Held im Bild

Deutsch. Während im griechischen Kulturraum Heroenkulte florierten, spielten sie in Rom bekanntlich kaum eine Rolle. Der Topos von der "Mythenlosigkeit" Roms gilt grundsätzlich nach wie vor zu Recht als ein zentrales Paradigma römischer religionsgeschichtlicher Forschungen. Die Erzählungen von den exemplarischen Helden der republikanischen Zeit und auch die von den römischen Königen schließen teilweise diese Lücke. In Bildmedien sind allerdings einzig Romulus und Aeneas als Figuren, die in enger Verbindung zu Rom stehen, in nennenswertem Ausmaß präsent. Diverse klassifizierende Begrifflichkeiten, die einer antiken Terminologie entstammen, bieten zwar eine solide Basis, um sich ihrer Bedeutung zu nähern: beide sind reges (Könige), beide conditores (Städtegründer), Aeneas zudem ein trojanischer ἥρως / heros (Heros), der schon in den homerischen Epen wichtig ist. Diese erfassen jedoch jeweils nur Teilaspekte ihrer Persönlichkeiten und helfen nicht dabei zu verstehen, welchen eigenen Beitrag Bilder zur Konstruktion dieser Figuren leisteten. Um dem beizukommen, wird das Heroische daher in der Arbeit aufbauend auf Überlegungen, die für die Erforschung desselben im SFB 948 zentral sind, verstanden als Ergebnis von gemeinschaftlichen Zuschreibungen an eine einzelne Heroische Figur". Diese ist also ein Produkt kommunikativer Prozesse und hat mit den essentialistischen Bestimmungen wie durch o. g. Benennungen nichts gemein. Untersucht werden im ersten, bildsemiotischen Teil der Studie, welche Qualitäten es denn sind, die dem Gründer Roms und dem Trojaexilanten vermittels der verschiedenen Ikonografien zugeschrieben werden. Im Mittelpunkt stehen dabei die bildlichen Konzeptionen des Augustusforums in Rom, weil diese jeweils sehr stark die weitere Überlieferung prägten. Die nicht mehr erhaltenen kolossalen Skulpturen zeigten Aeneas mit seinem Sohn Ascanius an der Hand und seinem Vater Anchises auf seiner Schulter und Romulus als Träger einer Trophäe, den spolia opima. Gefragt wird nach den Körperbildern, die für die beiden entworfen wurden, ferner danach, wie Objekte als Attribute sie auszeichnen. Sodann geht es um die Handlungsmotive, die dargeboten werden. Im anschließenden zweiten Teil rückt das Spektrum der Bildmedien und die Kommunikation mit ihnen in den Fokus. Ziel ist es zu ergründen, wie durch ein Handeln mit den Objekten als Bildträgern bestimmte Semantiken akzentuiert oder aber eher ausgeblendet werden. Zu den Medien, in welchen sich Bilder von Romulus und / oder Aeneas in relativ großer Zahl finden, gehören etwa statuarische Monumente, republikanische Münzen wie auch solche der sog. Reichsprägung und der Städteprägungen, Gemmen und Glaspasten und Tonlampen. Weiterhin werden archäologisch nachweisbare Verdichtungen von Heldenbildern in einzelnen geografischen Räumen dahingehend untersucht, ob sie tatsächlich von einer gemeinschaftlich getragenen Heraushebung der Heroischen Figur(en) zeugen. Gegenstand der Analyse sind hier die Bilder in der Stadt Rom, in Pompeji, in Südspanien, auf der Nordpeloponnes und in der Troas. Es zeigt sich insgesamt, dass eine Untersuchung der Konstruktionsprozesse der Figuren ein adäquates Mittel ist, um ganz wesentlich ergänzend zum Verständnis des Aeneas und des Romulus in den imperialen visuellen Kulturen und generell zum Heroischen daselbst beizutragen. Das Augustusforum wird in vielerlei Hinsicht als Schlüsselmonument begreifbar, welches bildliche Konzeptionen bot, durch die in der Tat ganz außerordentliche Qualitäten an die beiden herantragen wurden, und welches sie zudem in einer medialen Form vorführte und in Kommunikationszusammenhänge brachte, durch welche diese Semantiken sogar noch angereichert wurden. Die Arbeit lässt die differenzierten Aneignungen dieser Motive und der Figuren im Allgemeinen in bestimmten Medien und Kulturräumen als Prozesse erkenntlich werden, die oftmals ganz dezidiert in Auseinandersetzung mit den heroischen Semantiken geschahen. Und sie leistet schlussendlich auch einen Beitrag zur Erforschung politischer Kommunikation mit Heldengestalten, indem sie insbesondere beleuchtet, in welcher Weise sich Romulus und Aeneas für die religiöse und charismatische Fundierung des Prinzipats nutzbar machen ließen. While heroic cults flourished in the Greek cultural sphere, it is well known that they hardly played a role in Rome. In general, the topos of Rome’s “lack of myths” is justifiably still seen as a central paradigm of research into Rome’s religious history. Partially, this gap is filled by narratives of the exemplary heroes of republican times and of Roman kings. However, in representational media the only figures closely connected to Rome and shown to any significant extent are Romulus and Aeneas. A solid basis for approaching their significance is provided by various classificatory terms based on ancient terminology: both are reges (kings) and conditores (founders of cities), and Aeneas is also a Troyan ἥρως / heros (hero) who is already important in the Homeric epics. Yet these terms only ever grasp partial aspects of their personalities and do not help us to understand the specific contribution of pictorial representations in the construction of these figures. To remedy this gap, the present publication, based on ideas central for research in the SFB 948, sees the heroic as the result of shared attributions linked to an individual “heroic figure”. This is therefore the product of communication processes and has nothing in common with essentialised attributions like those provided by the above-mentioned terms. The first part of the study, centred on representational semiotics, focuses on which qualities the different iconographies attribute to, respectively, the founder of Rome and the exile from Troy. The pictorial conception of the forum of Augustus in Rome plays a central role here, as it strongly influenced subsequent traditions. These colossal sculptures, no longer preserved today, showed Aeneas leading his son Ascanius by the hand and carrying his father