Jstor the Ivories of Ariadne and Ideas About Female Imperial Authority in Rome and Early Byzantium

The Ivories of Ariadne and Ideas about Female Imperial Authority in Rome and EarlyByzantiumAuthor(s): Diliana AngelovaReviewed work(s):Source: Gesta, Vol. 43, No. 1 (2004), pp. 1-15Published by: International Center of Medieval ArtStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25067088 .Accessed: 25/01/2012 03:44

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

International Center of Medieval Art is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toGesta.

http://www.jstor.org

The Ivories of Ariadne and Ideas about Female Imperial

Authority in Rome and Early Byzantium*

DILIANA ANGELOVA Harvard University

Abstract

Two sixth-century ivory panels, known as the Ivories of

Ariadne, portray a Christian augusta as a partner to the em

peror in the imperium and as a bearer of imperial power,

breaking dramatically from earlier Roman tradition. This

iconographie change can only be explained through a better

understanding of the empress' place in the imperial ideology

of sacred rule and the indebtedness of imperial iconography to the portrayal of Greco-Roman deities. I argue that before the Christianization of the Roman Empire, depictions of the

empress responded to two central ideas about imperial power:

the emperor was like a god, and his victory was the gift of a

deity. During that time, an empress ' standing was delineated

visually through assimilation to mother-goddesses, deities of

victory, or her symbolic motherhood of the troops. The new

iconography of the fifth and the sixth centuries conveyed a

more authoritative outlook for the empress and indicated an

actual partnership in the imperium. In the Christian vision for

empire and victory the augustus and the augusta participated as corulers. This change was legitimized in part by present

ing Helena, the mother of Constantine the Great, as partner to

her son in the establishment of the Christian monarchy.

In the first few lines of his epithalamium from the year 398 for the marriage of the emperor Honorios and Maria, the

court poet Claudian related that the groom chose adornments

(ornatus) for his bride once worn by noble Livia and all the

proud daughters-in-law of the divine emperors.1 Thus Clau

dian presented the Christian empress within the context of a

long succession of imperial women that began with Livia, the

wife of the first Augustus, who handed down her adornments as dynastic heirlooms. The poet's vision is significant for its

skillful bridging of the pre-Christian and Christian phases of the Roman Empire. Three years earlier one of Claudian's

contemporaries had presented a very different view of the ge

nealogy of the augusta. In his funeral oration for Honorios'

father, the emperor Theodosios I, Bishop Ambrose of Milan

set the empress in an exclusively Christian framework through a lineage beginning with Helena, mother of Constantine the

Great.2 Modern discussions of the early Byzantine empresses have largely followed Ambrose's model, analyzing the posi tion of the augusta within the established historiographie boundaries of the Christian period. While most specialists do

make a few comparisons with the Roman era, the period as a

whole has not been central to their analyses.3 Claudian's rhetorical model provides a different avenue

of analysis, which emphasizes the continuities between the

Roman and the Byzantine periods. In this study I examine two ivory panels with an empress to demonstrate the validity and importance of Claudian's model. They are known as the

ivories of Ariadne (4747-513/515)4 and are presently in

the Bargello Museum in Florence and the Kunsthistorisches

Museum in Vienna (Figs. 1 and 2). On structural, composi tional, and stylistic grounds, most scholars agree that the ivo

ries were executed to commemorate an imperial consulship in Constantinople during the late fifth or early sixth century.5

Each panel represents an exquisitely carved, nearly three

dimensional image of an empress, dressed in the insignia of an emperor's power. These include the imperial paluda

mentum, or chlamys, fastened over the right shoulder with a

bejeweled fibula, the diadem of precious stones, the globe surmounted by a cross, the scepter held by the Florence em

press, and the canopied throne of the Vienna empress. Both

empresses wear elaborate necklaces of precious stones and

are adorned profusely with pearls that hang from their crowns,

strung on long pendants, border their garments, and decorate

their shoes. Roundels with bust portraits embellish the tablia

(the rectangular patches of cloth sewn on their paludamenta at chest level). The roundel of the Florence ivory clearly shows an emperor, but the medallion image on the Vienna panel is

more difficult to identify. Richard Delbrueck suggested that it

represented a helmeted personification of a city, yet the two

pigtail-like trails framing the face and the pointed endings of

the headcover resemble more accurately the silhouette of an

augusta wearing a crown with long pendants.6

At first glance these ivories seem to support the standard

separation between the pre-Christian and the Christian eras.

The hieratic, richly ornate vision of the early Byzantine em

press as a figure vested in the insignia of rule stands in stark

contrast, for example, to the portraiture of the first Roman

empress, Livia. Although one of the wealthiest women in

Rome, Livia shrewdly avoided being depicted in elaborate

jewels and dresses.7 Rather, she chose to evoke qualities tra

ditionally ascribed to Roman women, notably virtuousness

and fecundity. Her fecundity was especially important, for

GESTA XLIII/1 ? The International Center of Medieval Art 2004 1

FIGURE 1. Byzantine Empress, carved ivory panel, ca. 500, Florence, Mu

seo Nazionale del Bargello (photo: by permission of Ministero per i Beni e

le Attivit? Culturali).

it made her the "dynastic matriarch" of the Julio-Claudian

dynasty.8 The portrayal of Livia as both an exceptionally vir

tuous woman and a female progenitor of the empire set the

standard for female imperial iconography until the fourth

century augustae of the Theodosian house. While these qual ities never went out of fashion for the empresses in the

Christian period, the emphasis on coins and other objects

gradually gave way to a more commanding portrayal.9 This

is well illustrated on the ivory panels from Florence and Vi

?mm-t

FIGURE 2. Byzantine Empress, carved ivory panel, ca. 500, Vienna, Kunst

historisches Museum (photo: Kunsthistorisches Museum, Wien).

enna, where even the jewelry seems to be part of the imperial attributes rather than an expression of femininity.10

Instead of taking the difference in the portrayal of the

empress as an argument for focusing exclusively on the Byz antine period, we ought to ask the question: What ideas and

historical developments contributed to the portrayal of an early

Byzantine empress as an emperor? To answer this, it is neces

sary to revisit the Roman period, noting continuities between

the Roman and Byzantine eras.

2

The Origins and Meaning of the Empress ' Attributes

The attributes of imperial rule that are so explicitly associated with the empress on the two panels include the

diadem, the paludamentum, the scepter, the globus cruciger, and the canopied throne. Their assimilation by the augusta

probably began with the diadem and occurred simultaneously with its adoption as an official token of power by the emperor Constantine I (324-337). Coins featuring Constantine's mother, Helena (324-329; Fig. 3), and his second wife, Fausta (324

326), suggest that the augusta wore a diadem that consisted of

a headband inlaid with stones, much like that of the augustus.11 The only difference between the two is the absence of ribbons

fastening the diadem on the nape of the neck in the women's

version; instead, the diadem appears as part of the empress' coiffure.

Modern scholars are divided over how to interpret the

headbands of Helena and Fausta. The tendency is to see them

as decoration and not as official attributes of rulership.12 Nevertheless, it is significant that the headband appeared on

the coinage of Helena and Fausta only after they assumed the

rank of augusta, at the very moment Constantine became the

sole ruler of the empire in 324.13 An explanation for the ideas

underlying this novel attribute may be found in a letter by Paulinus of Nola dated to 403, in which he defined Helena's

position as being a cornier (conregnans) with her son with the

title "augusta," and in which he also argued that Constantine

deserved to be princeps of Christ as much through his own

faith as through that of his mother.14 But the idea of the em

press as a conregnans or koinonos, partner, of the emperor

had already been applied to an empress of the Constantinian

dynasty.15 In his speech of thanks for Eusebia (ca. 356), Julian

defined Eusebia's relationship with her husband, the emperor Constantius, as koinonia, a partnership, in which she partici

pated by taking part in the emperor's plans and by encourag

ing his natural goodness and wisdom.16

The first empress considered to wear a diadem identical

to the emperor's on her coins was Aelia Flaccilla (379-386), the first wife of Theodosios I (379-395; Figs. 4 and 5).17 The

headbands of the empress and the emperor feature a big stone

in the middle, are bordered with pearls, and are fastened with

beaded strings coming together at the back. As with Helena, Flaccilla's hair covers the diadem partially, and the overall

impression is that the jeweled band was intentionally integrated into the empress' hairstyle. This fashioning undermines the

interpretation of Helena's diadem as mere decoration, as it

seems that a woman's hairstyle by its nature offered oppor tunities for variations. It is more intriguing that together with

the diadem, Flaccilla donned the traditional military garment, the paludamentum. On her coinage she wears it in the impe rial fashion, fastened over the right shoulder with a bejeweled fibula.18 After Flaccilla, these two signs of authority became

standard elements of the iconography of the augusta, initiat

ing, in Kenneth Holum's view, a process of assimilation that

FIGURE 3. Helena, follis, bronze coin, mint of Antioch, 325-326, Arthur

M. Sackler Museum, 1951.31.4.37 (photo: courtesy of the Arthur M. Sackler

Museum, Harvard University Art Museums, Bequest of Thomas Whittemore).

replaced the earlier practice of separate attributes for males

and females.19 Prior to this, the empress' appropriation of the

paludamentum could be provocative, as, for instance, when

worn by Agrippina, the fourth wife of the emperor Claudius

and the mother of Nero.20 Dressed in matching attire, Agrip

pina and Claudius presided over a naval spectacle as two

generals commanding a battle.21 Her chosen garment on this

occasion and her participation in a triumphal procession on

another when she received the same honors awarded her hus

band were frowned on by Tacitus as an innovation and a sign of her desire for a partnership in the empire.22 The empress' ambition for equal imperial honors with the male augustus, be it her husband or her son, eventually cost her her life. Nero

began the list of charges compiled against her with the most

serious?her hope for partnership in the imperium {consor tium impert?), followed by her demand for the allegiance of

the praetorian guard, the Senate, and the people.23 By the fifth

century the essential characteristic of the Roman Empire as a

military monarchy with the emperor as a commander in chief

of the army remained intact, but the place of imperial women

in the empire seems to have changed.24 The purple mantle had been linked with rulership since

Hellenistic times.25 Its significance as a token of power is evi

dent from an episode in the Aeneid where Dido presents a

purple mantle to Aeneas, an act that signifies her desire to

marry him and share her kingdom with him.26 In late Antiq

uity the granting of the purple chlamys was one of the defining moments in the imperial succession. The soldiers proclaimed Constantine the new emperor by clothing him in purple. Sim

ilarly, a bright purple chlamys fastened with a golden brooch

was the last element in the ceremonial dress of the newly elevated emperor Justin II.27 By the early fifth century the

diadem and the purple garment were such well-established

attributes of the augusta that John Chrysostom referred to the

empress Aelia Eudoxia (400-404) as "she who is wearing the

diadem (to diadema perikeimen?) and is clothed in the purple

garment (ten porfurida peribebl?men?)."28 The solidus of

Eudoxia, dated to 400-401, demonstrates that the garment in

question is the paludamentum (Fig. 6).29 The empress wears

3

FIGURE 4. Aelia Flaccilla, follis, bronze coin,

mint of Constantinople, 383 (photo: courtesy of Classical Numismatic Group).

