Hi Rupert!
Thanks for those added thoughts…
I sure agree …
In a critique of the aesthetic-qualities of ‘a
man’ (any
man; and I think this should be plural before it is
reduced to a singularity), I seem naturally inclined to see some handsomeness in most – I might say in all but the
Thersitesian sort, so there is some ‘problem’ for me a priori in any event in speaking to questions regarding handsome
men, unless it is one more specifically questioning after the ‘exceptionally-handsome.’
I of course think there is the inescapable, unmistakable handsomeness in the
type whose visage is
cast with the warm aura of the
Pater Patriae, such as
Antoninus Pius,
Aurelius (even
Verus,
Commodus and those whose character may not seem consistent with that typification),
Hadrian certainly and even
Pertinax and P. Niger fall into this category to my eyes, to say nothing of Septimius as you mention, who
had this look almost as if he
had intentionally cultivated it – but it isn’t ‘extraordinary’
per se, or at least I don’t think or feel so.
It’s in this sort of sense as much as in any intrinsic-appreciation that I find even a masculine-
beauty in so many of
Caracalla’s coin
portraits. I have much suspected too, that
had he lived to reach a ‘riper age,’
Geta would likely have even surpassed
his brother in this regard – at-least those child
portraits which seem to suggest some actual realism, incline me to that suspicion. It’s a shame he perished when and as he did, mostly because he deserved better, but too, I’d have much loved to see faithful
portraits of him later in life.
As you rightly say, too – none of these perceptions or considerations are owed,
nor obfuscated by whatever may be thought of the subject’s nature or
temper.
After all, Ted Bundy’s ‘
success’ as a sociopath was predicated on the countless women who found him irresistibly attractive ( I’ve never been able to see anything notably handsome in
his face – aesthetically-neutral ).
I also agree with what I at-least
believe you insinuate here – and I’ll even go further in saying that I’m more than a little persuaded that
Caracalla has been much maligned and slandered beyond just deserts by
history & historians.
That he was ruthless and brutal hardly renders him exceptional among
Roman politicos, empowered or otherwise, and can hardly surprise us as eldest son of
Septimius Severus and the time & circumstances in which he came to power. If he left so much administration of the Empire to
his mother and
consilium principis for remaining true to
his own character and desire of keeping himself with the Army, there is
still little reason to doubt
his devotion to the glory of
Rome and
dignitas of
his family name and the Imperial title.
His purge of Getanites, real or imagined, must have been driven by a genuine sense of necessity – however much it may have been psychologically augmented by a lasting hatred of
his brother.
I’ve never yet felt that the whole image we have of him quite adds up, so to speak. It has been too easy to accuse and brand him for all that was apparent, and I much suspect that has been taken as a cumulative-judgment –
history as
argumentum ad hominum - ..again ...
Best, as ever –
Tia
