
Barberini by Francesco Mochi, if one adds an imaginary moustache and goatee (Figure 17). Note, for
instance, the line of the nose, the broad forehead, the deep-set eyes, the prominent cheekbones with
slightly hollow cheeks, the nasal-labial furrows, and the line of the jaw. What of the bust held in the left
hand? Since we now know that the statue was a gift from the Colonna family, could there be compar-
isons there? This is problematic since we can suspect that the left bust is alien but ancient. But is there
some resemblance between that bust and portraits of Filippo I Colonna (Figure 18)? In both cases we
see a somewhat jowly face with a similar brow line. The chin is somewhat similar in both. The nose,
which appears to be a replacement on the bust, is somewhat similar, with a similar bulbous tip. If this
bust was a reused portion of an ancient funerary monument as suggested above, it could have been
chosen because of its passing similarity to Fillipo I Colonna.
But perhaps there was never an intention of creating actual portraits of living individuals. Certainly
if that was wanted there was talent on hand in 17. century Rome to do it. Perhaps only a generic Bar-
berini-ness and Colonna-ness was all that was intended. And perhaps it needed to look convincingly

11
 KUNSTGESCHICHTE Open Peer Reviewed Journal • 2024

Roman, even if everyone knew it wasn’t. It was really just

a piece of political theater. But why—what was the mes-
sage?
Although the election of Maffeo Barberini to the pa-
pacy as Urban VIII brought great wealth and power to
the Barberini family, they could only trace their prom-
inence back to Florence in the 11th century.29 The Col-
onna family, on the other hand, claimed ancestry going
back to the Roman gens Iulia, the clan that produced
Figure 19: Left: Bust of a Flavian Woman, Toledo Julius Caesar and the Julio-Claudian dynasty.30 It is in-
(Ohio) Museum of Art 2019.19, Gift of the triguing that the Colonnas, a family that claimed noble
Georgia Welles Apollo Society. Roman ancestry, gave the Barberini, relative newcomers
Right: Herm Portrait of Staia Quinta, Ny
Carlsberg Glyptotek 639. in 17. century Rome, a statue of a toga-wearing Roman.
Given the recent wedding of the children of both fami-
lies, perhaps the message was that the marriage gave an-
cient lineage to the Barberinis going forward? In that case only a generic likeness of members of each
family was needed.
Just as the acquisition of the togatus was probably related to the marriage of Anna Colonna to
Taddeo Barberini, so too we can wonder whether there is a relationship between the loricate statue of
Carlo Barberini and the togatus. The statue of Carlo Barberini was created reusing a Roman loricate
statue only three years after the Barberini family received the togatus statue, which reused a Roman
togate figure. Both statues assimilated the historical Barberini family with legendary Roman prede-
cessors. We can perhaps see the togatus as providing a conceptual model for the heroic statue of Carlo
Barberini. That would suggest that the Barberini family was fully aware that the togatus was itself an
amalgam of ancient and contemporary pieces.
From the point of view of a classicist, the Barberini togatus is a fake and the loricate statue of Carlo
Barberini is a kind of ‘Frankenstatue’. Viewed through the lens of an artist today, however, each is a
bricolage. In each case the artist and patron were creating something new by combining portions that
were ancient with others that were contemporary to 17. century Rome. Today when we look at each
statue we can read both meanings. For scholars of Roman portrait sculpture the Barberini togatus,
which has never been included in studies on its merits as a work of art, says absolutely nothing about
ancestral portraits in ancient Rome. It does, however, say something very interesting about the social
environment and attitudes towards antiquity in 17. century Rome.

The Barberini Togatus and the Spurious Tradition of Ancestral Portraiture in Rome
The togatus has been accepted by scholars as ancient partly because it has rarely been examined care-
fully and partly because it fit prevailing ideas of the role of the portrait bust in Roman society. It il-
lustrates a common belief about Roman portraiture: that portrait busts were primarily used by the
Roman upper classes as ancestral portraits. But if the Barberini togatus is a pastiche, what other evi-
dence is there for the social context and the function of the portrait bust in Roman society? In contrast
to the usual narrative, I would argue that freestanding busts were originally used as tomb sculpture by
people of very modest social status, and I would like now to outline the evidence which supports my
view.