FIGURE 5. Theodosios I, solidus, gold coin, mint

of Milan, 383-394, Arthur M. Sackler Museum,

1951.31.4.67 (photo: courtesy of the Arthur M.

Sackler Museum, Harvard University Art Muse

ums, Bequest of Thomas Whittemore).

IllllSilil !;tj?:!;?;;;;:::;!S;U?Ss::?S!;a;?;;

?1\ ̂ WBIliS;

FIGURE 6. Aelia Eudoxia, solidus, gold coin, mint

of Constantinople, 400-401, Arthur M. Sackler

Museum, 1951.31.4.126 (photo: courtesy of the

Arthur M. Sackler Museum, Harvard University Art Museums, Bequest of Thomas Whittemore).

it fastened over the right shoulder with a round fibula with

three pendants. In the only extant contemporary image of an

emperor and an empress in color?Justinian (527-565) and

his consort, the empress Theodora (527-548), in the apse mo

saics of San Vitale in Ravenna?the augusti are distinguished from their corresponding retinues by the deep purple hues

of their paludamenta and their opulent diadems of precious stones. Their attributes are a powerful assertion of the shared nature of their power.30 These examples suggest that con

temporary viewers would have perceived the garment of the

empress shown on the Florence and Vienna panels as tinted

purple.31

The idea that the empress' imperial authority was shared

with the emperor is reinforced by other iconographie ele

ments on the ivory panels. The scepter held by the Florence

empress is a token of imperial power often identified with

the empire itself. It was a traditional attribute of the gods,

entering imperial iconography through associations of the

imperial family with divinities. Roman empresses who were

represented carrying it in the guise of goddesses include

Livia (Fig. 7), Domitia, Faustina I, and Julia Domna.32 The

scepter became an official attribute of the emperor probably at the end of the third century.33 The eulogy of Justinian by

Agapetos elucidates the emblematic character of the scepter: in it God invested the emperor with "the scepter of earthly

rule" (to sk?ptron tes epigeiou dunasteias).34 Corippus also

used the scepter as a symbol of the imperium when he re

marked that Justin's love for Justinian surpassed that of a

successor who had had his father's scepter (sceptra patris) from birth.35 The first Christian empress shown carrying the

scepter was Verina (457-484), the mother of Ariadne, on the

bronze coinage of her husband, Leo I (457-474).36 Once

again Corippus illuminated its significance in a pun on

Sophia's name, which in Greek means "wisdom." He claimed

that even while the empress Theodora was ruling (regebat), the church of Hagia Sophia (Holy Wisdom) in Constantino

ple was a sign that Sophia would have the scepter.37 Like the scepter, the globus cruciger, symbol of Chris

tian rule over the world, had a long history. It was adopted as

an imperial token on the coinage of Theodosios II from the

420s, but the globe itself as a sign of rule had been used since

Republican times.38 Initially it belonged to Roma and the ge nius of the Roman people, but it achieved greater political

significance in scenes of investiture, which show either Jupi ter or an emperor granting the globe as the foremost symbol of imperial dominion to a new emperor.39 In the third and

fourth centuries the globe appears with greater frequency, sometimes in combination with the scepter.40 Coins from the

fourth and fifth centuries show the joint rule of two emperors

by depicting them enthroned and holding the globe together

4

FIGURE 7. Livia, as of Tiberius,

bronze coin, reverse, mint of Rome,

15-16, Arthur M. Sackler Museum,

1976.40.389 (photo: courtesy of the

Arthur M. Sackler Museum, Harvard

University Art Museums, Transfer

from Harvard College Library).

FIGURE 8. Justin II and Sophia,

follis, bronze coin, obverse, mint of

Cyzicus, 567-568, Arthur M. Sack

ler Museum, 1951.31.4.594 (photo:

courtesy of the Arthur M. Sackler

Museum, Harvard University Art

Museums, Bequest of Thomas

Whittemore).

(Fig. 5).41 Prokopios' description of the globus cruciger, held

by the emperor Justinian on his bronze equestrian statue in

Constantinople, dispels all doubts about its meaning. Accord

ing to the writer, the globe signified Justinian's rule over the

whole earth and sea, while the cross was the "emblem by which alone he has obtained both his empire and his victory in war."42 The coins of Justin II are the only known instance

where an emperor and an empress are seated on a throne side

by side: in this case, the emperor carries the globe while the

empress Sophia has the scepter (Fig. 8).43 Rather than "am

biguous symbols" of imperial power, as has been argued re

cently by Liz James, the scepter and the globus cruciger were

very explicit attributes of Christian rule and victory, attri

butes that Justin II and the emperor associated with the Flor ence and Vienna ivories willingly shared with the empress.44

The gesture made by the empress on the ivory panel in

Vienna also came from the emperor's iconography. Her open hand positioned at the knee signifies liberalitas, or donation, and is akin to the emperor Constantine's gesture when he dis

tributes largesse on his triumphal arch in Rome (313-315) and to the image of the emperor Constantius II in the Calen

dar of 354.45 Largesse often played a part in the imperial cer

emonial of adventus, where the sovereign would meet the

people and display his generosity.46 The ivory in Vienna is one of two preserved instances in which an imperial woman

is shown in this characteristically male posture. The other ex

ample is of Anicia Juliana (daughter of the emperor Anicius

Olybrius and Placidia), who was depicted as a benefactor

with her right hand opened in the Vienna Dioskorides manu

script (ca. 512; ?sterreichische Nationalbibliothek, med.

gr. 1, fol. 6v). The generosity of the empress was an estab

lished traditional virtue. In the Roman period it was acknowl

edged through representing the augusta as a personification of Euerget?s, a doer of good deeds or benefactor.47 The mu

FIGURE 9. Licinia Eudoxia, solidus,

gold coin, mint of Ravenna, 455,

Dumbarton Oaks, Byzantine Collec

tion, 4S.17.970 (photo: Dumbarton

Oaks, Byzantine Collection, Wash

ington, D.C.).

FIGURE 10. Fausta, follis, bronze

coin, mintofTicinum, 325, Arthur

M. Sackler Museum, 1942.176.

1905x (photo: courtesy of the Ar

thur M. Sackler Museum, Harvard

University Art Museums, Gift of

George Davis Chase, Professor of Classics and Dean of Graduate Study at the University of Maine).

nificence of the early Byzantine empress was tied to her piety and mostly expressed itself in caring for the sick and the poor and in the building of churches.48 But two independent tex

tual sources demonstrate that the empress, like the emperor, could also directly distribute largesse and therefore be rep resented with her hand opened: Helena and Eusebia were,

respectively, recorded distributing money to the populace on

their imperial visits to the Holy Land and Rome.49

The canopied throne, whose curving rails are visible on

either side of the empress in the Vienna panel, is yet another

attribute of imperial power which the sovereign shared with

the augusta.50 The only surviving image of an emperor shown on a throne under a baldachin is on the obverse of a coin of

Domitian.51 Despite this scarcity of representations, we can

ascertain the significance of this attribute in a detailed sixth

century description of the imperial seat, which suggests that a canopy was an important element. "The imperial seat en

nobles the middle of the palace, the seat having been sur

rounded by four outstanding columns, over which a canopy of solid gold of immoderate quantity shining brightly, and

imitating the regions of the arching sky, covers the immortal

head and the solium of the seated; the solium being decorated

5

with gems and gold and superb purple. It had four curved

arches, bound in themselves."52 As the passage suggests, the

canopy unequivocally evokes the sky and the notion that

the canopied throne was appropriated from the gods, like the

scepter and the globe.53 A medallion of the emperor Trebo

nianus Gallus (ca. 252) depicts on its obverse a statue of the

enthroned Juno seated under a baldachin supported by four

columns.54 The image represents a temple of Juno Martialis

in Rome, but the composition is very similar to that of the

Vienna ivory and of Corippus' description. Known in literature as solium or thronos, the seat itself

made its first appearance in imperial representations on a

coin of Tiberius presenting his mother, Livia, as an enthroned

goddess (Fig. 7) and on cameos depicting the emperor as

Jupiter.55 According to Andreas Alf?ldi, it replaced the tradi

tional imperial seat, the sella curulis, a backless chair with

folding legs, around the 200s.56 Most examples of enthroned

fourth- and fifth-century emperors are of two emperors seated

together.57 These include the reverses of the solidi of Valen

tinian I, Gratian, Theodosios I (Fig. 5), Leo I, and the upper

register of a consular diptych from the fifth century.58 It is

significant as well that in his description of the triumph of

Belisarios, Prokopios used the word thronos to define the em

peror's seat in the hippodrome, while Corippus referred to the

imperium as synonymous with the royal throne (regni solium) and the scepter.59

Representations of a Christian empress seated on a high back seat start to appear on fifth-century coinage. Galla Placidia

(421-450), for example, is depicted nimbed and enthroned on

the reverse of her solidus from 426-430, and Licinia Eudoxia

(439-ca. 462) on the reverse of a solidus from 455 (Fig. 9), where she is shown holding a globus cruciger in her right hand and a long scepter surmounted by a cross in her left.60

A throne with a canopy is implied in a reference to the

empress Eudokia (423-460), the wife of Theodosios II. She

made her encomium on Antioch while seated "inside an

imperial throne of solid gold set with jewels."61 Like other

imperial attributes, the throne of the Vienna empress points to imperial authority being shared between the empress and

the emperor. Thus, the iconographie analysis suggests that

the origins of empress' attributes on the two ivories can

ultimately be traced in the iconography of the Greco-Roman

gods. Furthermore, the use of imperial tokens for the Chris

tian empress imparted to her authority over the imperium and

imperial victory, essentially making her a co-emperor.

