The Consular Image: An Iconological Study of the Consular Diptychs 9781841717050, 9781407328089

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FOREWORD
I. INTRODUCTION
II. THE IMAGES: DESCRIPTIONS
III. THE ICONOGRAPHY OF THE CONSULAR DIPTYCHS
IV. SYNTHESIS: THE MEANINGS OF THE CONSULAR DIPTYCHS
V. SUMMARY
BIBLIOGRAPHY
LIST OF PLATES
INDEX
PLATES

Citation preview

BAR S1376 2005  OLOVSDOTTER  THE CONSULAR IMAGE

The Consular Image An Iconological Study of the Consular Diptychs

Cecilia Olovsdotter

BAR International Series 1376 9 781841 717050

B A R

2005

The Consular Image

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR International Series 1376 The Consular Image © C Olovsdotter and the Publisher 2005 Volume Editor: John W Hedges The author's moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher.

ISBN 9781841717050 paperback ISBN 9781407328089 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781841717050 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by John and Erica Hedges Ltd. in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd / Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2005. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR

PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from:

E MAIL P HONE F AX

BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK [email protected] +44 (0)1865 310431 +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i v

I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 1. THE CONSULAR DIPTYCHS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.1.The consular diptychs and their imagery: a general outline ...................................................................................1 1.2. The inscriptions..........................................................................................................................................4 1.3. Material and technique..................................................................................................................................5 1.4. Dating and chronology.................................................................................................................................6 1.5. Geographical origin and the concept of ivory carving schools ..............................................................................7 1.6. Ancient literary sources................................................................................................................................8 2. PREVIOUS SCHOLARSHIP: A CRITICAL SURVEY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 3. THE AIM AND METHOD OF THIS STUDY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3

II. THE IMAGES: DESCRIPTIONS .............................................................. 16 1. THE LAMPADIORUM DIPTYCH PANEL (WEST, C. 400). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 2. THE HALBERSTADT DIPTYCH (WEST, 417?). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0 3. FELIX (WEST, 428) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3 4. ASTYRIUS (WEST, 449) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4 5. THE BOURGES DIPTYCH (WEST, FIRST HALF OF THE 5TH CENTURY). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 6 6. BOETHIUS (WEST, 487) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 8 7. ORESTES (WEST, 530). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 0 8. BASILIUS (WEST, 541) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4 9. AREOBINDUS (EAST, 506). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 8 10. CLEMENTINUS (EAST, 513) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4 11. ANASTASIUS (EAST, 517) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7 12. MAGNUS (EAST, 518) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5

III. THE ICONOGRAPHY OF THE CONSULAR DIPTYCHS.................... 62 1. THE IMAGE OF THE CONSUL: MODES OF REPRESENTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2

i

1.1. The face: the consul’s likeness? The rendering of physiognomies within consular imagery...................................... 62 1.2. The consul’s body ..................................................................................................................................... 67 1.3. Poses and gestures..................................................................................................................................... 68 2. ATTRIBUTES OF CONSULSHIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1 2.1. Official attributes: the consular costume and insignia....................................................................................... 71 2.1.1. The vestis triumphalis......................................................................................................................... 72 2.1.2. The scipio eburneus............................................................................................................................ 74 2.1.3. The sella curulis................................................................................................................................. 79 2.1.4. The fasces......................................................................................................................................... 83 2.1.5. The codicilli...................................................................................................................................... 86 2.2. The mappa circensis .................................................................................................................................. 88 2.3. The consul as patricius............................................................................................................................... 90 3. SECONDARY FIGURES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2 3.1. Officials and functionaries........................................................................................................................... 92 3.2. City goddesses: Roma and Constantinopolis .................................................................................................. 97 3.3. Victoria and the eagle in the Basilius diptych................................................................................................ 110 3.4. Imperial personages: the figures of the upper registers.................................................................................... 114 3.5. Left or right: placement as an indicator of status?.......................................................................................... 119 3.6. The figures of the lower registers ............................................................................................................... 121 4. MOTIFS AND SCENES RELATED TO THE CONSULAR M U N E R A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4.1. Games .................................................................................................................................................. 123 4.2. Consular gifts: sparsio and prize ................................................................................................................ 128 4.3. Related motifs in the Boethius diptych........................................................................................................ 131 5. MOTIFS AND SCENES RELATED TO VICTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 2 5.1. Victoriolae, Victoriae and erotes................................................................................................................. 132 5.2. Victory emblems: the wreath and the garland................................................................................................ 138 5.3. Victory in the arena................................................................................................................................. 142 5.4. The barbarian captives in the Halberstadt diptych........................................................................................... 146 6. OTHER SYMBOLIC MOTIFS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4 8 6.1. The cross............................................................................................................................................... 149 6.2. The shell............................................................................................................................................... 152 6.3. The eagle motif in the Bourges diptych ....................................................................................................... 155 7. THE ARCHITECTURAL FRAME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5 7 7.1. Types and characteristics........................................................................................................................... 158 7.2. Real or symbolic architecture? Identifying the architectural frame within consular imagery.................................... 161 7.2.1. The tribunal editoris.......................................................................................................................... 162 7.2.2. The pulvinar and the temple ............................................................................................................... 164 7.2.3. The fastigium.................................................................................................................................. 166 7.2.4. The portal and the triumphal arch ........................................................................................................ 167 7.2.5. The sepulchral monument.................................................................................................................. 169 7.2.6. Other ............................................................................................................................................. 170 7.3. Concluding discussion ............................................................................................................................. 173

IV. SYNTHESIS: THE MEANINGS OF THE CONSULAR DIPTYCHS.. 179 1. THEME ONE: CONSULAR ORNATUS AND CEREMONIAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7 9 2. THEME TWO: TRIUMPHAL CONSULSHIP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 4 3. THEME THREE: THE HIERARCHIES OF THE ROMAN STATE AND WORLD ORDER . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 9

ii

4. THEME FOUR: TRANSCENDENTAL SYMBOLISM OF CONSULSHIP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 9 7 5. THEME FIVE: AUTO-REPRESENTATION. CONSULAR IMAGERY AS A VEHICLE FOR THE CONVEYANCE OF INDIVIDUAL MEANING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0 2

V. SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 207 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 8 LIST OF PLATES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3 5 INDEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3 7

PLATES ........................................................................................................... 239

iii

FOREWORD The present study is a revised version of my doctoral thesis (The consular diptychs. An iconological study), which was defended at the Department of classical archaeology and ancient history, Göteborg university, in November 2003. My first thanks are naturally due to Prof.em. Robin Hägg of that department, under whose tutorship my investigation of the consular diptychs was originally carried out. I am further indebted to the the Swedish Institute in Rome, whose staff have generously assisted me in various ways over several years, particularly Dott. Stefania Renzetti and Pia Letalick. The periods spent at the institute have been the most fruitful. Acknowledgements are also due to Prof. Siri Sande of the Norwegian Institute in Rome and to Dr. Johan Flemberg, Stockholm, from whose comments the text has benefited; to Prof.em. Gunilla Åkerström-Hougen of the Department of art history and visual studies, Göteborg university, for her kind assistance and encouragement; and to Jon van Leuven, Göteborg, for checking my English. My special thanks go to Dr. Hans Lejdegård of Uppsala university for useful and stimulating discussions about late Roman history. I owe much gratitude to a number of institutions for their financial support: Adlerbertska Foundation, Göteborg; Gunvor and Josef Anér Foundation, Stockholm; Helge Ax:son Johnson Foundation, Stockholm; Paul and Marie Berghaus Foundation, Göteborg; Håkan Ekman Foundation, Göteborg; Oscar Ekman Foundation, Göteborg; Torsten and Ingrid Gihl Foundation, Stockholm; Harald and Tonny Hagendahl Memorial Foundation, Stockholm; Lars Hierta Memorial Foundation, Stockholm; Fondazione C.M. Lerici, Rome; Wilhelm and Martina Lundgren Foundation, Vetenskapsfond 1, Göteborg; Erik and Lily Philipson Memorial Foundation, Göteborg; the Royal and Hvitfeldtska Foundation, Göteborg; and the Royal Society of Arts and Sciences, Göteborg. I dedicate this work to my husband, Ulf Hansson, whose good advice and ever-ready assistance have been truly invaluable to me.

iv

I. INTRODUCTION

The aim of this introductory part is threefold: to offer the reader unfamiliar with the consular diptychs a presentation of the material category as such, to present a discursive survey of the previous scholarship dedicated to it, and to define the aim and method of the present study. As there has been no comprehensive treatment of the consular diptychs since 1929, when Richard Delbrueck’s Die Consulardiptychen und verwandte Denkmäler1 was published, the outline offered below also aims at gathering, in a condensed form, the most important contributions to the study of the subject since then, thus reflecting the present ‘Forschungsstand’. The survey of previous scholarship aims at presenting and critically discussing what has hitherto been written on the consular diptychs in order that the purposes of the present study may be set in context.

with the consuls’ entry into office on the New Year, which was celebrated with seven days of ceremonies and public entertainment (processus consularis, pompa circensis/ludi consulares);4 like the other categories of commemorative ivories, they were intended as presentation objects to be conferred as gifts on select groups of recipients—family, friends, fellow officials and senators, the emperor—in celebration of momentous events in the givers’ lives, public and private.5 Being objects of great status, they would presumably have been set on display in some public part of the recipients’ homes.6 The majority of the preserved presentation ivories derive from the western half of the Roman empire and the late 4th to 6th centuries. The extant corpus of consular ivory diptychs consists of forty-three works of secure authenticity,7 viz. works created representation, would in fact have been commissioned by consuls and/or other high officials, whose own representations were also sometimes (perhaps regularly) included in the compositions; see e.g. Wright 1977; and Cutler 1991. Although highly relevant to the study of consular imagery, this problem must however remain beyond the scope of the present investigation. 4 For sources and descriptions of these celebrations, see Delbrueck 1929, 66-68; Bömer 1952; Jones 1964, 539; Meslin 1970, 53-70; Versnel 1970, 302f; Bagnall, Cameron, Schwartz & Worp 1987, 6, 10; Heucke 1994, 7779; and Curran 2000, 256f. See also I.1.6. 5 On the recipient groups for the consular and other official diptychs, see e.g. Delbrueck 1929, 6, 16; Wright 1977, 6; Cutler 1984:1, 105-108; Shelton 1989, 125; Milburn 1988, 235; and Bowersock, Brown & Grabar 1999, 521. Compare also Painter 1991, 73, 76-78 (concerning silver plates issued by consuls and other officials); A.D.E. Cameron 1992 (ditto); Malte Johansen 1994, 223-131 (on official gift-exchange in late antiquity in general); and also Jones, who considered the consular diptychs to be ‘invitation cards’; Jones 1964, 539. See further I.1.6 below. The so-called private diptychs—among which the Symmachorum-Nicomachorum diptych (London, British Museum; Paris, Musée de Cluny) and the so-called Consecratio panel (London, British Museum; Delbrueck 1929, N 54 and 59, Taf. 54 and 59; Volbach 1976, Nr.55 and 56, Taf. 28 and 29) (Pl. 21 a)—are generally thought to commemorate such events as marriages and deaths, and several were very likely issued in commemoration of official appointments; see e.g. Cracco Ruggini 1977; Shelton 1983; A.D.E. Cameron 1986; Hegemann 1988, 48; Kiilerich 1991; Cutler 1993, 186f; and Bowersock, Brown & Grabar 1999, 521. 6 E.g. Graeven 1913, 202; Wright 1977, 6; and Cameron & Schauer 1982, 135. 7 The number presented in the two corpus publications of late antique and early mediaeval ivories, Delbrueck’s Consulardiptychen (Delbrueck 1929) and Volbach’s Elfenbeinarbeiten (Volbach 1976), varies between forty and forty-five, among other things depending on how many early mediaeval ivories are considered to be recarved consular diptychs. Other estimations have been presented by Capps (fifty-seven) and Dalton (forty-nine); Capps 1927, 62; Dalton 1961, 197. Neither of these authors counts the Lampadiorum diptych panel (1) (Delbrueck 1929, N 56; Volbach 1976, Nr. 54), Nr. 1 in the descriptive catalogue of this study (Part II), to the consular category. For motivations of my own consular attribution of the Lampadiorum panel, and for my choice to discount some ivories on the basis of insecure authenticity, see below I.3 and II.1. Diptychs included in

1. THE CONSULAR DIPTYCHS

1.1.The consular diptychs and their imagery: a general outline The so-called consular diptychs are a category of late Roman and early Byzantine ivory works commissioned by ordinary consuls (consules ordinarii),2 western and eastern, in commemoration of their appointment. Beside the consular diptychs there are other types of official diptychs commissioned by late Roman dignitaries (magistrates, patricians, senators), ‘imperial diptychs’—ivory assemblages of three or more panels with imperial personages as main figures—‘private’ diptychs, and diptychs commissioned by priests.3 The consular diptychs were issued in connection 1 Delbrueck 1929. See further II.3. 2 The original republican institution, to be distinguished from the imperial,

ex-, and suffect consulships (the two latter of which are late inventions); e.g. Courtois 1949, 39-47; and Bagnall, Cameron, Schwartz & Worp 1987, 2f, 21. 3 This categorisation of late antique ivories was introduced by Delbrueck and adhered to by Wolfgang Fritz Volbach in his corpus of late antique and early mediaeval ivories (Elfenbeinarbeiten der Spätantike und des frühen Mittelalters); Delbrueck 1929, 3-10; Volbach 1976, 28f. Its representativity and relevance have in later years been questioned by for instance Kathleen J. Shelton and Anthony Cutler, who among other things argue that it is impossible to distinguish between public and private in the life of the Roman élite; Shelton 1983, 7-9; Cutler 1993, 186f. The categorisation of the consular diptychs as such is not entirely unproblematic. The so-called ‘Kaiserdiptychen’ (Delbrueck 1929, 12-14, N 45-52; Volbach 1976, Nr. 45-52) (Pl. 20), i.e. ivory assemblages centring round an imperial

1

more,20 estimations that are based on the assumption that most or all consuls appointed in both west and east during the period c. 370 to 542 would have issued series of diptychs to a relatively wide number of recipients. The disappearance of such quantities may only partly be explained by the recycling of late antique ivories in the Carolingian period (750-987), when a number of consular diptychs were partly or wholly recarved to be used mainly within Christian contexts; a number of recycled works remain from this period, and most of the preserved diptychs display traces of having been applied onto book-covers (reductions, drill-holes etc.).21 Natural and human factors such as earthquakes and wars would likely account for the greater part of the losses,22 the latter also in modern times.23 It is also possible that some specimens still exist unbeknownst to the public and to scholars. All known works derive from private collections and church treasuries.24 The late antique ivory diptych consists of two panels joined by hinges which allow them to be opened and closed like a book. The exterior panel sides are carved whereas the interior sides present plain and shallowly recessed surfaces surrounded by frames. The size and format of the panels vary depending on when and, to some extent, where they were produced, the general tendency being that panels made in the 6th-century east are taller and more standardised in format, with average measurements of 36.3x12.6 centimetres against 31.6x12.1 for the 5th-century western panels.25 Classified according to the conception of the carved panel sides, the consular diptychs may roughly be subdivided into three types. The majority of the preserved (or physically documented) works, twenty-six, belong to the fully figural type, of which twenty include full-figure representations of the issuing consuls; the rest variously represent an emperor

prior to 542 when the ordinary consulate was closed to private citizens.8 The majority of these remain in single panels, a few partly or wholly through photographic reproductions and engravings.9 Apart from the diptychs in ivory a number of diptych panels in bone are also preserved,10 but whether any of these should be regarded as authentic consular works may be questioned.11 The earliest consular diptych that can be securely dated is that of Probus, western consul in 406 (Pl. 14),12 the latest that of Basilius, eastern consul in 541 (8).13 Seventeen works are attributable to the west, one of which (Basilius) commemorates an eastern consul, and twenty-six to the east. Whereas the western works cover the entire period from which consular diptychs remain (c. 400-541),14 eastern specimens are only preserved from the 6th century (506-540).15 Although curious, this fact must nevertheless be regarded as purely circumstantial, since there is evidence in the form of a legal paragraph to prove that diptychs were commissioned by eastern consuls from at least the 370s.16 Further, whereas each western diptych belongs to a different honorand, the twenty-six eastern diptychs are attributable to ten consuls, in several cases coming in series of two17 to six18 diptychs per honorand, thus indicating some degree of serial production.19 It has been proposed that the original number of consular diptychs issued in the late antique period must have amounted to tens of thousands or

the catalogue (Part II) will henceforth be referred to by their respective number set within brackets (*), whereas other works will be referred to as plates (Pl. *). 8 E.g. Bagnall, Cameron, Schwartz & Worp 1987, 10-12. 9 Felix (west 428) (3), Astyrius (4), Anastasius (east, 517) (11:2), and Anthemius (east, 515) (Pl. 15); Delbrueck 1929, N 3 (V), N 4 (V), N 17, N 20 (R), N 36; not reproduced in Volbach 1976, except for Nr. 16 Anthemius (incorrectly), Nr. 18 (right panel) (Anastasius, east 517), and Nr. 34 (Constantius III (?), west early 5th c.). 10 Three bone panels commonly considered to be mediaeval copies of a diptych commissioned by Magnus, eastern consul in 518 (Delbrueck 1929, N 23-25, Taf. 23-25; Volbach 1929, Nr. 24 bis (1-3), Taf. 11; see further II.12), and a panel of C. L. Severus, western c. 450 (?), in Ostia, Castello di Giulio (Delbrueck 1929, N 65A, Texttaf. 4; Ross 1945, Fig. 1.2; Cutler 1993, 173 Fig. 7). These bone replicas apart, it has redecently been proposed that two fragments of a redware ceramic plaque (one in the Prähistorische Staatsammlung, Munich, the other in a private collection), constitute parts of a copy of an ivory diptych originally issued by Anicius Auchenius Bassus, western consul in 408; Spier 2003, with Fig. 2-3. The considerable similarities between these fragments and the consular diptych of Felix, and the fact that the figure displays the triumphal toga costume and a bustsceptre—both consular insignia—in my view render the attribution highly plausible. 11 Cutler 1993, 172, 186. 12 Aosta, Tesoro della Cattedrale. Delbrueck 1929, N 1; Volbach 1976, Nr. 1. 13 For the attribution of Basilius’ diptych to the eastern consul of 541, see further the introductory text to Part II and II.8. 14 Beginning with the Lampadiorum panel and ending with the Basilius diptych. 15 Beginning with the diptychs of Areobindus and ending with the diptych of Iustinus. 16 See further I.1.5. 17 Magnus (cos. 518) (12); see further II.12. 18 Anastasius (cos. 517) (11); see further II.11. 19 E.g. Morey 1941, 45f, Netzer 1983, 270f; and Cutler 1984:1, 108-112.

20 Delbrueck estimated the original number to be hundreds of thousands;

Delbrueck 1929, 10. See also Cutler 1984:1, 108; and Cutler 1993, 186-188. 21 The number of recarved consular diptychs varies, as mentioned. On the question of whether some claimed recarvings are authentic or mediaeval works, see further I.3 below. Several of the preserved consular diptychs have been left unmodified when used for Christian-liturgical purposes, and some have received new (Christian) inscriptions on the insides of the panels; so for instance the diptychs of Halberstadt (west, 2nd decade of the 5th c.) ((2) (only reduced height-wise), Boethius (west, 487) (6), Clementinus (east, 513) (10) and Iustinus (east, 540) (Pl. 16). Delbrueck 1929, 92f, 104 Abb. 1, 120 Abb. 1, 151 Abb. 1; also Sansterre 1984. Other diptychs have been claimed to be replicas or even fakes on stylistic and/or technical grounds, a number of which were studied by Graeven and Delbrueck; Graeven 1892; Delbrueck 1952:2. See also LafontaineDosogne 1980/81; Cutler 1984:2; Cutler 1993, 181-185; Cutler 1995:1; and Cutler 1995:2. On the preservation and Christian adaptation of consular diptychs in the mediaeval period, see also Greenhalgh 1989, 233f; and Wood 1997, 124. 22 Compare Cutler 1984:1, 108. 23 Some consular ivories disappeared from German collections after the Second World War, such as a panel belonging to Anastasius (B, right panel) and a panel attributed to Constantius III (Delbrueck 1929, N 36, Taf. 36; Volbach 1976, Nr. 34, Taf. 18). 24 Delbrueck 1929, passim; Volbach 1976, passim. 25 Average measurements based on the forty-three securely attributable consular diptychs (see above). See also Cutler 1993, 174 and n. 44.

2

(Probus), polytheistic deities,26 and Christian figures.27 Another seven works conform to a semi-figural type showing the consul’s bust within a central medallion, and six to an ornamental type with simpler vegetative, geometricised designs.28 Beside these three main types, there remain a composite diptych commissioned by the eastern consul of 540, Iustinus (Pl. 16),29 showing the honorand’s medallionencircled bust between imagines clipeatae (above) and scenic representations (below), and a diptych panel attributable to Areobindus (east, 506),30 showing a fruit-basket and a pair of crossed cornucopiae out of which vines sprout.31 Within the category of fully figural diptychs with representations of the consul, there is also a typological distinction between images that show the consul standing (or in one instance seated)32 with his figure covering nearly all of the pictorial field, the so-called large-figure type (‘großfigurigen Typus’), and images that show the consul seated in the centre of the pictorial field, usually above a small-scale scenic representation (lower register) and sometimes below a figural or pseudo-figural composition (upper register), the so-called tribunal type (‘Tribunaltypus’).33 The latter type predominates in the preserved corpus, and is exclusive among the eastern works. There are however a couple of diptychs, both western, which do not fall under any of these types, but could be described as composite: the diptychs of Halberstadt (2) (second decade of the 5th century)34 and Basilius.

closest to the body, a long and sleeved purple tunica; next, a colobium—a shorter, sleeveless tunic variant usually ornamented with a star pattern (compare trabea); and uppermost the trabea, a purple garment gold-embroidered with a dense pattern of more or less complex, flower-shaped stars (rosettes, ‘palmettes’) within roundels, rhombs and squares—the so-called triumphal pattern37 —and draped according to a contabulate style (contabulata).38 In the earliest period from which consular diptychs have been preserved (c. 400-450) the folds of this draping style consist in the umbo or ‘balteus’ (running diagonally from the left shoulder to the right armpit), the perpendicular centre-fold (‘Hängestreifen’), and the heavy sinus fold (curving from behind the right hip to rest across the left forearm). Sometime after c. 450 a diagonal ‘bridge’ fold (‘Brücke’) across the right shoulder is added to the style.39 The consular footwear consists in the pointed calcei aureati with cross-laced corrigae. Very common but optional motifs include the sella curulis and mappa circensis, the latter the attribute of the consul in his capacity of editor et praeses ludorum. Other types of consular insignia occasionally represented are the fasces and the codicilli, the document of appointment. The consul is usually flanked by one or two accompanying figures, of which there are three categories: officials (togati, chlamydati), lictors or other functionaries, and female personifications. The latter figure category dominates in the eastern diptychs, whereas lictors are only found in western works. If lower pictorial registers are included, they normally contain games-scenes (circus, amphitheatre etc.) or figure-scenes referring to the distribution of gifts in the form of coin and valuable objects, whereas the upper registers—most common among eastern diptychs—contain imperial representations. The figure-scenes are usually accompanied by an architectural frame of some kind, and an inscriptional field (tabula inscriptionis, tabula ansata). The latter is usually located at or close to the top of each panel, and is inscribed with the names and titles of the honorand.40 In one diptych of the medallion type, Philoxenus (east, 525),41 the inscription is found in a central

The images of the fully figural diptychs containing consuls’ representations—the category of image to which the present study is devoted—share a basic motif repertory. Obligatory motifs are the consular toga costume and sceptre (scipio eburneus). The triumphal toga (vestis triumphalis, vestis palmata)35 commonly consists of three layers of garments:36 26 Erato and Eros with a poet (Constantius III (?); Delbrueck 1929, N 36;

Volbach 1976, 34; also Shelton 1983; and Cutler 1993, 186. 27 An angel (Severus, west 470: Delbrueck 1929, N 5, Taf. 5; Volbach 1976, Nr. 4, Taf. 2), St. Peter (anonymous, west 5th c.: Delbrueck 1929, N 39, Taf. 39; Volbach Nr. 39, Taf. 22). 28 ‘Medaillontypus’ and ‘schmuckloser Typus’ according to Delbrueck’s typology; Delbrueck 1929, 10f. The latter type is notably exemplified by Justinian’s diptychs (east, 521); Delbrueck 1929, N 26-28, Taf. 26-28; Volbach 1976, Nr. 25-27, Taf. 12-13. 29 Berlin, Museum für Spätantike und Byzantinische Kunst. Delbrueck 1929, N 34, Taf. 34; Volbach 1976, Nr. 33, Taf. 17. 30 Lucca, Opera del Duomo. Delbrueck 1929, N 15, Taf. 15; Volbach 1976, Nr. 14, Taf. 7. 31 Although only one example exists of this kind of composition, Delbrueck considered it a type, ‘Füllhorntypus’; Delbrueck 1929, 110. 32 The diptych of Boethius, right panel. 33 Delbrueck 1929, 11f. 34 Delbrueck 1929, N 2; Volbach 1976, Nr. 35. For the attribution and dating of this diptych, see further II.2 and III.3.2 and 3.4. 35 Latin denominations of the triumphal costume vary. Delbrueck presents a couple of alternatives, including the sources where they derive from: vestis palmata, toga palmata; Delbrueck 1929, 53. Volbach uses a number of denominations variously, none of which describes the entire costume; Volbach 1976, passim. For simplicity’s sake I choose to adopt Versnel’s denomination, vestis triumphalis, which denotes the consular costume in its entirety; Versnel 1970, 56-74 passim.

36 For descriptions of the consular costume and its development in late

antiquity, see notably Delbrueck 1929, 59-61; and Wessel 1978, 431f; further also DarSag 1:2, 1469 s.v. ‘Consul’ (G. Bloch); Meslin 1970, 55; Painter 1991, 175; Caillet 1985, 107-109; Piltz 1994, 47; and Stone 1994, 25. The most recent treatment of Roman costume (Maier 2004, 16 esp.) does not offer any useful information concerning the the late antique period. 37 ‘Triumphalmuster’; e.g. Delbrueck 1929, 90 and passim. 38 The most comprehensive analysis of the folding-styles of the trabea is offered by Delbrueck; Delbrueck 1929, 44-51. A shorter (and somewhat less paedagogic) analysis is presented by H.R. Goette, who is also critical of some of Delbrueck’s terminology; Goette 1990, 99f. A more easily digestible description is offered by Shelley Stone; Stone 1994. 39 Stone’s statement that the ‘bridge’-less variant was favoured in the western empire throughout the late antique period is clearly too categorical, since half of the consular diptych representations preserved from the west do actually conform to the new, presumably eastern contabulate fashion; Stone 1994, 38. 40 See further I.2. 41 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MMA. Delbrueck 1929, N 29, Taf. 29; Volbach 1976, Nr. 28, Taf. 14.

3

medallion, and in a small number of works inscriptions of other kinds have been added as well.42 There are a couple of characteristics by which a western diptych may be distinguished from an eastern one. Firstly, in western works the imagery is often differentiated between the two panels: the representation of the honorand as consul may be complemented with a representation of him in the capacity of patricius (Halberstadt, Felix (3), Basilius); the consul’s pose and gestures may differ (Halberstadt, Felix, Boethius); or the panels may display different compositions and subjectmatter altogether (Basilius). When the honorand is represented as both consul and patricius, the consular representation is found in the left panel and the patrician in the right, thereby suggesting that the left panel is considered as the highest-ranking or ‘first’ of the two. Secondly, the inscription of the tabulae (one in each panel) always begins on the left panel in western diptychs, whereas it begins on the right in eastern works.43 In the eastern diptychs the two panels are more or less identically conceived: the consul is presented in the same pose, displaying the same attributes in the same ways. Games-scenes, when included (Areobindus, Anastasius), provide the only variable element between panels. At the same time the series of diptychs (panels) preserved from the issues of Areobindus and Anastasius demonstrate that the motif repertory, if not the mode of representation, could vary between diptychs. But that this would have been a peculiarly eastern phenomenon can neither be proved nor disproved, since no series attributable to one and the same consul has been preserved from the west. Additionally, in western 5th-century diptychs the two panels are usually conceived as a symmetrically composed whole, the main figure in each panel turning subtly towards the centre (hinge-side), as exemplified by Lampadiorum, Halberstadt, Felix, Boethius, and also the diptych of Probus.44 In the eastern diptychs the images of the two panels are always conceived as two separate and identically composed entities.

consular diptychs, all three types included. In the medallion diptychs of Philoxenus (east, 525)46 they consist of a central medallion. Diptychs lacking inscriptions—Halberstadt (2), Bourges (5), and Magnus (12)—would almost certainly have contained them originally;47 in the case of Magnus’ diptych(s) there is the evidence of a mediaeval bone replica in the Bibliothèque nationale, Paris (Pl. 13 b),48 to support this assumption. The most common type of inscription lists the full names and titles of the honorand, in abbreviated form and in Latin, the official language in both halves of the empire. Titles are enumerated in an ascending and/or chronological order, beginning with the lowest/first title attained by the honorand on his cursus honorum and finishing with the highest, the title of consul ordinarius. In one case, Boethius (6), western consul in 487, a chronological rather than hierarchical order is followed, the sequence ending with the patrician title. Since the patriciate was a dignitas unconnected with the official c u r s u s , and usually attained shortly prior to or simultaneously with the consular appointment,49 the example of Boethius must mean that this particular honorand received his patrician title after the consular one—probably very shortly afterwards, since he was able to include it in his diptych(s).50 There are two things by which the inscription of a western consul is distinguished from that of his eastern counterpart: the sequential order between the panels’ inscriptions, and parts of the titulature. In western works the panels are ordered so that the inscription is read from left to right when the diptych is open, i.e. when its imagery is viewed in its entirety, thus beginning with the names (left panel) and ending with the titles (right panel).51 As mentioned above, in those diptychs—all western—which show the honorand in the double capacities of consul and patrician the left panel is invariably reserved for the highest dignity (the consular), from which one may gather that this panel was considered not only as the one in which the inscription should begin, but also as the primary panel in a hierarchical order.52 In eastern diptychs the order of the inscription is reversed, the titles featuring on the left panel and the names on the right. Regarding titulature, the western consul is distinguished by the longer title of vir clarissimus et inlustris whereas the briefer form vir inlustris is used in the east.53

1.2. The inscriptions Inscriptional fields on the front of the panels, either in the form of tabulae set apart from the pictorial field or as part of an architectural frame,45 are found in the absolute majority of 42 Basilius, right panel; Justinian, east 521 (Delbrueck 1929, N 26-28, Taf.

46 Delbrueck 1929, N 29-30; Volbach 1976, Nr. 28 and 30. 47 All the three diptychs concerned have been modified in later times;

26-28; Volbach 1976, Nr. 25-27, Taf.12 and 13); and Philoxenus (Delbrueck 1929, N 29 and 30, Taf. 29 and 30; Volbach 1976, Nr. 28 and 30, Taf. 14 and 15). For Basilius, see further II.8. 43 See further I.1.2 below. 44 The peculiarly western conception of the diptych panels as a continuous, symmetrical composition is also exemplified by the diptych commonly attributed to the Vandal general Stilicho (west, c. 400) kept in the Duomo S. Giovanni Battista in Monza, displaying a scheme with a man (Stilicho) and a woman (Stilicho’s wife Serena) flanking a boy (their son Eucherius, presumably the primary honorand of the diptych); Delbrueck 1929, 7, N 63, Taf. 63; Shelton 1982; Kiilerich & Torp 1989; Kiilerich 1993, 137-141, Fig. 78 and 79. For a full discussion of the western and eastern ways of composing ivory diptychs in late antiquity, see Engemann 1998. 45 Lampadiorum (1), Felix (3), Astyrius (4), and Boethius (6).

Delbrueck 1929, 92f, 95, 106. 48 Delbrueck 1929, N 23, Taf. 23; Volbach 1976, Nr. 24 bis (3), Taf. 11. 49 RE XVIII.4 (1949), 2231f s.v. ‘Patres, patricii’ (B. Kübler). 50 Compare Martindale 1980-1992:1, 233, 303. There are however instances where the patrician title was received years after a consulship, e.g. Orestes (7), western consul in 530 and patricius in 547; Martindale 1980-1992:2, 956. 51 For a full discussion of the significance of the distinctions between the western and eastern systems, see Engemann 1998. 52 Compare Delbrueck 1929, 91; and Engemann 1998, 114f. 53 See for instance the inscriptions of Boethius and Areobindus (9) respectively.

4

Whereas the title of patricius is found in the majority of western consuls’ titulatures, the inscription of Clementinus’ diptych (10) is alone among those of the eastern consuls to include it. In two instances, Probus (west, 406) (Pl. 14) and Anthemius (east, 515) (Pl. 15), the inscriptions comprise more unusual denominations: Probus calls himself famulus, evidently a self-ascribed title chosen to demonstrate his humble attitude vis-à-vis the emperor Honorius (whose representation takes up the pictorial fields of the panels),54 and Anthemius explicitly titulates himself the son of Anthemius (Anthemii filius), thereby drawing attention to the fact that he is the son of the emperor Anthemius (west, 467472).55 The inscription found on the architectural frame in the Lampadiorum panel (1), (L)AMPADIORVM, is written in genitive plural, thus indicating that the gens rather than the main personage represented is the honorand of the work.

proven, that the bulk of material was shipped to Constantinople and from thence further distributed to Rome and northern Italy.61 It is presumed that the tusks were delivered in their entirety to the carvers’ ateliers, where they were prepared and sawed into pieces suitable for a range of object types; the middle part of the tusk was reserved for diptych panels.62 The curvature of the tusk is clearly traceable along the inner corners in some consular diptych panels of later production, i.e. specimens of a more oblong format for which a larger piece of material has been required,63 notably the diptychs of Boethius (6) and Philoxenus.64 The thickness of the consular diptych panels, like their format,65 tended to increase over time, ranging from about four millimetres in the first decades of the 4th century to eleven millimetres in the first decades of the 6th.66 The tools used by late antique ivory carvers (eborarii) would have been chisels of various fineness, rasps, perhaps drills and files.67 Working along the grain of the ivory tusk—the longitudinal lines of which are still visible in some panels68 —the natural convexity towards the centre was exploited for sculpting in higher relief. After the carving the panels were polished. To what extent the consular ivories were coloured has been a point of differing opinion. Delbrueck claimed that a variety of pigments were used—red, purple and black among others—as well as gold and gems.69 Most of the pigment traces that Delbrueck claimed to have noticed on some panels are not (today) perceptible to the eye,70 but a recent study by C.L. Connor confirms his statements.71 Through microscopic analyses with ultraviolet light Connor has managed to trace residues of various pigments—chiefly bright primary colours—and gold leaf on a number of consular diptychs.72 Of the fourteen diptychs that she examined (which include all three types) only one, that of Clementinus

Inscriptions other than those of the tabulae inscriptiones are found in some diptychs. Among the works belonging to the fully figural type, these include the celebratory formulae inscribed around the head and on the labarum of Honorius in Probus’ diptych (D(OMINO) N(OSTRO) HONORIO SEMP(ER) AVG(VSTO) // IN NOMINE XPI VINCAS SEMPER), the motto encircling the honorand’s head in the right panel of Basilius’ diptych (8) (BONO REI PVBLIC(A)E ET ITERVM), and the monograms inscribed within wreaths or cartouches above the heads of Boethius, Clementinus (10), and Orestes (7).56 Formulaic dedicatory inscriptions directed to the members of the Constantinopolitan senate are found in some eastern diptychs of the medallion and ornamental types: in two diptychs issued by Philoxenus57 a text in Greek is carved out in relief between frames and medallions ( TOUTI T O / D w RONTH O F H / G E R O U C IA / / UPATOC / UPARCw N / GROCFERw / FILXENOC),58 and in three diptychs of Justinian59 a Latin variant fills a central medallion (MVNERA PARVA QVIDEM PRETIO SED HONORIBVS ALMA // PATRIBVS ISTA MEIS OFFERO CONSVL EGO).

elephant. Contra Krzyszowska, who claims that African and Indian ivory may not be distinguished from each other; Krzyszowska 1990, 12. 61 Delbrueck 1929, 24. 62 Cutler 1985, 28, 41; Engemann 1987, 181 and Abb. 2. 63 As demonstrated by Cutler; Cutler 1985, 41. The traditional interpretation of the asymmetric shapes of some panels, first forwarded by Delbrueck (Delbrueck 1929, 20f), was that the inner corners of the panels had been levelled intentionally in order to facilitate the opening and closing of the diptych, or alternatively that the asymmetries were created by wear. Cutler has plausibly argued that neither of these conclusions is relevant, since the panels would not have rubbed against one another when handled. 64 (Delbrueck 1929, N 29, Taf. 29; Volbach 1976, Nr. 28, Taf. 14.) It has further been proposed that the cut panels were given the desired flatness by means of stretching the material; Delbrueck 1929, 18. 65 See I.1.1 above. 66 Cutler 1985, 26f; Cutler 1993, 174 and n. 44. 67 No tools that may be securely connected with ivory carving have been preserved. On a presumptive range of carving tools, see Cutler 1985, 41-47; Cutler 1994, 91-94; and also Delbrueck 1929, 18. 68 E.g. Halberstadt (2), Felix (3), Areobindus (9), and Magnus (12). 69 Delbrueck 1929, 18f, 21. 70 See also Shelton’s more pragmatic view on this; Shelton 1982, 146f. 71 Connor 1998. 72 Regrettably Connor’s study does not cover the entire corpus of consular ivories, but the results gained by the specimens examined are still enough to suggest a distinct pattern.

1.3. Material and technique The ivory used by the carvers of consular diptychs, both western and eastern, was chiefly or exclusively of African tusks imported from Egypt.60 It has been suggested, but not 54 Compare A.D.E. Cameron 1988. 55 Martindale 1980-1992:2, 99. 56 Cf. Volbach 1976, 35, 40; also Netzer 1983, 266. 57 Delbrueck 1929, N 29-30; Volbach 1976, Nr. 28 and 30. 58 Transcription Delbrueck 1929, 144. 59 Delbrueck 1929, N 26-28, Taf. 26-28; Volbach 1976, Nr. 25-27, Taf.

12-13. 60 Delbrueck 1929, 24; Wessel 1952/53, 73-77; Volbach 1976, 23; Cutler 1985, 23; Cutler 1993, 174f; also e.g. Hegemann 1988, 48. Cutler argues, in my view convincingly, that the origin of the ivory used for the consular diptychs may be established by the width of the tusks (hence of the prepared panels), which is greater for the African than for the Indian

5

(10), lacked all traces of pigment;73 a fact which may however almost certainly be ascribed to cleaning and/or bleaching in a later period.74 The most common colours are red and gold, usually in combination, but green, blue, brown and black are also frequent. The detected residues are mainly gathered towards the centre of the panels (where the higher relief leaves pockets), but colour would undoubtedly have been distributed across the panels. If these colour residues are original, which I see no real reason to doubt,75 the consular diptychs would thus have presented brightly coloured objects, the polished surface of the ivory lending them a glass-like brilliance.76 The hinges used for joining the diptych panels were mainly of a cylindrical type.77 The recessed planes on the back of the panels, i.e. the inside of the folded diptych, were probably covered with a thin coat of wax.78 On this surface messages or texts of a recipient-oriented nature,79 or possibly consular lists,80 may have been inscribed. Few or no traces of original wax layers now remain.81

1.4. Dating and chronology The majority of inscribed consular diptychs are more or less precisely datable, since it is to be assumed that the years of consulship (as noted in the fasti consulares) correspond to the years in which the respective consuls issued their commemorative ivories: of the twenty-one preserved fully figural diptychs with representations of the consul, nineteen include name inscriptions. The limited number of preserved honorific monuments to private citizens (such as togate and armed statues) from the late antique period has greatly contributed towards the consular diptychs’ status as the most ‘secure’ material category for studying stylistic development in the representational arts of the late 4th to 6th centuries. While acknowledging that the dated series of consular diptychs present a rare and hence invaluable source to the period’s art, it does not appear safe to conclude, as notably Volbach has done,82 that each of the dated diptychs represents a step on a linear path of stylistic development for late antique art in general. For one thing, consular diptychs were produced by various artists and ateliers, who likely specialised in certain ‘styles’, not only in Rome and Constantinople but also in provincial cities, as demonstrated for instance by the diptych of Astyrius (4).83 As regards the western works, a combination of three factors must necessarily render insecure any more advanced conclusions as to their stylistic-developmental representativity: the limited number in which they have been preserved, the irregular and sometimes long time spans between the extant works/issues,84 and the formal heterogeneity between them.85 As regards the eastern material, the facts that many of the preserved issues come in several near-identical specimens per honorand, and that works of different consuls’ diptychs/issues display considerable similarities between them, have led some scholars to conclude—plausibly—that they were in some degree produced in bulk.86 Production in multiples would mean that consular diptychs were, up to a point, carved ahead of being commissioned—or rather ordered—and kept in stock until finished to the requirements of the respective purchaser. It would likely also mean that the

73 Apart from Clementinus analysed specimens include the diptychs of

Felix, Areobindus A-B (9), Anastasius A (11), and Magnus A (12); Connor 1998, 13-17, appendix A (database) nos. 31, 63, 69, 74, 76, and 97. 74 Connor 1998, 14. 75 In his 1994 publication on the ivory craft, Cutler expresses his doubt as to an over-all colouration of the consular diptychs, arguing that a more extensive use of paint, especially if opaque, would have rendered invisible the finer textures of the carving; Cutler 1994, 144-149. See also Bowes, who tentatively questions Connor’s conclusion as to the late antique origin of the pigment residues detected on the consular ivories, instead lending support to Cutler’s view; Bowes 2001, 354f n. 28. 76 On the ideal and symbolisms of bright colour in Byzantine art, and its combination with ivory, see James 1996, 125-140. 77 Complete original hinges are still in situ on the diptych of Boethius; see further II.6 and also Delbrueck 1929, 19f. 78 Delbrueck 1929, 17, 20 (claiming that he had been able to feel the residues of wax by the touch of his hand when examining some diptychs); Weidemann 1980; Lafontaine-Dosogne 1980/81, 5, 8-12; Cutler 1984:1, 46; Buckton 1994, 72; Gibson 1994, 19; Connor 1998, 62; and Bowes 2001, 338f. 79 Cf. Weidemann 1980; and Lafontaine-Dosogne 1980/81, 5, 8-12. 80 Bowes 2001 (interestingly, but in my view on somewhat weak grounds, arguing that the surfaces held consular lists, and even going as far as to propose that the consular diptychs were synonymous with the fasti consulares in late antique times). The written texts on several of the consular diptychs reused for Christian-liturgical purposes suggest an adherence to an earlier practice of providing this type of object with a piece of text that reflects the meaning(s) and function(s) of its imagery. 81 Since I have not examined the corpus from this aspect myself I must here rely on the testimonies of other scholars. Contrary to Delbrueck’s findings and his own previous statements, Cutler claims in his article of 1993 that no such residues are detectable in any diptych of the corpus, and goes as far as to argue that there would have been no need of wax coatings in the first place, since the names and titles inscribed on the tabulae inscriptiones on the front of the panels would have made such additional space for written messages superfluous; Cutler 1993, 175. While accepting the negative results of Cutler’s personal examinations of the consular diptychs for traces of wax, I cannot agree with his view that there would have been no need for dedicatory or other texts. Considering that the consular diptychs were gift objects of high value and prestige to both issuer and recipient, directed and perhaps personalised messages—including such basic things as the stating of the individual recipient’s name (compare the dedication formulae on the diptychs of Philoxenus and Justinian)—would, even if formalised, certainly have rendered the gift even more prestigious

in the eyes of the recipient, and would have been a courtesy of high social and political value, a (re)commendable act of diplomacy. If Bowes’ theory that the back sides held consular lists be correct (which I am not fully prepared to agree on), this would naturally have rendered the diptychs into official objects of the first order. The lack of any contemporary literary source that specifically mentions back-side inscriptions on consular diptychs cannot be taken as evidence against their existence, as Cutler argues; Cutler 1993, 175. On the importance and systems of diplomacy, comprising public and private gift distribution, among the upper classes in late Roman society, see Cutler 1984:1, 105-108; Painter 1991; and Chrysos 1992. 82 Notably Volbach 1976, 23. Compare also Kiilerich 1993, 237-243; and Netzer 1983, 269 and passim. Contra Delbrueck 1952:1, 171. 83 Astyrius took office at Gallic Arelate (Arles); e.g. Martindale 19801992:1, 175. See also Cutler 1993, 178; Cutler 1994, 66-78; and further II.4 and 5. 84 For the fully figural type: c. 400, 406, 417 (?), 428, 449, c.450, 487, 530, 541. 85 See descriptive analyses, II.1-8. 86 Morey 1941, 46; Natanson 1953, 3f; Breckenridge 1979, 6; Cutler 1993, 187f.

6

diptychs were, up to a point, created with the help of a stock motif repertory and/or carved after more or less standardised matrices. Such a production method must inevitably relativise the dates of production for individual works and issues. More generally speaking, if it were not for the nonpictorial evidence of the inscriptions on most consular diptychs, it would have been difficult to establish a chronology at all; the fixed chronology of consuls need not a priori be translatable into a fixed chronology of style. For the dating of anonymous diptychs, scholars have had to resort to stylistic evaluations, where the dating of works for which there are no formal-stylistic parallels, such as the Bourges diptych (5), has proved particularly difficult.87 That the date of commissioning would have preceded the date of issuing by some time is natural; the consular appointee would usually have been designated several months prior to his taking of office,88 presumably so that he might have enough time to raise the necessary funds for the fullfilling of his consular obligations. The diptychs were presented as gifts in connection with the inaugural ceremonies on the New Year,89 but in at least two cases, Boethius (6) and Basilius (8), the diptychs have evidently been finished and issued after the consuls’ entry into office: in Boethius’ case a patrician appointment received some time after his consulship is included in the diptych’s inscription;90 in Basilius’ case the honorand would have laid down his office in Constantinople (April 21/December 3191 ) and returned to his home city Rome before commissioning and issuing the preserved diptych.92 How much, if at all, temporal gaps between the commissioning and issuing of diptychs may have influenced their formal execution or style is impossible to determine. Generally, however, there seems little reason to doubt the correspondence in time of production and issuing.

1.5. Geographical origin and the concept of ivory carving schools Despite the exceedingly limited archaeological evidence for late antique ivory workshops,93 the allocation of places of production for the consular diptychs has generally been a point of relative consensus among scholars. Since the ivory used in the production is usually claimed to have derived from Africa,94 the conclusion has been that Egypt, more specifically Alexandria, played a leading role in the Mediterranean ivory trade during the 5th and 6th centuries.95 Various theories have been presented, chiefly by earlier scholars such as Capps, Morey, Wessel, and to some extent Delbrueck,96 that ascribe a decisive part in both the production of ivory works and the formation of carving styles to an Alexandrine school of workshops. The evidence claimed for these theories, particularly as regards the consular diptychs, is however rather vague: an allegedly Coptic manner of rendering figures and certain types of ornaments.97 The spreading of an Alexandrine carving style was another important point of discussion among the earlier scholars, who presented various more or less complex theories as to how—by what geographical routes and by what agents—this spreading would have taken place. According to one such theory, an unknown number of accomplished Egyptian ivory carvers would have settled down in Constantinople, establishing an Egyptian school that subsequently became responsible for the bulk of quality work produced in the city, the consular diptychs included.98 That ivory was worked in Egypt in late antiquity has been established through modern archaeological excavations,99 but whether finds of Egyptian ivory ateliers may be connected to schools exporting carvers to Constantinople is a question that must remain unanswered. It may perhaps seem a finer point of definition whether such a school, or conglomerate of ateliers, should be called Egyptian or Constantinopolitan. As long as there cannot be found any more substantial evidence for the Egyptian school theory, or any other for that matter, it seems safest to conclude that the eastern consular diptychs were produced in or near the artistic centre of Constantinople by artists resident there, and are thus Constantinopolitan by definition.100

87 Volbach 1976, Nr. 35-44a, 42-46. The problems pertaining to the dating

of the anonymous consular diptychs (Halberstadt, Bourges, and also the Lampadiorum panel (1)) will be discussed in coming chapters (II.1, 2, and 5; III.3.1, 3.2 and 3.4). 88 How long the appointed remained consul designatus before actually taking office may have varied from several years to some weeks or even days, but according to Bagnall, Cameron, Schwartz & Worp longer periods would not have been common in late antiquity; Bagnall, Cameron, Schwartz & Worp 1987, 19f. Compare Jones, who stated that ordinary consuls and other categories of magistrates whose official responsibilities comprised games-giving were sometimes nominated years in advance; Jones 1964, 540. 89 E.g. Delbrueck 1929, 68; Bagnall, Cameron, Schwartz & Worp 1987, 87; A.D.E. Cameron 1998, 398-400. See further I.6 below. 90 See above, I.1.2. 91 Opinions differ concerning at which date the consul laid down office in late antiquity; Bagnall, Cameron, Schwartz & Worp 1987, 20. 92 Cameron & Schauer 1982, 137.

93 Compare the critical discussions of Cutler; Cutler 1985, 37f; Cutler 1994,

66-78. 94 See I.1.3 above. 95 See also Kollwitz 1964. 96 Capps 1927, 70, 72-110; Delbrueck 1929, 25f, 161; Morey 1941, 46-55; Wessel 1943; Wessel 1952/53, 69-77. 97 Capps 1927, 73-89; Wessel 1952/53, 74. 98 Capps 1927, 89; Morey 1941, 46 esp.; Wessel 1952/53. See further Delbrueck, who also takes a Syrian school or style for granted, albeit perhaps somewhat noncomittally; Delbrueck 1929, 27. 99 Engemann 1987; Cutler 1993, 176-178. 100 For a relevant discussion of the problems pertaining to the method of stylistic analysis for determining geographical origin of late antique art (with respect to studies on the subject presented before c. 1960), see De Francovich 1963.

