A Study by Matteo Campagnolo

Former curator of the Numismatics Cabinet of the City of Geneva

Victory, the imperial statuette

It is known from texts and archaeological evidence the representation of Victory in the form of a young female deity, usually winged since the Hellenistic period. In the age of Perikles in Athens, a temple was erected to her on the Acropolis, as if to better retain her for her benefit, by making it a permanent attribute of the patroness of the city, Athena. The temple of Athena Nike was adorned with splendid friezes depicting Victory in similar poses, one of which, from the front, had a long fortune, also found on Roman coinage. Alexander the Great, in the last quarter of the 3rd century B.C., monopolized it for his profit on his own gold currency, long before Rome struck its victoriatus, the currency with the image of Victory crowning a trophy.

 

Three monumental types of Victory have been created by great artists in the Hellenistic period. Two are preserved, even if the ravages of time have not spared them, the Nike of Paionios, which has never left Olympia, and the Nike of Samothrace. Both demonstrate great boldness in design and technique. The first was set on a base several meters high, next to an eagle, beating its wings strongly to slow its descent, according to the generally accepted reconstruction. The Nike of Samothrace landed on the prow of a vessel. Like the first, it represented Victory in motion, wings raised, their garments stuck to their youthful chests, gracefully putting one foot down, while the other leg was about to find support and was still slightly suspended in the air.

 

These two masterpieces inspired all representations of Victory until the end of Greco-Roman Antiquity. They were imitated both in monumental art and, in particular, in the engraving of coins. The latter, however, are not strictly speaking copies, because monetary iconography enjoyed creative freedom until a late period, probably favored by the fact of its reduced dimensions and the need to transpose the third dimension into a nearly flat surface. Thus, it is not always easy, or even possible, to trace such and such a monetary representation to a monumental model.

That's not all. A third Nike is well known to us from the texts, and even a fourth[1]. Both were commissioned by the Hellenistic rulers in the 3rd century B.C., but their destiny was linked to that of Rome.

 

Of the latter, which weighed a hundred kilos of gold, we know from Titus Livy[2] that it was sent to the Romans to support their war effort against Hannibal. Valerius Maximus[3], a learned historical author of the time of the emperor Tiberius, clearly suggests that it was primarily finance and not a work of art[4]. We'll never know how she looked like, and we don't have to worry about her. All that can be said is that it is unlikely to resemble the Nike flying above the charioteer guiding the quadriga represented on the coinage of Hieron II of Siracuse.[5]

 

It was quite different thing with the other Victoiry. A Victory, 6 or 7 meters high, in gilded bronze, was commissioned by Pyrrhus, king of Epirus, during his visit to Taranto, probably from Eutychides of Mende, the pupil of the great Lysippus, the favorite sculptor of Alexander, to celebrate a victory obtained by him during his military campaign in southern Italy. If it was her that he had represented on his gold coin, she was leaning on her left foot, but she had already folded her wings. On her arm rested a trophy. The bottom of her garment formed like a large inverted corolla around her legs. Pyrrhus was thus celebrating a definite victory. On one point it is not impossible that the representation undergoes the constraints of the restricted field available. Indeed, the terracotta statuettes produced in abundance in Taranto, which were most likely inspired by the monumental victory that adorned their city after the passage of Pyrrhus: they have the wings, spread them and upwards[6].

[1] This is not an exhaustive list. Zonoras VIIi, 1, for example, mentions a bronze statue of Victory situated on the Forum of Rome in the early 3rd century B.C.

[2] XX 37.5 (in the year 216 B.C.)

[3] VIII 5 Ext. 1.

[4] Gilbert Charles-Picard, Les trophées romains : contribution à l'histoire de la religion et de l'art triomphal de Rome, E. de Boccard 1957, hesitated as to the provenance of the Victoria of the Curia Iulia (see below ). On the p. 141 he wrote that it came “from Sicily or Taranto […] Both possibilities are a priori equally conceivable. We have seen that in 217, Hieron II donated to the Romans a golden Nike weighing 220 pounds…”

[5] M. Caccamo Caltabiano, B. Carroccio, E. Oteri, Siracusa ellenistica. Le monete ‘regali’ di Ierone II, delta sua famiglia e dei Siracusani, Messina 1997.

[6] Franz Winter et Reinhard Kekulé von Stradonitz, Die Typen der Figürlichen Terrakotten. II. Teil. Die antiken Terrakotten im Auftrag des Archäologischen Instituts des Deutschen Reichs. Band III, II. Teil, Berlin et Stuttgart 1903, p. 185-189.

