DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.45927#0103
9.1 Portrait Statuary and Statues of Personifications
101
the central section partly hollowed out. The surface here is only roughly picked and clearly was never intended
to be seen. Similarly, the dedicatory inscription was carved into the front of the plinth, rather than on a separate
base as would have been standard practice.382 Taken together, these technical details may suggest that the statue
had to be fitted into an already existing setting in the Bouleuterion scaenae frons. We do not know of course
when exactly the back of the statue statue was trimmed. Theoretically, the scene wall of both the first and the
second phase of the scaenae frons may have featured niches.383 On the basis of further epigraphic evidence, it
has been suggested that the statue of Lucius Verus belonged to a larger portrait gallery of members of the im-
perial family that was dedicated by the wealthy benefactor P. Vedius Antoninus in the Bouleuterion as part of
a wider sculptural program.384 These inscriptions belonged to statues of Marcus Aurelius (sculp. 1.2) and one
of his daughters, Faustina (sculp. 1.3).385 The low (?), profiled support of Marcus Aurelius’ statue is recorded
only by J. T. Wood’s sketch in one of his letters (pl. 67, 1). Wood does not provide any detailed information on
this inscribed stone. Considering Wood’s section of the support and the profiled bases of the statues of Faustina
(sculp. 1.3; pl. 68) and especially of the personification of Demos (sculp. 1.6; pl. 67,2, see below), this support
was also probably a low base (rather than a plinth). The chamfered base of Faustina’s statue is fragmentarily
preserved; it was found in the debris of the orchestra. Its back was flat, the moldings were probably not fin-
ished.386 The preserved part of its top is finely worked and features a pry (?) hole, according to L. Bier’s draw-
ing (pl. 68). Both Marcus Aurelius’ and Faustina’s bases use the same dedicatory formula as the inscription
on the plinth of Lucius Verus’ statue. On the Faustina base, though, the inscription starts on the upper chamfer
which is unusual. The unfinished moldings and the position of the Faustina inscription point to an improvised
procedure, as do the trimming of Lucius Verus’ statue and the unusual position of its inscription.387
J. T. Wood’s reference to a statue of Antoninus Pius found in the early stages of the excavation of the Bou-
leuterion, taken at face value by A. Kalinowski and H. Taeuber,388 ought to be treated with suspicion. His de-
scription “a statue of Antoninus Pius, at present wanting the head, is broken into 8 or 10 pieces and will meas-
ure when put together more than 7 feet” fits the statue of Lucius Verus very well;389 the reference to Antoninus
Pius may have been due to a misreading of the dedicatory inscription on the plinth (see chap. 8.3.3 inscr. 13).
Kalinowski and Taeuber preferred a statue of Domitia Faustina on the Faustina base, the first daughter of
Marcus Aurelius and Faustina Minor, as in the portrait gallery of the Gerontikon at Nysa, where only the first
daughter was represented.390 Domitia Faustina lived for only a few years (born A.D. 147, lived probably until
151) whereas Annia Galeria Aurelia Faustina, the third daughter, reached a more mature age.391 She was born
in A.D. 151 or 153, she is documented on coins as one of four surviving daughters until A.D. 161 and appears
as one of Marcus Aurelius’ children in inscriptions from the Capitol of Sabratha in A.D. 166.392 The year of
her death is not recorded; she probably survived her father and died between A.D. 180 and 182.393 K. Fittschen
left the question of the identification of Marcus Aurelius’ daughter in the scaenae frons of the Ephesian Bou-
leuterion open.394
hypothetical reconstruction on a tall base in the aedicula next to the central doorway, see plan 6. The depth of the pedestal on which
the columns rested is 1.20 m.
382 A parallel from Ephesos for this otherwise not very common procedure is provided by the statue of the Emperor Trajan from the
Nymphaeum of Trajan, IvE 256, cf. Miltner 1959b, 328. 343 fig. 174; Fleischer 1982, 123; Aurenhammer (in preparation) and
Quatember, FiE (forthcoming). The lettering on this plinth is much superior to that of the Bouleuterion statue.
383 See above chap. 3.2, 4.9 and below in parts 9.1 and 9.3.
384 p1TTSCHEN 1999, 130; Kalinowski - Taeuber 2001, 351-357; Kalinowski 2002, 143-144.
385 See above chap. 8.3.2-3, inscr. 12-13 on the inscriptions.
386 As on several bases from the Nymphaeum Traiani, cf. Quatember, FiE (forthcoming).
387 See above chap. 8.4 on the epigraphical evidence for dating the building.
388 Kalinowski -Taeuber 2001, 355.
389 Letter to A. Panizzi, principal librarian, of April 28, 1864.
390 Kalinowski - Taeuber 2001,355-357; Kalinowski 2002, 144. Nysa: Fittschen 1999, 133-136 cat. 58 pl. 207; Galli 2002, 65-66.
69-70; Kadioglu 2008, 360. 362. 364.
391 For the chronology of Marcus Aurelius’ and Faustina Minor’s children cf. Fittschen 1982, 22-33; Domitia Faustina: 23-26; Annia
Galeria Aurelia Faustina: 27-30 with note 29. 32; for all the children: genealogical tree Fittschen 1982, 94-95; Bol 1984,30-45.
117-119; Fittschen 1999, 2-10.
392 Fittschen 1982, 30-31; Fittschen 1999, 117 no. 27 (Sabratha).
393 Fittschen 1999, 4 and 133 no. 155 (fragments of an Ephesian statue-group of the Antonine dynasty, Marcus Aurelius as “Theos”).