7

A more recent study of western Christian ivories110 plausibly proposes that they were produced by a number of small-scale workshops located in the direct vicinity of their commissioners, viz. churches and monasteries, throughout northern Italy. Such a pattern would however likely not have characterised the production of consular ivories. Chief production centres for consular and other official diptychs are commonly held to have been Rome, Milan and Ravenna.111 That Rome would be a centre of production seems natural, considering that the major magistracies were held there. It also seems plausible that one or other diptych commissioned by a consul resident in northern Italy, and appointed by an emperor residing at Ravenna (such as Honorius),112 may have been produced by a regional atelier. Workshops specialising in consular and other types of official diptychs have hitherto not been localised archaeologically.113

The geographical origin or origins of the consular diptychs derived from the western half of the Roman empire have proved somewhat harder to determine. Here Christian ivories numerically dominate the scene, something which has somehow contributed towards complicating the question of production centres or schools as regards the consular material. A theory that gained followers among Anglo-Saxon scholars in the 1920s and 30s, and which was based on stylistic analyses of a range of ivory works, proposed that an advanced Italo-Gallic school of ivory carvers based in southern Gaul or north-western Italy was responsible for the absolute majority of ivory works produced in Italy in the 4th and 5th centuries, including consular ones.101 Other and later suggestions tend to be more pluralistic in their approach. Indeed the preserved western material, being much more heterogeneous than that derived from the east, does seem to indicate a number of different workshops active during different periods and possibly in more than one centre, and geographical attribution based on stylistic analysis is rendered difficult by this fact.102 Stylistic correspondences have nevertheless been claimed, more or less convincingly, to exist among different groups of diptychs: 1) Probus (Pl. 14), Halberstadt (2) and Felix (3); 2) Boethius (6) and Basilius (8); and 3) Lampadiorum (1), the diptych of Probianus,103 and a diptych panel in Liverpool representing three togati presiding over a venatio (Pl. 18).104 As regards the traditional association of Boethius’ diptych with that of Basilius, which is based as much on the assumption that the latter commemorates the western consul of 480105 as on typological and technical affinities between the two works, this has in later years to some extent been challenged by Alan Cameron and Diane Schauer,106 who have successfully reattributed the Basilius diptych to the eastern consul of 541. Although Basilius’ diptych would still have been issued in the west (as demonstrated by, among other things, the form and arrangement of its inscription107 ), its attribution to the same atelier that produced Boethius’ diptych is weakened108 even if not disproved.109

1.6. Ancient literary sources The literary evidence for the consular diptychs is scarce but more or less contemporary with the preserved material.114 The earliest recorded mention of the consular diptychs specifically, and ivory diptychs issued by officials generally, is a paragraph of the Codex Theodosianus from the year 384115 in which the legislator explicitly prohibits other officials than ordinary consuls from issuing ivory diptychs: ‘Exeptis consulibus ordinariis, nulli prorsus alteri auream sportulam, diptycha ex ebore dandi facultas sit’. The formulation indicates that during the second half of the 4th century it had become a relatively widespread practice among Martindale 1980-1992:2, 174f; Bagnall, Cameron, Schwartz & Worp 1987, 494f). Compare Cameron & Schauer 1982, 133. 110 Fillitz 1987, 258. 111 Delbrueck 1929, 29-32; Delbrueck 1952:1, 170; Wessel 1953, 60-72; Volbach 1976, 28; Volbach 1977; Fillitz 1987; Bertelli 1992, 444, 447, 449; and Cutler 1993, 176. The aforesaid Egyptian school has also been proposed—although not convincingly—as in some direct or indirect way responsible for certain western ivories; Capps 1927, 90-100. See further I.2. 112 See e.g. Bury 1958:1, 110, 112; and Gillett 2001. A possible consul would be Fl. Constantius (the likely honorand of the Halberstadt diptych), who was closely tied to the Honorian court at Ravenna; see Martindale 1980-1992:1, 323-325 esp.; and Lütkenhaus 1998. The Halberstadt diptych has been attributed to a north Italian/Ravennese workshop by several scholars (compare previous footnote). 113 As yet not fully published excavations on the east Palatine in Rome have brought forth evidence for a 4th-5th c . domus-based officina producing a range of objects in ivory and bone, but according to the excavators’ estimation neither the range of object types (pins, small spatulas, combs, pyxides, toys etc.), volume nor quality seem indicative of any more advanced production; Hostetter et al. 1991, 51f; Hostetter et al. 1993, 88. Compare Cutler in his article of 1993, announcing that findings of ivory panels had been reported from these excavations; Cutler 1993, 176. See also Bowersock, Brown & Grabar 1999, 521. 114 Compilations of ancient sources on consular diptychs and related matters (consular costume, ceremonial etc.) are presented in Delbrueck’s corpus; Delbrueck 1929, XXXIV-XLVII. A compilation of sources on the consulate in late antiquity, apart from the consular diptychs, is also offered by Bagnall, Cameron, Schwatz & Worp 1987, 47-89. The following account is not exhaustive but presents some of the more frequently cited sources in brief form. 115 Cod.Theod. 15.9.1.

101 Smith 1918; Lawrence 1927/28, Lawrence 1932; Coburn Soper 1938,

153, 159f. According to Coburn Soper this Italo-Gallic workshop would have established itself in Rome, retaining its essentially non-Roman stylistic characteristics throughout its period of production. 102 For a discussion of the problems pertaining to these kinds of stylistic attributions, see Cutler 1993, 178. Also Delbrueck 1952:1, 171. 103 Delbrueck 1929, N 65, Taf, 65; Volbach 1976, Nr. 62, Taf. 34. 104 Graeven 1892; Capps 1927, 91-95; Delbrueck 1929, 93-95; Wessel 1948/49, 111-114; Wessel 1953, 60-72; Beckwith 1958, 6; Volbach 1976, 31f, 42, 51, 53; Volbach 1977, 21-27; Wright 1998, 367 The Liverpool venatio panel is in the collection of National Museums Liverpool; Delbrueck 1929, N 58, Taf. 58; Volbach 1976, Nr. 59, Taf. 32. 105 Graeven 1892, 210; Capps 1927, 91-95; Delbrueck 1929, 93-95; Wessel 1948/49, 111-114. See further II.8. 106 Cameron & Schauer 1982. 107 See I.1.2. 108 Paolucci 1994, 19f. 109 There is naturally the possibility that Basilius’ diptych was created by a later generation of the same atelier as used by Boethius, assuming that both consuls commissioned their diptychs in Rome—which seems logical, since both belonged to Roman families (Martindale 1980-1992:1, 216f, 231-234;

8

including categories of spectacles);123 the description of Q. Aurelianus Symmachus of his own consular games in 391;124 and the personal reflections on the qualities required to attain high office, and the glories and exigencies associated with pursuing a public career in late antique Rome, presented by Boethius iunior—another member of a prominent Romanaristocratic family—in his Philosophiae consolationis from the 520s.125 Among the ancient literature of relevance to the study of consular diptychs must also be counted the panegyrics written (and recited) in connection with consular accessions. Claudianus’ panegyrics are the most prolific and well-known, and dedicated to both imperial and private consuls in the west, among whom Honorius (cos. III 396, cos. IV 398, cos. VI 404), Stilicho (cos. 400), and Olybrius and Probinus (coss. 395).126 There is also evidence that a panegyric was delivered by Nicetus to Astyrius, western consul in 449 and honorand of a preserved diptych (4), on the occasion of his inaugural celebrations at Arelate (Arles).127 The content and purpose of the consular panegyrics were of course to glorify their honorands, but even if they do not present objective documents on persons or events they are still very useful as a source for the ideologies and symbologies tied to the consulate in the late Roman period.128 A frequently cited source for the public roles of the Roman senatorial aristocracy in the period around 400 are the writings of the already mentioned Symmachus, who was a member of one of Rome’s most prominent senatorial families and a high profile in its political life. In one of his letters Symmachus gives a detailed account of the circus games paid for by himself upon his son’s being installed as praetor on the New Year of 401,129 testifying to the lavishness expected of an appointed official upon his inauguration, even when—as in this case—holding one of the lower offices on the cursus honorum; 130 among the various gifts that Symmachus presented, on his sons’ behalf, to friends and colleagues etc. on this occasion are mentioned ivory diptychs. In another letter131 Symmachus conveys his thanks for, among other things, a gold-framed diptych sent him as an official gift by the correspondent, Eugenius.

private citizens to commission and distribute luxury objects of ivory and gold upon important occasions in their public and social lives. That the law was either disregarded or did not apply in the western half of the empire is demonstrated by a number of preserved non-consular ivory diptychs commemorating western officials that are dated after 384;116 as pointed out by Alan Cameron,117 the circumstance that no official diptychs other than consular have been preserved from the east suggests that the law was in fact exclusively directed at eastern officials. That western consuls and other prominent representatives of the Roman senatorial class were on the contrary expected and actively encouraged to spend extravagantly on munificence—among other things, presumably, luxury gift objects—in order that they might win glory and public favour is demonstrated by form letters from king Theodoric (471-526) to consuls of the year, cited by Cassiodorus.118 Consular diptychs are also specifically mentioned by Claudianus, whose brief description of a consular diptych issued by Stilicho, western consul in 400, informs the reader that ivory tusks were carved with iron tools into plaques, which bore the consul’s name inscription inlaid with gold (dentes, qui secti ferro in tabulas auroque micantes/inscripti rutilum caelato consule nomen);119 and also Libanius, who in one of his letters expresses his thanks for an ivory diptych and a silver bowl sent him as gifts by the correspondent, Tatianus, eastern consul in 391.120 Written sources on various aspects of late antique consulship further include the voluminous legislation of Justinian (527-565), which contains paragraphs on consular ceremonial, including the range and order of spectacles comprised in the consular games, and on consular costume and insignia;121 an account by Corippus (6th c.) of the ceremonial surrounding the conferring of consular gifts (largitio);122 the accounts by Mamertinus and Claudianus of the processus consularis and the pompa circensis (also

116 Notably the diptychs of Probianus (vicarius urbis Romae, c. 400),

Stilicho (commemorating the quaestorship or the office of tribunus et notarius of Stilicho’s son Eucherius, c. 400), the Liverpool venatio panel (three anonymous senators/ex-consuls, c. 400), and the anonymous Novara patricius (400-450); Delbrueck 1929, N 64, Taf. 64; Volbach 1976, Nr. 62, 63, 59 and 64, Taf. 34, 35, 32, and 36; Wessel 1953; Shelton 1982, 163; and Kiilerich 1993, 141. 117 A.D.E. Cameron 1982:1, 126; A.D.E. Cameron 1986, 55. 118 Cassiod., Var. 2.2; 3.39; 4.51; and 6.1; Bagnall, Cameron, Schwartz & Worp 1987, 8f. 119 Claud., Cons.Stil. 3.346-349. 120 Lib., Ep. 1021. 121 Nov. 105.1. On the 1st of January the consul entered office by performing the first processus consularis. The pompa circensis was opened with races in the circus (ludi circenses) (‘first mappa’), whereafter a sequence of amphitheatrical games, theatrical and other artistic performances took place over several days, concluded by another edition of circus games (‘second mappa’), and finally a processus. The various informations of the law text is compiled in Delbrueck 1929, 67. See further III.2.1.2. 122 Corippus, Iust.Aug. 4.90-263. Also Painter 1991, 77. See further II.4.2. and IV.1.

123 Mamertinus, Grat.act.Iul. 30; Claud., Pan.Manl.Theod. 276-332.

Compiled by Delbrueck 1929, 66-68. 124 Symmachus, Ep. 4.58.2; 4.60.1-2. 125 Boethius, Phil.cons. 2. For illuminating discussions of relevant passages, see Näf 1995, 222-231. 126 Claud., III.Cons.Hon., IV.Cons.Hon., VI.Cons.Hon., Prob.Olybr.cons., Cons. Stil. 127 Sid.Apoll., Epist. 8.6.5-6; Martindale 1980-1992:1, 175. 128 See e.g. Paschoud 1967; A.D.E. Cameron 1970; Christiansen 1970; Mellor 1981, 1024f; Näf 1995, 76-79 esp.; Lim 1999:2, 352f; and Niquet 2000, 151-172. Some examples of 6th-century poetry dealing with the subject of Rome (Roma) are presented by Roberts 2001. 129 Symmachus, Ep. 2. 46; 5.20. 2; 5.59 and 62; 9.117. See also A.D.E. Cameron 1999:1, 498f. 130 On the immense sums spent on preatorian and quaestorian games in Symmachus’ time, and the importance of lavish games-giving for future eligibility to the consulship, see notably Lim 1999:1,272f. 131 Symmachus, Ep. 2.81. 2.

9

E. Capps Jr. in 1927 (‘The style of the consular diptychs’)138 is methodologically and mentally affiliated to the studies of Graeven. Like Graeven, Capps considered the material to be ‘without merit in itself’,139 a view particularly applied to the western (‘Latin’) diptychs, which received limited attention on the grounds that they, if anything, display a lack of style. The eastern (‘Greek’) diptychs, on the other hand, were stylistically analysed and evaluated at length, with the sole purpose of tracing an Alexandrine-Coptic school of ivory carvers. With Richard Delbrueck’s Die Consulardiptychen und verwandte Denkmäler (1929)140 the consular diptychs received their first and only monograph to date, although (as the title implies) related works, viz. a number of contemporary ivory diptychs and works in other media were also included. Preceded first by a list of ancient literary sources, and then by an extensive introduction where a range of aspects pertaining to the historical context of the consular diptychs are compiled and processed, all the then known specimens were treated equally and methodically in an extensive catalogue raisonné; the items were chronologically listed, classified, attributed, described, and their imagery summarily interpreted, first the consular diptychs and then the other types of commemorative works. Each entry was preceded by notes on prosopography and concluded with notes on provenance and, occasionally, iconographical peculiarities, etc. Stylistic or, as Delbrueck expressed it, arthistorical aspects were considered irrelevant to the scope of the publication, which expressly aimed at providing a broad basis for further study;141 accordingly, problems related to geographical origin and ivory carving schools received comparatively limited attention,142 and in this the work differs significantly from the majority of studies published both before and since. In general terms, Delbrueck’s approach to the consular diptychs was twofold: archaeological and philological. The ivories were viewed as material objects rather than works of art, and their images mainly regarded as illustrations to data gathered from literary sources. Further, Delbrueck’s analyses were more rarely concerned with a consular image in its entirety, even less with the iconological significances of the consular image as a phenomenon, but concentrated on certain motifs of personal interest. This selective interest was to a considerable degree focussed on consular costume—details and variations of garments, draping, patterns, and so forth—which was treated most exhaustively both in the introductory chapter and in the descriptions of the catalogue. Die Consulardiptychen provides a broad but (apart from issues related to consular costume) unspecialised documentation of the material, which problematises neither the diptychs’ images nor the sources relied on for their interpretation. But its importance for the study of the consular diptychs is inestimable, and its strong

2. PREVIOUS SCHOLARSHIP: A CRITICAL SURVEY Studies on the consular diptychs are relatively easily numbered, and specialised studies are fewer still.132 Only one monograph has been devoted to the material category as a whole, Richard Delbrueck’s Die Consulardiptychen und verwandte Denkmäler (1929),133 and many of the other studies—nearly all in the form of articles—are concerned with late Roman and early Byzantine ivories at large, citing the consular diptychs mainly for their secure datability.134 The extant literature may be divided into two parts or phases, one from c. 1870 to 1976—a year marked by the publication of the third and last edition of Wolfgang Fritz Volbach’s corpus of late antique and early mediaeval ivories (Elfenbeinarbeiten der Spätantike und des frühen Mittelalters)135 —and one from 1976 to the present; a division which reflects a certain shift in the scholarly approach to the consular diptychs. The present survey aims at presenting an overview of the interests and methods of the previous scholarship on the consular diptychs, discussing the works of the most prominent authors in a chronological order. The studies devoted to the consular diptychs in the earlier years of modern scholarship (c. 1870-c. 1940) are nearly all focussed on issues of attribution: chronological lines of development, geographical origin, schools and workshops of ivory carvers, stylistic movements in the Mediterranean world in the late antique period. The method applied is almost exclusively that of stylistic analysis, and in many cases the consular diptychs are rather treated as works of reference than as main objects of study. Writers that can be mentioned are J.O. Westwood, , E. B. Smith, H. Graeven, E. Capps, G.C. Williamson, J. Cousin, and H. Fuhrmann.136 Of these, Graeven and Capps must be considered as the most prominent. Graeven’s articles ‘Entstellte Consulardiptychen’ (1892) and ‘Heidnische Diptychen’ (1913) were chiefly concerned with the tracing of ivory carving schools—notably an Egyptian school of Coptic-Alexandrine origin—through comparative stylistic analyses. The few consular diptychs that were cited were not studied in themselves, but used as comparanda for other categories of ivories. Graeven’s appreciation of the consular diptychs as works of art was that of disregard; he explicitly considered them as evidence for the general decline of art in the late Roman period.137 The article devoted to the subject of the consular diptychs published by 132 This survey does not aim at presenting a complete presentation of the

previous scholarship on the consular diptychs, but limits itself to what may be termed modern scholarship. For earlier scholarship I refer to Delbrueck (Delbrueck 1929) and Volbach (Volbach 1976), both of whom include it among their references. 133 Delbrueck 1929. 134 Compare I.1.4 above. 135 Volbach 1976. 136 Westwood 1876; Smith 1918; Graeven 1892; Graeven 1897; Graeven 1913; Capps 1927, G.C. Williamson 1938, Cousin 1941; H. Fuhrmann 1939; H. Fuhrmann 1940. 137 Graeven 1913, 201f.

138 Capps 1927. 139 Capps 1927, 63, 70. 140 Delbrueck 1929. 141 Delbrueck 1929, 1. 142 Delbrueck 1929, 23-32.

10

points considerable: the meticulousness and methodicalness with which the material is gathered and presented, the unbiassed approach to the consular diptychs as works of art, and above all the author’s ambition to connect the consular diptychs to their historical context, are qualities that make the work a highly useful source more than seventy years after its publication. The method and approach that characterise Die Consulardiptychen are also witnessed in Delbrueck’s later articles on consular diptychs and other late antique ivories, such as ‘Zu spätrömischen Elfenbeinen des Westreichs’ (1952),143 which however mainly reaffirm the results presented in the corpus. The next generation of scholars, notably represented by Wolfgang Fritz Volbach and Klaus Wessel, again gives priority to the aspects of geographical origin, workshops/schools and stylistic development in the production of late antique ivories. Whereas Wessel concentrated his efforts on tracing the decline of ivory carving and the grouping of mainly Christian works into ‘schools’ (‘Eine Gruppe oberitalischer Elfenbeinarbeiten’ (1948/49), ‘Studien zur oströmischen Elfenbeinskulptur (1952/53))144 —where the consular diptychs are dealt with rather marginally and mainly a s evidence of decline—Volbach’s studies aimed at establishing the main lines of stylisic development and its geographical contexts (workshops, movements) for the entire corpus of late antique and early mediaeval ivories. Volbach’s corpus Elfenbeinarbeiten der Spätantike und des frühen Mittelalters,145 published in three editions the first of which appeared already in 1916 and the third and last in 1976, may to some extent be regarded as a complement to Delbrueck’s Consulardiptychen, since the consular material covered by the up-dated third version comprises a small number of items in addition to those known to Delbrueck. But otherwise Volbach’s contribution to the study of the material is limited to proposed redatings and/or reattributions for some works, most of the catalogue text being more or less dependent on Delbrueck’s previous research. The space allowed each work is limited, and iconographical and contextual matters are largely left out, the descriptions of the consular images being reduced to general statements concerning type, main motifs and ornaments, with a certain focus on consular costume and insignia. The scope and aim of Volbach’s corpus were to bring to a conclusion the research concerning the dating and origin of late antique and early mediaeval ivories, and to define groups or schools of ivory carvers active in these periods, and the result (whether conclusive or not may be left unsaid) reflects the author’s intentions. Aim and method are the same in Volbach’s other publications (e.g. ‘Frühmittelalterliche Elfenbeinarbeiten in der Schweiz’ (1954), ‘Silber- und Elfenbeinarbeiten vom Ende des 4. bis zum Anfang des 7. Jahrhunderts’ (1962), ‘Avori di scuola

ravennate nel V e VI secolo’ (1977), and ‘Avori delle capitali tardoantiche’ (1978)).146 Since the publication of the last edition of Volbach’s Elfenbeinarbeiten the consular diptychs have been studied neither extensively nor comprehensively. More recent scholarship is nearly always presented in the form of critical essays proposing reattributions of single works, either stylistically (chronologically, geographically, technically) and/or prosopographically. The tradition of stylistic analysis is partly continued; an article on the western Orestes diptych147 by Nancy Netzer (‘Redating the consular ivory of Orestes’ (1983)),148 proposing an eastern attribution for the work, exemplifies this continuity. But such analyses are increasingly complemented with investigations into the historical context of the works studied—known facts about the personage(s) commemorated mainly—which serve as points of departure for more specialised iconographical interpretations as well as (hopefully) more secure attributions. The 1980s saw a number of articles devoted to the attribution of late antique ivories—including however only some consular diptychs—by the combined application of stylistic analysis and philological method, notably Alan Cameron’s and Diane Schauer’s ‘The last consul: Basilius and his diptych’ (1982),149 Kathleen J. Shelton’s ‘The diptych of the young office holder’ (1982)150 —a study of a diptych in Monza commonly attributed to the Vandal general Stilicho151 —and ‘The consular muse of Flavius Constantius’ (1983),152 and Bente Kiilerich’s and Hjalmar Torp’s ‘Hic est: hic est Stilicho. The date and interpretation of a notable diptych’ (1983).153 An article that treats the consular diptychs from a somewhat different angle is ‘Der Tribunaltypus der Consulardiptychen und seine Vorstufen’ by Hanns Gabelmann (1978),154 which is concerned (as the title implies) with tracing the origins of the consular image from a typological and iconographical aspect. Leaving stylistic matters aside, Gabelmann attempts to place the consular image of the tribunal type155 in a continuous iconographical tradition with roots in folk- and provincial as well as imperial art under the republic and early principate. The subject is also touched upon in the monograph Antike Audienz- und Tribunalszenen (1984).156 The study of consular and related categories of late antique ivory diptychs has in the last two decades been dominated by the publications of Alan Cameron and Anthony Cutler. Cameron, a philologist specialised in the field of late Roman146 Volbach 1954; Volbach 1962; Volbach 1977; Volbach 1978. 147 (7). See further II.7. 148 Netzer 1983. 149 Cameron & Schauer 1982. See further II.8. 150 Shelton 1982. 151 Delbrueck 1929, N 63; Volbach 1976, Nr. 63. 152 Shelton 1983. 153 Kiilerich & Torp 1983. 154 Gabelmann 1978.

143 Delbrueck 1952:1. Also Delbrueck 1952:2. 144 Wessel 1948-1949; Wessel 1952-1953.

155 See I.1.1. 156 Gabelmann 1984,155-160, 198-207.

145 Volbach 1976.

11

early Byzantine literature and history,157 mainly approaches the material from the philological angle. His most notable contributions, including—apart from the already mentioned article on the Basilius diptych (co-written with Diane Schauer)158 —‘A note on ivory carving in fourth century Constantinople’ (1982),159 ‘Pagan ivories’ (1986),160 and ‘Consular diptychs in their social context: new eastern evidence’ (1998),161 all aim at fitting late antique ivories into certain historical contexts, providing them with an explicatory background derived from literary sources. Cameron’s interest is not so much in the images themselves (consular and other) as in to whom, i.e. to which honorands, they may be attributed; the prosopographical material is accorded a decisive, not to say primary, importance in his attributions of the Halberstadt,162 Lampadiorum163 and Basilius diptychs. The value of Cameron’s studies lies in their contextual approach: by linking a consular image to a specific person, his family’s history, the social and political realities of his time and place, the ideas and purposes behind its creation and functions within late Roman society become clearer. Cameron is also co-author of the comprehensive monograph on the consulate in late antiquity, Consuls of the later Roman empire (1987),164 where the consular diptychs form part of the evidence. The scholarship of Anthony Cutler focusses on the material side of late antique and mediaeval ivory carving: material, technique, matters pertaining to authenticity and the like. His monographs The craft of ivory. Sources, techniques and uses in the Mediterranean world AD 200-1400 (1985)165 and The hand of the master: craftsmanship, ivory, and society in Byzantium (1994)166 have, together with the articles ‘The making of Justinian’s diptychs’ (1984)167 and ‘Five lessons in late Roman ivory carving’ (1993),168 contributed significantly towards our understanding of the trade, production and functions of ivory in late antique society. Cutler’s critical approach to previous scholars’ writings on the technical sides of the ivory craft, many of which have seemingly been based on qualified assumptions rather than actual analyses, has resulted in a number of articles on the authenticity (viz. late antique origin) of

specific works,169 and he has also presented a critical essay on what would be understood as a peculiarly German tradition within the study of consular diptychs and other late antique-early mediaeval art, notably represented by Delbrueck (‘Le Consulardiptychen de Richard Delbrück et l’hégémonie de la Klassische Archäologie’ (1995));170 an issue previously also addressed in ‘Five lessons’ (1993). Seeing the need for a new and up-dated corpus on the consular diptychs and related ivories, Cutler announced in 1993 that such a work is under preparation by himself and Alan Cameron.171 The most recent scholarship on the subject of consular diptychs also includes a couple of articles by Josef Engemann, ‘Zur Anordnung von Inschriften und Bildern bei westlichen und östlichen Elfenbeindiptychen des vierten bis sechsten Jahrhunderts’ (1998)172 and ‘Das spätantike Consulardiptychon in Halberstadt: westlich oder östlich?’ (1999),173 the latter of which is a critical response to Cameron’s proposed reattribution of the Halberstadt diptych to an eastern consul,174 and Gudrun Bühl’s ‘Eastern or western?—that is the question. Some notes on the new evidence considering the eastern origin of the Halberstadt diptych’ (2001),175 which presents a further contribution to the debate concerning the origin, date and commissioner of the anonymous Halberstadt diptych. Of peculiar relevance to the study of the consular diptychs is also Bühl’s monograph on Roma and Constantinopolis in late antique art, Constantinopolis und Roma. Stadtpersonifikationen der Spätantike (1995)176 and the related article ‘Constantinopolis: das Neue im Gewand des Alten’ (1996),177 which among other things deal with the types and significances of this figure category within the consular diptychs.178 Apart from the more specialised studies of the consular diptychs hitherto listed, there are also a number of publications—museum and exhibition catalogues, handbooks on late antique and Byzantine ivories and art in general, symposium publications, and various articles on late antique art—that include one or several consular diptychs among their material.179 The treatments presented in these kinds of 169 The ‘Roma-Constantinopolis’ diptych in Vienna and the diptychs in

Monza (‘San Gregorio’) and Prague, claimed by among others Delbrueck and Volbach to be recarved consular ivories; Cutler 1984:2; Cutler 1993; Cutler1995:1; Cutler 1995:2. 170 Cutler 1995:1. 171 Cutler 1993, 168. An announcement to the same effect had previously also been made (by Alan Cameron) in Bagnall, Cameron, Schwartz & Worp 1987, 87. 172 Engemann 1998. 173 Engemann 1999. 174 A.D.E. Cameron 1998. See further III.3.2 and 3.4. 175 Bühl 2001. 176 Bühl 1995. 177 Bühl 1996. 178 See further III.3.2. 179 E.g. Maskell 1875; Bayet 1904; Diehl 1910; Longhurst 1927; Bréhier 1936; Fuchs 1943; Wehrli 1948; Belloni 1956; Bovini & Ottolenghi 1956; Beckwith 1961; Dalton 1961; Metz & Hirmer 1962; London 1963; Grabar 1966; Delvoye 1967; Delvoye 1971; Weitzmann 1972; Sande 1975;

157 His earliest production includes monographs on Claudianus’ poetry and

the functions of the circus in cultural and political life in the late Roman and early Byzantine period; A.D.E. Cameron 1970; A.D.E. Cameron 1972; A.D.E. Cameron 1976. Later studies of relevance to the study of consular diptychs include a recent article on the late Roman aristocracy; Cameron 1999. 158 Cameron & Schauer 1982. 159 A.D.E. Cameron 1982:1. 160 A.D.E. Cameron 1986. 161 A.D.E. Cameron 1998. 162 A.D.E. Cameron 1998. See further II.2, III.3.2, 3.4, and 5.4. 163 A.D.E. Cameron 1986. 164 Bagnall, Cameron, Schwartz & Worp 1987. 165 Cutler 1985. 166 Cutler 1994. 167 Cutler 1984:1. 168 Cutler 1993.

12

publications are for the most part concerned with the attribution (style), material and function of the works. As in the case of studies in stylistic developments in late Roman and early Byzantine art,180 the consular diptychs here serve the chief purpose of illustrating a notable category of art and/or constituting securely dated exempla.

were created (commissioners/honorands and recipients). 2) The imagery of the consular diptych served a wider purpose than simply to commemorate its commissioner in his capacity of consul: it was conceived and utilised as a means for conveying a variety of contents that did not strictly describe the consulate as an office, but in different ways referred to it as an idea or symbolic entity. The investigation of the consular images will be concerned with what motifs the consular repertory comprises, what forms the different motifs take and how they are applied, but also what may have been the motivations and purposes behind their selection, application and the mode(s) in which they are presented. Assuming that all motifs found within consular imagery carry meanings relevant to the representation of consulship—specific, generic, symbolic or other—what aspects of consulship do they illustrate, and how do they define these aspects? In the attempt to answer questions such as these, I will hopefully be able to show that the consular diptychs present a source for the history of the late Roman empire in their own right.

Based on the outline of the previous scholarship presented above, the following comments may be ventured. The consular diptychs have received a relatively limited and one-sided interest. Their unique position within the history of secular and non-imperial art of the period c. AD 400-542 has induced scholars to value them primarily as material evidence, whether for stylistic development within the period’s art or for the histories of the individual personages who commissioned them. Even if the appreciation of the consular diptychs as works of art has increased over the years, there remains a lack of interest in their images as bearers of intrinsic meaning, i.e. of significances over and beyond their immediate content or purpose: to present the men who issued them in their capacity of consuls.181 That no iconological investigation of the consular imagery has hitherto been carried out would perhaps chiefly be explained by the limitations in method and interest of the archaeological discipline, but also by a regrettable tendency to ignore the consular ivories in the discipline of art history.

As regards the selection of the material for study, all known consular diptychs will not receive separate treatment, nor will all specimens belonging to the fully figural type do so.182 It is thus not part of my aim to provide a complete corpus of the consular diptychs, since this has already been done by Delbrueck and (to a lesser extent) Volbach, and since an updated corpus by Anthony Cutler and Alan Cameron is also expected to appear sometime in the future.183 Only more or less intact diptychs/panels with representations of the issuing consuls will receive full treatment.184 Works that do not receive separate entries in the catalogue (Part II) are such as are either severely damaged, heavily reworked, or do not represent a consular personage. On the third of these premisses, consequently, I have chosen to omit the diptych of Probus (west, 406) (Pl. 14),185 which does not represent the commissioning consul but the emperor Honorius. The ‘San Gregorio’ diptych kept in Monza,186 traditionally considered to be a recarved early 6th-century consular diptych from the west, has been left out after having considered the technical analyses and arguments presented by Cutler in a couple of articles.187 The works omitted in the catalogue are however

3. THE AIM AND METHOD OF THIS STUDY The present study will put the imagery of the consular diptychs into focus. Its aim is to to show that, contrary to what is generally thought, the meanings of the consular image are complex and multi-layered, and reflect the status and functions tied to the consulate in the late Roman period not only from an official perspective but also from an ideological one. The study will be conducted on the basis of two interrelated assumptions. 1) The appearance in the latter half of the 4th century of the consular diptych as a category of commemorative art, and the subsequent development of the consular imagery, were determined by historical and sociocultural factors peculiar to the period, and as such expressions of specific needs a n d values—collective and individual—among the category of people for whom they

182 See I.1.1. 183 Cutler 1993, 168. See also I.2. 184 To this category also belongs the right panel of Anastasius’ diptych B

(east 517) previously kept in the Antiquarium, Berlin (11), since, although lost after the Second World War, it survives through an excellent photographic reproduction (Delbrueck 1929, Taf. 20). 185 Delbrueck 1929, N 1; Volbach 1976, Nr. 1. 186 Monza, Museo del Tesoro del Duomo. Graeven 1892, 218-221; Delbrueck 1929, N 43, 175; Volbach 1976, Nr. 43, 45; Fillitz 1987, 258, 262; Shelton 1989, 125; Compostella 1990:1; Bertelli 1992, 447 and n. 27. Allegedly recarved 800-900 AD. 187 Cutler 1995:1, 396-407; Cutler 1995:2, 703. To this it may be added that the draping of the toga in the diptych conforms to the pre-450 (circa) style; for folding styles, see I.1.1. That the Monza diptych would be a copy after a late antique original was first proposed by Bertelli; Bertelli 1992, 447. Engemann has tentatively expressed his support of Bertelli’s theory; Engemann 1998, 117.

Weitzmann 1979; Brescia 1978; Schulze 1980:1-4; Spätantike 1983; P.R.L. Brown 1982; Peschlow 1984; Caillet 1985; Fillitz 1987; Stella 1987; Hegemann 1988; Milburn 1988; Stella 1990; Compostella 1990:2; Durand 1992; Gibson 1994; Wright 1998. 180 Riegl 1901/27; Haseloff 1930; L’Orange 1933; Kähler 1949; Severin 1972; Sande 1975; Kiilerich 1993. 181 Shelton’s article on a lost consular (?) diptych of Fl. Constantius formerly in Antiquarium, Berlin (Shelton 1983) (Delbrueck 1929, N 36; Volbach 1976, Nr. 34) presents a successful example of how a consular image may be studied from an iconological perspective, but regrettably the image in question does not represent the consul or anything that may be termed consular proper. See also Shelton’s article on the so-called Carrand diptych; Shelton 1989, 108-112 esp.

13

not left out of the study entirely, but will be cited as comparanda. This also applies to the consular diptychs of the medallion and ornamental types.188 For the same reason that I have excluded the Probus diptych I have included the Lampadiorum diptych panel (1). Based on its inscription, neither Delbrueck and Volbach nor the majority of subsequent writers have wanted to identify this ivory as a consular diptych.189 However, the panel’s imagery on a number of vital points coincides with that of a consular diptych (notably the costume and insignia displayed by the main figure), wherefore I have decided to treat it as such. My decision is partly supported by André Chastagnol’s and Alan Cameron’s attributions of the panel to the suffect consul of 396 or 425.190 The attribution and dating of the Lampadiorum panel will be further discussed in Part II.1.

high degree influences the way in which an image is perceived, by artist and viewer alike, and that form is a means by which meaning may be conveyed, has been shown for instance by Ernst Gombrich and Rudolf Arnheim, whose studies on the visual perception of art draw extensively on analytical methods and results from modern psychology.196 The formal rendering of the consular images—figures, scenes, composition etc.—will consequently be considered in the present study, but not the technical or stylistic aspect of form unless relevant to the interpretation of some specific element. As regards the interpretation of images from the perspective of the viewer’s ‘Weltanschauung’, the iconological method was not developed with the images of the ancient cultures in mind, and did not hence take the peculiar factors determining the conception(s) and function(s) of art in these periods into account. In order to grasp the meanings of an official diptych issued by a late Roman consul it is essential to consider the context in which it was created: not only the immediate context, viz. the consulate and its practical functions, but also the historical—political, ideological, social, religious—and sometimes individual factors that contributed to the ‘concept of consulship’ in late antiquity, and hence to its formulation in imagery. The investigation of the consular diptychs will be carried out thus: 1) The descriptive analyses (Part II) aim at providing detailed, and as far as possible non-interpretive, descriptions of each image, complemented (when relevant) by notes on archaeological and/or attributional matters. Since the preserved specimens fall, as it were, naturally into two halves geographically and chronologically,197 and since there are also some distinct differences between western and eastern images—suggesting a culturally determined differentiation—I choose to present the two groups separately, beginning with the western works. 2) The iconographical analysis (Part III) explores the motif repertory of the consular diptychs (selection, combination, application), representational modes, and contextual relevance; motifs are grouped together under headings that reflect their basic significance—the consul’s figure, consular attributes, secondary figures (officials, personifications etc.), motifs referring to consular ceremonial and so on—and are interpreted. 3) The results of the iconographical investigations are further developed in a concluding synthesis (Part IV); reassembled under five thematic headings, the meanings and functions of consular imagery are interpreted from a wider historical perspective. As a point of methodological interest it should be mentioned that not all consular diptychs entered in the catalogue (Part II) have been object to autoptical study. Works that have thus been studied include Lampadiorum (1), Felix (3), Boethius (6), Orestes (7), Basilius (8), Areobindus C (9:3 a), Clementinus (10), Anastasius A and B (right panel) (11:1-2), and Magnus (12 a-b). For the rest I have relied on high-quality photographic reproductions.

The method applied in this study is based on the iconological method originally developed by Erwin Panofsky and later Rudolf Wittkower,191 which approaches the material in three consecutive steps: ‘pre-iconographical’ description,192 iconographical analysis (identification of motifs and subject matter), iconological interpretation (interpretation of instrinsic meaning and the linking of this to a cultural context).193 The choice of method is motivated by the fact that it makes the image itself the point of departure, not the interpreter’s foreknowledge of its content.194 The iconological method in its original formulation will however not be adopted, since it in my view displays two drawbacks: it does not consider form—i.e. representational mode or style—as a carrier of meaning, and, although aiming at an historical understanding of art, it ‘prescribes’ that the ‘Weltanschauung’ of the beholder, i.e. a personal, learned ‘intuition’ rather than an ‘objective’ or impersonal understanding of the context that contributed to an image’s conception should determine its interpretation.195 That the mode of representation to a very 188 See I.1.1. 189 Delbrueck 1929, 220f; Volbach 1976, 50f. 190 Chastagnol 1966, 58f; A.D.E. Cameron 1981, 57f; A.D.E. Cameron

1986, 57f; A.D.E. Cameron 1998, 385, 400f. 191 Panofsky 1939, 3-31; Panofsky 1955:1; Panofsky 1955:2; Wittkower 1977, 173-187. 192 By Heck proposed to be supplanted by the term ‘icononomic’ analysis; Heck 1999, 25f. 193 For a useful analysis of the method, see Holly 1984, 158-193. 194 The latter approach or method characterises Delbrueck’s Consulardiptychen (Delbrueck 1929). 195 A couple of recent and very influental articles by de Vries and Heck problematise the iconological method of Panofsky from the modern art historian’s perspective, proposing some redefinitions and complementation of the original method; de Vries 1999; Heck 1999. For a discursive analysis of the Panofskian view that the art historian’s task should be to ‘recreate’ objects of art by ‘re-experiencing’ the time and place in which they were created, see Holly 1984, 21-45. A critical analysis of iconographical and iconological methods from a practical philosopher’s viewpoint has been presented by Hermerén, who sheds much light on among other things the terminological aspects of art-historical writing; Hermerén 1969. Concerning the question of form as a carrier of meaning in art, compare the criticisms of the iconological method (as developed and applied by Panofsky et al.) by F.D. Martin 1961/62, 62 esp.; Kitzinger 1976:1; Kitzinger 1980, 4f; Hölscher 1987, 9-11; Wright 1998; and Kiilerich 2000, 277f.

196 Gombrich 1959; Gombrich 1982; R. Arnheim 1974; R. Arnheim 1982. 197 The western diptychs cover the entire period from which consular

ivories have been preserved (c. 400-542), whereas eastern diptychs are only preserved from the 6th century; see I.1.1 above.

14

As for the comparanda referred to in the study, the most frequently cited works have received separate plates (Pl. 1325) whereas others are referred to as plates/figures in various publications (as far as possible illustrated handbooks).

15

II. THE IMAGES: DESCRIPTIONS follows the attribution proposed by Alan Cameron.4 The standard attribution of the Halberstadt diptych (2) to the year 417 and the second western consulship of Fl. Constantius (later Constantius III) presented by Delbrueck5 has in recent years been subject to some criticism,6 but, as I will argue later,7 it remains the most plausible attribution offered to date, wherefore I choose to let the year 417 stand. As for the Bourges diptych (5), a work that displays rather limited technical and formal affinities with other consular diptychs, its dating must chiefly rely on the pair of busts crowning the consul’s sceptre,8 which indicate a date prior to the separation of the western and eastern empires;9 a more precise dating than the first half of the 5th century is in my view not really possible. The dating and attribution of the Bourges diptych to a western consul (which I accept) will be further discussed in Part III.10 As concerns the diptych of Basilius (8), which was dated to 480 by Delbrueck among others,11 I have chosen to adopt the date 541 in later years proposed by Cameron and Schauer.12 The advantages of Cameron’s and Schauer’s attribution will be discussed both in section II.8 below and in Part III.13 As a more general rule, matters pertaining to dates and attributions that are of a more technical nature are treated in the discussion following each description, whereas attributional problems of an iconographical and/or iconological nature are referred to Part III.

In this part the images of the figural consular diptychs will be descriptively analysed. The works are presented according to a combined chronological and geographical system, which means that the western diptychs are treated first (1-8), then the eastern ones (9-12). This choice of system has been justified under I.3 (‘The aim and method of this study’). The ambition is to provide detailed descriptions of the consular images that are as accurate and non-interpretive as possible, complementing those presented by previous scholars, and to provide an adequate basis for the iconographical analyses presented in Part III. All works are described according to a fixed order: 1) general statements about state of preservation,1 technical characteristics and basic compositional features; 2) detailed description of the image (the consul’s figure, insignia, secondary figures, architectural frame, upper and/or lower register); and 3) discussion. The order in which each diptych is described is determined by the internal order of the panels, meaning that front panels—left in the west, right in the east—will be treated before back panels unless otherwise stated. The eastern diptychs, which are mainly preserved in series of identical or near-identical diptychs/panels for each consul, are for practical reasons treated in groups rather than as individual works, where the best preserved specimen of each series (A) receives the most detailed description2 whereas the others are described comparatively in relation to (A). Technical and artistic peculiarities will be dwelt upon if considered relevant to the interpretation of any individual element or, as the case may be, to its attribution. Stylistic evaluations will receive limited attention, being of no concern to this study (see I.3). The transcriptions of the tabulae inscriptiones conform to those presented by Delbrueck unless otherwise stated. For the chronological attributions of the anonymous consular ivories (2), (5) and (12) I conform to those suggested by Delbrueck and Volbach,3 whereas that of (1) tentatively

1. THE LAMPADIORUM DIPTYCH PANEL (WEST, C. 400) (Plate 1.) Collection: Brescia, Museo Romano.14 Measurements: height 29 cm, width 11 cm. 4 396; e.g. A.D.E. Cameron 1986, 57f, 61f; A.D.E. Cameron 1998. See

further II.1. 5 Delbrueck 1929, 87, 91f. 6 A.D.E. Cameron 1998; Engemann 1999. 7 III.3.2, 3.4 and 5.4. 8 The technical and stylistic evaluations presented by Delbrueck and Volbach (Delbrueck 1929, 161; Volbach 1976, 43) in the attempt to narrow down the time scope are weakened by the originality of the work. 9 See further II.5 below. 10 III.2.1.1, 2.1.2 and 3.1. 11 Delbrueck 1929, 100, 102f; based on Graeven 1892, 216. 12 Cameron & Schauer 1982. 13 III.2.3, 3.2 and 3.3. 14 Inv. 4.

1 Any eventual traces of colouring will not be included in these analyses,

since they are rarely perceptible to the eye and thus cannot be described from a viewer’s standpoint. For further informations about colour residues in specific works (some general informations have been presented in I.1.3), and for a useful discussion of the values and symbolisms associated with colours in late antiquity, I refer to Connor 1998. 2 When selecting the most representative diptych for each consul, I have first and foremost considered the visual representativity of each work: state of preservation, degree of clarity in the rendering of details, and so forth. In some instances these criteria have led me to deviate from the internal order presented by Delbrueck and Volbach, neither of whom however actually explains the criteria on which their respective order rests. 3 Delbrueck 1929; Volbach 1976. See further ( 2 ) , ( 5 ) and (12) respectively.

16

[Delbrueck 1929, N 56; Volbach 1976, Nr. 54.]

the main characteristics of their faces. However, the face of the figure placed to the right, covered by a full stubby beard, has a more aged appearance due to a receding hairline and marked lines around the nose and on the forehead. The man seated to the left, although almost identical in physiognomy, hairstyle and beard to the central figure, appears to be his junior in age, his face being more rounded, smoother and with ‘softer’ features. The two men turn slightly in the direction of the central figure, gazing straight ahead; their poses are identical, with right arm bent, hand resting across the abdomen, and left arm lowered along the side of the body, hand disappearing behind the parapet. They wear togas draped in the contabulate fashion, both unpatterned except for the cross-hatched right-shoulder border ( latus clavus) decorating the younger man’s trabea (left). The elder rightside figure clasps a mappa, smaller than that displayed by the central figure, in his right hand. The architectural frame enclosing the figure-group consists of a parapet (foreground), jutting out and casting a shadow across the uppermost part of the pictorial register below, and a columnar fronton (background). The parapet is divided into three parts, ornamentally grilled with semi-circles (centre) and crossed squares (sides) framed by thin pearl borders. Four small, long-haired human heads with gaping mouths (hermali)18 crown the partitions of the parapet, and a thin dentil border decorates its lower edge. The background architecture, carved in lower relief and partly over-cut by the figures, is in the form of a tall entablature supported by four plain-shafted Corinthian columns (far-left column missing). The architrave or lintel, consisting of an ovolo cornice framed by a pearl border, is arcuated over the wider central intercolumnar span. The spaces between columns are hanged with leafy garlands, two meeting in the centre above the main figure’s head, and one on each side; each of the side garlands is decorated with a small, knob-shaped ‘jewel’ in the centre. The entablature functions as a tabula inscriptionis, a large letter inscription running its width. The name, partially damaged, (L)AMPADIORUM, is written in broad Roman block capitals.

General: Only the left panel is preserved.15 There is considerable damage around the edges, but the pictorial field is essentially intact. Eight (plugged) drill-holes punctuate the panel, two of which would correspond to former hinge mechanisms (right vertical frame). The relief is comparatively high. The frame is protruding, sloping diagonally inwards, with a profiled moulding of three parallel lines. The image is divided into two superimposed registers, the upper of which shows three togate male figures enclosed within an architectural frame. The lower register, spatially dominating the pictorial field, shows a circus scene. Compositionally the Lampadiorum diptych panel falls under the so-called tribunal type. Description: In the upper pictorial register, three togati are seated frontally in a horizontal row, their lower bodies screened by a parapet. The central figure, considerably larger than the others, sits with knees apart, his right hand resting in the lap holding a large and sack-shaped mappa circensis,16 and his left hand clasping a sceptre on a level with the chest. The body is short and compact in its proportions, its contours barely perceptible through the folds of the costume. The head, oversized in relation to the body and turned slightly to the left, rests on a short and muscular neck; it forms a heavy oval crowned by a cap of short-cropped, wavy hair shaped into a horizontal cable over forehead and ears, and a short and curly beard frames cheeks and chin. The facial features are marked and heavy, with large, heavy-lidded and protruding eyes beneath a low and fleshy brow, a long and slightly dipping nose, a medium-wide and tightly pursed mouth with accentuated corners, and a lightly protruding chin. The face is sculpted with much attention to detail and plastic effect. The central figure is clothed in the vestis triumphalis, consisting of a trabea ornamented with stars within roundels and rhombs alternately, lined and foddered (?) with stylised laurel borders, and draped in the contabulate fashion without ‘bridge’ (diagonal right-shoulder fold) over a tunic and starpatterned colobium. The scipio is a medium-tall, coniform wand crowned by a globe supporting a pair of minuscule busts. Diagonal lines on the busts’ chests indicate the contabulate folds of togas. The head of the left bust is missing.17 The heads of the two smaller males flanking the central figure are level with his shoulders, their lower bodies completely hidden behind the parapet. The proportions and shapes of each of their bodies repeat those of the other, as do

The larger lower register shows a circus race with quadrigae, filling the entire field and even overcutting the frame (left). The scene is displayed diagonally across the pictorial surface, a short and tub-shaped spina marking the centre and four teams moving around it in two levels and opposite directions; the two teams further away (upper level) are partly overcut by the various elements of the spina. The four horses pulling each chariot are identically rendered with forelegs raised and hindlegs placed firmly on the ground, necks strained into arches by the reins. The animals have been depicted in meticulous detail: their sixteen heads are dressed in protective gear, the nostrils dilated and the mouths open to display the teeth, the bodies wear ornamental harnesses, the legs—arranged in regular rows of eight—are strapped, the tails bound up, and the rumps of all but one marked with a

15 That the panel is a left panel is suggested by the hinge-holes’ placement

on the right side. Evidently based on the left-oriented composition of the imagery, Engemann has however stated that the panel is a right panel; Engemann 1998, 119. 16 For a typology of mappae, see Delbrueck 1929, 219. 17 Delbrueck did not note this, but described one of these busts as being considerably smaller than the other; Delbrueck 1929, 219. Cameron describes the bust-couple in the same way; A.D.E. Cameron 1986, 58; A.D.E. Cameron 1998, 385.

18 Delbrueck termed these heads ‘Germanenköpfe’, a type that was

apparently common for architectural herms in late antiquity; Delbrueck 1929, 219; Wrede 1987, 139-142.

17

sign/brand-mark19 (a monogram, a heart-shaped leaf, and a cross respectively). The drivers stand in two-wheeled chariots whose outer wheels are cut almost free from the background surface, their six spokes standing out in lace-like relief. All charioteers wear tight-fitting helmets, and short tunics covered by vests with chest lacings; their legs and arms are strapped, and each holds a whip—a slender wand with a curling strap—in his right hand (the one held by the lower right driver having been lost). The drivers’ poses are variegated: two turn their faces towards the viewer, displaying facial traits that are very similar to those of the three officials above, hairstyles and beards included, whereas the other two look away from the viewer, one turning around to face the nearest co-competitor behind him, the other facing the central figure above. The spina, much reduced in scale in relation to the teams, has likewise been rendered with much attention to detail: in the centre, standing on a cubic socle, is an obelisk inscribed with signs emulating hieroglyphs, its summit pointing in the direction of the central magistrate above; metae in the form of triple cones on cylindrical bases mark the turning-points; and placed asymmetrically between obelisk and metae are two groups of tropaea with barbarian captives, crouching or seated with back-tied hands, half-dressed or naked. Water, indicated by rippling lines, fills the canal (euripus) of the spina.

impression of multitude is achieved through complexity, repetitiveness, and at once density and expansiveness of forms. By representing the scene diagonally, space is maximised at the same time as an illusion of movement and speed is created. Something like disorderly vivacity has further been achieved through diversifying the poses of the four charioteers. All of these things combine to lend realism to the image. Realism does however only characterise parts and details, not the image as a whole. The small-scale circus scene appears as if placed in a further plane, and the balcony with its officials as cast towards the viewer in a radical close-up; relationships that defy the rules of spatiality and, together with the double perspective (horizontal and diagonal), actually separate the circus scene from the ‘tribunal’ scene, creating two parallel and independent entities. The suprahuman scale of the triumphally attired central figure presents the most reality-suspending element of the image. The scale differentiation between main and secondary figures is greater here than anywhere else in the preserved corpus; among other so-called official ivory diptychs, only that of Probianus, vicarius urbis Romae around 400,22 displays such a degree of differentiation. The exceptional stature of the Lampadiorum honorand is further emphasised through the arch framing his head. In comparison with the teams in the arena below, the three officials appear as monumental. Less dramatic size differentiations are witnessed between charioteers and horses, and between teams and spina. Through differentiations in scale and perspective, hieratic immobility and movement etc., the upper and lower registers of the Lampadiorum panel are sharply contrasted.

Discussion: The Lampadiorum panel could be termed the most pure specimen of the tribunal type of image within the preserved corpus of consular diptychs, since it actually depicts ‘real’ scenes taking place in a ‘real’ locale—the Circus Maximus in Rome, as indicated by the characteristics of the spina:20 the balcony with its presiding officials and the horse-race below form a coherent whole, apparently interconnected in time and space. A tendency towards realism through an illusion of three-dimensionality is perceptible in the rendering of the figures, their high degree of sculpting lending them body. The clear division between planes adds spatiality to the scenes, especially to that of the upper register where the architectural frame (parapet, columned fronton) physically encloses the figures. The integrated aspect and classicising décor of the architecture, with its finely carved Corinthian columns, ovolo cornice, grilled parapet and tall entablature inscribed with Roman capitals—an element reminiscent of the inscribed entablatures of Roman honorific arches—together lend an impression of ‘real’ architecture and thus of a physical place. The meticulous way in which the details of the figures and the elements of the spina have been depicted demonstrates a desire to make the real content of the scenes recognised and appreciated by the viewer. The four q u a d r i g a e could be interpreted on the one hand as representing the entire, unknown number of equipages competing in a race, on the other as representatives of the four circus factions (Blues, Greens, Reds and Whites).21 An

The Lampadiorum panel was not classified as a consular diptych by Delbrueck,23 and Volbach left the question of the honorand’s official status without comment.24 Delbrueck refrained from directly dealing with what he obviously considered a problem of attribution by simply stating that the name inscribed on the panel, Lampadii (Lampadiorum), belonged to a senatorial family of which no member was appointed to the ordinary consulate before 530.25 The triumphal costume worn by the main figure, Delbrueck argued, must instead have been an integral part of the ceremonial of the ludi circenses not only for consuls but also for the representatives of senatorial houses, the precise traditions of which are however unknown to posterity.26 It is clear that Delbrueck’s interpretation of the Lampadiorum panel was based solely on its inscription, i.e. the name inscribed, but (seemingly) without taking fully into account its grammatical form (genitive plural); a form which would suggest that the Lampadii—possibly together with the Rufii, a Roman gens with which the Lampadii had familial 22 Berlin, Staatsbibliothek, Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Delbrueck 1929, N

65 Taf. 65; Volbach 1976, Nr. 62, Taf. 34. 23 Delbrueck 1929, 218, 220f. 24 Volbach 1976, 50f. 25 Degrassi 1952, 99; Bagnall, Cameron, Schwartz & Worp 1987, 594f. 26 Delbrueck 1929, 220f.