  • Fig. 1 SICILY

    Pyrrhos, King of Epiros (297-272 BC.)

  • Fig. 2 Pyrrhus, king of Epirus

    (306-273), in Syracuse 278-276

Fig. 1[7]

 

Fig. 2[8]

 

It was transported – still according to the most probable historical reconstruction – to Rome by Augustus in 40 B.C.[9] The latter, during the inauguration of the Curia Julia after his victory at Actium over Antony and Cleopatra, had it installed there next to an altar, aptly said of Victory, on which the senators sacrificed and swore at the start of the session[10]. However, it should be noted noted that on the very last issues during Caesar's lifetime, Venus appears holding in her hand a Victory in every way similar to that triumphantly installed by Augustus at the Curia Iulia after the battle of Actium, with one difference, however, that it rests directly on the palm of Venus and not on a globe[11].

 

During the war between Octavian and Antony, a war firstly propagandistic, two representations of Victory appear on their joint coinage again, from the year 31: a Victory going to crown ANTONIO, with the folded wings, and a Victory landing on a globe, going to crown CAESARI [Octavian], both in profile, flying to the right and holding a palm branch in the left arm[12]. This one is probably inspired by the Nike of Pyrrhus, at least as far as the peplum is concerned. The installation by Auguste thus takes on all the appearance of the realization of a project that Caesar cultivated and did not have time to carry out himself, which corresponds well to the spirit of Augustus, who henceforth ceased to add to his name the tribute to his adoptive father "DIVI Filius”.


[7] SICILY, Pyrrhos, King of Epiros (297-272 BC.), AV Stater, 8.55 g, struck in Syracuse, 278 BC, British Museum Catalogue, Sicily Nr. 1 (https://www.wildwinds.com/coins/greece/epeiros/kings/pyrrhos/BMC_01.jpg)

8] Pyrrhus, king of Epirus (306-273), in Syracuse 278-276. Gold half stater (or decadrachm) n. d. Head of Artemis to r., wearing pendant earring and necklace, quiver over l. shoulder; in field l., bunch of grapes. Rev. BAΣIΛ-EΩ-Σ ΠΥPPOΥ Niké wearing long chiton, flying l., holding a trophy in her l. hand, wreath in her outstretched r. hand; in field l., thunderbolt. 4.24 g. BMC 4/5. Boston 470. Pozzi 1286. Sartiges 231 (https://coinweek.com/ancient-coins/coinage-of-king-pyrrhus-coinweek-ancient-coin-series/)

[9] H. A. Pohlsander, “Victory: The Story of a Statue”, Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, vol. 18, no. 5, 1969, pp. 588–97, regarding the statue: (http://www.jstor.org/stable/4435106. Accessed 28 Apr. 2022)

[10] Dion Cassius LI 22.

[11] Crawford 1974, no 480/3 ss.

[12] Crawford 1974, no 546.

What is accepted today is that at the time of the installation of this Victory in the Curia Julia, the Senate, rebuilt by Augustus after the battle of Actium and inaugurated on 28 August of 29 B.C., he struck splendid coins representing the front of the Nike of Taranto. The sculpture, according to a habit of the Romans, had probably undergone the modifications, as evidenced by the currency[13]: it no longer held the trophy but the vexillum, the standard of the legion, on the left; she alighted on the orb, a terrestrial or celestial globe representing the universal power of Rome[14]; and her wings were turned upwards, like those of a bird in the act of alighting, like the terracottas of Taranto.

[13] Fig. 3: Roman Empire, Augustus, 29-27 B.C., aureus, RIC I, 60.268 (British Museum 1864,1128.230).

[14]  The orb represented undoubtedly a strong element of the Augustan propaganda, see

Arnaud Pascal, « L'image du globe dans le monde romain », Mélanges de l'École française de Rome. Antiquité, tome 96, n°1. 1984. pp. 53-116 (DOI : https://doi.org/10.3406/mefr.1984.1404 ; www.persee.fr/doc/mefr_0223-5102_1984_num_96_1_1404), contadicted by https://www.lamoneta.it/topic/34636-il-globo-sulle-monete-romane/ (discussion site).

  • Fig. 3

    Roman Empire, Augustus, 29-27 B.C., aureus

Probably the monumental statue thus modified have been reproduced, which must have been in gilt bronze, and this copy was placed on the top of the pediment, as seen on a denarius minted on the same occasion[15]. The globe stands out clearly.