Notions of Imperial Power and the Roman Empress

The notions of the sacred position of the Roman emperor and his divinely sanctioned victory are critical to understand

ing the portrayal of imperial power in both pre-Christian and

Christian times. Both ideas are Hellenistic in origin and were

first used in Rome and the West for political ends during the

civil wars preceding the establishment of the principate. For

instance, Octavian and Mark Antony put themselves under

the protection of and respectively presented themselves as

Apollo and Dionysus.62 From then on comparisons and con

nections between the Roman emperor and his family and the

gods were ever present, reasoned variously through the di

vine ancestry of the imperial house, its members' affinity to

male or female deities, and the imperial benefaction.63 The

emperor occupied the ambiguous position of being a mortal

yet above ordinary people, with a cult to his own genius and

his divine ancestors, and was often compared with and as

similated to gods in coinage, statuary, portraiture, poetry, and

panegyrics.

Before Constantine, emperors were mostly seen as asso

ciated, protected, and sometimes appointed by powerful male

gods, Jupiter chief among them, who ensured imperial vic

tory and whom they imitated. After Constantine, the emperors became appointees and imitators of Christ.64 Imperial victory, the overwhelmingly definitive element of the emperor's author

ity, was the most eloquent sign of Jupiter's or another deity's favor.65 The notions of divinely granted imperial victory and

the emperor as a perpetual victor remained central to the con

ception of the imperial power into the Christian period.66

Iconographically, the idea of the godlike emperor and

his heavenly assisted victory were translated in images such

as those on the silver denarius of Hadrian from 119.67 The

obverse depicts a laureate bust of Hadrian, bare-chested and

sporting a beard, with his name and title inscribed around his

head. The reverse bears a representation of the enthroned Ju

piter, modeled after the statue of Phidias, holding a Victory and a scepter. The accompanying inscription, however, refers, not

to Jupiter, but continues the titles of the emperor from the ob

verse. The coin therefore associates Hadrian to Jupiter, whose

appearance he imitates through his heroic nudity and through his facial hair. Given the way the obverse and reverse commu

nicate with one another, the Victory with the wreath in the out

stretched hand of Jupiter is clearly meant for the emperor.68

Beginning with Livia, pre-Christian Roman empresses were implicated in the imperial ideology of sacred rule in a

similar fashion, through association or assimilation to female

deities and the deified imperial virtues.69 The objective of

such associations was twofold: to emphasize the empress'

dynastic significance and to underscore her role in imperial

victory. The empress' role in securing an heir or in ensuring the imperial continuity through herself prompted assimila

tions to fertility goddesses, such as Ceres, Venus Genetrix, and Juno.70 These often complemented the emperor's assimi

lations with gods. Conjugal ties were especially important, with the imperial couple often compared with divine pairs such as Juno and Jupiter or Isis and Serapis.71 In these the em

press assumed the attributes of the female deity to whom she

was likened: a Stephane (a headband of a goddess), cornuco

pia, scepter, or a throne.72

This phenomenon was often featured on coins, for ex

ample, the sestertius of Julia Domna of 211-212 from the joint

6

reign of her sons Caracalla and Geta.73 The obverse depicts a

bust of Julia with an inscription of her name and title?"Iulia Pia Felix Augusta." On the reverse is a representation of an

enthroned female figure holding a scepter, which has been

identified as the goddess Cybele, the great mother goddess of Anatolia. The inscription above this image reads "ivlia DOMNA MAT(ER) AVG(VSTORUM) MAT(ER) SEN(ATVS) MAT(ER)

patr(iae)" (mother of the augusti, mother of the Senate, mother of the fatherland). The coin inaugurates Julia Domna, a cofounder of the Severan dynasty, as a new Cybele and a

matriarch of the Roman people. Julia's maternity is celebrated as the sacred source of the major political institution in Rome and the whole empire.

The fecundity of the augusta forges another important connection in female ideology in Rome: her implication in

imperial victory. The intersection of dynasty and victory is

best seen with Venus, the ancestral goddess of the Julii via

the Trojan Aeneas, in her two closely related aspects as Ge

netrix and Victrix.14 On coins of Augustus from about 31-29

B.c., she appears with a shield at her feet, baring a sinuous

back, holding a long scepter, and carrying a helmet in her

outstretched hand.75 The helmet seems intended for Octavian, shown on the obverse. There is no identifying inscription for the goddess, only for Octavian (placed on the reverse), who is referred to as the son of the deified. Thus the image by its

iconography and inscription clearly delineates Venus' role as

both the progenitor of the future Augustus and his victory bringer. Although less common than assimilations to mother

goddesses, the Roman empress was conceived as a bringer of

victory in her assimilations to Venus Victrix and Nikephoros, or Nea Nikephoros.16 The deified imperial virtue of Victory and the virtues that were connected to the consequences of

imperial victory, such as Pax (peace), Securitas (security), and Salus (well-being, health), should also be included in this

category.77

In the second century this close connection between the

empress' dynastic role and imperial victory was recognized in the title mater castrorum, mother of the military camps.

Just over half of the empresses from Faustina the Younger (147-175) to Helena received this title.78 Visually, this title

translated into images depicting the empress enthroned as a

goddess with a scepter and a globe, with the imperial stan dards. Through a symbolic motherhood of the troops, the

empress was, therefore, presented as the begetter of imperial victory.

The traditional Roman practice of assimilating empresses to goddesses and the deified virtues to highlight their signif icance for the dynasty and imperial victory continued into the first decades of Christianization of the Roman Empire. Coins of the women of Constantine's family clearly illustrate this

phenomenon. The obverse of a double solidus of Fausta shows a bust of the empress, while the reverse depicts a seated fe

male figure wearing a halo and holding a child on her lap.79 The iconography of this image is styled after a nursing Isis,

but the inscription reads "pietas avgvstae" (the sense of duty of the augusta).80 The coin was struck to commemorate the elevation of Fausta and Fausta's sons to the rank of augusti in 324. Through association to a childbearing goddess the

solidus celebrates Fausta's fecundity, and through the virtue

of piety it emphasizes Fausta's sense of duty, fulfilled by pro

ducing heirs to the throne.81 Similarly, a bronze follis of 325

celebrates the empress as the "spes rei pvblicae" (hope of

the state) and features her holding two children, who hold on

to her breasts as if about to nurse (Fig. 10).82 A panegyric from 307, the year when Maximian made

Constantine augustus and betrothed his daughter Fausta to

him in marriage, places a different emphasis in the portrayal of this empress.83 The poem drew its audience's attention to a picture in the palace in Aquileia, which presumably featured

Fausta offering to Constantine a plumed helmet adorned with

gold and jewels.84 The orator argued that this image demon

strated Maximian's early intentions to elevate Constantine to that "sacred pinnacle of divine power."85 In the painting,

Fausta seems to have been likened to Venus Victrix. Fausta, like Venus, was therefore investing the emperor with an

instrument necessary for the accomplishment of victory and

the imperium. The gift alluded to the origins of Constantine's

power, which the orator presented as being ensured through marrying into the imperial family. The text explicitly states

that as a son-in-law, Constantine receives both Maximi

an's daughter and his "fortune most outstanding," that is, the

imperium.86

The legitimization of Constantine's power through an

imperial daughter recalls much earlier instances where a

woman, by virtue of her position and family links, strength ened a man's claim to power or his political alliances. The

beginning of the principate is particularly informative, as it seems to have established the precedents through which a

woman could participate in and influence the dynamics of

power. For instance, Livia's marriage to Octavian reinforced his power base by allying him with her family, the Claudii; Octavia's marriage to Mark Antony ensured, at least tempo rarily, the peace between her husband and her brother; and

Livia's maternity of Tiberius ultimately secured his succes

sion.87 The marriages of Julia, the princeps' daughter, to

Agrippa and Tiberius were intended to strengthen the men's association to Augustus as his designated successors. Family ties, particularly as a daughter, consort, or mother of an

emperor, continued to play a role in imperial politics in the

Christian period.88 Galeria Valeria was daughter of the em

peror Diocletian, wife of the emperor Galerius, augusta (305

315), and mater castrorum. After the death of Galerius, she must have been perceived as a serious impediment to the bal ance of power, for she was exiled by Maximin Daia and later condemned to death by Licinius, who executed her and her

mother in 315.89

Helena, of course, was the most important mother

empress in the early Christian period. Like Livia before her,

7

she became a model for the imperial women who followed.90

Helena's elevated position is celebrated on her coinage, where she is assimilated to both imperial piety and imperial

victory. The obverse of a medallion and a follis from about

325 feature her head in profile. On the reverse of the medal

lion, a standing woman holds a child in her left hand and

gives an apple to another; the bronze follis (Fig. 3) shows a

woman with a laurel or olive branch in her right hand. The

inscription of the former reads "pietas avgvstes," while the

latter makes of Helena the "secvritas rei pvblice" (security

of the state).91 Helena is depicted on the medallion, holding the end of her dress in one hand and an apple with the other, reminiscent of the Venus Victrix last used on the aureus of

Valeria of 308.92 The iconography of the medallion construes

Helena, like Fausta, as having fulfilled her imperial duty

through her fecundity, while the coin makes her the security of the state personified.93

The practice of linking empresses to deities and virtues

allowed the empress to participate in the imperial ideology of earthly rule through association to mother-goddesses, be

cause her ability to bear children assured the continuation

of the dynasty. As a consequence of these associations, the

iconography of the divine shaped the image of the augusta. Furthermore, because the empress secured new bearers of the

imperium either through her children or herself, she was

eventually imaged as the source of imperial victory.

The Christian Augusta and the Imperium

The empresses on the Florence and Vienna ivories con

vey a different message from that seen in the Roman period. On the ivory panels, the Roman emphasis on the sacred fe

cundity of the augusta and the blessed conditions of imperial

victory give way to images that advertised the authority of the

empress and almost completely obliterate her identity as a

woman.94 From a symbolic mother of victory the empress has

turned into a victorious sovereign. Dynastic concerns were

obviously equally important in the Christian era. Why, then,

portray the empress as a sovereign rather than a childbearer?

