- Khafre of Giza - Kathryn A. Bard
It is critical to interpret the statues of Khafre of Giza (Egypt, c. 2500 BCE) and Augustus of Primaporta (Rome, c. 20 BCE) according to the beliefs and customs of the societies in which they were created, both in terms of their expressive meaning and the artistic traditions to which they belonged. The statue of Khafre did not emerge from a void, but was one of many Ka statues designed to host the spirits of dead nobility. Augustus was one of a long line of Greek-inspired public statuary in Rome, and was very clearly influenced by Polyclitus’ statue Doryphorus (Spear Bearer), particularly in the stance, which is virtually identical in the two works.
The Egyptian and the Roman traditions of statuary, both of which clearly emphasized continuity over innovation, assisted in further strengthening the political positions of those represented in the art. The public, through exposure over decades or centuries to images in art of eternal and immutable leaders, as well as through living in societies controlled by those leaders, would have become accustomed to the idea of the omnipotent, all powerful ruler. The absolute nature of the authority portrayed in the artworks precludes the necessity of transforming that authority into physical force in order to suppress rebellion. These statues are very early examples of winning “the hearts and minds of the people”.
Egyptian Gods, Roman Leaders
Augustus differs from the statue of Khafre in numerous ways, primarily in the level of realism and worldliness. Augustus’ curiass, or military breast plate, portrays an image of a captured military standard being returned to Rome by a defeated Parthian. This historical event is elevated to mythological status by the presence of gods and goddesses on the curiass, including Keilos at the top, opening the heavens for Augustus. The curiass serves as a work of art within the art, serving to further emphasize and solidify Augustus’ status as invincible demigod.
While Augustus is clearly a man of great power, the presence of the armour and the interactive pose identify him as a man in contact with the world of mortals. Augustus is a man portrayed as godlike, while the statue of Khafre emits an aura of a man who is godlike. Khafre, closer to the sky god Horus than to any mortal, is in such complete control that he has no need for armour, no need for interaction of any kind with the mundane world.
The impression given by the comparison of the two works is that the hold of the Egyptian Pharaohs on social, political, and spiritual power was perhaps more absolute than that of the Roman Emperors. The Emperors defended their power, while the Pharaohs had no need for defense.
Perspectives on Ancient Power
Looking at these works from a 21st century perspective, the differences become obscured by the similarities. In our world, where seekers of political power have access to television, radio, computers, and other means of reaching the public far more efficiently than through art, the artist is freed to assume the role of rebel and iconoclast. We as moderns (and postmoderns) are unaccustomed to seeing art which sings the praises of political leaders, and thus works which do this, such as the statues of Khafre and Augustus, tend to appear similar. It is shocking to realize that the time lapse between Khafre and Augustus is greater than that between Augustus and ourselves. We must remember that Khafre and Augustus, while both absolute rulers, lived in worlds which may have been as different from one another as from ours.
Despite the expectations of their followers, Khafre and Augustus did both eventually die, followed by their empires and everything they knew, save their art. Statues of marble and diorite persist for longer than their subjects before crumbling into dust, and thus we are afforded a stone window into a distant past, an opportunity for reflection on the nature of power and its portrayal.
Read Alan Foljambe's related article: Khafre and Augustus: Egyptian and Roman Images of Power
Sources
- Bard, Kathryn A. Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt. London: Routledge, 1999.
- Janson, H.W. History of Art. New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1995.
Alan Foljambe - Alan Foljambe is a writer and art historian living in Kingston, Ontario. He holds a PhD in Art History from the University of Manchester. ...
