Transformation of the caryatid motif from Forum Augusti in urban ensembles of Campania and Roman Spain. Semantics, stylistics and iconography

Shadrina Sof'ya Aleksandrovna ORCID: 0009-0008-5772-4815 Postgraduate student; Department of General History of Art; Lomonosov Moscow State University 119192, Russia, Moscow region, Moscow, Lomonosovsky ave., 27, building 4 sonya434@mail.ru

The upper tier of the colonnades of the porticos of the Forum of Augustus are decorated with caryatid figures, directly repeating the caryatids of the southern portico of the Erechtheion. There are much more figures on the forum, they represent a kind of long frieze. The caryatids alternate with the clypeus, on which the faces of probably Kernunn and Jupiter-Amon are placed. It was also noticed by Paul Zancker ^[25] that the upper tier of the porticos is dedicated to visualization through images of the assertion of power over the provinces – Greece, Gaul and Egypt. 

In the research literature devoted to both the metropolitan ensemble itself and its local repetitions, the motif of caryatids (or their analogue) is considered in the context of the question of the transformation of the "Forum Augusti model". First of all, it is necessary to name one of the first works on this topic – Lucrezia Ungaro ^[20] in her 1997 article for the first time uses the term "Forum Augusti model" in relation, first of all, to the ensembles of three Spanish cities – Corduba, Augusta Emerita and Tarracona, chronologically defining the framework by the era of Julius-Claudius and Flavius. By "model" the author understands the use of those decorative elements that first appear on the August forum: clipeuses with the faces of Jupiter-Amon, caryatids, the statue group of Aeneas and the statue of Romulus. In fact, this article only states the problem, the fact of quoting elements of the visual program of the August Forum in the provinces. A more comprehensive approach is demonstrated by Vibeke Goldbeck's relatively new work "Fora augusta. The Augustus Forum and its reception in the West of the Roman Empire" ^[5]. V. Goldbeck expands the geographical scope of the metropolitan prototype's influence on the western provinces – the territories of Spain, Portugal, France, Switzerland, the Northern Adriatic and North Africa. The author's choice of monuments is based on the presence of one or more elements that formally repeat the decisions of the August forum. There is a fairly extensive bibliography of Spanish territories. Many works devoted to individual archaeological finds or forums in general also use the concept of the "August Forum model". It should be mentioned the works of Antonio Pena, which explores the elements of the August forum in Spanish forums ^[12], as well as the work of U. A thrillmich dedicated to the "reflection of the forum of Augustus" in Roman Spain, where the author for the first time adds the forum in Italy to the three Spanish forums of L. Ungaro ^[18]. Regarding the Campaign region, an important article by Fausto Zevi and Claudia Valeri ^[27] about caryatids and clypeus from Roman Puteoli, which postulates the relationship between the recently opened public area in Puteoli and the forum of Augustus.

This review of publications devoted to individual ensembles is certainly not complete, but it allows us to characterize the methods and goals of research in provincial forums in which the "Urbis model" was adopted. Spanish authors focus on "their" territories, without trying to put Spanish ensembles in a broader context and characterize the phenomenon of borrowing itself. It seems that the selection criterion itself is determined not by the conviction that it is in the forums of Spain that the metropolitan model is most fully reflected, but by the mechanical limitation of the territorial framework. The only attempt to present a complete overview of all the forums that accepted the "model" was made by V. Goldbeck ^[5], however, here, it seems to us, the enumeration and description of borrowed elements prevails over the comprehension of the phenomenon of transfer itself and the new content that takes shape when entering new contexts. This approach seems rather mechanical, since the spread of iconographic schemes and the unity of the figurative system in public spaces on the territory of the Empire does not yet indicate the imitation of a single metropolitan model, especially when the image ceases to interact with each other at the semantic level and radically changes its place in the space of architecture (for example, the image of Jupiter-Amon moves from the attic of the portico on the podium of the temple). Probably, this lacuna is due to the fact that the author has not fully defined the content of the concept of "model", which does not imply the sum or selection of individual elements (clipaeus, caryatids, statues of Aeneas and Romulus, summi viri), but some more complex whole – a system of images, where their symbolic and semantic content is determined by many aspects, in particular, their relationship to architecture, to each other, and their position in space. Newer works are usually devoted only to clarifying the archaeological context without referring to the very essence of the phenomenon ^[24], and also almost does not address the question of the transformation of individual elements and modification of their semantics depending on the cultural and geographical context.