The first augusta whose portrayal did not explicitly em

phasize childbearing was Flaccilla, consort of the founder of

the Theodosian dynasty. As was noted earlier, Flaccilla was

the first augusta to wear a diadem of precious stones together with the imperial paludamentum fastened over the right shoul

der with a bejeweled fibula (Fig. 4). This portrayal occurs on

her coinage issued in 383 to celebrate an important dynastic occasion?Flaccilla's elevation to the rank of augusta, which

occurred simultaneously with her son Arkadios' promotion to

the rank of augustus.95 Yet the image created for Flaccilla on

this coin is quite different from the image minted for Fausta, even though the occasions were similar. The reverse of Fausta's

coinage is novel and intriguing: it depicts a winged Victory

writing the monogram of Christ on a shield.96 Its legend reads

"salvs rei pvblicae" (well-being of the state). The iconog

raphy of this coin follows the type used on the vota coinage, which celebrated vows for the emperor at the beginning of

imperial journeys, anniversaries of his reign, and marriages, and usually represented the goddess Victory recording the

nature of the vows.97 Vota for the emperor were considered acts

of piety in exchange for which the gods granted the emperor their blessings.98 In the bronze coin shown in Figure 4, the

reverse associates the empress to Salus and Victory, whose

hairstyle mimics those of Flaccilla.99 The augusta is thus simul

taneously assimilated to Victory and Salus. Both the well-being of the state and imperial victory are personified and guaran teed by the pious empress who pledges the emperor's shield, a metaphor for military victory, to Christ.100

The image on this coin compares with the triumphal re

lief of Septimius Severus (205-209) in Leptis Magna, where

the Victory crowning the emperor was given the features of

Julia Domna, or with Fausta endowing Constantine with a

helmet from the Panegyric of 307.101 But there are differ ences. The image conveys Christian ideas, and, more spe

cifically, Flaccilla's coinage does not celebrate her fecundity as do the portrayals of Julia Domna or Fausta. The obverse

shows her depicted very much like her consort on a solidus

minted in Milan by his Western colleague (Fig. 5). Theo

dosios I wears the diadem and the paludamentum. The re

verse of the same coin features the Eastern and Western

augusti dressed in paludamenta with embroidered tablia,

sporting diadems and haloes, and holding a globe together. The inscription reads "Victory of the augusti." In this con

text, the attire and attributes of Flaccilla imply a degree of

partnership between her and Theodosios I similar to that

existing between Theodosios I and his Western colleague.102 This shift in the conception of the empress' role is fundamen

tal and is reinforced by the simultaneous refashioning of the

portrayal on the reverse of the coins. Traditionally, Flaccilla's

childbearing would have been conveyed through association

with a mother-goddess. But an image reminiscent of Venus, for instance, would have been inconsistent with Theodosios'

commitment to the Christian faith. The Christian message on

the reverse draws on the traditional iconography of Victory and the vota. This mixture of tradition and innovation reflects

the ideological complexities of the late fourth century as well

as Theodosios' own policy of toleration for the pagan aris

tocracy, which lasted up to February 391, when he banned all

sacrifice to the pagan gods and the use of their temples.103 Thus, the Christianization of the empire may account for this

shift in the representations of empresses. The novel iconography of the reverse, showing the

empress adorned with the attributes of the imperium, can

therefore only be understood in light of Ambrose's funerary oration for Theodosios I in 395. Ambrose elaborated on the

god-inspired beginnings of the Christian monarchy by locat

ing them, not, as we might expect, in the actions of Constan

tine the Great, but in those of his mother, the empress Helena, and her discovery of the True Cross. Ambrose reported that

8

the empress found the nails with which the Lord was cruci

fied.104 From one nail she ordered a bridle to be made, from

the other a diadem. She sent both of these items to Con

stantine, who through their use made the monarchy Christian.

Helena placed the cross on the head of sovereigns and single

handedly allowed for the Christian faith to be practiced by

emperors. Helena also compared with Mary: "Maria was vis

ited, so that Eva might be liberated, Helena was visited, so

that the emperors might be redeemed."105 Thus Ambrose

presented Helena as a partner of Constantine in forging the

Christian monarchy through putting the nail of the cross on

his diadem and ensuring his victory in Christ by the bridle for

his horse.106 In the process the bishop associates the augusta with Mary.

This passage in Ambrose's oration helps explain why an

empress would be portrayed as an emperor and not as a dy nastic matriarch. The bishop made Helena an active partner of Constantine in the forging of the Christian state and ele

vated her to a position of authority comparable to that of the

emperor. This new status necessarily implied participation in

the imperium. This is a markedly different vision from that of

the genealogy of Livia and her adornments. Instead of jew

elry, Helena passed to future empresses the imperium. Augus tae from Flaccilla onward derived this authority through their

symbolic descent from Helena, whose actions were funda

mental to the establishment of the Christian monarchy and

victory. The letter of Paulinus of Nola, which envisaged Con

stantine's imperium coming as much through Helena's faith

as through the emperor's, echoes this formulation.107

Late Antiquity offers a number of instances in which an

empress, performing in fact what Ambrose's Helena had done

in faith, bestowed imperial authority on a new emperor. These

include Pulcheria's role in the accession of Marcian, Ariadne's

in the accession of Anastasios, or Verina's (457-484) coro

nation of the pretender Leontios.108 Building on the innova

tions introduced for Flaccilla, the elevated position of the

empress was reflected in her gradual appropriation of the

emperor's insignia.

Starting with Pulcheria (414-453), certain empresses

began to be included in victory along with their male coun

terparts.109 The reverses of Pulcheria's solidi from 450-453

show a Victory carrying a long cross and the inscription "vic

toria avggg" (Victoria augustorum; victory of the augusti), where the three G's refer to the number of augusti recognized

by the Eastern court (Fig. 11). These included Pulcheria's

husband, Marcian, and their Western colleague, Valentinian

III.110 The third G must be for Pulcheria, who was thus rec

ognized as a member of the imperial college and a victorious

sovereign. The use of the G's on coins to indicate the number

of the augusti has been one of the most useful criteria for

dating coinage struck in the late fourth century. It has been

argued, however, that the accuracy of this method decreases

with the fifth century and that the inclusion of women in the

imperial college seemed unlikely.111 This interpretation is dif

"*H^Bpr

FIGURE 11. Aelia Pulcheria, soli

dus, gold coin, mint of Constanti

nople, 450-453, Dumbarton Oaks,

Byzantine Collection, 48.17.1183

(photo: Dumbarton Oaks, Byzan tine Collection, Washington, D.C.).

FIGURE 12. Ae//?7 Vferi/ui, solidus,

gold coin, mint of Constantinople, ca. 457-474, Arthur M. Sackler

Museum, 1951.31.4.182 (photo:

courtesy of the Arthur M. Sackler

Museum, Harvard University Art

Museums, Bequest of Thomas

Whittemore).

ficult to sustain when we examine the reverses of the solidi

with Victoria augustorum of Verina (Fig. 12), Zenonis (475

476), Euphemia (467-472), and Ariadne.112 In all these cases

the three G's are perfectly explicable once the empress is

added into the equation. But even if by that time the number

of the final letters had lost its significance, the plural form

and the placement of the inscription clearly made the empress

part of the imperial victory in the same way as the emperor was on his coinage.

The participation of the augusta in imperial victory was

indeed revolutionary in view of Roman practices. The closest

parallels in the Roman period are Tacitus' account of Agrip

pina's sitting on a dais like the emperor in front of the im

perial standards or Julia Mamaea's bronze medallion with the

imperial standards, of about 230, as mater castrorum et au

gustorum.113 The scarcity of Roman examples demonstrates

how innovative and transformative the early Christian devel

opments in female imperial portrayal were.

The parity of costume, the parity of imagery, and the

parity of designation between the Christian emperor and the

Christian empress were results of their collaboration in forg

ing imperial victory, which they achieved through their faith

and divine favor. The partnership of the augusti is visualized

9

explicitly on the coins of Leo I and Verina, the now-lost mo

saics in the Chalke Gate depicting Justinian and Theodora

celebrating military victories together, and the coinage of

Justin and Sophia seated together on the same throne.114 In

the last instance the visual parity and the shared throne cor

respond forcefully to parts of Corippus' description of Jus

tin's succession. Corippus narrates that on entering the palace the imperial guards wished a happy reign to the rulers (impe rium felix dominis), and that later the citizenry addressed the

pair together, exclaiming, "Regnate pares in saecula!" (Rule

together in eternity!).115 This word choice and the previous

examples indicate that by the sixth century the imperium was

conceived as a partnership of a male and a female sovereign.

Therefore, it is very likely that each of the so-called ivories

of Ariadne originally belonged to two diptychs of five parts. One of the leaves of these diptychs showed an empress, the

other an emperor, completing in images as well as ideas the

joint character of their rule, rule rooted in Christian victory rather than fecundity.116

The so-called ivories of Ariadne were a product of the

specific late Antique synthesis of Roman ideas of rulership with Christian ideology. In this synthesis the augusta lost some of her sacred aura but gained earthly power.117

NOTES

* This article is part of a larger project on female imperial iconography. It is based on ideas I developed in my master's thesis, "The Ivories of

Ariadne and the Construction of the Image of the Empress and the

Theotokos in Late Antiquity" (Thesis, Southern Methodist University,

Dallas, 1998). Since then I have presented revised versions of the

thesis at the Byzantine Studies Conference (Harvard University, 2000) and the symposium "Byzantine Women: New Perspectives" (Andrew

M. Sackler Museum, Cambridge, MA, 2003). I would like to extend

my warm thanks and appreciation to the individuals who have encour

aged, advised, read, and critiqued various drafts of this study. They include Annemarie Weyl Carr, Ioli Kalavrezou, Michael McCormick,

Rabun Taylor, William Babcock, John Duffy, Brian DeLay, and Gesta's

two anonymous readers. For their invaluable editorial guidance I thank

Gesta's editor Anne D. Hedeman and her assistant, Charlotte Bauer

Smith. A Haakon travel grant from Southern Methodist University

(1998) and a Mellon summer travel grant from Harvard University enabled me to examine in person many of the monuments and objects

mentioned in this text, including the two ivories. I am indebted to

Ermanno Arslan, who on very short notice showed me the empresses' coins in the Castello Sforzesco collection in Milan, and to the curators

at the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna, who arranged for me to

see the ivory panel. I am grateful to Carmen Arnold-Biucchi for her

assistance in obtaining photographs from the Andrew M. Sackler

Museum. I also would like to thank C?cile Morrisson and Jean-Michel

Spieser for offering challenging comments on my work, and for alert

ing me to Professor Spieser's "Imp?ratrices romaines et chr?tiennes,"

Travaux et M?moires, XIV (M?langes Gilbert Dagron) (2002), 593

604.1 regret that their counsel arrived too late to be completely incor

porated into this article.