12
 THIMOTHY A. MOTZ: THE SECOND LIFE OF THE BARBERINI TOGATUS IN BAROQUE ROME

It is not generally recognized that two different types

of portrait busts were in use during the late Republic and
early Empire: the freestanding bust and the herm bust.
These two types are often confused with each other. The
type which I call a freestanding bust (Figure 19, left)
consists of a head, shoulders, and portion of the chest.
Such freestanding busts are raised up from their resting
surfaces by an integral undersupport and were regarded
as complete pieces of sculpture. Although a herm bust
(Figure 19, right) also consists of a head, shoulders, and Figure 20: Herm portrait identified as Antonia
chest, it was set into a recess on top of a stone or wooden Minor, showing post-antique base and pedestal
shaft. In the earliest herms from ancient Greece, the shaft inserted into the recut underside to convert it to a
freestanding bust. Paris, Louvre, Ma 1229.
was actually a highly abstracted human body, complete
with stumps for arms and a penis. By the late Roman
Republic and early Empire, marble herm busts were attached to their shafts by means of large tenons,
which sometimes resemble the undersupports of freestanding busts. If the underside of a herm bust is
examined, it can usually be seen that the size and angle of the tenon would not allow the bust to stand
securely upright by itself.31 However, the undersupports of marble herm busts have sometimes been
recut or even have modern pieces added so they can stand upright. As a result, when mounted on a
museum pedestal, (Figure 20) a herm bust can easily be mistaken for a freestanding bust. The misiden-
tification of herm busts has led to confusion over the roles freestanding busts and herm busts played
in Roman society.
After examining many busts of all types in museum
collections for my dissertation research, I came to the
conclusion that there are many more herm busts dating
to the early empire than there are freestanding busts.32 If
freestanding busts were standard features of aristocratic
houses, we might have expected larger numbers to have
survived from antiquity.
Similarly, if freestanding busts served as ancestral
portraits in the homes of the Roman upper classes, we
would expect to find them in the houses of the wealthi-
est and most important families in Pompeii and Hercu-
laneum, two sites where the contents of the houses were
preserved by the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius. Although nu-
merous herm portraits have been found in large and lux-
urious houses in these cities, the only freestanding bust
found in either city was excavated in the stable block
of the House of the Citharist (Figure 21).33 This bust is
weathered and may originally have been placed in the ex-
terior niche of a tomb, perhaps having been put in stor-
age after the tomb was damaged in the earthquake of 62
CE.34 Its discovery in a stable block does not suggest that Figure 21: Bust of a Man from the House of the
Citharist, Pompeii. Naples, Museo Archeologico
the bust was an image of a revered ancestor. In addition, 6028.

13
 KUNSTGESCHICHTE Open Peer Reviewed Journal • 2024

Figure 22: House of the Menander, Pompeii. Plaster casts of miniature busts. Similar to the method used for
obtaining casts of the bodies of the victims of Vesuvius, plaster was poured into voids found in the lararium
(household altar) at the back of the peristyle of this house to produce these small figures.

the only sculpture discovered at Pompeii in anything resembling a lararium (the household altar where
images of ancestors might have been kept) are the plaster casts of miniature bust-like figures found in
the House of the Menander (Figure 22).
Also undercutting an aristocratic context for freestanding busts is the lack of identifiable bust por-
traits of upper class Romans. The members of the upper classes were often honored by full-length por-
trait statues. If freestanding busts were ancestral portraits for the same upper classes, we would expect
to find the same faces appearing on full-length statues and freestanding busts. I know of only one pos-
sible instance where the subject of a freestanding bust was also portrayed in a life-sized full-length stat-
ue.35 In contrast, herm busts do often carry portraits also found on statues. We can see, then, from the
small numbers of surviving freestanding busts, from the lack of freestanding busts in wealthy houses
and from the lack of prominent subjects for freestanding bust portraits, that there is no connection
between freestanding busts and the Roman upper classes. Freestanding busts could thus not be the an-
cestral portraits described by ancient authors.36
The few freestanding busts of the first century C.E. that have been found in their original context
have all been found in group tombs known as columbaria. The occupants of these tombs were predom-
inantly merchants and bureaucrats, most of whom were freedmen. Likewise, the few unquestionably
authentic freestanding busts of the first century C.E. securely identified by inscriptions are portraits

14
 THIMOTHY A. MOTZ: THE SECOND LIFE OF THE BARBERINI TOGATUS IN BAROQUE ROME

Figure 23: Figure of a Man Holding a Bust of a Woman. Rome, Palazzo Massimo alle Terme (choistro),
L: 156 cm.

