Notes on the Portrait of Nikias of Cos*

Nikias of Cos is a figure from the ancient world about whom we are not very well informed. Despite the facts that he was tyrant of Cos approximately around the years 40–30 BC and that in this capacity he minted bronze coins with his portrait on the obverse, his vita has to be reconstructed with much effort from scarce hints in literary sources and a very broad but uniform epigraphic record[1]. This paper will accordingly not rewrite the history of Nikias, but focus on an analysis of his coin portrait. After a brief historical introduction, the coinage of the tyrant and the questions connected with it will be briefly presented. The main goal of this article is to analyse the portraits on the obverses of these coins in depth for the first time and discuss them against the background of relevant contemporary portraiture.

I. Historical background

Rudolf Herzog has, with  great efforts, pieced together the known facts from Nikias’ life[2]. One of his main achievements is the identification of Nikias the tyrant with Nikias the philologist and thereby establishing his early contacts with the spheres of power in Rome[3]. Suetonius characterizes him as an adherent of Pompeius and Memmius, implying that he was in Rome with them until he was reported transmitting a love letter of Memmius to Pompeius’ fifth wife. Through this he, together with Memmius, lost the imperator’s favour and probably left Rome[4]. This episode of 52 BC shows that by this year, Nikias was not only in Rome, but had already made contact with the powerful men and women of the time. It is likely that the acquaintance with Pompeius goes back to the triumphal journey of the imperator through Asia and Greece after the third Mithridatic war[5].

After a significant break due to Nikias staying in the East (where exactly we do not know and Herzog’s assumption that he went to Athens with Memmius is pure speculation[6]), our sources mention him again towards the end of 50 BC, being on his way to Rome in the company of Cicero, who mentions him in a letter to Atticus as a fellow traveller[7]. From his return on he seems to have spent some time in the Roman capital, where he again seems to have lived in exclusive circles. Cic. ad fam. 7,23,4 mentions him in Rome in April 49 BC and tells us that he is a friend of Cassius, the later tyrannicide[8]. In 46 BC Cicero mentions Nikias again, this time as a friend of Dolabella, the later consul[9]. That he could be a demanding guest and yet able to lead cultivated conversations can be seen from a letter of 45 BC[10], in which the orator mentions that he does not feel up to being his host at that moment. Some months later he stayed with Cicero again[11], but soon left, being called urgently to Dolabella[12].

Late in 45 BC we find Nikias in the entourage of this new patron. Cicero informs us about the special honours Caesar bestowed on the latter, of which he knew through Nikias[13]. The Coan seems to have been a very clever and opportunistic personality with wide spread connections in Roman aristocracy. This seems to have paid off, as we hear from Cicero that Dolabella, consul since March 44 BC, had chosen Nikias as a legate to go ahead of him to Greece and maybe Asia Minor to prepare the war against the Parthians, who threatened the eastern borders of the empire. By the middle of 44 BC we hear that he is already in the east, though we do not know where[14].

Unfortunately, literary sources are scarce from this point onwards. Strabo tells us that »in my time«[15] there was a Nikias on the island of Cos »who also reigned as tyrant over the Coans«[16]. Since this Nikias is mentioned in a list of famous persons consisting of a pair of scientists and a pair of literary figures, he can with some confidence, as Herzog has ingeniously shown, be identified with the Nikias we have so far heard about[17]. Unfortunately, literary sources mentioning him directly are missing for these interesting years, but the fate of his island in the time between Caesar’s assassination and the battle of Philippi is – although scarcely documented – very telling.

Many cities and islands of Asia Minor suffered in some way from the civil wars, either by choosing the wrong sides or by being raided. Among these was Rhodes, which not only had hosted Dolabella on his way to Asia Minor, but had refused to lend support to the case of the tyrannicides shortly after[18]. Thereafter the Rhodians first received a letter of Brutus, warning them to surrender to him and Cassius voluntarily or risking destruction of their city and slaughter of the male population[19]. Apparently overestimating the own military power, the Rhodians decided not to surrender, but first sent a fleet against Cassius, which was defeated by the Romans in two battles, the first of which became famous both through literary and numismatic sources[20]. After this first defeat, a combined attack of naval and land forces led to the siege and surrender of Rhodes, which had lost almost its entire fleet.