19 For brand-marks on chariot horses in the Roman world, see especially

Toynbee 1948. 20 See further III.7.1. 21 See e.g. Dunbabin 1982, 83; and Lyle 1984, 838-841.

18

ties27 —were the owners/recipients28 as well as (possibly) the honorands/commissioners of the ivory. The unusual form of the inscription, stating the honorand’s (or honorands’) name but not titles, does not preclude that the panel’s main figure is of consular status. The limited number of surviving consular and other official diptychs from the period in question (c. 400-450), several of which do not carry inscriptions on the front of the panels, indicate that a standard form for diptych inscriptions was not fully developed. The presence and form of the sceptre is also left unexplained in the senatorial attribution of Delbrueck. It corresponds typologically to those of Halberstadt (2), Felix (3) and Astyrius (4), all consuls in the first half of the fifth century. Although the two major publications on the consular diptychs, those of Delbrueck and Volbach, do not ascribe a consular status to the main figure in the Lampadiorum panel, other scholars have done so.29 Trying to resolve the apparent contradiction between the name inscription and the consular attire displayed by the main figure and presumptive honorand, first André Chastagnol30 and later Alan Cameron31 have argued that the personage commemorated must be recognised as a consul suffectus, an official whose title ranked below that of the ordinary consul but who, like the praetor and possibly the ex-consul, was entitled to wear the triumphal ornatus when presiding at his games.32 Two members of the Lampadii were appointed to the suffect consulate in the period around 400: Postumius Lampadius (396) and Rufius Caecina Felix Lampadius (425).33 If the panel once belonging together with the preserved Lampadiorum panel was inscribed with the name Rufii, which Cameron believes, then the most plausible honorand would be the suffect consul of 396, since the Lampadii and the Rufii were linked by marriage in that year and thus had an eminent opportunity to commemorate two major occasions

simultaneously and jointly.34 The Rufii connection apart, however, the year 425 does not, in my view, agree with the mode in which the Lampadiorum honorand has been represented (notably the degree of size differentiation between him and the accompanying officials, and the architectural fronton framing the figure-group), which has much more in common with imperial imagery of the Theodosian period (379-395), exemplified by the silver m i s s o r i u m of Theodosius I in Madrid (Pl. 23)35 and the obelisk base in the Hippodrome of Constantinople,36 than with consular imagery in the second and third decades of the 5th century (represented by the diptychs of Probus (406) (Pl. 14), Halberstadt (417?), and Felix (428)).37 As for the attribution of the panel to a suffect consul, it has been argued by Kruse that the bustsceptre, which is crowned by the emperor’s effigy, could only be conferred on an imperially appointed official (to which category the ordinary consul belonged), whereas an official appointed by the Roman senate, such as the suffect consul, could not have received a bust-sceptre.38 If Kruse’s argument, which I have not managed to corroborate with any other source than that cited by the author himself,39 is correct, this would necessarily weaken Chastagnol’s and Cameron’s interpretation.40 34 A.D.E. Cameron 1986, 55f. Much of Cameron’s argument in favour of

the suffect consul of 396 is based on the alleged difference in size between the two heads crowning the honorand’s sceptre, ascribing what he sees as the smaller head to a junior emperor (who would no longer be junior in 425); A.D.E. Cameron 1986, 58. However (as I noted in my description of the sceptre), the left-side head is missing, wherefore it is impossible to estimate whether the two heads were originally differentiated. 35 Delbrueck 1929, N 62, Taf. 62. 36 E.g. Bianchi Bandinelli 1970, 354f, Fig. 335-336. 37 Contra Kiilerich, who argues that the hairstyle and beard of the Lampadiorum honorand point to a date after 410, referring to those of the Halberstadt (417?) consul for comparison; Kiilerich 1993, 144. Apart from the fact that Kiilerich, whilst acknowledging the problem (sic) of the consular insignia displayed by the main figure in Lampadiorum, chooses to focus exclusively on hairstyle and beard when ascribing a date to the work (which means that she dismisses the historical context as irrelevant), she does not take into account that the characteristics displayed by the Lampadiorum honorand in this respect actually correspond closer to those of the emperor Honorius in Probus’ diptych of 406, since the hairstyle of the Halberstadt consul lacks the straight fringe of the other two; compare II.2 below. The beard-style of the Halberstadt consul, which does not recur on any of his four attendants (two per panel), would very likely be modelled after that of Honorius, the emperor who appointed him (compare Delbrueck 1929, 89). 38 Kruse 1934, 107 and n.2. According to Kruse’s interpretation only the emperor had ‘Bildnisrecht’ over the imperial effigy, and since the suffect consulship and the sceptre going with it were conferred by the senate (who did not possess ‘Bildnisrecht’ over the imperial effigy) the suffect consul’s sceptre cannot have be crowned by imperial busts. However, it remains unclear what form, if any specific one, this sceptre would have displayed instead. On the Roman senate’s responsibility for the appointment of suffect consuls, see also e.g. Demandt 1989, 283. 39 Vopiscus, Aurel. 13.2-4. 40 Kruse’s argument could of course be cited as evidence in support of the attribution of the Lampadiorum panel to an ordinary consul, or for that matter a praetor. The middle-aged appearance of the honorand, however, makes the latter a less plausible option, since praetors were usually appointed at a very young age; Jones 1964, 534, Chastagnol 1982, 176. Compare also the missorium of Ardabur Aspar (Florence, Museo Archeologico) (Pl. 22), which represents the consul’s son, the praetor Ardabur iunior, as a small boy of nine years (e.g. Delbrueck 1929, 154)),

27 Chiara Formis has proposed that the preserved panel should be identified

as one half of a diptych inscribed with LAMPADIORVM RVFIORVM mentioned in an inventory in the Novara cathedral treasury, the lost panel thus having been inscribed with the name of Rufii; Formis 1967, 187-191; also Volbach 1976, 50; A.D.E. Cameron 1981:2; A.D.E. Cameron 1986, 54; and Stella 1990, 339. This against Andreas Alföldi, who stated (without explaining why) that the lost panel’s inscription read EVSEBIORVM DIGNITAS; A. Alföldi 1949, 76. 28 On the genitive plural form as signifying ownership on late Roman ivories (compare the Symmachorum-Nicomachorum diptych, Rome c. 400), see A.D.E. Cameron 1986, 55; and Cracco Ruggini 1986, 68. 29 Graeven 1913, 246-248; A. Alföldi 1949, 76; Brilliant 1963, 206f; Dunbabin 1982, 82; Kiilerich 1993, 143. 30 Chastagnol 1966, 58f. 31 A.D.E. Cameron 1981:2; A.D.E. Cameron 1986, 57-62; A.D.E. Cameron 1998, 400. Accepted by Engemann; Engemann 1999, 162. 32 On the formal differences between ordinary, suffect (and ex-) consulate, see Courtois 1949, 39f; Chastagnol 1982, 181; A.D.E. Cameron 1986, 57; and Bagnall, Cameron, Schwartz & Worp 1987, 21. See further III.2.1. 33 Chastagnol 1966, 58f; A.D.E. Cameron 1986, 61-63, 72; A.D.E. Cameron 1998, 400. Chastagnol, commenting on Cameron’s article of 1986, claims to favour the later suffect consul, Rufius Caecina Felix Lampadius, on the basis of the name inscription (family name) and the fact that this Lampadius counted among the Rufii Lampadii; Chastagnol 1986.

19

There is, however, another possibility. The western consul of 399, Fl. Mallius Theodorus, was the brother of the praefectus urbi Romae of 398, a Lampadius.41 Since the panel’s inscription does not state the personal names and titles of the (chief) honorand, but the family name, it cannot be excluded that an ordinary consul of the Lampadius family is represented after all (i.e. the consul of 399).42 But as the insignia and ceremonies of the ordinary and suffect consul were (apparently) very similar, and as high Roman officials other than these categories were allowed to and did issue commemorative ivory diptychs,43 there is no way of finally establishing the status of the Lampadiorum honorand. In my view the suffect consul of 396, Postumius Lampadius, and the western ordinary consul of 399, Theodorus, are equally plausible as honorands/commissioners of the panel. Either way, I find it legitimate to categorise the Lampadiorum ivory among the consular diptychs.

ground-lines for the figures. The compositional scheme does not conform to any of the two major types. Inscriptional fields are lacking. Whether the diptych was originally inscribed cannot be established, but Delbrueck’s estimation of the panels’ original height (c. 34 cm),45 if correct,46 would clearly allow for a tabula inscriptionis in each panel. Description (left panel): The consul’s figure stands frontally, in a slight contrapposto and with feet apart, in the middle of the central register. With his lifted right hand he clasps a big, sack-shaped mappa; the left arm is bent at waist level, the hand gripping a sceptre. The body is well proportioned and plastically rendered, its roundness being indicated by the softly sculpted folds of the costume. The slightly oversized head, resting on a very short neck, forms a heavy oval crowned by a cap-shaped coiffure, combed into a continuous, arcuated cable over forehead and ears.47 A short, curly beard covers the lower part of the chin and the neck. The face is characterised by big eyes with swollen lids and downwardpointing outer corners, a big and wide-winged nose (partly eroded), and a small mouth forming a thin, lip-less line. The consul’s costume consists of a trabea folded in the ‘bridge’-less contabulate style over a colobium and tunic, the laurel-bordered pattern of the two former consisting of complex stars within large ovals, rhombs and squares. Inserted into the triumphal pattern on the perpendicular front fold (‘Hängestreifen’) is a large, oval inset (segmentum or purpura48 ), and another decorates the horizontally curving sinus fold; the former inset shows the bust of a togatus holding a mappa in its raised right hand, whereas the latter displays faint traces of a helmeted male bust with a round shield. The consul’s feet, resting on the ground-line provided by the moulding, wear calcei with characteristically crossed and finely creased corrigae. The consul’s scipio is a medium-sized, coniform wand crowned by a globe and a pearl-bordered bust-stand. The two minuscule busts placed on top of the stand are of equal size, their heads show faint traces of hair-line, and their chests are incised with the diagonally crossing lines of contabulate togas. Two male figures symmetrically flank the consul, subtly turning in his direction. The men are both shorter than the consul; parts of their bodies are hidden behind his. The leftside man has a cap-shaped hairstyle with longer locks over the ears and a short full beard; his face, partly eroded, shows round eyes and a wide mouth. He bends his right arm in the consul’s direction, the open hand lightly touching his elbow. The right-side man’s head is heavily eroded, but what remains shows a cap-shaped hairstyle similar to that of the

2. THE HALBERSTADT DIPTYCH (WEST, 417?) (Plate 2.) Collection: Halberstadt, Domschatz.44 Measurements: height 28.0 cm, width 14.5 cm. [Delbrueck 1929, N 2; Volbach 1976, Nr. 34.] General: Both panels are preserved, but in a reduced state: both upper and lower horizontal frames are removed and so is part of the pictorial field, the upper pictorial registers being particularly affected. The right panel has further been deprived of its right vertical frame together with part of the adjacent pictorial field, and its inner frame is damaged (centre). Both panels display marks of erosion in the formerly most protruding details, notably the figures’ faces. Several small holes punctuating the inner frames correspond to former hinges. What remains of the frames show traces of a decorative border in the form of a superficially incised, geometricised eggs-and-darts (best preserved on the left vertical frame of the left panel). The panels are equally subdivided into three superimposed registers, the central of which measures twice the height of the upper and lower registers respectively. The registers are separated by means of profiled mouldings which also serve as

and partly because of the considerable size differentiation between honorand and attendants which, although not constituting hard evidence, seems suggestive of a higher rank on the cursus honorum. 41 Chastagnol 1962, 249 no. 102 and n. 26, 260 no. 109; Martindale 19801992:1, 654f; A.D.E. Cameron 1986, 56. On Lampadius and Theodorus, see also Mazzarino 1942, 338-342. 42 Compare Graeven, who proposed (in my view unconvincingly) the considerably earlier Lollianus cos. 355 as the panel’s honorand; Graeven 1913, 248f. 43 Delbrueck 1929, N 42, 54-55, 57-61, 63-65a; Volbach 1976, Nr. 55-65a. Also A.D.E. Cameron 1982:1, 126-128 esp. 44 Inv. 45.

45 Delbrueck 1929, 88. 46 34 cm supersedes the measurement of the contemporary official ivory

diptychs (Lampadiorum (1), Felix (3), and the diptychs of the Novara patricius and Probianus (Delbrueck 1929, N 64 and 65; Volbach 1976, Nr. 62 and 64) by 1-5 cm. 47 The hairstyle is reminiscent of that of Felix. 48 Delbrueck 1929, 38; also DarSag IV:2, 1172-1175 s.v. ‘Segmentum’ (V. Chapot).

20

consul and a heavy and angular chin. His right hand is placed level with the consul’s shoulder, palm open towards him, whereas the left hand clasps a mappa at waist level. Both men wear plain toga costumes and calcei.49 There is no architectural frame.

and sandals. In her left hand, resting in her lap, she holds a branch topped by a compact cluster of leaves or fruit.54 This figure has been recognised as the eastern counterpart to Roma, the personification of Constantinopolis.55 The two city goddesses thus identify the diademed chlamydati in the centre as the emperors of the west and east. Placed separately in the centre above and behind the seated figures is a third female figure, represented in the same (larger) scale as the western emperor and Roma to the left. Most of her head is missing (together with the uppermost part of the panel). She is clothed in a richly draped palla (?) over a tunic and wears a jewellery collar with four rows of gems/pearls. The men framing the central group are equipped with helmets, spears, large shields, and coats (?) with round shoulder insets, all of which identify them as (praetorian) guards. The men’s hairstyles conform to what has been characterised as a Germanic type, with longer locks over the ears and the back of the neck, and typical of a Germanic outfit are also their thick torques with bullae.56 Four plain-shafted Corinthian columns frame the figuregroup from behind. Each of the two outer and narrower intercolumnar spans is decorated with a leafy garland, and traces of a third garland also remain between the central female and the central-left column, indicating that a pair of garlands originally would have met in the centre above her head.57

The upper pictorial register shows seven small figures in two levels and surrounded by an architectural frame: in the foreground, four figures are seated on a long pearl-bordered dais elevated on a podium (suggestus) and flanked by a pair of standing men; a single female figure is placed centrally in the background. The two central figures are both male, the one seated to the left being significantly greater in stature than the other. Their postures are identical: knees wide apart, right foot placed slightly before the left, and the right hand placed in front of the chest, two digits raised in a gesture of formal speech.50 Both wear diadems with a big central jewel, identifying them as emperors, and c h l a m y d e s each ornamented with a large square segmentum51 at the front—higher placed, bigger and with a more complex pattern for the left-side emperor—and an oval inset on the right shoulder; large (cross) fibulae with pendilia hold the chlamydes together over the right shoulder. The emperors appear to be wearing pointed boots, and ornamental sword sheaths protrude from beneath their costumes to the right. The heads are heavily eroded but their face-lines and the set and shape of their eyes are still perceptible, those of the taller left-side emperor in particular corresponding to the consul’s below. A pair of female figures flank the emperors on the dais, each corresponding in stature to the emperor beside whom she is placed (the left-side figure consequently being taller than her counterpart to the right), and seated in the same posture with knees apart. Both are nimbate. The left-side figure, her face turned towards the emperor by her side, wears a singlecrested helmet; she holds a lance in her left hand and a big orb in her raised right, an eagle-handled sword attached to a balteus (swordsling) is hung across her chest, and she wears a paludamentum (military mantle) over a chiton, right breast exposed, and strapped boots: these are all traditional attributes of the goddess Roma.52 The right-side figure, facing frontally and extending her right hand to rest on the shoulder of the emperor beside her, wears a composite crown of leaves and rays,53 a jewellery collar with three rows of ‘pearls’, a palla draped in a contabulate fashion over a tunic,

The lower pictorial register shows a group of five figures, measuring approximately 1/2 of the official figures in the main register, clustered in an irregular composition across the pictorial field. To the far left a man is seated back-bound on top of a large, round shield lying on the ‘ground’, his back twisted towards the viewer; his head, bowed in profile to the right, displays a cap-shaped hairstyle with longer strands over the ears and the back of the neck, and his chin is covered by a long, straight beard. The man’s upper body and feet are bare, whereas the legs appear to be dressed in simple trousers. In front of him (right), placed between his legs, is a very small, naked and plump child who reaches up to touch the chin of a young woman (centre-left). The woman extends her arms to lift the child, her face (in profile) lowered towards it; her halflong hair falls uncovered over her back, held in place by a simple band (coronet?) around the head, and she wears a long, sleeveless dress girdled below the breast. The man, woman and child clearly form a family. A second group is formed by a male-female couple. To the centre-right, a woman seated on a shield in a twisted pose to the right rests both hands on the shoulder of a male figure, looking straight at him. She wears a long and flowing dress

49 Delbrueck saw differences in costume between these two bystanders,

concluding that the left-side figure’s toga must be a plainer senatorial toga whereas the right-side figure’s is more closely related to the consular type; Delbrueck 1929, 90f. 50 See further III.1.3. 51 Lydus, Mag. 1.17; Delbrueck 1929, 38. The square insets on the late antique chlamys also went under the denomination of tabulae or tabliae; DarSag IV:2, 1172-1175 s.v. ‘Segmentum’ (V. Chapot). 52 For a full analysis of Roma’s and Constantinopolis’ attributes and characteristics, see III.3.2. 53 Delbrueck recognised this crown as a flower-wreath set with spiky leaves, whilst Toynbee described it as a crown of flowers surmounted by rays; Delbrueck 1929, 89; Toynbee 1953, 273.

54 This cluster has been variously interpreted; see further III.3.2. 55 Delbrueck 1929, 89; Toynbee 1953, 272f; Volbach 1976, 42; Bühl 1995,

154-158 esp; A.D.E. Cameron 1998, 385; Engemann 1999, 163f esp. Compare below, III.3.2. 56 Compare the Germanic guard on the missorium of Theodosius (Madrid, Real Academia de la Historia) (Pl. 23); e.g. Kiilerich 1993, 20. 57 Compare the garland composition in the Lampadiorum panel (1).

21

(a long-sleeved tunic and palla?) with a rich jewellery collar, and a tall headdress, but her feet are bare. The man towards whom she turns is rendered frontally in a crouching pose, his arms backbound and his face lowered towards his chest. The eroded head shows a short-cropped hairstyle without longer side-locks, and a beardless facial contour. Like the woman, he is richly clothed: trousers with pearl-bordered front-seams and a short jacket with a low, plaited neckline. Distributed across the empty space above/behind the figures are a quiver (left), a hexagonal shield with a stylised, scroll-shaped plant ornamentation (centre), and a sword in its sheath (right).

is loosely centred around a female figure, seated frontally and with knees apart on a round shield and flanked by two small, naked and plump children. The woman leans forward to the right, embracing and giving the breast to the smaller child of the two, who with his arms and whole body reaches for her. She wears the same kind of attire as the mother-figure in the left panel: a long, sleeveless tunic, a simple band or coronet over her long, straight and freely flowing hair, and pointed shoes. The elder boy, his hair cut in a cap-shaped style with hair falling over the ears, peeps out from behind her back, leaning with an arm against her side to watch the breastfeeding baby. Three figures surround the central mother-and-children group. Farthest to the left a long-bearded man in a short tunic with deep-cut and plaited neckline, trousers, a round cap and low boots lifts his face (in profile) to look at the honorand in the register above, extending an elliptic shield ornamented with a four-beamed sun/star with a central boss (umbo) towards him. Immediately in front of this man (right) a woman leans against a hexagonal shield (with a cross-shaped, stylised floral centre ornament, the four ‘petals’ forming into scrolls around a circular boss), cheek in hand as if in repose or dejection; she wears a Phrygian-style cap and a rich costume with a jewellery collar similar to that of the righthand woman in the opposite panel. Farthest to the right a bearded man squats in a frontal position with his hands cupped around one knee, his chin leaning heavily on them, and his face turning towards the breastfeeding woman as if in sombre contemplation; his costume consists of a big Phrygian cap, a short jacket and trousers with pearl borders along the leg-fronts.

(Right panel:) The central pictorial register shows three frontally standing male figures in chlamydes. The figure composition works symmetrically against that of the opposite panel: the central figure (identical with the consul) and the slightly shorter men flanking him stand in the same poses as their counterparts in the left panel. The honorand stands with his feet wide apart in a light contrapposto, his left arm hidden beneath the mantle—the hand can be seen pinching the fabric from the inside, creating softly curving folds—and his right hand placed in front of the chest, two digits extended in the gesture of formal speech.58 The main figure’s costume consists of a long chlamys over a knee-short tunic, the latter of which is girdled below the hip and ornamented with round insets on skirt and right shoulder, stockings and pointed boots (campagi). The chlamys is fastened over the right shoulder with a fibula59 and has a large and square segmentum on the front, consisting of a cross-hatched and laurel-bordered field with a central rectangle (ornamental pattern no longer distinguishable). The two bystanders both rest their right hand cupped inwards in front of their chests. The left-side figure has a full, straight beard and a helmet-shaped, straight-haired coiffure with longer locks over the ears (compare his counterpart in the left panel); his face is characterised by deep-set and slightly tilted eyes, a broad and flat nose, and a protruding, thin-lipped mouth. The right-side figure wears a hairstyle similar to that of the honorand but with a longer and more pronounced fringe; his face is clean-shaven with marked cheekbones and a subtly pointed chin, the outer corners of his eyes point slightly downwards, his nose forms a big triangle, and his wide mouth is tightly pursed. These bystanders are clearly not identical with their counterparts in the opposite panel. Except for the smaller and simpler patterns of the segmenta, their costumes correspond to that of the central figure. The image of the upper pictorial register is identical to that of the left panel. Traces of a leafy garland are clearly visible to the left of the female figure at the top centre.

Discussion: The Halberstadt diptych is exceptional in presenting no less than four different scenes through a total of six pictorial registers (upper and lower registers corresponding). The double representation of the honorand as consul and patricius (the patrician status being signified by the chlamys costume) recurs in a couple of other western consular ivories: Felix (3) and Basilius (8).60 The consul is not represented as seated on his sella curulis or behind the parapet of a tribunal (compare Lampadiorum) but stands in the company of togati in a space devoid of physical elements; the mappa he holds raised in the left panel appears as an independent attribute, unaccompanied by any games-scene. The immediate context of which the honorand is part is thus that of the collegium of officials, senators and patricians. The ‘colleagues’ are engaged in communication with the honorand, as indicated by their poses and gestures; something which does not occur in any other (preserved) consular image where the honorand is accompanied by officials or lictors.61 Furthermore, unlike most if not all attendants in the corpus, each of the four

The lower pictorial register shows another set of five smaller figures seated in various poses on a ground-level. The group

60 Felix and Basilius. On the chlamys costume as an attribute of the

patricius, see further III.2.3 below. 61 As opposed to city goddesses. For official attendants, see Lampadiorum, Astyrius (4), Bourges (5), and Areobindus (9); for divine attendants (Roma and Constantinopolis), see Orestes (7), Basilius, Clementinus (10), and Magnus (12).

58 See further III.1.3. 59 Originally a cross fibula according to Delbrueck; Delbrueck 1929, 90.

22

commonly associated with Germans.70 The hexagonal shields with their characteristic centre ornaments—four scrolled ‘petals’ around a central umbo—also appear on the Arch of Titus at Orange71 (i.e. in western territory), where they fill the façades between fornices and attic. The attributions of the Halberstadt diptych agree in placing it in the second decade of the 5th century.72 The exact date of the diptych is, due to its lack of inscriptions, difficult to establish, wherefore its attribution must depend on a combination of stylistic analysis and interpretation of its imagery. Discussions concerning the attribution of the Halberstadt diptych are referred to Part III.73

figures accompanying the Halberstadt honorand has an individualised appearance with distinctive physiognomical characteristics, hairstyle, and even ethnicity (the left-side attendant in each panel displaying ‘Germanic’ traits). The upper and lower register scenes are unconnected to the consular and patrician scenes in the central register. The upper registers represent the Roman emperors and empire in a unique way: the two emperors, differentiated through size, sharing their enthronement with Roma and Constantinopolis and accompanied by an imperial woman and armed guards, all framed by an architectural fronton, present an image of unity between west and east as well as a union between members of the imperial family within a context at once physical and transcendental.62 Delbrueck identified the imperial figures as Honorius, the senior western Augustus in the second decade of the 5th century (left), his junior eastern co-Augustus Theodosius II (right), and the woman placed between them behind the dais as an imperial princess (not an Augusta because of her lack of pendilia);63 an attribution that has met with wide acceptance among scholars.64 The rendering of the lower-register scenes contrasts sharply with the statuesque, hieratic ones above them. Whereas the consular/patrician and imperial scenes are strictly based on verticality, frontality and symmetry, the lower scenes are irregular, abounding in diagonals, different focalpoints and figure poses: the imperial scenes present frozen tableaus of formally juxtaposed figures, the barbarian scenes ‘organic’ groups of figures who actively relate to and communicate with each other, turning to each other, touching each other etc.—one figure even turns to the honorand in the register above, extending his shield towards that unseeing personage. The costumes of the barbarian figures have variously been interpreted as Germanic (Visigothic, Alamannic, Vandal),65 Persian,66 and generic.67 Comparanda from late antique monuments such as the column base of Arcadius and the obelisk base of Theodosius in Constantinople,68 but also from representations of, for example, the cuirasses on imperial statues,69 do seem to suggest that the ‘barbarian costume’ was chiefly conceived as generic and universal rather than representative of specific ethnicities. But again, the capshaped, straight hair with longer locks over ears and neck and the long and straight beard characterising three of four men in the lower registers of the diptych, two of the honorand’s attendants in the central registers (the left-side man in each panel) and the armed guards in the upper registers are

3. FELIX (WEST, 428) (Plate 3.) Collection: Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MMA.74 Measurements: height 29.2 cm, width 13.6 cm. [Delbrueck 1929, N 3; Volbach 1976, Nr. 2.] General: The left panel is preserved. The upper left corner is damaged and the edge of the upper horizontal frame eroded. A deep crack traceable from top centre to bottom left, following the left contour of the consul’s figure, indicates that the panel has been severed at some point, but the imagery remains essentially intact. Eleven holes punctuate the frame, seven of which correspond to hinge mechanisms (right) and one corresponding to a possible lock (left). The upper edge of the panel curves subtly upwards to form a gable. The frame border has an ovolo pattern. A small leaf-like element of dubious originality is incised to the lower left on the otherwise plain background field. The image is in a single register, the standing figure of the consul covering almost the entire height of the pictorial surface, which is crowned by a tabula inscriptionis. The compositional scheme conforms to the large-figure type. The lost right panel, showing the honorand in chlamys costume, is documented through a drawing (3 a).75 Description: The consul’s figure is rendered frontally standing with his feet apart, his right arm bent with the open hand resting on the chest and the left hand clasping a sceptre 70 Delbrueck 1929, 97; Kiilerich 1993, 20. Compare also the Germanic

captive subjugated by the personification of Trier in the Codex-calendar of 354 (Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana; 16th c. copy); Stern 1953, Pl. III.2; Salzman 1990, Fig. 5. 71 E.g. Bianchi Bandinelli 1970, 146f, Fig. 136-137. 72 Delbrueck 1929, 87, 91f; Toynbee 1953, 272f; Volbach 1976, 42; Shelton 1983, 8; Kiilerich & Torp 1983, 343f n. 122; Kiilerich 1993, 237f; Bühl 1995, 151, 158-164; Bühl 2001, 195-201; A.D.E. Cameron 1998; Engemann 1999, 167f esp. 73 III.3.2, 3.4 and 5.4. 74 Inv. 3262. 75 By Mabillon, reproduced in Delbrueck 1929, Taf. 3 V (d). There is also an etching of this panel by Gori (A.F. Gori, Thesaurus veterum diptychorum consularium et ecclesiasticorum, Fiesole 1759, Pl. 1, 129) which, however, has not been studied by the present author. See also Volbach 1976, 30.

62 See further III.3.4. 63 Delbrueck 1929, 91f. For further references and further interpretations

pertaining to these attributions, see III.3.2 and 3.4. 64 For the possible identities of this imperial woman, see further III.3.4. 65 Delbrueck 1929, 91; Volbach 1976, 42. Compare also Picard, who attributes the tall, tiara-shaped female headdress and Phrygian caps to Alamannic and Frankish origins; Picard 1957, 486. 66 A.D.E. Cameron 1998, 397. 67 Engemann 1999, 163. 68 Kollwitz 1941, Beilagen 5-7; Engemann 1999,163; Bühl 2001, 198f. 69 Gergel 1994.

23

at waist level. The body is compact but well proportioned and relatively plastically rendered. The oval face is crowned by a rounded cap of hair, the straight fringe cropped shorter than the rest, and protruding ears. A short, full beard covers cheeks, chin and the space between nose and upper lip. The facial features are characterised by a general roundness: small and slightly puffy eyes (gaze turned upwards) beneath a smoothly rounded brow, a small and bulbous nose, and a small mouth with a full lower lip and accentuated corners. The rendering of the face is neither particularly stylised nor abstracted. The triumphal trabea is draped contabulata, without right shoulder ‘bridge’, over a short colobium and a longer tunic. The pattern of trabea and colobium consists of relatively few, large and simply stylised stars within roundels, squares and rhombs, lined with thin laurel (?) borders; part of the colobium lacks pattern (lower left). The costume falls naturally in richly sculpted folds. Calcei with broad corrigae. The sceptre is a very tall, medium-thick and coniform wand, finely turned below, and crowned by an orb surmounted by a ‘plinth’ supporting two minuscule, equalsized busts attired in contabulate togas (as suggested by the diagonally meeting lines on the busts’ chests). The consul’s figure is framed on both sides by a simply striped curtain suspended from the inscriptional plaque above, and fastened to the side-frames with big knots. The curtain is carved with much attention to the natural falling of the fabric. There is no ground-line proper. The uppermost part of the panel contains the simple, block-shaped inscriptional tabula. The inscription is in a single line and in tall, slim letters, reading: FL.FELICIS.V.C.COM.ACMAG (Flavii felicis viri clarissimi comitis ac magistri).76

figure, and the curtained ‘portal’. The latter is a motif otherwise primarily found within imperial and Christian ceremonial imagery of the late Roman/early Byzantine period.78 The formal handling of the image suggests a realistic approach. An illusion of three-dimensionality has been achieved by sculpting the consul’s figure out of the concave surface of the ivory tusk, the resulting chiaroscuro effects—notably in the consul’s head, the sceptre, and the thick folds of the toga costume—creating a certain sense of corporality.

4. ASTYRIUS (WEST, 449) (Plate 4.) Collection: Darmstadt, Hessisches Landesmuseum.79 Measurements: height 17.2 cm, width 12.7 cm. [Delbrueck 1929, N 4; Volbach 1976, Nr. 3.] General: The left panel is preserved but in a reduced state, having been cut horizontally below the level of the main (central) pictorial register.80 Nearly half of the left vertical frame is missing, and the upper right corner is fractured. Five drill holes punctuate the frame: two to the right, one to the lower left, and two immediately inside the frame border at the lower right corner. The holes to the right would correspond to the original hinge mechanisms, and have later been reused and added to in order to apply the panel onto a book-cover.81 The frame border wears a continuous heart-leaf motif. That the panel originally included a lower pictorial register is indicated by the less finished execution of the lower horizontal border and the lack of a lower horizontal frame on the back side of the panel.82 The image in its preserved state is in one register, showing the consul’s figure between attendants in front of an architectural backdrop. The pictorial field is crowned by an inscriptional tabula. The panel’s compositional scheme would conform to the tribunal type. The lost right panel is documented through an etching by Wiltheim (17th c.) (4 a) and a watercolour by Langius (16th c.), both reproduced in Delbrueck’s corpus83 and both showing a panel, like the preserved one, reduced below the main pictorial register.

Discussion: The Felix diptych is the earliest specimen in the extant corpus of inscribed and hence securely datable consular ivories to show the image of the issuing consul himself. It can be described as the most simple and straightforward representation of a consul among the fully figural category, with an absolute minimum of elements included; the ‘obligatory’ consular motifs are limited to costume and sceptre. Thus no attempt has been made to glorify the honorand or his consular status or to raise the imagery to more symbolic levels; the same approach apparently characterised the representation in the lost right panel, which showed Felix in the same simple manner but clothed in the chlamys and holding the codicil scroll of his patrician status.77 In its simplicity the Felix diptych resembles that of Probus (west, 406) (Pl. 14), which presents the full figure of the emperor Honorius as military commander, standing in front of a simple arch and within a subtly gabled frame. Its simplicity apart, Felix’s image displays a couple of peculiarities that are not found in other consular diptychs: the right hand gesture and the upturned gaze of the consul’s

78 Compare the roughly contemporary and western Novara patricius

diptych, which displays a similar curtain motif; Delbrueck 1929, no. 64, Taf. 64; Volbach 1976, Nr. 64, Taf. 36. See further III.7.2.4. 79 Inv. Kg 54.207. 80 Delbrueck estimated the original measurements of the panel(s) as 30x13 cm; Delbrueck 1929, 96. A drawing of the lost right panel of the diptych (4 a) shows a lower border motif of the same heart-leaf type as the border of the preserved left panel, whereas the other three sides are bordered with a wavy band. 81 A 9th c. gospel, of which it is still part; see Delbrueck 1929, Taf. 4; also Belloni 1956, Tav. 22. 82 See Delbrueck 1929, Taf. 4 V (d). 83 Delbrueck 1929, Taf. 4 (2) and Texttaf. 2 respectively.

76 The complementing inscription on the lost right diptych panel read:

VTR(IVS) Q(VE) MIL(ITIAE) PATR(ICII) ORD(INARII); compare Delbrueck 1929, 93. 77 Delbrueck 1929,

ET

CO(N)S(VLIS)

24

Description: The consul’s figure is seated frontally, knees apart, with his right hand resting in the lap holding a cylindrical object with spiralled ends and the left hand clasping a sceptre at waist level. The body has a distinctly doll-like appearance, with a perfectly round and oversized head resting on a short and stocky neck and slender shoulders. The curvilinear folds of the costume delineate the bodily shapes in flat relief. The head is crowned by a compact coiffure of broad and sharply outlined rolls of hair, combed forward and ending in volute-shaped curls over forehead and ears. A short and straight beard covers cheeks and chin. The face is dominated by big, drop-shaped and wide-open eyes beneath a fleshy forehead. Nose and cheeks are rounded, the mouth small and thin-lipped. The head is rendered in a few and simplified shapes, lending the facial features a rough and generic appearance. The consul’s toga costume is plain except for the doubleline-and-dot borders around neckline (tunic) and lower hem (trabea). The trabea is folded in the contabulate style without right-shoulder ‘bridge’. The calcei display faint traces of corrigae, somewhat differently applied than the standard cross-laced pattern. The spiral-ended cylinder in the consul’s right hand must be identified as a rolled-up parchment, representing the codicil (codicilli) of his appointment.84 The sceptre is a medium-sized, double-knobbed wand crowned by a large, pearl-bordered stand supporting two miniature busts of equal size. The busts are togate and their round heads show very faint traces of hairline and/or diadems85 (a minimal knob may be distinguished in the centre of each forehead, possibly indicating a jewel). The consul is seated on a tall sella curulis whose fluted seat-rail is supported by inwardly curving and likewise fluted legs ending in lions’ feet (rather like eagles’ claws), the latter attached to the former in an a-tectonic manner. A thick and bulging cushion decorated with a simple dot pattern (perhaps imitating fur) is placed on the seat. The consul’s feet rest on a low and angular stool (suppedaneum86 ) with four short legs rendered in a spread-out perspective. Two distinctly smaller male figures flank the consul, placed somewhat behind him and with their heads turned in semi-profile in his direction. Their beardless faces are more superficially and summarily carved than the consul’s but otherwise similar; the hair of the left-side figure is more curly than the other’s, whereas the right-side figure displays longer locks over the ears. The figures’ size, beardlessness and slender build combine to lend them a youthful appearance. The left-hand figure wears a short and sleeved tunic, a chlamys fastened over the right shoulder with a fibula, and low boots. With his right hand he holds a tall object of

composite shape towards the consul, the left hand being covered by a piece of fabric (from the mantle?). The object can be described as a cylindrical vessel with a dented rim decoration from behind which rises a large, flat oval in two compartments: below, a closed part with a criss-cross pattern; above, an open part holding three togate and diademed (?) busts of equal size. The object, which can be identified as a theca,87 has no counterpart among the consular diptychs, but it occurs in the ivory diptych of Probianus88 and among some officials’ insignia represented in the Notitia Dignitatum.89 The right-side figure wears a longer tunic beneath a chlamys with shoulder fibula; with both hands, one of which is covered by the chlamys, he holds a tall and curved object consisting of a rectangular, cross-hatched element (below) from which protrudes a pair of slender and sharp-tipped crescents with a volute-shaped projection in the middle (half hidden behind the man’s head). This object may be recognised as a set of fasces,90 with two rods protruding from a case (grip) and an axe (securis) attached. The figure holding the fasces would consequently be identified as a lictor. The architectural fronton behind the figure-group consists of four spiral-fluted columns with Corinthian capitals, the two central ones of which frame the consul’s figure, whose head is placed immediately against the dentil-ornamented architrave. Slightly dislocated to the left above the architrave is a triangular gable of moulded cornices enclosing a flowershaped shell; on each side of the gable, suspended as it were from the inscriptional tabula above, is a crescent element with finely hatched contours and a central line. That these crescents must be understood as leafy garlands is suggested by comparing them with their counterparts in the reproductions of the lost right diptych panel, which are in the form of leafy semi-wreaths.91 A pair of flame-shaped acanthus leaves suggestive of acroteria are placed on top of the architrave above each of the outer columns. The inscriptional tabula is inserted between a second dentil-decorated lintel and the upper horizontal frame. Its tall and deeply cut letters are in a single line, reading: MAGVTRIVSOMILCONSOED (magistro utriusoque militiae consul oerdinarius).92 Discussion: A number of features distinguish the Astyrius panel from all western and most eastern consular diptychs.

87 A case for the keeping of officials’ writing implements; see Kruse 1934,

102, 104; and Berger 1981, 32-34. 88 On the basis of its inscription attributed to the vicarius urbis Romae of 400; Delbrueck 1929, N 65, Taf. 65; Volbach 1976, Nr. 62, Taf. 34. 89 A late 4th c. illuminated manuscript preserved in a late mediaeval copy (München, Staatsbibliothek) and presenting the insignia of civilian and military officials in east and west. For datings and attributions of original(s) and copy, see e.g. Alexander 1976, 11-19. See also further below, III.3.1. 90 Delbrueck 1929, 96f; Volbach 1976, 30. In the lost right panel the axe had a more distinctly sharp shape. 91 See further III.5.2. 92 The inscription on the lost right panel read (according to the reproductions): FLASTYRIUSVCETINLCOMEX (Flavius Astyrius vir clarissimus et inlustris comes ex).

84 The identical scroll is also seen in Astyrius’ hand in the lost right diptych

panel; Delbrueck 1929, Pl. 4 (b;V). Compare also Felix (3 a). See further III.2.1.5. 85 Compare Delbrueck 1929, 97; and Volbach 1976, 30. 86 On the forms and denominations of the foot-stool belonging to sella curulis (suppedaneum, scabellum, scamnum) and related constructions, see Salomonson 1956, 15, 38; Wanscher 1980, 126, 154-156; and below, III.2.1.3.

25

Formal peculiarities are the almost miniaturistic scale in which the figures are carved, which is unique for a western 5th-century diptych, and also the fact that the two panels are not symmetrically arranged. Peculiarities in the motif repertory include the left-side bystander holding a theca, the irregular number of imperial busts on sceptre and theca, the codicil scroll held by the consul, the singular shape of the sella curulis, and (although not unique within the corpus93 ) the plain toga costume worn by the consul. The theca was not an attribute of the consul,94 wherefore the function of the figure holding such an attribute in a consular image is problematic. The circumstance that the number of busts on the theca (three) does not correspond to that of the scipio (two) has not been, and cannot perhaps be, fully accounted for. Delbrueck’s proposition that a central third bust must have been removed at some point95 seems plausible, but there are no apparent traces of recarving in the area concerned. The solution proposed by Volbach to the problem,96 viz. that the artist misunderstood the motif, is less convincing: why would the artist have misunderstood the number when carving the theca but not when carving the sceptre, seeing that both sets of busts would represent the same emperors?97 The fact that the theca pictured in the lost right panel of the diptych showed only two busts complicates the issue further. As for the plain toga costume,98 it occurs in one other diptych, also western, namely that of Bourges (5). The composition of Astyrius’ diptych contains the most complex architectural structure among the western works, and also the least realistic, its ‘entablature’ presenting a flat surface on which a number of motifs (lintels, cornices/gable, garlands, acroteria) are distributed in an abstractly decorative and slighly asymmetrical manner. It can only be speculated on what was once represented in the lost lower registers of the diptych, but it is reasonable to assume that they conformed to the standard consular repertory, i.e. that they showed either games-related scenes or scenes referring to consular gift distribution (compare Boethius (6), and Orestes (7)). Since Astyrius does not display the otherwise almost ubiquitous mappa circensis99 it could perhaps be argued that games-scenes would be the less likely alternative. However, there is little evidence that general formulaic prescriptions existed for what and how different motifs were to be combined within a consular image in this earlier phase of diptych production, as testified by the Halberstadt ivory (2).

5. THE BOURGES DIPTYCH (WEST, FIRST HALF OF THE 5TH CENTURY) (Plate 5.) Collection: Bourges, Musée du Berry.100 Measurements: height 20.7 cm, width 9.7 cm. [Delbrueck 1929, N 37; Volbach 1976, Nr. 36.] General: Both panels are preserved and in good condition, only lightly eroded. The lower left corner of the left panel101 has been fractured and mended at some point. A number of drill-holes punctuate both panels, the original holes for both locks and hinge mechanisms being difficult to distinguish. Several holes also punctuate the pictorial surface of both panels; these would not be original. The panel frames are very narrow, unprofiled and separated from the pictorial field by a single, deeply incised line. Due to the panels’ fitting into wooden frames it is not possible to establish whether the width and profile of the frames have been changed. The relief is low, particularly in the lower halves of the panels. The background surface is plain and subtly concave. Both panels are composed of two equally large pictorial registers separated by a horizontal moulding. The upper registers, cut in slightly higher relief, each show the seated consul flanked by two male figures; the upper register is identically rendered on both panels. The lower registers contain hunting scenes. The compositional scheme of the Bourges diptych conforms to the tribunal type. There are no traces of inscriptional tabulae. Description (left panel): The consul’s figure is rendered frontally at the centre of the upper register. He is seated with legs and feet apart, his raised right hand holding a very slender, oblong object, and his left hand clasping a sceptre at waist level. The body is well-proportioned but undersized in relation to the head. A certain degree of plasticity allows the body contours to protrude beneath the folds of the costume, and the right lower arm, uncovered by any costume fabric, has a muscular appearance. The heavy head is formed into an ellipse by the long and pointed beard. The hair falls in irregular waves from a thinning scalp, curling behind the big and protruding ears. The facial features below the high and smooth forehead are fine and regular: close-sitting and ‘normal’-sized eyes with marked lids gazing (squinting)

93 Compare the Bourges diptych (5). 94 See further III.3.1.

100 Inv. 1860.3.2. 101 Delbrueck’s and Volbach’s divergent views on the left-right order

95 Delbrueck 1929, 97. 96 Volbach 1976, 30.

Compare also Shelton’s view on the ‘misunderstanding’ of Astyrius’ insignia etc. as a sure indicator of a provincial origin; Shelton 1983, 9. 97 The ruling emperors in the year 449 were Valentinian III (west) and Theodosius II (east). 98 The watercolour by Langius (Delbrueck 1929, Texttaf. 2) shows monochrome colouring on the different parts of the costume, which must mean that the triumphal star pattern was not painted on. 99 Felix (3) is the only diptych apart from Astyrius which does not represent the consul holding the mappa.

between the panels are in neither case discussed or motivated, but only illustrated by their respective way of arranging the plates; Delbrueck 1929, 158, Taf. 37; Volbach 1976, 43, Taf. 20. Considering that the edges have been cut away (partly or wholly) to mount the panels onto a book cover, there is no possibility of establishing where the original hinges were placed. However, two of the edges are narrower and more eroded than the others, suggesting more exposure or wear, and the broken lower-left corner of one of the panels also points to greater exposure. On these considerations I choose to follow Volbach’s ordering of the panels, which also coincides with the order in which the panels are presently framed. .

26

slighly upwards, a straight and thin nose, and a small mouth with a protruding but thin upper lip. The face as a whole is carefully sculpted, and without any of the stylisations characterising most other consuls’ representations, such as over-sized eyes; the ‘Greek philosopher style’ of the hair and beard present classicising traits. The consul’s toga costume—a trabea over a sleeveless colobium and tunic—lacks the triumphal star pattern, draped in a loosely contabulate fashion without right shoulder ‘bridge’, its heavy and sweeping folds falling in a naturalistic way. The corrigae of the calcei are only partly visible. The slender, somewhat curved object with a marked middle line suggestive of a ‘fold’ held in the consul’s raised right hand would be a mappa. The sceptre is short and exceptionally slender, and crowned by a large disc or clipeus enclosing a pair of miniature togate busts. Due to erosion it is difficult to make out much detail in these busts, apart from their equal height. The sella curulis on which the consul is seated has straight and slender legs, or corner-posts, shaped as spiralfluted columns with ‘Tuscan’ capitals and bases, and is without a seat-rail proper. The seat is covered by a thin, ringshaped cushion with a simple pattern of small and regular incisions, possibly imitating fur. The low footstool has short and widely curving animal legs, a vertical line in the centre suggesting a division into two foldable halves. The consul is flanked on both sides by a considerably smaller standing male figure, symmetrically posed in a slightly spiralling contrapposto with face turned in the consul’s direction. Both wear short and sleeved tunics beneath mantles, and short boots (well-nigh erased), and each of them clasps a tall, slender and curving object recognisable as a set of fasces, with both hands leaning it against a shoulder; the fasces have what appears to be a casing/grip (lower half) and two rods without axe or banner. The men have heavy and square heads resting on short and thick necks, their hairstyles consist in short and naturally falling locks, and their beardless faces repeat the physiognomical characteristics of the consul. The figure-group is placed in front of an architectural frame consisting of two columns or pillars (only rendered in their upper halves) with squarely moulded capitals, supporting an architrave whose profiled lintel forms an arch in the centre, encircling the consul’s head. Placed on top of the lintel on both sides of the arch are a pair of birds with wings and tails fanned out towards the centre, their heads—characterised by the hooked beaks of eagles—facing each other. The summit of the arch rests immediately against the upper horizontal frame.

ground. The venator’s head is square on a stocky neck and covered by thick and furry hair, the facial features repeating those of the figures in the upper register, and he wears a long, sleeved and tight-fitting tunic, skirt slit open on one side, and strapped boots. The tunic is decorated with an emblem (almost disappeared) and horizontal stripes on the front. The leopards are considerably smaller than the venator, with the proportions of cubs. They are represented in various poses and from various angles, distributed across the pictorial surface in two horizontal layers: a pair of dead or dying beasts lie at the bottom of the field (left and right), one hangs expiring on the venator’s spear (its head turned in a violent angle of 180 degrees to stare at his pierced abdomen), and another pair of animals run about with heads raised (left and right). The beasts’ ferocity is indicated by open jaws, sharp teeth exposed, and various ‘disorderly’ poses applied mainly on the diagonal. The vanquished animals are characterised by having their muzzles lowered between their front paws. Suspended in mid-air above the speared leopard (upper right corner) is a large, horizontally rendered leaf; judging by its size and pattern a palm-leaf (frond). (Right panel:) The image of the upper pictorial register is near-identical to that of the left panel, the only divergent detail being the cap-shaped ‘Germanic’ hairstyles with longer locks falling over ears and shoulders of the two attendants. A more insecure divergence is found on the consul’s sceptre, where a very slight size differentiation between the two togate busts can be made out (the right-side bust/head being very subtly smaller and placed further down). The lower register contains a scenic variation on the venatio found in the left panel: a man is fighting against five animals, in this case male lions (judging by their manes), with a spear. Here the man is placed to the right side of the field, viewed fully in profile, moving and bending forward to force his weapon through the chest of an animal to the left. His costume is of the same kind as that worn by the left panel venator (including the front emblem), only shorter, and his left arm is also armoured. Stature, build, hair and facial traits are identical to the other’s. The lions are distributed in three levels, stacked as it were in a loose heap towards the left half of the field. Two vanquished animals lie prostrate, muzzles between paws, at the lower corners, while a still living and moving animal is being trampled by the venator (centre). Higher up, the lion confronting the man performs a diagonal leap onto the outstretched spear; and level with the man’s head a fifth animal stretches diagonally downwards. As before, an impression of movement and tumult has been achieved by means of diagonals, overlapping planes and a diversification of figure poses.