Obviously, despite the extensive historiographical base, the question remains debatable as to what exactly is meant by a "model" and, accordingly, in which ensembles it is reflected. Perceiving the metropolitan prototype, the new ensembles modify some of its motifs to varying degrees, while maintaining the structural logic of the distribution of decorative elements. At the same time, the semantic component that was important for the August forum is inevitably changing and even being lost. The problem of this work is to formulate and clarify the concept of "Forum Augusti models" with a detailed analysis of one of the main motifs of the decoration – caryatid figures or other vertical element placed along the perimeter of the portico between the clipeuses with the faces of deities. It seems that with the obvious absence of this element in the decoration of the portico of the provincial ensemble, there is no need to talk about imitation of the model, since individual iconographic motifs that enter the repertoire of the artistic language of the early Empire period no longer refer to a specific prototype. In this regard, we will make an attempt to trace the transformation of the caryatid motif and identify possible causes of its modification, referring to iconographic and stylistic analyses. To do this, let's turn to three public spaces in the Spanish cities of Augusta Emerita and Tarracon and in the Roman colony of Puteola in the Campania region.

Like the caryatids of the Erechtheion, the figures from the ensemble of the Forum of Augustus were dressed in long flowing robes, revealing their arms, and tied at the waist. However, unlike the Athenian cors, these figures did not have the same quality of statuesque sculpture – their backs were designed, but not in enough detail, which is due to their placement against the background of the wall. The hairstyles are slightly different – three curls are thrown over the shoulders, not two like those of the Erechtheion caryatids. The closest thing to the interpretation of the hair of the caryatid forum is the hairstyle of the figure on the eastern corner of the portico of the Erechtheion: the hair begins to fall on the shoulders closer to the ears than the rest of the figures, whose hair is tucked away at the back of the head and only the tips of the curls descend to the chest. The forearms and wrists were decorated with various bracelets, and the arms were lowered along the body, as in the figures of Erechtheion. In this case, it is obvious that the iconography and stylistics of the original Greek are literally quoted, excluding insignificant changes in details. Judging by the preserved fragments, the heads of the caryatids and the crowns and capitals placed on them were made of a single block of Carrara marble. Unlike the figures of the Erechtheion, here the transition from the hairstyle to the crown and the capitals is smoothed, which creates the impression of a single shape. 

Before turning to non-classical ensembles, where, as it is believed ^[20], the Forum Augusti model was copied, it is necessary to trace the development of the caryatid motif in Rome and its significance. Pliny the Elder (36, 4, 38) indicates that the first Pantheon, built by Agrippa around 25 BC, had caryatid figures ^{[6, p. 33]}.  It is believed that some of the figures of the early temple were moved to Hadrian's villa in Tivoli, where they were placed on the sides of the Canope ^{[1, p. 132]}. These caryatids have more in common with the caryatids from the forum of Augustus than the Erechtheion, more precisely, they repeat the differences in the interpretation of hairstyles that were noted above (the decor of the pater also coincides with the image of bracelets on the forearms) ^{[6, p. 35]}. If the hypothesis is that some of the caryatids in the Tivoli villa originate from the Pantheon of Agrippa, then these caryatids should be a direct stylistic prototype for the Forum Augusti figures. According to Pliny (36, 4, 38), the caryatids from the Pantheon were created by the Athenian master Diogenes, who, obviously, must have been well acquainted with the sculptures of the Erechtheion. There is also a possibility that the caryatids from Hadrian's villa, executed later, copied the figures of the forum of Augustus, which explains their typological and stylistic similarity. In this case, there was no "mediator", and the Erechtheion should be considered a direct source for the frieze of the caryatids of the Forum of Augustus ^{[1, p. 34]}.

The Greek style of the monuments cannot be divorced from the ideological component and visual rhetoric. It plays the role of a form in which the new Roman content is embedded – namely, the domination of Rome over its provinces and their incorporation into the state. The Erechtheion on the Acropolis of Athens is one of the symbols of the Greek world, its heyday in the classical period. We have a direct quotation of the most expressive elements of the Acropolis, placing them in a well–viewed place in the forum Princeps, where the main theme is the triumph and representation of the political power of Rome. Moreover, the deliberate "replication" of these images, turning them practically into a frieze, which has a certain, strictly assigned place in the decoration system of the forum – all this suggests the subordination of the provinces that fell under the rule of Rome over the past century.