Surprisingly enough, the Coans obviously managed the situation much better than their neighbours. The only literary sources for the year 42 BC, which let us get a glimpse at the risky and yet successful political manoeuvre that Cos managed to execute, are three of Brutus’ letters. The first one, written after the defeat of Rhodes, calls on them to join the tyrannicides’ cause, again threatening destruction and slavery[21]. From the second letter it becomes clear that Cos must have decided to support Brutus and Cassius – at least ostensibly. Brutus calls, in a slightly sharp tone already, for vessels that the Coans have promised to build and send him as support in his fight against the triumvirs. It is obvious that he had expected the ships much earlier, which leaves one wondering about the seriousness of the Coan offer. Brutus, however, seems to have waited a while longer without receiving the promised naval forces. In his third letter to Cos we learn that he has dispatched a legation to the island to get the ships. His legates reported to him that they were still under construction, which resulted in him writing an angry and yet helpless letter, accusing the Coans of having wasted too much time for their navy to be of any use.

It can be deduced that the Coans had managed on the one hand to come to terms with Brutus, ostensibly supporting him by building a fleet, and on the other to delay the construction of the promised vessels without being severely punished for this clever manoeuvre. In view of the fact that Nikias had been an acquaintance of Cassius (and possibly Brutus) and is on the other hand known to have been somewhere in the Greek east around these times, it seems reasonable to assume that he had returned to Cos by that time and was the mastermind behind the successful tactical manoeuvring[22]. This point is strengthened by the evidence of honours bestowed on him at an unknown time calling him son of the people, homeland-loving, hero, benefactor and saviour[23]. The uniformity of the inscriptions and the small format of the bases suggest that they were part of a publicly organised form of honours for Nikias, involving the dedication of small-scale statuettes in (probably) private contexts[24]. It is worth noting, however, that the epigraphic formula does not imply a cult for Nikias as a god or demigod, but only attests offerings pro salute / ὑπέρ[25]. Having guided the island through the dangers of Roman civil war and the interests of its imperators seems a suitable reason for being honoured the way Nikias was[26].

Only two further facts about Nikias are known. First of all, we know that at a certain point he became tyrant of Cos[27]. Herzog thinks that the coins which will be discussed below and the above-mentioned inscriptions and honours suggest that his tyranny was not founded on force, but the circumstances as well as the exact dating of his rule must remain uncertain[28]. It might be deduced from further examples in the east Mediterranean that Nikias was among the rulers installed by Antony after the battle of Philippi[29]. This would, if he had not established himself earlier, make it probable that he came to power in 41 BC, maybe by being deployed by Antony or confirmed by him. Whatever might be the case, we know that Cos was on good terms with Antony, since the island allowed him to seize timber (including from a holy grove of Asklepios) for ships before Actium[30]. We also know of Roman citizenship and privileges in commerce granted to a group of Coans by Antony at an uncertain date probably in the early 30s BC[31], making it probable that he maintained connections with the island and its influential inhabitants.

We do not know much more about the reign of Nikias. Apparently, he died at some point late in the 30s BC, receiving an ordinary burial. After Antony’s defeat at Actium, however, and maybe in connection with the execution of Turullius for defiling the grove of Asklepios, the Coans angrily reopened his grave, dragged the corpse out and »killed him a second time«[32]. As a reaction, Octavian seems to have issued a decree to protect tombs and the bodies of the diseased[33]. Apparently, the inhabitants of Cos were having their revenge on Nikias for lining them up with the defeated party of the Roman civil war[34].

II. Coinage

During Nikias’ reign, coins with his portrait were issued by a variety of eight magistrates whose actual function remains unclear[35]. It is usually assumed that they are eponymous magistrates, thus indicating that the coins were minted over a span of at least eight years, concluding that the tyrant’s reign lasted at least from 38 to 31 BC[36]. However, Christian Habicht has shown that there is no reason to assume that the magistrates signing the coins were the eponymous ones or even yearly changing[37]. They can therefore not be used to date the reign of Nikias, nor can they provide a pattern of minting. Vassiliki Stefanaki’s die study furthermore found several connections of dies between different magistrates, indicating that minting might to some extent have happened in parallel[38]. We simply do not know if coins were emitted annually or not. A date between the late 40s and 31 BC is hence the closest we get at the moment. This is also in accordance with the numismatic phenomenon of coinages of quartuncial standard appearing in the eastern Mediterranean[39].

