Could the Portland Vase really have been made for Caesar Augustus?

Stephen Pollock-Hill

The Portland Vase, discovered in the grave of Roman Emperor Alexander  Severus, (200-224 AD),  in 1582, on the Monte del Grano, a few miles south of Rome, is probably the most famous and valuable piece of glass in the world. But four major mysteries remain. Who made it? How was it made? Who was it made for? And, who are the seven figures portrayed? It has a well documented history, from its discovery up to the present day, and is as important as any other Roman artefact. It is a prized possession of The British Museum and has inspired major artists by its beauty and rarity. Artists like Josiah Wedgwood, who borrowed it to help him create and make his jasper ware, (which is still in production), William Blake, who sketched it, and John Evelyn, the diarist who marvelled at it. The vase was broken twice: firstly, early in its life, when a replacement disc for the base was made, perhaps by a different artist as the colours and engraving styles are different; and then, more recently, smashed on February 7th 1845 by a vandal at the British Museum into over 200 fragments and painstakingly, (twice) glued together. In 1840 it inspired Stourbridge glassmaker, Benjamin Richardson, to offer a prize of £1,000, to anyone who could make a good copy. In 1873 Paul Pargeter, a glassmaker, made a copy and John Northwood did the cameo engraving.  This 125 year old copy is a much prized possession of the Corning Glass Museum, in New York State.

By using a bit of logic and detective deduction, it is possible to answer some of the above questions. The answers below throw a whole new light on this glass masterpiece, and may make it not only older than previously thought, but perhaps even an important and vital component in the success of the Roman Empire. This is a daring claim and readers will have to judge for themselves the strength of the argument.

Dating the vase

The vase was originally thought to have been made in the first century AD. This dating was based on the discovery of similar Roman cameo glass in the ruins of Pompeii, buried in the Vesuvius eruption of the morning of the 25th August 79 AD. Since then the vase has been dated to around 5 BC to 25 AD by The British Museum, its keeper. The reason for this dating was that this was the earliest that mouth blown glass had been found. However, it can be argued that the vase is about 30 years older than that, and there are clues that support this re-dating. Recently mouth blown glass has been discovered in ruins in Jerusalem dating from 80 BC and therefore the Portland Vase could have this earlier date. It is unfortunate that there is no carbon dating process for glass which could provide a definitive answer. There is another theory that the vase was not mouth blown but made by the core technique, but this is not convincing.

Consider the fact that Pompeii was a very wealthy town, full of Roman-owned villas overlooking the Bay of Naples, and that some of its citizens would have had valuable artefacts; like the comparison to Mayfair, the Wirral, Brighton or Sandbanks, Dorset. It is unlikely that all the pieces of cameo glass would be new. As well as new items it is likely that some would have been inherited family artefacts and some would have been acquired “antique” treasures by the nouveaux riche, designed to show their taste and also to hide their simple origins. Then, as now, owning antiques confers an aura of wealth from past generations. Therefore, based on current discoveries, much of the cameo work could have been made earlier than 5 BC, but not before 80 BC because no glass-making cameo studio that could have made them has been found among the excavations in Pompeii. According to recent research by Dr Paul Roberts, Curator of Roman Antiquities at the British Museum and his team, it is generally recognised that over 90% of all Roman cameo glass has been discovered in Rome. This means that the vase was probably made in Rome, perhaps in as few as one or two small studios. The name of the glassmaker, or team head (gaffer), will probably never be known, but there is a fair chance that the engraver was a Greek, called Dioskourides. This is deduced from a signed gem (now in the collection of the Duke of Devonshire), depicting Diomedes, a Greek warrior (see fig 4). The work and style looks to be identical to that of the Portland Vase. There are known portraits by Dioskourides of both Julius Caesar and Caesar Augustus. Could this be a key to unlocking a “Da Vinci Code” scale mystery? Bearing in mind that Caesar Augustus died in 17 AD at the age of 77 it follows that if the engraver was contemporary to the greatest of all Roman Emperors, the vase would also have been contemporary; ie.30-40 BC rather than as late as 25 AD. 