1. "lam mu?era nuptae praeparat et pulchros, Mariae sed luce minores,

eligit ornatus, quicquid uenerabilis olim Liuia diuorumque nurus

gessere superbae." Claudian, Carmina, IX (Epithalamium), 10-13, ed.

and trans. J.-L. Charlet (Paris, 2000), II, 59-60. Jean-Loius Charlet

notes that a similar story appears in Tacitus, Annales, XIII, 13, 4, ibid.,

60 note a.

2. Ambrose, De obitu Theodosii, 47; see note 104 below.

3. The most important recent work includes, on Helena, J. W. Drijvers, Helena Augusta: The Mother of Constantine the Great and the Legend

of Her Finding of the True Cross (Leiden, 1992), esp. 9-73; on the

Theodosian period, K. Holum, Theodosian Empresses: Women and

Imperial Dominion in Late Antiquity (Berkeley, 1982); on the whole

period, L. James, Empresses and Power in Early Byzantium (London,

2001); with a primary focus on the empresses Ariadne, Theodora, and

Sophia, but not neglecting fourth- and fifth-century developments, A.

McClanan, Representations of Early Byzantine Empresses (New York,

2002). Of these studies McClanan's is most attentive to the legacy of

the Roman era.

4. All dates in parentheses are regnal.

5. R. Delbrueck, Die Consulardiptychen und verwandte Denkm?ler (Ber

lin, 1929), Nos. 51 and 52; W. F. Volbach, Elfenbeinarbeiten der

Sp?tantike und des fr?hen Mittelalters, 3rd ed. (Mainz, 1976), Nos. 51

and 52, with a detailed bibliography on the two ivories; and, most re

cently, the catalogue entry in Rome, Palazzo delle Esposizioni, Aurea

Roma: Dalla citt? pagana alla citt? cristiana (Rome, 2000), ed. S. En

soli and E. La Rocca, No. 268, 580-581. See also James, Empresses,

136-145; McClanan, Byzantine Empresses, 168-178. On Ariadne, see

J. R. Martindale, PLRE, II, s.v. "Aelia Ariadne."

6. Delbrueck, Die Consulardiptychen, 206; compare with other portraits of empresses, for instance, the Vienna panel or sculpted heads in

Aurea Roma, Nos. 270 and 271, 582-583.

7. E. Bartman, Portraits of Livia: Imaging the Imperial Woman in Au

gustan Rome (Cambridge, Eng., 1999), 46 and 72.

8. Ibid., 72.

9. For modesty: Eusebia in Julian, Oratio, III, 123a, ed. LCL, trans. W. C.

Wright (Cambridge, MA, 1913; rpt. 1962), 327; and A. St. Clair, "Im

perial Virtue: Questions of Form and Function in the Case of Four

Late Antique Statuettes," DOP, L (1996), 147-163. For childbear

ing: Claudian, Carmina, IX (Epithalamium), 340-341; Holum, Theo

dosian Empresses, 28 and 53-54; D. Missiou, "?ber die institutionelle

Rolle der byzantinischen Kaiserin," JOEB, XXXII/2 (1982), 489-498;

10

St. Maslev, "Die staatrechtliche Stellung der byzantinischen Kaiserin

nen," Byzantinoslavica, XXII/2 (1966), 308-343. For a different view

on childbearing, see James, Empresses, 60-65. There is no good evi

dence that the emperor on the pea-size medallion on the tablion of the

empress in Florence represents a minor and the empress as a regent. For instance, see K. Wessel, "Wer ist der Consul auf der florentiner

Kaiserinnen-Tafel?" BZ, LVII (1964), 378. It is more likely that the

image of the emperor on the tablion functioned in the same way as the

representation of the emperor Justin "in true purple portrait medallion"

on a chlamys of white silk, which Justin gave to the ruler of Laz,

Malalas, Chronographia, L, XVII, 135, trans. E. Jeffreys, M. Jeffreys, and R. Scott (Melbourne, 1986), 233. This present along with the gift of a crown signified the subordinate position of the king of the Lazi in

respect to the Byzantine emperor. The significance of the portrait on

the tablion is complicated by the observation made above that the out

lines of the figure on the chlamys of the Vienna empress may represent an augusta.

10. Angelova, "Ivories of Ariadne," 26-44; for a similar conclusion, see

James, Empresses, 139-140.

11. Fig. 3: Byzantine Women, No. 16; for the type: RIC, VII, No. 465, 206.

On the coinage of Helena with the diadem, see A. Robertson, Roman

Imperial Coins in the Hunter Coin Cabinet, University of Glasgow

(Oxford, 1982), V, Pis. 61.H.3-H.17, 255-257. A bronze coin minted

in Thessalonica between 318 and 319, before she assumed the rank of

augusta shows Helena without a diadem, see ibid., No. 1, 255. Exam

ples of Fausta diademed are much rarer, see RIC, VII, No. 482, 209.

12. Decoration: M. R. Alf?ldi, Die Constantinische Goldpr?gung: Unter

suchungen zu ihrer Bedeutung f?r Kaiserpolitik und Hofkunst (Mainz,

1963), 144-145; Holum, Theodosian Empresses, 33 note 100. Imperial attributes: R. Delbrueck, Sp?tantike Kaiserportr?ts von Constantinus

Magnus bis zum Ende des Westreichs (Berlin, 1933), 58-66. James

avoids taking a stand on this question in Empresses, 105. See also

Drijvers, Helena Augusta, 42-43, with bibliography.

13. Drijvers, Helena Augusta, 41. The precise date might be 8 November

324, when Constantius became Caesar. See T. Barnes, The New Empire

of Diocletian and Constantine (Cambridge, MA, 1982), 9 and note 39.

14. Paulinus of Nola, Epistolae, XXXI, 4; for the text in Latin and a Ger

man translation, refer to Paulinus von Nola: Epistulae; Briefe, ed. and

trans. M. Skeb Obs (Freiburg, 1998), II, 736-737. On the relation

ship, expressed in a similar language, reflecting Nola's writing, see

Sulpicius Severus, Chronicles, II, 33. For commentary and a French

translation, see G. de Senneville-Grave, Sulpice S?v?re: Chroniques

(Sources Chr?tiennes, CDXLI) (Paris, 1999), 435.

15. Holum first drew attention to this formulation in Themistios' oration

for Theodosios I (ca. 384), Oratio, XIX, 228b, ed. W. Dindorf

(Leipzig, 1832), and Gregory of Nyssa's funerary oration for Flaccilla

from the year 386, Oratio Funebris in Flacillam Imperatricem, ed.

Migne, PG, XLVI, 877-891, in Theodosian Empresses, 41, including note 106, and 44.

16. Julian, Oratio, III, 114c. This formulation is all the more important be

cause Eusebia was not given the title "augusta." For the date of the

oration, S. Tougher, "In Praise of an Empress: Julian's 'Speech of

Thanks' to Eusebia," in The Propaganda of Power: The Role of Pane

gyric in Late Antiquity, ed. M. Whitby (Mnemosyne Supplement,

CLXXXIII) (Leiden, 1998), 109 and note 19.

17. Holum, Theodosian Empresses, 32-34.

18. RIC, IX, Nos. 48 and 49, 225; throughout the text I refer to the excel

lent photographs by M. Hirmer and A. Hirmer in J. P. C. Kent, Roman

Coins (New York, 1978), Nos. 718-720.

19. Holum, Theosodian Empresses, 34.

20. For Claudius' marriages, Suetonius, Diuus Claudius, XXVI-XXVII.

21. Tacitus, Annales, XII, 56-57, ed. T. E. Page, trans. J. Jackson, LCL

(Cambridge, MA, 1937; rpt. 1963), IV, 398-399; for commentary, see

M. Kaplan, 'Agrippina semper atrox: A Study in Tacitus' Character

ization of Women," in Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History, ed. C. Deroux (Brussels, 1979), I, 413-414, and note 12.

22. Tacitus, Annales, XII, 37, ed. Page, trans. Jackson, IV, 366-367; Ka

plan, "Agrippina," 413.

23. Tacitus, Annales, XIV, 11, ed. Page, trans. Jackson, V, 124-125. On

Agrippina's ambition for sovereignty, see R. Baumann, Women and

Politics in Ancient Rome (London, 1992), 181-189.

24. J. Gag?, "La th?ologie de la victoire imp?riale," Revue Historique,

CLXXI(1933), 1.

25. A. Alf?ldi, "Insignien und Tracht der r?mischen Kaiser," in Die mo

narchische Repr?sentation im r?mischen Kaiserreiche: mit Register von Elisabeth Alf?ldi-Rosenbaum (Darmstadt, 1970), 263, first pub lished in Mitteilungen des Deutschen Arch?ologischen Instituts,

R?mische Abteilung, L (1935), 3-158.

26. Virgil, Aeneid, IV, 262-264.

27. Constantine: Panegyrici Latini, VI, 8, 3, ed. Mynors, trans. C. E.

Nixon (Berkeley, 1994), 228 note 31; Justin II: Corippus, In laudem

Iustini Augusti Minoris, II, 118-120; for the text in Latin and a French

translation, see Corippe: ?loge de l'empereur Justin 11, ed. and trans.

S. Antes (Paris, 1981), 37-38. See also the extensive commentary in

In laudem Iustini Augusti minoris, Libri IV, ed. and trans A. Cameron

(London, 1976). For another example of the significance of the impe rial purple, see Ammianus Marcellinus' description of Julian's eleva

tion to the rank of Caesar, Histories, XV, 8, 15.

28. John Chrysostom, Homil?a, II, ed. Migne, PG, LXIII, in Holum, Theo

sodian Empresses, 57; also ibid., 34 note 102 on similar evidence for

Flaccilla.

29. Grierson and Mays, LRC, no. 273; Cambridge, MA, Sackler Museum,

Byzantine Women and Their World (Cambridge, MA, 2003), ed. I. Ka

lavrezou, No. 29.

30. For a different view, C. Barber, "The Imperial Panels in San Vitale: A

Reconsideration," BMGS, XIV (1990), 22 and 36-37.

