The Togatus Statue of Caligula in the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts: an Archaeological Description

Chapter 3 The Togatus Statue of Caligula in the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts: an Archaeological Description

Mark Abbe

The over-life-size togatus statue of Caligula (Gaius Julius the marble from the upper and lower join surfaces of the Caesar Germanicus, the infamous third emperor of the head has now resolved any doubts about whether the Julio-Claudian dynasty, ruled 37–41 CE) in the Virginia head belongs to the body and has elucidated the marble Museum of Fine Arts (VMFA) is both an overlooked type (Pike, Appendix B). The statue was carved mono- masterpiece of Roman sculpture and an artwork of ex- lithically from an extremely large block of uniform, flaw- ceptional historical importance (plates 1–5). To date, how- less, high-quality marble from a Greek/Asia Minor quarry ever, this statue has received only summary accounts of its source, almost certainly from the Lychnites-Marathi quar- physical condition. This paper aims to fill this outstanding ries of Paros prized in antiquity. lacuna by providing a detailed archaeological description of this remarkable statue. The aim is threefold: (1) to iden- Dimensions. Overall, in present condition: H. 203.0, tify and distinguish the statue’s virtuoso “metropolitan” W. 67.3, ø 49.5 cm. ancient marble carving from its extensive, but heretofore largely unexamined, nineteenth-century restoration; Provenience. Found in 1825 at Bovillae, Italy, in excava- (2) to present new information regarding the statue’s lim- tions sponsored by Vincenzo Colonna, the statue’s find ited extant remains of ancient polychromy; and, finally, spot had previously been erroneously reported to have (3) to understand the sculpture’s exceptionally well pre- been found near the Theatre of Marcellus, Rome (Jucker, served condition in historical terms, namely, as evidence 1973: 17; repeated thereafter, including in Boschung 1989: for its display and life in antiquity. The statue was stud- 109). Maria Grazia Picozzi (1990: 56, note 242) has discov- ied using traditional methods in tandem with examina- ered archival documentation suggesting that the core of tion using various lighting methods (raking, ultraviolet, the statue was found with fragments of the arms, the front infrared photo-induced luminescence) and microscopic of the left foot, and bits of drapery, and that the head was examination of the surfaces (using a portable binocular discovered in close proximity. For additional information microscope, 5–65X) and with preliminary in situ materi- on the statue’s archaeological origins and post-excavation als characterisation of surface materials using a portable collection history, see Maria Grazia Picozzi’s and Paolo X-ray fluorescence spectrometer. The results of these Liverani’s contributions in this volume. technical studies are incorporated in the archaeological description that follows. Provenance and Post-Antique Interventions. After its discovery, the statue was restored to form a complete, Collection. Richmond, Virginia Museum of Fine Arts, legible figural sculpture according to contemporary aes- Inv. 71.20 thetic standards and was subsequently displayed in the Palazzo Colonna, where its restorations and location were Material. The ancient statue is carved from a highly- recorded by F.K. von Duhn in 1878/9 (its display location crystalline medium to small-grained white marble, with no described as Erdgeschoss: unten links, die Fenster nach dem visible flaws and faint vertically-oriented bedding planes. inneren Garten zu in Matz and von Duhn, 1882: 308). In (“fine-grained” (Jucker, 1973: 5); Boschung curiously de- 1968 the sculpture was offered on the antiquities market scribes it as grosskristalliner (1989: 109).) The marble had in Zurich by J. Brun (with H. Jucker advising) from whom not been properly scientifically characterized prior to this it was purchased by the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts in project and its geological provenance had remained unin- 1971. The statue was promptly restored for exhibition by vestigated. Jucker identified the marble as “probably from the prominent art restorer J. Ternbach in New York, and Cararra despite its relatively pronounced transparency” entered the museum’s collection in the spring of that (1973: 5), an identification frequently repeated since. same year (Object files, Virginia Museum of Fine Arts and Stable isotopic analysis and geological cross-sections of Estate of J. Ternbach).

Ternbach (Du Pont Magazine, 1989). Preliminary stable isotopic analysis, by J. Margolis, suggested that the head and body were composed of a similar type of white marble (based on their on C13 and O18 isotopic values) and no quarry provenance for the marble was proposed. A preliminary attempt to remove the head in order to examine the join and correct its position was then initiated but was aborted due to the reinstallation schedule of the ancient galleries (L. Becker, personal comm.). While the physical history of the statue since 1968 is well documented, the historic restoration of the statue has received almost no mention in the modern descriptions of the statue since von Duhn. The uniform technique of the marble cuttings, surface preparation, and joining technique for the now-removed marble repairs indicate a sin- gle, extensive restoration campaign. This must have been carried out between the statue’s discovery in 1825 and von Duhn’s 1878/9 inventory of the Colonna Collection. This historic restoration can now be dated conclusively by a heretofore unnoted horizontal inscription (letter H. 2.5 cm) reading “1843” on the reworked restoration join surface of the left arm (Figs. 3.2–3.5). (In isolation, the rightward descender stem of the numeral 4 might be read as a cursorily-carved rightward ascender from the bowl of Figure 3.1 Photograph of the statue of Caligula first provided by a numeral 6, but the numeral is clearly not a 6-4 ligature.) J. Brun to H. Jucker in 1968, and subsequently to VMFA This deliberate and carefully-carved inscription was not and J. Ternbach in 1970/71 visible once the statue was restored. Coincidentally with Source: Estate of J. Ternbach the recent discovery of the inscription, M. Grazia Picozzi has now identified archival evidence in the Colonna The earliest known photographs of the statue were pro- Archives recording the payment in 1843 to the sculptor vided by J. Brun to H. Jucker in 1968 (Fig. 3.1) and appear to Raffaele Tuccimei (1812–1849), a student of Canova, for have been made immediately after the now-missing his- the restoration of a statue of a “Console” from the Colonna toric restorations noted by von Duhn had been largely re- excavations at Bovillae (see Picozzi in this volume). This moved, but the iron pins used in the historic restoration in fortunate corroboration of the inscription and archi- the arms and left foot remained. This de-restoration was val evidence (1) confirms the reading of this inscription; undoubtedly aimed to demonstrate the authenticity of (2) demonstrates that the inscription records the date of the ancient core of the statue according to the purist taste the restoration work, rather than a workshop inventory common in northern Europe in the late 1960’s and 1970’s. number or the like; and (3) leaves little doubt about the After the statue was purchased by the VMFA, Ternbach sculptor involved. remounted the head in what he considered to be its cor- Von Duhn’s 1878/9 description of the statue refers to it rect ancient position and then filled in the empty pin and as a complete figure with arms, and the overall impression dowel holes created by the historic restoration to create was probably akin to the other freestanding restored an- a more pleasing display appearance. Apart from the re- cient sculptures in the collection (compare, for example, moval of the fill around the break in the neck and limited the togatus with an alien ancient head, identified by the subsequent surface cleaning, the statue remained essen- restorer V. Pacetti as “l’Imperatore Claudio” c. 1781; Picozzi, tially in this condition. 1990: 247–250, cat. no. 134). Detailed examination has now In response to long-standing doubts about whether revealed the full extent of the nineteenth-century restora- the head belongs to the statue, M. Mayo, Ancient Curator tions (Fig. 3.6). of the VMFA, undertook a detailed reexamination of the The exposed deep cuttings into the ancient core of the statue in 1988–9. Radiography of the neck join revealed statue may shock the modern eye, but in truth reflect a a very deep dowel hole and the apparent absence of a controlled, deliberate, and skilful restoration technique true marble-to-marble locking join surface suggested by of precisely cut marble-to-marble joining. This masterful,