ticularly in the indication of the bony socket and in the roll of flesh which overhangs the outer portions of the upper lid. The handling of the flesh surfaces is masterly, the modelling far superior in its delicate play of light and shade to that of any other member of the group, and the treatment of the hair with its thick curling locks shows remarkable freedom and life in spite of the fact that here again a fixed and definite iconographic scheme is followed. As also in the Augustus the drill was freely used, care being taken to disguise its effects wherever possible; the characteristic boring appears, however, at the corners of the mouth and along the line of the slightly parted lips, within the nostrils, about the ears, and in the deeply undercut folds of the veil. Surfaces are smoothly worked but unpolished, and on close examination reveal clear marks of tooling both with the fine point and the fine tooth chisel.

In its general finish and artistic completeness the work is much superior to the head of Augustus; it possesses, moreover, a distinct and striking personality, not altogether pleasing perhaps, yet far removed from the ideal, almost abstract rendering of the Augustan features. This unpleasant expression, though difficult of analysis, seems to reside in the rather weak and oversubtle line of the mouth, although the slightly oblique cast of the eyes serves also to heighten the impression. And yet the portrait, despite its marked individuality of conception and subtlety of modelling, partakes somewhat of the calm monumentality of the Augustus; in fact each portrait bears clearly the impress of a common atelier, but the hand which moulded the Augustus was far inferior both in technical skill and in penetrative and interpretative power to that which created the portrait before us.

As yet no assumption has been made as to the identity of the portrait under discussion. It is certain, however, that we have here to do with a likeness of Tiberius in his earlier years, not much later, at any rate, than his exile to Rhodes. Although this attribution may at first sight appear unconvincing, a close study of the available evidence will demonstrate that the conclusion is well founded.

The features of Tiberius are well known to us through contemporary portraits and descriptions; hence, having made due allowance for the usual diversity in conception and treatment, we may summarize as follows the characteristic traits of the Tiberian physiognomy. In profile the line of the forehead appears nearly

3

perpendicular save towards the top where it bulges slightly; the nose is vigorous, strongly arched and irregular, and generally rather pointed, the mouth small and receding, and the chin rounded and prominent. The hair is sometimes smooth, sometimes curly, and fringes the forehead in a rather angular profile; according to the description of Suetonius it grew low upon the nape of the neck,2 a trait not particularly stressed in the portraits, although the hair is generally represented as brought forward at the sides of the neck beneath the ears. His face was frank and open, his eyes large, and he walked with neck stiff and held at an oblique angle, his head and face drawn back. This characteristic position of the head is generally rendered in the portraits, though for the most part softened to a slight inclination to the right or left. Of the less apparent traits, which are, however, none the less significant for iconographic purposes, I would mention particularly the distinct upward cast of the eyes and the well marked roll of flesh which stands above the lid at the outer corner:6 also the arching of the brows as they spring outward from the nose, a trait more characteristic of the youthful portraits; the shortness of the upper lip as compared with the lower, and the slight upward slant from left to right of the line of the hair as it passes across the forehead. A more subtle characteristic and one most difficult to distinguish in photographs is the very light line or furrow which extends downward on each side from the corner of the mouth, serving as it were to enclose the chin and give it added prominence; this trait naturally appears more clearly in those works which depict Tiberius as advanced in

1 Cf. Bernoulli, Römische Ikonographie, II, 1, pl. XXXII, Nos. 17-20. 2 Suetonius, Tiberius, 68 . capillo pone occipitium summissiore ut

cervicem etiam obtegeret, quod gentile in illo videbatur.

3 Suetonius, loc. cit.

Suetonius, loc. cit.

Suetonius, loc. cit.

fere vultu.

6

Incedebat cervice rigida et obstipa, adducto

Cf., among many others, the seated statue and the colossal head in the Museo Chiaramonti, Amelung, Die Sculp. des Vat. Mus., Tafelband I, taf. 60; also a bust in the Louvre, Bernoulli, op. cit. II, 1, pl. VII.

'Cf. the works cited, and a head in the Capitoline Museum, Anderson Photographs, No. 1632.

8 Cf. the works cited.

9 Cf. the head in the Capitoline Museum, Anderson Photographs, No. 1632; a colossal head and seated statue in the Museo Chiaramonti, Amelung, op. cit. I, taf. 60; and the head in the Louvre, Bernoulli, op. cit. II, 1, pl. VII, etc.

years,1 yet it is generally present in the youthful portraits as well.2 Finally, there remain to be noted particularly the breadth of forehead and temples, the tapering oval of the face, and the persistently similar arrangement of the locks of hair which frame in the upper part of the face. From the purely iconographic point of view the last mentioned, as also in the case of Augustus, is of prime importance; it appears in its most typical form in the following works: the seated statue in the Museo Chiaramonti;3 a standing draped figure of bronze, in the Naples museum;1 and a head in Berlin.5

Keeping in view the various portraits just mentioned, let us enumerate point by point the characteristic features of the Corinthian head and compare them with the canon as established.