of freedmen. Such evidence suggests that affluent freedmen commissioned the first freestanding busts
as tomb portraits.37
If this is true, how could the concept of the ancestral portrait bust have arisen, and how could the
Barberini togatus have been identified as an aristocratic Roman holding busts of his ancestors? The
concept might have been an attempt to explain the passages in Polybius and Pliny. Once the theory
had been suggested, the Barberini togatus itself seemed to provide evidence in support of it. In addi-
tion, little attention has been paid to the social contexts of pieces cited as comparisons to the Barberini
togatus. When examined in full, such comparisons undercut rather than support an aristocratic con-
text for the freestanding bust. These comparisons are two statues of figures reclining on couches while
holding busts and one relief showing a man holding a bust.38 One reclining figure is in the cloister of
the Palazzo Massimo alle Terme museum (Figure 23) and shows a man holding the bust of a woman;39
the other, in the British Museum but presently off view (Figure 24), shows a woman holding the bust
of a man.40 The female hairstyles allow both of these statue groups to be dated to the end of the first
century A.D. or slightly later.41 An inscription on the Terme statue, now lost, identified the female bust
as a portrait of a liberta (a freed slave).42 In at least this case we can be certain that the group does not
portray members of the nobility. Both statue groups are funerary portraits intended for the tomb.43
The third comparison for the Barberini togatus is a funerary relief in the Villa Albani (Figure 25),
which can be dated to the early Empire. It shows a seated man holding a miniature bust portrait of

15
 KUNSTGESCHICHTE Open Peer Reviewed Journal • 2024

a boy. To the right, a veiled woman

places incense on a burner. An inscrip-
tion above the man identifies him as
Quintus Lollius Alcamenes, a decu-
rio and duumvir.44 As with the re-
clining statues already described, this
scene is funerary, with the deceased
Alcamenes probably holding the bust
of a son.45 The Greek cognomen “Al-
camenes” and the man’s position as a
decurio identify him as a freedman.46
Of three comparisons cited for the
Barberini togatus, then, two identify
freedmen rather than members of the
aristocracy, and all are near members
of a family rather than ancestors. Al-
though these three comparisons were
once used to support the idea that
the busts held by the Barberini toga-
tus were ancestral portraits kept in the
house, when examined closely they in
fact undercut that theory.
There are, in fact, large numbers of
portraits that have survived from an-
tiquity that fit very well the descrip-
tions of ancestor portraits by ancient
authors, especially Pliny. They are
Figure 24: Figure of a Woman Holding a Bust of a Man, H: 154 cm,
portable and could be carried in fu-
British Museum 1858,0819.1 (presently in storage). neral processions. They could eas-
Figure 25: Funerary Relief of Quintus Lollius Alcamenes. Rome, Villa ily be hung on walls in a kind of pro-
Albani.
to-Ancestry.com family tree display
(in fact, some have suspension holes).
They are often startlingly lifelike and
many of them are made with wax.
These are the so-called mummy portraits that have survived from Roman Egypt, often painted in en-
caustic (melted wax mixed with pigment) on wood panels (Figure 26). We can perhaps see them as an
Egyptian version of a Roman custom. They have survived in tombs in Egypt because of the dry climate.
They would not have survived in the damper and more temperate climate of Italy. And they may not
have been very numerous even in Polybius’s day. Ancestor portraits like those described by Polybius
and Pliny would only have been found in the houses of those few old Roman families with numerous
illustrious ancestors. Pliny, in fact, writes of them as having existed in the past and contrasts them to
practices in his own day.47

16
 THIMOTHY A. MOTZ: THE SECOND LIFE OF THE BARBERINI TOGATUS IN BAROQUE ROME

Conclusion
How could it happen that such a fake could
hide in plain sight for nearly 400 years and be
cited repeatedly by scholars for nearly a cen-
tury? To use a modern phrase, it was famous
for being famous.48
Roman authors and the non-Romans like
Polybius who wrote about Roman society
were all from the affluent and educated upper
classes. For the most part, their writing reflects
the attitudes of their social equals. Theirs is the
only point of view of Roman society to have
survived in literature to the present day. It is a
consistent theme among Roman writers, how-
ever, to hold up earlier generations in contrast
to the supposed lesser standards of the writers’
own times. So, a kind of reverence for ances-
tors is common in Roman literature.
At the end of the 19th and beginning of
the 20th centuries when many of our ideas
about the development of Roman art were
being formed, the scholars who were studying
and writing about Roman society were like-
wise from the affluent and educated parts of
their societies. Both groups, ancient and mod-
ern, shared a point of view that privileged the
upper classes. The concept of ancestral por- Figure 26: Egyptian, Head of a Woman, between 130 and
traiture, which has been firmly embedded in 160 C.E., encaustic with gilded stucco on wood panel.
Roman portraiture studies for nearly a century, Detroit Institute of Arts, Gift of Julius H. Haass, 25.2.
is one result of that preoccupation. In spite of
the existence of portrait busts and herm portraits of high quality linked by inscription or context to
non-elite social groups, there has been an assumed link between portrait busts and the Roman upper
classes and particularly with ancestral portraiture.
Once the Barberini togatus had been offered as evidence of ancestral portrait busts and especially
once it had been linked to passages in Polybius and Pliny, a level of confirmation bias set in. It seemed
to fit those prevailing ideas and was repeatedly cited-without any of the scholars citing it subjecting it
to the usual scrutiny given to an ancient work of art. In examining previous literature on the Barberini
togatus, I have not found many indications that the authors had themselves examined the statue. It is
not a particularly fine piece of sculpture and would not have appeared in art history texts on its artistic
merits; it is merely a frequently-illustrated one.
There was a kind of circular reasoning: the passages in Polybius and Pliny were used to explain the
togatus—even though they didn’t actually match what was seen in the statue. Then the existence of
the togatus itself was seen as supporting the ancient authors and thus providing a framework for order-