31. In my examination of the Vienna ivory I saw traces of gilding on the

baldachin and the garment, but I could not detect any remains of pur

ple paint, though there were traces of black paint in the eyes. Looking

through the display glass, I was not able to discern any traces of paint or gilding on the Florence ivory.

32. Alf?ldi, "Insignien und Tracht," Pis. 6.1, 6.4, 12.15, and 14.7, respec

tively.

33. Ibid., 230-233.

34. Agapetos, Ekthesis, ed. Migne, PG, LXXXVI/1, 1164.

35. Corippus, In laudem Iustini, III, 130-131.

36. Grierson and Mays, LRC, Nos. 582-586. A few years earlier a contem

porary historian remarked that Valentinian deprived his sister, the em

press Justa Grata Honoria, of the "scepter of the empire"; see Holum,

Theodosian Empresses, 1.

37. Corippus, In laudem Iustini, IV, 270-273.

38. Grierson and Mays, LRC, 13, Nos. 359-360 and 364-369.

39. Alf?ldi, "Insignien und Tracht," 235-237, PI. 8.6; coin of Hadrian

receiving a globe from Jupiter, RIC, II, No. 109, 353; aureus of

Hadrian with Trajan handing him the globe, RIC, II, No. 2, 338 and

302.

11

40. Globe only: Constantius I (PI. 10.3-4), Valens (Pis. 15.1, 16.1, and

16.3). With the scepter: medallions of Probus (PI. 3.16), Constantine

(PI. 7.17), in F. Gnecchi, / Medaglioni Romani (Milan, 1912; rpt. Bo

logna, 1972), I.

41. For the type of solidus reproduced, RIC, IX, No. 5d, 76; No. 8b, 78,

and No. 20b, 80; for other examples, Grierson and Mays, LRC, No. 70

(Arkadios) and Nos. 901-925 (Anthemios).

42. Prokopios, De aedificiis, I, 2, 11-12, ed. LCL, trans. H. Dewing (Cam

bridge, MA, 1940; rpt. 1961), 35.

43. A. Bellinger, Catalogue of the Byzantine Coins in the Dumbarton

Oaks and the Whittemore Collection, Anastasius to Maurice (491

602), ed. A. Bellinger and P. Grierson (Washington, D.C., 1966), I, Nos. 195-262.

44. James, Empresses, 140. Anne McClanan argues that the empress on

the panels is most likely Sophia. The major points of her argument are

the partnership between Justin and Sophia, powerfully conveyed on

their follis coinage, where they are represented sharing the same

throne, and the "form of the imperial portrait" of the emperor from the

tablion on the Florence ivory. Following Andr? Grabar, she argues for

similarities between the emperor from the tablion and the coinage of

Tiberios and Maurice Tiberios (Byzantine Empresses, 176-178). How

ever, she disagrees with Grabar's identification of the empress on the

ivories as Constantina, wife of Maurice Tiberios, and suggests instead

Sophia as the most likely candidate for this period. In my view, the

shared throne and imperial authority between Justin II and Sophia were simply stages in the development of the iconography and idea of

shared rule. As I demonstrate in this paper, it was preceded by a grad ual assimilation of other attributes and ideas associated with the em

peror. In this development the shared throne was perhaps one of the

most explicit manifestations of partnership between the augusti, but

the idea of partnership itself had a longer history. By contrast, the ico

nography of the emperor on the tablion fits well into a late-fifth- to

early-sixth-century date. The emperor on the tablion is shown wearing a consular loros (a long scarf wrapped in an X over the upper body),

holding a mappa (a handkerchief) in his lifted right hand and a scepter

topped by a bust (presumably his own image) in his left hand. Three

points project up from the middle of his diadem. Two single-string

pendants, terminating in a larger stone, attach to the crown on left and

right. There are frontal representations of an emperor-consul with the

loros, holding a mappa and a scepter before the reign of Maurice Tibe

rios that are similar to that on the tablion, for instance, the consular

solidi of Theodosios II from 430, of Leo I from 458(?), and of Valen

tinian III from 435, all of which show the emperors seated on the

obverse in this characteristic posture (Grierson and Mays, LRC, Nos.

391, 530-531, and 856 respectively). On these three, only Valentinian

wears pendants on his diadem, but they are seen only on the reverse.

Further, medallion portraits of Anastasios and Justinian from the upper

registers of consular diptychs (Anastasios: Volbach, Elfenbeinarbei

ten, Nos. 15, 16, and 21; and Justinian: ibid., No. 33) show the emperor's diadem with short pendants. On some of these the headbands of Anas

tasios and Justinian exhibit the characteristic three projections seen on

the diadem of the tablion emperor (Nos. 15 and 16). In comparison, the crown of Maurice terminates in a cross. Maurice's diadem is also

decorated with two strings of pendants on either side, whereas the pen dants of the tablion emperor and that of Valentinian, Anastasios, and

Justinian are single-stranded. Thus, the emperor on the tablion could

potentially be identified as any of these three. Finally, it is possible that

the two panels represent a different empress. Arguments in favor of

different empresses include James, Empresses, 139; and A. Christo

filopoulou, "Wer ist die Kaiserin auf der Elfenbeintafel im Bargello?"

Deltion, V (1969), 148. Stylistically the panels are very similar to rep

resentations of Ariadne on a number of early-sixth-century consular

diptychs, Volbach, Elfenbeinarbeiten, Nos. 15-21. But to what extent

we can consider those representations as well as the portrayals of the

Vienna and the Florence ivories as portraits, let alone different in the

latter case, is arguable. Since stylistically and iconographically the panels with an empress compare most comfortably with late-fifth- to early

sixth-century iconography, this is the date I adopt for them, but I keep the name by which they are commonly known for convenience.

45. For examples and discussion, see R. Brilliant, Gesture and Rank in Ro

man Art: The Use of Gestures to Denote Status in Roman Sculpture and Coinage (New Haven, 1963), 170-172, Fig. 4.21. For Constantius, see New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, Age of Spirituality: Late

Antique and Early Christian Art, Third to Seventh Century (New

York, 1979), ed. K. Weitzmann, No. 67, 78-79.

46. S. MacCormack, Art and Ceremony in Late Antiquity (The Transfor

mation of the Classical Heritage, I) (Berkeley, 1981), 37; idem,

"Change and Continuity in Late Antiquity: The Ceremony of Adven

tus," Historia, XXI (1972), 721-752.

47. For the women assimilated to Euerget?s, see U. Hahn, Die Frauen des

r?mischen Kaiserhauses und ihre Ehrungen im griechischen Osten an

hand epigraphischer und numismatischer Zeugnisse von Livia bis Sa

bina (Saarbr?cker Studien zur Arch?ologie und alten Geschichte, VIII)

(Saarbr?cken, 1994), 403.

48. Holum, Theodosian Empresses, 26-27; James, Empresses, 156; A. McClanan, "The Empress Theodora and the Tradition of Women's

Patronage in the Early Byzantine Empire," in The Cultural Patronage

of Medieval Women, ed. J. H. McCash (Athens, GA, 1996), 50-67.

49. Eusebius, Vita Constantini, III, 44-45, trans. A. Cameron and S. Hall

(Oxford, 1999), 138; Julian, Oratio, III, 129c, ed. LCL, 344; Julian

comments that Eusebia was welcomed according to the custom, imply

ing that there was in place a special protocol for the greeting of an em

press. See also Holum's interpretation of Eudokia's visit in the Holy Land as an adventus, in Theodosian Empresses, 186 and note 46.

50. Although the ivory of Ariadne in Vienna is not included in the writings about the lyre-back throne, it should be counted in this category. The

design of the back is reminiscent of the one on the seat of Christ in the

narthex mosaic of Hagia Sophia. On the throne, see J. Breckenridge, "Christ on the Lyre-Back Throne," DOP, XXXIV-XXXV (1980

1981), 247-260; and A. Cutler, Transfigurations: Studies in the Dy namics of Byzantine Iconography (University Park, 1975), 5-52.

51. Alf?ldi, "Insignien und Tracht," 248-249, PI. 14.1.

52. "Nobilitat medios sedes Augusta penates, quattuor eximiis circu

muallata columnis, quas super ex solido praefulgens cymbius auro im

modico, simulans conuexi climata caeli, immortale caput soliumque sedentis obumbrat, ornatum gemmis, auroque ostroque superbum. Quat tuor in sese nexos curuauerat arcus." Corippus, In laudem Iustini, III,

191-200, ed. and trans. S. Antes, 60-61. My English translation is

informed by the French translation and the English translation by A.

Cameron (London, 1976). For commentary on the passage, see Cam

eron, 188; for a different interpretation, especially the last sentence in

regard to the seat of the emperor, see T. Mathews, The Clash of Gods:

A Reinterpretation of Early Christian Art (Princeton, 1993), 106.

Mathews believes that the seat must be the sella curulis, not the

throne. But it is difficult to imagine how the four arches of the text

would correspond to the legs of the sella curulis in terms of structure.

53. Alf?ldi, "Insignien und Tracht," 243-244.

54. Gnecchi, / Medaglioni, No. 1, PI. 25.1, 50; for a better photograph,

Kent, Roman Coins, No. 474.

55. Alf?ldi, "Insignien und Tracht," 243, Pis. 6.1 and 8.18.

56. Ibid., 243.

12

57. See also a colossal statue of Constantine I from the Basilica Nova (ca.

315-330), where the emperor was depicted seated, D. Kleiner, Roman

Sculpture (New Haven, 1992), 438, Figs. 399-401, and a medallion of

Constantine with his sons celebrating the founding of Constantinople,

Alf?ldi, "Insignien und Tracht," PL 16.1-2.

58. Valentinian I and Gratian: RIC, IX, No. 16.a, 16; Gratian, ibid., No.

9.a, 159; Arkadios: Grierson and Mays, LRC, Nos. 61 and 70; Leo I:

ibid., 533; ivory diptych: Volbach, Elfenbeinarbeiten, No. 35.

59. Prokopios, De bello Vand?lico, IV, 9, 4, ed. LCL, trans. H. Dewing

(Cambridge, MA, 1916; rpt. 1968), 279; Corippus, In laudem Iustini, I,

269-271.

60. Galla Placidia: Grierson and Mays, LRC, Nos. 291-294; RIC, X, No.

2009, 365, although J. Kent interprets the figure as an emperor; Licinia

Eudoxia: Grierson and Mays, LRC, No. 870.