The lower pictorial register, rendered in the same scale as the upper register, shows a constellation of one male figure (centre) surrounded by five leopards, as indicated by their spotted furs. The animal fighter or hunter (venator) stands in a light contrapposto, turning slightly to the right with the head in an upright position, his right arm raised with the hand’s index finger pointing upwards, and his armoured left hand balancing a spear in a horizontal position; one of the animals hangs spitted on it (right), lifted high above the

Discussion: The most prominent formal characteristics of the Bourges diptych are its identical, i.e. not symmetrically arranged, panels—a peculiarity which it shares with Astyrius’ diptych (4) and the eastern diptychs of the 6th century (9-12); the equal size of the upper and lower registers; the equal scale of consul and venatores; and the marked size differentiation between primary and secondary figures within each register 27

origin.108 That the diptych dates to the period before 476, i.e. before the separation of the western and eastern empires, is indicated by the two busts crowning the consul’s sceptre, whereas the folding-style of the trabea, which is without the diagonal ‘bridge’ fold over the right shoulder, could point to a date before 450.109 No western consuls but Ardabur Aspar (cos. 434, Carthage)110 and Astyrius (cos. 449, Arelate) are specifically recorded to have taken office in the province during the first half of the 5th century.111

(consul—lictors and venator—animals respectively). Certainly, these scale differentiations may partly be ascribed to economical considerations on the part of the artist, who had to structure his image according to the limitations of pictorial space whilst including enough figures and motifs to present the viewer with as ‘full’ an image of consulship as possible. Particularly in the case of the venatio-scenes it would have been desirable to include a representative number of animals in order to produce an impression of large-scale and tumultuous action, an impression which is further enhanced by the upheaved perspective and free composition of the scenes. Other peculiarities in the Bourges diptych are the forms of the consular insignia: the toga, the sella curulis with suppedaneum, and the sceptre.102 Like Astyrius, the Bourges consul wears a toga lacking the triumphal pattern; the sella c u r u l i s with its footstool displays some curious characteristics which are not consistent with standard shapes, and have (understandably) been interpreted as misconceptions on the part of the artist.103 The only conceivable explanation for such deviations would be a provincial production of the diptych, which in its turn would mean that the consul commemorated must have taken office outside of Rome. The unusual clipeate shape of the sceptre, which also lacks the orb between wand and top element, may reasonably also be ascribed to a provincial origin, as would the paper-thin mappa. The circumstance that venatio-scenes have been chosen for this relatively early western consular diptych is worthy of notice, since chariot-races are represented in other consular ivories preserved from this part of the empire. Venationes are however represented in a couple of early 5th-century ivories issued by other categories of commissioners (exconsuls/senators, priests),104 which would mean that the choice of motif might be ascribed to the preference of the commissioner or artist/workshop. The geographic attribution of the Bourges diptych is difficult to determine, but the Gallic, or at least western, attribution proposed by Delbrueck and Volbach105 seems plausible in view of the ‘Germanic’ hairstyles of the lictors,106 the Hellenising traits exhibited by the consul’s figure (face, hairstyle and beard), and the arcuated lintel of the architectural frame.107 However, neither of these peculiarities are in my view entirely conclusive, nor is there anything in the known provenance of the diptych that excludes an eastern

6. BOETHIUS (WEST, 487) (Plate 6.) Collection: Brescia, Museo Romano. Measurements: height 35 cm, width 12.6 cm. [Delbrueck 1929, N 7; Volbach 1976, Nr. 5.] General: Both panels are preserved and in very fine condition, with only minor indentures along the lower horizontal edges. The original silver hinges are in situ.112 Three holes punctuate the inner frame border of each panel, corresponding to the hinge mechanisms, and two sets of small holes correspond to a lock at the centre of each outer frame. The comparatively wide and subtly profiled frame wears a border of finely carved acanthus leaves. The background surface is smooth and flat, the relief protruding from it in

108 No known provenance before the diptych was first (date unknown?)

recorded in the inventory of the St. Étienne at Bourges; Delbrueck 1929, 161; Volbach 1976, 43. 109 The diptych of Boethius (west, 487) (6) is the earliest preserved consular diptych to show a contabulate triumphal trabea with the rightshoulder ‘bridge’ fold, whereas the consular missorium of Ardabur Aspar (west, 434) (Pl. 22), shows a (plain) trabea without ‘bridge’. However, other categories of officials were commemorated in ivory diptychs, such as the vicarius urbis Romae Probianus in Berlin (Rome c. 400); Delbrueck 1929, N 65; Volbach 1976, Nr.62), the three praesides in the Liverpool venatio panel (west, c. 400), the imperial priest in the ‘Kaiserpriester’ diptych (west c. 400), and the consuls represented on the east side of the Arcadius column base in Constantinople (402-405; Kollwitz 1941, Beilage 7) wear trabeae with the right-shoulder ‘bridge’; all of which suggests that the development of the folding style was perhaps neither linear nor parallel in the two halves of the empire and for different categories of officials. For the chronology of the contabulate folding style in the 5th century, see I.1.1. 110 Commissioner of the silver missorium in the Museo Archeologico, Florence. 111 Delbrueck suggested that Fl. Aetius, western consul in 432, 437 and 446, could be a possible commissioner of the diptych, arguing that he was known to have had contacts in Gaul, and further that the difference in size between the two busts on the consuls’ sceptre (which is barely perceptible in the right panel) fits Theodosius II and Valentinian III—the latter who was 6 in the year of his accession (425)—thus suggesting a date between 431 and 439; Delbrueck 1929, 160f. Aetius was a notable general, but he is not recorded to have taken office outside of Rome on any occasion; Martindale 1980-1992:1, 23-27. There is of course a possibility, although in my opinion slight, that he could have commissioned consular ivories in the province, but the plain toga remains unaccounted for with such an explanation. 112 Delbrueck 1929, 103f; Brescia 1978, 176.

102 See further under III.2.1.1- 2.1.3 and 3.1. 103 Delbreuck 1929, 159. 104 See the Liverpool venatio panel (Pl. 18) and the ‘Kaiserpriester’

diptych in Paris (Pl. 19) (Delbrueck 1929, N 57; Volbach 1976, Nr. 58), both plausibly dated to the early 5th century. 105 Delbrueck 1929, 160f; Volbach 1976, 43. 106 Compare the western diptychs of Halberstadt (2) and Astyrius; also the silver missorium of Theodosius (Pl. 23) and the Barberini ivory in the Musée du Louvre, Paris (Pl. 20), both imperial works commonly attributed to the western part of the empire, and showing officials/guards displaying the characteristic Germanic hairstyle. 107 On the Hellenising features of Gallic art and architecture in late antiquity, see e.g. Bianchi Bandinelli 1970, 139-170; and D.F. Brown 1942, 393-398.

28

several planes. The curving shape of the ivory tusk is particularly visible in the inner corners of the panels. The image is in a single register, all elements forming a continuous and coherent whole, including the inscriptional tabula. The consul’s figure respectively standing and seated in front of an architectural fronton takes up most of the pictorial field. The compositional scheme presents a pure specimen of the large-figure type.

moulded bases and very finely carved capitals of tall and vertical acanthus leaves, an inscribed architrave (the tabula inscriptionis), and a triangular gable formed of acanthusborder cornices enclosing a thick wreath bound with curling ribbons and ornamented with a gem-like rosette at the top. The wreath consists of finely veined triplet leaves, and encircles the monogram BE (letters fused). The entablature of the fronton overcuts the panel frame on three sides. The inscription on the architrave, in tall and narrow letters, reads: N AR MANL BOETHIUS V C ET INL (Nonius Arrius Manlius Boethius vir clarissimus et inlustris); continuing on the right panel: EX P P P V SEC CONS ORD ET PATRIC (ex praefecto praetorio praefectus urbis secundo consul ordinarius et patricius).114

Description (left panel): The consul’s figure stands frontally with the head turned slightly to the right. His right arm falls along the side of the body, the hand cupped over an oval object with longitudinal ridges—a mappa; the left hand, barely protruding from beneath the thick folds of the costume, clasps a sceptre at waist level. The body, flat beneath the costume, is compact and stocky with child-like proportions: large head, hands and feet, and very slim and sloping shoulders. The head resting on a thick and short neck forms a heavy square, crowned by a compact coiffure shaped into two horizontal rows of shell-like curls; a stubby beard covers cheek, chin and the space between nose and upper lip. The facial features are also heavy, with large and almondshaped eyes beneath elongated and bushy eyebrows, a long and wide-winged nose pressed flat against the upper lip, a wide and thin-lipped mouth, and a broad, angular and protruding chin; marked lines in asymmetrically rendered curves run between the nose-wings and the corners of the mouth, adding to the protruding aspect of the chin. The triumphal toga costume bears a dense and very finely detailed pattern of stars within roundels, squares and rhombs, the same on trabea, colobium and the sleeves of the underlying tunic, and lined with wide laurel borders. The trabea is folded in the contabulate style with a ‘bridge’ over the right shoulder, and the central perpendicular fold ends at some distance above the hem of the underlying tunic, exposing a regular arrangement of four fine creases. The costume as a whole is rendered in rich and diametrically sculpted folds, the sinus of the trabea displaying a characteristic set of deep and plough-like creases that do not disturb the regularity of the fabric pattern. The calcei with their finely creased corrigae are shaped into broad fans. The sceptre is a tall, thick and coniform wand crowned by a big eagle-on-a-globe, and with an almond-shaped knob at the lower end. The eagle is rendered in fine detail and high relief, its erect head half cut out from the background, its wings spread high. On the ground-level below/in front of the consul’s feet, and partly over-cutting the lower horizontal frame, various objects are displayed: in the centre, a big annular element (a coronet or torque),113 immediately next to it (left and right) a pair of spade-shaped palm-leaves, and on each side (corners) a coniform purse or small sack twice inscribed with the sign 8. The consul is placed in front of an architectural fronton consisting of two plain-shafted Corinthian columns with

(Right panel:) The figural and ornamental elements mainly repeat those of the left panel. Homogeneity and symmetry form the panels’ most distinguishing characteristics, since each element in the one panel—down to the smallest detail—perfectly corresponds in shape and placement to its counterpart in the other. This correspondence notably also comprises the height of the consul’s figure, which is here seated. The consul sits frontally and with knees apart on a sella curulis, his right hand raised and holding a mappa, and his left clasping a sceptre as before, here ornamented with a round knob at the lower end. The sella has slender, curving legs decorated with a vegetative pattern (laurel) and the tall seat-rail with ‘triumphal stars’ framed by a pearl border. A small, sack-shaped cushion rests on top of the seat (visible to the left). The feet of the sella are hidden from view behind a plain, block-like element functioning as a foot-plinth; it has the same shape and size as the ground compartment in the left panel. The column bases of the architectural frame also disappear behind this plinth. Below, overcutting the lower frame border, are a pair of 8-inscribed purses (corners), a palm-leaf (centre left) and a disc-shaped object probably representing a plate. Discussion: The formal peculiarities of Boethius’ diptych are several. Correct corporeal proportions have apparently not been of interest to the artist, whereas the complex pattern created by the contabulate folding of the toga has been rendered with considerable attention to realistic detail; but again this ‘realistic’ draping has not allowed an optically realistic rendering of the fabric pattern, which is applied onto the folds of the garments like a film, undisturbed in its 114 For the interpretation of the name inscription on Boethius’ diptych, see

also Martindale, who tentatively accepts Delbrueck’s reading (Delbrueck 1929, 103) (also given here); Martindale 1980-1992.1, 232. Another suggestion for its reading, MAR(ius) MANL(ius) instead of N(onius) AR(rius) MANL(ius), has been proposed by Alan Cameron, who argues that the initial letter (N) would be a misconception on the carver’s part; A.D.E. Cameron 1981:1. Cameron’s interpretation is reiterated in Bagnall, Cameron, Schwartz & Worp 1987, 88, 508. It must however be pointed out that the letter in question is perfectly identical in shape to other instances of ‘N’ found in the inscription (two in the left panel, one in the right), and since there seem to be no additional sources that may shed light on the issue, the question of Boethius’ name must be left open.

113 Compare Delbrueck, who likens this type of object to the torques and

crowns mentioned by Sidonius (Sid.Apoll., Carm. 23.423-425); Delbrueck 1929, 70-72. Rumscheid categorises the object as a ‘Preiskrone’, describing it as a metal ring; Rumscheid 2000, 183f. See also further III.4.3.

29

regularity. A particularly striking contrast is that between the figure motifs—few, large and rendered with simple clarity—and the richness of the ornamental details covering most elements like fine lace (costume, insignia, architectural frame, panel frame). But the most eye-catching characteristic of the diptych is its strict compositional regularity. The consul’s figure has been superimposed on a pre-existing framework which rigorously determines his representation: the visual correspondences between key motifs or fixed points in the two panels (gable, column capitals, the consul’s head, trabea folds, sceptre and the left hand holding it, costume hem, feet, purses etc.) are mathematically balanced. The drawn-out legs of the seated consul in the right panel are a particularly interesting result of this system; whether standing or seated, the consul’s height must be exactly the same. Structure and symmetry thus constitute the compositional essence in Boethius’ diptych. The diptych’s iconographical characteristics are few but significant. The eagle-tipped sceptre here appears for the first and possibly last time in the western part of the corpus,115 the bust-sceptre otherwise being standard, and its monumentality is thereto unequalled. The diptych is also the first preserved from Rome to show the consul seated on a sella curulis, the diptychs of Astyrius (4) and Bourges (5) both being provincial works.116 Like its provincial precursors the sella and suppedaneum of Boethius display a couple of traits that would not be described as representative (even if one may not go so far as to suggest that they are misconceptions) of their prototypes:117 the s e l l a is comparatively small and lacks its characteristic lion’s feet (which are presumably hidden from view behind the footplinth), and the suppedaneum presents a simple block. All of these peculiarities may however be ascribed to the compositional system, which dictates a strict symmetry between panels. The objects arranged on the ground before the consul—palm-leaves, purses, corona, plate—are the first of their kind to occur in a consular diptych, but Ardabur Aspar’s consular missorium from 434 (Pl. 22) shows that the motif types were used by ordinary consuls before that. The objects accompany the consul irrespective of whether he is standing or enthroned on the sella, something which seems to suggest that they, like the mappa, would be understood as consular attributes rather than indicators that a specific consular act is performed. The architectural frame—a perfectly tectonic aedicula—is identical in both panels.

[Delbrueck 1929, N 32; Volbach 1976, Nr. 31.] General: Both panels are preserved and in good condition. Some minor fractures are found in the uppermost parts of each panel, where the centrally positioned cross has been damaged in an almost identical manner (right). The vertical frames of each panel have partly been cut away, whereas the horizontal frames are as good as intact, displaying two asymmetrically placed drill-holes each. Additional holes are found within the pictorial field (centre left and right). The relief is comparatively low. The frame (what remains of it) is narrow with a single incised line and a subtly curving profile. The images of the two panels are virtually identically rendered, with a limited number of formal variations in details. The panels are not symmetrically arranged. The pictorial field is divided into three registers: the central register shows the seated consul flanked by two female figures, the upper register (above the inscriptional tabula) a cross (centre) and a pair of imagines clipeatae (sides), and the lower register two smaller figures carrying coin-sacks. The compositional scheme conforms to the tribunal type. Description (left panel): The consul is seated frontally and with knees apart in the central pictorial register, his right hand resting in the lap and clasping a folded mappa and his left holding a sceptre at waist level. The compactly proportioned body is almost flat beneath the costume whereas the limbs protruding from beneath the garments are plastically shaped, rounded and fleshy. The head, resting on a swollen neck, is slighly over-sized in relation to the body, egg-shaped with lean cheeks, and crowned by a coiffure of small curls combed forward over forehead and temples. The beardless face is characterised by big, rhomboid and wideopen eyes beneath a low forehead, a long, narrow nose with a flattened (eroded) tip, and a small, pursed mouth with marked corners. The face as a whole is rendered in few and simple lines. The consul’s triumphal toga wears the traditional pattern of stars within squares and roundels; the trabea is lined with a pearl border and the colobium with wide cross-hatched borders. The contabulate draping, with right-shoulder ‘bridge’, is rendered in a few distinctive lines and in low relief. The calcei are of the standard type. The scipio is a short and slender wand crowned by a single miniature bust on a ‘Tuscan’ capital. The wellpreserved bust wears a contabulate toga, holds a knob-tipped sceptre in its left hand and a mappa in its raised right, and its head displays a helmet-shaped coiffure of forward-combed strands. The consul is seated on a monumentally proportioned sella curulis which spans the entire width of the pictorial surface. The slab-shaped seat-rail is ornamented with spiral discs and a line border, has two pairs of S-shaped scrolls attached to the sides, and is supported on curving and furry lion’s legs with knotty paws and lion protomes (above, viewed in profile) holding heavy rings between their jaws. The seat is covered by a thick and cable-shaped cushion (which is applied onto the front of the seat-rail instead of

7. ORESTES (WEST, 530) (Plate 7.) Collection: London, Victoria and Albert Museum.118 Measurements: height 34.4 cm, width 12 cm. 115 See further under Basilius, II.8, and III.2.1.2. 116 Compare also the sella curulis of Aspar (Pl. 22). 117 See further III.2.1.3. 118 Inv. 139-1866.

30

resting on top of it), wearing a ‘triumphal star’ pattern. Placed between the legs of the sella is a low, box-like footplinth with short legs curving into volutes and placed on top of a square mat or platform; the top surface of the suppedaneum is decorated with a delicate trellis-and-rosette pattern. Two helmeted female figures flank the consul, slightly larger than him and half-turned in his direction. The upper part of their bodies is plastically rendered and over-sized in relation to the rest, whose superficially incised contours continue below the seat-rail of the sella curulis. Their general appearance is similar: stocky build with narrow, sloping shoulders, big and round head resting on a thick and swollen neck, a continuous serpentine lock of hair framing a low forehead, and physiognomical characteristics (eyes, nose and mouth) presenting variants of the consul’s, although more finely carved. Both wear sleeved tunics and jewellery collars with large geometric gems, pearl-strings and drop-pendants, ‘pearl’ earrings and bracelets; the right-side figure also wears a short chlamys ornamented with a large, rhomboid inset (segmentum) in the form of a single ‘triumphal star’. The helmet of the left-side figure is triple-crested;119 she rests a long and slender sceptre with round knobs at both ends on her left arm, and holds a globular object inscribed with a Greek A in her right hand, which is positioned in front of her chest. The right-side figure wears a single-crested helmet;120 she clasps a very thin and curved staff with an axe-shaped banner in her left hand, and raises her right hand with an open-handed gesture in the consul’s direction. The banner of the staff, which would be recognised as a set of fasces, is incised with the bust of a togatus displaying the same hairstyle as its counterpart on the consul’s sceptre. The female couple may be recognised as Roma and Constantinopolis, but due to their typological similarites their respective identities have been and continue to be an object of discussion among scholars; the issue will be treated fully in Part III.121 In the background, partly overcut by the goddesses bodies, are two Corinthian column capitals (sides) interconnected by an arch, whose lintel is decorated with dentils. A big, circular cartouche or clipeus is applied onto the crown of the arch, between the tabula ansata and the consul’s head; its smooth surface is inscribed with the monogram ORESTES, letters fused. A pair of stylised leafy garlands hang between the clipeus and the columns. Whereas the tabula inscriptionis separates the central register from the upper, the transition between central and lower register is unmarked.

The inscriptional tabula is of the ansate type, with short sides characteristically split to form triangular ‘handles’,122 and is shaped in accordance with the model favoured in the eastern diptychs of the corpus.123 Its dentil border decoration is however only found in one other preserved diptych, that of Clementinus (10). The inscription with its tall and slim letters reads in one line, from left to right: RVF CENN PROB ORESTIS //V C ET INL CONS (Rufii Cennadii Probi Orestis //viri clarissimi et inlustris consulis ordinarii). The upper pictorial register shows an arrangement of a cross (centre) and two imagines clipeatae (sides) against a plain background. The circular and pearl-bordered clipei enclose the bust representations of a male (left) and a female (right). The facial characteristics and hairstyle of the male figure in all essentials repeat those of the consul below, and he wears a costume consisting of a tunic with an embroidered front slit beneath a pearl-bordered coat. The female figure’s facial characteristics, hairstyle and jewellery collar correspond to those of the city goddesses below, whereas her head is covered by a finely ornamented and pointed cap of the Phrygian type from which two pairs of pendilia (?) are suspended. The ornaments of the woman evidently present a combination of eastern-imperial and Gothic-regal attributes, whereas the male’s costume is more purely Gothic. The lower pictorial register, which is in roughly the same scale as the central register above, shows a symmetrically arranged composition with two small figures in confronted movement towards the centre. Bodies and heads are baby-like and plump, their knees bent in a vigorous stride and their hands raised to support the large and bulging sacks that rest on their shoulders. Their smiling faces are likewise rounded and babyish, facial features presenting variations of the figures’ in the registers above, and their straight hair is shortcropped over the forehead, longer over the ears and combed forward. They wear sleeveless tunics ornamented with patterned bands, and low boots; the tunics are blown backwards, lifting in light curves as if wafted by a wind. Coins pour from the sacks’ openings onto a ground covered by a large quantity of coin, large discs (plate, missoria?) and square tablets, the mass of which form a thick layer. In the background is an architectural frame that presents a reductive variant of the constellation found in the central register: a pair of plain-shafted columns (or pillars) with Tuscan capitals spanned by an arch repeating the dentil motif. The feet of both the consul’s sella and the city goddesses are supported on top of these columns. (Right panel:) There is an absolute minimum of differentiation between the two panels. Small variations include some slight differences in proportions and stature

119 Delbrueck interpreted the side crests as ‘Wangenklappen’; Delbrueck

122 The term tabula ansata is chiefly used by Volbach, who however

1929, 119. 120 This type of helmet recurs, with some variations in detail, in the Halberstadt (2) and Basilius diptychs (8), where it is worn by Roma; see further III.3.2. 121 III.3.2.

applied it to all inscriptional tabulae in the corpus, i.e. irrespective of shape/type; Volbach 1976, passim. 123 (9), (10), (11). The tabula ansata also recurs in the bone replicas of the Magnus diptych(s) (Pl. 13) (Delbrueck 1929, N 23 and 24, Taf. 23 and 24; Volbach 1976, Nr. 24 bis 1 and 3, Taf. 11).

31

between the figures in the central and lower registers (which (except for the consul) are more compressed height-wise), the facial contours of some figures,124 the curly hair of the sackcarrying children in the lower register, and the undecorated front of the consul’s suppedaneum. The only deviation from the imagery of the left panel that might be assigned any significance beyond the purely formal is the small orb added to the consul’s sceptre, between wand and bust.

Apart from the diptych of Halberstadt (2), the Orestes diptych is the only one among western works to include imperial figures in an upper register, here recognised as the Ostrogothic king and queen Athalaric and Amalasuntha, western sovereigns in 530.127 As opposed to the rulers’ representations in Halberstadt the regal couple in Orestes do not present full figures taking part in a scene, but conform to a 6th-century eastern mode of arranging the imagines clipeatae of the ruling couple or dynasty against an abstract background.128 Orestes’ diptych is also the earliest surviving western consular ivory to introduce the personifications of Roma and Constantinopolis by the side of the consul (in Halberstadt they accompany the emperors in the upper register). As suggested by the consular missorium of Ardabur Aspar from 434 (Pl. 22), the city goddesses would almost certainly have accompanied consuls’ representations in 5th-century diptychs also. What distinguish Orestes’ goddesses from those of Halberstadt and Aspar, however, are their more or less undifferentiated appearances. The form for representing consular gift distribution also conforms to one prevalent in the eastern diptychs; nearidentical compositions of sack-emptying children with heaps of coin and precious objects recur in the diptychs of Clementinus, Magnus (the bone replicas (Pl. 13)) and the composite medallion diptych of Iustinus (east, 540) (Pl. 16). However formalised and ‘eastern’ the Orestes diptych may be in composition, motif repertory and representational mode, all its various ingredients are found in one or several western consular images of the previous century: the ‘tribunal’ composition, the canonic forms for representing costume and insignia, the city goddesses, the architectural unit of two columns and an arch in the background, the setting aside of imperial/regal figures in an upper register, and the representation of motifs referring to gift distribution in a lower register.

Discussion: It is an undeniable fact that the Orestes diptych has many formal and iconographic characteristics in common with the eastern consular ivories, notably that of Clementinus (10), including the compositional structure (stratification into three horizontal registers, axiality, symmetry, an identical conception of the panels), the motif repertory, scale differentiations, and the manner in which the motifs have been rendered (‘style’). Orestes’ diptych is however not alone among western consular ivories to adopt an essentially eastern mode of representation; the anonymous medallion diptych panel formerly in the collection of the Marquis de Ganay, Paris (Pl. 17),125 commonly dated to the last quarter of the 5th century, displays considerable affinities with eastern medallion diptychs of the 6th century.126

124 The slight deviation in the rendering of the male imago (upper register)

from the typological ‘norm’ for the diptych’s figure representations, particularly noted by Netzer (Netzer 1983, 268f), pertains only to the lower part of the face (mouth). It must be pointed out that this deviation, if such it should be termed, is only distinguishable when viewed from a certain angle and in a certain light, wherefore it ought not to be emphasised too much. Like the greater size of the female bust’s head (right) it would more likely be ascribed to natural variations in the original carving (see further under ‘Discussion’ below). 125 Delbrueck 1929, N 41, Taf. 41; Volbach 1976, Nr. 41, Taf. 21. Sold at an auction in 1987 (source: Sotheby’s, Antiques et objets d’art. Collection de Martine, Comtesse de Béhague, provenant de la succession du Marquis de Ganay, Monaco 1987). Present whereabouts unknown to the author. 126 Delbrueck, Volbach and Cameron & Schauer have all based their datings of the ex-Ganay panel on formal-stylistic comparisons between it and (primarily) the Basilius diptych, notably the cross-tipped sceptre held by the consul; Delbrueck 1929, 172-174; Volbach 1976, 44f; Cameron & Schauer 1982, 136. As a result the work is variably dated to the latter part of the 5th century and the second quarter of the 6th century. The crosssceptre apart (which I believe to be a later reconstruction in the case of Basilius; see III.2.1.2), I think that the panel in question displays some notable formal affinities with the Apion diptych (east, 593; Delbrueck 1929, N 33, Taf. 33; Volbach 1976, Nr. 32, Taf. 16, 17): the composition is the same, with four large corner rosettes around a central, richly ornate bust medallion, and the tabulae ansatae are ornamented to the sides with identical pairs of S-shaped scrolls—the last-mentioned motif also recurs on Iustinus’ tabula (east, 540) (Pl. 16) and on the sella seat-rail in Orestes. The ex-Ganay consul’s hair-style, a dense coronet of front curls, is further found on a number of 6th-century consuls: Apion, Orestes, and also Anthemius (Pl. 15) and Magnus (A) (12). Based upon these affinities I agree with Anthony Cutler that the ex-Ganay panel should be dated somewhere between 515 and 540; Cutler 1984:1, 112; also Engemann 1998, 126f. The diptych’s western origin is indicated by the sequential order of its inscription (the preserved panel would be a right one since its tabula contains the honorand’s titles), and by the peculiarly western form of the titulature itself (vir clarissimus et inlustris); see I.1.2. Despite these ‘western’ traits, however, Engemann is not prepared to rule out an eastern origin entirely; Engemann 1998, 126f. Compare Cutler 1984, 112 (arguing an eastern origin). The western consulate was dressed in most years

It has often been argued that the Orestes diptych is not an original work created for the western consul of 530 but must be either a copy of the eastern diptych of Clementinus129 or a recarved diptych of the same. The latter theory, which has won acclaim among writers on late antique ivory, was first proposed by Capps in 1927130 and then reintroduced by

between 480 and 534 (the year of Fl. Decius Paulinus iunior’s consulship, the last consul appointed in the west); e.g. Degrassi 1952, 94-100. 127 For the attributions and interpretation of the costumes, see Delbrueck 1929, 149; Volbach 1976, 40; and Netzer 1983, 269f. 128 Compare the diptychs of Clementinus, Anastasius, Anthemius and Iustinus (medallion). 129 Delbrueck 1929, 148; Morey 1941, 45; Natanson 1953, 3; Toynbee 1953, 275; Beckwith 1958, 9. In his corpus Volbach more noncommittally noted that thee diptychs of Clementinus and Orestes correspond (Volbach 1976, 41), but in a subsequent article he stated that, even if displaying considerable affinities with Constantinopolitan ivories, the Orestes diptych must be a Ravennese (i.e. western) work since it shows the busts of the Ostrogothic rulers Amalasuntha and Athalaric (Volbach 1978, 276). 130 Capps 1927, 68.

32

Netzer in 1983.131 Both writers based their arguments on the considerable formal and iconographic correspondences witnessed between Orestes’ and Clementinus’ diptychs, to which Netzer added what she perceived to be some traces of recarving. When subjecting the two works to a comparative stylistic analysis, Netzer claimed to detect qualitative flaws in the execution of Orestes’ diptych—scratchmarks, an overall roughness—in the region around the consul’s head and in the imagines clipeatae of the upper registers, which she argued can only be ascribed to a recarving executed by an inferior western artist in order to meet the personal requirements of a second issuer, viz. Orestes.132 In my view the evidence presented by Netzer in favour of a reattribution is somewhat weak. As concerns the technical evidence, the marks (central and upper registers) that she claims to be traces of recarving may equally well be ascribed to such factors as unevennesses in the original carving, wear, or organically determined changes within the material itself.133 The rougher and somewhat unsharp aspect of the consul’s face in particular would mainly be ascribed to erosion; the phenomenon frequently occurs in the more protruding elements of ivory reliefs, and is witnessed in a number of consular diptychs, notably Halberstadt, Bourges (5), and Clementinus.134 Even if small scratch-lines surround the contour of the consul’s head, this does not automatically mean that its shape or physiognomical traits have been altered; in fact, Orestes’ physiognomy does not essentially differ from those of Clementinus, Areobindus ( 9 ), the anonymous western consul of the ex-Ganay diptych panel, or the anonymous consul of an eastern medallion diptych in Novara,135 nor from the physiognomies of the city goddesses accompanying Orestes himself and Clementinus.136 As for

the imagines clipeatae in the upper registers, the miniature scale of carving as such must be taken into consideration when analysing the degree of technical precision with which they have been carved, something which was not really done by Netzer. Additionally, one must allow of the natural and inevitable fluctuations in the quality of production (between the works of different carvers and between different works of the same carver) when evaluating any work of art;137 technical skill is not a priori synonymous with the production of original works or with eastern craftsmanship, or vice versa.138 Further yet, the lack of any traces of levelling and/or recarving on the monogram clipei and tabulae ansatae in Orestes—the tabula fields are no more recessed than in Clementinus or the majority of 6th-century diptychs, nor do the monogram shields display any concavity that would suggest a removal of a previous inscription whilst the line border was retained139 —something which in my view indicates that they are original. Netzer’s proposed solution to this problem, namely that the original inscriptions must have been so shallow that they would easily have been shaved off to leave room for new ones, must remain a speculation.140 Technical considerations aside, I find it hard to concur with Netzer’s view that Orestes’ diptych is artistically an inferior work to that of Clementinus,141 nor can I agree with her opinion that it presents an outmoded type for its period.142 The latter is gainsaid by both eastern and western diptychs dating from c. 500-540; apart from Clementinus’ and Magnus’ (12) diptychs,143 the ex-Ganay, Novara, and Apion (east, 539)144 medallion diptychs, and the composite medallion diptych of Iustinus. One cannot deny the possibility that Netzer’s proposed reattribution of the Orestes diptych to the issue of Clementinus may be correct, but the technical evidence she offers remains inconclusive and open to interpretation, and her conclusions appear to be as much based on (negative) preconceptions about western ivory carving in the 6th century as on material observations. However steeped in an eastern mode of representation the Orestes diptych may be—a characteristic it shares with the exGanay panel—it can also be understood as the product of a continuous iconographic tradition where western merges with

131 Netzer 1983. I will not here consider those writers on late antique ivory

who have accepted Netzer’s attribution—Cameron & Schauer 1982, 135, 137; A.D.E. Cameron 1998, 397; Buckton 1994, 72; Gibson 1994, 22 n. 3; Cutler 1995:1, 400; Bühl 1995, 200; and Engemann 1999, 164—since none of them has actually discussed it or contributed to develop it further. 132 The motivation for the reuse as such would have been a material one; unavailability of ivory and/or competent ivory carvers in a western empire essentially deprived of luxury goods in the later years of the Ostrogothic rule; Netzer 1983, 270. Compare Cameron & Schauer 1982, 138f; Barnish 1987, 162 (after Cameron & Schauer 1982); and Barnish 1988, 120f, 145155. 133 The right panel in particular displays a dense net of fine cracks all along the centre vertical, affecting the consul’s head especially but also the male imago clipeata (left) of the upper register—phenomena that appear distinctly in Netzer’s detail reproductions of the areas in question (Netzer 1983, Fig. 14-17). It should be pointed out that the Clementinus diptych, which displays considerable erosion in the corresponding areas, has not been reproduced in the same degree of close-up detail as that of Orestes in Netzer’s article (her Fig. 12-13 (Clementinus) are little more than half the size of Fig. 14-17 (Orestes)), which means that the two works cannot be compared and evaluated on equal terms by the reader. The best available reproduction of the Clementinus diptych, which allows these details to be seen, is offered in Gibson’s catalogue; Gibson 1994, Pls. VIII a-b. 134 E.g. Halberstadt, Bourges (5) and Areobindus A (9). 135 Novara, S. Gaudenzio. Dated to the first half of the 6th century by Delbrueck and Volbach; Delbrueck 1929, N 42, Taf. 42; Volbach 1976, Nr. 42, Taf. 23. 136 Netzer assumes that the imagery of Clementinus’ diptych represents an original, i.e. a specimen of a diptych issue specifically and uniquely conceived for Clementinus cos. 513, including his portraiture; Netzer 1983,

266, 271. The same is argued by Gudrun Bühl, although her reasons for so doing are less concerned with technical matters; Bühl 1995, 210-217. Compare also the typological and physiognomical similarities between Clementinus and a medallion diptych of Areobindus in the Musée du Louvre, Paris; Delbrueck 1929, N 14, Taf. 14; Volbach 1976, Nr. 13, Taf. 6. See further II.10. below. On the question of portraiture and likeness within consular imagery, see III.1.1. 137 Compare the discussion of serial production under II.9 and 11 below. 138 For an eastern diptych of the less finished kind, see the Novara medallion diptych (Delbrueck 1929, N 42; Volbach 1976, Nr. 42). 139 Netzer claimed that the latter is the case; Netzer 1983, 269f. As far as I have been able to see, there is no trace of a line border on the monogram shield in the right panel. 140 Netzer 1983, 269f. 141 The issue will be discussed further under II.10 (Clementinus). 142 Compare II.10. 143 See further discussions of the composition and motif repertory of these diptychs under II.10 and 12 respectively. 144 Oviedo, Cathedral treasury. Delbrueck 1929, N 64 and 33, Taf. 64 and 33; Volbach 1976, Nr. 64 and 32, Taf. 36 and 17.

33

orb and cross crowning the consul’s sceptre.150 Further, immediately to the left of the cross the barely meeting lines of the consul’s shoulder and the upper arm of the female figure are erased; in fact, it is not clear whether these lines belong to the consul’s figure (from an earlier, recut shoulderline) or the female’s. Since the rest of the panel’s cutting does not display technical imprecision (apart from the artistic qualities of the cutting as such), the occurrences just listed may be interpreted as evidence for a reworking of the areas in question, which would have been carried out in order to mend a damage and/or alter the imagery (see below). The right panel has been severed horizontally at approximately midheight, leaving only the upper half; the uppermost 20 millimetres or so have also been removed (everything above the inscriptional tabula).151 Two small drill-holes punctuate the left frame border, seemingly not corresponding to the original hinges, and two large holes are found in the uppermost part of the pictorial field, immediately beneath the tabula. A dark discolouration is found in the right half of the tabula. The panel frames are relatively wide with a subtly moulded profile and a superficially incised acanthus border. In the left panel (and possibly also in the right) there is a narrow, plain field between upper horizontal frame (lost) and tabula. The latter cuts across the vertical frames in both panels, as do various elements of the pictorial fields. The figure compositions differ between the two panels.

eastern irrespective of the production centres’ geographic locations. It is possible, perhaps even probable, that Orestes’ diptych is a work representative of a number of ivories issued by western consuls in the 6th century, viz. in the period covered by the reigns of Anastasius I and Justinian in the east; the cited comparanda point to this. In what degree 6thcentury western consuls commissioned fully figural diptychs, and in what ‘style’ they liked them (or got them), cannot be determined from three diptychs alone.145 Judging by the Orestes diptych’s apparent adherence to a pre-established mode of representation, strongly Byzantinising in both execution and expression, it would presumably be the product of a workshop specialising in ‘Byzantine’ ivories, deriving their prototypes and artistic training and/or practice from the eastern capital. Rather than being an ‘original’ or a ‘copy’ it would be representative of an indefinite number of similar works, eastern and (to a lesser extent probably) western.

8. BASILIUS (WEST, 541) (Plate 8.) Collection: (left panel) Florence, Museo Nazionale del Bargello;146 (right panel) Milan, Civiche Raccolte d’Arte Applicata, Castello Sforzesco.147 Measurements: (left panel) height 34 cm, width 12.7 cm; (right panel) height 19.8 cm, width 12.7 cm. [Delbrueck 1929, N 6; Volbach 1976, Nr. 5.]

Description (left panel): The image is divided into two registers, the upper/main register covering approximately three quarters of the pictorial surface. It contains the fulllength representations of the honorand as consul and a female figure. The lower register, technically unseparated from that above, contains two miniature scenes: a circus-race (left) and a group of two male figures. The panel is crowned by an inscriptional tabula. The compositional scheme is closer to the large-figure than the tribunal type, but would best be described as composite.

General: The left panel has been reduced about 10 millimetres heightwise, the missing part being equivalent to the upper horizontal frame.148 It is otherwise almost intact, with only minor indentures along the edges and some indentations in the upper frame area (centre). Several drillholes punctuate the panel, three of which would have corresponded to the original hinge mechanisms (right), and four larger holes are distributed across the pictorial field. The background surface between the two main figures’ heads forms a slightly irregular convex with a rounded cavity the size and shape of a human fingertip (centre left), and a bigger convex area surrounding it infringes on the facial contour of the female figure to the right; a distinct difference in the colour (tending to a whitish hue) and texture (glossier) of this area suggests it has been broken and mended with a different material (gesso?) at some time.149 There is also a perceptible difference in texture and sharpness of cutting, in the form of multiple small and roughly concentric incisions, around the

The consul’s standing figure covers the left half of the main register. He is rendered frontally, feet placed slightly apart; his right hand clasps a folded mappa (an elongated, elliptic form) to his chest and his left hand holds a sceptre at waist level. The body has tall and slender proportions and is moderately plastic in its rendering. The drawn-out oval of the head is crowned by a round cap of hair, its densely incised strands falling in natural waves over forehead and ears; the pointed fringe and the braid-like sidelocks may be particularly noticed since they have counterparts in figure representations of the Justinianic period.152 The face is characterised by big,

145 Including the ex-Ganay panel and also the Basilius diptych, the latter of

whose representativity as to time and place of production is not easily estimated due to—among other things—its unique iconographical properties; see below II.8. 146 Inv. 8. 147 Inv. 10. 148 Compare Delbrueck 1929, 100. 149 Contra Anthony Cutler, who describes the facial contour as ‘a distortion’ and ascribes it to the carver’s ineptitude; Cutler 1981, 777.

150 These have not been commented on by either Delbrueck, Volbach or

Cameron & Schauer. 151 For the provenance of the right panel of the Basilius diptych, see de Juliis 1978. 152 Compare for instance the chlamydati flanking the emperor Justinian in the apsis mosaic of San Vitale, Ravenna (547); e.g. Grabar 1966, 59f Pl.171; and Deichmann 1958, Taf. 359, 368-369. For the sidelocks, compare also the representations of Anastasius cos. 517 (11).

34

almond-shaped and heavy-lidded eyes—outer corners drooping downwards—set deep below swollen and subtly Sshaped brows, a long and thin nose with a sharp tip, and a very small and thin-lipped mouth. The small and pointed chin is slightly receded. A stubby full beard is indicated through multiple small incisions. The toga costume is sculpted in rich and sharply outlined folds forming into characteristic perpendicular plough patterns on the sinus of the trabea. The fabric pattern of the costume varies between parts: the upper part of the trabea and the colobium wear the customary triumphal pattern of stars, except for the right-shoulder ‘bridge’ which is ornamented with a figural segmentum showing a togatus (en face) driving a biga, the right hand raised in an open-handed gesture, fingers spread, and the left holding a sceptre; and the lower part of the trabea, viz. the sinus fold, wears a repetitive pattern of stylised, palmette-like eagle feathers.153 The hem of the colobium has a laurel border whereas the longer tunic beneath is plain. The cross-laced calcei have broad corrigae with sharply creased ends. The scipio is a very tall and slender wand with a broad banded pattern and crowned by a small cross on a globe. On the consul’s left, and equal in stature to him, stands a helmeted female figure. She is rendered frontally, standing in a subtle contrapposto with her head turned in semi-profile towards the consul, and her right arm (erased) raised to embrace his shoulders, right hand cupping the right shoulder from behind. Her left hand clasps a monumentally proportioned set of fasces (see below). The woman’s head is round with swollen cheeks (obliterated left-hand contour apart) and a low forehead. Her hair flows out to the right from under the helmet in a single, serpentine lock to frame her face. The facial features are virtually identical to those of the consul: big almond-shaped eyes with heavy lids set deep below swollen eyebrows, a long, thin and sharp-tipped nose, a very small and thin-lipped mouth, and a short and receding chin. The helmet has the form of a plain, tight-fitting cap crowned by a single crest attached to a round jewel at the front. The costume is ‘Greek’ with an himation draped over a sleeveless chiton, girdled above the waist and fastened between the breasts with a large gem, leaving the right breast bare; the costume fabrics are sculpted in multiple, fine and beam-shaped creases. The shoes (?) are plain. The monumental fasces wear a fine brick-work pattern all the way up, indicating a case, and have an axe-shaped banner inscribed with a ribbon-bound wreath ornamented with an oval ‘jewel’ attached to the top. Wedged in between banner and case are a pair of ribbon-like elements, most likely representing pendants.154 The figure may be identified as Roma.155

In the background, inserted into the upper corners of the pictorial field and partly overcut by the figures, are a pair of shaftless Corinthian column capitals, their pointed leaves rendered vertically. The inscriptional tabula rests ‘supported’ on these. There is no marked ground-level and the figures thus appear to be standing in mid-air above the scene of the lower pictorial register.156

153 The pattern of the consul’s toga, although typologically reminiscent of

155 Compare with Roma in Halberstadt (2) and also on the silver missorium

palm-leaves—cf. the palm-leaves/fronds in Boethius (6) and in the lower register of Areobindus (9 B), Clementinus (10), the medallion diptych of Iustinus (Pl. 16)—is identical in shape to the feathers of the wings of both the aquila and Victoria in the right diptych panel. 154 Compare the pendants fastened next to the banner on the fasces held by the female personification in the lower bust medallion of Philoxenus’ diptych (east, 525); Delbrueck 1929, N 29, Taf. 29; Volbach 1976, Nr. 28, Taf. 14.

of Ardabur Aspar (Pl. 22); see further below III.3.2. 156 Delbrueck explained this lack of a marked ground-level or demarcation line by proposing that some sort of plinth must have been painted onto the empty area immediately below Basilius-Roma; Delbrueck 1929, 101. In my view there is, however, no room for such a device, seeing that some elements of the lower register (charioteers’ whips, the raised hand of the togate figure to the right) almost touch the feet of the consul and Roma. Nor indeed are there any traces of any plinth(s).

The lower register is spatially dominated by a circus-scene, flanked to the right by a scenic compartment made up of two standing male figures. The two scenes are not distinguished from each other except by scale differentiation, the couple to the right being twice the size of the other figures. The circus-scene is in the form of a chariot-race with quadrigae. Four teams displayed in two horizontal levels move in opposite directions along a horizontal divider. They are identically rendered, each set of horses being conceived as one body with front legs springing upwards and an additional three heads and sets of legs stapled on top, and with drivers leaning forward, whips in hand. Characteristic details are rendered with great care: the caps and strapped costumes of the charioteers, the six-spoked wheels of the quadrigae, the horses’ harnesses and bound tails. Dividing the two levels of the race is a spina, recognised by the pair of triple-cone metae marking its ends. The figure-couple to the right consists of a larger man wearing a plain contabulate toga (right) and a smaller figure in a long and sleeved tunic (left). The togatus’s figure is rendered almost frontally, his right arm is raised high with two digits of the hand extended in the gesture of adlocutio, and he clasps a rectangular object with frame and a horizontal cut across the centre in front of his body (waist). His shoes display cross-hatched markings suggestive of corrigae. The smaller figure stands turned in semi-profile towards the other, his head very slightly raised and the arms lowered along the sides of his body. The faces and cap-shaped coiffures of both figures are (necessarily) schematically rendered. The lower part of the togatus’s face is damaged. The tabula inscriptionis is a horizontal band with a line border, edges slightly raised. The inscription, incised in tall and slim letters and in a single line, reads (from left to right panel): ANIC FAVST ALBIN BASILIUS V C // ET INL EX COM DOM PAT CONS ORD (Anicius Faustus Albinus Basilius vir clarissimus et inlustris ex comite domesticorum patricius consul ordinarius).

35

(Right panel:) What remains of the image is essentially intact, showing a winged female figure seated frontally above a large eagle and holding an imago clipeata.157 The female figure’s torso is slightly twisted to the right, head in semi-profile, legs only represented from the knees downward with feet placed on each side of the eagle’s head. Her right hand, resting on her left knee, supports the large and oval imago clipeata of Basilius, left hand holding it from above. Her facial features repeat those of Basilius and Roma in the opposite panel: slightly protruding, almondshaped eyes beneath swollen, S-shaped brows, a long, thin and sharp-tipped nose, a small and thin-lipped mouth, and a short chin. Her hair is parted in the middle above a low forehead, the front hair twisted along the face-line to end in a spiral knot at the back of the neck. Attached in the centre of the forehead is a globular ‘jewel’ from which arise a pair of elliptic elements with a deep central ridge; Delbrueck interpreted these as feathers158 but there can be little doubt that they are to be recognised as strands of hair fastened in a bow-knot, a standard feature of Victoria and Amazons.159 The large wings spread behind her back (displaying the same pattern as Basilius’ trabea in the opposite panel) and her costume—an himation over a sleeveless chiton fastened with a jewel between the breasts, leaving the right breast and shoulder bare—identify her as Victoria. She is seated on another of her standard attributes, the orb,160 the large and slightly flattened shape of which is indicated by a pair of crescent lines. The orb-mounted goddess is placed astride the back of a monumentally proportioned eagle, its body en face, head erect in profile to the left, and wings spread in flight. The bird’s feathers are shaped after the same pattern as those on Victoria’s wings and on the consul’s trabea. The imago clipeata held by Victoria shows the bust representation of Basilius (facial traits and coiffure as before), clothed in a chlamys fastened over the right shoulder with a fibula. The bust is encircled by the inscription ‘BONO REI PVBLIC(A)E ET ITERUM’. Two half-hidden Corinthian capitals in the background support the tabula as before.

scheme with a very small-scale lower-register scene in the left panel, the prominence of Roma’s figure (which has been granted the same amount of space as the consul whom she stands beside, not behind as in the other diptychs of the period162 ), the fact that Roma is unaccompanied by Constantinopolis, and the imagery of the right panel. The cross-tipped sceptre displayed by Basilius also presents a feature without counterpart in the corpus of fully figural diptychs. The division of statuses—consular (left panel) and patrician (right panel)—has precursors in two western consular diptychs, Halberstadt (2) and Felix (3),163 and the diptych, last in the chronological line of consular ivories, thus adheres to a representational tradition that appears to have been peculiar to the west. The choice of representing the honorand in a clipeus is however unparalleled, and so is the motto inscribed around the imago: ‘For the good of the state anew’. The latter serves to underline the programmatic nature of the imagery at the same time as it personalises its content; through its means the viewer-recipient is made aware that Basilius’ official statuses are reflections of his moral values. Both Roma and Victoria are presented as goddesses with the poise, attire and flowing hair (albeit in a late antique interpretation) of an ancient Amazonian type.164 Basilius’ Roma differs considerably from the more courtly-Byzantine Roma represented in other consular diptychs of the 6th century,165 whereas the monumental variety of fasces with wreath-inscribed banner and pendants she carries does not occur anywhere else within the western part of the corpus. The brick-patterned case, wreath-adorned banner and pendants do occur in an eastern medallion diptych of Philoxenus (cos. 525),166 but then on fasces considerably more modest in size. The typological correspondences between the fasces in Basilius and Philoxenus, who were eastern consuls sixteen years apart, could perhaps be regarded as a piece of evidence confirming that the consulship commemorated through the diptych was eastern and of the 6th century. The wreath ornamenting the banner may be identified as a corona triumphalis, investing the lictorian attribute with triumphal connotations.167 The manner in which Roma carries the fasces does not correspond to that of the lictor, who clasps the instrument with both hands:168 the goddess holds it with one hand in a rather leisurely manner, her free right arm embracing the consul’s shoulder. The physicality of the latter gesture, signalling friendliness and protection, has no

D i s c u s s i o n : The Basilius diptych may perhaps be characterised as the most exceptional work within the corpus. Not only is it a western-made diptych commemorating an eastern consul,161 but it combines a unique composition with a singular iconographic programme. The most noteworthy characteristics include the differentiated compositional schemes of the two panels, the combination of a large-figure

162 The diptychs of Orestes (7), Clementinus and Magnus (12). 163 Compare also with the diptychs of Stilicho and the Novara patricius;

Delbrueck 1929, N 63 and 64; Volbach 1976, Nr. 63 and 64. See further III.2.4. 164 For characterisations of the ancient Roma type in late antique art, see Toynbee 1947; Toynbee 1953; Vermeule 1959; Kleer 1984; and Bühl 1995. See further III.3.2. 165 Compare the diptychs of Clementinus, Orestes, and Magnus. 166 Delbrueck 1929, N 29; Volbach 1978, Nr. 28. 167 Delbrueck claimed that the wreath would originally have encircled the bust portrait of Basilius (in paint), but this cannot be verified; Delbrueck 1929, 101f. 168 See Astyrius (4) and Bourges (5).

158 Delbrueck 1929, 101. 159 Cf. the Victories in the eastern diptychs of Anastasius (B-C esp.), who

are all rendered with bow-knots above the forehead, and their counterparts in a couple of imperial ivories, among which the Barberini ivory in the Musée du Louvre (Pl. 20). 160 On the traditional attributes of Victoria, see Hölscher 1967. 161 Anicius Faustus Albinus Basilius, the consul of 541, was the last (private citizen) to be appointed to the eastern consulate and to the ordinary consulate as such; Cameron & Schauer 1982,128-131; Bagnall, Cameron, Schwartz & Worp 1987, 161f; Martindale 1980-1992:2, 174.

36

counterpart within the corpus except for Victoria in the opposite panel of the same diptych, who holds Basilius’ imago clipeata with a similar kind of friendly, embracing gesture. Nowhere else within the corpus is Victoria represented as anything but small-scale, emblematic and duplicate figurine (victoriola), and then only in eastern works.169 The eagle presents yet another exceptional feature: in no other preserved consular diptych does the motif enjoy such prominence and independence. The place or function commonly allotted the eagle within consular imagery is as a crowning emblem on the consular sceptre; on the sceptres of Boethius (6), Areobindus (9), Anastasius (11) and Magnus (12) it is seen mounted on a globe, spreading its wings and head turned left, according to the same pattern as the Basilian eagle. It also occurs in the diptych of Bourges (5), where a pair of confronted eagles ornament the architectural frame surrounding the consul. As opposed to these emblematic counterparts, the eagle in Basilius’ diptych is part of a scene. Several features about the circus-scene in the lower register of the left panel are noteworthy: its minute scale, which is unique among western diptychs (but occurs frequently in eastern ones); the fact that it is not formally separated from the image of the main register by way of some divider (also an eastern peculiarity170 ); and the reductive appearance of the spina, which features the triple-cone metae only.171 The circus-scene is immediately juxtaposed to an ‘official’ scene. The two are apparently contextually unrelated, but a differentiation in scale is all that distinguishes them from each other. The togatus (right) is in the act of delivering a speech; his plain toga could indicate senatorial status, whereas the tablet in his left hand, formally corresponding to a codicil—more precisely a codicillar diptych172 —indicates that he is an office-holder. As for the smaller figure accompanying the togatus, he neither performs an act nor wears a costume that denotes an official function. His smaller size, non-magisterial costume, lack of attributes and passivity clearly announce a junior and secondary status. Concerning the cross crowning Basilius’ sceptre, finally, the concentric scratchmarks and textural anomalies in the region around the sceptre-tip in my view strongly indicate that this part of the surface has been reshaped or replaced at some later date, the purpose being that of Christianising the panel, i.e. to adjust it to a new function/context.173 The cross now in situ is probably lesser in size than the original motif,

as suggested by the surrounding amount of empty pictorial space and most especially the disappeared facial contour and right arm of Roma. An eagle-surmounted globe or a buststand is equally plausible, or even a combination of these (i.e. busts or figurines on top of an eagle), after the pattern of some eastern consuls’ sceptres.174 Lastly something should be said about the attribution of the Basilius diptych. Its traditional attribution to the western consul of 480, Flavius Caecina Decius Maximus Basilius iunior,175 was introduced by Graeven,176 who argued that the formal and stylistic correspondences between the diptych and that of Boethius (composition, acanthus borders, ploughshaped folds on the trabea), the left-right sequence of the panels’ inscription (typical of western diptychs) and the representation of Roma unaccompanied by Constantinopolis are incompatible with a diptych issued by an eastern 6thcentury consul. Accepting Graeven’s interpretation, Delbrueck177 and Volbach178 among others continued to consider the said stylistic and iconographical peculiarities of the Basilius diptych179 as weightier evidence than the name inscribed on it, viz. Anicius Faustus Albinus Basilius, the name of the eastern consul of 541.180 Apart from the inescapable fact that the names and titles of the Basilius commemorated in the extant diptych do not correspond to those of the western consul of 480,181 one may also argue that the stylistic correspondences on which the attribution to Basilius cos. 480 were mainly founded do not appear particularly striking when scrutinised in detail (motifs correspond but not their technical execution); that the correspondences are only limited to the areas listed, leaving other peculiarities—e.g. the honorand’s hairstyle, the type of fasces carried by Roma, and the miniature scale of the circusscene in the lower register—unconsidered; and that no attempt was ever made at relating the diptych’s imagery to the personage whose name and titles accompany it. The problem of the diptych’s attribution was convincingly resolved by Alan Cameron and Diane Schauer in an article of 1982,182 where a fuller analysis and evaluation of the work’s technical characteristics were coupled and weighed together with an investigation into the historical facts about Anicius Faustus Albinus Basilius, eastern consul in 541.183 Cameron 174 Areobindus and Anastasius. 175 These are the names of the western consul of 480 according to the the

fasti consulares; Degrassi 1952, 94; Bagnall, Cameron, Schwartz & Worp 1987, 494f. See also Martindale 1980-1992:2, 217. 176 Graeven 1892, 216. 177 Delbrueck 1929, 100 and n. 2. 178 Volbach 1976, 31. 179 To the iconographical peculiarities Delbrueck also counted the crosssceptre, which according to him could not belong to an eastern consul; Delbrueck 1929, 102f. See further discussion under III.2.1.2. 180 Degrassi 1952, 100; Bagnall, Cameron, Schwartz & Worp 1987, 616f. 181 The titles of Fl. Caecina Decius Maximus Basilius iunior were praefectus praetorio Italiae, patricius and consul ordinarius; Martindale 1980-1992:2, 217. 182 Cameron & Schauer 1982. 183 The main lines of the technical analysis were presented by Schauer in a brief article of 1981; Schauer 1981.