17
 KUNSTGESCHICHTE Open Peer Reviewed Journal • 2024

ing and explaining the existing mass of Roman portraits. And because it was so frequently illustrated,
it took on a totally unwarranted authority in peoples’ minds.
But for scholars of ancient art the story of the Barberini togatus and its second life in the 17. cen-
tury raises a warning. There are almost certainly other pieces of sculpture illustrated in monographs
and textbooks that look very different now than when they left the hands of their ancient creators.
Ancient works of art that first came to light long ago have been subject to the preconceptions and
aesthetic sensibilities of each set of hands they passed through. They all have had second lives, even if
those second lives haven’t been as dramatic as that of the Barberini togatus. Surfaces have sometimes
been heavily cleaned with acids, damaged sections have sometimes been re-cut, ancient color has some-
times been removed, well-intentioned restorations have been added, and display mounts have been
created. All of this changes (sometimes even distorts) what we are looking at today. Every ancient
work of art that has been brought to light before modern archaeological methods and museum display
standards is potentially a palimpsest and we should be considering its second life as well as its first one
when we form opinions and theories about ancient sculpture.

Acknowledgements
This article grew out of a paper presented at the 82nd Annual College Art Association Meetings,
February 16-19, 1994, New York, with additional information gained from a second inspection of
the Barberini togatus at the Centrale Montemartini during the summer of 2016. I want to thank my
friend and former fellow graduate student Dr. Timothy McNiven, Associate Professor Emeritus, De-
partment of History of Art, Ohio State University (Marion campus) who was at that conference ses-
sion for persistently urging me to turn the paper into a publishable article and when nearly thirty years
later I finally took his advice, for advising me how to get started and then reading and gently critiquing
successive drafts. Any errors are, of course, my own. I have also greatly benefitted from conversations
about cultural theory with my wife, Dr. Marilyn Ferris Motz, Associate Professor Emeritus, Depart-
ment of Popular Culture, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio.