The coins in question here are large bronzes engraved by skilled die cutters. The weights, according to Stefanaki’s die study, range from 16,28 to 25,46 g with an average of 20,85 g (66 pieces). She has drawn attention to the fact that with this average weight they fit nicely into a variety of local and colonial coinages as well as the so-called fleet coinage of Marc Antony, suggesting that the coins were oriented towards the Roman numismatic and economic sphere[40]. Diameters range from 30–33 mm and dies are fixed at 12 h. The obverses show a portrait of Nikias to the right with the legend ΝΙΚΙΑΣ[41], the reverses are adorned with the bearded head of Asklepios to the right, wearing a laurel wreath tied with a tainia. The accompanying legends name the people (KΩΙΩΝ) and one of the above-mentioned magistrates.

Since Stefanaki’s thorough study of the issue, only few new examples have turned up on the international market[42] (table 1):

The new examples do not add anything new to the corpus in terms of magistrates or dies.

The main focus of this paper is the iconography of the coins, more specifically the iconography of their obverses, the reverse image being quite straightforward and understandable in the context of Cos. Concerning the portrait of Nikias on the obverses on the other hand, some significant misunderstandings have dominated scholarship up to now.

The first one concerns the headdress. It is either interpreted as being a diadem[43], a tainia[44] or called an unspecific wreath, sometimes with a questionmark[45]. Kostas Buraselis wanted to identify it as some sort of knotted (woollen) band, marking Nikias as being in some form sacred, between the spheres of humankind and gods[46].

Andrew Burnett was, as Buraselis also saw, certainly right with his verdict that what we see on Nikias’ head »certainly does not look like a diadem«[47]. The diadem was a broad band, sometimes with decoration, tied on the back of the head and ending in a straight form (not with a pointed knot as a tainia)[48]. The differences to what is shown on these Coan coins are striking. But it is also obvious that one main argument of Buraselis is certainly wrong[49]: The headdresses of Nikias on the obverse and Asklepios on the reverse are certainly not the same. In addition, his identification of the latter’s headdress as a twisted, knotted headband is not correct. Burnett was right in identifying the wreath of the god as a laurel wreath. It is, admittedly, a slender one, with what seem to be two rows of laurel leaves very closely together. And Buraselis might have seen something very interesting, as a close examination of one of the better preserved coins of the series shows (fig. 1). It looks as if in regular intervals something is attached to the laurel wreath, giving the impression of loops. In addition, it is not tied with a tainia but with what seems to be a royal diadem. This feature can be observed several times, but has not yet been sufficiently explained[50]. However, the general picture of the main god of the island wearing a laurel wreath remains valid.

 

If Nikias is not wearing a diadem and not a ›Heroenbinde‹, two possibilities remain for the identification of his headdress: a tainia or a wreath. Both are correct, as is clearly shown by the enlargement of the obverse of the coin shown above (fig. 2). Thin stalks and leaves or needles emanating from a slim branch are easily discernible. The wreath is, on the other hand, tied at the back of the head with a tainia, actually making this a combination of two insignia, a wreath and a tainia[51]. The plan used for the wreath is not easy to make out, given the wear of the coins and the closeness in style of leaves and locks of hair. The form of the leaves exclude that it is laurel. One might think of Mediterranean cypress, as the sacred grove of Asklepios on Cos consisted of cypress trees and it was centre of cultic processions on the island[52]. The cypress was one of the sacred plants attached to Asklepios[53]. The form of the twigs however seems to exclude an identification as cypress, since they are not ramified enough[54]. The question as to which leaves are meant has to remain open. The tainia is, both in Greek and Roman culture, sign of victory and was therefore given to victors (both in real life as well as in art, in many cases directly by Nike/Victoria)[55]. Building on this tradition we find examples of Hellenistic kings shown wearing a combination of laurel wreath and tainia in situations in which they seem to have been in some way victorious or successful[56]. Nikias could therefore be marked, with the combination of a wreath and tainia, as both victorious and as a worshipper, maybe even a cult member, of Asklepios[57].