169 Areobindus, Anastasius and Magnus. 170 Compare Areobindus, Clementinus, and Anastasius A. 171 Compare the spina in the Lampadiorum panel (1). 172 The tablet could for instance be compared to the codicillar diptych held

by the boy in the diptych of Stilicho; compare Grigg 1979, 117; and Shelton 1982, 163. 173 The imagery of the preserved part of the panel has apparently not undergone any changes of this sort, which would be explained by the circumstance that both Victoria and the eagle could easily be translated into Christian figures: an angel and St. John respectively. The panel was reused as a book cover, which is also suggested by the additional drill-holes distributed across its surface, but whether it was used within a private or official (ecclesiastical) context is not known; for information on the panel’s later provenance, see Delbrueck 1929, 103.

37

and Schauer demonstrated on the one hand that the characteristics and quality of the diptych’s execution do not correspond all that closely with those of Boethius’ ivory, which must indicate that the two works cannot have been produced by the same workshop during such a short timespan as seven years (480-487); and, on the other hand, that the diptych’s imagery in fact corresponds to the personal history of Basilius cos. 541.184 The seeming contradiction in the circumstance that a western diptych commemorates an eastern consul was resolved by showing that the known data of the honorand, a member of the Roman high aristocracy, place him in Rome shortly after the termination of his consulship,185 where he quite apparently commissioned this (and likely other) diptychs. The results of Cameron’s and Schauer’s investigations have met with acceptance among scholars,186 and provide the point of departure for my own discussions of the diptych’s imagery in Part III.

the horizontal frames. The left panel is altogether more eroded, much of the fine detail carving (such as the pattern of the consular costume) having disappeared. A number of smaller drill-holes are also distributed along the right vertical frame of the left panel, along the left vertical frame of the right, and more irregularly within the pictorial fields. The remains of metalwork found in both panels (right vertical frames) have been considered as originating in a later period, when the panels were attached to book covers.190 The frame has a subtly moulded profile with two parallel lines. Description (right panel): The consul’s figure is seated frontally, knees apart, with his right hand raised and holding a folded mappa and his left hand clasping a sceptre at waist level. The body is slight and doll-like with short and plump arms and thin legs, the oversized head resting on a swollen neck and slim shoulders. The head is nearly circular, with rounded cheeks and a slightly pointed chin, and crowned by a helmet-shaped coiffure of regularly combed strands ending in a sharp, crescent edge over forehead and ears. The face shows wide-set, large, almond-shaped and heavy-lidded eyes, outer corners pointing downwards, a short, wide and dipping nose, and a small mouth with full lips. Cheeks and chin are cleanshaven. The face as a whole is carved in few and simple lines. The triumphal toga is sculpted in few but distinct folds, the umbo (left-shoulder fold) and the sinus of the contabulate draping forming nearly parallel lines, the fabric being alternately ornamented with a stylised variant of the traditional star pattern (trabea) and a simpler lattice-andstarlet pattern (colobium), and hemmed with laurel-borders. A simple, line-bordered tunic beneath. Calcei without creased lace-ends. The scipio is a short and thin wand crowned by a quadripartite construction of superimposed motifs: (from the bottom) a globe, a Corinthian capital, a wreath enclosing an eagle (en face, spread wings heavily reduced), and a male figurine standing in contrapposto on a thin postament. The figurine is attired in chlamys, short tunic, low boots and balteus (sword-sling), and holds a short and knob-tipped sceptre (raised right hand) and a small and globular object which must be recognised as an orb, not a shield (left hand, at waist level).191

9. AREOBINDUS (EAST, 506) Seven consular diptychs attributable to Areobindus have been preserved, four of which belong to the fully figural category (9) (A-D), two to the medallion type,187 and one to the ornamental type.188 Of the four figural specimens only one is preserved in its entirety (A). The four figural diptychs display an identical composition (tribunal) of two superimposed registers crowned by a tabula inscriptionis: the main registers show the seated consul flanked by two male figures, and the lower registers scenes from the arena. The lower registers in Areobindus’ diptychs take nearly one half of the pictorial surface. The registers are unseparated by any divider (ground-line or other). The images of left and right panels are identical, not symmetrical. Variations in imagery between panels/diptychs are almost exclusively found in the lower registers. A. (Plate 9:1) Collection: Zürich, Schweizerisches Landesmuseum.189 Measurements: height 36 cm, width 13 cm. [Delbrueck 1929, N 9; Volbach 1976, Nr. 8.] General: Both diptych panels remain, but separately and in different states of preservation. The right panel is only slightly worn along the edges. Large parts of the left panel—both left corners and parts of the left vertical frame—are missing, and four large, triangular holes punctuate

190 The uneven wear of the two panels would seem to confirm that they

were reused separately; for informations on the panels’ later history, see Delbrueck 1929, 111. 191 Contra Delbrueck, who interpreted the emperor’s attributes as lance and shield; Delbrueck 1929, 109. The wand-shaped object is reminiscent of the lance traditionally held by armed statues of the emperor, but it is far too short and has a distinctly knob-shaped tip. And the globular object held by the left hand is small, perfectly circular and rounded, and rests in the hand level with the chest as would an orb (cf. Honorius in the left panel of the Probus diptych (Pl. 14) and the goddess Roma in the Halberstadt diptych (2)), as opposed to being large, oval and resting on the ground beside the figure as would a shield (cf. Honorius in the right panel of Probus’ diptych, and the left panel of the Stilicho diptych (Delbrueck 1929, N 63, Taf. 63; Volbach 1976, Nr. 63, Taf. 35)). Furthermore, even though the figure wears a balteus across the chest it does not wear a cuirass. Note the distinctions between the smaller orb held in the emperor’s extended (left)

184 The authors’ conclusions will be discussed fully in Part III (esp. III.3.2

and 3.3). 185 Cameron & Schauer 1982, 130. 186 Paulucci 1994, 19f; Bühl 1995, 221; Engemann 1998, 115. Also Martindale 1980-1992:2, 174. 187 Delbrueck 1929, N 13-14, Taf. 13-14; Volbach 1976, Nr. 12-13, Taf. 6. 188 Delbrueck 1929, N 15, Taf. 15; Volbach 1976, Nr. 14, Taf. 7. 189 Inv. A-3564.

38

The consul is seated on a tall sella curulis which spans the entire width of the pictorial field. Its slab-shaped seat-rail is supported by two pairs of relatively slender and curving lion’s legs, hairs forming into plough-shaped wedges, and feet with naturalistically rendered paws; lion protomes are inserted between seat-rail and legs, rendered en face with heavy rings between their jaws. The seat-rail is ornamented with a simple geometric pattern framed by a stylised laurelborder, and supports a pair of frontally rendered female figurines (sides) in flowing and girdled chitons, lifting oval discs inscribed with figure busts (imagines clipeatae) above their heads, and one leg placed before the other as if in a forward stride. Bow-knot hairstyle, dress and pose identify the figurines as Victories (victoriolae), albeit wingless.192 The extremely reductive imagines inscribed on the figurines’ shields display a cross-line pattern on their chests suggestive of contabulate togas. A cable-shaped cushion ornamented with the ‘triumphal star’ pattern rests on top of the seat-rail. The consul’s feet are placed on a low, box-like and perspectively rendered suppedaneum decorated at the front with a broad zig-zag pattern. Two smaller male figures are placed somewhat asymmetrically beside/behind the consul, the lower parts of their bodies discontinuing below the seat-rail. The left-side man appears to be slightly taller than other, who in his turn has a larger head, the effect of which is that the right-side figure appears to be standing closer both to the consul and to the foreground. The impression that the left-side figure stands further in the background is strengthened by the fact that the consul’s raised right arm overcuts him. The pair of figures are further differentiated through their hairstyles: the right man’s coiffure is an exact replica of the consul’s, whereas that of the left man is formed of two horizontal rows of shell-like curls. The facial contour of the left-side figure is leaner and more square than the other’s, but otherwise their facial features are virtually identical to the consul’s: low foreheads, big and almond-shaped eyes with downward-pointing outer corners, short and wide noses, and small mouths with full lips. Both are clothed in chlamys fastened at the right shoulder by a big fibula (identical in shape), diagonal borders partly visible on the front of the garments indicating square segmenta. A pair of Corinthian capitals are inserted into the upper corners of the pictorial field, partly overcut by the heads of the chlamydati. The tabula ansata has a geometricised astragal border. The inscription is in slim, medium-sized letters running in a single line. According to the eastern system it is read from the right/front panel to the left/back panel: FL.AREOB.DACAL.AREOBINDUS.V.I // EX C.SAC.STA ET M M P.OR EX C C OR (Flavius Areobindus Dagalaifus

Areobindus vir inlustris // ex comite sacri stabuli et magister militum per Orientem ex consule consul ordinarius). The lower pictorial register contains a small-scale scene with armed men fighting against male lions within a semicircular field separated from a row of spectators by a cross-barred parapet. Two pairs of doors, portae posticae,193 open onto the arena from the sides. The shape of the arena and the category of games there conducted make it recogniseable as an amphitheatre. The animal fight, which is a venatio (hunt), is presented in two horizontal levels. On the upper level two venatores (centre), backs turned towards each other, are engaged in close combat with two lions (sides), thrusting spears into their chests. The men wear short pants, scarf-sized mantles with square insets, protective armour (left arm and knees), and strapped boots. The lions are forced backwards by the force of the spear-thrusts, rumps hanging limply on the ground, tails between legs; they gaze into the eyes of their opponents, their sharp-toothed jaws open in a roar. The scheme is repeated, but this time with the pair of lions placed back to back, in the lower half of the field. A third man is positioned in the uppermost part of the arena (centre), running to the right with his left arm raised in an open-handed gesture (cheering?). Inserted onto the background field (centre right) is a disc—coin or plate—inscribed with a cross. Eight men (busts) constitute an audience; distributed in two symmetrical rows of four along the upper side of the parapet, they turn their faces to watch the action below. Some of them are curly and one is bald (far left), but otherwise these figures display hairstyles similar to that of the consul, and their reductive facial features (eyes and noses) reflect those of the consul and attendants. Six men wear plain tunics; two wear what appear to be togas (right). The two men seated at the outer ends hold their right hands cupped inwards level with their chests in a similar gesture to that performed by the consul Felix (3). (Left panel:) The main pictorial register is identical to its counterpart in the right panel, although with less of the finer details remaining. The lower register shows a different type of animal fight within a semicircular arena with two side-doors (the left one of which has disappeared). In the upper, central part of the arena is inserted a rectangular piece of brick-patterned screen or wall with a low door in the middle, likely representing a movable front. A cross-barred parapet separates the fightingscene from the spectators as before; here all wear tunics, but the finer details of their heads have disappeared. The fight is one between men (all dressed in tunics) and bears, the action being conducted on two horizontal levels. On the upper level a bear leaps forth from a side-door (right), its jaws having caught hold of a man’s leg (centre); the man tries to run away from the animal, making a leap high above the ground, head turned to gaze at the beast and arms stretched forward. What appears to be a false tail strains out

hand and the shield supported on the ground beside him; compare e.g. imperial coinage from Arcadius to Honorius/Theodosius II (late 4th-early 5th c.); RIC X (1994), Pl. 1-39 passim. See also Bertelli 1958:2, 602 (proposing that the ‘shield’ may alternatively be interpreted as an orb). 192 Wings are represented in Areobindus C-D; see further below. For characterisations of the common Victoria and victoriola types, see Hölscher 1967, 22-41 esp.; also III.5.1.

193 Chastagnol 1967, 57 and n. 4; Rea 2001:1, 239.

39

behind the man’s back. A second man (far right), half screened by the bear, issues forth from a side-door with his face lifted and his right arm raised in a gesture suggestive of shouting or cheering. To the far left is a third man of which only the head and one shoulder remain; moving to the right, he hides behind a one-armed figure, fully clothed in trousers and tunic and with a perforated disc for a head—a decoy dummy.194 On the lower level three men (centre) are in close encounter with two bears (sides): one man (right) is managing a stand with several rotating doors, a cochlea,195 in order to confuse a beast that runs in circles around it, tugging at one of his legs; a second man (centre) moves about with his right arm raised above his head, holding a ring-shaped object which must be recognised as a lasso; and a third man (left) performs a leap, arms and legs sprawling, across the back of a bear who sinks its teeth into one of his legs. Three crossinscribed objects are distributed across the pictorial surface: two discs (left, centre left) and a rectangular plate/tablet (centre right).

(‘Hängestreifen’) of the trabea is considerably shorter. Calcei as before. A small knob is added to the nether end of the sceptre, which is otherwise of the same size as in A, and with the same crowning motifs: globe, Corinthian capital, wreathencircled eagle, chlamydate statuette with sceptre and orb. Here, however, the statuette also appears to be wearing a paludamentum and/or cuirass. The representation of the sella curulis differs from that in A only in a slight variation of the geometric decoration on the seat-rail, and more frontal rendering of the seat cushion. Wingless victoriolae as before. The suppedaneum has the same shape as in A, but has a side decoration of ‘triumphal stars’ (front undecorated). The characteristics of the two chlamydati flanking the consul essentially repeat those of their counterparts in A: their slightly asymmetrical placement, the discontinuing of their bodies below the sella’s seat-rail, the closer physiognomical similarities between the right-side figure and the consul, their differentiation in height, hairstyle and facial contours. A big, four-rayed star is visible on the left-side figure’s segmentum. The pair of Corinthian capitals inserted at the upper corners of the pictorial field are almost hidden behind the chlamydati. The tabula ansata has no border motif, but the characteristics of the letter type are identical to those of A. The inscription reads: FL. AREOB. DAGAL. AREOBINDUSV.I (Flavius Areobindus Dagalaifus Areobindus vir inlustris).

B. (Plate 9:2) Collection: Bésançon, Musée des Beaux-Arts et d’Archéologie.196 Measurements: height 38.2 cm, width 12.3 cm. [Delbrueck 1929, N 10; Volbach 1976, Nr. 9.] General: The right panel is preserved.197 Both left-side corners are missing, but these damages do not significantly affect the pictorial field. The panel is otherwise well preserved, with only minor erosions. Three small drill-holes are distributed along the left vertical frame, corresponding to original hinge mechanisms, and another hole is found between the tabula and the upper horizontal frame. The relief is slightly higher than in Areobindus A. The frame has a subtly profiled moulding with a double line border as in A. The image displays very close formal correspondences to A, including the manner of execution, indicating that the two diptychs were created by the same atelier and probably artist(s).

The lower-register scene, like those in A, takes place in the arena. The outer structure of the amphitheatre (parapet and portae posticae) is identical to that in the right panel of A. The appearances of the eight spectators likewise conform to those of A. Six male figures attired in tunics of various lengths, short pants, strapped boots and the protective armour of venatores (compare A) are distributed across the field in two horizontal levels, a seventh man in toga entering from a door in the lower left corner. There are no animals. On the upper level four men, one of whom issues from a door (far left), move from left to right in a loose row; another man (centre left) holds an annular object with a repetitive criss-cross pattern in his left hand (a wreath?),198 his right hand positioned in front of his chest in a gesture of solemnity (?);199 a third man (centre) performs an expressive gesture of some kind (hilarity?), left hand on his head and right hand touching the chin; and a fourth (right), holding a spear in his right hand, extends the open left hand in a demonstrative gesture. On the lower level a fifth man (right) runs to the right with his hands raised high in the air, a gesture that must be interpreted as an expression of joy and/or victory; a sixth man (centre) kneels before the togatus (left), who extends a wreath over his head. The togatus rests a tall knob-tipped staff—a sceptre—on his right arm, and his costume shows distinct traces of

Description: The consul is seated in the same frontal posture as in A in the upper register of the panel, clasping a folded mappa in his raised right hand and a sceptre in his left. Corporeal and physiognomical characteristics correspond to those in A, except for a slightly less dipping nose and thinner lips. The triumphal toga exhibits the same characteristics of draping and alternation of patterns as in A, but the front fold

194 Compare a similar figure, but without legs, in Areobindus C. 195 All apparatus terminology derives from Rossella Rea’s compilation;

Rea 2001:1, 235-239. 196 Inv. A.185. 197 Part of the left panel, now lost, would formerly have been kept at Sorèze; Delbrueck 1929, 111f. Whether this did actually belong together with the present panel is however not absolutely established.

198 Compare Delbrueck 1929, 112. 199 Compare the right hand gesture of Felix (3).

40

ornamentation: squares and criss-crosses on the side and shoulder, crescents on the front, and a stylised leafy border (laurel) on the nether hem. He also wears cross-laced calcei, and his hairstyle conforms to the bulbous helmet type worn by the consul. The scene is richly interspersed with objects: cross-inscribed discs, rectangular tablets and palm-leaves.

Sella curulis as before except for the seat-rail decoration (a very simple pattern of circlets and squares framed by a dot border), the bigger and frontally rendered lion protomes, and the addition of wings on the victoriolae. The imagines clipeatae held aloft by the latter also display more details, notably a helmet-shaped coiffure with multiple vertical lines for strands of hair. The thin cushion on the seat is finely cross-hatched and the box-shaped suppedaneum has a symmetrically arranged pattern of ellipses, circlets and squares on the front. The chlamydati flanking the consul again repeat the essential characteristics of their counterparts in A-B: a slightly asymmetrical placement, differing statures, facial shapes and hairstyles, and physiognomical characteristics (of which those of the right-side figure are particularly close to the consul’s). The segmenta on their chlamydes are here more fully distinguishable: that of the right-side figure consists of a simple trellis pattern and that of the left-side figure of a regular pattern of four-petalled flowers. As in A and B the lower parts of the men’s bodies have not been rendered, but contrary to those cases the column shafts have—they would presumably otherwise have been hidden behind the men’s bodies. The shafts are spiral-fluted and possess tall and profiled bases positioned level with the suppedaneum. Corinthian capitals as before. An arch, decorated with a fine brick-work pattern, spans the space between capitals. The frame of the tabula ansata has a line border and particularly deep-split ‘ansae’. The single-line inscription, in medium-tall and slender letters, reads: EX C. SAC. STAB. ET M. M. P OR. EX C. C OR. (ex comite sacri stabuli et magister militum per Orientem ex consule consul ordinarius).

C. (Plate 9:3 a) Collection: Paris, Musée du Moyen-Âge—Cluny. Measurements: height 38.8 cm, width 13.7 cm. [Delbrueck 1929, N 11; Volbach 1976, Nr. 10.] General: The left panel is preserved and in a very fine condition, its only flaw being the lack of the upper horizontal frame. Two drill-holes are found immediately above the inscriptional tabula (corners) and another ten (plugged) along the vertical frames, somewhat unevenly distributed. Three pairs of holes to the right would seem to have corresponded to hinge mechanisms. The relief is comparatively high. The double lines of the frame are set wider than in A-B, but otherwise of the same type. The image corresponds closely in form to Areobindus AB, but the characteristics of its execution—which is also particularly rich in fine detail—deviate from the other (see below). Description: In the upper register, the consul is seated in an identical posture to A and B, with mappa—here decorated with a star pattern—raised and the sceptre in the usual position. The shape of his body does not differ significantly from that in A-B, but the neck is longer and the facial contour is distinctly square. The helmet-shaped hairstyle is however executed after the same manner as in A-B. A certain squareness recurs in the facial features, where the short and wide nose is shaped into an almost perfect rectangle, and the mouth has the form of a short horizontal line; a pair of vertical lines run between its corners and the inner corners of the eyes. The eyes are more wide-set than in A-B, more rounded and wide-open, without the almond-shaped contour or downward-pointing outer corners. The triumphal toga falls in the same manner as in B. The fabric pattern varies between garments: each star on the trabea within its roundel/square is unique, and the perpendicular front fold (‘Hängestreifen’) is ornamented with two large insets showing a standing togatus with a bust-tipped sceptre (left hand) and a mappa (right hand), the latter raised in the upper inset and resting on the chest in the lower. Each inset figure displays a cap-shaped hairstyle similar to the consul’s and is framed by a bi-columnar arch. The long-sleeved colobium is trimmed with a continuous ellipse border around the wrists and a wide, finely cross-hatched border on the nether hem. Calcei as before. The sceptre grip is of the same type as in B but without the globe beneath the Corinthian capital, whereas the figurine crowning the tip constellation wears a chlamys and tunic as in A. The sceptre as a whole is more finished in its details than in A-B.

The lower register presents a variant of the fighting-scenes in diptych A, framed by a semicircular parapet (cross-bars in the shape of four-petalled flowers) above which a row of eight spectators are placed. The otherwise empty space behind/above the spectators is structuralised by means of a single-arched ‘ashlar’ wall which, although clearly intended as an architectural frame for the lower-register scene, is nevertheless overcut with a good centimetre by the lion’s paws of the consul’s sella. The spectators are distinctly larger than the arena figures. In the arena, six men are engaged in a combined venatorial and acrobatic fight against six animals. The composition follows a centrifugal pattern with an emphasis on diagonal movement radiating from the centre of the field. On the uppermost level (centre) a bear attacks an egg-shaped cage lying on the ground (an ericius?)200 inside which a man is hidden; a pair of eyes and a hairline are visible between two slivers. On a central level a frontally standing venator (left) raises both arms high above his head, with index fingers pointing upwards in a victorious gesture, in front of a turnedover bear whose heart he has just speared through (far left); a second man (centre left), moving to the left, holds a lasso—a loose ring with a cord-like pattern—in his left hand whilst 200 Rea interprets this cage as a derivate of a very similar Roman war-

machine called ericius; Rea 2001:1, 237 and n. 109.

41

raising the right above his head; a third man (centre right), moving in the opposite direction from the other, confronts a wildly kicking horse, his arms gesticulating across the its back towards a bear (far right) whose body doubles under a forceful blow from the horse’s hooves. On a lower level two men (left) emerge from an open side-door, the man walking foremost striding with his left arm extended, hand open (in a gesture of beckoning?), and a lasso clasped in his right; before him (right), a wild ox (gnu?) crouches under the attack of a male lion, the feline mounted on the other’s back, biting and clawing (claw marks are incised on the ox’s abdomen); behind the lion (far right), a human torso covered in a coarsefibred tunic and crowned by a disc perforated by multiple holes stands erect in a frontal position: a dummy.201 The men’s attire varies, the venatores wearing the same light dress with armour as in A-B and the unarmed men longer tunics. Numerous objects are distributed between figures: round and rectangular plate, an annular object (coronet?), and palmleaves. The spectators have been rendered in exceptionally fine detail, with variations in hairstyle as well as costume; the figure farthest to the left wears the type of shirt with ornamental borders around neck and down the chest that is peculiar to representations of Goths.202 The detailed facial features of all figures display typal similarities with those of the consul and chlamydati in the register above.

The panel’s imagery and compositional characteristics conform to those of A-C. The central part of the pictorial field is, mainly due to the shorter and more curved legs of the sella curulis, vertically more compressed than otherwise. The artistic execution of the panel deviates considerably from both diptychs A-B and diptych C (see description). Description: The consul’s figure is seated frontally in the same posture as in A-C, with the mappa raised. The corporeal proportions are doll-like as before, but the lower part of the body has been shortened, thus making the torso appear oversized. It is almost flat beneath the costume, whereas the hands and short arms are rounded and fleshy. The egg-shaped head, resting on a very short, broad and sinewy neck, is exceptionally big, heavy and further emphasised through higher relief, and the cheeks are lean, the chin pointed and protruding. The hair does not form a perfect and compact bulb as in A-C, but has wavy strands ending in a dented edge over forehead and ears. The appearance of the consul’s face deviates on some notable points from the common Areobindus type (however general that type may be): the big and distinctly almond-shaped eyes have a curving lower lid and marked inner corners, while the nose is somewhat longer and bigger with widely curving wings, and connected by deep lines with the full mouth, which here has a distinctive Cupid’s bow. The triumphal star pattern of the toga, more small-scale than otherwise, displays the same formal variations as in A and B, except that the colobium has a thin laurel neckline border whilst lacking an ornamental hem border; the tunic beneath wears a broad zig-zag pattern. Calcei as before. The sceptre, carved in very fine detail, has a heavier and partly different top constellation than in A-C, comprising five motifs: a Corinthian capital, an orb (larger than otherwise), a wreath (laurel-leaves clearly depicted, and bound with ribbons) encircling an eagle, a minature tabula ansata, and (in place of the single statuette) a pair of togati. The left-side togatus is frontally seated on a high-backed chair (throne); turning his upper body towards the other, he holds forth an oblong and rounded object with the right hand, left hand covered by a fold of the costume. The standing togatus to the right, body drastically shortened, reciprocates the movement of the other; he holds a bigger, rectangular and flat object in his covered left hand. The identification of the objects displayed by these figures is made somewhat difficult by their minuscule scale, but since the figures themselves wear togas one must conclude that the objects are attributes of office. Interpretations of this figure-scene and the double set of attributes will be offered later on in the study.206 The sella curulis presents a variant of the type found in A-C. Deviations from the common form include the vertical compression of the legs, the significantly smaller protomes, the stylised pattern of the lion’s hairs on the legs, and the geometric ornamentation of the seat-rail (here rectangles and rhombs framed by a wave-and-dot border). The victoriolae are winged as in C, and their clipei are rendered almost in full so

D. (Plate 9:3 b) Collection: St Petersburg, Ermitáz. Measurements: height 37.6 cm, width 14, 0 cm. [Delbrueck 1929, N 12; Volbach 1976, Nr. 11.] General: The right panel is preserved. It is severely damaged along the left side, where both corners and parts of the surrounding pictorial field have disappeared. The panel has been mended in some areas:203 a part of the upper frame and tabula ansata (left), a detail on the consul’s sceptre, and parts of the spectator group and arena in the lower register (centre).204 Delbrueck assumed that these parts were exchanged for newly carved ones, but the colour and texture of the material as well as the technical details of the carving suggest, in my view, that they are reattached original pieces.205 The tabula inscription is slightly erased towards the centre. Most of the detailed carving has been preserved. The relief is slightly higher than in A-C. The frame has a triple-line border and a subtly moulded profile.

201 Compare the similar figure in the left panel of Areobindus A. 202 Compare Halberstadt and Orestes (7). It would appear that the

somewhat longer, roughly cut and straight-haired coiffure with longer locks over the ears displayed by this man were also particularly associated with Goths. 203 Delbrueck 1929, 114; also Volbach 1976, 33. 204 See Delbrueck 1929, 114 Abb. 1 and 2. 205 There are also some iconographic details of these parts, notably the sceptre, that suggest they are original; see further III.2.1.2.

206 III.2.1.5 and 2.3.1.

42

that more the busts’ contabulate togas are seen. The incised seat cushion is ornamented with ‘triumphal stars’. Suppedaneum as in A-C, here decorated with geometric patterns on all sides. The two chlamydati flanking the consul display roughly the same characteristics as their counterparts in A-C, but the taller left-side figure here also has the heavier build (compare A especially), thus appearing to stand closer to the foreground. The same figure’s coiffure has received a third horizontal row of shell-like curls, whereas the other—rendered in semi-profile in the consul’s direction, not en face as in AC—has wavy locks instead of the usual cap-shaped hairstyle he shares with the consul in the other diptychs. The facial features of both figures are however identical to those of the consul. Their chlamys insets are difficult to make out, but that of the left-side figure appears to be decorated with a single, large star. The architectural frame, squeezed in behind the figures and only partly visible, conforms to the arched structure found in C. The column shafts are screened by the bodies of the chlamydati above the level of the sella’s seat-rail but come into view beneath it (as opposed to the chlamydati); the shafts are plain with tall, profiled bases. The tabula ansata has a plain frame (compare B). Size and shape of letters as before. The inscription reads: FL.AREOB.DAGAL.AREOBINDUS V.I. (Flavius Areobindus Dagalaifus Areobindus vir inlustris).

and an oblong rectangle with a zig-zag pattern (tablet or apparatus?). Two spectators have been added to the usual eight, peeking out from behind those in the front row (left).210 The variation in hairstyles, physiognomies and costume—one man (far left) is dressed in toga, another (far right) in chlamys with a square inset on the front—is higher than in any other Areobindian diptych. The men in official costumes are also distinguished from the rest by their right-hand gestures: the left-side man raises his open hand in the direction of the man seated next to him, whose face is also actually turned towards him rather than towards the games-scene below, suggesting that two are engaged in communication (one speaking, one listening); the right-side man cups his hand on the chest in the same manner as the consul Felix in his diptych.211 The physiognomies of all figures are essentially consistent with those of the consul and bystanders in the register above. Discussion (A-D): The consular ivories of Areobindus constitute the earliest material evidence for the practice of issuing diptychs in series. Judging by the extant Areobindus diptychs, a practice of creating series of similar or nearidentical diptychs—or more precisely panels—was wellestablished, at least in the east, by 500. The motif repertory and the structuring of the image are the same throughout the series. The upper register, showing the consul, is identically rendered in all panels, whereas each of the five games-scenes presents an individual aspect or moment of action. At the same time, however, the scenes are exclusively derived from the amphitheatre,212 the semicircular shape of which provides a regularising structure to the chaotic scenic representations. But on the whole it is the regularity of the works—between panels and between diptychs—that presents the ruling characteristic of the Areobindus series. What distinguishes Areobindus’ diptychs from earlier (and western) ones, and what may evidently be considered as something peculiarly eastern,213 is that their imagery conforms to a formula allowing of only minor variations. The basic structure of the five images is mathematically determined. The measurements of the various parts are more or less identical (D deviating slightly), and the pictorial field is visually structured by three equally distanced horizontal dividers—the tabula ansata, the sella’s seat-rail, and the semicircular parapet of the arena. The symmetry between left and right, the central vertical axis marked by the consul’s figure, divides the image into two vertical halves featuring a (roughly) equal set of motifs: a column capital, a chlamydatus, a victoriola, one lion protome and one sella leg, four spectators and two figure groups in the arena. The slightly asymmetrical placement of the chlamydati repeated throughout the five panels could be the result of compositional prioritisation, where the consul’s raised right

The conception of the lower-register scene conforms to the pattern in A-C, with closest correspondences to C (including the architectural frame and the four-petalled flower motif of the parapet). The action taking place in the arena is of the acrobatic variety. On the upper level two men emerge from a side-door (far right), the foremost extending his right arm in an openhanded gesture (exclamation, beckoning?) in the direction of a bear immediately in front of him (right); the bear springs roaring at a man (centre) who swings his body upside down on a pole (leontus);207 a fourth man (centre left) fends off a wildly circulating bear (spiralling body, head down) with a rotating stand (cochlea);208 the head and shoulder are all that remains of a fifth man to the far left. On the lower level a man enters the arena from a second door (right), making an eloquent gesture with his right hand; in front of him (centre) two men seated in conical baskets suspended from a central pole are being attacked from below by a bear; beside them (left) a fourth man peers down at a bear from the top of a platform raised on poles,209 the animal moving beneath it. The men are variously clothed in short tunics, long skirts and short pants. The bears are all rendered with bared teeth, aggressively wrinkled noses, big and glaring eyes, and tousled furs. A number of objects are distributed between figures: a palm-leaf, a tablet (?), an anular object (coronet?), 207 The trick would go under the denomination of kontomonobolon; Rea

210 Compare Anastasius A-B (11). 211 Compare the spectators placed to the far left and right in the right panel

2001:1, 237. 208 Compare Areobindus A, left panel. 209 Citing Cassiod., Var. 5.42, Rea proposes that this construction be recognised as a tenuem regulam; Rea 2001:1, 239 and n. 112.

of Areobindus A. 212 Compare with the Anastasius diptychs, where the scenes are derived from different arenas. 213 Compare the other eastern diptych series (10-12).

43

hand with the m a p p a must take precedence over the symmetrical placement of any secondary figure; a similar consideration might possibly also explain the omission of the lower parts of the same figures’ bodies, seeing that the visual effect created by the distinct shape of the sella would have been muddled by having too many elements in its vicinity. This technique of reduction has however not been practised in any of the other eastern consuls’ diptychs, where the pair of city goddesses take the chlamydati’s place,214 a circumstance which could suggest that the dignity—human or suprahuman—of the figures concerned had a bearing on their representation. Of the five faces of Areobindus represented in these fully figural diptychs, that of D in particular deviates from the type conformed to (with some smaller variations) in A-C. When compared with Areobindus’ face as represented in the two medallion diptychs,215 the physiognomical characteristics become yet further diffused. As in most western diptychs, the consul’s facial characteristics are reflected in the secondary figures, so that all conform to a common type. In Areobindus a particularly close resemblance is found between the consul and the right-hand attendant (A-C especially); in fact, a similar degree of resemblance is witnessed in no other preserved consular diptych, western or eastern. The consul’s insignia present formally evolved variants of the traditional types as exemplified in the earlier (western) diptychs, but their appearances are not altogether the same. The shape of the sella curulis seems representative of a peculiarly eastern conception of the insignium; tall, wide, and visually prominent, it has a structuralising, even tectonic influence on the image as a whole. Its monumentality is further accentuated by the addition of victoriolae on the seatrail. The emblems crowning the sceptre, including the wreathencircled eagle and the imperial statuette holding the insignia of rulership (diptychs A-C), constitute traditional motifs within Roman-imperial art. Their combination on top of a consul’s sceptre, however, occurs here for the first and, if one may judge by the preserved corpus, the only time. The pair of togati surmounting the sceptre in diptych D on the other hand may be viewed as a scenic compartment in its own right. It has convincingly been proposed that the scene represents the emperor’s conferral of insignia on an appointed consul, presumably Areobindus himself.216 Both figure-types represent the emperor—in this case Anastasius I—as performing a certain function (real or symbolic), as opposed to the busts/heads crowning the sceptres of other consuls. The scale differentiations between figures both within and between pictorial registers are equally carried out in all five panels. The most drastic scale differentiation is of course between registers, the figures of the upper register being considerably larger than those in the lower. The differentiations within each register are more subtle: in the upper register the consul’s figure is larger than the attendants’, in the lower register the spectators are larger than

the men and animals in the arena, whereas the venatores and acrobats are oversized in relation to the animals.217 In the upper register the secondary figures are further distinguished from the consul by being placed in a further plane, viz. in the background. As most of their upper bodies are hidden behind the consul and his sella, and their lower bodies are left out altogether, these figures would more correctly be characterised as busts. The chief aim of reducing the lower register figures to a minimal scale would be to present the viewer with as rich and as varied scenes as possible. The lower-register scenes contrast strongly with the hieratic scenes of the upper registers in being much less regularised. Even if a certain tendency towards symmetry along the central vertical axis may be detected, its effect is neutralised by the formal variations in the figures themselves. The variation of poses, angles, focal points, directions of movement, clothes, equipment, and to some extent hairstyles in the human figures, and the variation of species in the animals, combine to lend the images physicality and temporality, as does the fact that no two arena scenes are alike. Apart from constituting the only space where the artist could let loose his creativity, the scenic variations of the lower registers naturally served the function of presenting the viewer-recipient with all-round representations of the spectrum of games categories performed during the consular celebrations.218 To this ‘all-roundness’ are also counted the audience attending the games in the amphitheatre and selected parts of the amphitheatre itself. The inclusion of an audience is found in the Areobindus diptychs for the first time.

10. CLEMENTINUS (EAST, 513) (Plate 10.) Collection: Liverpool, National Museums Liverpool.219 Measurements: height 38.4 cm, width 12.3 cm.220 [Delbrueck 1929, N 16; Volbach 1976, Nr. 15.] General: Both panels are preserved and in good condition, with only some minor erosions in the more protruding parts in the centre of each (the consul’s figure). A horizontal cut running the width of the left panel (across sella curulis and suppedaneum) indicates it has been severed and reassembled at some point. The frames have been cut down in order to fit the panels into marquetry frames;221 what remains of the frames suggests they conformed to the simple lined-bordered 217 Compare Bourges (5). 218 See further III.4.1. 219 Inv. M 10036. 220 Measurements refer to the diptych in its present format; original

measurements unknown. 221 Whether this reduction took place prior to the framing (18th c.) remains unclear; the panels within their frames are reproduced in Gibson 1994, Pls. VIII a-b. See also Buckton 1994, 71. As the 8th-c. liturgical inscriptions on the back of the panels make clear, the diptych has been reused by the church; see Delbrueck 1929, 120f (with Abb.1); and Sansterre 1984.

214 Clementinus and Magnus; compare also Orestes (7). 215 Delbrueck 1929, N 13 and 14, Taf. 13 and 14; Volbach 1976, Nr. 12

and 13, Taf. 6. 216 Delbrueck 1929, 109, 114f. See further III.2.1.5 and 2.3.1.

44

type found in other eastern diptychs.222 Two clusters of small holes are located close to the right vertical frame in the lower half of the left panel. The relief is moderately high. The images of the two panels are identical except in some minor details of ornamentation. The pictorial field is subdivided into three horizontal registers: the larger central register shows the seated consul flanked by two female figures; the upper register, separated from the central by a tabula ansata, is composed of two imagines clipeatae and a cross, and the lower register shows two smaller figures carrying sacks. The compositional scheme conforms to that of the tribunal type.

the feet of the sella are two superimposed suppedanea, a smaller one placed on top of a bigger, ornamented with a bold roundel-and-rhomb pattern on the front and a trellis-like pattern on the top (upper plinth). Placed symmetrically beside the consul, behind the sella curulis, are two larger female figures, rendered in their entire statures but with more fully sculpted upper bodies (above the level of the sella). Their facial characteristics correspond closely to the consul’s, but the facial contours are heavier and more rounded. Their body shapes, hairstyle (parted centrally and swept back over the ears according to a classical ‘Greek’ mode), ornaments (jewellery collars and earrings), the finely cross-hatched segmenta of their chlamydes, their long and line-bordered tunics and ornamental sandals are identical, whereas their attributes and gestures differ. The left-side figure wears a triple-crested helmet with a double row of pearls encircling the cap; she holds a globule inscribed with a Greek A with her right hand in front of her chest, and a tall and slender sceptre with knobs at both ends in her left, resting it on the shoulder. The right-side figure wears a helmet with a single crest and cap decorated with double pearl-strings, and clasps a long, thin and subtly bent staff with an axe-shaped banner attached—fasces—in her left hand whilst raising the right in an open-handed gesture in the consul’s direction. The fasces banner is furnished with the bust representation of a togatus with a helmet-shaped coiffure. The figures, who display considerable similarities with their counterparts in the later western Orestes diptych, are to be identified as the city goddesses Roma and Constantinopolis. The three figures are placed in front of an architectural frame consisting of two Corinthian columns spanned by an arch. The column shafts are plain and disappear behind the city goddesses, and the arch’s lintel is ornamented with a simple double-line border. The tabula a n s a t a rests ‘supported’ by the capitals. Inserted between the tabula and the consul’s head, and overcutting the crown of the arch, is a large cartouche or clipeus inscribed with a star monogram of Clementinus’ name (KLEMHNTINOU). A pair of stylised laurel-garlands decorate the space between clipeus and columns.

Description (right panel): The consul is frontally seated in the central register, with knees apart, the right hand resting in the lap and clasping a folded mappa and the left holding a sceptre at waist level. The body has the tender proportions of a child, with undersized and slim limbs and a big, round head resting on a plump neck, and it is flatly rendered beneath the costume. The head is crowned by a helmet-shaped cap of hair with strands rendered in a pattern of broad and subtly wavy bands combed forward to end in an arched fringe over the forehead.223 The face is characterised by wide-set, big and heavy-lidded eyes of a subtly triangular shape and with downward-pointing outer corners, a short and bulbous nose, and a small and pouting mouth. The cheeks and the small chin are covered with a multitude of fine points indicating a stubby beard. The face is carved in few and simple lines. The triumphal toga wears an unvariegated pattern of stars within roundels (trabea) and squares (colobium), lined with narrow chequer borders; both trabea and colobium are significantly shorter than the underlying tunic. Calcei without visible lace-ends. The sceptre is a short and slender wand with a knobbed nether end, and a top cleaved like the open calyx of a plant (‘Blätterkelch’),224 holding the minuscule bust of a togatus with mappa (right hand) and sceptre (left hand). The sella curulis has an uncommonly monumental appearance due to the smallness of the consul’s figure, but otherwise conforms to what must be regarded as an eastern standard type:225 a slab-shaped seat-rail spanning the entire width of the pictorial field, widely curving lions’ legs, and lion protomes (here rendered in profile) with rings between their jaws ensconced between seat and legs. The seat-rail is ornamented with ‘triumphal stars’ within roundels and a dentil border, and has a pair of slender scrolls attached to the sides. The hairs on the lion’s legs are stylised into acanthus leaves and the paws display the same kind of swollen joints as in Orestes (7) and Anastasius (11). A thick and short cushion ornamented with ‘triumphal stars’ and finely crosshatched bands is positioned in front of the seat-rail. Between

Dividing the central register from that of the upper is the tabula ansata, here ornamented with a dentil border. Its inscription is in two lines, and in the same type as in Areobindus’ diptychs. It reads, from right to left panel: FL TAVRVS CLEMENTINVS ARMONIVS CLEMENTINVS // V IL COM SACR LARG EX CONS PATRIC ET CONS ORDIN (Flavius Taurus Clementinus Armonius Clementinus // vir illustris comes sacrarum largitionum ex consule patricius et consul ordinarius). The narrow upper register is composed of a central cross flanked by the two pearl-bordered imagines clipeatae of a male (left) and a female (right), both displaying features nearidentical to the consul and city goddesses below: round heads on short and swollen necks, plump faces with triangular and heavy-lidded eyes, short and round noses, and small and pouting mouths. The male, who also has the same hairstyle

222 Areobindus (9), Anastasius (11), and Magnus (12), also the medallion

diptychs of Iustinus (Pl. 16), Philoxenus and Apion (Delbrueck 1929, N 29 and 33; Volbach 1976, Nr. 28 and 32). 223 Cf. the hairstyle of Areobindus A-C and Anastasius A-C. 224 Jucker 1961. 225 Compare Areobindus, Anastasius and also Orestes.

45

as the consul, wears a diadem with three large front jewels and pendilia, a chlamys with a large, cross-hatched and pearlbordered segmentum (compare the segmenta on the city goddesses’ costumes), and a jewellery fibula with two pendilia; the woman wears a tall coronet-shaped diadem with multiple pendilia on her courtly coiffure—a single, thick cable bound in three places with double pearl-strings—heavy pearl earrings and a rich jewellery collar. The attributes identify the pair as emperor and empress. The cross in the centre is of the same type as found in the upper registers of Orestes.

large plates (missilia?) and a couple of bar-shaped elements (bottom left) that could represent ingots or bullion.226 Discussion: The close correspondences of the Clementinus diptych with that of Orestes have, as already discussed, received much attention by scholars.227 It is generally held that these correspondences, together with an alleged lower technical quality in the Orestes diptych, suggest that it is either a copy or a recarved diptych of Clementinus. An essential question when trying to establish the originality of any consular diptych must, as the case of Clementinus-Orestes demonstrates, be whether it is likely that each individual consul commissioned an individual variant of consular imagery for his diptych issue. A notion of this nature seems to lie behind Delbrueck’s interpretation, and it receives something close to evidential status in Netzer’s and later Bühl’s attributions of Orestes’ diptych. According to their view, any (later) consul’s diptych displaying close affinities with that of Clementinus cannot be original. The question of style, in the sense of technical quality, has been lent considerable weight as an argument in favour of the copy/recut interpretation of Orestes, where the evaluation of the craftsmanship between the two commonly, nay even automatically, puts Clementinus before Orestes on a qualitative scale. When scrutinising the two diptychs closely, the validity of the qualitative evaluations presented as evidence for the exclusive originality of Clementinus’ diptych (series) appears to be somewhat relative. The differences in execution are obviously not of a technical nature only, but also formal; and objectively evaluating the quality of these differences is rather difficult. However, some things may more or less easily be established. Firstly, the two works cannot have been carved by the same artist, as indicated by the dissimilarities in the way in which certain details that would not have been subject to the alleged recarving, such as the faces of the city goddesses, have been rendered. Secondly, the two diptychs display an equal degree of fine detail, especially in the rendering of ornamentation, but the corporeal proportions of the consul’s figure in Orestes are more well-balanced. The allegedly higher degree of precision and fineness in the carving of Clementinus’ head and face cannot, at a closer look, be claimed for a fact; the differences in treatment and texture between the two must be ascribed to form (style of carving) rather than quality, and in the case of Clementinus additionally to a slightly better state of preservation (the relief of Orestes’ face having eroded to a higher degree than that of Clementinus). Thirdly, as both consuls’ facial characteristics are repeated with more or less exactitude in the secondary figures, typologically as well as ‘qualitatively’, it is clear that types rather than individual physiognomies are presented in both cases. The plausibility of this conclusion is supported by the fact that Clementinus’ facial characteristics also display considerable affinities with those of Areobindus in a

The lower pictorial register contains a scene with a pair of confronted smaller figures striding towards the centre, kneeling under the weight of the bulging sacks they carry on their shoulders. Their bodily proportions and considerable plumpness characterise them as very young children. The shape of their heads and their facial features coincide with those of the consul, city goddesses and imperial couple in the registers above; their hairs have curly fringes. Their bodies are dressed in short and sleeveless tunics with banded decorations and skirts flowing out in delicate curves behind them to indicate swift and ‘air-borne’ movement. Dense streams of coin pour from the sacks onto a ground already covered with a thick layer of coins, discs of various sizes (plate), rectangular tablets inscribed with S-signs, and palm-leaves. In the background is an architectural frame: a piece of wall interrupted by a dentil-decorated arch spanned between a pair of short and thick columns with block-shaped capitals and plain shafts. The wall is incised with a regular pattern of small cuts possibly intended to resemble rustication. (Left panel:) The differentiation between the two diptych halves is very limited, consisting mainly of minor ornamental variations: the consul’s costume (variation in the distribution of squares and roundels), the seat-rail of the sella (here with a spiral disc ornamentation), the seat cushion (finely cross-hatched), and the decorative patterns of the suppedanea (the upper plinth has a voluted lower edge and circlets on top, the bigger lower plinth a wavy-line-and-dot motif between dentil borders on the front and a trellis-pattern on top). Deviating elements of a possibly more significant nature are the somewhat differently rendered costumes of the city goddesses: the left-side figure lacks the chlamys, her right breast protrudes from beneath her plain and sleeved tunic (a convex roundel with a protruding nipple), and the chlamydate right-side figure wears a segmentum in the form of a pearlbordered ‘triumphal star’. Only the right-side goddess’s helmet is ornamented with a double row of pearls, and the globule held by the left-side goddess is not inscribed with a Greek A. Additionally, the bust decorating the fasces banner (right-side goddess) is better preserved. Further, the sack-carrying children in the lower register have straight hair, and the objects on the ground include two

226 Compare Delbrueck 1929, 120; also Buckton 1994, 72. 227 See above II.7.

46

medallion diptych in the Musée du Louvre, Paris.228 Thus, the idea that the head of Clementinus should constitute a likeness of such individuality that an eventual reissuer of one of his diptychs should have considered it necessary to remake it is not convincing. Conclusion: the differences in formal and technical execution between Clementinus’ and Orestes’ diptychs do not tell us anything about the originality of either work. Nor may their near-identical imagery allow us to conclude that only one of the diptychs (the earliest, viz. Clementinus) can present an ‘original’ iconographic variant. Two works are too few to judge from, and as mentioned when discussing the Orestes diptych, the diptychs of Magnus (12) and Iustinus (Pl. 16) indicate that a number of consular issues made use of the same or similar kind of imagery.229 I would rather suggest that Clementinus’ and Orestes’ diptychs both constitute specimens of a compositional variant introduced in Constantinople some time during the first two decades of the 6th century and still passable in the west—and likely also the east—seventeen years later.

of Iustinus (east, 540).233 The attributes, gestures and attire of the city goddesses correspond to those of their counterparts in the Orestes diptych with one exception: the right breast of the left-side goddess is revealed through the fabric of her tunic.234

11. ANASTASIUS (EAST, 517) Four fully figural diptychs remain, in varying states of preservation, of a series issued by Fl. Anastasius, eastern consul in 517. One work (A) retains both panels. Another two panels (B) generally considered to derive from the same diptych (the so-called diptychon Leodiense) were kept in different collections until the Second World War, when the right panel (Berlin) disappeared,235 whereas a third diptych is preserved through a single panel (C). Finally, the lower register of a panel is all that remains of a fourth diptych ascribed to Anastasius (D).236 The images of the three better-preserved ivories (A-C) are very similar, being subdivided into three superimposed registers: the central register shows the consul seated on a sella curulis surrounded by an architectural frame, the lower register small-scale scenes representing various types of games, and the upper register a constellation of imagines clipeatae and figurines mounted on the superstructure of the architectural frame. A tabula ansata crowns the image. The four diptychs will be treated in an order determined by their state of preservation.

Much of what has been said when discussing the imagery of the Orestes diptych could be repeated for that of Clementinus. Displaying the triumphal ornatus and holding a mappa circensis, the consul sits enthroned on a monumental sella curulis, flanked by the city goddesses of Rome and Constantinople and framed by a garlanded columnar arch ‘supporting’ an inscriptional tabula and ornamented with a monogram shield; in an entirely separate register above, forming an abstract constellation against a plain background, are the imagines clipeatae of the Roman emperor and empress, Anastasius I and Ariadne,230 clothed in imperial attire and flanking the symbol of Christ; and in a register below a pair of plump children empty coin-sacks onto a ground covered by numerous precious objects and palmleaves.231 The similarities with the later Orestes diptych dominate, but there are some differences worthy of notice. The trappings of magistracy appear to be particularly prominently displayed in Clementinus’ image, a circumstance that is however mainly due to the childlike stature of the consul (he is significantly smaller than the other eastern consuls (9, 11, 12) as well as Orestes), which effectively emphasises the spatial extension of the sella curulis and also the greater stature of the city goddesses. The simple vegetative shape of the sceptre-tip, holding the bust like the chalice of a plant, has no direct parallels within the corpus of fully figural diptychs,232 but it recurs (albeit in a slightly more complex form) in the later medallion diptych

233 It would also be typologically related to the acanthus (Corinthian)

capitals holding the sceptre busts in the medallion diptychs of Philoxenus (east, 525) and Apion (east, 539); Delbrueck 1929, N 29 and 33, Taf. 29 and 33; Volbach 1976, Nr. 28 and 32, Taf. 14 and 16-17. According to a theory put forward by Jucker, the ‘Blätterkelch’ type was peculiar to the reign of Anastasius I (491-518) and after (viz. the Justinianic period); Jucker 1961, 123-125. See further III.2.1.2. 234 The revealed right breast also occurs in two western diptychs, Halberstadt (2) and Basilius (8), where it belongs to Roma (and in Basilius also Victoria), and in the eastern diptych B of Magnus (left-side goddess). 235 London, Victoria & Albert Museum (left panel); former Antiquarium, Berlin (right panel). Delbrueck 1929, N 20, Taf. 20 R; Volbach 1976, Nr. 17, Taf. 8. For a full background on the diptychon Leodiense, see Lafontaine-Dosogne 1980/81, 5. 236 It has been proposed that an additional diptych of Anastasius survives through a 17th c. drawing kept in the Royal Library at Windsor (inv. 9177); Osborne 1991, 241f, Pl. XVII. The arguments presented by Osborne in favour of the conclusion that the drawing represents a fifth lost work rather than the Anastasius diptych (panel) previously kept in the Antiquarium of Berlin (B, right panel) are interesting but in my view inconclusive. An argument against Osborne’s attribution would be that the lower register scene in the drawing appears to be an identical counterpart to that of the lost Berlin panel (see description below), something which seems not to be in accordance with ‘common practice’ of carving lower games-scenes, as indicated by the variegated representations of the preserved diptych series of Areobindus (9) and Anastasius.