18
 THIMOTHY A. MOTZ: THE SECOND LIFE OF THE BARBERINI TOGATUS IN BAROQUE ROME

Endnotes
1 Polybius, Histories VI, 53, 4-7; translation by W. R. Paton (Loeb Classical Library, London 1923), vol. 3, 389. Polybius uses the
words eikoν (image) and prosvpoν (face or mask) to describe the ancestral images. Neither word refers specifically to a sculptural
portrait. Also, we don’t actually know that Polybius was describing something he had personally seen. He very well could have
been repeating something he was told by his Roman hosts.
2 Rome, Musei Capitolini, no. 2392, H 1.65m. An up-to-date discussion of this piece and opinions concerning it, together with a
bibliography can be found in Petra Cain in Klaus Fittschen, Paul Zanker, and Petra Cain, Katalog der römische Porträts in den
Capitolinischen Museen und den anderen Kommunalen Sammlungen der Stadt Rom (Berlin, 2010), 48-51.
3 Katherine A. Esdaile, “A Statue in the Palazzo Barberini,” Journal of Roman Studies 1 (1911) 206-211, 206. The identification as
Lucius Junius Brutus is apparently an old one. In the inventory of the Barberini collection dated 1632-40 the statue is described
as, “...un bruto in habbi consolare dove tiene una testa per mano...” (A Brutus in consular clothing who holds one head in [either]
hand—my translation). (Marilyn Aronberg Lavin, Seventeenth-Century Barberini Documents and Inventories of Art (New
York University Press, New York, 1975), 136). By the inventory of 1692-1704 any original meaning has been lost and the statue
is described as simply, “Un filosofo, che tiene in mano due teste appoggiqato ad un tronco do Dattilo.” (A philosopher who holds
in his hands two heads, leaning on a date [tree] trunk—my translation), (Lavin, 447).
4 Esdaille (as Note 3), 211-212.
5 Annie N. Zadoks-Josephus Jitta, Ancestral Portraiture in Rome and the Art of the Last Century of the Republic (Amsterdam
1932), 45-46; Olof Vessberg, Studien zur Kunstgeschichte der römischen Republic (Lund, 1941) 101, n. 3.
6 For a rare skeptical assessment of the statue and its place in Roman art historiography, see Elizabeth Marlowe, Shaky Ground:
Context, Connoisseurship and the History of Roman Art (London 2013), 71-73.
7 Petra Cain notes that there has been surprisingly little discussion of the statue itself (Cain, as Note 2, 49).
8 For the curious, from checking museum and auction websites: a terracotta bust could weigh about 11 kg (25 pounds), a marble
bust could weigh between 30-50 kg (66-110 pounds).
9 Lillian M. Wilson, The Roman Toga (The Johns Hopkins University Studies in Archaeology 1, Baltimore 1924) 61-75. Hans
Rupprecht Goette (Studien zu römischen Togadarstellungen, Beiträge zur Erschließung hellenistischer und kaiserzeitlicher
Skulptur und Architektur 10 (Mainz 1990), 31) dates it to the late Augustan-early Tiberian period, (in the first decades of the
first century C.E.).
10 Amanda Claridge, “Roman Statuary and the Supply of Statuary Marble,” in J. Clayton Fant ed., Ancient Marble Quarrying and
Trade. Papers from a Colloquium held at the Annual Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America, San Antonio, Texas,
December, 1986 (BAR International Series 453, 1988) 139-152.
11 My original examination of the statue in 1988 was made in very dim lighting when the statue was located in the Museo Nuovo
(formerly the Museo Mussolini), part of the Capitoline Museum. A second examination was made in 2016 in the much better-lit
installation in the Centrale Montemartini.
12 Paul Arndt, Griechische und römische Porträts, fasc. 81 (Munich 1910) pls. 801-804, first noted that the head, although ancient
and perhaps contemporary to the statue, did not belong with it. Esdaille (as Note 3, 206) noted that a modern marble tenon and
neck section fits into a cavity inside the neckline of the garment and joins the head to the body. Von Heintze (entry in Wolfgang
Helbig, Führer durch die öffentlichen Sammlungen klassischer Altertümer in Rom (Tübingen 1966) 3rd edition, vol. 2, 418-
419, cat. no. 1615) has noted that the Adam’s apple of the neck has an odd and non-antique shape. Arndt also reported that the
left portion of the left bust and the foot of the togatus were restored, and that there were minor repairs to the drapery of the to-
gatus and the noses and ears of the busts. E. Talamo, Bollettino dell Commissione archeological comunale di Roma 95, (1993),
203 ff . Abb . 34-39, particularly Figure 36, discusses the breaks and joins but accepts the statue and its parts as completely anci-
ent and attributes the join lines to restorations made by the Barberini.
13 Talamo (as Note 12), 203 ff., accepts the foot as post antique, part of a “restoration’ by the Barberini.
14 Use of the running drill is sometimes described as a time-saving measure characteristic of later Roman sculpture. However, I have
seen drill channels in the draperies of figures from the Parthenon pediments (dating to the 5th century B.C.E.).
15 Arndt (as Note 12), first noted that the head, although ancient and perhaps contemporary to the statue, did not belong with it.
Esdaille (as Note 3) noted that a modern marble tenon and neck section fits into a cavity inside the collar of the garment and
joins the head to the body. Domenico Mustilli, Il Museo Mussolini (Rome 1939), p. 8, described the head as ancient but alien to
the statue. Von Heintze (as Note 12, 418) has noted that the Adam’s apple of the neck has an odd and non-antique shape.
16 I have never seen a published photo of the Barberini togatus from this side and I can’t find such a view on the internet. I suspect
that explains why no one ever challenged the authenticity of the statue before now. Arndt (as Note 12), however, did report that
the left portion of the left bust was restored but didn’t connect that ‘restoration’ with the anomaly of the left bust.
17 Cain (as Note 2), 49-50. Cain does not suggest that the bust is alien to the rest of the statue. However, if we were to take the en-
tire group of statue and busts at face value as complete and intact and with the meaning usually assigned to it, it would be puzz-
ling that the left bust had ever been a female portrait. In the patriarchal society of ancient Rome a woman would not have been
considered a revered ancestor.
18 Elaine Gazda, email July 21, 2016.