Who was the vase made for?

Even more startling is the possibility that it may have been made for the aspiring Octavius, later named Caesar Augustus, perhaps to his own design, (or at least he could have had an input), prior to his election to help him secure the supreme position. This could not be before 40 BC and not later than 27 BC when he reached the pinnacle of his power and became emperor; a period of less than thirteen years. This ties in nicely with the facts known about the engraver. A case can be made to narrow this dating further. It is unlikely that the engraver, Dioskourides, lived as long as Augustus, who died in his seventy sixth year, a great age for the time. If he had also engraved Julius Caesar, during his lifetime, (and there seems little point in engraving him after his death, when another ruler was in power), there is a good chance he was older than Octavian. This points to the last part of the last century BC. To acquire his skills he must have been in his late twenties, early thirties, and bearing in mind normal deterioration in eyesight, and without the benefit of spectacles, he would probably have been under fifty as superb eyesight is needed to engrave such fine detail. Again, further proof that 40-27 BC is likely is that Julius Caesar attained full power in 27 BC. Although there are a lot of “ifs” and “buts” many other aspects of this two thousand year old unsolved riddle begin to fall into place if we follow this scenario. Below is a new date theory and also an explanation as to the identities of the seven figures.

Who are the figures?

The question of who the figures represent has puzzled dozens of experts for nearly four centuries. There are over fifty different theories as to who the figures are. The only unequivocally identified one is Cupid. Most of the represented figures are either from antique legend, gods and goddesses, like Apollo, Paris, Theseus or real people like Alexander the Great. A reading of the extensive list of possibilities, a list which there is little purpose in reproducing, raises the questions of, “Why him or why her?”  Surely there must be a logical reason for the choice of figures. Most previous analysis has been made by Greek or Roman historians, or archaeologists. However, taking the alternative perspective of a glassmaker and designer with the experience of helping hundreds of customers design, choose and select suitable gifts and commissions to commemorate a significant event or date reveals a different understanding of the choice of figures. Throughout history the choices of images chosen to be engraved on glass, be they initials, dates, crests, coats of arms, or other images, are personally chosen precisely because of their significance to the recipient of the item. Then, as now, the choices of images would have been chosen carefully and specifically because of their significance and meaning.

To understand the choice of figures on the vase it is necessary to consider some Roman History.

Caesar Augustus, as he became known later, was the first and greatest of all the Roman emperors and held power from about 40 BC, until his death in 14 AD. He was originally born Octavius, the son of a Roman senator and provincial governor, Gaius Octavius. Gaius Octavius came to prominence by putting down the rebellion of a tribe called the Thurii in 60 BC and died when Octavius was only four. It was he who added the name Thurinus to his young son’s birth names. His wife Atia, Octavius’ mother, however, had dynastic blood; her mother was Julius Caesar’s sister, Julia. This made Octavius a great nephew of Julius Caesar and therefore part of the “royal Julian family.” It meant that he was closely related to the (then) greatest emperor; the emperor who gave the name Caesar to Rome. Octavius served alongside his uncle on campaigns and was adopted by Julius Caesar in his will. Hence his full name was Gaius Julius Thurinus Octavius, today commonly called Octavian, or later, Caesar Augustus. He is mentioned in the Bible at the time of Christ.

Seeing as the vase is likely to be contemporary to Octavian’s life it is reasonable to assume that it may depict some facts from his life. The first three figures (cover, left image) portray a courting couple, arms outstretched towards each other in a loving gesture, with Cupid hovering above. Dr. Susan Walker, of the Ashmoleum Museum and former deputy keeper of Roman artefacts in the British Museum, is an expert on the Portland Vase. She believes these figures to be Anthony and Cleopatra. The Lovers and the snake-like creature make this at first appear highly likely. But other factors should be taken into consideration. Octavian’s mother, Atia, is reported, by contemporary sources, (namely Suetonius a former British consul and historian who lived about fifty years later) to have had a dream when she fell asleep at the temple of Apollo, God of the sun, music, poetry and prophecy. In this dream, recounted by Suetonius, she dreamt that Apollo sent, or disguised himself as a serpent (snake or sea serpent, we are not sure), which impregnated her. (Zeus/Jupiter often adopted animal form to seduce a beauty e.g., a bull to seduce Europa). When she awoke, on her stomach was a birth mark shapedlike a snake that stayed on her belly until she gave birth to Octavian, when it disappeared. A careful look at the reptile on the vase reveals that, given the choice of it being either a snake or a “ketos,” a sea serpent then the latter is more probable seeing as it appears to have ears. The fact that it is emerging from between her legs should preclude Cleopatra, for although she loved snakes she preferred Mark Anthony as a lover.