228 Delbrueck 1929, N 13;Volbach 1976 Nr. 12. 229 Concerning Bühl’s theory that Clementinus’ diptych imagery is unique

to this consul, see II.7 and further III.3.2 and 4.2. 230 E.g. Delbrueck 1929, 118. 231 (The latter of which are not found in Orestes’ diptych.) 232 The sceptre-tip beneath the busts in the Orestes diptych has the form of either a ‘Tuscan’ capital (left panel) or a band-and-orb (right panel); see II.7.

47

A. (Plate 11:1) Collection: Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MMA.237 Measurements: height 36 cm, width 13 cm. [Delbrueck 1929, N 21; Volbach 1976, Nr. 21.]

eagle’s wings and head, the wreath-framed imago clipeata of a togatus (cap-shaped hair with vertical strands made out). The sella curulis on which the consul is seated spans the width of the pictorial field, but is otherwise comparatively low,238 with short and slender lion’s legs of which only the front pair are represented, and big, long-necked and furry lion protomes with heads en face and heavy rings between the jaws. The seat-rail is a thick slab with side-projections formed of slightly protruding squares framing female busts; the busts are identically rendered with nimbi, tall crowns, ‘Greek’ hairstyles, jewellery collars and big earrings. Mounted on top of the side-projections are a pair of tall victoriolae on orbs, each lifting the wreath-framed imago clipeata of a togatus (with the same cap-shaped and stranded hairstyle as the sceptre bust) above its head. These victoriolae display all the traditional characteristics of the Roman victory goddess: the orb, a classicising bow-knot hairstyle, a thin and gracefully flowing chiton girdled twice below the breast, and spread wings. The seat is covered by a rounded, finely crosshatched cushion. The mat-like suppedaneum (rendered from a side perspective) rests, together with the sella, on a thin and rectangular element that could suggest a podium; both suppedaneum and ‘podium’ are ornamented with a broad lattice-work pattern. An architectural frame encloses the seated consul from behind: on both sides, partly overcut by the victoriolae on the sella, are a pair of Corinthian columns with plain shafts and richly profiled bases. Above the level of the capitals is a triangular superstructure conceived as a gable with an ovolo sima. The base of the triangle (running behind the consul) has the form of a plain, line-bordered fillet. The shell behind the consul’s head fills up most of the tympanum but is not centred within it.

General: The diptych survives in its entirety, and in a fine state of preservation. Three pairs of holes correspond to hinge mechanisms, and a number of holes have been added at a later stage, both along the inner frames and within the pictorial fields proper. A crack 35 millimetres long is traceable from one such hole in the central register of the right panel (left), but it does not affect the imagery. The frame is narrow with single-line border. Description (right panel): In the central register the consul sits frontally, knees apart, clasping a large and sack-shaped mappa in his raised right hand and holding a sceptre in his left. The body is extremely slender, doll-like and flat beneath the costume, the torso being so shapeless as to appear aphysical. Corporeal proportions are almost entirely upheaved, head and hands being greatly over-sized, and arms and legs drastically shortened and slightly dislocated. The head contrasts with the body not only in proportionality but in being sculpted in higher relief. Resting on a thick and comparatively long neck and virtually nonexistent shoulders, it is crowned by a perfectly round cap of hair whose dense and finely incised strands close tightly around forehead and ears. The locks over the temples form distinctive braid-like patterns. The face has an egg-shaped contour with subtly rounded cheeks and features sculpted in relatively high relief. The eyes beneath the arched brows are large with swollen upper lids—the (squinting) irises are marked by deep holes, the nose is pear-shaped with a protruding tip, and the mouth, set close beneath the nose, is small with full lips and a distinctly curved Cupid’s bow. The face gives an altogether youthful impression, idealised rather than stylised. A shell (cockle-shell) closes round the head from behind, its petalshaped ridges creating a radiating pattern. The triumphal toga has a relatively large-scale star pattern of roundels, squares and rhombs on both trabea and colobium, lined around the neck and lower hem with a broad cross-hatched border and around the wrists with a continuous ellipse border; the underlying tunic is plain with a doubleline hem border. The contabulate folds of trabea (which comprise a right-shoulder ‘bridge’) form a distinctive pattern of stylised curves dominated by the parallel diagonals of the umbo and sinus, leaving the regularity of the fabric pattern undisturbed. The calcei are sharply pointed with long and rippling lace-ends. The sceptre is a short, slender and subtly coniform wand with a finely turned nether end and crowned by a quadripartite motif constellation: orb, Corinthian capital, eagle—here rendered in relatively large scale and in semi-profile, wings erect and tail fanned out to the left—and, resting between the

The upper register constitutes an extension of the architectural structure that frames the consul. It is a symmetrical arrangement of three imagines clipeatae alternated with two winged figurines, attached onto the roof of the gable. Placed centrally on the apex is the imago clipeata of a male in imperial attire: diadem and chlamys fastened at the shoulder by a large jewellery fibula, both with pendilia. Except for the heavier facial shape, the physiognomical characteristics and hairstyle—including the plait-shaped side-locks—are identical to the consul’s. The figure is to be identified as the emperor Anastasius I.239 On the lower level, to left and right respectively, are two clipei resting on socle-shaped supports. The right-side bust represents a female with a cable-shaped coiffure dressed with pearls and covered by a diadem with pendilia, and wearing a plain contabulate costume, a simple jewellery collar consisting of two rows of pearls, and earrings; her round-cheeked face presents a feminine variant of the emperor’s and consul’s. The diadem identifies her as an empress: Ariadne, spouse of Anastasius I. The left-side clipeus shows the bust of a male in triumphal costume. His facial characteristics repeat those of the consul and the 238 Compare the sella of Areobindus D in particular. 239 Compare also Anastasius’ I imagines in Clementinus (10).

237 Inv. 55.

48

imperial couple, but unlike the other his hair has a fringe of shell-like curls in two horizontal bands over forehead and ears. Based on his juxtaposition with the imperial couple and his physiognomical affinities with these, the man would be identified as a previous consul belonging to the Anastasian family. Placed symmetrically on both sides of the emperor’s bust, filling the space between gable and tabula inscriptionis, are a pair of winged figurines. Turning and striding in opposite directions, they hold a long leafy garland between them; the garland falls in crescent curves between their extended hands, disappearing beneath the emperor’s imago as if supporting it. The figures, which may be recognised as erotes, are short, with round-cheeked and smiling faces, chubby arms and legs and bare feet, their hairstyles are fashioned after the consul’s and emperor’s, and they wear short and sleeveless tunics.

The tabula ansata is separated from the pictorial field in the uppermost part of the panel. It has a simple line border with two small crosses incised on the ‘ansae’. The inscription is in the usual letter type and in two lines, the names of the honorand completely filling the right panel tabula. It reads (from right to left panel): FL. ANASTASIVS. PAVLVS. PROBVS. SABINIAN. POMPEIVS. ANASTASIVS. // VIR INL. COM. DOMESTIC. EQVIT ET CONS. ORDIN. (Flavius Anastasius Paulus Probus Sabinianus Pompeius Anastasius // vir inlustris comes domesticorum equitum et consul ordinarius). (Left panel:) Apart from some slight variations in the shaping of the consul’s physiognomy—a slighly more rounded facial contour, more wide-set eyes, and a longer and subtly dipping nose—and the more drawn-out facial shapes of the imagines clipeatae in the upper register, the differences between the diptych’s panels are limited to the lower register. The lower register is subdivided into two horizontal compartments by means of a fence with cross-bars shaped as four-petalled flowers. Each compartment has received its own architectural backdrop in the form of two broad pillars with simply profiled imposts and bases. The upper compartment shows a group of two confronted female figures, moving with long strides towards the centre, each carrying a pole crowned by a square tablet and leading a horse behind her. The women have ‘Greek’ bow-knot hairstyles and wear short and sleeveless tunics girdled below the breast and strapped boots: traditional Amazonian attire. The horses are ornamented with plumes and patterned shoulder trappings, and have bound-up tails. A palm-leaf positioned vertically on the ground-line between the women marks the centre. The lower compartment contains seven figures that fall loosely into two groups. To the left are two couples, one male-male (centre) and one female-male (left). Both couples are engaged in the same type of act, striking the same kind of poses: the right-side figure, standing frontally in a relaxed contrapposto, places the right hand on the head (eye, ear) of the left-side figure who approaches him/her with bent knees and hands outstretched, palms up; the figure approaching the woman (left) is hump-backed. The act performed has plausibly been interpreted as a healing of the blind,241 the genuflecting figures supplicating the healers. The costume of the couples announce their social distinctions, the ‘healers’ being more richly clothed and wearing jewellery (the woman) and a sheathed sword (the man), whereas the supplicants wear short tunics, are barefoot and have shaved heads, both their appearance and gestures being suggestive of slave status.242 The bald head, long and fringed kilt and weapon of the superior male figure have a decidedly oriental (Indian?) appearance, suggesting that the scene—comedic and/or pantomimic—involves some ‘exotic’ ingredient. On the right side of the compartment, three figures—one seated (far right) and two standing—are engaged in communication, as

The lower pictorial register shows a small-scale scene taken from the amphitheatre. The semicircular delimitation of the arena, separating the spectators from the fighting-scene, is conceived as a thin lined ridge. The structure has four portae posticae: one larger in each lower corner, and another two located at both sides beneath the ‘parapet’. The action in the arena is conducted on three horizontal levels. On the lowest level a man emerges from a side-door (far left); before him (left) a second man evades a lion by rotating a cochlea, the beast circling around it; a third man (far right), extending a long whip with his right hand, tries to run away from a leopard (as suggested by its spotted fur) who has caught hold of his leg with claws and teeth. In the central part of the arena a man and a lion move energetically around another cochlea. On the upper level a man (far left) runs towards the centre with a lasso between his extended hands; behind him a second man (left) peeks out from a side-door; a third man (centre), mounted on a saddled and bridled horse and with whip in hand, rides at a gallop towards the right;240 and a fourth man (far right) issues from a side-door, holding a lasso. All acrobats are attired in sleeveless tunics of varying lengths and marked at the front with circular insets, knee armour and strapped boots. Their hairstyles are of the helmetlike type, and their faces are characterised by round cheeks and very big eyes. Garments and apparatus have been meticulously depicted, as have the characteristic traits of the different animals. It may be noted that, contrary to the common formula, the lions are bigger than their human opponents. An impression of chaotic movement is created by opposing diagonals and a centrifugal composition. The two groups of spectators, five on each side, are wedged in between the arena and the register above; little more than heads, they throng to watch the action below. The figures display a minimum of formal variation, all sharing the same generic traits as the acrobats, and—except for a pair of curly men in the left section—helmet-shaped hairstyles.

240 The rider would belong to the equites category; Sabbatini Tumolesi

241 Delbrueck 1929, 132; Durand 1992, 56. 242 On genuflection and outstretched hands as signs of slave status, see Sittl

1988, 135.

1890, 156.

49

indicated by their extended right hands. All wear masks with gaping mouth-holes, archaic coiffures with long locks falling in orderly cables over the shoulders and crowned by rounded onkoi, and further long-sleeved chitons and cothurni, all of which identify them as actors/actresses in a Greek tragedy.

rounded oval, with a heavy chin and crowned by a round cap of hair displaying the same side-locks as in A. Apart from the size and general shape of the eyes, there are few similarities between this face and those in A: the nose is broader and altogether bigger, and the smaller mouth more thin-lipped and without the characteristic Cupid’s bow. A shell closes around the consul’s head from behind as in A. The finely detailed patterns of the triumphal toga includes spiral circles (discs or wheels248 ) on the u m b o and ‘Hängestreifen’ of the trabea, which are also lined with a narrow chequer border. The colobium is ornamented with a thin laurel border around the neck-line and a cross-hatched border round the wrists, and the underlying tunic has vertical cross-hatched stripes. The folds of the toga are sculpted rather than incised (as in A), accentuating the limbs of the body beneath. The regularity of the pattern is however unaffected by the folds’ curvatures. Calcei as in A. The sceptre has a turned nether end and is crowned by the constellation of a Corinthian capital, a wreath-encircled eagle (laurel-leaves distinctly made out), a miniature tabula ansata, and three heads on a row. The left-side head is very subtly shorter than the others, lacking the minimal part of neck that is perceptible on the other two. All have cap-shaped hairstyles. The sella curulis is somewhat taller than in A, the lion’s legs (all four represented) being stouter and rather reminiscent of horse’s legs. Lion protomes mainly correspond to those in A, but lack the necks. The seat-rail is ornamented with four figure busts framed by pearl borders: on the side-projections are two identical male busts in toga and with curly hair, and towards the centre, set within circular clipei and in semiprofile, are two smaller female busts with classicising hairstyles and tall crowns (the right-side bust is half screened behind the consul’s knee). The winged victoriolae stand on orbs as in A, whereas the clipei they lift are blank. The seat cushion, visible only on the left side, is cylindrical with ‘triumphal stars’ decorating the ends. The suppedaneum is rendered as an ornamental mat (lattice-work pattern similar to A) resting on top of a plinth. Except for the ovoli that here also decorate the horizontal lintel of the gable the architectural frame is identical to that in A.

B. (Plate 11:2.) Collection: (right panel) Berlin, former Antiquarium (lost); (left panel) London, Victoria and Albert Museum.243 Measurements: (right panel) height 36.1 cm, width 12.6 cm; (left panel) height 36.2 cm, width 12.7 cm.244 [Delbrueck 1929, N 20; Volbach 1976, Nr. 17, 18.] General: The state of preservation varies between the two panels, the lost right panel (Berlin)245 having been the most intact of the two, with only some cracks (right half) that seemingly did not affect the image in any higher degree. Two plugged holes correspond to hinge mechanisms on the left side. The left panel (London) displays more extensive damage, large areas around the right-side corners having disappeared, including the frame, parts of the tabula ansata and approximately one third of the lower pictorial register.246 The panel is otherwise in fine condition. A single drill-hole remains in the centre of the right vertical frame. The degree of relief protrusion is relatively high in both panels (from what may be determined from the photographic reproduction of the lost Berlin panel). The frames are of the same narrow single-lined type as in Anastasius A. The compositional scheme and motif repertory correspond to Anastasius A. A thin ridge with an incised line separates the central and lower register. Variations in the mode of carving between the two panels are apparent in some areas—the heads/faces of the consul and the imagines clipeatae (upper register)—but not in others, suggesting that different artists have been responsible for the carving of different elements. That the panels originally belonged together is suggested by their common later provenance.247 Description (right panel): The consul is seated in the same pose as in diptych A, holding the mappa—here a small, capsule-shaped oval with a cross-hatched pattern—in a raised position. The child-like and narrow-shouldered body is less disproportionately rendered than in A, and slightly more rounded. The head is however considerably oversized, and sculpted in higher relief as in A. The face is more of a

The composition of the upper pictorial register corresponds in the main to A. Formal variations include the physiognomical characteristics of the imagines clipeatae, which are similar to the consul’s, the gem-incrusted trabea and heavier diadem of the emperor’s imago, the addition of blind niches on the socles supporting the side c l i p e i , and a pair of columns/pillars with Corinthian capitals and diagonally brick-patterned shafts inserted between the side clipei and the tabula ansata. A pair of Victoriae here take the place of the winged erotes in A, frontally standing on small orbs (only rendered in half) between central and side clipei. They correspond

243 Inv. 368-1871. 244 Measurements according to Lafontaine-Dosogne 1980/81, 5 n. 2.

According to Delbrueck both panels measured 36.1x12.7 cm; Delbrueck 1929, 127; and according to Volbach, 36x12.5; Volbach 1976, 35. 245 Best documented through the photographic reproduction published by Delbrueck; Delbrueck 1929, Taf. 20 (V). 246 The missing parts were evidently still in place in the 17th century when Wiltheim published an engraving of the panel; see Delbrueck 1929, 128 Abb. 1. 247 Delbrueck 1929, 130f; also Volbach 1976, 37.

248 Compare Lafontaine-Dosogne 1980/81, 6.

50

typologically to the victoriolae on the consul’s sella (including their frontal positions and the orbs), but like the erotes they hold a long leafy garland (partly disappeared) between them, supporting the emperor’s imago clipeata as before. A pair of minuscule rosettes decorate the upper corners of the pictorial field, immediately below the tabula ansata.

PAVL. PROBVS. SAVINIANVS. POM. ANAST. // VINL. COM. DOMEST. EQVIT ET CONS. O R D . (Flavius Anastasius Paulus Probus Savinianus Pompeius Anastasius // vir inlustris comes domesticorum equitum et consul ordinarius). (Left panel:) Whereas the imagery of the central and upper registers with very few exceptions conforms to that of the right panel, the manner in which the heads/faces of the consul and imagines clipeatae have been executed differs from the other. The consul’s facial contour is less heavy, the nose is shorter, without a dipping tip and with accentuated wings, and the mouth is fuller with a marked Cupid’s bow. The consul’s traits are repeated in the imagines above. Parts of the consular insignia differ from their counterparts in the right panel: an orb is inserted between the Corinthian capital and the wreath-encircled eagle on the sceptre, and the side-projections of the sella are ornamented with Gorgon heads with long and tousled hair, side wings (?) and a snake above the forehead. The triumphal pattern on the consul’s toga is also somewhat differently rendered, with smaller rosettes within roundels and rhombs substituting the spiral discs on right-shoulder ‘bridge’ and ‘Hängestreifen’, which are also lined with a thin meander border, and a laurel hem border on the colobium.

The lower register shows an acrobatic animal fight, the semicircular arena being divided from the two groups of spectators by a tall parapet with finely detailed rosette partitions. The arena is reduced by the height of the parapet and by two door sections jutting out from the lower corners. The latter are in brick and have rectangular segments ornamented with cross-laid leafy branches (laurel?) over the doors. The lower horizontal frame functions as a groundline. The figures in the arena are displayed on three horizontal levels. On the lowest level two men enter the arena from the side-doors on each side; a third man (left) runs frontally towards the viewer with his right hand raised in an exclamatory gesture and holding a lasso (?) in his lowered left; a fourth man (centre) performs a somersault with the help of a tall stave (contus), facing, head down, a roaring bear (right). In the centre of the field a man, his back towards the viewer and moving in a spiralling stride, pulls a bear by the neck with a lasso, the animal’s mouth wide open with tongue dangling as if in suffocation; to left and right are a pair of anthropomorphic shapes with perforated discs for heads and covered by a coarse-fibred material: dummies.249 On the upper level a man moves with open and raised arms towards the viewer (left); beside him (centre) a pair of men placed in conical baskets attached to a pole by ropes—the latter of which the men pull at in order to elevate (or lower) themselves—are being attacked by a bear. The men are clothed in the usual outfit: sleeveless tunics of varying lengths and decorated at the front/back with round insets, and strapped boots; the tunics sweep in spiralling folds around their legs to indicate movement. The faces are rendered in minute detail and the hairstyles are uncommonly varied. A number of objects are dispersed between the figures: two larger, cross-inscribed discs, one smaller plain disc, and an oblong object with transverse lines (a metal bar?). The spectators are, as in A, divided into two groups of five, tightly packed together in the limited corner fields between the arena and the register above. Only their heads are visible, chins resting on top of the parapet. The formal repetitiveness of the groups is disrupted by the raised hand of the man in the lower left corner, another man turning away from the fighting scene (far right), and the variety of hairstyles.

The lower register presents a variant of the bi-compartment scheme found in the left panel of Anastasius A, including the dividing fence. The upper scenic compartment chiefly corresponds to that of A, with two vigorously striding confronted female figures in Amazonian attire, leading plumed horses and carrying square tablets on poles in front of them; here, however, the tablets are ornamented with crosses. No palm-leaf or other element marks the centre. The architectural frame (sides) is conceived as a pair of portal buildings with brick walls and broken tiled roofs. What remains of the lower scenic compartment shows four male figures. To the left a man and a boy, both with shaved heads and short and sleeveless tunics, move towards a third man (centre), hailing and supplicating him with outstretched hands and bent knees (the boy); as opposed to the other figures, their eyes lack irises, suggesting blindness. The object of their address stands in a frontal contrapposto and something similar to heroic nudity, wearing only short pants and a mantle flung over one shoulder; his hairstyle may also be compared to the close curls of a Greek hero figure. The man rests his extended right hand on the boy’s head in a gesture of blessing or healing, clasping a wand crowned by a cluster-shaped element (a thyrsos?) in his left. The scene would, like its counterpart in diptych A, most likely represent a healing of the blind.250 The shaved head and bust (apparently clothed in a tunic) is all that remains of a fourth man (centre right), who, bending forward to the left, has a

The inscriptional tabula is of the same type as in diptych A, but without the small incised crosses on the ‘ansae.’ The inscription reads as before, but with one slight alteration in the spelling, from right to left panel: FL. ANASTASIVS.

250 Lafontaine-Dosogne suggests that the gesture of the man in the centre

249 Delbrueck interpreted these figures as ‘Gladiatorenphantome mit

be interpreted as manumissio; Lafontaine-Dosogne 1980/81, 6f. This however seems a less plausible interpretation in view of the far from patronus-like appearance (costume) of the man.

Kettenpanzer und Kugelhelm’ (Delbrueck 1929, 130); compare with the similar dummy in Areobindus C.

51

crab dangling from his nose.251 The background architecture is in the form of a brick wall with an arched niche (left)252 and an arcade.

constellation as in the right panel of B: Corinthian capital, wreath-encircled eagle, tabula ansata, and a row of three heads, the left one of which is very slightly shorter than the others. The general shape of the sella curulis conforms to the type in B, but the rendering of the seat-rail presents yet another variation, pearl borders excepted. The side-projections are here reduced in size, thus appearing to be receded in relation to the rest of the seat, and each projection shows a minute head—a globule with two dots for eyes and a crescent line marking the fringe of the hair—framed by a geometric border. The middle section of the seat-rail is conceived as a symmetrically composed frieze, showing a confronted procession of identical female figures attired in tall crowns and long, flowing garments, moving with bent knees and holding forth cylindrical objects with their cloth-covered hands. The victoriolae mounted on the seat-rail are without orbs. Suppedaneum as in B. The architectural frame is virtually identical to that in B (right panel in particular).

C. (Plate 11:3 a.) Collection: Verona, Biblioteca Capitolare. Measurements: height 36 cm, width 13.5 cm. [Delbrueck 1929, N 19; Volbach 1976, Nr. 20.] General: The left panel is preserved. Some slight damage includes two larger indentations in the right vertical frame (in the region of the holes from the hinge mechanisms), a couple of cracks in the upper right corner of the panel, and the missing central part of the consul’s sceptre. A relatively large number of irregularly distributed drill-holes of varying sizes punctuate the panel, both along the frames and within the pictorial field; one of these, a big hole, has erased part of the left side-projection of the consul’s sella, another has deleted one of his feet (right), and a semicircular piece of the trabea hem (centre) is missing. The panel is evenly eroded, most of the figures’ faces and the finer details of the consular insignia having disappeared. Letters and figures have been incised into the plain background field on both sides of the consul’s figure (not original). What remains of the frame (the panel has at one time been fitted into a wooden frame) conforms to the plain, slightly rounded and line-bordered type. The composition and execution of the panel’s imagery display considerable affinities with those of Anastasius B, the left panel in particular, indicating that they were partly or wholly carved by the same artist(s).

The upper register displays the same scheme as in B. The imagines clipeatae, although worn, closely resemble their counterparts in the left panel of B (including the rendering of their attire), whereas the Victoriae conform typologically to those in the right panel of the same diptych. The architectural frame includes the same kind of brick pillars as in B, but here with plain imposts rendered diagonally ‘in perspective’. The lower register is in two horizontal compartments, after the pattern in the left panels of A-B. The upper compartment shows the horse-leading and tabula-carrying (tabulae blank as in A) Amazonian figures, as in B framed by brick portal buildings in the background. The lower compartment contains a multi-figure scene roughly falling into three. A left-side group consists of four boys and three men standing en face in two rows. The boys stand in the front, forming two pairs and leaning towards the centre, arms held in the same curved manner with hands on flanks. The men form a back row: the man in the centre holds an oblong object (a folded cloth?) in his right hand, which is positioned level with his abdomen; the left-side man plays a multi-piped wind instrument (pan-pipes?), and the right-side man stands in the same pose as the boys. All figures wear tunics and tall boots. Judging by the flutist’s presence the group must be one of musicians, the boys and one man forming a choir directed (possibly) by the man with the folded cloth. In the right half of the compartment a man (centre right) performs a juggling act with balls, simultaneously throwing them in the air and balancing them on his forehead, arms and legs. In front of the juggler (right) a boy, bending forward, applies with both hands a pointed object to the nether part of an upright tube which, in its turn, is part of a larger multi-piped construction. Behind this construction stands another man with his hands disappearing behind the pipes and his face turned towards the musicians. The construction would be identified as a water organ, the man behind it consequently as an organist accompanying the

Description: The consul’s figure is represented in the same mode as in A-B, with the mappa (a patterned capsule as in B) raised. The body is somewhat shorter than in the other diptychs, but otherwise similar in proportions, and head shape and hairstyle peculiarities also correspond to A-B. The face presents a variant of the type found in B, left panel especially, including the shapes of nose and mouth (a Cupid’s bow is still traceable). The shell motif behind the consul’s head is identical to that in B. The renderings of the consular toga, including triumphal pattern, hem borders and lines of draping, closely resemble their equivalents in the left panel of B, as do the calcei. The sceptre, partly damaged and heavily eroded, appears to have been crowned by the same type of tripartite 251 The lost part of this figure and the figure elements found to the right of

it are reproduced in the aforementioned engraving by Natalis/Wiltheim (Lafontaine-Dosogne 1980/81, 15 Fig. 7) and in a contemporary reconstruction by Schuermans published by Delbrueck; Delbrueck 1929, 128 Abb. 1, 129 Abb. 2. These engravings suggest that the crab-bitten figure was originally paired with a second bald man with another crab dangling from his nose, leaning with backbound hands over a tripod (far right). Both figures were barefooted and clothed in short and sleeveless tunics. 252 A similar wall was apparently originally found on the disappeared right side of the compartment; see Delbrueck 1929, 128f.

52

musicians to the left, and the boy as a manager of the organ bellows. The architectural frames in both compartments are of the same types as those in B (left panel).

somersaulting above him; a man to the left of the group supports a third child (preparing to jump?) on his outstretched arms, whilst a man to the right stands frontally with propelling arms (perhaps after having catapulted off a child). To the far left is a juggler working a number of balls (compare C). All acrobats are dressed in short pants only. On the far right is another type of scene: a tall figure in tragedic female attire—a heavy ‘Greek’ dress (palla, chiton), tall mask (onkos), a flowing peruque and cothurni—and a small child in tunic. The female character is apparently in the act of administering a blow to the child, her right arm raised above her head as if ready to strike and her left holding the child’s neck in a firm grasp. The child submits to the treatment with his right hand half raised in a weak gesture of supplication (?).256 In the background (sides) are two pieces of brick wall.

The tabula ansata is of the same type as in the other Anastasius diptychs, but here including the small incised crosses on the ‘ansae’ featured in A. The double-line inscription reads: V. INL. COM. DOMEST. EQVIT ET CONS. ORD. (vir inlustris comes domesticorum equitum et consul ordinarius). D. (Plate 11:3 b.) Collection: St Petersburg, Ermitáz. Measurements: height 10.5 cm, width 12.5 cm. [Delbrueck 1929, N 18; Volbach 1976, Nr. 19.]

Discussion (A-D): Like the diptychs of Areobindus, the four remaining consular ivories of Anastasius present a homogeneous group, formally and iconographically.257 At a first glance the correspondences between Anastasius’ diptychs and those of Areobindus seem striking, since the two series are so evidently structured according to the same principle. As in Areobindus, one and the same compositional pattern is rigorously adhered to throughout the four works, from which only the formal conception of the lower register scenes are allowed to diverge. Variations in motif repertory are restricted to such lesser details as do not disturb the regularity of the overall structure: apart from the games-scenes in the lower registers, also the figure motifs on the sella curulis and the sceptre, and the Victoriae and erotes in the upper registers. The complexity of Anastasius’ images is exceptional for the preserved corpus. Apart from an overall richness and fineness in detail and ornament, the degree of architectural structuralising of the image is uncommonly high, each register having received its own architectural frame. The exclusion of secondary figures in the central register (city goddesses, chlamydati or other) leaves ample room for developing this architecture, and makes the consul’s figure appear unusually aggrandised in relation to the rest of the imagery. The strong emphasis put on the consul’s head (through size and a higher relief) and the monumentalising shell motif and triangular gable enclosing it add forcibly to this impression. The architectural frame of the central register also provides a physical support for the imagines clipeatae in the upper register, thus functioning as a uniting link between the upper ‘sphere’ and that in which the consul is presented. This merging of consular and imperial registers does not occur anywhere else but in the diptychs of Anastasius and Anthemius (east, 515; lost) (Pl. 15).258

General: The lower register of a left panel, including the ground-line of the lost central register, is what remains of a fourth diptych commonly attributed to Anastasius cos. 517.253 Its state of preservation is relatively good: a couple of indentations are found along the upper edge (where the ivory was severed),254 and four holes have been drilled, one in each corner and within the pictorial field, for fastening the ivory onto a book cover.255 The frame is similar to A. The pictorial field conforms to the compartmentalised scheme in the left panels of A-C. Description: The upper compartment shows a pair of confronted and horse-leading Amazonian figures rendered according to the principle common to A-C, but here with the tabula-topped poles (blank) slung diagonally over their shoulders, leaving room for a laurel-garland (ornamented with a round ‘jewel’) in the centre. The architectural frame consists of a pair of broad pillars with simply profiled imposts and bases comparable to those in A. Below the simply cross-barred fence are two scenic subcompartments. A multi-figure group dominates the field to the left, all involved in the performance of acrobatic acts. Five men form a configuration (centre), the three middle ones standing on the ground with their arms locked together to support a man standing on his head, two children 253 The attribution to Anastasius was made without comment by

Delbrueck, whereas Volbach based his attribution on what he considered to be a close formal affinity between this work and the Paris diptych (Anastasius A); Delbrueck 1929, 123-126; Volbach 1976, 36. An earlier attribution to Anthemius cos. 515 (Pl. 15) was presented by Graeven; Graeven 1892, 205. Graeven’s and Volbach’s arguments are both plausible but neither of them conclusive, since it must be considered possible that the preserved fragment belonged to either or neither of these consuls’ issues. This said, I still choose to enter it under the Anastasius series for the reason that it does display considerable similarities with the left panel of Anastasius A. 254 The placement and width of these indentations however correspond to the empty spaces between suppedaneum and column bases in Anastasius A, and would thus very likely be ascribed to the original carving rather than to damage. 255 Delbrueck 1929, 126.

256 The scene could represent Medea striking down one of her children.

Compare a scene on a fragment (from a lower pictorial register of a consular ivory diptych?) attributed by Delbrueck and Volbach to Constantinople c. 500; Delbrueck 1929, N 53, p. 208, Taf. 53; Volbach 1976, Nr. 53, p. 50, Taf. 28. 257 Doubtless the heavily reduced diptych D conformed to the same principles as the more fully preserved works. 258 (Delbrueck 1929, N 17; Volbach 1976, Nr. 16.) Compare Halberstadt (2), Orestes (7), and Clementinus (10).

53

When comparing the manner in which a number of ‘key’ ingredients in Anastasius’ diptychs have been executed—the head/face and body of the consul, the shape and motif constellations of the sceptre, the legs and protomes of sella curulis, the suppedaneum, the heads/faces of the imagines clipeatae and the erotes/Victoriae in the upper registers, and the architectural frame—one is convinced that several artists must have collaborated in carving not only the different diptychs, but the different panels as well as different elements within each panel.259 For instance, it seems safe to conclude that everything but the heads of the consul and the imagines clipeatae in diptych A have been carved by one individual, all ‘key’ elements except these corresponding perfectly between the panels of this diptych. Likewise, it seems likely that a second individual must have been envolved in carving the lower registers in the left panel of diptychs B and C and of A and D respectively. There are also considerable similarities in the shapes of the sella legs/protomes and suppedanea between B and C, and between the Victoriae in the left panel of B and C. These correspondences noted, it must however be admitted that it is often difficult to decide what to interpret as variations in a single artist’s production and what to interpret as the creations of different artists. What has been proposed here concerning the contributions of several carvers in the creation of Anastasius’ diptychs may serve to illustrate the complexities of serial production, division of labour and work-specialisation among carvers belonging to the same workshop. The Anastasius series is unique within the surviving corpus in displaying such clear evidence of teamwork.260 The representation of Anastasius’ face and body basically follows the pattern found in the majority of consular ivories, particularly the eastern ones. The consul’s face has a stereotype appearance which it shares with the other figures included in the images: the imagines clipeatae of the upper registers, and—in a more general sense—most of the miniature figures in the lower. There is however an uncommonly marked disparity between head and body in Anastasius’ images: the body is highly disproportionate, shapeless, and (especially in A) entirely flat beneath the stylised folds and regular pattern of the costume, the short arms with their big hands protruding from the torso in anatomically dubious ways (again particularly in A); the head is greatly oversized and carved in higher relief, thus appearing to hover above the flat surface of the body, less a part of it than of the shell that closes around it. Anastasius’ physiognomy presents a particularly interesting case, since the five representations exhibit formulaic regularities coupled with variations in single traits that result in similar yet different faces. Common to all are the hairstyle, the basic shape of the eyes, and the short distance between nose and upper lip. The differences, which outnumber the similarities, are most striking between the two faces in diptych B, where the youthful appearance in the left panel contrasts considerably with the rather middle-aged looks in the right.

Divergences, although less pronounced, may also be noted between the two faces in diptych A (head shape, facial contour, set of the eyes), and diptych C presents the viewer with yet another aspect that only half resembles the face in the left panel of B. The conclusion to be drawn from these phenomena must be that four or perhaps even five different carvers were responsible for the five extant faces of Anastasius. The representations of the sceptre and the sella curulis in the Anastasius series present some peculiar forms that are not found elsewhere in the corpus. The sceptre comes in two variants: a constellation of an eagle elevating the laureate imago clipeata of a togatus (A)261 and a constellation of a laureate eagle surmounted by a tabula ansata and three heads (B-C), both superimposed on a Corinthian capital-and-orb (except in the right panel of B, where the orb is excluded). The large and independent eagle on the sceptre in A may typologically be compared to the simple eagle-surmounted sceptre found in the diptychs of Boethius (6) and Magnus (12), whereas the imago clipeata lifted by it corresponds perfectly to those held by the victoriolae on the sella, thus indicating that the same personage is reperesented, viz. the emperor Anastasius I.262 The number of three heads on the sceptres in B and C is curious since there was—of course—only one legitimate Roman emperor ruling at the time of Anastasius’ consulship. Whomever the two additional heads are intended to represent, there can be no doubt that the central head is to be identified as the ruling emperor and the consul’s appointer, Anastasius I, and that the right head possibly represents someone of higher distinction than the smaller left one.263 The wreath-encircled eagle is also found on the sceptres of Areobindus. The sellae curules of Anastasius are the only ones within the preserved corpus to display figural motifs. The crowns worn by the nimbate female busts on the side-projections in A and on the central part of the seat-rail in B-C would be recognised as turreted crowns such as displayed by city and province personifications of a generic eastern type.264 The objects held forth by the latter figures would be interpreted as offerings, and the procession thus as one of tribute; the shape of the offerings—a pair of superimposed rings—could suggest piled wreaths265 or bowls.266 The togati with round caps of 261 This type of constellation evidently also crowned the sceptre in the lost

Anthemius diptych. 262 Contra Delbrueck 1929, 124. See further III.2.1.2. 263 See further III.2.1.2. 264 E.g. Deonna 1940; and Bühl 1995, 273. See further III.2.1.3 and 3.2. 265 Delbrueck 1929, 126; Bühl 1995, 270. 266 Bühl 1995, 266. Compare also the gifts offered by a barbarian in the lower register (left) of the Barberini ivory (Pl. 20) and by personifications of cities/provinces on a missorium deriving from the Sutton Hoo ship-burial (London, British Museum); Engemann 1988, 104f and Fig. D). Incidentally, a fragment of an ‘imperial’ ivory assemblage (Munich, Staatsbibliothek; Delbrueck 1929, N 45, Taf. 45; Volbach 1976, Nr. 45, Taf. 25), attributed to the west and the middle of the 5th century, shows a consul holding forth an identical type of object consisting of two superimposed ‘rings’ with his covered hands. In this case the object has been interpreted as the codicilli received by the consul from the hands of the emperor (Delbrueck 1929, 183; Volbach 1976, 46); an interpretation that appears somewhat curious since the standard forms for the codicilli are either a scroll or a diptychon,

259 Compare Cutler 1984:1, 113. 260 The same cannot be claimed in the case of the other series preserved,

Areobindus; see II.9.

54

alternately curly and straight hair featured on the sideprojections in the right panel of B and in C must be recognised as consular relatives/ancestors of the honorand, the curly hair possibly indicating that the identity of this togatus corresponds to that of the left imago clipeata in the upper register (see below). Finally, the gorgoneia ornamenting the side-projections in the left panel of B do not appear anywhere else in the corpus. The amount of imagines clipeatae and Victory-figures distributed throughout the panels of the Anastasius diptychs is noteworthy. The number of three imagines in the upper register—which recurred in the lost diptych of Anthemius—deviates from the scheme found in Clementinus (10) and Orestes (7), where only the imperial/regal couple have been represented, but it has precursors of sorts in the upper registers of the Halberstadt diptych (2).267 The diademed emperor is attired in either the imperial chlamys costume (A) or the imperial triumphal toga (B-C), but the latter is otherwise only present on the miniature effigies ornamenting the consular insignia (sceptre, sella).268 The empress’s imago is here separated from and placed at a lower level than that of her spouse269 —a scheme that was also followed in Anthemius’ diptych—and she is flanked by a second male imago displaying the trabea of an ordinary consul and further distinguished from the emperor by his curly hair. The possible identities of this third personage will be discussed in Part III.270 The many imagines and imagines clipeatae found on the consul’s scipio and the sella curulis (seat-rail and victoriolae) make the imagery of Anastasius permeated with references to the emperor Anastasius I, his appointer and great-uncle,271 and (presumably) to other consular representatives of his family. The Victory figurines supporting some of these effigies (sella, upper register) invest them with victory symbolism.272 The erotes taking the Victories’ place in A also perform the task of elevating the emperor’s effigy to the celestial spheres, but typologically they may be compared to the sack-carrying children in the diptychs of Clementinus and Orestes.273 The lower-register scenes in Anastasius’ diptychs are unique in their richness and variation, comprising several scenic types distributed between the panels of all four diptychs: animal fights in the amphitheatre—none of which however is a venatio, the armed variant where the animals are hunted down and killed,274 theatrical (tragedic, comedic and/or pantomimic), musical (vocal, instrumental) and

acrobatic performances, and a processional scene involving Amazonian figures and horses. As in the Areobindus series, much effort has been made to present the action in the arena vividly and variegatedly, something which has been achieved by using opposing diagonals and different focal-points, and by introducing different types of apparatus, clothing, species of animals etc.

12. MAGNUS (EAST, 518) The two ivory diptych panels in question were attributed to Magnus, eastern consul in 518, by Delbrueck,275 an attribution that has subsequently gained wide acceptance among scholars.276 The attribution was based on the considerable similarities to be found between them and three panels carved in bone277 and commonly regarded as mediaeval copies of a late antique original, one of which (Paris)278 (Pl. 13 a) has a tabula ansata containing the inscription ‘H(FLAVIVS) ANASTASIVS PAVL(VS) PROB(VS) MOSCHIAN(VS) PROB(VS) MAGNVS’. As these names coincide with those of the eastern consul of 518279 there is good reason to believe that the inscription of the said bone panel is derived from an original; I do not know how otherwise to account for the correct sequence and spelling of the names, or find any plausible reason why or how this specific consul’s name would have been selected to be inscribed on a mediaeval pastiche. Thus I believe the attribution to Magnus cos. 518 to be correct, even if it cannot be absolutely proven. One must of course also acknowledge the problem of whether two diptychs or panels displaying a similar motif repertory and composition must a priori be attributable to one and the same commissioner. All that the inscription of the Paris bone panel may strictly be said to provide evidence for is that Magnus cos. 518 issued consular diptychs with imagery conceived as in the five extant panels (ivory and bone). The bone panel kept in St Petersburg280 (Pl. 13 b) has in more recent years been reconsidered by Alan Cameron as a 6th-century original panel of Magnus.281 It cannot be denied 275 Delbrueck 1929, 134-137. 276 Toynbee 1953, 275f; Grabar 1966, 284; Volbach 1976, 37; Martindale

1980-1992:1, 701; Netzer 1983, 166; A.D.E. Cameron 1984, 400f; Cutler 1984:2, 61; Cutler 1995:1, 394-397; Bagnall, Cameron, Schwartz & Worp 1987, 571. Contra Bühl, who argues that the preserved panels attributed to Magnus, ivory and bone, are all of an early mediaeval date; Bühl 1995, 204-207. For Bühl’s theory and arguments, see ‘Discussion’ below. 277 Delbrueck 1929, N 23, 24 and 25, 139f, Taf. 23-25; Volbach 1976, Nr. 24 bis (1-3), 38, Taf. 11; A.D.E. Cameron 1984, 401f. 278 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MMA; Delbrueck 1929, N 23; Volbach 1976, Nr. 24 bis (3). 279 Degrassi 1952, 98; A.D.E. Cameron 1978, 260-262, 274f; Martindale 1980-1992: 1, 701; and Bagnall, Cameron, Schwartz & Worp 1987, 271. 280 Ermitáz. Delbrueck 1929, N 24; Volbach 1976, N 24 bis (1). 281 A.D.E. Cameron 1984, 401. Cameron’s arguments in favour of a reattribution concern among other things the tabula ansata—which according to the author has not been planed down and would thus in all probability once have contained a painted inscription, presumably still in situ

neither of which has the appearance of two large rings stapled on top of each other. See further III.2.1.3. 267 Where the emperors of east and west are represented together with their sister Galla Placidia; see II.2, III.3.4 and 7.3. 268 Unless one may assume that the original issue of Anthemius featured the togate emperor’s imagines clipeatae also. 269 As opposed to the empress/queen in Clementinus, Orestes and Iustinus (Pl. 16). 270 III.3.4. 271 E.g. Martindale 1980-1992:1, 82f. 272 Compare Basilius (8), right panel. 273 See further III.4.2 and 5.1. 274 Compare Areobindus’ diptychs.

55

made when it was reshaped into a book cover.287 The relief is comparatively high. The frame, of which only the vertical parts remain, is of the common eastern type with a subtly moulded profile and single line border. The uppermost part of the panel shows a wider and lightly receded plane framed above and below by a thin ridge, 8 millimetres wide in total, whereas the bottom edge is in the form of a thin bead-and-reel border.288 The image in its present form is in one pictorial register, formally corresponding to the standard type of main register found among diptychs of the eastern tribunal type. The consul is represented as seated on a sella curulis, flanked by two female figures.

that this panel more than the others exhibits details consistent with 6th century eastern consular imagery, some of which has been cut away or recarved in the ivory panels.282 Although I tend to agree with Cameron’s opinion that the panel is probably an original panel of Magnus cos. 518, I am not prepared to support the reattribution fully,283 for which reason I do not include it as a separate entry here. It will however receive attention in the following ‘Discussion’. As regards the question of whether the two ivory panels were originally part of the same diptych, as Delbrueck assumed, this is not supported by any common provenance. One circumstance seems to favour the supposition that the two panels had a common later history, namely the identical way in which they have been cut down (see ‘Description’). But, as far as I can make out, there are no sources to back up Delbrueck’s statement that the panels were recut simultaneously and then attached onto the same book cover.284 This considered, I find it secure to treat the two panels as separate works (certainly of the same issue) rather than as parts of the same diptych. If nothing else, the two panels do not have identical measurements, the lateral positions of their various pictorial elements do not correspond, and their technical execution differs on a number of points (see ‘Description’).

Description: The consul is frontally seated, knees and feet apart, with the right hand resting in the lap and clasping a thick folded m a p p a , and the left hand (arm radically foreshortened) holding a sceptre at waist level. The comparatively well-proportioned body is slim and flat beneath the costume, and the head resting on a tallish neck and sloping shoulders is less oversized in relation to the body than is otherwise the case in eastern diptychs. The head is round with puffy cheeks and a protuberant chin (with a tendency towards a double chin), and is crowned by a helmetshaped coiffure with a multitude of regular and frizzy curls over ears and forehead. The facial features are represented with a few and simple lines: large and almond-shaped eyes with clearly delineated upper and lower lids and big holes marking the irises, a small, thin and subtly aquiline nose, and a small mouth with a swollen upper lip. The face has an overall youthful appearance. The superficially incised pattern of the triumphal toga consists of stars within roundels and squares lined with a thin meander border on the trabea (with right-shoulder ‘bridge’ fold), and a simpler repetitive pattern with finely crosshatched and ellipse borders alternately on the colobium. A plain tunic is beneath. The folds of the costume are sparsely sculpted, reduced to a stylised pattern of almost flat surfaces. Pointed calcei with rippling laces. The sceptre is a short, medium-thick and subtly coniform wand crowned by a large eagle surmounted on an orb. The finely detailed bird is rendered in semi-profile, body turning to the right and head facing left, wings half spread and a long tail pointing diagonally downwards. The monumentally proportioned sella curulis spans the entire width of the panel (overcutting the frame) and half of the height of the pictorial field. The frontally rendered seatrail is tripartite, with a tall and throne-like middle section (the seat proper) and two smaller side-projections, all three ornamented with acanthus borders; a pair of slender and fluted Corinthian columns on tall podiums, reminiscent of corner posts, serve as partitions. The seat-rail projections frame a pair of miniature busts of curly boys in sleeveless tunics

A. (Plate 12 a.) Collection: Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MMA.285 Measurements: height 26.2 cm, width 13 cm.286 [Delbrueck 1929, N 22; Volbach 1976, Nr. 24.] General: The left panel of a diptych, as indicated by the inward turn of the upper right corner. The lower pictorial register has been removed, as has most part of a tabula ansata in the upper part of the panel. These modifications apart, the state of preservation is fine, the only flaws being the disapparead upper bodies of the victoriolae on the consul’s sella curulis. The right vertical frame has three drillholes corresponding to hinge mechanisms, and there is also one hole in each of the four corners of the panel, presumably

in the Carolingian period when the panel was recarved—and the Greek A on the left-side goddess’s globule (see further description below). Cameron’s attribution is reiterated in Bagnall, Cameron, Schwartz & Worp 1987, 571. It is not commented upon by Anthony Cutler in his later article on matters pertaining to (among other things) copies and forgeries of late antique ivory diptychs; Cutler 1993, 172. 282 See further under ‘Discussion’ below. 283 I have not been able to come to terms with the physiognomical characteristics displayed by the figures, particularly the huge and oversimplified eyes of the consul and the figures of the lower register, which deviate considerably from the pattern common to the eastern consuls’ representations, Magnus included. 284 Delbrueck 1929, 138f. Volbach contrariwise stated that it cannot be proven that the two panels originally belonged together; Volbach 1976, 37. 285 Inv. 3267. 286 Original height probably 36-38 cm.

287 Delbrueck 1292, 137f. 288 Compare the lower ‘frame’ borders in the reduced Astyrius diptych (4)

and the ‘ground-line’ border between central and lower registers in Anastasius B-D (11); also the astragal borders between the upper and lower registers in the three bone replicas of Magnus.

56

holding heaps of fruit (or possibly coin289 ), indicated through multiple small blobs, in cloths between their raised hands. The central part of the seat, mostly hidden behind the consul’s body, is additionally ornamented with a wavy-lineand-dot border (between borders). The lion’s legs and protomes are rendered in semi-profile to the right, the rightside protome almost in full profile, the left wedged in between the columnar posts of the seat-rail and the suppedaneum. The legs are tall with fur shaped into acanthus leaves,290 and the lion’s heads (with rings between their jaws as usual) are exceptionally big. Placed on top of the columnar posts are a pair of wingless victoriolae surmounted on orbs, heads and arms missing. Judging by the bone replicas of Magnus (Pl. 13)291 the original figurines, including clipei with miniature togate busts, would have reached above the waist of the female figure standing beside the consul to the left. The areas where the lost parts used to be, viz. the central part of the female figures’ chlamydes, are distinguished by irregularities in the rendering of texture and pattern: to the left, the smooth fall of the chlamys with its star-inscribed segmentum has been replaced by a more roughly cut and unpatterned equivalent of the multiple creases characterising a tunic/chiton (compare the lower part of the figure’s costume); to the right, the lower half of the segmentum presents a disconnected and shapeless net of diagonal lines. Since there is little to suggest that the lost parts of the victoriolae would have been sculpted free from the background and thus particularly susceptible to damage, it seems possible that they were severed intentionally.292 A cable-shaped seat cushion with ‘triumphal star’ end ornamentations protrudes behind the consul on both sides. The exceptionally tall suppedaneum is conceived as two superimposed boxes arranged like a pair of stairs, both decorated with acanthus borders on the front and an ovolo border framing a star on the side (left). The pair of female figures standing symmetrically beside the consul, rendered in full but with lower bodies overcut by the seat-rail of the sella, are distinctly taller than him in stature. Half turned in his direction, they stand on top of short and fluted columns or posts with ‘Tuscan’ imposts, bases resting on the ground-line next to the sella. The two are nearly identically rendered. Both have a classicising appearance, with ‘Greek’ hairstyles of wavy locks (hairs finely incised) parted and swept back from the middle of the forehead, long, profusely creased, sleeved and girdled chitons and waist-short chlamydes (each ornamented with a square star-inscribed inset, as mentioned) fastened over the right shoulder with a round ‘jewel’, and light sandals on their long-toed feet (one per figure); the sweeping curvatures of the chiton creases, ending in characteristic serpentine folds/hems around feet and waist, should be particularly noted. Their faces have a slighly angular shape and less full cheeks than the consul’s, whereas their physiognomical characteristics

correspond (shape and marked irises of eyes, nose, lips). The left-side figure stands in contrapposto with her bent left arm resting lightly against the consul’s shoulder; she wears a triple-crested helmet with crests blowing out to the left in a serpentine fashion and a cap ornamented with three ‘jewels’ and a symmetrical spiral pattern (a visor is indicated by a small protrusion in the centre). She holds a small disc with a central hole between the thumb and index finger of her right hand, which is placed in front of her chest, and rests a long and thin staff on her left arm;293 the upper end of the staff is pointed and marked with three horizontal, parallel lines two centimetres from the tip. The right-side figure wears a singlecrested helmet (crest and cap ornamentation as before); she rests her lowered left hand on an oval shield—half disappearing behind the sella seat-rail—ornamented with a large ‘triumphal star’ within a wavy-line-and-dot border—whereas her right hand is elevated in an open-handed gesture, palm towards the viewer, in a position slightly above the consul’s head.294 Neither figure wears jewellery, but superficial cavities and irregular lines in the areas immediately below the ears (missing?), notably those of the left-side figure, might be interpreted as traces of earrings.295 The pair of figures may be identified as the personifications of Rome and Constantinople (as a couple).296 Above the figure-group and spanning the width of the pictorial field are a pair of thick leafy garlands fastened at each corner with a ribbon, ends rippling downwards to the sides. From the point where the garlands meet, and at a short distance from the consul’s head, a wreath hangs suspended in three twined cords. Both garlands and wreath are ornamented with an oval ‘jewel’ in the centre. B. (Plate 12 b.) Collection: Milan, Civiche Raccolte d’Arte Applicata, Castello Sforzesco.297 Measurements: height 25.4 cm, width 12.7 cm. [Delbrueck 1929, N 22; Volbach 1976, Nr. 23.] General: The right panel of a diptych, as indicated by the subtle inward turn of the upper left corner. The panel’s format is slightly lesser than that of A298 but reduced in the same way, displaying an identical 8 millimetres wide receded plane between thin ridges in the uppermost part of the panel, and a thin astragal below. The state of preservation is for the most part fine, the only damage of consequence being the almost 293 Compare the left goddess’s sceptre in Clementinus and Orestes and the

sceptre held by the empress Ariadne (?) in the imperial assemblage panels in Florence and Vienna; Delbrueck 1929, N 51-52, Taf. 51-52; Volbach 1976, Nr. 51-52, Taf. 27. 294 Compare the right-side goddess in Clementinus and Orestes. 295 The corresponding figures in the bone panels wear big earrings of a type equivalent to those displayed by the empress Ariadne in the diptychs of Anastasius, viz. large rings with pearl pendants. 296 On the possible identifications of the two goddesses, see III.3.2. 297 Inv. 8. 298 Both Delbrueck and Volbach presented identical measurements for the two Magnus panels, viz. 26.2x13—numbers that are however only consistent with panel A; Delbrueck 1929, 137; Volbach 1976, 37.