19
 KUNSTGESCHICHTE Open Peer Reviewed Journal • 2024

19 See diagram, Talamo (as Note 12), Figure 36.

20 Timothy A. Motz, The Roman Freestanding Portrait Bust: Origins, Context, and Early History (Diss. University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor 1993), available as a pdf here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353656440_The_Roman_freestanding_
portrait_bust_Origins_context_and_early_history_Volumes_I_and_II.
21 Mustilli (as Note 15), 7; von Heintze (as Note 12), 418.
22 Lavin (as Note 3), p. 74.
23 Lavin (as Note 3), 78-79. “Entered (?) on December 6, 1627, a statue of white marble, 8 palms tall (i.e. just under six feet) a
Roman consul who holds two heads in his hands, of which one is in his right hand, the other with the left; given by Signor Conte
Stabile Colonna.” (my translation).
24 Literally, the count in charge of the stables: “Filippo I Colonna,” in Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filippo_I_Co-
lonna), last edited on December 14, 2020.
25 “Anna Colonna,” in Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Colonna), last edited February 24, 2021
26 “Carlo Barberini (1562-1630),” in Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_Barberini_(1562%E2%80%931630)), last
edited August 29, 2021.
27 Jennifer Montagu, Roman Baroque Sculpture. The Industry of Art (New Haven 1989),151-152.
28 Montagu (as Note 27), 157.
29 “Barberini Family,” in Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barberini_family, last edited September 14, 2021.
30 “Colonna Family,” in Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonna_family, last edited September 17, 2021.
31 Of the life-sized bronze busts of which I have seen photos, none have integral supports or signs of an integral support ever having
been attached. I would assume that they all were intended to be added to herm shafts, as were the bronze herm portraits from the
Villa dei Papiri.
32 In addition to searching museum and exhibition catalogues and excavation reports, I was greatly aided by the microfiche publi-
cation of the photo archives of the German Archaeological Institute, DAI Index.
33 Franciscis, A. de, Il Ritratto romano a Pompeii (Accademia di Archeologia Lettere e Belle Arti, Napoli 1 1951); Wrede, H., Die
antike Herme (Trier Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 1, Trier 1986), 76.
34 Ward-Perkins, John B., and Claridge, Amanda, Pompeii AD 79. Treasures from the National Archaeological Museum, Naples,
with contributions from the Pompeii Antiquarium and the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, exhibition catalogue, Museum of Fine
Arts, Boston (Boston 1978), 124, cat. no. 21. At Pompeii, portrait busts seem to have been placed in niches on the exterior of
tombs as, for example, on the late Republican Tomb of the Flavii outside the Porta Nocera.
35 The one possible case is the bust of a young man, Rome, Museo Capitolino, no. 745, Motz (as Note 20), cat. no. A5. This bust,
although heavily recut, does appear to have good comparisons in portraits found in Pompeii.
36 In addition to the passage in Polybius quoted at the beginning of this article, ancestral images are mentioned by Pliny the Elder,
Natural History 35. 2.6: “...aliter apud maiores in atriis haec erant, quae spectarentur; non signa externorum artificum nec aera
aut marmora expressi cera vultus singulis disponebantur armariis, ut essent imagines, quae comitarentur gentilicia funera, sem-
perque defuncto aliquo totus aderat familae eius qui umquam fuerat populus. stemmata vero lineis discurrebant as imagines pic-
tas.” (“In the halls of our ancestors it was otherwise; portraits were the objects displayed to be looked at, not statues by foreign
artists, nor bronzes nor marbles, but wax models of faces were set out each on a separate side-board, to furnish likenesses to be
carried in procession at a funeral in the clan, and always when some member of it passed away the entire company of his house
that had ever existed was present. The pedigrees too were traced in a spread of lines running near the several painted portraits.”);
Pliny, Natural History in Ten Volumes, IX, translation by H. Rackham (Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge, Mass. 1984). It is
worth noting that in the Latin text Pliny does not explicitly refer to sculptural portraits, but to imagines, imagines pictas, and
cera vultus (images, painted images, and wax faces). The images are not worn in the funeral procession (as the usual translation
of Polybius, Histories 6.53.4-7 describes it) but carried. Significantly, the passage in Pliny occurs in the middle of a discussion on
the decline of the art of painting. Winkes has suggested that ancestral images during the early empire were in the form of shield
portraits (Winkes, R., «Pliny›s Chapter on Roman Funeral Customs in the Light of Clipeatae Imagines,» American Journal of
Archaeology 83 (1979) 481-484).
37 See Motz (as Note 20).
38 Such reclining figures, known as kline figures from the Greek word for couch, can be seen in early engravings of the interiors of
columbaria (group tombs for people of modest social status and means) placed in large niches. Much later such figures or groups
came to be used as lids on sarcophagi.
39 Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano, no. 125829, Silvia Allegra Dayan, entry in Antonio Giuliano ed., Museo Nazionale Romano.
Le Sculture, I, 2 (Rome 1981), 167-168, no. 58.
40 London, British Museum, no. Sc.2335. Susan Walker. Memorials to the Roman Dead (London, 1985) 26-27, Figure 17.
41 Although the male hairstyles cannot be dated as accurately as female hairstyles, they are from approximately the same period.
42 The inscription was on the cover of an urn concealed behind the reclining male figure. It read, “ossa Iuliae C. L. Attic,” (“the bones
of Julia Attica, liberta of Gaius Atticus.” (my translation) CIL, VI, 20383). See Dayan (as Note 39).

