American Academy in Rome - Role Models Abstract

Glenys Davies

Body language - the way the body is posed, direction of the gaze, the clothes chosen and the way they are worn - has been shown in recent years to be a crucial element in our perception and judgement of others. Many modern manuals claim to teach us how to "read" such signals (which are often given out without the conscious intention of the person concerned) and how to project the message we wish to convey to others. Body language is an essential element in the construction of identity. But at the same time there are strong gender differences in the ways people are expected to behave, including their posture when seated and standing, the amount of space they occupy, and the degree of eye contact they make with others. This paper will explore the ways such body language was used by Roman sculptors of the late republic and imperial period to express perceived gender differences and will argue that portrait statues did not only reflect societal values - they also reinforced them. They act as models of correct behaviour, especially when the subjects are members of the imperial family or other individuals of high social standing.

Analysis and comparison of a series of standing and seated male and female figures reveals significant differences in body language which express the dominance of the male over the female in Roman society. Men could, unproblematically, be represented in open, confident and commanding poses: expressing a woman's more anomalous position in society was more difficult, as the sculptor had to acknowledge her right to a commemorative statue while denying her full equality with male portrait statue subjects. This resulted in a more subtle and complex use of body-language codes. It is noticeable that the sculptured models for many of the body types used for portrait statues of women derive from hellenistic Greek originals ("Pudicitia", the large and small Herculaneum women, standing nude and seated clothed Aphrodites). This is less noticeable in the case of the male statues, where both the range of identities (heroic, military, civilian togate, Greek intellectual etc.) and the number of possible variations are greater. The statue types used for women, with their emphasis on modest and submissive body language, were created at a time when women were becoming less secluded and had more rights than before, but because they were more visible paradoxically they had to be seen to behave circumspectly in public. It is indicative of Roman attitudes to gender identity that whereas a wide variety of body types were freely created and adapted for male portrait statues, resulting in a host of subtly nuanced male identities, the models used for women remained restricted and frozen in the past. The result is a strongly expressed collective female identity, but less scope for the expression of individual identity.

Department of Classics, The University of Edinburgh, David Hume Tower, George Square, Edinburgh EH8 9JX.

clagds@srv0.arts.ed.ac.uk