[15] Fig. 4: Roman Empire, Augustus, 29-27 B.C., denarius, RIC I, 60.266 (British Museum R. 6167).

  • Fig. 4

    Roman Empire, Augustus, 29-27 B.C., denarius

There are probably several reproductions, including the famous Calvatone Victory, today at the Hermitage Museum in St Petersburg, the victory of Yvonand (Canton of Vaud), or that of Constantine, in Algeria (fig. 5).

  • Fig. 5

    Victory of Constantine, in Algeria

Dio Cassius[16], a historian who was writing in the early 3rd century A.D., claims to have seen the statue in the place where Augustus had it placed, next to the Altar of Victory. No wonder that, since it had not been moved at the end of the pagan era. It was then that she found herself at the center of a furious controversy between the head of the senate and upholder of tradition, and Ambrose, the bishop and now patron saint of Milan, who asked the Christian emperor to put an end to what constituted a scandal in the eyes of the uncompromising Christian that he was, namely the sacrifice of the altar of Victory.

 

A Christian polemicist, Prudentius, who wrote in 402, a few years later, pretending to comment on Symmachus's request in his poem, speaks of a temple and a statue, whereas the latter was essentially asking for the restoration of the altar. He describes her, to lower her in the eyes of those who invoke her: “… the virgin goddess… the vain help of a woman’s figure? … a young girl who directed the features of men… She is not a woman with neatly combed hair, who balances on her bare foot, her throat supported by a ribbon, her garment floating on her buxom breasts…” to which one must trust. And addressing Symmachus, he adds: “Stop covering a human back with feathers; it is absurd to say that a woman is a bird, that she herself is a goddess and a great vulture”[17].

 

Theodosius the Great let himself be defeated by the arguments of his fiery spiritual guide. It is likely that with the altar the statue was also removed from its privileged location. In general, we wanted to believe that the removal of the statue was final, but this is not certain. Honorius, the eldest son of Theodosius, and his successor in the West, suspended the extreme measures taken by his father against the pagan temples.

 

What is certain is that the much-decried Victory did not cease to figure in. the imperial ceremonial.

The court poet Claudian[18] in two different poems, which glorify the general Stilicon and the reign of Honorius, on the contrary, attests to the vitality which seems to be still and for a long time to be more than a simple symbol in homage to tradition. He insists on the visible personification of Victory:

But what clamor resounded among the great, what pure joys were manifested, when, soaring with all her wings, Victory herself opened to the chief the doors of her sanctuary!.. Protect Latium forever, O goddess, and grant the wishes of your senate.

He even says loud and clear that the senate meets in the temple presided over by the winged goddess herself.

 

The importance of the literary text is enhanced by the testimony rendered by archeology and numismatics in the most emphatic way.

 

One can see on coins Honorius holding the globe surmounted by Victory, and not the cross, as was later the case in the truly Byzantine period, which is very different from the Late Antiquity.

 

This orb surmounted by Victory was making progressively rarer appearances on coinage. In the 6th century, we still find it on the two gold medallions, these pieces were commissioned to be donated to chosen personalities and certainly known for their religious tendencies, and which were not intended for circulation.

 

Theodoric († 526), ​​the Romanized Germanic king, a fine diplomat knowing how to maintain balance between two so profoundly different worlds, had himself represented with his barbarian hair, holding in his hand the figure of Victory over the orb borrowed from the imperial pageantry.


[16] LI 22.

[17] Prudentius, Contra Symmachum, II 13-61.

[18] Cl. Claudianus, De laudibus Stiliconis III, 213 ss., in VI. consulatum Honorii Augusti, vv. 597ss.

 

  • Fig. 6

    The Medallion of Theoderic the Great

Fig. 6[19]

[19] Monika Ożóg, « The Medallion of Theoderic the Great as a Tool of Political Propaganda », Polish Journal of Political Science, Vol. 3, Issue 2, 2017, pp. 6-24 (http://cejsh.icm.edu.pl/cejsh/element/bwmeta1.element.desklight-df6adaac-4011-4994-9c8a-c8a647f73baf/c/PJPS_03_02_01.pdf)

It is undoubtedly following this deliberate "blunder" that Justinian (emperor from 525 to 565) on another larger and more beautiful gold medallion had himself represented on horseback, led by the winged Victory walking in front of his horse, all wings widely spread in a protective gait.