Who then, would commission the vase? An obvious candidate is Mark Anthony. However, he seems an unlikely candidate as he was in Egypt a great deal, not Rome, and the vase is Roman and not Egyptian. Also it needs to be explained how it could have ended up over two hundred years later in an emperor’s tomb unless it had been handed down though the imperial family. Finally, Egyptian hairstyles and dress of the period were very different to Roman styles. It is unlikely that Cleopatra would have adopted Roman dress.  And if the engraver intended it to be Cleopatra, who visited Julius Caesar in Rome when Queen of Egypt, he would have portrayed her as such. Note the hair style shown on a contemporary coin (Figure xxx).

The theory that Cleopatra is portrayed in Roman garb is an improbable one. The question needs to be asked as to why there is an on looking God-like creature observing both of them? Dr Walker thinks it is Antonius, an ancestor of Mark Antony. Whilst acknowledging Dr Walker’s great erudition and expertise on the subject her theory must be challenged. There is an alternative explanation. The leering on-looking God-like figure on their right could be the god, Apollo. It cannot be a coincidence that Atia’s dream took place at the temple of Apollo. Was the sea serpent sent by him? This is the hardest puzzle to solve. Apollo is usually displayed as a handsome youth, son of Zeus and Leto, whose twin was the huntress Artemis. Associated with healing, he could bring good health or plague, and the ability to cure. He is usually seen with a lyre and a snake (not a sea serpent). The reason for this is that when he was young he wrestled with a mighty serpent called “Python” and tamed it. Apollo’s son was Asclepius, the god of healing, which explains why the medical symbol for medicine and doctors is a staff with two snakes intertwined. It is called the Asclaupian staff and is not to be confused with the Caduceus of Hermes. Asclepius was brought up by the centaur Chiron, and went on to have two children, Hygea and Panacea, (the origin of two commonly used English medical terms) and is always shown with a beard. Dr. Walker postulates this figure is Anton, ancestor of Mark Anthony. But the theory that this figure is Asclepius is unconvincing as there is no staff shown on which he could have carried the snake. As this figure is an onlooker there is another theory that fits better. There is the possibility that this character be Aeneas, second only to Hector in heroic status, one of the few Trojans to escape the city of Troy after its sacking by the Greeks and their wooden horse. He was the son of Aphrodite/Venus and Anchises. He is significant because he is a direct ancestor of the Julii clan, who founded Rome in 753 BC, from whom, via Julius Caesar, Atia Julius Balba, Octavius’ mother was directly descended, (her mother Julia was his sister!). A famous ancestor, and a founder of Rome, would be best placed to witness the impregnation of Atia by Apollo’s serpent with the seed of the future “father of Rome” and the greatest ever Emperor, that Octavius was to become. Aeneas was also known to be a favourite of Apollo and Poseidon. It was Aeneas, the Trojan who carried his elderly father away from Troy on his back.