One can recall another metropolitan ensemble, where this idea is translated more literally – the Trajan Forum. The similarity of these forums is obvious, but the Trajan complex, as a rule, does not fall into a number of forums created according to the model of the forum of Augustus. The construction of the forum is associated with the victorious Dacian campaigns of the emperor (101-102 and 105-106), and the forum itself was opened in 112. The obvious similarities and differences between the two ensembles make us think about how easily elements are transferred to a new context and, at the same time, are endowed with new content or change meanings with each other. Borrowing and relying on the model is systemic in nature and is not limited to quoting individual elements. It is important that the elements are not transferred by themselves, but taking into account their location in space. The process of transforming the theme of caryatids is interesting: all that remains of them is an idea and a position in space with the function of a dividing element. It is this place that the figures of the Dacian Telamones occupy in such a way that the very image of the captive barbarians strengthens, colors in more pronounced and historically specific triumphant tones the idea of subjugation and integration of the conquered territories, which was already laid down in the caryatids of the forum of Augustus. It should be borne in mind that the Trajan Forum is still a metropolitan complex created by an outstanding architect. The dialogue with the "model" is very creative here, it is obvious that there is a well-thought-out program that, through an appeal to the times of August, represents a new ideological concept in the forum space. A different situation will develop in provincial forums, where the model is adopted with a certain degree of simplification.

In the Spanish territories, the "model" is reflected in the three provincial capitals – Augusta Emerita, Tarracon and Corduba, as well as in the colony of Italica of the province of Betica. In Corduba and Italica, despite the presence of clypeus in the decoration of porticos, there are no fragments of sculpture that could be compared with caryatids or their variations. It's probably a matter of safety.

In August Emerita, during the reign of Augustus or Tiberius, a rectangular square with a temple in the center was built, to which a rectangular portico was completed in a later period, called forum adiectum (added forum) in literature ^{[9, p. 137]}. It is in this area that fragments of clipeuses with the faces of Jupiter-Amon and Medusa, as well as reliefs with female figures, were found. Here they are depicted with their hand raised above their head, in which they hold a vessel. There is a separate type of votive Greek, and then Roman, statuettes, which can include the caryatids of Augusta Emerita. They are female figures carrying a vessel on their head or in an upraised hand, pulling back the edge of their clothes with their other hand – the so-called hydrophores or peplophores. For example, two pink marble statuettes in the Barracco Museum in Rome (inv. № MB 115; inv. No. MB 116), considered to be a Roman work based on the Greek original of the 5th century BC. The figure of peplophora from Puteoli (British Museum) is closer in pose ^{[19, fig. 13]}. She holds the vessel not on her head, but on her shoulder so that the head and vessel are at the same height and together support the entablature, which allows her to be identified as a caryatid by her typology, although small in size. Such a typology is quite common and Schmidt-Colinet distinguishes it into a separate type of Karyatidenschema ^{[16, s. 35]}, which also includes caryatids from the Augusta Emerita forum. It is noted that this variant of the caryatid, when the vessel is placed next to the head under the entablature, is not found in Greek art and can be considered an invention of the Romans ^{[19, p. 190]}. The Emerite case is unique in that the figures wear the Attic-Ionian peplos, which is typical for caryatids like the portico of the Erechtheion, with two arms lowered ^{[16, s. 35]}. So, the caryatids, which look different from the August version, have a certain similarity with them. The reasons for using an iconographic scheme different from the Augustan caryatids, in our opinion, are the change in the cultural context in which this motif finds itself in the Spanish territories. The image of the caryatids as a reference to the conquered people or territories at the August Forum is read only with knowledge and understanding of the entire ideological program of the ensemble. The typology of the hydrophora in the purely Roman version, in which it was used in August Emerita, was better known in the territories of the provinces due to the mobility of fine plastics than the architectural forms of the Erechtheion or their metropolitan copies. For the territory of Spain, it is irrelevant and incomprehensible to use the caryatid as a symbol of domination over Greece or the inclusion of the Greek world in the Pax Romana.