394 Fittschen 1999, 130.
101
the central section partly hollowed out. The surface here is only roughly picked and clearly was never intended
to be seen. Similarly, the dedicatory inscription was carved into the front of the plinth, rather than on a separate
base as would have been standard practice.382 Taken together, these technical details may suggest that the statue
had to be fitted into an already existing setting in the Bouleuterion scaenae frons. We do not know of course
when exactly the back of the statue statue was trimmed. Theoretically, the scene wall of both the first and the
second phase of the scaenae frons may have featured niches.383 On the basis of further epigraphic evidence, it
has been suggested that the statue of Lucius Verus belonged to a larger portrait gallery of members of the im-
perial family that was dedicated by the wealthy benefactor P. Vedius Antoninus in the Bouleuterion as part of
a wider sculptural program.384 These inscriptions belonged to statues of Marcus Aurelius (sculp. 1.2) and one
of his daughters, Faustina (sculp. 1.3).385 The low (?), profiled support of Marcus Aurelius’ statue is recorded
only by J. T. Wood’s sketch in one of his letters (pl. 67, 1). Wood does not provide any detailed information on
this inscribed stone. Considering Wood’s section of the support and the profiled bases of the statues of Faustina
(sculp. 1.3; pl. 68) and especially of the personification of Demos (sculp. 1.6; pl. 67,2, see below), this support
was also probably a low base (rather than a plinth). The chamfered base of Faustina’s statue is fragmentarily
preserved; it was found in the debris of the orchestra. Its back was flat, the moldings were probably not fin-
ished.386 The preserved part of its top is finely worked and features a pry (?) hole, according to L. Bier’s draw-
ing (pl. 68). Both Marcus Aurelius’ and Faustina’s bases use the same dedicatory formula as the inscription
on the plinth of Lucius Verus’ statue. On the Faustina base, though, the inscription starts on the upper chamfer
which is unusual. The unfinished moldings and the position of the Faustina inscription point to an improvised
procedure, as do the trimming of Lucius Verus’ statue and the unusual position of its inscription.387
J. T. Wood’s reference to a statue of Antoninus Pius found in the early stages of the excavation of the Bou-
leuterion, taken at face value by A. Kalinowski and H. Taeuber,388 ought to be treated with suspicion. His de-
scription “a statue of Antoninus Pius, at present wanting the head, is broken into 8 or 10 pieces and will meas-
ure when put together more than 7 feet” fits the statue of Lucius Verus very well;389 the reference to Antoninus
Pius may have been due to a misreading of the dedicatory inscription on the plinth (see chap. 8.3.3 inscr. 13).
Kalinowski and Taeuber preferred a statue of Domitia Faustina on the Faustina base, the first daughter of
Marcus Aurelius and Faustina Minor, as in the portrait gallery of the Gerontikon at Nysa, where only the first
daughter was represented.390 Domitia Faustina lived for only a few years (born A.D. 147, lived probably until
151) whereas Annia Galeria Aurelia Faustina, the third daughter, reached a more mature age.391 She was born
in A.D. 151 or 153, she is documented on coins as one of four surviving daughters until A.D. 161 and appears
as one of Marcus Aurelius’ children in inscriptions from the Capitol of Sabratha in A.D. 166.392 The year of
her death is not recorded; she probably survived her father and died between A.D. 180 and 182.393 K. Fittschen
left the question of the identification of Marcus Aurelius’ daughter in the scaenae frons of the Ephesian Bou-
leuterion open.394
hypothetical reconstruction on a tall base in the aedicula next to the central doorway, see plan 6. The depth of the pedestal on which
the columns rested is 1.20 m.
382 A parallel from Ephesos for this otherwise not very common procedure is provided by the statue of the Emperor Trajan from the
Nymphaeum of Trajan, IvE 256, cf. Miltner 1959b, 328. 343 fig. 174; Fleischer 1982, 123; Aurenhammer (in preparation) and
Quatember, FiE (forthcoming). The lettering on this plinth is much superior to that of the Bouleuterion statue.
383 See above chap. 3.2, 4.9 and below in parts 9.1 and 9.3.
384 p1TTSCHEN 1999, 130; Kalinowski - Taeuber 2001, 351-357; Kalinowski 2002, 143-144.
385 See above chap. 8.3.2-3, inscr. 12-13 on the inscriptions.
386 As on several bases from the Nymphaeum Traiani, cf. Quatember, FiE (forthcoming).
387 See above chap. 8.4 on the epigraphical evidence for dating the building.
388 Kalinowski -Taeuber 2001, 355.
389 Letter to A. Panizzi, principal librarian, of April 28, 1864.
390 Kalinowski - Taeuber 2001,355-357; Kalinowski 2002, 144. Nysa: Fittschen 1999, 133-136 cat. 58 pl. 207; Galli 2002, 65-66.
69-70; Kadioglu 2008, 360. 362. 364.
391 For the chronology of Marcus Aurelius’ and Faustina Minor’s children cf. Fittschen 1982, 22-33; Domitia Faustina: 23-26; Annia
Galeria Aurelia Faustina: 27-30 with note 29. 32; for all the children: genealogical tree Fittschen 1982, 94-95; Bol 1984,30-45.
117-119; Fittschen 1999, 2-10.
392 Fittschen 1982, 30-31; Fittschen 1999, 117 no. 27 (Sabratha).
393 Fittschen 1999, 4 and 133 no. 155 (fragments of an Ephesian statue-group of the Antonine dynasty, Marcus Aurelius as “Theos”).
394 Fittschen 1999, 130.