Consider this ubiquitous quote:  “Aeneas had an extensive family tree. His wet-nurse was Cieta, and he is the father of Ascaneus with Creusa and of Creuseus with Sylvinia. the former, is also known as Iulus (Julius), founded Alba Longa and was the first in a long series of kings. According to the mythology outlined by Virgil in the Aeneid, Romulus and Remus were both descendants of Aeneas through their mother Rhea Silvia, making Aeneas progenitor of the Roman people. Some early sources call him their father or grandfather, but, considering the commonly accepted dates of the fall of Troy (1184 BC) and the founding of Rome (753 BC) this seems unlikely. The Julian family of Rome, most notably Julius Caesar and Augustus, traced their lineage to Ascanius and Aeneas, thus to the goddess Venus. Through the Julians, the Palemonids also make this claim. The legendary kings of Britain also trace their family through a grandson of Aeneas, Brutus.” This quote supports the idea that there is a message conveyed in this figure on the vase; a message that seeks to portray Octavius as having an illustrious ancestry conveyed in the form of a vitreous family tree.

are being blessed by Cupid hovering above and, on the right, events are being closely followed by a somewhat speculative Apollo, stroking his beard in contemplation. The scene appears to fit the known facts or legend, complete with the admiring ancestor.

The figures on the reverse side of the vase ( cover, right image).

On the reverse side of the vase there is the key figure of a strong, seated naked male figure looking rather secure and serene. He is observing two women, both seated and both looking back at him.  A comparison of this face and those in figs 6,7,8 & 9 raises the question whether or not this Octavian. The central lower seated female figure looks the elder of the two and is carrying a down-turned flambeau above broken books or stone slabs; not a fortuitous omen. The other younger one seems to be catching the attention of the seated male figure. We need to consider Octavian’s life. He married three times, once when very young, but the marriage was not consummated, and then he married Scribonia.  Maybe a pun is intended as under the figure there is a book, or a binder of writings and “scribere” means to write in Latin below here,? This apparently intellectual, austere lady lasted less than two years as his wife, from 34-32 BC, (he is reported to have described her as having a shrewish disposition and having been already wed to two ex consuls before he married her), when he met Livia, a beautiful young mother, (picture right). She was a most remarkable character, perhaps one of the most famous and notable women in Roman history. They fell instantly in love and she divorced her husband and married Octavian within weeks. Her son, Tiberius, by her previous husband became Octavian’s eventual heir and future emperor,. This gap between second and third wife happened in exactly 31BC. That fits neatly into the time window above of 40BC- 23BC. This means it may be possible to get closer to the real date.  There is another alternative for the middle woman. Octavius had a sister, Octavia, who married Mark Anthony, another consul, until he sided with Cleopatra to overthrow Octavius. This was far better known story, and after Mark Antony’s suicide following his defeat at Actium in BC 31, Octavia was married to another leading Roman. Her unhappy life could be portrayed by the broken tablets and downcast flambeau. The events of Octavian’s career around this date are significant. He defeated Mark Antony, the second of three proconsuls, and Cleopatra at the battle of Actium in September 31 BC and both committed suicide shortly afterwards. In January 27BC, Octavian surrendered all his power to the Senate, as he wished to avoid the fate of his famous uncle, but, in fact, was continually elected consul between 31 and 23BC. This latter date is about when he was called “Augustus”, meaning sacred or revered, and is recognised as Caesar Augustus. He was known in retrospect as the father of the Pax Romana; a period over over 200 years of Roman peace and power. He preferred the term “princeps” (first citizen, from which comes our term Prince). He kept also the title “imperator” meaning military chief of staff, from which we get the term emperor. He fell gravely ill in 23BC and again amended the Roman constitution. After his recovery, in 19 BC he was confirmed with power for life. In 12 BC the other consul Leipidus died, which meant the title “pontifex maximus” fell to Octavian. The best way of demonstrating his ambition for the supreme position would have been  to commission an incredible vase, a wonder technique of the age, complete with his life story to date engraved upon it. This gives a date of between 23 and 31 BC. A date much later than this and the reference to Scribonia would be outdated. Also if we ascribe a later date the political point would be irrelevant  unless it was engraved for Tiberius; although this is unlikely as  he was not Octavius’ son. If it had been made any earlier then Livia and Octavius would not have met.