Anchises on his shoulder, as well as Romulus bearing a trophy, the spolia opima. The volume investigates the body images designed for these two characters, as well as the kinds of objects used as attributes for them, before moving on to the plot motifs offered. In the following second part, the spectrum of representational media and how they are used in communication takes centre-stage. The aim is to find out how using these objects as image bearers contributes to accentuating or rather masking certain semantics. Among the media with relatively numerous representations of Romulus and Aeneas are for instance monumental sculpture, republican and imperial coins and those minted in specific cities, intaglios and glass pastes, as well as clay lamps. In addition, archaeologically documented clusters of heroic representations in certain geographical areas are investigated in order to show whether they really indicate a communally sanctioned emphasis on the heroic figure(s) in question. This part of the analysis is based on representations within the city of Rome, in Pompeii, southern Spain, the northern Peloponnese and the Troad. Overall, investigating how these figures are constructed is an adequate means to contribute substantial additions to our understanding of Aeneas and Romulus in imperial visual culture, as well as to the heroic in general. In many ways, the forum of Augustus is revealed as a key monument offering pictorial conceptions which indeed attributed extraordinary qualities to the two characters. The forum staged these in a way in which these semantics were enriched further, also by bringing them into new contexts of communication. The present volume shows that a differentiated appropriation of these motifs and of the figures generally in specific media and cultural areas were processes decisively driven by engagement with heroic semantics. Ultimately, this study also contributes to the investigation of political communication using heroic characters by drawing out how Romulus and Aeneas could be instrumentalised for the religious and charismatic grounding of the principate. Englisch. While heroic cults flourished in the Greek cultural sphere, it is well known that they hardly played a role in Rome. In general, the topos of Rome’s “lack of myths” is justifiably still seen as a central paradigm of research into Rome’s religious history. Partially, this gap is filled by narratives of the exemplary heroes of republican times and of Roman kings. However, in representational media the only figures closely connected to Rome and shown to any significant extent are Romulus and Aeneas. A solid basis for approaching their significance is provided by various classificatory terms based on ancient terminology: both are reges (kings) and conditores (founders of cities), and Aeneas is also a Troyan ἥρως / heros (hero) who is already important in the Homeric epics. Yet these terms only ever grasp partial aspects of their personalities and do not help us to understand the specific contribution of pictorial representations in the construction of these figures. To remedy this gap, the present publication, based on ideas central for research in the SFB 948, sees the heroic as the result of shared attributions linked to an individual “heroic figure”. This is therefore the product of communication processes and has nothing in common with essentialised attributions like those provided by the above-mentioned terms. The first part of the study, centred on representational semiotics, focuses on which qualities the different iconographies attribute to, respectively, the founder of Rome and the exile from Troy. The pictorial conception of the forum of Augustus in Rome plays a central role here, as it strongly influenced subsequent traditions. These colossal sculptures, no longer preserved today, showed Aeneas leading his son Ascanius by the hand and carrying his father Anchises on his shoulder, as well as Romulus bearing a trophy, the spolia opima. The volume investigates the body images designed for these two characters, as well as the kinds of objects used as attributes for them, before moving on to the plot motifs offered. In the following second part, the spectrum of representational media and how they are used in communication takes centre-stage. The aim is to find out how using these objects as image bearers contributes to accentuating or rather masking certain semantics. Among the media with relatively numerous representations of Romulus and Aeneas are for instance monumental sculpture, republican and imperial coins and those minted in specific cities, intaglios and glass pastes, as well as clay lamps. In addition, archaeologically documented clusters of heroic representations in certain geographical areas are investigated in order to show whether they really indicate a communally sanctioned emphasis on the heroic figure(s) in question. This part of the analysis is based on representations within the city of Rome, in Pompeii, southern Spain, the northern Peloponnese and the Troad. Overall, investigating how these figures are constructed is an adequate means to contribute substantial additions to our understanding of Aeneas and Romulus in imperial visual culture, as well as to the heroic in general. In many ways, the forum of Augustus is revealed as a key monument offering pictorial conceptions which indeed attributed extraordinary qualities to the two characters. The forum staged these in a way in which these semantics were enriched further, also by bringing them into new contexts of communication. The present volume shows that a differentiated appropriation of these motifs and of the figures generally in specific media and cultural areas were processes decisively driven by engagement with heroic semantics. Ultimately, this study also contributes to the investigation of political communication using heroic characters by drawing out how Romulus and Aeneas could be instrumentalised for the religious and charismatic grounding of the principate.