Dietrich Boschung

Of the two subtypes of Type IV that Boschung identifies, IV.B (Boschung's Kopenhagen 611 replica group; Fig. 7) is the more puzzling. Because of points of comparisons shared among three of the replicas (cat. no. 60, pl. 64; cat. no. 62, p1. 65; cat. no. 61, p1. 66), including the turn of the head to the left side, [60] they appear to belong to a subtype different from that of the Stuttgart head. It is uncertain how long after IV.A this subtype was created. Although an approximate terminus post quem for IV.B would probably be 13 B.C.E. (when the Ma Pacis was begun), this subtype may have been created after Augustus's death in 14 C.E. (Boschung dates the three extant replicas posthumously). If IV.B were first created after Augustus's death, it may have been in response to a need for a separate, posthumous portrait model. If so, based on the small number of extant replicas, IV.B never caught on.

With regard to the evolution of Augustus's main portrait types, it might seem odd that there was such a short period of time between the creation of Types I, II, and III and then between Types IV and V, but that is because we have the (dis)advantage of hindsight. The relative brevity of the time between the creation of Types I, II, and III and again between Types IV and V can be explained in light of the demands of a rapidly changing political situation that necessitated the creation of new portrait types. Perhaps somewhat analogous to multiple prototypes within a short range of time is the use of three different titles on coins issued in the year 43 B.C.E., the first title referring to Octavian's being imperator, then consul, and finally triumvir r.p.c. (rei publicae constituendae). [61] These titles reflect just how quickly the political circumstances were changing.

Variability and Assimilation in Portraiture

One important issue that I wish to discuss further is the question of variability in Roman portraiture and some of the possible reasons for it. Although historians might tend to think of the distribution of Augustus's portraits as part of some grand imperial propagandistic scheme, the great variability of his extant portraits from all over the Roman Empire indicates, if anything, the lack of any strict government control of how the princeps was portrayed. Based on the internal evidence, it is now generally believed that portrait models of the princeps and members of his family were made available to the "art market," which played an active, if not, in fact, the primary role in the dissemination of these images. [62] There seems to have been no lack of enthusiasm for honoring the princeps and members of his family, especially because of their actual or anticipated benefactions. Competition and status would also have played a significant role in the proliferation of these images. The ready availability of portr ait models undoubtedly would have had the effect, too, of encouraging the production of replicas or other versions of the officially created prototypes.