The Ivories of Ariadne and Ideas About Female ImperialFemale Imperial Authority in Rome and Early Byzantium

7/23/2019 The Ivories of Ariadne and Ideas About Female ImperialFemale Imperial Authority in Rome and Early Byzantium

1/16

The Ivories of Ariadne and Ideas about Female Imperial Authority in Rome and Early

ByzantiumAuthor(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: 17/02/2012 08:29

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 rang

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new f

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

International Center of Medieval Art is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend acces
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=icmahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/25067088?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/25067088?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=icma


2/16

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 themarriage of the emperor Honorios andMaria, 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

whole has

not

been

central

to

their

analyses.3

Claudian's

rhetorical

model

provides

a

different

aven

of

analysis,

which

emphasizes

the continuities between

Roman

and the

Byzantine periods.

In

this

study

I

exami

two

ivory panels

with

an

empress

to

demonstrate the

valid

and

importance

of Claudian's model.

They

are

known

as

ivories

of

Ariadne

(4747-513/515)4

and

are

presently

the

Bargello

Museum

in

Florence

and

the Kunsthistorisches

Museum in Vienna

(Figs.

1

and

2).

On

structural,

compo

tional,

and

stylistic grounds,

most

scholars

agree

that

the

ries

were

executed

to

commemorate

an

imperial

consulsh

in

Constantinople during

the

late

fifth

or

early

sixth

centur

Each

panel

represents

an

exquisitely

carved,

nearly

th

dimensional

image

of

an

empress,

dressed

in the

insignia

an

emperor's

power.

These include the

imperial

palud

mentum,

or

chlamys,

fastened

over

the

right

shoulder

with

bejeweled

fibula,

the

diadem of

precious

stones,

the

glo

surmounted

by

a

cross,

the

scepter

held

by

the Florence

press,

and the

canopied

throne

of

the

Vienna

empress.

B

empresses

wear

elaborate necklaces

of

precious

stones

are

adorned

profusely

with

pearls

that

hang

from their

crow

strung

on

long

pendants,

border their

garments,

and decor

their shoes. Roundels with bust portraits embellish the ta

(the

rectangular patches

of

cloth

sewn on

their

paludament

at

chest

level).

The

roundel

of

the Florence

ivory clearly

sho

an

emperor,

but the medallion

image

on

the Vienna

pane

more

difficult

to

identify.

Richard Delbrueck

suggested

th

represented

a

helmeted

personification

of

a

city,

yet

the

pigtail-like

trails

framing

the face and the

pointed endings

the

headcover resemble

more

accurately

the

silhouette

of

augusta

wearing

a crown

with

long

pendants.6

At first

glance

these

ivories

seem

to

support

the

stand

separation

between

the

pre-Christian

and the Christian

e

The

hieratic,

richly

ornate

vision of the

early Byzantine

press

as

a

figure

vested in

the

insignia

of rule stands

in

s

contrast,

for

example,

to the

portraiture

of the first Rom

empress,

Livia.

Although

one

of

the wealthiest

women

Rome,

Livia

shrewdly

avoided

being depicted

in

elabor

jewels

and

dresses.7

Rather,

she chose

to

evoke

qualities

ditionally

ascribed

to

Roman

women,

notably

virtuousne

and

fecundity.

Her

fecundity

was

especially important,

GESTA

XLIII/1

?

The

International Center of Medieval

Art

2004

1


3/16

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,

Ku

historisches

Museum

(photo:

Kunsthistorisches

Museum,

Wien).

enna,

where

even

the

jewelry

seems

to

be

part

of the

impe

attributes

rather

than

an

expression

of

femininity.10

Instead of

taking

the difference in the

portrayal

of

empress

as an

argument

for

focusing

exclusively

on

the

B

antine

period,

we

ought

to

ask the

question:

What ideas

historical

developments

contributed

to

the

portrayal

of

an

e

Byzantine

empress

as an

emperor?

To

answer

this,

it is

ne

sary

to

revisit

the Roman

period,

noting

continuities

betw

the

Roman and

Byzantine

eras.

2


4/16

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,

Ar

M.

Sackler

Museum,

1951.31.4.37

(photo:

courtesy

of

the

Arthur M.