What is certain of is that whoever commissioned this vase must have been fabulously wealthy. It was the Roman equivalent of Damien Hurst’s infamous silver skull encrusted with diamonds. It was a clever piece of political manipulation. No doubt all the prominent people in Rome who came to see Octavian would have seen the magnificent vase, or more probably amphora, and were perhaps served wine from it. They could not have failed to have been impressed by it. One can imagine how his guests would have comprehended the meaning and significance of the imagery:  Apollo, indicating Octavian’s divine antecedents; Aeneas, the on-looking founder of Rome and ancestor; Gaius Octavius, his respected late father; and the two handles with the heads of a satyr, perhaps Sagittarius, the archer, Octavian’s birth sign.

So, if the obverse portrays Octavian’s inflated pedigree, could the reverse portray his well-known divorce and remarriage? 

There is also another interesting layer to the propaganda value of the vase. Whilst on his mother’s side Octavian could justly claim he had “Julian” blood, Mark Anthony, his rival, jibed at his relatively humble male ancestry by referring to him as “moneychanger” or “horsedealer.” Octavian must have found this slur on his male lineage galling; especially so, when Mark Anthony could claim descent from Antonius, a well known Roman senator and much respected elder of Rome. All the more reason, then, for Octavian to promote the family legend that he was descended directly from Apollo and Aeneas, and other heroes. To be the son, albeit an illegitimate one, of a God would clearly increase his credibility. It is difficult to imagine a better medium for propaganda than the commissioning of an astonishing amphora and wonder of the age, along with its depiction of the legend of the sea-serpent. It is interesting to speculate whether Mark Antony ever saw the vase while still a friend and co-consul with Octavian. It seems unlikely that he did. 

The Portland Vase could even have been a wedding gift for Octavian and Livia from an aspiring senator or very wealthy merchant, or even from Livia herself. It is fascinating to speculate on the role the vase played in history but, sadly, we will never know how important that role was. The vase may have even played a crucial part in shaping his career. But part of the allure of the vase is our ability to wonder about its place in history; potentially it had an importance out all proportion to the broken and neglected artefact whose significance has been lost. Perhaps it should be called “The Augustan Amphora or Urn.”

Precedence for the Octavius connection

It could be argued that the case for the vase being commissioned by or for Octavius is a rather fanciful idea. We need to consider the likelihood of Octavius undertaking such a commissioning. There are precedents for this. In a fascinating exercise in political spin, Augustus and the Roman establishment connived together to cloak the new despotic order with historic legitimacy. Everyone knew that the old system of governance that had evolved when Rome was simply a local power in central Italy and as such was inadequate to the task of running a massive empire. But the Romans' self-image was of a nation faithful to its traditions and its roots. So Augustus' first step was formally to return power to the Senate and to rehabilitate the republic after its years in humiliating suspension. In practical terms the restoration meant little more than treating a handful of patrician families with passing respect and turning up now and again to their meetings. However, Senate had huge symbolic significance. Although powerless, it was restored to its role as constitutional ruler. Senatus Populusque Romanus – SPQR – then delegated power to its chief executive, the emperor. And to avoid any doubt in this matter, Augustus was declared a god.

Virgil and the Aeneid
At the same time, Augustus turned to Virgil, the pre-eminent poet of the day, and gave him a huge commission amounting to 10 million sesterces to create an epic lineage for him. After three years, Augustus asked Virgil if he could see some of the work in progress. Virgil said he had nothing worth showing. And six years later, when he died, Virgil left instructions that what he had written should be destroyed. Augustus overruled him and what we have is the Aeneid. The myth that Virgil created for the emperor told the story of how Aeneas, a Trojan, escaped from the crushing defeat by the Greeks and set off on a voyage that eventually took him to Italy. There he slew the local hero of the town of Latinus in single combat, claimed leadership of the Latins and merged them with the remnants of Troy. Despite his epic's elegant verse, you can see why Virgil thought he had failed. One of his aims in writing this was to dispel any idea that Rome was inferior to Greece. However, the Aeneid shows its Greek pedigree in every line. At times it's almost like a translation of the great Homeric epics.

Another of Virgil's aims was to create a heroic foundation myth for Rome. But Aeneas is a man afflicted by doubt, hounded by his goddess mother and made treacherous to his love by sanctimonious duty. This ambivalence is embedded in Rome's true history.