Nikias’ portrait has already received some scholarly attention, especially by Burnett[58] and Buraselis[59]. As the latter observed quite correctly, the wear of most of the examples of the coins makes it difficult to derive all the necessary details of the head from only one coin. The plates in Stefanaki’s publication are certainly helpful to get a general overview, although one has to admit that the print quality is not too high[60]. The following description is based on a combination of several pieces of above average preservation in enlargements (figs. 2–5).

 

 

 

The skull, structurally defined by its bones, is mounted on a narrow, sinewy neck with a prominent Adam’s apple. The back of the head is regularly rounded, whereas the face from the small pointed chin to the very high forehead is quite flat. A marked break is formed by a big, hooked nose with a protuberance marking it might have been broken at one point. From its sides, long and deep nasolabial folds stretch towards the sides of a narrow mouth formed by regular lips, itself accompanied by sharp folds. The bulging brows are knitted above the nose, contracting with them the high forehead, leaving one or two parallel wrinkles across it. Thin, finely cut eyelids cover almond-shaped eyes while the lower eyelid fades into a slender lacrimal. Sharply incised, short crow’s feet complete the carefully composed eye region. The hair consisting of slim, curved locks emerges from a swirl on the back of the head. Over the forehead the sparse locks of hair form quite a well-defined hairstyle. Three strands are combed forward into the forehead, as if to hide a gradually growing baldness. Towards the right temple they are followed by a lock forming an S and four further locks simply curved downwards over the elongated ear. Cheeks, chin and upper lip are covered by a short, regularly trimmed beard. The head is adorned, as stated above, with a combination of wreath and tainia.

This portrait, with clear traits of verism, smooth and taut skin as well as contractions as marks of concentrated effort, fits well into a line of late Hellenistic royal portraiture as defined by rulers like Antiochos I, Orophernes, Hiero II or Philetairos[61]. In Nikias’ lifetime, this style of portraits was popular in Rome, while also clearly having Greek roots, both in civic and royal portraiture[62].

Recent scholarship has more or less unanimously concluded that Nikias’ portrait was influenced by the early portraits of Octavian[63]. This is, on the one hand, politically unlikely, given the fact that Cos in general and Nikias in particular maintained connections with Antony[64]. Furthermore, it would have been unwise, even if there had been no direct connection between the island and the imperator, to show too much sympathy with the cause of Octavian in the realm under Antony’s rule.

Apart from these arguments, Octavian’s portraits are also markedly different in style and conception from those of Nikias. First of all it is quite obvious that there is no similarity with or dependence on the portraits of the so-called Octavians-Typus[65]. Two schemes of portraits remain in discussion[66].

Scheme I was used for coins between 43 and 38 BC and its portraits are characterized by a youthful, smooth and unspecific physiognomy. The round heads show a full, almost chubby integument, a long pointed nose, a small chin slightly bent upwards and a small, full-lipped mouth. A closed, even cap of short, straight locks encloses the head[67]. (figs. 6–8)

Since 42 BC, scheme II was in use in parallel with scheme I. Its portraits were minted until 36 BC – after 40 BC, in parallel with the first portraits of the ›Octavians-Typus‹ – when the so-called Siegesserie marked a turning point both in the depiction of portraits on coins[68] as well as in the history of the treatment of portraits in general – from a more general scheme which was not copied in every detail to a portrait type with copies as exact as possible[69]. The physiognomic characterization of the portraits is the same as with coins of scheme I. The variation can be found in the hairstyle, as the portraits of scheme II show a role of hair at the neck of the head and above the forehead. Both are more voluminous than the rest of the hair, which is evenly combed downwards in straight locks again[70]. (figs. 9. 10)

The brief overview of coin portraits of both schemes shows clearly, that on the one hand the characteristics are very generic and that on the other hand the exactness of the execution by the die cutter varies very much. The extreme youthfulness makes it impossible to conclude that the Octavian portraits influenced that of Nikias. The only parallel might be the beard sometimes attached to Octavian’s image. But, on the other hand, an examination of the bearded portraits of Octavian demonstrates that these show a wide range of different beards with probably different meanings[71], making it very difficult to find a reason why Nikias should have copied this specific form of a beard.