Sac

Museum,

Harvard

University

Art

Museums,

Bequest

of

Thomas

Whittemor

replaced

the earlier

practice

of

separate

attributes

for ma

and

females.19

Prior

to

this,

the

empress' appropriation

of

paludamentum

could be

provocative,

as,

for

instance,

wh

worn

by Agrippina,

the

fourth

wife of

the

emperor

Claudi

and the mother

of Nero.20

Dressed

in

matching

attire,

Agr

pina

and Claudius

presided

over a

naval

spectacle

as

generals commanding a battle.21 Her chosen garment on

occasion and her

participation

in

a

triumphal procession

another when she received the

same

honors

awarded

her h

band

were

frowned

on

by

Tacitus

as an

innovation

and

a

of her desire

for

a

partnership

in the

empire.22

The

empre

ambition

for

equal imperial

honors

with the

male

august

be it her husband

or

her

son,

eventually

cost

her her

life.

N

began

the

list of

charges

compiled

against

her

with the

m

serious?her

hope

for

partnership

in

the

imperium

{cons

tium

impert?),

followed

by

her

demand

for the

allegiance

the

praetorian guard,

the

Senate,

and the

people.23

By

the f

century

the

essential

characteristic

of the

Roman

Empire

military monarchy

with the

emperor

as

a

commander

in

c

of the

army

remained

intact,

but the

place

of

imperial

wom

in the

empire

seems

to

have

changed.24

The

purple

mantle had

been

linked with

rulership

s

Hellenistic

times.25

Its

significance

as a

token

of

power

is

dent

from

an

episode

in

the

Aeneid where

Dido

presents

purple

mantle

to

Aeneas,

an

act

that

signifies

her desire

marry

him and share

her

kingdom

with him.26

In late

Ant

uity

the

granting

of

the

purple

chlamys

was one

of

the

defin

moments in

the

imperial

succession.

The

soldiers

proclaim

Constantine

the

new

emperor

by

clothing

him in

purple.

S

ilarly,

a

bright purple chlamys

fastened

with

a

golden

bro

was

the last element

in

the

ceremonial

dress

of

the

new

elevated

emperor

Justin

II.27

By

the

early

fifth

century

diadem

and

the

purple

garment

were

such

well-established

attributes

of the

augusta

that

John

Chrysostom

referred

to

empress

Aelia Eudoxia

(400-404)

as

"she

who

is

wearing

diadem

(to

diadema

perikeimen?)

and

is

clothed

in the

pur

garment

(ten

porfurida

peribebl?men?)."28

The

solidus

Eudoxia,

dated

to

400-401,

demonstrates

that the

garment

question

is the

paludamentum (Fig.

6).29

The

empress

we


5/16

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).

IllllS

;tj?: ;?

?1\ WB

FIGURE 6. Aelia

Eudoxia, solidus,

gold

coin,

of Constantinople,

400-401,

Arthur

M.

Sac

Museum,

1951.31.4.126

(photo:

courtesy

o

Arthur M.

Sackler

Museum,

Harvard

Univer

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

used

the

scepter

as a

symbol

of

the

imperium

when he

marked that Justin's love

for

Justinian

surpassed

that

o

successor

who

had had

his father's

scepter (sceptra patr

from

birth.35

The

first

Christian

empress

shown

carrying

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

bronze

coinage

of

her

husband,

Leo I

(457-474).36

O

again Corippus

illuminated its

significance

in

a

pun

Sophia's

name,

which

in Greek

means

"wisdom."

He

claim

that

even

while the

empress

Theodora

was

ruling

(regeba

the church

of

Hagia Sophia (Holy

Wisdom)

in

Constantin

ple

was a

sign

that

Sophia

would have the

scepter.37

Like the

scepter,

the

globus cruciger,

symbol

of

Ch

tian rule

over

the

world,

had

a

long history.

It

was

adopted

an

imperial

token

on

the

coinage

of Theodosios

II

from

420s,

but the

globe

itself

as a

sign

of

rule

had

been used s

Republican

times.38

Initially

it

belonged

to

Roma

and the

nius of

the

Roman

people,

but

it achieved

greater

politi

significance

in scenes

of

investiture,

which show either

J

ter

or an

emperor

granting

the

globe

as

the

foremost

sym

of

imperial

dominion

to

a new

emperor.39

In

the

third

fourth centuries the

globe

appears

with

greater

frequen

sometimes

in

combination

with

the

scepter.40

Coins

from

fourth

and

fifth centuries

show the

joint

rule of

two

emper

by depicting

them enthroned and

holding

the

globe toget

4


6/16

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,

br

coin,

mintofTicinum,

325,

Ar

M.