In the first place, then, it is evident that there is considerable divergence in profile (cf. PLATE IX). The forehead is not. perpendicular but slopes backward somewhat, although it should be noted in this connection that our photograph, because of the five-eighths pose of the head, exaggerates unduly this peculiarity; seen in true profile it is much less apparent. As to the bulge at the top, we may assume that it is present, concealed beneath the unusually luxuriant and projecting mass of hair. The nose, too, is less prominent and pointed, and is made to conform more closely to the ideal of classic regularity; we note, however, the characteristic indentation at the bridge as well as the abrupt break in the line of the nose itself. The mouth and chin are much nearer to the general type, particularly as regards the delicate curve of the former, the short upper lip, and the well rounded chin. The profile has, of course, been idealized considerably, yet without in any way altering its essential character; in fact there are extant other well authenticated portraits in which this process of idealization has been carried to even greater lengths."

1E.g. a head in the Capitoline Museum, Room of Caesars, No. 4, Bernoulli, op. cit. II, 1, p. 144, No. 1, Anderson Photographs, No. 1631.

2 Cf. the seated statue in the Museo Chiaramonti, Amelung, op. cit. I, taf. 60,-seated statue, ibid. taf. 67; a gem in Florence, Bernoulli, op. cit. II, 1, pl. XXVII, No. 8.

Amelung, op. cit. I, taf. 67.

Bronzi di Ercolaneo, II, 79, and Museo Borbonico, VII, 43.

Bernoulli, op. cit. II, 1, fig. 22.

Cf., for example, the colossal head in the Museo Chiaramonti, Amelung,

op. cit. I, taf. 60 right.

In full face the forehead seems less broad and the diameter of the head at the temples is apparently diminished, yet this same unusual characteristic is to be marked, for example, in the well known bust in the Louvre.1 It is in the treatment of the eyes and brows, however, that there are to be noted some of the most striking points of resemblance; the eyes are large, they possess to a marked degree the distinctive upward cast2 which is so characteristic of the more youthful portraits of Tiberius, they show the peculiar roll of flesh beneath the brow at the outer corner, and the brows themselves are arched in true Tiberian manner. Furthermore, the lower half of the face, though not so tapering as is sometimes represented, yet furnishes remarkably close conformation to type particularly in the comparative brevity of the upper lip, the delicate, rather sunken curve of the mouth, the prominence of the chin, and the slight perpendicular lines which extend downward from the corners of the mouth. We note, too, the peculiarity mentioned by Suetonius, the stiff neck and the slight inclination of the head observable in the great majority of portraits.

If further confirmation be required it is amply provided by the iconographic scheme in which the locks of hair across the forehead are fixed. Although varied somewhat in different portraits, the same general division and arrangement of the strands holds good throughout, the few exceptions serving rather to prove the rule than to invalidate it. The central parting is either in the middle of the forehead' or very slightly to the left; from this the hair divides in two masses curving right and left respectively, each subdivided into two, sometimes three or more smaller locks;7 at the temples or, more exactly, above the outer corner of each eye, a group of two or three graceful locks curves sharply inward em1 Cf. A. Hekler, Greek and Roman Portraits, pl. 177.

2 Cf. a head in the Capitoline Museum, and another at Copenhagen, A. Hekler, op. cit. pl. 178 a and b; also the bust in the Louvre, Hekler, op. cit. pl. 177, and Bernoulli, op. cit. II, 1, pl. VII.

3 Cf. seated statues in the Museo Chiaramonti, Amelung, op. cit. I, taf. 60 and 67; also bust in Louvre, Hekler, op. cit. pl. 177.

4 For these features cf. our pl. VIII with Hekler, op. cit. pl. 178 a, pl. 177, and with Amelung, op. cit. I, taf. 60 both portraits.

5 Cf. Hekler, op. cit. pl. 176 b.

❝ Cf. our Pl. VIII with Amelung, op. cit. I, taf. 60 centre; also with Bernoulli,

-op. cit. II, 1, fig. 22; and Furtwängler, Collection Sabouroff, pl. XLIII.

7 Cf. our Pl. VIII with Hekler, op. cit. pl. 176 b and pl. 177; also Bernoulli, op. cit. II, 1, fig. 22.

bracing the outer tips of the central mass, while below at the temples and before the ears the hair is brushed forward in a free and unconventional manner.2 Finally, it is only necessary to note the upward slant from left to right of the hair across the forehead, a detail which is peculiarly distinctive of the Tiberian iconography, and to observe that in the Corinthian portrait the

FIGURE 1.-INSCRIPTION FROM CORINTH.

hair is represented

as growing unusually low upon the neck (cf. PLATE IX).

But the final and conclusive proof of

the attribution is pro

vided by an inscrip

tion (Fig. 1, upper

stone) found within the southwest corner of the basilica at about the same level and in the same sort of debris as that in which the head itself was discovered. The inscription, of beautiful monumental character, is engraved upon a polished slab of fine Pentelic marble, three edges of which are original

and show cuttings for the supporting clamps. Although the second word of the first line is extremely puzzling-not only to

1 Cf. our Pl. VIII with Hekler, op. cit. pl. 176 b and 177; Amelung, op. cit. I, taf. 60; or better Anderson Photographs, No. 1453; and Bernoulli, op. cit. II, 1, fig. 22.

2 Cf. Pls. VIII and IX with the works last quoted.

3 Cf. our Pl. VIII with Amelung, op. cit. I, taf. 60 centre; or Anderson Photographs No. 1453; also Hekler, op. cit. pl. 178 a and b; Nibby, Monumenti Scelti d. Villa Borghese, pl. 26; Bust in Naples Museum, Museo Borbonico, XIII, 42, 1; Statue in Naples Museum, Bronzi di Ercolaneo, II, 97, etc., etc.

Measuring .60 m. X.45 m. X.065 m.