20
 THIMOTHY A. MOTZ: THE SECOND LIFE OF THE BARBERINI TOGATUS IN BAROQUE ROME

43 These reclining figures can be compared to funerary reliefs of freedmen dating to the late Republic and early Empire and ulti-
mately to the reclining figures of husbands and wives on late Etruscan cinerary urns.
44 “Q.LOLLIVS.ALCAMENES/DEC.ET.DVVM.VIR,” DAI Index, fiche no. 2474, frame C2.
45 See, for comparison, the funerary relief with a bust of Aemelia Clucera (Rome, Musei Vaticani, Galleria Lapidaria, Amelung,
Walther, Die Sculpturen des Vaticanischen Museums I (Berlin 1903), 39a (right side)) and especially the funerary relief with a
bust of L. Vibius Felicio Felix (Rome Musei Vaticani, Museo Chiaramonti, inv. No. 2109 (center)). As I have discussed (Motz
(as Note 20), 328-329 and 331-32) the presence of the busts of both children on those funerary reliefs may be due to the Lex
Aelia Sentia of 4 CE which elevated to Roman citizenship all of the libertus family members if the parents produced a child who
reached one year of age.
46 Roman funerary inscriptions for freedmen frequently insert an L (for libertus—freedman) after the name of the deceased. That
was apparently a custom and not an obligation and it was often omitted; see Duff, A. M., Freedmen in the Early Roman Empire
(Cambridge 1927, reprinted 1958), 55 and Peter Garnsey, «Independent Freedmen and the Economy of Roman Italy under the
Principate,» Klio 63 (1981), 359 n. 3. Duff and Garnsey suggest that the social standing of liberti was so low that they took every
opportunity to disguise their status. Even when the telltale L is omitted, however, it is frequently possible to detect servile origins.
Since seven out of ten slaves in Rome had Greek names whatever their actual ethnic origin and since the number of Greek-named
freedmen exceeded by far the number of free Greeks in the city, a Greek cognomen suggests servile origin (Duff, 56). In addition,
certain Latin cognomens (some of which are simply translations of Greek slave names), were rarely used by the freeborn popu-
lation (Duff, 56). The identification of Quintus Lollius Alcamenes in the inscription as a decurio (in the early empire, a business
agent who was usually a freedman) supports the idea that Alcamenes was a freedman. As do the reclining statues, the funerary
relief of Alcamenes reflects scenes found on earlier funerary reliefs of freedmen from the late Republic and early Empire showing
a husband and wife with a bust of their son between them.
47 See Note 36, especially the description by Pliny occurring within a discussion of painting.
48 According to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famous_for_being_famous, last edited 12 October 2023), that phrase
originates from an analysis of the media-dominated world called The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-events in America (1961), by
historian and social theorist Daniel J. Boorstin.
49 Such academic folklore is not unknown and certainly not unique to classical archaeology or art history. See, for example, Laura
Martin, «’Eskimo Words for Snow’: A Case Study in the Genesis and Decay of an Anthropological Example”, American Anthropolo-
gist, 88(2), 1986, 418.