It was already mentioned that the underlying style of portraiture to which Nikias referred was also used by some Romans. Among these, we easily find one whose portraits show parallels to that of the Coan: Mark Antony (figs. 11–13). Especially coins of 42 BC, when his portraits still wore a mourning beard[72], reveal astonishing parallels: the head has a similar general structure; the hair consists of even locks which form clear patterns across the forehead, the latter being divided by at least one wrinkle; the brows contracted above the nose which is quite big and slightly hooked; the use of mild verisms[73].

These similarities clearly indicate, from my point of view, that the model for Nikias’ portrait was that of Mark Antony. This makes Nikias a forerunner of later client kings[74], modelling their portraits according to that of Augustus[75]. Probably having come into his position only a short while before having these coins minted, with at least Antony’s approval if not his support, Nikias showed that he was a philoromaios and a philantonius with his portrait. On the other hand, the traits of the portrait all stemmed from a Greek tradition, fitting the likeness into the line of Hellenistic royal portraiture.

III. Searching for a sculptural portrait

Attempts to identify a sculptural portrait of Nikias have been extremely scarce[76]. The marble bust of a boy with the inscription NIΚIΑΣ ΤΥΡΑNNΟΣ is probably, should the inscription be ancient, a creation of later times, when somebody wanted to recreate a representation of the dead[77].

Dieter Salzmann has, hesitantly[78], drawn attention to the fact that there are similarities between the discussed coin portrait and a marble one in the Archaeological Museum of Rhodos[79] (fig. 14). It is usually identified as Poseidonios which cannot be true due to the fact that the person depicted is much younger, has a distinctly different facial profile and lower face and much more stylised eyes[80].

The portrait shows a middle-aged man with markedly veristic features and wide open, strongly stylized eyes. The receding forehead shows deep wrinkles, the broken nose seems to have been hooked, that mouth is girded with a deep cut. The hair is styled in small curls, reaching down deeply in the middle of the forehead and receding acute-angled towards the sides. The head shows traces of a band probably added in metal.

In comparison with Nikias’ portrait on the coins, the similarities one finds in the lower section of the head (chin, mouth, nasolabial section, cheek, nose) are soon weighed out by clear differences. Especially three features prohibit an identification: the profile line of the face is markedly different; the forehead of the marble head is receding while that of the coin portrait is steep; and the hairstyle shown on the coins lacks the characteristically receding hairline of the marble portrait. The Rhodian portrait can therefore not be identified as Nikias of Cos, despite the fact that in these times one cannot yet expect the accuracy of later portrait types[81].

IV. Concluding remarks

Nikias of Cos is one of the quickly rising and quickly falling illustrious characters of the civil war Mediterranean between the mid-40s and 30 BC. Obviously opportunistic, intelligent and eloquent, he managed to get in touch with and become a close acquaintance of most of the powerful Romans at that time. His cleverness not only allowed him to manoeuvre his homeland through most of these difficult times, he also built himself a nice position as a tyrant, receiving high honours on Cos. The exact time at which this happened is unclear. If we accept Antony’s coins of 42 BC as direct models for Nikias’ portrait, we can assume that shortly after this year, Nikias’ regime was established and his coinage minted. How long it lasted is equally unsure, but around 31 or 30 BC it seems to have ended with Nikias’ death, burial and the desecration of his tomb.

His portraits show on the one hand his close connection with Antony while marking him on the other as a Hellenistic ruler. The headdress, a wreath with a tainia, probably connects him with the cult of the main god of the island, Asklepios, figuring on the reverse of the coins, and marks him as victorious. The coin series, as we see, embodies the complete political programme of a small tyrant between Hellenistic kingdoms, Rome and his homeland, trying to find his place in the dangerous times of the civil war which was sweeping over the whole Mediterranean world.