ROMAN SCULPTURE

Mark Cartwright
DEFINITION
Roman Sculpture, with artists from across a
huge empire and changing public tastes over
centuries, is above all else, remarkable for its
sheer variety and eclectic mix. The art form
blended the idealised perfection of earlier
Classical Greek sculpture with a greater
aspiration for realism and absorbed artistic preferences
and styles from the East to create images in stone Marcus aurelius equestrian statue
and bronze which rank among the finest works from
antiquity. Aside from their own unique
contribution, Roman sculptors have also, with their popular copies of
earlier Greek masterpieces, preserved for posterity invaluable works which would have
otherwise been completely lost to world art.  
EVOLUTION
As with Greek sculpture, the Romans worked stone, precious metals, glass and terracotta but
favoured bronze and marble above all else for their finest work. However, as metal has
always been in high demand for re-use, most of the surviving examples of Roman sculpture
are in marble.
The Roman taste for Greek and Hellenistic sculpture meant that once the supply of original
pieces had been exhausted sculptors had to make copies and these could be of varying quality
depending on the sculptor’s skills. Indeed, there was a school specifically for copying
celebrated Greek originals in Athens and Rome itself, the latter headed by Pasiteles along
with Archesilaos, Evander, Glykon and Apollonios. An example of the school’s work is the
1st century BCE marble statue of Orestes and Electra, now in the archaeological museum of
Naples. Roman sculptors also produced miniaturised copies of Greek originals, often in
bronze, which were collected by art-lovers and displayed in cabinets in the home. 
Colossal Bronze Hand of Constantine I
Roman sculpture did, however, begin to search for new
avenues of artistic expression, moving away from
their Etruscan and Greek roots, and, by the mid-1st century
CE, Roman artists were seeking to capture and create
optical effects of light and shade for greater realism. By
later antiquity, there was even a move towards
impressionism using tricks of light and abstract forms.
Sculpture also became more monumental with massive,
larger-than-life statues of emperors, gods and heroes such
as the huge bronze statues of Marcus Aurelius on horseback
or the even bigger statue of Constantine I (only the head,
hand and some limbs survive), both of which now reside in

Colossal bronze hand of Constantine I

the Capitoline Museums of Rome. Towards the end of the Empire, sculpture of figures tended
to lack proportion, heads especially were enlarged, and figures were most often presented
flatter and from the front, displaying the influence of Eastern art.  
IT IS IN PORTRAITURE THAT ROMAN SCULPTURE REALLY COMES TO THE
FORE.
It is also important to distinguish two quite distinct ‘markets’ for Roman sculpture, the first
was the aristocratic ruling class taste for more classical and idealistic sculpture whilst the
second, more provincial, ‘middle-class’ market seems to have preferred a more naturalistic
and emotional type of sculpture, especially in portraiture and funerary works (although the
limitations of artists away from the larger urban centres may also have had something to do
with the differences in styles). An interesting comparison of the two approaches may be
found in Trajan’s Column in Rome and a trophy at Adamklissi commemorating the same
Dacian campaigns.  
STATUARY & PORTRAIT SCULPTURE
As with the Greeks, the Romans loved to represent their gods in statues. When Roman
emperors began to claim divinity then they too became the subject of often colossal and
idealised statues, often with the subject portrayed with an arm raised to the masses and
striking a suitably authoritative stance as in the Augustus of the Prima Porta.     
Statues could also be used for decorative purposes in the home or garden and they could be
miniaturized, especially in precious metals such as silver. One type of such statues which
were peculiar to the Romans was the Lares Familiares. These were usually in bronze and
represented the spirits which protected the home. They were typically displayed in pairs in a
niche within the house and are youthful figures with arms raised and long hair who typically
wear a tunic and sandals. 
Roman Portrait Bust
However, it is in the specific area of portraiture that Roman
sculpture really comes to the fore and differentiates itself from
other artistic traditions. The realism in Roman portrait sculpture
may well have developed from the tradition of keeping wax
funeral masks of deceased family members in the ancestral
home which were worn by mourners at family funerals. These
were very often accurate depictions where even the defects and
less flattering physical aspects of a particular face were
recorded. Transferred to stone, we then have many examples of
private portrait busts which move away from the idealised
portraits of earlier sculpture and present the subject as old,
wrinkled, scarred or flabby; in short, these portraits tell the truth.