61. Malalas, Chronographia, trans. E. Jeffreys et al. (Melbourne, 1986),

194-195; this is a passage found only in the Tusculan Fragments.

62. J. R. Fears, "The Cult of Jupiter and Roman Imperial Ideology," Auf

stieg und Niedergang der r?mischen Welt, II, XVII/1 (1981), 3-141,

esp. 36; and P. Zanker, The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus, trans. A. Shapiro (Ann Arbor, 1999), 44-53.

63. The pioneering work on the emperor's association with the gods is

L. R. Taylor, The Divinity of the Roman Emperor (Middletown, CT,

1931; rpt. Philadelphia, 1975), esp. 162-180. In the West, the divinity of the Roman emperor was decided by the Senate after his death. In his

lifetime he emphasized his divine ancestry, starting with Augustus, divi filius, the son of the deified Julius, who claimed Venus as his

ancestor. The latest book with an important new interpretation on how

the divinity of the emperor was negotiated in the West is I. Gradel,

Emperor Worship and Roman Religion (Oxford, 2002), esp. 25-26. In

the East, the emphasis was on assimilation to the traditional gods in

the emperor's lifetime. See the excellent discussion on this very com

plex question in the following works by S. R. F. Price: "Between Man

and God," Journal of Roman Studies, LXX (1980), 28-43; Rituals and

Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor (Cambridge, 1984),

133-248; "Gods and Emperors: The Greek Language of the Roman

Imperial Cult," Journal of Hellenic Studies, CIV (1984), 79-95, esp. 94-95.

64. On Jupiter's role, see J. R. Fears, Princeps a diis electus: The Divine

Election of the Emperor as a Political Concept at Rome (Papers and

Monographs of the American Academy in Rome, XXVI) (Rome,

1977); and idem, "The Cult of Jupiter," 3-141.

65. Gag?, "La th?ologie de la victoire," 1-44, esp. 1-2 and 19. A more re

cent review with bibliography is J. R. Fears, "The Theology of Victory of Rome: Approaches and Problems," Aufstieg und Niedergang der

r?mischen Welt, II, XVII/2 (1981), 736-826.

66. M. McCormick, Eternal Victory: Triumphal Rulership in Late Antiq

uity, Byzantium, and the Early Medieval West (Cambridge, Eng.,

1986), 35-79; F. Dvornik, Early Christian and Byzantine Political Phi

losophy: Origins and Background (Washington, D.C., 1966), II, 611?

638.

67. Inscription on the obverse: "imp caesar traianvs hadrianvs avg"; on the reverse: "pont max tr pot cosiii," RIC, II, No. 142, 357; Kent,

Roman Coins, No. 281.

68. For the history of a deity granting victory to the emperor, see S. Wein

stock, Divus Julius (Oxford, 1971), 100-103, PL 11.2-3. Depictions of

Victory bestowing a laurel wreath on the emperor in recognition of his

victory become frequent in the reign of Commodus, Gag?, "La th?ol

ogie de la victoire," 23.

69. For the first associations, see G. Grether, "Livia and the Roman Impe rial Cult," American Journal of Philology, XLVII (1946), 3, 222-252;

T. Mikocki, Sub speciae deae: Les imp?ratrices et princesses romaines

assimil?es ? d?esses. ?tude iconologique (Rome, 1995), 125; and S.

Matheson, "The Divine Claudia: Women as Goddesses in Roman Art,"

in /, Claudia: Women in Ancient Rome, ed. D. Kleiner and S. Matheson

(New Haven, 1996), 182-193.

70. According to T. Mikocki's calculation, there are 185 assimilations to

Ceres, 105 to Juno, and 81 to Venus: see Sub speciae deae, 125. See

also Hahn, Die Frauen, 399-403.

71. Mikocki, Sub speciae deae, 56 and 116-118; Angelova, "The Ivories

of Ariadne," 54.

72. Mikocki, Sub speciae deae, 17.

73. H. Mattingly, BMCRE, V, 2nd ed. (London, 1975), PI. 67.13-14, xl.

74. Weinstock, Divus Julius, 83-86.

75. BMCRE, I, Nos. 599-601, 98-99, PI. 14.16-17; for a photograph of

the type, Kent, Roman Coins, No. 121.

76. J. Aymard, "V?nus et les imp?ratrices sous les derniers Antonins,"

M?langes d'arch?ologie et d'histoire, XLI (1934), 178-196; Gag?, "La th?ologie de la victoire," 21; for assimilations to Venus Victrix:

Julia Domna: RIC, IV/1, No. 581, 171; Plautilla : RIC, IV/1, No. 368,

270; Magnia Urbica: RIC, V/2, No. 342, 184; Galer?a Valeria, RIC, VI,

No. 67, 673; for photographs not necessarily of the same examples, see

Kent, Roman Coins, Julia Domna, No. 381; Magnia Urbica, No. 560;

and Galeria Valeria, No. 601. It should be noted that Aymard and Gag? do not distinguish between Venus Genetrix and Victrix. Iconographi

cally, there is no consistency in the representation of the two types, al

though Victrix seems to be most often represented holding armor. An

example of the fluidity in the iconography is the coin of Julia Domna

cited above (No. 381), which combines elements of both Genetrix and

Victrix. Weinstock, Divus Julius, 83-87. Nikephoros is an epithet in

troduced for deities holding a Victory, for example, Athena or Venus, see Weinstock, Divus Julius, 100; the following empresses were Nike

phoros: Livia, Iulia (Livilla), and Drusilla the Younger, see Hahn, Die

Frauen, 44, 171, 398, and 403.

77. The assimilation to Victory probably began with Ful via during her

marriage to Mark Antony when she was presented with wings on an

aureus from about 42-40 b.c., S. Wood, Imperial Women: A Study in Public Images (Leiden, 1999), 41-44 and Fig. 1. It includes Anto

nia, Agrippina the Younger, Domitia, Poppaea Sabina, Faustina the

Younger, and Julia Domna, see Mikocki, Sub speciae deae, 125; Hahn, Die Frauen, 401. Imperial victory was seen as the prerequisite for the

preservation of the social order and its desirable states; see Fears,

"Theology of Victory," 812-813.

78. For the first coin with this title, minted posthumously for Faustina the

Younger, see BMCRE, IV, PI. 67.15. The other women bestowed with

this title are Julia Domna, Julia Maesa, Julia Soaemias, Otacilia

Severa, Herennia Etruscilla, Ulpia Severina, and Magnia Urbica. See

E. Heimbach, "The Titles of Imperial Women in the First, Second, and

Third Centuries A.D." (Thesis, The Ohio State University, Columbus,

1973), 55-57. To Heimbach's list should be added Julia Mamaea

(Mikocki, Sub speciae deae, 125) and Galeria Valeria (PLRE, I, s.v.

"Galeria Valeria").

79. RIC, VII, No. 443, 203; Kent, Roman Coins, No. 641.

80. This iconography draws on the iconography of Isis; see A. Alf?ldi, "A

Festival of Isis in Roma under the Christian Emperors of the Fourth

Century," a lecture given at the International Congress of the Numis

matics, London, 1937 (Dissertationes Pannonicae, Ser. II, fase. 7)

(Budapest, 1937), PI. XII. 1-22. The examples include coins of Julian

(1), Valens (4), Valentinian II (and Gratian), and anonymous.

81. The relationship between the fecundity of the empress and her pivotal role in the continuation of the dynasty is also related in Claudian, De

13

consulatu Stilichionis, II, 239, ed. LCL (Cambridge, MA, 1922), II, 18-21.

82. Byzantine Women, No. 17.

83. Constantine was proclaimed Imperator in 306. The marriage and the

investiture as Augustus occurred in September 307; see Barnes, The

New Empire, 43.

84. Panegyrici Latini, VII, 6, ed. Mynors, trans. Nixon, 200. The orator

interpreted the gift as a betrothal present. Barnes sees it as a "happy invention of the orator"; The New Empire, 41 note 58.

85. "sacrum istud fastigium diuinae potestatis," Panegyrici Latini, VII, 6,

ed. Mynors, trans. Nixon, 198.

86. Panegyrici Latini, VII, 7, 4, ed. Mynors, trans. Nixon, 200 note 24.

87. R. Syme, The Roman Revolution (Oxford, 1952; rpt. Oxford, 1960), 229 (Octavian's association to the Claudii by marriage), 217 (alliance between Octavian and Mark Antony through Octavia), 345 and 430

(Livia's role in Tiberius' succession). On Livia's role in Tiberius'

reign, see Bartman, Portraits of Livia, 108-114; and Wood, Imperial

Women, 108-124. For Julia's dynastic role, ibid., 64-65.

88. On the importance of mothers, esp. Helena, see L. Brubaker and H.

Tobler, "The Gender of Money: Byzantine Empresses on Coins (324

802)," Gender and History, XII/3 (November 2000), 578-580; on mar

riage, see James, Empresses, 60-65; on dynastic connections in gen eral for this period, see M. McCormick, "The Byzantine Emperor and

His Court," in Late Antiquity: Empire and Successors, A.D. 425-600,

ed. A. Cameron, B. Ward-Perkins, and M. Whitby (Cambridge, Eng.,

2000), 146-148; other cases in which imperial daughters played

important dynastic roles include Galla Placidia (daughter of Theodo

sios I), Justa Grata Honoria (daughter of Constantius III), Pulcheria

(daughter of Arkadios), Ariadne (daughter of Leo I).

89. A. H. M. Jones, PLRE, I, s.v. "Galeria Valeria."

90. L. Brubaker, "Memories of Helena: Patterns of Imperial Female Ma

tronage in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries," in Women, Men and Eu

nuchs: Gender in Byzantium, ed. L. James (London, 1997), 52-75.

91. Medallion: RIC, VII, No. 250, 323 and note 323 for another reading of

the final word; and Kent, Roman Coins, No. 640, 330 with an explana tion for the form. Follis: see note 11 above.

92. RIC, VI, No. 196, 478; Kent, Roman Coins, No. 601.

93. For the security of the state as preconditioned by the empress' fecun

dity, see Brubaker and Tobler, "Gender of Money," 576.

94. Angelova, "Ivories of Ariadne," 26-44. James reaches a similar con

clusion in Empresses, 139-140.