Sackler

Museum,

1942.

1905x

(photo:

courtesy

of

the

thur M.

Sackler

Museum,

Harv

University

Art

Museums,

Gif

George

Davis

Chase,

Professor

Classics and

Dean

of

Graduate

at

the

University

of

Maine).

nificence of

the

early Byzantine

empress

was

tied

to

her

p

and

mostly expressed

itself

in

caring

for the sick and the

p

and in the

building

of churches.48 But two

independent

tual

sources

demonstrate that the

empress,

like the

emper

could also

directly

distribute

largesse

and therefore

be

resented

with

her hand

opened:

Helena and Eusebia

we

respectively,

recorded

distributing

money

to the

populace

their

imperial

visits

to

the

Holy

Land and

Rome.49

The

canopied

throne,

whose

curving

rails

are

visible

either side of

the

empress

in

the

Vienna

panel,

is

yet

anot

attribute of

imperial

power

which

the

sovereign

shared w

the

augusta.50

The

only surviving image

of

an

emperor

sho

on a

throne under

a

baldachin is

on

the

obverse

of

a

coin

Domitian.51

Despite

this

scarcity

of

representations,

we

ascertain the

significance

of

this

attribute

in

a

detailed si

century

description

of the

imperial

seat,

which

suggests

a

canopy

was an

important

element. "The

imperial

seat

nobles the middle of the

palace,

the

seat

having

been

rounded

by

four

outstanding

columns,

over

which

a

can

of solid

gold

of immoderate

quantity shining brightly,

imitating

the

regions

of

the

arching sky,

covers

the

immo

head and the solium of the

seated;

the solium

being

decora


7/16

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 theWest for

political

ends

during

the

civil

wars

preceding

the establishment

of the

principate.

For

instance,

Octavian and Mark

Antony

put

themselves un

the

protection

of

and

respectively presented

themselves

Apollo

and

Dionysus.62

From then

on

comparisons

and

c

nections between the Roman

emperor

and his

family

and

gods

were ever

present,

reasoned

variously through

the

vine

ancestry

of

the

imperial

house,

its members'

affinity

male

or

female

deities,

and

the

imperial

benefaction.63

T

emperor

occupied

the

ambiguous position

of

being

a

mor

yet

above

ordinary

people,

with

a

cult

to

his

own

genius

his

divine

ancestors,

and

was

often

compared

with

and

similated

to

gods

in

coinage,

statuary,

portraiture,

poetry,

panegyrics.

Before

Constantine,

emperors

were

mostly

seen as as

ciated,

protected,

and

sometimes

appointed by powerful

m

gods, Jupiter

chief

among

them,

who ensured

imperial

tory

and whom

they

imitated. After

Constantine,

the

emper

became

appointees

and

imitators

of

Christ.64

Imperial

victo

the

overwhelmingly

definitive

element

of the

emperor's

aut

ity,

was

the

most

eloquent sign

of

Jupiter's

or

another

deit

favor.65

The

notions

of

divinely granted

imperial

victory

the

emperor

as a

perpetual

victor

remained central

to

the

c

ception

of the

imperial power

into

the

Christian

period.66

Iconographically,

the idea

of the

godlike

emperor

his

heavenly

assisted

victory

were

translated

in

images

as

those

on

the silver

denarius

of

Hadrian

from

119.67

obverse

depicts

a

laureate bust

of

Hadrian,

bare-chested

sporting

a

beard,

with

his

name

and

title inscribed around

head.

The

reverse

bears

a

representation

of

the enthroned

piter,

modeled

after the

statue

of

Phidias,

holding

a

Victory

a

scepter.

The

accompanying

inscription,

however,

refers,

to

Jupiter,

but

continues

the titles of

the

emperor

from

the

verse.

The coin

therefore

associates Hadrian

to

Jupiter,

wh

appearance

he

imitates

through

his

heroic

nudity

and

thro

his

facial hair.

Given

the

way

the obverse

and

reverse comm

nicate with one another, theVictory with the wreath in the

stretched hand of

Jupiter

is

clearly

meant for

the

emperor.