Once again, for official portraits of the ruling elite, in contrast to
lower class subjects, the subject continued to be idealised, for Roman portrait bust
example, the statue of Augustus as Pontifex Maximus has the
emperor looking much more youthful and fresh-faced than he
actually was at the time of sculpting (end of the 1st century BCE).  However, by the time
of Claudius in the mid 1st century CE, and even more so under Nero and the Flavian
emperors, official portraiture on occasion strove for more realism. In the same period female
portraits are also notable for their elaborate hairstyles and they no doubt were prime
instigators in fashion trends.
Under Hadrian there was a return to idealised images such as in Classical Greek sculpture
(e.g. the colossal statue of Antinous, c. 130 CE) but there was an important innovation in
terms of a more natural rendering of the eyes in marble works. Previously, pupil and iris had
only been painted on to the sculpture but now these also came to be sculpted as had been the
case in bronze and terracotta works. 

Realism once more returned with the Antonines,

and such features as crow’s-feet and flabbiness
return. There was also at this time a trend for
polishing the skin parts of the marble which
then contrasted, in particular, with the hair,
which was deeply carved and left unpolished. In
addition, in this period it became fashionable to
have a complete torso rather than just the The Braschi Antinous
shoulders below the head. (See, for example, the bust
of Commodus as Hercules, c. 190-2 CE in the Capitoline
Museum, Rome). The bust of Caracalla (c. 215 CE) in the same museum is another good
example of the abandonment of idealism in elite portraiture for the emperor has a closely
cropped beard, determined turn of the head, taught mouth and mean-looking eyes which
clearly betray his character. 
By the late Empire elite portraiture becomes
formulaic and abandons all attempts at
realistically capturing the physical attributes of
the subject. Representation of emperors such
as Diocletian, Galerius and Constantine I (see
the colossal bronze head in the Capitoline
Museums), for example, have hardly any
distinguishable physiognomic features, perhaps
in an attempt to assert the emperor’s distance
from ordinary mortals and proximity to the
divine. 
ARCHITECTURAL SCULPTURE ARA PACIS AUGUSTAE

Sculpture on Roman buildings could be merely decorative or

have a more political purpose, for example, on triumphal arches (which most often celebrated
military victories) the architectural sculpture captured in detail key campaign events which
reinforced the message that the emperor was a victorious and civilizing agent across the
known world. A typical example is the Arch of Constantine in Rome (c. 315 CE) which also
shows defeated and enslaved ‘barbarians’ to ram home the message of Rome’s superiority.
Similarly, on columns such as Trajan’s Column (c. 113 CE), the sculpture could show the
emperor as a fine leader - meticulously prepared, militarily innovative and suitably inspiring
to his troops. Such a portrayal of real people and specific historical figures in architectural
sculpture is in marked contrast to Greek sculpture where great military victories were usually
presented in metaphor using figures from Greek mythology like amazons and centaurs such
as on the Parthenon.  
Altars could also be used to present important individuals in a favourable light, perhaps the
first such piece is the altar of Domitius Ahenobarbus from Rome (c. 100 BCE) which may
depict the orator Marcus Antonius. The most famous altar of all is the Ara Pacis of Augustus
(completed 9 BCE) in Rome, a huge block of masonry which depicts spectators and
participants at a religious procession. Unlike later official sculpture the representation of the
emperor is understated but what makes the monument significant is the rendering of the
figures in a state of action. It seems as though they have been captured in a single moment as
in a photograph, a child pulls on a toga, Augustus’ sister tells two chatterers to be silent and
so on.

FUNERARY SCULPTURE
Funeral busts and stelae (tombstones)
were one of the most common forms of
sculpture in the Roman world. These
sculptures could portray the deceased
alone, with their partner, children and
even slaves (see the 1st century CE
gravestone of the corn-merchant
Ampudius, now in the British Museum).