289 Durand 1992, 57 (D. Gaborit-Chopin). 290 Compare the left panel of Clementinus (10) especially. 291 Of which the St Petersburg panel displays most similarities (including

the lack of wings) to the panel under description (Pl. 13 b). 292 Something which is also supported by the attempt to erase the main traces of the missing parts.

57

total disappearance of the consul’s sceptre; what little remains of this exhibits clear traces of recarving (see ‘Description’). Further recarvings are found in some areas of the pictorial field, notably on the consul’s head/face (see ‘Description’). Three drill-holes corresponding to original hinge mechanisms punctuate the left vertical (inner) frame and another four are located at the corners of the panel (compare A); a couple of irregular holes (not drilled) are also found immediately above the right shoulder of the left-side city goddess. The relief is comparatively high, more so in the consul’s figure, which displays a higher degree of sculpting ‘in the round’ than its counterpart in A. The frame is very similar to that of A. The image, albeit modified in some areas, is structurally identical to that of A, but slightly different in proportions and in the execution of the various elements, indicating that the panel was, at least partly, carved by a different artist.

calcei are slightly more oblong than in A and carved in higher relief. The limited traces of the sceptre indicate that it has been both shortened (by c. 1 centimetre) and thinned (to less than 2 millimetres’ width). The nether end has a minuscule knob and the upper end forms a slender cross, less than half of which now remains. The area around the cross, comprising part of the right-side goddess’s chlamys and the space between her shoulder and raised right hand, exhibits clear traces of erasure, as does the vertical groove where the original wand used to be. The nature of these traces is consistent with the sceptre shape witnessed in A, wherefore one may safely assume that the original sceptre would have been crowned by an eagle-surmounted orb.302 The sella curulis is of the same type as in A but with somewhat larger side-projections. Other deviations from A are the right-side lion protome, which is here viewed in full profile, and the finely cross-hatched pattern of the seat cushion. The victoriolae once crowning the slender columns between seat and projections are completely disappeared, whereas the orbs on which they stood have been recarved into small discs with holes in the centre (likely intended as settings for gems). The areas where the figurines used to be exhibit traces of recutting, including multiple fine and irregular lines and a rougher texture in the creases on the goddesses’ garments. The city goddesses flanking the consul are very similar to their counterparts in A, displaying the same poses, gestures, attire and attributes. It may however be particularly noted that the pose of the left-side figure is more distinctly S-shaped than in A, the head turning forty-five degrees and slightly downward in the consul’s direction, something which lends her a certain leisurely appearance. As in A, both figures’ physiognomies correspond to that of the consul, but here their heads are smaller and more rounded, and their necks are plumper. Deviations from the representations in A are chiefly found in the left-side goddess, who here reveals the shape of her right breast through the chiton (indicated as a rounded protrusion framed by crescent folds of fabric), the unornamented and richly creased chlamys swept to the side. The thinner staff which rests across her arm is pierced with a multitude of minuscule holes, and so are the ‘jewels’ serving as fibulae for both goddesses’ chlamydes, suggesting that these elements were at one time studded with gems or the like. It also appears that upper tip of the staff has been broken or cut down, and that the width of the uppermost part (18 millimetres or so) has been reduced, as indicated by the several parallel scratch-lines immediately to the left of and above it. The small circular object held by the same goddess is identical in size and shape to the recarved orbs on the consul’s sella and its counterpart in A. Both figures display traces of levelling in the areas immediately below the ears (not represented or cut away), something which could suggest that they originally wore earrings (compare A).

Description: The consul is frontally seated in the same posture as in A with the mappa (here slightly smaller than in A) lowered on the lap, but his feet are closer together with the right foot placed before the other. The body is well proportioned, tall and slim with comparatively broad shoulders, and more rounded; the head, the right arm/hand and the feet have a particularly plastic appearance. The head on its broad and medium-long neck is somewhat more ovoid than in A, and neither heavy nor particularly oversized in relation to the body. The semi-bald scalp with wavy hair over the temples and a single triangular tuft above the forehead are clearly results of recarving; the side-locks have the same shape as in A whereas the locks below the ears have been scratched away.299 The bared forehead is furnished with five horizontal wrinkles,300 and a full beard has been added to the face, the serrated lower line of which is carved out of the neck (thus contributing to the more ovoid facial contour). The facial features are similar but not identical to those in A: the cheeks are less puffed-up and the chin less protruding (effects of the beard), the eyes somewhat bigger, and the upper lip has a distinct Cupid’s bow. The patterns of the triumphal toga correspond to those in A, except for a greater richness and complexity in the patterns of the trabea.301 It is also sculpted in higher relief than its counterpart in A, the umbo and ‘bridge’ in particular. The

299 The scratch-marks are still visible. The recutter also converted some of

the side locks into earlobes; ears have not been represented in A. Compare also Delbrueck 1929, 137. The statement made by Volbach— who treated the Magnus panels very sparsely—that the consul is represented as older in this panel than in the Paris panel has no plausibility; Volbach 1976, 37. 300 A bald head with a central tuft combined with a full beard appears to have been a hallmark of certain apostles and saints, among whom St. Paul; thus Graeven 1892, 212; and Delbrueck 1929, 137. Compare also the mosaic representation of the bishop Ursicinus in the apse of Sant’Apollinare in Classe, Ravenna (6th c.) who is (like the three other bishops represented within similar frames beside him) incidentally also accompanied by a circular coronet suspended from above by three cords after the same pattern as the wreath in Magnus); e.g. Deichmann 1958, Taf. 394-400; and Grabar 1966, 141 Fig. 152. 301 Pattern types and distribution are close to those witnessed in the St Petersburg bone panel (Pl. 13 b).

302 The Christian inscription on the panel’s back is dated to the 8th or 9th

century (Delbrueck 1929, 138), suggesting that the diptych was recarved in this period.

58

The leafy garlands and wreath hanging above the figuregroup are rendered as good as identically to those in A, except for the slightly smaller size of the wreath and the lack of a central suspension cord; traces of the latter are however still visible.

classicising features—the acanthus motif on legs, seat-rail and suppedaneum, the Corinthian columns supporting Victory statuettes, the pseudo-perspectival rendering of the whole—is however perhaps what most catches the viewer’s eye about these representations. All of the characteristics exhibited by the sella curulis and suppedaneum recur in the St Petersburg panel, including the classicising manner of carving the border patterns and the acanthus leaves on the legs. The classicising mode in which the city goddesses have been rendered emphasises their ancient, pre-Christian nature. This especially applies to the left-side figure, whose pose and dress—most particularly in panel B—reflect the relaxed poise and Amazonian appearance of ancient Roma in imperial art.307 Their physiognomies and hairstyles, the richly creased flow of their dresses, their sandalled feet, and the classicising posts on which they stand, also reflect and enforce the classicising appearance and monumentality of the consul’s sella. The left-side goddess displays the same types of attributes as her counterpart in the diptychs of Clementinus and Orestes: a small ‘disc’ (whose central hole would probably have been studded with a gemstone), almost certainly recarved from an original globe as indicated by their counterparts in the bone replicas,308 and a tall staff-shaped object. The St Petersburg bone panel (Pl. 13 b) indicates that the original globule would have been inscribed (incised or painted) with a Greek A, whereas all three bone replicas suggest that the staff was tipped not by a knob (orb) but by a spearhead. As noted in the descriptions of the panels above, the sharp tips and scratch-lines around the uppermost parts of the staffs in the ivory panels (A especially) are consistent with the shape and size of spearheads.309 The spear is an attribute of Roma in the Halberstadt diptych (2), and so is the revealed right breast (B); the revealed right breast recurs in the St Petersburg and Paris bone panels and in the diptychs of Basilius and Clementinus (left panel). The unornamented chlamys of the left-side goddess in B is likewise found in the bone panels. Whereas the open-handed gesture performed by the right-side goddess recurs in the right-side goddesses in Clementinus and Orestes, the shield resting on the ground beside her has no counterpart among the preserved consular diptychs except for that of Probus (west, 406) (Pl. 14), where it accompanies the emperor Honorius represented in his capacity of military commander (right panel). The spear and shield emphasise the war-like nature of the city goddesses at the same time as they upheave the distinctions between them, making them appear as sharers of the same function (viz. military). The tall stature of the goddesses deviates distinctly from that of their counterparts in the Clementinus and Orestes diptychs. The wreath and garlands in the uppermost part of the pictorial field are lent a peculiar visual prominence by being

Discussion (A-B): The imagery of the Magnus panels has much in common with that of Clementinus’ (10) and Orestes’ (7) diptychs: the consul’s pose with the mappa lowered in the lap, most of the city goddesses’ characteristics, and—if one may use the ‘Magnus’ bone replicas (Pl. 13) as evidence, which I consider it safe to do—the composition of the once lower registers, showing a pair of children emptying coin sacks amongst plate and palm-leaves.303 Likewise, the conception of the consul’s figure (stature, proportions etc.) mainly conforms to the eastern canon of the first decades of the 6th century. There are however also unique components to be found in the Magnus panels: the eagle-sceptre (unique among eastern diptychs), the peculiar shape and ornamental motifs on the sella curulis and suppedaneum, the exceptionally tall, classicising and typologically conflated appearances of the city goddesses, the attributes displayed by the same, and the garlands-and-wreath crowning the image. The fluted posts on which the goddesses stand also provide an unusual feature. The eagle-tipped sceptre of Magnus has its only precursor in that of Boethius (6), from which however it differs somewhat in proportions and in the shape of the eagle.304 Magnus’ eagle, although significantly larger in size, is similar in form to the miniature variants found on the composite sceptres of Areobindus (9) and Anastasius (11) as well as the aquila in the right panel of Basilius (8), all diptychs dating from the 6th century. As suggested by the three bone panels, a Corinthian capital may have been inserted between the orb and the eagle in some panels of the original issue, comparable to those found on the composite sceptres in other eastern diptychs.305 The singularly monumental proportions and architecturalisation of the sella curulis make it comparable to a throne. The tallness of the structure, accentuated through the side columns, elevates the whole seat-rail from the legs, increasing the distance between it and the ground-line, the stair-shaped suppedaneum making it reach all the way up the seat-rail; the vertical elevation of the whole composition is further visually enhanced by the consul’s actual placement on top of the seat rather than—as is so common—in front of it.306 Magnus’ sella is also the only one within the preserved corpus apart from those of Anastasius to feature figural motifs; the motif in question, fruit-carrying boys, does not however occur in any other consular image. The profusion of 303 Here the figures pour the coin into a pair of cylindrical caskets of the

307 For a parallel within the corpus of consular diptychs, compare notably

same kind (although ornamented) as found in the medallion diptych of Iustinus (east, 540) (Pl. 16). See also Berger 1981, 73, 239 n. 136; and further III.4.2. 304 The type is faithfully reproduced in the three bode replicas. 305 Areobindus A-B and Anastasius A. 306 A phenomenon which occurs in the diptychs of Astyrius (4), Bourges (5), Boethius, Orestes, Areobindus, Clementinus and Anastasius.

Basilius. See further III.3.2. 308 Graeven proposed this object has been recarved into a tessera; Graeven 1892, 211. 309 For a full discussion of the interpretation of this staff, which has alternately been recognised as a sceptre and a set of fasces, see III.2.1.4 and III.3.2.

59

carved in high relief from a plain background, by the wreath’s central placement at a short distance from the consul’s head, and by the goddesses’ pointed gestures towards the same (the left with her spear, the right with her open hand). Both wreath and garlands occur i n other consular diptychs—Lampadiorum (1), Halberstadt, Astyrius (4), Boethius, Orestes and Clementinus—but nowhere do they constitute such an independent part of the composition, nor is the wreath ‘physically’ suspended above the consul’s head anywhere else. The central ‘jewels’ ornamenting the garlands recur in the St Petersburg panel as well as a number of western diptychs.310 The strip of plain surface crowning the panel displays neither traces of an inscription nor of any characteristic diagonal cuts after an tabula ansata, something which might possibly suggest that this area of the panels did not form part of the inscriptional plaque. The upper border-strip could be compared to the one found in the uppermost part of Basilius’ diptych (left panel), although there located above the tabula, and in Areobindus D. The estimated original height of the Magnus panels (36-38 centimetres), which conforms to the average height of contemporary eastern consular diptychs,311 leaves enough space for a normal-sized tabula inscriptionis as well as a lower register with the same dimensions as that of Orestes’ diptych.

diptychs with the same composition, nor would it be possible that one and the same motif(s) could be differently rendered in different issues: Constantinopolitan ivory carvers active in the first decades of the 6th century could a priori not have misunderstood what Bühl considers to have been a contemporary standard for how a consular diptych should be conceived.315 The sella curulis would allegedly have presented one such motif that could not be ‘misunderstood’, the city goddesses another. Apart from believing that the consular diptychs preserved from this period provide too thin a basis to draw such farreaching conclusions from as Bühl does, I would also like to point out that Bühl’s view that the Magnus panels are not representative of a 6th-century standard in ivory diptych carving fails to take all available evidence into account. As it happens, the representation of the city goddesses—their physiognomies (the shape of the eyes—including the large pupils—and the nose, mouth, and facial shape), the manner in which the strands of their hair has been shaped, their plump necks, the rich and softly curving creases of their garments (including the characteristic serpentine pattern of the line-bordered hems), the shape of their feet (long and slender toes in ornamental sandals rendered in a fold-out perspective), and the position and shape of the fluted posts on which the goddesses stand—are all witnessed in an ivory work commonly attributed to Constantinople and the early Justinianic period (c. 520-540), the so-called Archangel panel in the British Museum, London (Pl. 21 b).316 Apart from the typological affinities in the rendering of its main figure (a male angel) and the city goddesses in the Magnus panels, there are also similarities in the vertical emphasis in the panels’ composition and in the elevation of the figure(s) by means of stairs or columnar posts. The two works also have the rich classicising ornamentation of the structural elements in common. There is nothing to suggest that the Archangel and Magnus ivories have shared a later history,317 which means that the possibility of mediaeval carvers having had an opportunity to copy the artistic style of the former work when creating their consular ‘pastiches’ must be considered quite small. On the other hand, the chance that the formal correspondences between the works would be coincidental seems even smaller. The most plausible explanation for the affinities between the works must be that they are more or less contemporaneous. Whereas the higher artistic refinement of the Archangel panel clearly indicates that it was not carved by the same artist(s) who were responsible for the Magnus panels, the typological affinities point to a common workshop; a workshop whose staff would then have specialised in both luxury ivories of limited ‘editions’ (like the one to which the Archangel panel presumably

It has more recently been proposed by Gudrun Bühl that the Magnus ivory panels are not authentic 6th-century works, but free copies created in the 9th or 10th century after a lost original issued by Magnus cos. 518.312 Bühl argues that some peculiarities in the preserved panels (ivory and bone), such as the structure of the sella curulis, the stair-shaped suppedaneum, the elongated stature of the city goddesses and their placement on columnar posts—all of which deviate formally from their counterparts in the diptychs of Clementinus and Orestes—present sufficient evidence of unauthenticity.313 Behind Bühl’s arguments, however, is a presupposition which has little to with the artistic peculiarities of the Magnus panels, namely that the Clementinus diptych presents the only authentic work among the three 6th-century consular diptychs displaying the same kind of imagery, viz. Clementinus, Orestes, Magnus.314 According to Bühl different consuls could not have issued 310 Lampadiorum (1), Boethius and Basilius; see further III.5.2. 311 All of Areobindus’ diptychs (all categories included) except a

medallion diptych in the Musée du Louvre, Paris (Delbrueck 1929, N 14; Volbach 1976, Nr. 13), the diptychs of Clementinus and Anastasius, the bone panels of Magnus in St Petersburg and Paris, and two of the three preserved diptychs of Justinian (east, 521; Delbrueck 1929, N 26 and 27; Volbach 1976, Nr. 25 and 26). 312 Bühl 1995, 204-207. 313 To this list of allegedly dubious characteristics Engemann has later added the resting of the left-side goddess’s arm on the consul’s shoulder, which to him appears as ‘recht merkwürdig’ and ‘unglücklich’; Engemann 1999, 163f. See further III.3.2. 314 The chief argument in Bühl’s theory that Clementinus’s diptych presents the only authentic work/issue of the three rests almost exclusively on her interpretation of the globule held by the left-side city goddess; Bühl 1995, 197-200, 209-216. This interpretation will be discussed fully under III.3.2.

315 Bühl 1995, 205. 316 Inv. OA 999*; Volbach 1976, Nr. 109, Taf. 59. See also Beckwith

1958, 9. 317 The provenance of the Archangel panel remains unknown; e.g. Dalton 1961, 200-202, Volbach 1976, 78f; and Wright 1977, 7. And what is known of the two Magnus panels’ provenance does not suggest that they were kept and recut together at any point in time; Delbrueck 1929, 138f; Volbach 1976, 37; and Durand 1992, 57f.

60

belonged)318 and serially produced consular diptychs whose quality of carving would, for economic reasons if nothing else, be somewhat lower. If, as has been proposed,319 the Archangel panel was commissioned by Justinian in connection with his consulship in 521, this would further strengthen the theory that it and the ivory diptychs of Magnus were produced by the same workshop. Artistic and iconographical considerations apart, one could also argue that the evident modifications of the Magnus panels320 are somewhat difficult to explain if we assume that they are mediaeval creations. Knowing that the panels have been used as covers for liturgical books from the early mediaeval period until they were acquired by museums in modern times,321 one would wonder when the damage and recarvings could have occurred, and why. Additionally, the thickness of the panels (10 millimetres)322 is consistent with other 6th-century ivory diptychs (8-12.5 millimetres):323 a fairly reliable indicator of authenticity. To conclude, whilst acknowledging that the panels attributed to Magnus display some differences in artistic execution from the other consular diptychs preserved from the east, I cannot agree with the view that these differences indicate they were produced in the mediaeval period. I thus support the panels’ attribution to the eastern consul of 518.

318 It has been proposed that the panel formed part of a greater ivory

assemblage, such as a triptych, where the emperor (the presumed honorand and recipient of the work) would have been represented in the central panel, flanked on both sides by an archangel; e.g. Wright 1977, 8f. 319 Wright 1977, 8; Cutler 1984:1, 112f. 320 The panels’ reduction (leaving the frames unequal in size and appearance), the recuttings of the consul’s figure, the victoriolae on the sella curulis, the recuttings of the city goddesses’ costumes, and the staff and globule held by the left-side goddess (notably in B). 321 Delbrueck 1929, 138f; Volbach 1976, 37. 322 Measurement of the Magnus panel in Paris (A) according to Durand 1992, 56. 323 Cutler 1984:1, 83-87; 46-48; Cutler 1995:1, 396-398; Cutler 1993, 174; Cutler 1995:2. Mediaeval ivory panels are thinner and usually also shorter in height than those of Magnus.

61

III. THE ICONOGRAPHY OF THE CONSULAR DIPTYCHS

In this part the motif repertory of the consular diptychs will be further investigated and problematised. Beginning from the centre of the consular image, the point of departure in these discussions will be the consul’s figure itself; its facial and corporeal characteristics, its pose(s) and gestures. Subsequently I will turn to the consular insignia, the various secondary figures and by-motifs, and finally the architectural frame. The aim is to present preliminary interpretations for each motif category. By comparing different renderings of the same types of motifs, within the diptychs themselves and with their counterparts and/or possible prototypes in other categories of Roman art, the images’ meanings and functions within the consular context will hopefully be further illuminated, both in general and in relation to individual honorands. Each chapter and subsection is intended as a selfcontaining treatment. The results of these treatments will be weighed together and further interpreted in the thematically oriented Part IV.

for example the ones proposed by Delbrueck, Cameron and Engemann for the Halberstadt diptych (2).1 Thus, in the cases of both known and unknown honorands the attributions of diptychs to certain consuls have hitherto been carried out without taking their ‘portraits’ into account. Since it is quite impossible for us to attribute a diptych to a certain individual based upon physiognomical resemblance between image and person, one must instead focus on the question whether the contemporaries of the consuls commemorated in the diptychs were able to recognise the persons in the images, by the means of visual comparison. The question is vital since it aims at defining the intentions and hence meanings behind the consular representations. In order to answer it, one must take a closer look at the facial representations as they appear within consular imagery: how may they be characterised, singly and as a group? Before discussing to what degree the term portraiture applies to the consuls’ figures in the diptychs, a definition of it will be attempted. By a portrait is generally meant a visual likeness of a specific individual whose physiognomical traits may be recognised by viewers as resembling, even if not in absolute detail, those of the subject.2 Technically, a portrait so defined would have to be created according to a naturalistic mode of representation, whose prerequisite is an immediate link between artist and subject, i.e. that the artist has had some opportunity for taking down the facial traits, or his impressions of them, of the person portrayed. Without reducing the representativity or truthfulness of the portrait, the visual similarities to the model’s face may be modified by the artist according to his technical skill, his personal style, the artistic mode in fashion in the particular period and sphere where the artist is active, as well as any personal requirements or wishes expressed by the model and/or commissioner of the portrait.3 The commissioner may wish his likeness to be adjusted in order to enhance his appearance, for instance by way of cosmetic improvement on his natural looks, answering to his more ideal picture of himself or to the look à la mode. Or he may wish that his

1. THE IMAGE OF THE CONSUL: MODES OF REPRESENTATION

1.1. The face: the consul’s likeness? The rendering of physiognomies within consular imagery The representations of the consuls in the consular diptychs have generally been regarded, directly or indirectly, as portraits of the individual personages they commemorate. This notion has, however, never really been problematised: judging by the named and dated works, which constitute the majority of the preserved corpus, a link between the person represented and the image would be taken for granted. The name and titles usually listed on tabulae inscriptiones identify the individudals concerned. One could thus say that the inscriptions have provided a fundamental basis for the portrait interpretation. With the uninscribed diptychs, and hence unidentified honorands, the case obviously cannot be as straightforward. Stylistic and iconographic evaluations, combined with researches into literary evidence on possible honorands, have here instead been offered as evidence for approximate, and in some cases exact, attributions, such as

1 Delbrueck 1929, 87-93; A.D.E. Cameron 1998; Engemann 1999. 2 Cf. Gombrich 1959, 55-58; F.D. Martin 1961/62, 61-65 esp.;

Breckenridge 1968, 3-5; Kitzinger 1976:2, 257f; Dagron 1991, 23; Brilliant 1997, 25, 30f; Woodall 1997, 1. 3 Cf. Gombrich’s discussion of artistic stylisation; Gombrich 1959, 55f. Compare further Breckenridge’s definition of a ‘true’ portrait; Breckenridge 1968, 10. Also Brilliant’s idea that the portrait is the product of a ‘psychological exchange’ between model and artist; Brilliant 1997, 31.

62

representation be formed according to requirements motivated by other than personal criteria, such as a specific context wherein his portrait should fit.4 Then his image would preferably express certain qualities, his face reflect certain virtues or attitudes relevant to that specific context, such as ‘manliness’, ‘firmness’, ‘authority’, ‘reliability’, ‘responsibility’, ‘solemnity’, or some more spiritually oriented quality such as piety. Such modifications of a likeness need not infringe on its functioning as a portrait, but would rather serve to make it more effective, purposeful or ‘proper’ in the eyes of the beholder, and it must then be up to the individual beholder to decide whether he or she considers the portrait to b e representative o f its subject.5 The fundamental aim of a portrait must be that the individual it is intended to represent be recognised as an individual, i.e. that there must be some possibility of visually identifying the subject in his/her portrait. But the content of the portrait may go beyond that of mere physiognomical likeness, and aim at expressing certain qualities of either a personal nature (i.e. qualities ascribed to the subject’s personality, as reflected through the artist’s subjective experience of him/her), or of a supra-personal nature (value-related qualities, commonly agreed virtues). The former type of portrait content is, to paraphrase Martin,6 essentially inner-directed and focussed on describing the subject’s individual character, whereas the latter type could be termed as outer-directed in the sense that it aims at describing the subject as a representative of some external concept, such as a social class (whose values and self-ascribed distinctions are ideally reflected in its members). To the outer-directed portrait category would belong most official portraits: the emperor, office-holders, nobles. Finally, the icon, which is a ‘portrait’ of a sacred personage, removes the concept of likeness from the reality of physiognomical resemblances into the sphere of the ideal and symbolic, where facial characteristics are perceived solely as carriers of transcendental/divine content.7 The iconic representation is not concerned with either likeness, character or ‘expression’, but with collectively created types that are by their nature abstractions. The identity of an icon is recognised by its attributes, the range of which is established by tradition and consensus, not by its physiognomical characteristics; the fixed, mask-like aspect of an icon’s face is intended to remove it from the circumstantial and temporal. The icon does not so much represent a man as much as it symbolises

him; it is an object of veneration. The official effigy of the late antique emperor may be likened to an icon.8 When it comes to ancient portraiture there is of course no possibility of ascertaining any actual resemblance between the portrait and the portrayed, since identification must ultimately come from an ‘eye-witness’, i.e. a person or persons who would have seen the subject and might testify to the visual correspondences between the two. Thus there is an inbuilt problem attached to the definition of an ancient portrait as such, regardless of whether it has been created in a naturalistic or abstracted mode of representation.9

4 See also Braemer and Zanker, who both propose something to this point;

8 Cf. Kitzinger 1954, passim; also Kruse 1934, 47-49; Grabar 1936, 5-10;

The facial characteristics of most consuls’ figures may be described as belonging to a single, generic type. This they have in common with the majority of late antique faces, whether they are known to represent certain individuals (an emperor for instance) or certain categories of humans (the barbarian, the saint etc.).10 This ‘consular type’ essentially retains its formulaic shapes throughout the period, displaying only occasional variations in what may be termed its basic repertory of traits: a rounded face, large and heavy-lidded eyes, a straight and slightly bulbous nose, and a small mouth, usually with a full lower lip and accentuated corners. The features are commonly very regular, the gaze directed straight ahead past the viewer. Whether bearded or not, the face is usually rendered as ageless, the surfaces of forehead (when not hidden by a fringe of hair) and cheeks being smooth, and the eye regions showing no ‘age’ lines. In some cases the agelessness clearly tends to youthfulness, as for example in Anastasius (11) (B especially) and Orestes (7). As for hairstyle, the tight-fitting and helmet-shaped cap remains a basic form throughout the period, varying only marginally according to fashion. A single exception is found in the Bourges diptych (5),11 where the consul’s receding hairline deviates fundamentally from the usual courtly coiffure. Since there is otherwise nothing unique in the Bourges consul’s facial features, his hairstyle could be intended to provide an individualising trait. The physiognomical type outlined is as good as always shared with any secondary figures, male and female, that are included within an image, Halberstadt being the only exception.12 To a certain extent this also applies to the lesser figures of the lower pictorial registers, when the scale and state of preservation allow such features to be discerned. Occasionally, female figures (goddesses, empresses/queens) have received what must be understood as a more feminine

Dagron 1991, 26-28; and Sande 1993, 80-84. 9 See especially the reasoning of Brilliant on this point; Brilliant 1997, 127. 10 Compare e.g. Kiilerich 1992. 11 The recarved Magnus B (12) excepted. 12 There are however at least two instances of age (but not physiognomical) differentiation to be found among secondary figures, both in works attributed to the earliest period of diptych production and to the western empire: Lampadiorum ( 1 ) and Bourges. A similar kind of differentiation is also witnessed in two non-consular official diptychs attributed to Rome and the period around 400, namely the diptych of Probianus (Delbrueck 1929, N 65; Volbach 1976, Nr. 62) and the Liverpool venatio panel (Pl. 18).

Braemer 1988, 184 esp.; Zanker 1988:2, 109. 5 The means by which an artist conveyed such essentially abstract qualities, and the pre-understanding required by the viewer for their appreciation, would both have been parts of a common system of codes or values, the interpretational complexities of which must necessarily be left outside the scope of this study. For useful discussions of this problem I would like to refer especially to Dagron 1991; Breckenridge 1968, passim; and Brilliant 1997, 125f. For a more synoptic treatment of the issue, see also Söderlind 1998 (who mainly reiterates Brilliant’s reasonings). For a somewhat more subjective view, see Elsner 1995, 1-8, 184 esp. 6 F.D. Martin 1961/62, 62-67. 7 Dagron 1991, 26-28.

63

appearance by means of a rounder facial contour (see e.g. Orestes and Basilius (8)).13 Typal correspondences between figures contribute towards rendering the consul’s face unspecific, unindividual. Additionally, in the eastern diptychs close typal correspondences are sometimes also witnessed between representations of different honorands (see below), so that one may to a degree speak of a generic type for all eastern consuls. In some cases, though, it is possible to interpret the physiognomical correspondences between consul and attending figures as something more than mere repetition, i.e. that they aim at denoting a family likeness. This particularly refers to diptychs where the secondary figures are officials: Lampadiorum (1) and Areobindus (9) (the attendants in Halberstadt being unique in their physiognomical heterogeneity). The Lampadiorum consul and his by-sitters are clearly conceived as three variants of the same physiognomy, where the only differentiating factor is that of age: a youthful senator to the left, the consul in his thirties (the traditional age of consuls14 ) in the centre, and a senior official (in his forties or fifties) with longer beard and a receding hairline to the right. The fact that the panel is dedicated to the family of the Lampadii in my view strongly supports the interpretation that the figures represent three different members—and representatives of three generations—of the Lampadii family. A related concept may also lie behind the chlamydati in Areobindus’ diptychs, who both present more youthful resemblances to the consul,15 and whose individual characteristics (hairstyle and facial shape) are carefully adhered to in all the four diptychs. These chlamydati have no specific functions in the image, but provide presences pure and simple;16 indeed they display all the characteristics of portrait busts, imagines, and this circumstance would seem to indicate that their inclusion is motivated by considerations other than official. A similar pattern is again witnessed in the images of the consul and the emperors in the Halberstadt diptych,17 and between Anastasius and the emperor Anastasius I. Alternative ways of interpreting physiognomical correspondences between consul and attendant figures (officials and goddesses) would be either that they are intended to signal kinship of a more symbolic kind (for instance that Roma is the ideal parent of Basilius), or simply that they are to be understood as impersonal appendages to the consul, whose physiognomy then provides the model for all. However, none of these interpretations would apply to the physiognomical correspondences witnessed between e.g. the imperial couple and Clementinus, who was unrelated to the imperial house.

The preserved western diptychs display a greater variety of facial types, although some of them clearly generalised. The faces of Boethius (6) and Basilius may be characterised as the most individualised within the preserved corpus, Boethius particularly so. His head and face are shaped into a heavy square, the chin sculpted so as to suggest strongly protruding jaws; the eyes and mouth are drawn-out horizontally, and the nose is flattened so as to lend the entire face a concave aspect. The regular and schematised shapes of the hair, which is formed into a thick cap of bunlike whirls, further serve to enforce the angular compaction of the face. The viewer receives an immediate impression of individuality and ‘character’ when looking at this face. A number of adjectives may spring to mind, such as ‘serious, almost harsh and concentrated’,18 intensely self-conscious, pompous, or even brutal. As a viewer you somehow feel convinced that the singularities of this specific face cannot spring from anything other than its subject, or the artist’s personal experience of him. A direct link between subject and artist thus appears to have existed in this particular case.19 Still, since there is no way in which this link can be proved (for obvious reasons), all that can be said is that Boethius’ face stands out both within the corpus of consular diptychs and within late antique art at large. The images derived from the east display a much higher degree of typification. The faces of the eastern consuls as a group repeat themselves with only very slight, sometimes hardly distinguishable, variations; a phenomenon which goes hand in hand with a standardisation in the rendering of the corporeal.20 The artists seem to have worked according to the most general instructions, and when a larger issue was commissioned and more than one artist involved in the production—as is undoubtedly the case with the issues of Areobindus and Anastasius—the absolute correspondence between different representations was evidently not considered of paramount importance. There are two interesting cases in point: the two faces of Anastasius in diptych B, which almost appear to belong to two different individuals; and the considerable similarities between Clementinus (10) and a medallion diptych of Areobindus in the Musée du Louvre, Paris.21 One may particularly note that the degree of physiognomical affinity between Clementinus and Areobindus is higher than between Clementinus and Orestes, the latter of whose diptych is commonly considered to be either a copy or a recarving of a Clementinus diptych.22 Some general conclusions may be drawn as to the nature of the faces presented in the consular diptychs. Firstly, the earlier western diptychs display a higher degree of physiognomical variation than do the later eastern diptychs. This variation is paralleled by a higher degree of

13 Compare the Augusta type derived from and assimilated to that of the

emperor her husband (i.e. a ‘wife type’) as outlined by Kiilerich; Kiilerich 1992, 243f. 14 Albeit not always in late antiquity, where the age of all categories of officials, including consuls, tended to sink, sometimes considerably; e.g. Chastagnol 1982, 189. 15 See description, II.9. 16 III.3.1. 17 Perceptible in the left panel in particular. For a further discussion and interpretation of these correspondences, see III.3.4.

18 Delbrueck 1929, 105. 19 Compare Brilliant 1997, 31. 20 See below III.1.2. 21 Delbrueck 1929, N 14, Taf. 14; Volbach 1976, Nr. 13, Taf. 6. Some

notable correspondences are also found between the representations of Areobindus and that of Magnus B (12). 22 See II.10.

64

formal variation within the western group of consular images at large. Basically, the western heterogeneity could be interpreted as the result of a more pronounced attempt at individualisation: the faces of Boethius and Basilius, but also the honorand of the Halberstadt diptych whose physiognomy is distinguished from those of his attendants, may be interpreted in this way. In the case of Basilius, further, the individualisation of the honorand’s face meaningfully connects to a uniquely individualised iconographic programme,23 something which would seem to support a portrait definition. At the same time the evidential lack of larger diptych issues for the western consuls, whereby the physiognomic correspondences between different images of the same consul might have been assessed, must necessarily render insecure any more definite conclusion. A second conclusion may be drawn as regards the eastern group, which displays several instances of physiognomic coincidences between different consuls as well as physiognomic disparities between representations of one and the same consul. Given the fact that all these images up to a point display common facial characteristics, which are as good as always shared with any secondary figures that have been included, a natural conclusion must be that these representations were not created after models, i.e. the personages they were intended to represent, but were rather sculpted according to a generic type; a ‘consular type’. Certainly, one cannot exclude the possibility that one of Anastasius’ faces actually displays some resemblance to the man as he appeared in the year of his appointment; but if so, and which one, cannot for obvious reasons be established. Thirdly, the agelessness of the eastern consuls’ faces,24 where the average age seems to lie around twenty, suggests that an ideal, nontemporal, and hence impersonal, appearance was considered to be adequate or desirable. Unfortunately we do not know the exact age of any of these men in their respective years of consulship, but it would be a reasonable assumption that Areobindus and Clementinus had reached their middle age, since both had held high office over several years prior to their consular appointments, whereas the imperial nephews Anastasius and Magnus had not.25 Conversely, a consul whom we know was a mere boy in the year of his consulship, Iustinus, eastern consul in 540 and issuer of a medallion diptych in Berlin (Pl. 16),26 looks no more adolescent than any other eastern consul, something which seems to confirm the rule of ideal agelessness;27 an ideal which naturally also applies to the imperial effigies in Anastasius’ diptychs, the emperor Anastasius I being over

eighty years old in the year of his great-nephew’s consulship.28 Thus one may conclude that the majority of the eastern consuls’ faces were carved according to a common model, a matrix, and hence that their creation was dissociated from their subjects. The western consuls on the other hand display a broader age spectrum; Felix (3) and Boethius look to be over thirty, as does the honorand of the Lampadiorum panel, whereas the consul of the Bourges diptych has the appearance of a mature man on account of his thinning scalp and philosopher’s beard. Basilius, again, with his drawn-out face and somewhat tired look, is seemingly rendered as a middle-aged rather than an ideally ageless man. These examples seem to support the conclusion that western diptychs were occasionally commissioned and created to impress the viewer with a more personalised representation of the man commemorated; that is, they were to some degree intended as portraits. Concluding discussion: In late antique portraiture the distinctions of visual likeness became successively more modified and, apparently, irrelevant. One could even argue that the application of the portrait definition on many late antique facial representations needs to be critically discussed. For instance, portrait heads from the period covered by the consular diptychs are not only few, but they more or less conform to a common type where individualising traits are hidden, as it were, beneath an increasingly abstracted and geometricised form.29 It has been claimed that this very geometricising should be counted as a primary criterion for recognising a work as a portrait of an individual as opposed to a representation of a saint for instance;30 a conclusion that appears as something of a contradiction in terms if one keeps the portrait definition in mind, viz. that a portrait must fundamentally be the product of an attempt—however formally stylised and typified—at visual likeness, a projection of the artist’s impression of the model transmitted into an artistic medium.31 The fact that the majority of late Roman/early Byzantine portraits are subjected to geometrisation, abstraction and an overall generalisation of the features, has often been explained as the reflection of a peculiarly spiritual late antique state of mind.32 Here the specific and individual would have had no interest or value, whereas the common or pan-human traits would have been considered more representative of man in the sense that they represent his true essence (compare the icon). Such a juxtaposition of things natural and man’s essential nature would primarily have derived from the writings of 28 Martindale 1980-1992:1, 79; Demandt 1989, 191. 29 See for instance L’Orange 1933, passim; Severin 1972, passim; Sande

23 See further below III.2.4, 3.2 and 3.3. 24 Naturally discounting the recarved face of Magnus B. 25 According to the titulature on the diptychs’ inscriptional tabulae

1975, passim; Kitzinger 1976:2, 257-261; Meischner 1988, passim. Also R. Arnheim 1974, 144-147. 30 Kitzinger 1976:2, 257; and Dagron 1991, 30f esp. 31 Compare the ‘individualised type’ and ‘typified individual’ discussed by Kiilerich in connection with the imperial imagery of the Theodosian period; Kiilerich 1992, 241, 244-247. 32 Such as, among others, L’Orange 1947, 95-110; L’Orange 1958, passim; Kähler 1949, passim; Bianchi Bandinelli 1956, passim; Breckenridge 1968, 211 esp.; R. Arnheim 1974, 145-147; Speyer 1989; Meischner 1990, 321324; and Elsner 1995, passim.

Anastasius was comes domesticorum equitum prior to his consulship, but it appears that this title was decorative only, and Anastasius is furthermore nowhere else reported to have held the title; Martindale 1980-1992:1, 83. 26 Iustinus was only ten in the year of his consulship; Delbrueck 1929, 151f. 27 Only one exception remains from the east, the medallion diptych of Philoxenus (cos. 525; Delbrueck 1929, N 29; Volbach 1976, Nr. 28), which shows a middle-aged face with sagging cheeks and a double chin.

65

Neo-Platonists and representatives of Christianity, who claimed that man must remove himself from the deluding chaos of the outer world and instead focus on leading an inner-directed, spiritual life in preparation for life after death.33 This view of things (as expressed by a small élite), it has almost unanimously been claimed by scholars since the 1930s, was in harmony with the experience of late antique man in general, and was as of course translated into art as formal abstraction. Much significance has for instance been ascribed to the eyes in late antique representations, which are generally emphasised through size and formal simplification and which gaze past the beholder (and often upwards) towards some unknown point in space. It has been argued that such eyes express a spiritual withdrawal from the physical world, a gazing into ‘the other’, which would be a special hall-mark of the man of late antiquity, more specifically the Christian man. According to this way of seeing, then, every portrait or human image can and must be interpreted as a mental statement of the times, and in the case of late antique art this statement would allegedly be expressive of a unanimous renunciation of the individual-circumstantial in favour of the general-eternal, which is also understood as the spiritual, and a search for a pan-human essence. Whether one agrees in principle or not with these farreaching conclusions concerning the late antique face, which have had such a lasting impact on the study of the period’s art as a whole,34 one may note that this ‘spiritualist’ mode of interpretation has not been applied to the consular diptychs, even if their representations do not differ from those of the period at large. This may perhaps chiefly be explained by the fact that the search for intrinsic meanings of form has fallen outside the scholarly interest directed at the consular diptychs.35 Thus, having argued that most of the consuls’ faces in the corpus cannot be defined as portraits in the sense of visual likeness to individual subjects, the question of the intention and meaning behind their aspects remains to be addressed.

artist, the commissioner, the purpose(s) of the work, and the artistic mode(s) favoured by the larger context of place and time, all of which combine to communicate certain ‘messages’ to the (informed and attuned) viewer.36 I would like to suggest that the key to the interpretation of ‘expression’ in the consular face be directly related to the function and meaning of the images within their specific context. Judging by the generic aspect and mask-like neutrality of the absolute majority of consul’s physiognomies, it is highly reasonable to conclude that neither personal likeness nor ‘expression’ formed part of the purpose behind their representation. It is, then, not primarily the image of the individual but of the representative, the official, that is conveyed through the consular face. Visual likeness between image and subject may in some instances have existed and been appreciated by persons who were acquainted with the honorands in question, but such likenesses seem more often than not to have been limited or coincidental rather than consciously intended, particularly in the case of the eastern diptychs. Those representations which seem to be exceptions to the general rule—Boethius and Basilius in particular—have a common denominator in that they are of western origin, and very possibly products of the same atelier. Judging by the preserved diptychs, western consuls desired to, and did, personalise their official imagery in a higher degree than their eastern colleagues. Basilius’ diptych suggests that this peculiarly western tendency would not have been restricted to the consuls of the 5th century. On the other hand there is no way of knowing whether diptychs issued by eastern consuls in the 5th century, of which none are preserved, differed much from those of their contemporary western colleagues in this respect. A visual likeness, i.e a portrait, may constitute a meaningful, even prominent, ingredient within the greater whole of a consul’s commemorative imagery, as is suggested by Basilius’ diptych; the pointedly person-related programme of this diptych37 would have gained further impact by an individualised portrait of the man. As for the physiognomical affinities between Basilius and Roma/Victoria, the most plausible way to explain them must be that the goddesses’ facial traits are intended to present conscious reflections of those of Basilius: the intimate connection indicated between the consul and his divine protectresses would thus indicate that the physiognomical correspondences between consul and goddesses be understood as (a symbolic) family likeness. The concept of family likeness within consular imagery, which is illustrated in a number of diptychs within the corpus (among which Lampadiorum and Halberstadt), will be further discussed in connection with secondary figures below.38

Defining anything so ephemeral as the expression of a face is of course difficult, but one may approach the issue by asking what the faces of these figures would be intended to convey. Is it the personal character of the honorand or perhaps his virtues, as these would be relevant to the theme of consulship? Or is it some more suprahuman or pan-human qualities, such as a number of 20th-century scholars have interpreted as expressions of a peculiarly late antique mental state, characterised by spiritual orientation and the rejection of the realm of the physical and circumstantial? Both of these intentions would be described as the joint product of the 33 E.g. Breckenridge 1968, 208-211; and Elsner 1995, 177f. 34 Compare the convincingly argued criticism presented by Onians on this;

36 For an illustration of the opposing views on the existence of such a

Onians 1980, passim. Also Reichert’s discussion of the continuity, artistic and ideological, between classical and late antique art; Reichert 1996. See further Kiilerich’s synoptic characterisation of the ‘Spritual Man’ type (bearded and with large, ‘expressive’ eyes), and of the imperial portrait as an idealised reflection of ‘divinely given power and might’; Kiilerich 1992, 243; and Kiilerich 2000, 276 respectively. 35 See I.2 (‘Previous scholarship: a critical survey’) above.

societal-collective intention or search, see particularly Breckenridge (who mainly expounds on the ideas of L’Orange) and Onians; Breckenridge 1968, 208-211; Onians 1980, passim. 37 For further treatment of the iconographic programme of the Basilius diptych, see esp. III.3.1, 3.2, and 3.4. 38 III.3.1-3.4.

66

To conclude, the representation of the consul’s face would as a rule not have aimed at presenting the viewer-recipient of his diptych with his likeness, and was more often than not created with limited (and in some cases likely no) knowledge of the subject’s facial characteristics. In the majority of representations, especially those created for eastern consuls, it would thus be ineffectual to speak of portraiture or likeness. The consul’s image was not primarily representative of the man as an individual, but of the man a s consul.39 His individual traits were more or less irrelevant to the function and meaning of the diptych, since the essential interest and purpose of the work lay in commemorating the consular appointment. Adequate means of identification of the person could be sufficiently provided through inscriptions. What mattered were the man’s name, rank and official titles, none of which needed to, or indeed could, be represented through visual likeness. Like the icon of a saint, the consul may first and foremost be recognised through his name inscription and attributes. Consulship transforms the man into a symbol, a representative of something other and greater than himself, an impersonal concept.

consul’s figure effectively counteracts the appearance of spatial realism. In Boethius the seated consul (right panel) is placed on a tangible ground level and in front of an architectural structure, and with various objects surrounding his feet in a fairly realistic manner. The corporeal proportions of the consuls’ figures vary slightly, but essentially conform to the representational dictates of 4th- and 5th-century imperial art:40 stocky and square, with an oversized—sometimes greatly so—head resting on slim shoulders. Exceptions exist of course, notably Basilius and Magnus A, and to some extent also Felix (3). In the majority of diptychs, and in all eastern ones, the reduced corporeal proportions become further emphasised through a lower relief of sculpting, which makes the body appear as a nearly two-dimensional plane. This phenomenon is chiefly witnessed in the diptychs where the consul is represented as seated. Often little or no attempt has been made at a perspective rendering of the lower half of the body, and the shapes of the limbs and their connection to the torso are completely hidden beneath the costume. In contrast with this, the outer contours of the body are always delineated with clarity. In real life, the multiple layers of costume fabric and the stiff heaviness of the richly embroidered trabea would of course effectually have hidden the body and its movements, and in a way this reality is illustrated in the images. But the prescribed folding-pattern of the toga is almost always undisturbed by the flexed legs of the seated figure: a general vertical shortening of the lower body and a slight bulge added to the outer contours of the legs suffice to indicate that the figure is really seated.

1.2. The consul’s body In all the preserved consular diptychs but one (Lampadiorum (1)) the consul is represented in full figure. He is always seen in a fixed state and frontally positioned so as to allow a full view of his body. He may be standing or seated, but the latter position is the most common and, it appears, standard for eastern consuls (at least in the 6th century). Whereas the standing position suggests a higher degree of (potential) activity, spatial independence, and physical groundedness, the seated position is more passive, restrained, and elevated—physically and symbolically. The enthroned consul is usually not only accompanied by secondary figures, but also more tied to the trappings of office. In the eastern diptychs the sella curulis develops into a monumentally proportioned and elaborately ornamented structure with architectural qualities (see especially Magnus (12)) into which the consul’s figure is firmly locked or ‘applied’ (Clementinus (10)). Further, in a number of tribunal images spatial relationships are upheaved so that the enthroned consul appears to be suspended in space, above or between scenic compartments that are spatially unrelated to the one in which he himself appears (see especially Areobindus (9) and Anastasius (11)). The most conspicuous example of such spatial upheaval is however found in the diptych of Basilius (8), where the consul appears to be soaring freely in space far above, as it were, the race-track of the circus. The Lampadiorum panel and the Boethius diptych (6) are the only ones to deviate from the general mode for representing enthronement. In Lampadiorum the consul and attendants are spatially integrated into an architectural structure: they are clearly seated behind a parapet and in front of columns. Still, the dramatically increased size of the

Concluding discussion: The consul’s body first and foremost functions as a carrier of attributes and a performer of certain poses and gestures41 illustrative of the ceremonies enacted by him in his official capacity. The representation of the triumphal costume is significantly facilitated by reducing the body to a plane, and the nonphysicality resulting from this—to all appearances consciously and methodically striven for by the artists—could consequently be considered first and foremost as the product of prioritisation: the correct depiction of the toga, its characteristic folding and pattern, was of a higher priority than the anatomically correct rendering of the consul’s body. This ‘rule’ most particularly applies to the eastern diptychs, reaching as it were its peak in the diptychs of Anastasius. Reduced proportions, compaction and twodimensionality transform the body into a pictorial surface onto which the many fine and complex details of the triumphal toga may be incised—not as they appear on the rounded body in a certain pose but as they are in themselves. The man literally disappears behind the costume. 40 Compare for instance with the pair of tetrarch porphyry sculpture

groups in Venice and the Vatican respectively (e.g. Bianchi Bandinelli 1970, 280 Fig. 256; and Kitzinger 1980, Fig. 5 and 8), the early 4th c. frieze on the north façade of the Arch of Constantine in Rome (e.g. De Maria 1988, Tav. 99 no.2), and the imperial representations on the obelisk base in the Hippodrome in Constantinople (e.g. Kiilerich 1993, Fig. 9b-12b). 41 See III.1.3.

39 Compare Dagron 1991, 25-28.

67

behind the imperial dais45 —remain standing; the enthroned position is exclusive to emperors and deities.46 The lower status of accompanying figures—togati, chlamydati, lictors—is not only indicated by a standing position (Lampadiorum excepted), but also by a slight turn towards the centre and sometimes a receded position (subtly receded in Halberstadt, distinctly receded in Areobindus (9)).47 The exclusivity of the enthroned position becomes increasingly emphasised with time, 6th-century eastern consuls being elevated on ever more monumental sellae that appear to be detached from spatial relationships altogether. The hieratic nature of the consuls’ pose, whether standing or enthroned, is further emphasised by the verticality and centrality of the panels’ composition.

It does not seem farfetched to assume that the abstraction of the corporeal within consular imagery was partly or wholly inspired by established notions of an ‘ideal’ reality, an essentially symbolic sphere set aside from the ordinary world. In this case the sphere is that of consulship.