Beginning

with

Livia,

pre-Christian

Roman

empres

were

implicated

in

the

imperial

ideology

of

sacred

rule

similar

fashion,

through

association

or

assimilation

to

fem

deities

and the deified

imperial

virtues.69

The

objective

such

associations

was

twofold:

to

emphasize

the

empres

dynastic significance

and

to

underscore

her role in

impe

victory.

The

empress'

role in

securing

an

heir

or

in

ensur

the

imperial continuity through

herself

prompted

assim

tions to

fertility goddesses,

such

as

Ceres,

Venus

Genetr

and Juno.70 These

often

complemented

the

emperor's

assi

lations

with

gods. Conjugal

ties

were

especially

import

with the

imperial couple

often

compared

with divine

p

such

as

Juno

and

Jupiter

or

Isis

and

Serapis.71

In

these

the

press

assumed the

attributes

of

the

female

deity

to

whom

was

likened:

a

Stephane

(a

headband

of

a

goddess),

cornu

pia,

scepter,

or

a

throne.72

This

phenomenon

was

often

featured

on

coins,

for

ample,

the sestertius

of

Julia

Domna

of

211-212

from the

j

6


8/16

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

d

of the

augusta).80

The

coin

was

struck

to

commemorate

elevation of Fausta

and

Fausta's

sons

to

the rank of

aug

in

324.

Through

association

to

a

childbearing goddess

solidus

celebrates Fausta's

fecundity,

and

through

the

vir

of

piety

it

emphasizes

Fausta's

sense

of

duty,

fulfilled

by

p

ducing

heirs

to

the

throne.81

Similarly,

a

bronze

follis of

celebrates the

empress

as

the

"spes

rei

pvblicae"

(hope

the

state)

and features

her

holding

two

children,

who

hold

to

her

breasts

as

if

about

to nurse

(Fig.

10).82

A

panegyric

from

307,

the

year

when

Maximian

ma

Constantine

augustus

and

betrothed

his

daughter

Fausta

him in

marriage, places

a

different

emphasis

in

the

portra

of this

empress.83

The

poem

drew its

audience's

attention

a

picture

in the

palace

in

Aquileia,

which

presumably

featu

Fausta

offering

to

Constantine

a

plumed

helmet adorned w

gold

and

jewels.84

The

orator

argued

that this

image

dem

strated

Maximian's

early

intentions

to

elevate

Constantin

to

that

"sacred

pinnacle

of

divine

power."85

In the

painti

Fausta

seems

to

have been

likened

to

Venus Victrix.

Fau

like

Venus,

was

therefore

investing

the

emperor

with

instrument necessary for the accomplishment of victory

the

imperium.

The

gift

alluded

to

the

origins

of Constantine

power,

which the

orator

presented

as

being

ensured

thro

marrying

into the

imperial

family.

The

text

explicitly

st

that

as a

son-in-law,

Constantine

receives

both

Maximi

an's

daughter

and

his

"fortune

most

outstanding,"

that

is,

imperium.86

The

legitimization

of

Constantine's

power

through

imperial

daughter

recalls

much

earlier instances where

woman,

by

virtue

of her

position

and

family

links,

streng

ened

a

man's

claim

to

power

or

his

political

alliances. T

beginning

of

the

principate

is

particularly

informative,

a

seems

to

have

established the

precedents through

which

woman could

participate

in and influence the

dynamics

power.

For

instance,

Livia's

marriage

to

Octavian

reinforc

his

power

base

by

allying

him with

her

family,

the

Claud

Octavia's

marriage

to

Mark

Antony

ensured,

at

least

tem

rarily,

the

peace

between

her husband

and

her

brother;

Livia's

maternity

of

Tiberius

ultimately

secured his

succ

sion.87

The

marriages

of

Julia,

the

princeps' daughter,

Agrippa

and Tiberius

were

intended

to

strengthen

the

men

association

to

Augustus

as

his

designated

successors.

Fam

ties,

particularly

as a

daughter,

consort,

or

mother of

emperor,

continued

to

play

a

role

in

imperial politics

in

Christian

period.88

Galeria

Valeria

was

daughter

of

the

peror

Diocletian,

wife

of the

emperor

Galerius,

augusta (3

315),

and

mater castrorum.

After

the

death of

Galerius,

must

have

been

perceived

as a

serious

impediment

to

the b

ance

of

power,

for

she

was

exiled

by

Maximin Daia

and l

condemned

to

death

by

Licinius,

who

executed

her

and

mother

in

315.89

Helena,

of

course,

was

the

most

important

mother

empress

in

the

early

Christian

period.