Figures usually wear a toga Roman Sarcophagus (Detail)
and women can hold the pudicitia pose with hand on chin
in remorse. Grave altars were also common and these could
carry relief scenes from the deceased’s life or stock scenes and those of the more wealthy
could portray different generations of family members.
From the 2nd century CE burial (as opposed to the more traditional cremation) became more
common and so a market developed for sarcophagi. These were carved in stone and often had
scenes from mythology sculpted in high relief on all four sides and even the lid. ‘Asiatic’
sarcophagi were the most highly decorated with reliefs cut almost in the round. The
Proconnesian type had sculpture above maidens holding garlands and the ‘Rome’ type had a
blank side for placing the sarcophagi against a wall. By the 2nd century CE the sculpture
could also include a portrait of the occupant, usually in heroic guise, perhaps as a victorious
general or, later still, in a dedicated panel or tondo on the front side. 
OUTSTANDING EXAMPLES
The two large relief panels from the Arch of Titus in Rome are celebrated as the first
successful attempt to create depth and space in sculpture. The panels depict scenes from the
emperor’s triumphal procession in 71 CE following his campaigns in Judaea, one shows Titus
riding a four-horse chariot whilst the other shows the spoils from the temple of Jerusalem. A
perspective is successfully achieved by having the figures recede into the background,
carving the figures in higher relief the closer they are to the foreground, having the relief
higher towards the centre of the scene and having the background of the panel curve slightly
inwards. Thus a bustling scene of depth and movement is created.  
The 3.52 m high gilded-bronze equestrian
statue of  Marcus Aurelius is one of the most
imposing bronze statues surviving from
antiquity. It was probably erected between
176-180 CE at an unknown location in
Rome. The statue commemorated either the
emperor’s victories over the Germanic tribes
in 176 CE or his death in 180 CE. The
remarkable survival of the statue has been
credited to the fact that the emperor may
Temple of Solomon Treasure, have been mistaken for Constantine. Much
Arch of Titus needed restoration work was carried out in the late
1980s CE as the statue had been slowly withering
away in the open air but it now takes pride of place in
a purpose built room in the Capitoline Museums of
Rome.    
The portrait of Commodus as the hero Hercules (c.
190-2 CE) is a striking example of how elite
portraiture in Roman art could be both realistic and
idealistic at the same time. The features of the emperor
are distinctly recognisable and his expression shouts a
self-assured indifference of the onlooker. However,
the artist too, has, either intentionally or not, revealed
something of the arrogance and weakness of this
infamous emperor. In a powerful description by
Mortimer Wheeler:
The smooth and effeminate Emperor with his weak
arms, his flaccid feeble face in its aureole of drilled
and over-barbered hair, reeking of pomade, the
property lion-scalp and club and the tiny ‘apple of the
Hesperides’ in that tenuous manicured hand, is
delicate but brutally expressive charade. No doubt it
delighted, as it revealed, the sadistic pervert whom it
has so faithfully immortalized. (1964, 170)
COMMODUS AS HERCULES
CONCLUSION
Roman sculpture, then, has provided us not only with a priceless record of earlier Greek
masterpieces but it has also contributed great works in their own right. Unique contributions
to the art form include the use of historical narratives and an unprecedented realism in
portraits which could take the form of grandiose emperors dressed as gods or more humble
depictions of lesser mortals which, with the rendering of particular physical features and
emotional expressions, allow us to feel a little closer to a people that lived so long ago.
https://www.ancient.eu/Roman_Sculpture/
ROMAN COPIES OF GREEK STATUES
In the late fourth century B.C., the Romans initiated a policy of expansion that in 300 years
made them the masters of the Mediterranean world. Impressed by the wealth, culture, and
beauty of the Greek cities, victorious generals returned to Rome with booty that included
works of art in all media. Soon, educated and wealthy Romans desired works of art that
evoked Greek culture. To meet this demand, Greek and Roman artists created marble and
bronze copies of the famous Greek statues. Molds taken from the original sculptures were
used to make plaster casts that could be shipped to workshops anywhere in the Roman
empire, where they were then replicated in marble or bronze. Artists used hollow plaster casts
to produce bronze replicas. Solid plaster casts with numerous points of measurement were
used for marble copies. Since copies in marble lack the tensile strength of bronze, they
required struts or supports, which were often carved in the form of tree trunks, figures, or
other kinds of images.