  • Fig. 7

    A drawing of a lost coin featuring an equestrian statue of Justinian in celebration of the Vandalic War victory

Fig. 7[20]

[20] A drawing of a lost coin featuring an equestrian statue of Justinian in celebration of the Vandalic War victory. (Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons)

 

The chalcedony statuette that concerns us has four striking features:

 

1. The exceptional quality of the care taken to make a contrast of the smooth surfaces of the skin – smooth as a mirror, favored by the delicacy of the stone, as delicate as a baby's skin, and its flesh color – and the ornithological naturalism to render every wing feather;

2. The tenon under the left foot and the unequal height of the two feet, as well as the raised wings and the garment sticked to the chest - there, she is not stripped by the movement which made the fabric slip maliciously;

3. The hair consisting of a thick bun at the back of the head, an abundant braid which follows the perimeter of the face and is tied above the forehead;

4. The thickness of the figure and, particularly, of the wings.

 

There is absolutely nothing Hellenistic in the style of this statuette, it is in no way a reproduction of the famous statue under the shadow of which the work of the Senate of Rome took place during the centuries of the empire. The still doll-like appearance, the very round shapes show that the model must have been a twelve-year-old girl, rather than a young girl or a young woman, as is always the case in Hellenistic art, and certainly was in the case of the statue of Eutychides, which we know from the coinage, and probably from a copy from the Imperial period.

 

She is wearing a short tunic which leave her right arm shooting a bow bear, as Diana and the Amazones (χιτὼν ἐξωμὶς ἑτερομάσχαλος, v. Pollux VII 47). And not the χιτὼν ἐπωμίς, the symmentical tunic, surmounted by the short peplum, fixed on each shoulder by a clasp, also typical of women hunters, which we see on the victory of the Probus diptych.

 

Did the Victory of the Curia no longer exist when the chalcedony statuette was executed? or perhaps also it would have been out of place to evoke it, after such a serious polemic which had opposed the Christians and the pagans of Rome. So, can we specify its origin and its use? Surely, we are in the most favorable position. Let's look at the Probus diptych dated precisely to A.D. 406[21]. What is Emperor Honorius holding in his left hand? A small childish victory, coming to crown him from the right, sticking her left arm against her body in order to hold the palm vertically and coming to rest delicately on the orb that the emperor holds in his hand. Let's take a better look! The knot at the end of the braid on the top of the head is the same as that of the chalcedony statuette. It is undoubtedly the same one that is reproduced on the diptych! or its counterpart, because on certain coins of the time, the two co-emperors each hold an orb surmounted by Victory. But what are the differences also in the details: impossible that the diptych could have served as a model for the work of a forger…


[21] Richard Delbrueck: Die Consulardiptychen und verwandte Denkmäler (= Studien zur spätantiken Kunstgeschichte. 2), de Gruyter, Berlin u. a. 1929, passim.

  • Fig. 8

  • Fig. 8 (detail)

Regarding the choice of stone, let us add that chalcedony, probably Pliny's achates[22], must have enjoyed a certain consideration in Roman times, despite the words of the naturalist: it was used to carve the imperial busts! Victory, the imperial attribute par excellence, could only benefit from this choice[23]. Today the pink chalcedony comes mainly from Brazil. In antiquity, the pink chalcedony came from India, the length of the journey undoubtedly increased its rarity and value, the fact which helped to recommend it to the imperial workshops of Rome and Alexandria, and later, as in our case, according to Jacques Chamay, of Constantinople or Nicomedia. And working chalcedony in antiquity, with a stone hardness of 6.5 / 7 on a scale of 10, was a difficult, long and delicate work. The figurine in question has considerable dimensions, with its 8.8 cm in height, especially since it was cut from a single block, which must have initially been at least 300 cm³. The work could only be entrusted to the most expert hands; any risk of breakage must be avoided, which is why, in our opinion, the artist left the wings and limbs with a solid thickness.

 

We consider this, together with the general statement, as an additional guarantee of authenticity. The statuette was made to be handled by those responsible for the imperial ceremonies. But the crowd would gaze at the emperor from afar, at night. The statuette had to shine and be recognized from afar, but it did not have to shine with slender grace.

 


[22] Plinius Naturalis historia XXXVII 139.

[23] We know of another Victoriola in chalcedony preserved at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the one carved from a block of pale mauve chalcedony. It is a flightless and acephalous victory of dimensions comparable to the one in question. Chalcedony statuette of Niké (Victory), Roman 1st–2nd century A.D.; Chalcedony, 2 7/8 x 11/16 x 1 1/2 in. (7.3 x 1.7 x 3.8 cm); Credit Line: Rogers Fund, 1906, Accession Number: 06.1161 (https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/247577).