Like Livia

before

h


9/16

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

coina

which

celebrated

vows

for the

emperor

at

the

beginning

imperial journeys,

anniversaries of his

reign,

and

marriage

and

usually

represented

the

goddess

Victory recording

nature

of the

vows.97 Vota for

the

emperor

were

considered

of

piety

in

exchange

for which the

gods

granted

the

empe

their

blessings.98

In

the bronze

coin

shown in

Figure

4,

reverse

associates

the

empress

to

Salus and

Victory,

wh

hairstyle

mimics those of

Flaccilla.99

The

augusta

is thus sim

taneously

assimilated

to

Victory

and Salus.

Both

the

well-bein

of the

state

and

imperial

victory

are

personified

and

guar

teed

by

the

pious

empress

who

pledges

the

emperor's

shi

a

metaphor

for

military

victory,

to

Christ.100

The

image

on

this coin

compares

with

the

triumphal

lief of

Septimius

Severus

(205-209)

in

Leptis Magna,

wh

the

Victory crowning

the

emperor

was

given

the features

Julia

Domna,

or

with

Fausta

endowing

Constantine with

helmet from the

Panegyric

of

307.101

But

there

are

dif

ences.

The

image

conveys

Christian

ideas, and,

more

cifically,

Flaccilla's

coinage

does

not

celebrate

her

fecund

as

do the

portrayals

of

Julia Domna

or

Fausta.

The

obve

shows her depicted very much like her consort on a soli

minted

in

Milan

by

his

Western

colleague (Fig.

5).

Th

dosios

I

wears

the diadem and

the

paludamentum.

The

verse

of the

same

coin

features

the Eastern and Weste

augusti

dressed in

paludamenta

with

embroidered

tab

sporting

diadems

and

haloes,

and

holding

a

globe toget

The

inscription

reads

"Victory

of the

augusti."

In this

text,

the attire

and

attributes of Flaccilla

imply

a

degree

partnership

between

her and Theodosios

I

similar

to

existing

between Theodosios

I and his Western

colleague.

This shift in the

conception

of the

empress'

role is fundam

tal and

is

reinforced

by

the simultaneous

refashioning

of

portrayal

on

the

reverse

of the coins.

Traditionally,

Flaccill

childbearing

would have been

conveyed through

associati

with

a

mother-goddess.

But

an

image

reminiscent

of

Ven

for

instance,

would have been inconsistent

with Theodosio

commitment

to

the Christian faith.

The

Christian

message

the

reverse

draws

on

the traditional

iconography

of

Victo

and

the

vota.

This mixture of tradition and

innovation refl

the

ideological

complexities

of the late fourth

century

as

w

as

Theodosios'

own

policy

of toleration for the

pagan

tocracy,

which lasted

up

to

February

391,

when

he

banned

sacrifice

to

the

pagan

gods

and the

use

of their

temples

Thus,

the

Christianization

of

the

empire

may

account

for

shift

in

the

representations

of

empresses.

The

novel

iconography

of the

reverse,

showing

empress

adorned with

the

attributes

of

the

imperium,

therefore

only

be understood

in

light

of

Ambrose's

funer

oration

for Theodosios

I in

395.

Ambrose elaborated

on

god-inspired

beginnings

of the

Christian

monarchy

by

lo

ing

them,

not,

as we

might

expect,

in

the

actions

of

Const

tine

the

Great,

but

in

those

of his

mother,

the

empress

Hele

and

her

discovery

of

the True

Cross.

Ambrose

reported

8


10/16

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,

sol

gold

coin,

mint

of

Constantinopl

ca.

457-474,

Arthur

M.

Sac

Museum,

1951.31.4.182

(p

courtesy

of

the

Arthur

M.

Sac

Museum,

Harvard

University

Museums,

Bequest of

Tho

Whittemore).

ficult

to

sustain

when

we

examine the

reverses

of

the

so

with

Victoria

augustorum

of

Verina

(Fig.

12),

Zenonis

(4

476),

Euphemia

(467-472),

and

Ariadne.112

In all

these

c

the three G's are

perfectly

explicable

once the

empress

added

into

the

equation.

But

even

if

by

that

time the

num

of

the final letters had lost

its

significance,

the

plural

f

and

the

placement

of the

inscription

clearly

made

the

empr

part

of the

imperial

victory

in the

same

way

as

the

empe

was on

his

coinage.