Although many Roman sculptures are purely Roman in their conception, others are carefully
measured, exact copies of Greek statues, or variants of Greek prototypes adapted to the taste
of the Roman patron. Some Roman sculptures are a pastiche of more than one Greek original,
others combine the image of a Greek god or athlete with a Roman portrait head. The meaning
of the original Greek statue often lent beauty, importance, or a heroic quality to the person
portrayed. By the second century A.D., the demand for copies of Greek statues was enormous
—besides their domestic popularity, the numerous public monuments, theaters, and public
baths throughout the Roman empire were decorated with niches filled with marble and
bronze statuary.
Since most ancient bronze statues have been lost or were melted down to reuse the valuable
metal, Roman copies in marble and bronze often provide our primary visual evidence of
masterpieces by famous Greek sculptors. All the marble statues in the central area of the
Mary and Michael Jaharis Gallery at the Metropolitan Museum are copies made during the
Roman period, dating from the first century B.C. through the third century A.D. They
replicate statues made by Greek artists some 500 years earlier during the fifth and fourth
centuries B.C.
Department of Greek and Roman Art, The Metropolitan Museum of Art
October 2002
ROMAN PORTRAIT SCULPTURE: THE STYLISTIC CYCLE
The development of Roman portraiture is characterized by a stylistic cycle that
alternately emphasized realistic or idealizing elements. Each stage of Roman portraiture can
be described as alternately “veristic” or “classicizing,” as each imperial dynasty sought to
emphasize certain aspects of representation in an effort to legitimize their authority or align
themselves with revered predecessors. These stylistic stages played off of one another while
pushing the medium toward future artistic innovations.
In the Republic, the most highly valued traits included a devotion to public service
and military prowess, and so Republican citizens sought to project these ideals through their
representation in portraiture. Public officials commissioned portrait busts that reflected every
wrinkle and imperfection of the skin, and heroic, full-length statues often composed of
generic bodies onto which realistic, called “veristic” (12.233), portrait heads were attached.
The overall effect of this style gave Republican ideals physical form and presented an image
that the sitter wanted to express.
Beginning with Augustus, the emperors of the imperial period made full use of the
medium’s potential as a tool for communicating specific ideologies to the Roman populace.
Augustus’ official portrait type was disseminated throughout the empire and combined the
heroicizing idealization of Hellenistic art with Republican ideas of individual likeness to
produce a whole new scheme for portraiture that was at once innovative and yet
fundamentally based in familiar aspects of traditional Roman art. Augustan (07.286.115) and
Julio-Claudian (14.37) portrait types emphasized the youth, beauty, and benevolence of the
new dynastic family, and in doing so, Augustus set a stylistic precedent that had lasting
impact on Roman portrait sculpture up to the reign of Constantine the Great.
Classicizing idealization in portraiture allowed emperors to emphasize their loyalties
to the imperial dynasty, and even legitimize their authority by visually linking themselves to
their predecessors. Tiberius (r. 14–37 A.D.) (1994.230.7) was not actually related to
Augustus, but his portraits portray a remarkable, and fictionalized, resemblance that
connected him to the princeps and helped substantiate his position as successor. Even
Tiberius’ successor Caligula (r. 37–41 A.D.) (14.37), who had no interest in continuing
Augustus’ administrative ideals and was much more concerned with promoting his own
agenda, followed the Augustan and Tiberian portrait tradition of classical and idealized
features that carried a strong “family” resemblance. However, during the reign of the emperor
Claudius (r. 41–54 A.D.), a shift in the political atmosphere favored a return to Republican
standards and so also influenced artistic styles. Portraits of Claudius reflect his increasing age
and strongly resemble veristic portraits of the Republic. This trend toward realism eventually
led to the characteristic styles of the second imperial dynasty: the Flavians.
