Paul Zanker explores the power of visual imagery and imagery of language used during the Age of Augustan, such as conflicts and contradictions with imagery, rival images and the struggle for power, a turning point—the use of a new style, Augustus’ cultural program and renewal of Rome, and mythical foundations. The goal of his book is to examine images and their power and how they were used as a visual communication during the age of Augustan. He uses archaeological materials, such as monuments, coins, statues, architecture and buildings, as well as literary sources, both historical and poetic to accompany his research. He has an inductive approach to his research. Meaning, he first observes all the data (images), and then sees a pattern, which is the use of the mythological ancestry, and then proposes a hypothesize, which is: How does Augustus use visual imagery to solidify his rule? What was Augustus’ intention with visual imagery and how did he use visual language as part of his cultural restoration program of Rome?
I found his theory a little contradictory itself; his theory is that Augustus had a plan for his entire reign and that his plan was to use images to evoke power to restore the Roman Empire, and yet at the same time he argues that the visual language changed throughout his reign and created a new method of communication. Before Actium, Augustus’ images were focused on the mythological past and after Actium, they were focused on the restoration of the Republic’s morals and virtues.
Since Zanker’s work is very in depth, in order to answer his main research question, he first gives his readers insight into conflict and contradiction of images—that is, how the Roman elites viewed Hellenistic artwork and how they used artwork themselves. The Roman elites found Hellenistic artwork to be foreign because the Hellenistic statues were naked (an “immoral affrontery” ), while Roman statues were robed in togas. Senators restricted the erection of monuments amongst generals and figureheads. However, those that had money in Rome, privately constructed statues and monuments for themselves and their family, just as in the example of a tomb monument to a freedman M. Vergilius Eurysaces, and the tomb of Caecilia Metella. These viewpoints shared by the elites helps the audience to understand the gradual shift of the usage of Hellenistic style art to the outright adoption of their usage by Mark Antony and Augustus.
In his chapter on rival images, Zanker does a convincing job at showing how both Mark Antony and Augustus used the mythical past to connect themselves to Alexander the Great: Antony used Dionysus and Augustus used Apollo. Zanker mentions that this self-gratification and aggrandizement was most influential during the civil war between the two men, but that after Actium, the power of images changed yet again. The images shifted focus to virtues and morals.
Zanker explains this shift as Augustus’ ‘cultural program’. The cultural program focused on a restoration of morals and attempted to achieve a change in public thinking—to think on higher things, such as pietas and reverence for the gods. His argument is focused on a few key buildings: the Mausoleum, the Temple of Apollo, and the Forum Augustus. These were important to the cultural program because they were buildings in the public sphere. The Mausoleum is next to the Temple of Apollo, which was also part of the cultural program—to build new temples for the gods. The Mausoleum was also grand in size.
Nevertheless, even the architecture on the monuments themselves were important. The ‘Vines of Paradise’ drawn on many monuments and buildings became a leading symbol. Vines showed growth, Zanker writes, “new shoots in all directions” —which perhaps referenced the power of imperialism and conquering the east. The vines were also “signs of fertility and abundance” and "law and order.” Zanker persuasively shows that images had power and were extremely important in the Age of Augustan, not only at solidifying Augustus’ rule by a connection to a mythical past, but also how visual language was used to morally restore Rome, which leads me to my final point.
I think that Zanker’s work improves our understanding of Roman emperorship. It is a view point I have not read before regarding the Roman emperorship of Augustus. I liked his approach of using the images—monuments, coins, statues, and buildings—accompanied with the literary sources to argue his point. I think it is persuasive in some regards. On the other hand, his argument is not convincing, when he states that Augustus had a plan his entire reign on how to evoke power through images. However, Zanker gives a literary example to support his argument. When Augustus was a young boy, others would feed him information about his divinity and lineage from prophetic things they saw in the stars and sky. I can see how he used this as a way to show his audience that Augustus may have had these thoughts engrained in him since he was a young child, and this allowed him to use such images for his own reign and purposes. However, I don’t agree that this was Augustus’ master plan of using images to evoke power and pietas from the beginning to end of his reign. The power of the images shifted overtime and thus, it shows a shift in planning. (Even to Zanker, the shift was after the Battle of Actium.)
One final remark is how Zanker relates or compares to other scholars, such as Jean-Louis Ferrary, Fergus Millar, John Rich, and Ronald Syme, who also wrote about Augustus, his power, and the Principate. I feel that Ferrary and Syme’s arguments on how Augustus’ powers came from his various titles, could connect with Zanker’s point of how Augustus’s power came through images. Titles and images are usually found together (although not all the time) in instances of coinage, inscriptions, and building or monument dedications. As Syme explains the changing of nomenclature over different parts of Augustus’ reign, so too does Zanker explain the change of images over different parts of Augustus’ reign.