Photo Captions and Credits

Figure 1: The Barberini togatus, first quarter of the 1. century C.E. and first quarter of the 17. century, H: 165 cm, Rome, Centrale
Montemartini, MC 2392. (photo by the author).
Figure 2: Statue of Augustus as Pontifex found in the Via Labicana. Rome, Museo Nazionale delle Terme, first quarter of the 1. century
C.E., H: 207 cm. (photo: RyanFreisling at English Wikipedia, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons).
Figure 3: Breaks and joins visible on the front of the Barberini togatus. Possible repaired break is shown in green, joins in red. Compare
to Talamo (as Note 12), fig. 36. (photo and diagram by the author).
Figure 4: Proper left foot, drapery, and added section of statue base of the Barberini togatus (photo by the author).
Figure 5: Running drill channel (left) and mortar join (right) at the base of the Barberini togatus (photo by the author).
Figure 6: Neck of the (alien) head of the Barberini togatus with mortar joins visible (photo by the author).
Figure 7: The bust held in the left hand of the Barberini togatus (photo by the author).
Figure 8: Detail of the join on the left side of the Barberini togatus (photos by the author).
Figure 9: Join lines around the head of the bust held in the left hand of the Barberini togatus (photo by the author).
Figure 10: Proper right side of the Barberini togatus, showing the join line between the central figure and the bust and palm trunk
(photo by the author).
Figure 11: Detail showing rasp marks on the toga of the Barberini togatus where it meets the neck of the right bust (photo by the au-
thor).
Figure 12: Mortar join between the head of the bust and the toga of the Barberini togatus (photo by the author).
Figure 13: mortar join between the right arm and the fold of the toga of the Barberini togatus (L) and chiseled line between the head
of the bust and the right arm (R) (photos by the author).
Figure 14: Togatus Figure, H: 167.7 cm. The Cleveland Museum of Art, Purchase from the J. H. Wade Fund 1929.439. (Photo cour-
tesy The Cleveland Museum of Art (Creative Commons CCO 1.0)).
Figure 15: Togate statues (small, medium, and large) in the Leptis Magna museum in Libya (photo © Martin Bedall / Alamy Stock
Photo).

21
 KUNSTGESCHICHTE Open Peer Reviewed Journal • 2024

Figure 16: Statue of Carlo Barberini, the Elder in the Palazzo Senatorio, Rome. Loricate torso is Roman; the head and limbs are by
Gianlorenzo Bernini and Alessandro Algardi, after 1630; photo: Anthony Majanlahti, licensed under Creative Commons Li-
cense 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Head_of_the_Memorial_Statue_for_Carlo_Barberini_by_Bernini.jpg).
Figure 17: Comparison between the right bust held by the Barberini togatus and a bust of Carlo Barberini by Francesco Mochi,
after1630, H: 84 cm. Museo di Roma, Rome, MR 1097. (left: photo by the author; right: photo by Barbara Kokoska, https://
roma-nonpertutti.com).
Figure 18: Comparison between the left bust held by the Barberini togatus and a portrait of Filippo I Colonna in the Palazzo Colonna
di Paliano (left: photo by the author; right: public domain from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ritratto_del_Prin-
cipe_Filippo_I_Colonna.jpg).
Figure 19: Left: Bust of a Flavian Woman, Toledo (Ohio) Museum of Art 2019.19, Gift of the Georgia Welles Apollo Society (photo
courtesy Toledo Museum of Art); Right: Herm Portrait of Staia Quinta, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 639 (photo by the author).
Figure 20: Herm portrait identified as Antonia Minor, Paris, Louvre, Ma 1229 (photos courtesy Musée du Louvre, https://collections.
louvre.fr/ark:/53355/cl010275382).
Figure 21: Bust of a Man from the House of the Citharist, Pompeii. Naples, Museo Archeologico 6028 (photo by the author).
Figure 22: House of the Menander, Pompeii. Plaster casts of miniature busts. (photo by the author).
Figure 23: Figure of a Man Holding a Bust of a Woman. Rome, Palazzo Massimo alle Terme (choistro), L: 156 cm. (photo by the au-
thor).
Figure 24: Figure of a Woman Holding a Bust of a Man, H: 154 cm, British Museum 1858,0819.1 (presently in storage), (photo cour-
tesy British Museum (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)).
Figure 25: Funerary Relief of Quintus Lollius Alcamenes. Rome, Villa Albani, (photo: https://imperiumromanum.pl/en/curiosities/
tombstone-relief-showing-magistrate-quintus-lollius-alkamenes/).
Figure 26: Egyptian, Head of a Woman, between 130 and 160 C.E., encaustic with gilded stucco on wood panel. Detroit Institute of
Arts, Gift of Julius H. Haass, 25.2, (photo courtesy Detroit Institute of Arts).

Author’s Information
Timothy Motz holds a B.A. in Classical Archaeology from the University of Michigan, an M.A. in Museology (Department of Art
and Art History) from Wayne State University in Detroit, and a Ph.D. in the History of Art from the University of Michigan. While a
doctoral student he participated in archaeological fieldwork (Tel Anafa, Israel, 1981 season). He served as Assistant Curator of Anci-
ent Art at the Detroit Institute of Arts for ten years and for twenty years as Manager of Educational Media at the Toledo (Ohio) Mu-
seum of Art, retiring in 2014. The topic for this article grew out of the research for his Ph.D. dissertation on the origins and context
of the Roman freestanding portrait bust.

Dieser Beitrag ist auch unter folgender Internetadresse abrufbar:

https://www.kunstgeschichte-ejournal.net/613/

22