The

participation

of the

augusta

in

imperial

victory

indeed

revolutionary

in view of Roman

practices.

The

clo

parallels

in the

Roman

period

are

Tacitus'

account

of

Agr

pina's

sitting

on a

dais

like

the

emperor

in front

of

the

perial

standards

or

Julia Mamaea's

bronze

medallion

with

imperial

standards,

of about

230,

as

mater

castrorum

et

gustorum.113

The

scarcity

of

Roman

examples

demonstra

how

innovative

and

transformative

the

early

Christian

dev

opments

in

female

imperial

portrayal

were.

The

parity

of

costume,

the

parity

of

imagery,

and

parity

of

designation

between

the Christian

emperor

and

Christian

empress

were

results

of their

collaboration

in

f

ing imperial

victory,

which

they

achieved

through

their

f

and divine

favor. The

partnership

of

the

augusti

is visualiz


11/16

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 ivor

of Ariadne

originally belonged

to two

diptychs

of

five

pa

One

of

the leaves of

these

diptychs

showed

an

empress,

other

an

emperor,

completing

in

images

as

well

as

ideas

joint

character of their

rule,

rule rooted

in

Christian

victo

rather than

fecundity.116

The

so-called ivories

of

Ariadne

were a

product

of

specific

late

Antique synthesis

of Roman ideas of

rulers

with

Christian

ideology.

In this

synthesis

the

augusta

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.

Drijv

Helena

Augusta:

The Mother

of

Constantine the Great and the

Leg

of

Her

Finding of

the True Cross

(Leiden, 1992), esp.

9-73;

on

Theodosian

period,

K.

Holum,

Theodosian

Empresses:

Women

Imperial

Dominion

in

Late

Antiquity

(Berkeley,

1982);

on

the w

period,

L.

James,

Empresses

and

Power in

Early

Byzantium

(Lon

2001);

with

a

primary

focus

on

the

empresses

Ariadne, Theodora,

Sophia,

but

not

neglecting

fourth-

and

fifth-century

developments,

McClanan,

Representations

of

Early Byzantine Empresses

(New

Y

2002).

Of these studies McClanan's is

most

attentive

to

the

legac

the

Roman

era.

4.

All

dates in

parentheses

are

regnal.

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

lin,

1929),

Nos. 51 and

52;

W. F.

Volbach,

Elfenbeinarbeiten

Sp?tantike

und des

fr?hen

Mittelalters,

3rd ed.

(Mainz, 1976),

Nos

and

52,

with

a

detailed

bibliography

on

the

two

ivories; and,

most

cently,

the

catalogue

entry

in

Rome,

Palazzo

delle

Esposizioni,

A

Roma: Dalla citt?

pagana

alla citt? cristiana

(Rome,

2000),

ed. S

soli

and E. La

Rocca,

No.

268,

580-581. See also

James,

Empress

136-145;

McClanan,

Byzantine

Empresses,

168-178. On

Ariadne,

J.

R.

Martindale,

PLRE, II,

s.v.

"Aelia

Ariadne."

6.

Delbrueck,

Die

Consulardiptychen,

206;

compare

with other

port

of

empresses,

for

instance,

the Vienna

panel

or

sculpted

head

Aurea

Roma,

Nos. 270

and

271,

582-583.

7.

E.

Bartman,

Portraits

of

Livia:

Imaging

the

Imperial

Woman in

gustan

Rome

(Cambridge, Eng.,

1999),

46

and 72.

8.

Ibid.,

72.

9.

For

modesty:

Eusebia

in

Julian,

Oratio, III, 123a,

ed.

LCL,

trans. W

Wright

(Cambridge,

MA, 1913;

rpt.

1962),

327;

and

A.

St.

Clair,

perial

Virtue:

Questions

of

Form and

Function

in

the Case

of

Late

Antique

Statuettes,"

DOP,

L

(1996),

147-163.

For

childbe

ing:

Claudian, Carmina,

IX

(Epithalamium),

340-341;

Holum,

T

dosian

Empresses,

28 and

53-54;

D.

Missiou,

"?ber

die institutione

Rolle

der

byzantinischen

Kaiserin," JOEB,

XXXII/2

(1982),

489-4

10


12/16

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

The Ivories of Ariadne and Ideas About Female ImperialFemale Imperial Authority in Rome and Early Byzantium

Documents