The researchers cite other metropolitan analogies for the hydrophores of Augusta Emerita – also the Augustan figures of the Danaids from the portico near the temple of Apollo Palatine ^{[27, p. 461]}. They were depicted with their hand raised, holding a vessel, the other hand lifting the edge of their clothes, as in the caryatids of Augusta Emerita. The Danaids – filling a bottomless vessel in Hades as punishment for the murder of suitors – should even more express the idea of submission and deserved punishment than the caryatids at the forum of August ^[11]. However, there is a problem of reconstructing the portico and understanding the role of figures in it. U. Trillmich ^{[19, p. 199]}, citing this analogy as a very likely ideological prototype of the decoration of Augusta Emerita, reconstructs the portico of Danaid so that the figures of the hydrophores appear under the entablature and, not being supporting supports, visually appear to them. However, it seems unlikely that such a rare and complex motif, built on an almost illusory game, will be transferred to the Augusta Emerita forum, provided that the rest of the ensemble's design, including the clipeus motif between which the hydrophores are placed, are clearly taken from the August Forum. Perhaps the role was played not by the specific artistic solution of the Palatine temple, but by the archetypal image of the Danaids-hydrophores, who are undergoing punishment, but again, it could hardly have an active ideological load, as it was in the capital.

Regarding Emerite caryatids, the transition from round sculpture to relief is also interesting. This can be taken as a simplification of the sculptural form, which is associated not only with the existing artistic tradition, but also with a change in semantic content. The caryatid figures of the Forum of Augustus ascended in their form to the statues decorating the deep portico, which were perfectly visible from different angles. At the forum, the three-dimensional qualities of the sculptures were no longer so important (therefore, their back side was designed worse), since only frontal perception was assumed. However, the complete transformation of the caryatids into relief would deprive the form of allusions to the Erechtheion. Since in August Emerita the semantic content of the images changes and there is no need to refer to Athens, the need to create a statuesque sculpture disappears.

We see a strong departure from the prototype in the Tarragon, where a relief image of a candelabra is placed between the clipeuses. The ensemble, created according to the Forum Augusti model, is located here at a distance from the central part of the city. Some researchers believe that it could have been a sanctuary of the imperial cult. V. Goldbeck cites a close analogy from the territories of Gaul – a tondo with the face of a deity and a candelabra on the left side (safety affects, but it is quite possible that the tondo was flanked by candelabra) from Arles ^{[5, s. 97]}. Stylistically, the images of the Tarragon and Arles candelabra are really close, but this cannot be said about the relief as a whole. The Arles relief is a single pictorial field filled with floral ornaments. The space between the candelabra and the tondo is filled with ornamental motifs (acanthus, rosettes). Next, the ionic highlights the outer radius of the tondo, the inner part is again decorated with large acanthus leaves and a small circle in the center is reserved for the image of a face, whose beard and hair are also likened to vegetation. However, the face does not belong to Medusa or Jupiter-Amon, but to the river deity ^{[3, p. 109]}. The relief is not connected with the porticos of the forum, it decorated the podium of the temple, being part of a continuous decorative frieze ^{[13, p. 177]}.

The use of a candelabra as a dividing element in a composition with alternating elements (in this case, clypeus) is not very typical of Roman relief. It usually appears in heraldic compositions. The formula with griffins and candelabra appears in the decoration of armor on statues of emperors or as part of a frieze decoration in combination with festoons and floral motifs (the temple of Apollo Sosian and the temple of Antoninus and Faustina in Rome). It can be stated that the candelabra motif is widespread and not tied to any particular context. At the same time, while preserving religious associations as a cult attribute, it is often placed on temples, or used in an official context as the embodiment of the idea of divine patronage of imperial power and triumphal deeds.

Such a radical replacement of the caryatid figure on the Tarracon forum is difficult to explain. Perhaps such a departure from the model might not even allow us to talk about orientation to the August forum, if not for the clipeuses with Jupiter-Amon and Medusa and the function of space. The discrepancy with the usual model is even greater than it was at the Augusta Emerita forum. The motif of the caryatid from the August Forum is reduced to a decoration that does not carry additional semantic loads, in addition to the generally accepted sacred and triumphant sound. It is reduced and replaced so freely that it remains within the framework of the metropolitan model only due to the compositional arrangement in the architecture of the portico.