The turbulence of the year 68/69 A.D., which saw the rise and fall of three different
emperors, instigated drastic changes in Roman portraiture characterized by a return to a
veristic representation that emphasized their military strengths. Portraits of Vespasian (r. 69–
79 A.D.), the founder of the Flavian dynasty, similarly show him in an unidealized manner.
During the Flavian era, sculptors also made remarkable advancements in technique that
included a revolutionary use of the drill, and female portraiture (38.27) of the period is
renowned for its elaborate corkscrew hairstyles.
 The cycle continued with the portraits of Trajan (r. 98–117 A.D.), who wanted to
emphasize symbolic connections with Augustus and so adopted an ageless and somewhat
idealized portrait type quite different from that of the Flavians. His successor Hadrian (r.
117–138 A.D.) (08.170.118; 08.170.120; 99.35.177), however, went a step further and is
noted as being the first emperor to adopt the Greek habit of wearing a beard. The textual
interplay that was developed in the treatment of Flavian women’s hairstyles was now more
fully explored in male portraiture, and busts of the Hadrianic period are identified by a full
head of curly hair as well as the presence of a beard. The Antonines modeled their portraits
after Hadrian, and emphasized (fictional) familial resemblances to him by having themselves
portrayed as never-aging, bearded adults (33.11.3). Continued development in Roman portrait
styles was spurred by the philosopher-emperor Marcus Aurelius (r. 161–180 A.D.) and his
son Commodus (r. 177–192 A.D.), whose portraits feature new levels of psychological
expression that reflect changes not only in the emperors’ physical state but their mental
condition as well. These physical embodiments of personality and emotional expression later
reach their fullest realization in the portraits of the Severan emperor Caracalla (r. 211–217
A.D.).
In contrast to the full curls typical of Hadrianic and Antonine portraits, Caracalla
(40.11.1a) is shown with a short, military beard and hairstyle that were stippled across the
surface of the marble for a “buzz-cut” effect, also called “negative carving.” He is also shown
with an intense, almost insane facial expression, which evokes his strong military background
and, according to some scholars, reflects his aggressive nature. This portrait type is credited
as having a profound effect on imperial portraiture in the turbulent years to follow his reign,
and many of the soldier-emperors of the third century sought to legitimize their rise to power
by stylistically aligning themselves with Caracalla. As time went on, these stylized aspects
became increasingly prominent, and soon a pronounced attention to geometry and emotional
anxiety permeated imperial portrait sculptures, as evident in the bronze statue of Trebonianus
Gallus (r. 251-253 A.D.)(05.30). This increasing dependency on geometric symmetry and
abstraction contributed to the highly distinctive portraiture utilized by the Tetrarchy, a system
of imperial rule based on a foundation of indivisibility and homogeneous authority shared by
four co-emperors. The portraits of these Tetrarchs emphasized an abstract and stylized
communal image; individualized features were forsaken in order to present them as the
embodiment of a united empire. This message sought to quell the fears and anxieties born out
of years of civil strife and short-lived emperors, and so in this extreme example, the
portraiture of the Tetrarchy cannot be defined as the representation of individuals, but rather
as the manufactured image of their revolutionary political system.
The portraiture of Constantine the Great (26.229), who defeated his rivals to become
sole emperor in 324 A.D., is unique in its combination of third-century abstraction and a neo-
Augustan, neo-Trajanic classical revival. Constantine favored dynastic succession and used
the homogeneous precedents of his predecessors to present his sons as his apparent heirs.
However, he also sought to imbue his reign with aspects of the “good” emperor Trajan, and is
depicted clean-shaven and sporting the short, comma-shaped hairstyle typical of that
emperor. He further disassociated himself from the Tetrarchs and soldier-emperors by having
himself portrayed as youthful and serene, recalling the classicizing idealism of Augustan and
Julio-Claudian portraits. In this way, Constantine’s portraiture encapsulated the Roman
artistic tradition of emulation and innovation, and in turn had great impact on the
development of Byzantine art. (Rosemarie Trentinella, Department of Greek and Roman Art,
MET)