Damage, repair and a new role for the vase

Another mystery is the significance, maker and date of the disc.  Dr Susan Walker suggests that there is another possibility as to the use of the vase: a cinerary vase. If so, perhaps it could have been commissioned by Livia, his surviving widow, and made to contain the emperor’s ashes and appropriately engraved with scenes of his conception and life upon it. As far as is known, relics from Augustus’ tomb in the Mausoleum he built have never been found and were probably pillaged. This may explain why it was found in another emperor’s tomb who was interred two hundred years later.

At some point the base of the vase was broken, and the replacement disc made (cover picture).  Originally the vase could have been an amphora but, when it was damaged, was then repaired with the addition of the disc. The disc was made by another studio in different coloured glass and decorated by another engraver’s hand. Left in its baseless state it would have been useless as an amphora. Even with the disc fitted it would not have held wine and so it would still have been unfit for its original purpose. Also the vase would have looked comparatively unattractive, what with the colour and the new engraving not matching. Perhaps the vase was repaired with its potential use as Augustus’ cinerary urn in mind. Wine could not be put into a “vase” without a base, but with a repair it could be pressed into service as a container f or ashes.

The figure on the disc wearing the Phrygian hat, with a look of contemplation on his face, could be saying, “Behold the achievements of this remarkable man!” (c.f. “Look upon my Mighty works and despair” … to quote Shelley!), and need not be any specific person. Suggestions that the figure is Paris contemplating the three goddesses, as some have suggested, do not seem plausible. However, more likely is that he could be a representation of Virgil, done at a later date, who, as mentioned above, Caesar Augustus much admired. The image says more than any words could possibly say to sum up such a successful life; a success which lead to Rome’s total world dominance? Contemplating Caesar Augustus’ life would leave anyone wondering and speechless... and this is exactly the sentiment the character seems to be expressing.

Summary

Thus the seven figures on the vase are: Octavian’s father, Gaius Octavius; his mother, Atia Julius Balbona; Cupid; Aeneas, the founder of Rome;  Octavian himself as Caesar Augustus; Scribona, his second wife, or more likely Octavia his recently widowed sister; and finally, Livia his third wife, whose son Tiberius succeeded Augustus as Emperor. This is a new interpretation and is presented here for evaluation and to stimulate discussion. Agreed that it is just another theory, but it is a theory that answers many more of the questions raised by this fantastic glass wonder than any previous interpretations. It is based on the latest common knowledge, more so than all of the previous ones. With this new theory much more of the jigsaw puzzle of facts appear to fit and less questions remain unanswered. Whatever else, the one certainty is that this magnificent piece of Roman craftsmanship will continue to intrigue and puzzle the experts and laymen for many years to come, and I am sure others will attempt to reveal the Portland Vase’s hidden secrets in years to come.

About the author

*Stephen Pollock-Hill has been a glass manufacturer for over forty years. In fact, he started at the age seven in 1955, in the packing department of the family company on Saturday mornings, earning 2/6d.  He is Chairman of The British Glass Education Trust (since 1982), a Council Member of The British Glass Manufacturer’s Confederation (British Glass), the industry trade association, and son of a past president, a member of both the Glass Circle and The Glass Association, and a liveryman since 1973 of The Glass Sellers Company.  His father was also a Fellow of the Society of Glass Technology.

In 2007 he opened the Nazeing Glass Museum of 20thCentury British Domestic Glass to display his private collection of over 3,000 glass artefacts, and has set about  completing short histories of all the known British Domestic glass factories of the 20th century- some 87 at the last count!

Stephen intends to make twelve accurate reproductions of the Portland Vase by 2012: taking advantage of all the latest analytical techniques to get as close as possible to the original composition. Then he will commission twelve different interpretations of the vase using twelve different cameo glass engravers. This explains his  fascination and detailed study of this magnificent vase.

All images of the vase, here and on the cover, copyright The British Museum.

The remains of Emperor Caesar Augustus’ villa on the Palatine Hill, where he lived in the years before he became Rome’s absolute ruler were found in 1960. They have just been restored and opened to the public, see www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1581209/Augustus-home-opens-after-40-year-