95. RIC, IX, No. 55, 226, and Nos. 48 and 49, 225 (gold); Holum, Theo

dosian Empresses, 34 and note 102.

96. Holum, Theodosian Empresses, 32, does not deal with the reverse,

deeming it as "distinct but trivial."

97. H. Mattingly, "The Imperial vota," Proceedings of the British Acad

emy (1950), 155.

98. Fears, "Theology of Victory," 815.

99. For the type: RIC, IX, No. 55, 226; Kent, Roman Coins, No. 720.

100. That the shield was intended for the emperor can be deduced from

imperial ideas about victory and representations on coins showing em

perors' shields decorated with the Chi-Rho: Grierson and Mays, LRC,

Nos. 743, 859.

101. Leptis Magna relief: Mikocki, Sub speciae deae, No. 446.

102. For the coin, see note 41; for a different view, see Holum, Theodosian

Empresses, 34.

103. J. Matthews, Western Aristocracies and Imperial Court, A.D. 364-425

(Oxford, 1975; rpt. 1990), 232-237.

104. "Quaesiuit clauos, quibus crucifixus est dominus, et inuenit. De uno

clauo frenum fieri preacepit, de altero diadema intexuit; unum ad deco

rem, alterum ad deuotionem uertit. Visitata est Maria, ut Euam liber

aret, uisitata est Helena, ut redimerentur imperatores. Misit itaque filio

suo Constantino diadema gemmis insignitum, quas pretiosior ferro in

nexa crucis redemptionis diuinae gemma conecteret, misit et frenum.

Vtroque usus est Constantinus et fidem transmisit ad posteros reges."

Ambrose, De Obitu Theodosii, 47, ed. O. Faller with an Italian transla

tion by G. Banterle, Sant'Ambrogio. Discorsi e Letter e. Le Orazioni

Funebri (Sancti Ambrosii episcopi mediolanensis opera, XVIII) (Mi

lan, 1985), I, 244-245.

105. See note 104.

106. Signs for the significance of horse trappings and other armor-related

accessories and their relation to military achievements, the troops, and

the empress possibly go back to Livia and a large number of bronze

plaques, which probably represent her with her sons, Tiberius and

Drusus: see Bartman, Portraits of Livia, 82-86 and Fig. 67. Serena

presenting her son-in-law Honorios with a horse bridle should also be

noted here; see Claudian, De zona equi regii missa Honorio Augusto a

Serena, XLVIII (LXX), ed. LCL (Cambridge, MA, 1922), II, 275-277.

See also the miliarense of Constantine depicting him on the obverse

with a plumed helmet with the Chi-Rho, holding the reins of his horse, while the reverse shows him addressing the cavalry, RIC, VII, No. 36,

PI. 9, 364; Kent, Roman Coins, No. 648.

107. On Christian piety of the emperor and victory, see Holum, Theodosian

Empresses, 50-51.

108. Pulcheria chose Marcian as the successor of Theodosios, PLRE, II, s.v.

"Aelia Pulcheria." For arguments in support of the actual coronation by Pulcheria: M. Borowski, "Pulcheria, Empress of Byzantium: An Inves

tigation of the Political and Religious Aspects of Her Reign (414

453)" (Dissertation, University of Kansas, Lawrence, 1974). For argu ments against: R. Burgess, "The Accession of Marcian in the Light of

Chalcedonian Apologetic and Monophysite Polemic," BZ, LXXXVI

LXXXVII (1993-1994), 47-68. For Ariadne: Prokopios of Gaza, Pan

egyricus in Anastasium, V, 5, 20; for the text in Greek and a translation

and commentary in French, A. Chauvot, Procope de Gaza, Priscien de

Cesaree. Paneqyriques de l'empereur Anastase 1er (Abhandlungen zur

alten Geschichte, XXXV) (Bonn, 1986), 31; for other references, see

PLRE, II, s.v. "Aelia Ariadne." For Verina: Malalas, Chronographia,

XV, 387.

109. Pulcheria's implication in imperial victory through the "Long-Cross Solidi" has been lucidly argued by K. Holum in "Pulcheria's Crusade,

A.D. 421-22, and the Ideology of Imperial Victory," Greek, Roman

and Byzantine Studies, XVIII (1977), 153-172. I emphasize not so

much the augusta's sharing of an identical reverse with the emperor

(Holum's argument), but the inclusion of the empress in the imperial

college and victory through the inscription on the solidi from 450

453; idem, Theodosian Empresses, 109-111.

110. A similar suggestion, but for the inclusion of Pulcheria in Concordia

Augustorum, was made by J. W. E. Pearce, RIC, IX, 206, n. *. Grierson

and Mays also indicate that Pulcheria might have been responsible for

it (LRC, 152) but elsewhere (ibid., 86) deem that possibility "out of the

question: augustae were never treated as augusti in such computations."

111. J. Lafaurie, "Le tr?sor de Ch?cy (Loiret)," in Tr?sors mon?taires et

plaques-boucles de la Gaule romaine: Bavai, Montbouy, Ch?cy, ed.

J. Gricourt et al. (Paris, 1958), 280-290; Grierson and Mays, LRC,

85-86.

112. Solidus of Verina (augusta 457-494, wife of Leo I): Grierson and

Mays, LRC, No. 593 and 170-171; Byzantine Women, No. 33. Given

14

that coins were usually struck on the elevation to the title of augusta, that is, in this case in the beginning of Leo's reign in 457, and that

minting of Verina's coins after his death in 474 was unlikely, the other

two augusti in this computation should be Leo I and either Majorian

(457-461) or Anthemios (467-472); solidus of Euphemia (467-472,

daughter of Marcian and wife of Anthemios): Grierson and Mays, LRC, No. 933. The three G's probably referred to Euphemia, Anthemios, and Leo I, their colleague in the East; solidus of Zenonis (475-476,

wife of Basilikos): Jean Tolsto?, Monnaies Byzantines (Chicago, 1967), No. 94, 167; Kent, Roman Coins, No. 781. The augusti included be

sides Euphemia were her husband, Basilikos, and their son Markos;

solidus of Ariadne (4747-513/515): the dating of Ariadne's coinage to the second reign of her first husband, Zeno (476-491), and possibly to the beginning of the reign of her second husband, Anastasios (491

518), complicate the computation. In both cases, the imperial line passed to Zeno and Anastasios through association with her. But the only rec

ognized emperor in the West in this period was Julius Nepos (474-480), so Ariadne's coinage was most likely minted about 476, and it served

to strengthen Zeno's claim to imperial power after the usurpation by Basilikos.

113. Tacitus, Annales, XII, 37, ed. Page, trans. Jackson, IV, 366; and Gnec

chi, / Medaglioni, II, PL 100.9.

114. Coins of Leo I and Verina: see note 36; Chalke mosaics: Prokopios, De

aedificiis, I, 10, 5; coins of Justin and Sophia: see note 43. To these can

be added the consular diptych of Clementius from 513 with Anastasios

and Ariadne flanking a cross and the diptych of Justin with Justinian

and Theodora on either side of Christ, Volbach, Elfenbeinarbeiten, Nos. 15 and 33. We can also include the now-lost apse mosaics of San

Giovanni Evangelista in Ravenna with Arkadios and Eudoxia and The

odosios II and Eudokia flanking the bishop Peter Chrysologus, C. Riz

zardi, "The Mausoleum of Galla Placidia," in The Mausoleum of Galla

Placidia, ed. C. Rizzardi (Modena, 1996), Fig. 13, 120; the curtains in

Hagia Sophia with Justinian I and Theodora: Paulus Silentarius, Descr.

S. Sophiae, in Art of the Byzantine Empire, 312-1453: Sources and

Documents, trans. C. Mango (Toronto, 1986), 81; the cross of Justin

and Sophia: Cleveland, The Cleveland Museum of Art, Vatican Trea

sures: Early Christian, Renaissance and Baroque Art from the Papal Collections (Cleveland, 1998), ed. R. Bergman et al., No. la; and

McClanan's excellent discussion in Byzantine Empresses, 163-168,

Figs. 7.4 and 7.5.

115. Corippus, In laudem Iustini, I, 203 and II, 172. It is probable that the

prominence of Sophia in the poem can be attributed to her commis

sioning of the poem, as A. Cameron has argued, but I doubt that the

empress could have influenced the wording of her relationship with

the emperor, or that the flattery could have trespassed the status quo to

the offense of the court. See A. Cameron, "The Empress Sophia," Byzan

tion, XLV (1975), 9. Here should be included Justinian's Novel 8.1 of

535, requiring governors to swear an oath of loyalty to both Justinian

and Theodora, see C. Pazdernik, "Our Most Pious Consort Given Us

by God," Classical Antiquity, XIII/2 (October 1994), 266-267.

116. Delbrueck, Die Consulardiptychen, No. 48. C. Delvoye has suggested this without offering any support for it, in "Les ateliers d'arts somp tuaires ? Constantinople," Corsi di cultura sull 'arte ravennata e bizan

tina, XII (1965), 171-189.

117. See A. St. Clair's argument for the use of statuettes of early Chris

tian empresses in lararia, "Imperial Virtues," 147-163. The empress' visual transformation from a goddess incarnate to a cornier of the

empire, shown through the ivories of an empress, revives disputes con

cerning the origins of Christian images, especially of Christ and Mary enthroned. So far the discussion has been polarized. The traditional

view, espoused by A. Grabar and others, contends that these images derive from imperial iconography. In contrast, T. Mathews argues that

the figure of Christ enthroned was patterned after a much older source,

images of Zeus/Jupiter. But as the analysis of the ivories with an em

press has revealed, male and female imperial iconography in the early Christian period derived many of its core elements from the Greco

Roman gods. Thus, Christ and Mary enthroned emerged out of a more

complex process than either the traditional view or the revisionist inter

pretation suggests. Enthroned Christ and Mary appear, for instance, on

the mosaics of Sant'Apollinare Nuovo in Ravenna, where Christ is seated

on a lyre-back throne, which resembles that of the Vienna empress, see

F. W. Deichmann, Fr?hchristliche Bauten und Mosaiken von Ravenna

(Baden-Baden, 1958), Nos. 112, 113. For the traditional view: A. Gra

bar, Christian Iconography: A Study of Its Origins (Princeton, 1968), 77.

See also discussion in Angelova, "The Ivories of Ariadne," 39-44; and

Mathews, The Clash of Gods, 109.

15