At first glance, the closest analogues of the caryatids of the Forum of Augustus are the caryatids from Puteoli. They, along with the clipeuses, were found in a certain public area near the Capitol, whose purpose has not yet been precisely determined. Fragments of two caryatids have been preserved, which are stylistically very close to the prototypes of the high classics. This can be read in the drawing of the folds of the peplos, a calm, regular face, in the outline of the eyelids and the elaboration of the hair. However, unlike the caryatids of the Forum of Augustus, the head from the Puteoli was not carved from a single block with a crown and a capital, which makes it related to the original statues of the Erechtheion. In this regard, she is close to the "Type C" caryatid from Hadrian's villa in Tivoli (Tivoli Museum) ^{[6, p. 35]}. 

The combination of the clypeus and the caryatid figure is incredibly close to the metropolitan version, it seems that here the perception of the model is the most accurate. But at the same time, it should be remembered that the Phlegrean Fields region is known for its production of copies from Greek originals. It seems that when repeating the metropolitan model in Puteoli, local craftsmen turned directly to the Greek original, and not to the Roman copies from the Augustus ensemble. Such an appeal directly to the Erechtheion prototype is quite possible, given its popularity in Italy. In this sense, the caryatids decorating the portico of Forum Augusti are more distant from the Greek version than the version of Puteoli. Here, the craftsmen follow the same path that we find in the Spanish territories, turning specifically to the local tradition and local craftsmen to reproduce the Urbis model. We are inclined to believe that such freedom in the transformation of the prototype, up to the change of the figurative motif itself and its semantic meaning, is a distinctive feature of the phenomenon of perception of the Forum Augusti model, and the most important is the architectural logic of its placement in the space of the portico. 

Thus, we have tried to clarify the concept of the "Forum Augusti model", to define the boundaries of the transformation of its components in terms of stylistics, iconography, typology and symbolic content within provincial complexes, whose solution dates back to the Roman prototype. Attention was paid to the analysis of one of the most important motifs – the caryatid figure. In the original, in the forum of Augustus, it bears the symbolic meaning of Rome's domination over Greece, which is further confirmed in the images of the Dacians in the forum of Trajan, which already directly refer to the captive barbarians conquered by the emperor. We were able to consider two public areas on the territory of Roman Spain, which represent the "caryatid motif" in a completely different way, while maintaining a visual reference to the capital's original.

In August Emerita, hydrophores are placed between the clypeus with the faces of Jupiter-Amon and Medusa, which at the same time remain "caryatids", since they visually "carry" an entablature. This image is ambiguous. The idea of presenting mythological Danaids at the Augusta Emerita forum does not seem convincing enough, rather it is about the irrelevance of the motive of conquered Greece for Spain. Thus, instead of the Erechtheion caryatids, a motif appears that is well known in local fine plastics and suitable from the point of view of architectural logic for the decoration of the attic of the portico. The strongest departure from the caryatid figure is given by the Tarragon, where an image of a candelabra is placed between the same clypeus with the faces of Jupiter-Amon. This image is quite diverse and can replace the caryatid figure for the same reason as in August Emerita: when reproducing the "model", it is not so important to preserve the symbolic meaning, which is irrelevant for the provinces and, perhaps, it is not at all clear how much the reproduction of the architectural logic of the decorative design of the portico is. In this sense, the image of the candelabra does not break out of this scheme at all, being a universal decorative element found everywhere in imperial art and working as a vertical dividing element between the clipeuses. The design of an as yet unidentified architectural ensemble on the territory of the Puteola colony is most interesting for our study. Of all the proposed options, it is at the same time the closest to the prototype and an absolutely local original version created by a local workshop. The stylistic proximity to the metropolitan prototype is obvious, we can also talk about the general tendency to imitate the Urbis model in the Campaign area at this time in different cities and public spaces of the region. But there is every reason to believe that when reproducing the "Roman model", the caryatid figures were copied directly from the Greek original or from a good copy of the Campanian workshop, and not from the caryatid figures at the forum of Augustus.

So in Puteoli, as well as on the territory of Spain, the use of local tradition does not feel like a departure from imitation of Rome, but the structural logic of the distribution of scenery is taken as a basis, and not a direct copy of the metropolitan sample. Being mobile in iconographic and figurative schemes, this logic remains rigid in terms of the interaction of decorative elements in the space of ensembles. Thus, we believe that when clarifying the concept of "Forum Augusti models", it is important to take into account precisely this architectural logic of decoration, without focusing solely on iconographic schemes that are common to the artistic language in almost the entire Empire, no longer referring to a specific prototype.