1.3. Poses and gestures The poses and gestures of all consuls’ figures within the corpus conform to a more or less fixed repertory, which becomes significantly limited in the 6th-century east. As noted in the previous section, the consul may be either standing or seated, but irrespective of which pose is chosen it is vital that the body be seen from its most representative aspect, which is invariably the frontal one, and that none of the characteristic details of costume become muddled through perspective distortions. The body, standing or seated, may be subtly turned towards the centre of the (open) diptych, so as to create a symmetry between the panels; a practice that applies only to the ivories of western origin, whereas those from the east are always identically arranged (frontally or subtly turned to the right). The symmetrical arrangement of the western diptychs is usually accompanied by a differentiation of poses, and in some cases by a differentiation in official capacity (consulpatricius).42 Thus Boethius (6) shows the consul seated in one panel and standing in the other,43 and in Halberstadt (2) and Felix (3) the honorand is represented as consul and patricius respectively, both standing. In Basilius (8) the patrician representation is in the form of an imago clipeata. Whether standing or seated the consuls’ feet are placed apart, something which lends the figures physical weight, stability and equilibrium. The seated position is synonymous with enthronement: the consul is seated in full view and in a hieratic pose on a sella curulis (except for the honorand of Lampadiorum (1), whose lower body is hidden behind a parapet). The seated position is in one case only, Lampadiorum, shared with other figures;44 otherwise it is exclusive to the consul, and thus a sign of privilege. The hierarchic superiority of the seated position is also illustrated in the Halberstadt diptych, where it is exclusive to the emperors and city goddesses in the upper registers, whereas the honorand—and the courtly female

The consuls’ gestures are confined to very few variants, which become ever fewer and more schematised over time, the 6thcentury eastern consuls being very homogeneously rendered. The left-arm gesture performed by the consul is the same throughout the corpus (including the medallion diptychs): the arm is bent close to the side of the body, the sinus fold of the toga hanging across the forearm, and the hand clasping the sceptre at waist level. The gesture may be described as passive and static. In those images where the honorand is displayed in the capacity of patricius the left arm is entirely hidden by the chlamys. The right-arm gesture may be varied, sometimes depending on what type of object is held in the hand. With the right hand the consul generally performs a specific ‘act’ consistent with one or other function of his office;48 the same applies to the patrician representations. Beginning with the early western diptych of Felix, the consul’s empty right hand rests on the chest, palm cupped inwards. The same gesture is performed by the chlamydati attending the honorand as patricius in the right panel of Halberstadt. The honorand himself holds the right hand in the same position across his chest, but with two digits raised as a sign of formal speech; the identical gesture is performed by the emperors in the upper register (both panels). The two types of right-hand gesture, the gesture of speech and the cupped variety, would signify different types of locution: the Halberstadt honorand has the precedence or initiative of speech (like the emperors above him), whereas his attendants respond to that speech. The two-digit gesture would accordingly be defined as active and authoritative, and the cupped-hand gesture as passive and receptive, a gesture of subordination.49 I believe that the

42 See further Engemann’s discussion of the purposes of such symmetry;

45 See further III.3.4. 46 Cf. Grabar 1936, 85-92; Treitinger 1938, 216-219; and Bowersock,

Engemann 1998. 43 This may possibly originally also have applied to the almost completely planed down diptych panel in the Victoria and Albert Museum; Delbrueck 1929, N 44; Volbach 1976, Nr. 44 and 44 a. The pattern is also repeated in the Carolingian ‘San Gregorio’ diptych in Monza; Delbrueck 1929, N 43; Volbach 1976, Nr. 43. 44 Lampadiorum may be compared with the Liverpool venatio panel (Pl. 18), a work that was probably produced in the same period and roughly the same place as the Lampadiorum panel. In this work the central figure of the upper register has not been distinguished from the men flanking him except by the downward-diagonal gesture he performs with his right arm, extending a patera across the parapet, i.e. neither by size nor by some other more official attribute.

Brown & Grabar 1999, 727f. See also the miniature figure-scene crowning the sceptre in Areobindus D; below III.2.1.2. 47 On the hierarchical significances of the spatial relationships between consul and secondary figures, including size/scale, see III.3 (3.1, 3.2 and 3.5 esp.). 48 Compare Brilliant’s definition of the right hand of late Roman emperors and high officials as ‘the ensign of their power [...] always discretely prominent’; Brilliant 1963, 196. 49 In Halberstadt’s case the combination of gestures is clearly indicative of an hierarchical order, whereas in Felix’s case such a hierarchy is not actually represented. The passive-receptive gesture would instead be

68

latter significance applies to Felix also, even if he is in fact represented as consul and therefore of the highest order himself. The open hand cupped against his chest could signify formal reception, an appropriate and probably formalised gesture of solemn humility ceremoniously performed by one who has been appointed to high office.50 The cupped-hand gesture recurs in a number of other official diptychs of western (Roman) origin and roughly the same date: the Liverpool venatio panel (Pl. 18), the ‘Kaiserpriester’ diptych in Paris (Pl. 19)51 and the bone panel of C.L. Severus from Ostia.52 In the Liverpool ivory, the cuppedhand gesture is performed by the attendant togatus seated at the right side of the central figure (left), who by his placement and active gesture (he proffers a sacrificial vessel) demonstrates his primary status; in the Paris diptych, a priest of the emperor’s cult,53 presiding at the amphitheatre, cups his right hand on the chest in the left panel whilst holding a codicil scroll in the same position in the right (compare Felix). The two-digit, active speech gesture again recurs in the official diptychs of Probianus, Stilicho and the anonymous Novara patricius, all of which are Italian works dated to the period 400-450.54 In the lost right panel of Felix’s diptych (3 a ) , the honorand was represented holding the codicil scroll of his patrician appointment across the chest. A codicil scroll is also found in the right hand of Astyrius,55 where however it rests in the lap in an undemonstrative manner. Being an official document of appointment, the codicil would be classified as

an object of reception, and therefore ‘passive’. Hence the receptive or passive gesture with which such an object is displayed. The object most commonly featured in the consul’s right hand is the mappa circensis, which may be held either passively lowered—usually resting in the lap of the seated consul—or raised high and demonstratively in the air. The ‘passive’ mappa is found in Lampadiorum, and in the left panel of Clementinus (10), Magnus (12) and Orestes (7) respectively, whereas the ‘active’ mappa is seen in the majority of diptychs: the left panel of Halberstadt, the right panel of Boethius, the diptychs of Bourges (5), Areobindus, Anastasius (11) and all preserved medallion diptychs but one.56 The diptych of Basilius does not conform to either of these schemes, but the consul clasps the mappa in front of his chest in the same manner as Felix held his codicil in the lost panel of his diptych.57 It seems reasonable to assume that different significances were ascribed to the ways in which the mappa was displayed. The raised mappa is indicative of functional use and action, whereas the lowered m a p p a suggests a passive and nonfunctional use. One could, as has surrepititiously been done (by Delbrueck and Volbach among many others),58 interpret the raised mappa as a signal for the games to begin; this is, after all, the basic function of the kerchief.59 However, I would like to relativise this interpretation by proposing that the function or ‘meaning’ of the mappa circensis within a consular image may not always be as straightforward as one perhaps expects. For instance, why Boethius is standing with the mappa lowered beside his body in one panel and seated on a sella with the mappa raised in the other, apparently cannot be explained by relating the respective gestures to anything presented within the images themselves: there are no circus scenes, nor any tribunal from which the consul could be said to preside.60 The same may be said of the left panel of Halberstadt, where the standing consul raises his mappa above a scene unrelated to games. In the case of Clementinus, Orestes and Magnus again, the consuls rest the mappa in the lap; neither of these images features games-scenes, but the ‘distribution’ of coin and other objects. Finally, although the Basilius diptych contains a circus scene, neither the consul’s standing position nor his clasping of the mappa to his chest would be described as ‘realistic’ or representative of a praeses ludorum in action. As for the mode in which Basilius holds the mappa, it also occurs in the significantly earlier Liverpool venatio panel, but

interpreted as directed at a fictive person outside of the image (such as the consul’s appointer, the emperor), or else it is merely to be understood as a gesture meant for the viewer of the diptych, for whom Felix is posing. Shelton characterised the cupped-hand gesture as one of acclamation (or so I understand it); Shelton 1989, 123. However, the gesture of acclamation is usually more demonstrative: the hand is not resting against the body, the palm is turned outwards, and the arm is usually outstretched in the direction of the object of acclamation; compare Brilliant 1963, 125f, 177, 207. The attendants’ gestures in Halberstadt cannot be said to follow this pattern. Although inferior in status to the honorand, they are not subservient to him: they have right of speech, but not precedence. 50 The same type of gesture is performed by the left-side attendant in the Liverpool venatio panel, and in the Halberstadt diptych by the left-side attendant in the left panel and both attendants in the right. Compare Neumann’s interpretation of the similar gesture performed by some Greek statues/statuettes of athletes or women as signifying gratitude towards a deity for a victory/favour conferred; Neumann 1965, 81f. Compare also Gombrich’s interpretation of the ‘cross the heart’ gesture as expressive of sincerity (Gombrich 1982, 64); and Sittl’s interpretation of the (allegedly) peculiarly Greek gesture of resting the left hand on the chest as a sign of serfdom or gratitude (Sittl 1890, 162). 51 Delbrueck 1929, N 57; Volbach 1976, Nr. 58. 52 Delbrueck 1929, N 65A. For the Severus panel, see also Ross 1945; and Cutler 1993, 172f and Fig. 7. 53 Recognised through his peculiar crown; see Delbrueck 1929, 223. See further III.7.2.6 where this diptych will be treated separately. 54 Delbrueck 1929, N 65, N 63, N 64; Volbach 1976, Nr. 62, Nr.63, Nr. 64. For the Novara patricius diptych see also Formis 1967; and Compostella 1990:1. For an illustrative example of how the speech gesture was introduced into Christian art, see the Christian-cum-official Carrand diptych (east, 5th c.); Delbrueck 1929, N 69; Volbach 1976, Nr. 117; also Shelton 1989, 109 Fig. 7.2, 117-125. 55 Compare also the right panel of the ‘Kaiserpriester’ diptych, and the left panel of the Novara patricius diptych.

56 The lost Anthemius diptych (Pl. 15) showed the raised mappa gesture.

The exception among medallion diptychs is the ex-Ganay panel (Pl. 17). 57 Compare also the right-side official in the Liverpool venatio panel, and the ceramic plaque fragment after a consular diptych of Anicius Auchenius Bassus (west, cos. 408) (?) in the Prähistorische Staatsammlung, Munich (Spier 2003, Fig. 2). 58 Delbrueck 1929, 62f; Volbach 1976, 29. 59 On the practical function of the mappa circensis, see also DarSag III:2, 1594 s.v. ‘Mappa’ (E. Pottier); and A. Alföldi 1935, 34-36. Delbrueck’s praeses theory and the problems connected with it will be discussed more in depth under III.7.2 and 7.3 See further also III.2.1.2. 60 See further III.7.2.1.

69

then in the hand of a by-sitter (right), i.e. not of the chief praeses himself.61 This by-sitter’s role would again be compared to that of the right-side attendant in Lampadiorum and Halberstadt (left panel), who in each case carries a mappa (smaller and less conspicuous than the consul’s) in a lowered position. The function of these secondary mappae is not automatically understood, but Delbrueck’s suggestion that they must be attributes denoting the status/title of their carriers62 seems plausible. The conclusion concerning the different ways of displaying the mappa must be that no uniform system was established, and consequently that there need not have been any more explicit motivations behind the choice of gesture. The raised arm gesture is certainly more active and demonstrative; immediately catching the viewer’s attention, the raised mappa effectively reminds the viewer of the consul’s active part in presiding at his games, irrespective of whether these games are represented or not. The raised hand of the consul may typologically be compared to the outstretched right hand of the emperor as seen in Roman art from the principate onwards, signifying lordly-divine power and invincibility.63 Transferred to the consul’s figure it works in something like the same way: the diagonal direction of the raised arm perceptibly breaks the hieratic regularity of the image, introducing an element of movement and forcefulness, even if frozen. The raised hand firmly clutching the mappa enforces the impression of strength—physical, resolute, yet static. The choice of mappa gesture may simply have been a question of artistic variation, as in Boethius; or, as in the Halberstadt diptych, a way of underlining the distinction between the consul’s and the patrician’s roles. If a pattern in the application of the mappa may at all be traced, it is in the four diptych series preserved from the east, where the active and passive mappa gestures are combined with two different types of lower-register scenes: fighting scenes (Areobindus, Anastasius64 ) are accompanied by a raised mappa, and non-fighting scenes with a lowered mappa (Clementinus, Magnus). Whether this should be regarded as an indication of a specifically eastern practice cannot be concluded from so limited a number of specimens, but would perhaps rather be understood as a tendency towards formal standardisation in general. Ultimately it is a question of how one may relate the lower-register scenes to the ‘scene’ of which the consul takes part. This will be discussed in a later section.65

assume that the variations and combinations of poses and gestures represented within consular imagery reflect consular ceremonial: the choice of pose and gesture may have then depended on which part of a ceremonial the consul favoured for this or that diptych (one must allow for the possibility that all diptychs of an issue were not identically composed) or, possibly, which part of a consular ceremonial was considered the most representative or climactic in a certain period and place. Whereas western diptych carvers had a comparatively wider range of options open to them as to poses and (right arm) gestures, their eastern counterparts apparently had to conform to a standardised mode of representation: frontal enthronement with mappa raised or lowered in the lap. An absolute rule however dictated the manner in which the scipio was to be held in both west and east, viz. in the (passive) left hand and locked level with the waist. The ordinary consul’s way of holding the sceptre may be compared to that of the emperor, who always holds it in the right (active) hand, thereby demonstrating that his rule is ‘active’;66 the world orb over which he rules rests in his left hand. The comparison illustrates that the consul’s power is passive and symbolic, whereas the emperor’s power is active and real. The freer approach to how the consular image could be conceived in the west also allowed the artists (and commissioners) to choose the ‘freer’ full-figure scheme, which emphasises the man’s stature, physicality and (potential) mobility as well as his relative independence from the trappings of office. Indirectly the standing consul appears to be closer to the viewer than his eastern colleague, whose enthronement contrarily separates and elevates. Unlike his eastern counterpart, further, the western consul could choose to have himself represented with the codicil of his appointment (instead of the mappa) (Astyrius), or to refer to his patrician status (Halberstadt, Felix, Basilius), thereby as it were automatically leaving room for a greater range of gestures. Why some consuls are actively waving the mappa, some resting it inactively in the lap, and others again holding it passively to the side of the body or solemnly in front of the chest, variously standing or seated, is not always clear. However, in the cases of Lampadiorum and Halberstadt, where the mappa-waving consul is accompanied by a lower official carrying the same attribute (in both diptychs the rightside attendant), the raised mappa distinguishes its carrier hierarchically from the personage holding it passively lowered. In Halberstadt, a hierarchically determined differentiation in mappa gestures is paralleled by the differentiated speech gestures performed by the honorand and his attendants in the patrician panel: as the honorand has precedence of speech, so he has precedence in handling the mappa. The more active and demonstrative gesture is thus

Concluding discussion: Something like a standard set of consular poses and gestures within official imagery apparently began to be established from c . 400. It seems natural to 61 The corresponding by-sitter (right) in Lampadiorum holds his mappa (a

smaller specimen than the consul’s) not towards his chest, even if it appears so, but in the same position as the consul holds his, viz. in the lap. 62 Delbrueck 1929, 90, 219. 63 Brilliant 1963, 96-102 esp. 64 This very likely also applied to the lost diptych(s) of Anthemius (east, 515), which displayed considerable similarities to the Anastasian imagery; Delbrueck 1929, N 17; Volbach 1976, Nr. 16. 65 III.4. Also III.7.3.

66 Exemplifications of this very traditional and ubiquitously repeated

phenomenon are also found within the corpus of consular diptychs, such as the emperor Honorius in the diptych of Probus (Pl. 14) and the emperor Anastasius I as military commander on Areobindus’ sceptre in diptychs A-C (holding the ‘active’ sceptre in his right, and the ‘passive’ orb in his left). On the emperor’s right hand as a signifier of power, see further Brilliant 1963, 208-211.

70

conducted.69 By the early principate the scipio was allowed to be carried in the pompa by both consuls and praetors. It has been proposed that the choice of scipio was, from the early empire on, decided by the ceremonial context: the eaglecrowned scipio cum aquila, constituting the most ancient and sacred type, would have been restricted to the processus triumphalis and the processus consularis, whereas the bustcrowned sceptre was carried at the pompa circensis; the latter initially by the praetors, but from the Flavian period onwards also by ordinary consuls.70 Whether such a system was still in force in late antiquity is not absolutely clear; Schäfer appears to take it for granted,71 whereas Salomonson cited the diptychs of Boethius (6) and Magnus (12) as evidence for the continuance of the traditional practice.72 At some point in time the eagle-crowned sceptre became the insignium of the imperial consul,73 but as the diptychs of Boethius and Magnus show, it was not absolutely exclusive to the imperial consul. Nor indeed was the bust-sceptre exclusive to the ordinary consul (and to the lower magistrates entitled to wear the triumphal ornatus), as is proved by the figural inset of an imperial consul on the tablion worn by the empress Ariadne (?) in an ivory panel preserved in the Museo Nazionale del Bargello, Florence.74 According to Restle, finally,75 the scipio cum aquila could be used by ordinary consuls until the perpetual consulship of Justinian, i.e. as long as private citizens were eligible to the office (until 542). The practice of carrying full triumphalia during the consular ceremonies on the New Year, that is independently of the triumphal context proper, appears to date from Flavian times,76 after which

synonymous with superiority, the man who performs it being invested with the highest power. In the 6th-century east, consular poses and gestures were restricted to one basic scheme: the consul enthroned holding the mappa. This scheme does not emphasise the physical stature or independence of the man, but on the contrary the trappings surrounding his office. The man is integrated into a frame or enclosure, locked in passive-hieratic enthronement. His elevation from the ground-level by the increasingly taller construction of the sella curulis (most notably in Magnus), and his often dramatically larger scale vis-à-vis any figures below him, announce an inaccessibility, an ever further removal from the ‘ordinary world’. As a rule the groundline has vanished altogether, the consul’s figure floating suspended in space like an epiphany. The result is that the eastern consul appears emblematic-symbolic rather than human. To conclude, a limited formal heterogeneity characterised the western consular diptychs, whereas homogeneity prevailed in the east, at least during the 6th century. In the east, consequently, the conveyance of meaning through pose and gesture was severely restricted, the ‘universal formula’ leaving little room for alternative meaning.

2. ATTRIBUTES OF CONSULSHIP

2.1. Official attributes: the consular costume and insignia

69 Salomonson 1956, 63, 91; Versnel 1970, 74, 77; Künzl 1988, 94-97;

Schäfer 1989, 184f, 187f. 70 Salomonson 1956, 88-100; Schäfer 1989, 184-188. According to Salomonson the eagle-crowned sceptre fell into disuse within the magisterial context. This conclusion may however be modified not only by the evidence of the consular diptychs but also by a number of coins struck from 226 and into the 5th century (issued in commemoration of imperial consulships); see further below. Restle is of the opinion that the eaglecrowned sceptre was something of a standard consular insignium which could occasionally replace the bust-sceptre, and which did not become an imperial monopoly until Justinian; Restle 1988, 940, 956. 71 Schäfer 1989, 185. 72 Salomonson 1956, 32, 100. See further 2.1.2. 73 For a range of 3rd-5th c. coins showing imperial consuls with the scipio cum aquila, see Delbrueck 1929, Texttaf. 1 no.3; Stern 1953, 154 and Pl. XXXI; Burgess 1988, Pl. 23 nos. 3-4 and Pl. 26 no. 12; Künzl 1988, Abb. 51, 56-58; and RIC X (1994), Pl. 333 nr. 1330 and Pl. 41. Compare also the apotheosis relief on the column base of Antoninus Pius in the Vatican, where the togate emperor holds a large eagle-crowned sceptre; Vogel 1973, Fig. 3-5; also Elsner 1998, 36 Fig. 13. 74 Delbrueck 1929, N 51, Taf. 51; Volbach 1976, Nr. 51, Taf. 27. On the attribution of the panel to Ariadne, spouse of Zeno and later Anastasius I, see Modigliani 1889; Delbrueck 1929, 204f; Wessel 1964; and Paolucci 1994, 17f. For a good view of the inset in question, see Delbrueck 1929, 202 Abb. 1; and Grabar 1966, 277 Fig. 318. See further under section 2.1.2. 75 Restle 1988, 956. 76 Schäfer 1989, 181. Salomonson thought that the use of full triumphal costume and insignia was of an earlier date—how much earlier however remains unclear; Salomonson 1956, 82f. Salomonson also regarded the fact that the ancient literary sources remain quiet on this particular point as a proof of conscious selection on the part of the authors themselves, who would allegedly have been hesitant to mention anything non vetus—a somewhat problematic argument which, however, does not change the fact

Consulship is primarily represented by means of the triumphal toga costume (vestis triumphalis)67 and the scipio eburneus: these constitute the obligatory repertory for representing consulship. The sella curulis appears to have been an obligatory motif only for eastern consuls (of the 6th century). The fasces, which are not an insignium exclusive to the consul, occur in a number of diptychs, where they are carried by either lictors or a city goddess. The codicilli, the official document of appointment, is only rarely represented within the corpus, the consular codicil occurring in two diptychs and its patrician counterpart in one. The consular ornatus or ornamenta consularia date back to the regal times of the Etruscan kings, and were subsequently adopted by the triumphatores and later by the ordinary consuls of the republic.68 According to tradition the triumphal garb and the scipio cum aquila were Iuppiter’s insignia, borrowed from the god’s temple on the Capitol to be donned by the triumphator who then temporarily became the human representative of the god in whose honour the processus triumphalis and processus consularis were 67 See above I.1.1. The alba vestis triumphalis was reserved for the

emperor; A. Alföldi 1935, 32; Künzl 1988, 90, 92 Abb. 58. 68 Salomonson 1956, 53-64; Versnel 1970, 57f, 77, 83f, 89-93, 126-131, 302f; Restle 1988, 947; Künzl 1988, 85-129; Schäfer 1989, 187f.

71

there seems to have been little or no changes.77 The sella curulis seems to have remained unchanged throughout the Roman period. Its role within consular ceremonial is not entirely clear, but the sources indicate that it was part of both the processus consularis and the pompa circensis;78 in the former ceremony the consul was seated on the sella which was supported on a a sedia gestatoria, and carried in procession accompanied by lictors. Additionally, it appears that the seat was sometimes referred to as the sella triumphalis.79 The ornamenta consularia were conferred on the consul by the emperor.80 In the following, the focus will primarily be on the differences between the variations of the consular costume and insignia as they are represented within the consular diptychs. Types will be outlined and discussed from the point of view of form, function and implicit meaning. A basic assumption is thus that the formal variations are somehow linked to specific intentions; i.e. that variations result from conscious choice on the part of the artists and/or commissioners of the diptychs, and correspond to certain meanings beyond the forms/motifs themselves.

form of a purely geometric border84 or, which is more common, a laurel border,85 viz. a triumphal motif. Corresponding motifs usually also ornament the tunic sleeves. Occasionally the trabea pattern is combined with figural insets, segmenta or purpura,86 as seen in Halberstadt (2), Basilius (8) and Areobindus C (9). The uppermost inset on the toga of the Halberstadt consul shows a togatus holding aloft a mappa, whereas the lower inset is in the form of an imago clipeata displaying military attributes (helmet, shield): the inset on Basilius’ trabea shows the representation of a togatus riding a currus bigalis, holding a sceptre in his left hand and extending his right with an open-handed gesture, and the insets on Areobindus’ ‘Hängestreifen’ represent a standing consul with sceptre and mappa within a columned arch. The lost diptych of Anthemius (Pl. 15) displayed a pattern of multiple figural insets in the form of bust medallions of togati. The military bust on the consul’s trabea (lower inset) in Halberstadt deviates from the imperial imago otherwise represented on the consular insignia (sceptre, sella curulis)87 in the consular diptychs in that it refers not to consulship but to military commandership. Its only parallel within the preserved corpus is found on the consular sceptre in Areobindus A-C, which is crowned by the emperor’s military statuette.88 The occurrence of this motif on the consular toga in Halberstadt may meaningfully be related to other motifs in the diptych imagery connected to the spheres of empire, war and victory: the military costumes of the imperial figures in the upper registers and the vanquished barbarians of the lower. The war- and victory-related themes represented in the Halberstadt diptych will be discussed in greater depth further on. The togatus on a currus bigalis featured on Basilius’ costume is interesting for the reason that it refers to a specific act within the consular ceremonial, viz. the opening of the pompa circensis, where the consul drives around the arena in a chariot-and-two.89 Whom, if anyone specific, this togatus is intended to represent may only be speculated on. Since the figure does not display any imperial attribute one must assume that it represents a private consul, and therefore most likely a consular ancestor of Basilius cos. 541.90

2.1.1. The vestis triumphalis The representation of the consular vestis triumphalis (toga triumphalis, vestis palmata) may in a way be said to provide the most regular feature within the imagery of the consular diptychs. The contabulate folding of the trabea displays two patterns, the ‘bridge’ over the right shoulder evidently becoming standard sometime after 450.81 The ancient star pattern,82 whose shapes may be varied almost endlessly to look like flowers, rosettes or other astral motifs such as the spiral sun-disc (Anastasius B) (11),83 remains unaltered throughout the period of the diptychs. The trabea and the underlying tunic may wear an ornamental lining, either in the that the sources are quiet on the precise date when full ornamenta triumphalia was introduced within the consular context. See also A. Alföldi 1934, 94-96. 77 Alföldi argued that the toga triumphalis became increasingly identified with ceremonial consulship in the 3rd century, in which period the imperial triumphal costume developed into a richer, gem-incrusted variant; A. Alföldi 1935, 25-43; also McCormick 1986, 21. As a point of interest it may be mentioned that the emperor Honorius conducted his triumphal ceremonies in Rome in 403/404 clothed in the triumphal trabea, which would then have been understood as a joint reference to triumphatorship and consulship; Claud., IV Cons. Hon. 606-610; Amm.Marc., 16.10.13. See also McCormick 1986, 89. 78 Delbrueck 1929, 63, 67; Salomonson 1956, 38f; Wanscher 1980, 127, 154-156; and Schäfer 1989, 25, 84-90, 181. 79 Corippus, Iust.Aug., 4.107; Delbrueck 1929, 63. 80 Delbrueck 1929, 59 (with notes); Millar 1977, 308. 81 Delbrueck 1929, 46f; Goette 1990, 99; also above, I.1.1. 82 Delbrueck 1929, 53; Salomonson 1956, 53; Versnel 1970, 56; and Künzl 1988, 85-87. 83 The spiral disc also occurs on the seat-rail of Clementinus’ sella curulis (10). On the celestial nature and derivation of the ‘triumphal’ pattern, and its religious/divine connotations, see e.g. Cumont 1942, 239 and n. 6. See further IV.4. Spiral discs also appear in sepulchral art (notably on Gallic and central European stelae), where the flower-shaped star or cartouche is occasionally combined with the crescent lunar symbol; Cumont 1942, 237239, Fig. 57 and 59.

84 Areobindus C (9), Anastasius A-B and Magnus (12). 85 Felix (3), Boethius (6), Basilius (8) (partially), Areobindus diptychs A

and B, and Anastasius B (left panel) and C. 86 Delbrueck 1929, 33, 38; Kruse 1934, 110-112; A. Alföldi 1935, 60; and Meslin 1970, 55. Also DarSag IV:2, 1172-1175 s.v. ‘Segmentum’ (V. Chapot) (includes a discussing of the carré-shaped type of segmentum called tabula which decorates the chlamys; see further III.3.1 below). 87 See further III.2.1.2 and 2.1.3. 88 See further below, III.2.1.2. 89 Typologically the image corresponds to the representation of a consular charioteer from the Basilica of Iunius Bassus (opus sectile, c.330-350 (Rome, Museo Nazionale, Palazzo Massimo alle Terme); e.g. Bianchi Bandinelli 1970, Fig. 88-89). On the ceremonies of the consular pompa, see Stern 1953, 161-163; Salomonson 1956, 92-96; Versnel 1970, 302f. Also Delbrueck 1929, 66-68, 74-79. 90 Compare Delbrueck 1929, 101.

72

The bust medallions on the toga of Anthemius, as these are reproduced in the preserved 18th-century engraving,91 seem to have represented at least two different personages (a third may likely have been found on the umbo), judging by the differences in hairstyle and beardedness between them. The only plausible interpretation of these medallion busts must be that they represent the emperor Anastasius I, Anthemius’ appointer and three times consul before 515,92 and another former consul of Anthemius’ family: the western emperor Anthemius (467-472), the present consul’s father and namesake and eastern consul in 455,93 or his brother Marcianus, twice consul.94 Of these two the most probable would naturally be the emperor Anthemius. This said, one must however acknowledge the problem posed by the lower inset-bust, which is bearded and therefore does not correspond to any of the male imagines in the upper register, plausibly identified as Anastasius I and the emperor Anthemius. Whether to attribute this discrepancy to a misinterpretation on the part of the engraver or to the original diptych cannot of course be established. Suffice it to conclude that the segmenta on Anthemius’ trabea indicate that its bearer is connected to two prominent consular dynasties.

things appear more misty, since there is no tabula ansata to inform the viewer of the title(s) of the personage commemorated. In fact, there is really nothing within the Bourges diptych’s imagery that absolutely and exclusively denotes a consular status:99 both bust-sceptre and fascescarrying lictors came with other high offices, and so did the curule chair. It is of course possible that the trabea once had a painted triumphal pattern, but the lack of pigment residues weakens such a theory.100 So the only plausible explanation for the Bourges honorand’s plain toga must be that he, like Astyrius, took office outside the capital.101 Concluding discussion: The central importance of the triumphal toga as a sign of consulship is illustrated by the fact that it nearly always visually dominates the image—the effects of the richly detailed, coloured and gilded ornamentation of the various garments would originally have been dramatic, and made it an absolute focal point for the entire image. The same effects would not have been attained by the plain, albeit probably brightly coloured, toga of Astyrius and the Bourges consul;102 a disadvantage that has in both cases been at least partly compensated for by the incorporation of additional attributes of high office.103 The inclusion of figural s e g m e n t a on the trabea corresponds to a phenomenon attested by Corippus, who reports that ‘true likenesses’ of the emperor, in the form of bust representations, adorned the trabeae conferred by him on certain individuals.104 Imagines of the emperor, whose gift the toga was, could thus be incorporated in its pattern; a practice which has been interpreted either as a sign of serfdom or as a proof of the emperor’s esteem towards a particular subject.105 The costume segmenta represented in the corpus, however, do not conform to a single pattern. Whereas the imperial image—in the form of a bust or a standing full figure—ornaments the trabeae of the Halberstadt consul, Areobindus and Anthemius, there is nothing to suggest that

A unique feature of Basilius’ costume is the eagle-feather motif covering the lower half of the trabea (the entire sinus), which presents a distinct deviation from the traditional star motifs of the triumphal pattern, and which corresponds exactly to the feathers of both Victoria’s and the eagle’s wings in the opposite panel. By transposing, as it were, the feather motif to the consul’s triumphal costume, a symbolic link is established between the consulship of Basilius and the ancient deities of Roman victoriousness and world dominion.95 At the same time one may say that the feather motif is associated with the sky-dwelling deities Victoria and the aquila and thus, like the star pattern, celestial. In the western diptychs of Astyrius (4) and Bourges (5) the consuls wear plain togas. In Astyrius’ case the lack of the patterned trabea of the triumphal costume96 may be explained by historical data: Astyrius did not take office in Rome but in Arelate (Arles),97 in consequence of which he would have been prohibited from wearing the triumphal toga, a garment exclusively donned inside the pomerium of Rome.98 In the case of the anonymous Bourges honorand

99 The consular attribution seems to have first been introduced by

Delbrueck, who relied exclusively on the scipio (‘Die Bestimmung des Diptychons war wegen des Szepters doch wohl consular’); Delbrueck 1929, 160. 100 Delbrueck 1929, 158. Connor’s study (Connor 1998) does not include the Bourges diptych among those examined for traces of pigment. 101 Other peculiarities point in this direction, notably the curious shape of the sella curulis and the inclusion of lictors; see further III.2.1.3, 2.1.4 and 3.1. 102 In the case of the Astyrius ivory, the pigment remains found give some indications of how such a colouration would have looked like; compare Delbrueck 1929, 95-97. How far the aforementioned 16th c. watercolour (Delbrueck 1929, Texttaf. 2) reflects the original colouration of the consul’s costume is impossible to determine. 103 See further III.2.1.4, 2.1.5 and 3.1. 104 The image of the emperor as victor and victory scenes allegedly decorated the imperial vestment of Justin; Corippus, Iust.Aug. 1.272-293. See also DarSag IV:2, 1172-1175 s.v. ‘Segmentum’ (V. Chapot); and McCormick 1986, 68 and n. 89. 105 Respectively DarSag III:1, 406f s.v. ‘Imago’ (E. Courbaud); and Kruse 1934, 110-112. On the imperial images on the consular trabea, see also Meslin 1970, 55. For a different interpretation of the inset figures on Areobindus’ costume, viz. that they represent consular ancestors of Areobindus (Dagalaifus and Olybrius), see Bertelli 1958:2, 602.

91 Delbrueck 1929, Taf. 17. 92 492, 497 and 507; e.g. Degrassi 1952, 95-97. 93 For biographical data on Anthemius I and Anthemius cos. 515, see

Martindale 1980-1992:1, 96f, 99; and also Delbrueck 1929, 121 94 469 and 472; Martindale 1980-1992:1, 717. 95 On the victory themes of Basilius’ consular imagery, see further III.3.2 and 3.3, and IV.2 and 5. 96 That the characteristic star pattern was not painted on is proved by a 16th c. coloured reproduction; Delbrueck 1929, Texttaf. 2. 97 Martindale 1980-1992:1, 174f; Bagnall, Cameron, Schwartz & Worp 1987, 402f. 98 Compare Delbrueck 1929, 98. On the use of the triumphal costume within the pomerium exclusively, see also e.g. Versnel 1970, 57-74, 83; and Restle 1988, 944.

73

the togate charioteer on Basilius’ costume inset represents an emperor. Basilius is also the only one of the consuls whose costumes are ornamented with figural segmenta to be unrelated to the imperial house.106 The bust-insets on Anthemius’ trabea may further be said to present a combination of imperial and ancestral imagines.107 It may seriously be doubted that the emperor would ever have presented a consul with a toga adorned with figural insets representing other than himself, such as seems to be the case in Basilius. Assuming that he did not, one must conclude that all representations of segmenta are not ‘true’ in the sense that they present faithful depictions of the consul’s real costume, but that they were images within images, conceived by the artists who carved the diptychs and/or the commissioning consuls themselves. The interpretation proposed by Delbrueck for the consul-cum-biga on the trabea of Basilius as representing an ancestor performing the pompa circensis108 is convincing, since this particular honorand did indeed count a number of previous consuls among his family.109 The form chosen for this representation however has little in common with the traditional form for ancestral imago, but instead reflects the standard late antique image of the triumphator—the triumphating emperor, Sol (among other deities), the victorious charioteer110 riding his currus (triumphalis).111 This typal correspondence encourages the viewer to associate the biga-riding ancestor of Basilius with a triumphator,112 a triumphal association which is further strengthened by the consul-charioteer’s right-hand

gesture—frontal, open, demonstrative—which does not correspond to any standard consular gesture within the imagery of ordinary (private) consuls, but which is exemplified by the right-side city goddess in the diptychs of Clementinus (10), Magnus (12) and Orestes (7); a gesture that is very similar to the gesture of superior/divine power performed by Sol (Invictus) and the emperor in Roman art of earlier centuries.113 To conclude, irrespective of whether they represent imperial or other personages, the inclusion of figural insets on the consular trabea is a vehicle by which the viewer may be reminded of the honorand’s consular heritage, i.e. the prominence of his family and ancestors within the Roman state.

2.1.2. The scipio eburneus The sceptre (scipio eburneus) is the only consular insignium to be represented in all diptychs (fully figural and medallion). A couple of rules evidently dictated how this insignium should be depicted. It is invariably held in a vertical position in the left hand,114 which is locked level with the waist, and the uppermost part of the sceptre should always be parallel to the consul’s head. There may also be distinguished some differences between western and eastern representations of the sceptre as such. In the west they are mostly larger, heavier and crowned by simpler motifs/constellations than in the east, and the western range of sceptres are also more formally heterogeneous than the eastern ones. The sceptres of the eastern consuls are without exception short and slender, but with occasionally complex top constellations, as in Areobindus (9) and Anastasius (11). As a general rule, however, no two sceptres display exactly the same shape.

106 The honorand of Halberstadt, Fl. Constantius, was married to Honorius’

step-sister Galla Placidia in 417 (see further III.3.4), Areobindus was married to the emperor Olybrius’ daughter, and Anthemius was the son of the former western emperor Anthemius; Martindale 1980-1992:1, 96f, 99, 143. 107 A parallel to the bust medallions in Anthemius is the consular representation of Gallus in the Codex-calendar of 354; Stern 1953, Pl. XIV; Salzman 1990, Fig. 13. This imperial consul is depicted wearing what may perhaps be recognised as a derivative form of the toga picta, the triumphal star pattern of which is combined with busts and representations of astrological constellations within ovals, rhombs and squares, the former of which may be compared to the bust medallions on Anthemius’ toga; Stern 1953, 167, n. 1. As both images are later reproductions of lost originals any more explicit interpretations of their various details must necessarily be tentative; but they may still—together with Basilius’ diptych—be cited as evidence for a late Roman practice of ‘individualising’ the toga ornamentation. 108 Delbrueck 1929, 101. 109 On the consular dynasty of Basilius’ family (the Decii and the Anicii), see Novak 1980; Bagnall, Cameron, Schwartz & Worp 1987, 7; and Barnish 1988, 124-127. 110 For a typological study of victors’ figures (gods, emperors, charioteers), including illustrative selections of images, see Dunbabin 1982. See also L’Orange 1973:3; and Gnecchi 1912, 1 Tav. 10 no. 8, 11 no. 1, 15 no. 1, 36 no. 15. 111 The triumphator’s chariot was a currus bigalis, whereas the other categories of figures usually ride quadrigae, but the basic type is the same. See Dunbabin 1982, 70-72; also A. Alföldi 1934, 93-100; L’Orange 1953, 98 and Fig. 6 b, e; and Hölscher 1967, 84-90 (Victoria). Compare also the aforementioned 4th c. representation from the basilica of Iunius Bassus of a consul riding a currus bigalis in the pompa circensis; Bianchi Bandinelli 1970, Fig. 88-89. 112 For further discussions of the triumphal content of Basilius’ diptych, see III.2.1.4, 3.2, and 3.3.

The most common top motif is the bust-stand, holding one to three heads or togate busts; three busts/heads are unique to Anastasius B-C. In a number of cases, the bust-stand rests on top of a globe,115 the orbis terrarum, symbol of Roman world dominion.116 In one fully figural diptych, Clementinus (10), a single bust springs from the calyx of a plant (‘Blätterkelch’);117 a form typologically reminiscent of the Corinthian or leaf capital,118 and whose significance would be related to vegetative symbolism.119 The leaf-capital

113 See e.g. Brilliant 1963, 177-181; and Dunbabin 1982, passim. 114 A single exception is provided by the medallion diptych of Philoxenus

(east, 525); Delbrueck 1929, N 29, Taf. 29; Volbach 1976, Nr. 28, Taf. 14. 115 A globe is found in Felix, Halberstadt, Lampadiorum, Anastasius (A-B, left panels), and Orestes (right panel), as well as a number of medallion diptychs. 116 Hölscher 1967, 23-46; Wessel 1978, 403-407; and Schäfer 1989, 184. 117 The descriptive term used by Jucker 1961. 118 (‘Blätterkapitell’); Kruse 1934, 109. 119 Cf. Jucker 1961, 125, 217. For the generative symbolism attached to this type of plant motif within sepulchral art, see e.g. Stuveras 1969, 79 and Pl. LXV Fig. 143 (eros springing from the chalice of a flower). See also Schäfer’s interpretations of comparable vegetative motifs on sellae curules (on sepulchral monuments); Schäfer 1989, 176f.

74

type also occurs in a number of eastern medallion diptychs120 and on the segmentum of the empress Ariadne’s tablion in the Bargello ivory panel,121 representing the bust image of an imperial consul (Anastasius I?) holding a sceptre identical to that of Clementinus. All emperors’ busts crowning the consular sceptres are togate,122 which must mean that they represent the sovereign(s) in the capacity of consul (and/or perpetual triumphator123 ). Presumably the images reflect an established practice of conferring the insignia on the appointed consul clothed in the triumphal toga. By way of reference, an illustrative exemplification of the emperor’s joint capacity of appointer and holder of consulship is found in the Bargello empress panel, where the imperial consul displays a sceptre crowned by the bust of an imperial consul, which must be identical with its carrier: Anastasius I, his own appointer to consulship and the spouse of the empress who wears his image on her costume.124 The fact that the sceptre busts or heads in some cases are more than two has not received any particular attention by scholars. As regards the single and couple variants, these would naturally reflect the number of ruling emperors in the years in which each consul held office. Diptychs antedating that of Boethius (487) show two busts/heads representing the emperors of west and east, as they should, since no consular appointment was formally legitimate without the consent of both rulers.125 Two busts are found exclusively in western diptychs issued prior to the division of the Roman empire (476): Lampadiorum (1), Halberstadt (2), Felix (3), Astyrius (4), and Bourges (5). Only one western diptych, Orestes (7), shows a single sceptre bust, which would reflect the fact that it was issued under the Ostrogothic rule of Italy. The sceptres in Clementinus, Anthemius (Pl. 15) and Anastasius A are all crowned by a single bust and the earlier Areobindus diptychs by a single statuette of the emperor (see below), and the majority of eastern medallion diptychs conform to this pattern. Anastasius B and C are unique in featuring three heads, of which the central one must belong to the emperor. As Anastasius I, the appointer, was sole emperor, and as Anastasius cos. belonged to the imperial family with a number of former consuls, Delbrueck proposed that the two additional heads be identified as precisely former consuls of Anastasius’ family; the names put forward were his father Pompeius (cos. 501) and his uncle Hypatius (cos. 500).126

Although none of these attributions can ultimately be proven, they are highly attractive for reasons that will be discussed further on.127 The example of Areobindus D, which shows a sceptre crowned by a figure couple—the emperor and the consul himself (see further below)—could alternatively suggest that one of the additional heads in Anastasius B-C is identifiable as the honorand himself. Again, a third option would be that the additional heads are not intended to represent any two specific personages of the Anastasian family, but the family as a group—the Anastasian consular dynasty as a concept. The tabula ansata-like shape of the bust-stands in Areobindus D and Anastasius B-C should also be particularly mentioned. Their formal correspondence to the inscriptional tabulae ansatae crowning the panels in my view suggests that they were introduced for a particular purpose, and that their function and significance are synonymous with that of the tabula ansata or inscriptionis; a stock motif within Roman commemorative art (sepulchral, honorific) from the 1st century BC onwards, whose function was to carry the names and titles—along with other relevant informations and eulogies—of the honorand to which a monument is dedicated. If we assume that the tabula ansata as an independent motif represents this established function, then the next assumption must be that the miniature tablets supporting the heads on Anastasius’ sceptre are intended to refer to the names and titles of the figures. In the case of Areobindus, this would be the emperor Anastasius I and a togatus identifiable as the consul himself (see below),128 and in the case of Anastasius the emperor and two ex-consuls and relatives of the emperor and/or honorand (Pompeius, Hypatius, Anastasius cos.), or the consular dynasty of Anastasius I as a body. The size differentiations between busts on consular sceptres have more recently received particular attention from Alan Cameron, who claims that such are found in Lampadiorum, Halberstadt, Felix and the consular missorium of Aspar (Pl. 22),129 and ascribes them to an established practice of rendering junior Augusti below a certain age (15) as smaller than their seniors.130 In the case of Lampadiorum, however, one of the sceptre busts lacks its head, which makes it impossible to estimate its original size; in Felix the righthand bust/head is damaged to such a degree that it is very difficult to determine its original shape and size; and the size differentiation between the two busts in Halberstadt must be considered as so insignificant as to render doubtful whether they be intentional, i.e. actual, or not. This is not to say that

120 Areobindus (Delbrueck 1929, N 13, 14; Volbach 1976, Nr. 12, 13),

Philoxenus (Delbrueck 1929, N 29; Volbach 1976, Nr. 28), Apion (Delbrueck 1929, N 33; Volbach 1976, ), Iustinus (Pl. 16). 121 Delbrueck 1929, N 51; Volbach 1976, Nr. 51. See also Jucker 1961, 122-124. 122 When in a state of preservation that allows details of clothing to be discerned. 123 On the late Roman emperor’s use of the vestis triumphalis outside of the consular context, see Delbrueck 1932, 11, 20f; and A. Alföldi 1935, 2634. 124 Compare Wessel 1978, 403. 125 Bagnall, Cameron, Schwartz & Worp 1987, 13-17. See also Salomonson 1956, 100. 126 Delbrueck 1929, 123 with n. 1, 125. This interpretation was subsequently supported by Kruse, Bertelli and Volbach; Kruse 1934, 108;

Bertelli 1958:1, 341; Volbach 1976, 35. For relevant data on Pompeius and Hypatius, see further Capizzi 1969, 33-44; and Martindale 1980-1992:1, 577f, 898f. Members with consular status belonging to Anastasius’ family include another two uncles: Paulus (cos. 496) and Probus (cos. 502); e.g. A.D.E. Cameron 1978, 260-262. 127 III.3.4. 128 Compare Delbrueck 1929, 114f. 129 A.D.E. Cameron 1998, 385f. Also Delbrueck 1929, 90, 219 (Halberstadt and Lampadiorum). 130 The author’s arguments on this point are based on a comparative material of some contemporary (5th-century) solidi, as well as the ivories of Stilicho and Probianus (Delbrueck 1929, N 63 and 65; Volbach 1976, Nr. 62 and 63), where such size differentiations may be discerned.

75

Cameron’s conclusions are generally invalid: clear cases of size differentiation between imperial busts are found in some contemporary images,131 including the upper registers of the Halberstadt diptych, and size differentiation is a well-diffused phenomenon within consular imagery at large. In the case of the sceptre-busts here concerned, however, such conclusions may perhaps rather be reached through the datings of the respective ivories than through any visible size differentiations between the busts themselves.132 But in order to do so one must know the (preferably exact) age of the respective emperor in the years concerned, and as Gudrun Bühl has also demonstrated in a recent article,133 Cameron is not altogether consistent in this respect.134 It is possible that age-related size differentiation was employed on real consular bust-sceptres, but as concerns the consular diptychs one may reasonably argue that had the age difference been of any vital importance it would almost certainly have been accentuated to a higher and more systematic degree than is the case.

I was dying or newly deceased (518), i.e. in a period of uncertain or no imperial leadership.137 However, it is unclear whether consuls appointed and/or taking office under these kinds of political circumstances were actually forbidden to carry the bust-sceptre, or whether there is any evidence to support the assumption that the Visigothic king’s effigy never featured on the sceptres of the consuls appointed by him. Nor indeed can we know that the sceptres of high officials were a priori adorned with actual portraits and not symbolic representations of the emperor138 (in which case Magnus, who was ‘legitimately’ appointed by an emperor, would be allowed to carry a bust-sceptre even when the emperor was dying or dead). Last but not least, the aquila is the emblem of the Roman emperor,139 albeit not primarily in his capacity of consul. Thus, although Delbrueck’s explanations—which are the only ones to have been attempted to my knowledge—of the eagle-sceptres of Boethius and Magnus are highly pertinent, they are based on assumptions rather than evidence. It need not have been necessity that motivated the representations of the scipio cum aquila in Boethius and Magnus, but positive choice. The aquila also appears as part of the elaborate top constellations on the sceptres of Areobindus,140 Anastasius and (the lost) Anthemius. In all of these, the eagle is linked directly to the emperor’s image, supporting it on its raised wings: in the Areobindus diptychs the eagle is encircled by a wreath, laurel or possibly oak (corona laurea triumphalis or corona etrusca),141 upon which the emperor either stands in his capacity of supreme military commander (A-C) or sits enthroned as ceremonial conferrer of consulship (D);142 in Anastasius B-C the wreath-encircled eagle supports a buststand with three representatives of the Anastasian family; and in Anastasius A and Anthemius, a free-standing eagle of the same type (and size) as in Boethius and Magnus elevates the imago laureata143 of the togate emperor. Only in one of these representations is the eagle placed directly on the orb after the pattern of the traditional scipio cum aquila (Areobindus D).

The ancient eagle-crowned sceptre, the scipio cum aquila, only occurs in two diptychs, Boethius (6) and Magnus (12). In both cases the eagle is perched on a small globe, the orbis terrarum, with wings spread and head erect and in profile in conformity with an ancient emblematic type.135 The assumption that the bust-sceptre constituted the standard variant for ordinary consuls prompted Delbrueck to search for explanations of what he considered extraordinary types, viz. the eagle-tipped and the cross-tipped sceptres. And the lack of sceptre-busts in Boethius and Magnus (as well as Basilius (8)) does indeed deprive the images of any direct reference to the appointing ruler, with the result that their consular dignity appears as ‘autonomous’ in the old republican sense. Delbrueck accounted for the alleged deviations by proposing that they were in each case motivated by specific historical-political circumstances: Boethius was appointed to the consulate by Odoacer when Italy was politically distanced from Constantinople, for which reason the appointment was not recognised and disseminated in the east;136 and Magnus took office when the emperor Anastasius

The composite sceptres of Areobindus, Anastasius and Anthemius provide particularly interesting and apparently unorthodox compositions. It has been argued that this stapling of motifs must be interpreted as evidence for a decrease in the understanding or appreciation of their ancient meanings144 rather than the results of specific intentions on the part of the artists/commissioners, let alone depictions of

131 An illustrative example is the badge or miniature clipeus with two busts

decorating Stilicho’s shield in the official diptych created in commemoration of the official appointment of Stilicho’s son Eucherius; Delbrueck 1929, 246 Abb. 3; Kiilerich & Torp 1989, 326 Fig. 4. 132 Coins aside, it is only in the cases of Aspar’s missorium (sceptre and upper ‘medallions’) and Stilicho’s diptych (shield-busts) that the kind of size differentiations argued by Cameron are plainly visible; in the case of Probianus’ thecae (Delbrueck 1929, N 65, Taf. 65; Volbach 1976, Nr. 62, Taf. 34) these differences are so minimal—in the right panel they are virtually non-existent—that one may reasonably question whether they were at all intended as differentiations. Further, the author’s dating (to 396) and identification of the sceptre busts (as Arcadius and Honorius) in the Lampadiorum panel remain unaccounted for; A.D.E. Cameron 1998, 385 and n. 7, p. 386. 133 Bühl 2001, 198. 134 A.D.E. Cameron 1998, 386, 389. 135 As exemplified by innumerable honorific monuments, triumphal and sepulchral, from all periods of Roman history. The type also recurs in the right panel of the Basilius diptych; see further below III.3.3 and 6.3. 136 The same was argued in the case of Basilius, whom Delbrueck identified as the western consul in 480, appointed by Odoacer; Delbrueck

1929, 102f. Compare Degrassi 1952, 95 nr. 1240; and Bagnall, Cameron, Schwartz & Worp 1987, 508. 137 Delbrueck 1929, 105f, 137. Supported by Kruse; Kruse 1934, 108. 138 Compare Schäfer 1989, 186-188. 139 E.g. RE I.1 (1894), 375 s.v. ‘Adler’ (E. Oder); Engemann 1988, 109f. 140 (Areobindus’ medallion diptychs show the usual bust-sceptre.) 141 See further below, III.5.2. 142 See further III.2.1.5. 143 On the concept and functions of the imago laureata in late antiquity, see notably Kruse 1934, 24, 30, 40-49. Also Grabar 1936, 5f; Treitinger 1938, 208-210; and Deér 1961, 61. 144 Salomonson 1956, 101.

76

real consular sceptres as they appeared in the Byzantine east during the early 6th century. When looking at these sceptre constellations, however, one is immediately aware that each compartment and the order in which it connects to the others (from bottom to top) convey symbolic meaning. For example, the constellation of Areobindus’ sceptres A-C may be ‘read’ as a columned statue of the emperor, military victor and supreme ruler of the orbis terrarum (which he holds in his left hand), and elevated in apotheosis on the wings of the aquila, divine symbol of the emperor’s worldly rule and bearer of his victor’s wreath. The sceptre constellation in Areobindus D is the most complex within the corpus, combining four motifs: a column supporting the orbis terrarum, dominion of the Roman emperor and god(s), surmounted by the wreath-encircled aquila who in its turn supports the emperor and his consul, who are engaged in the sacred (as indicated by the veiled hands of both145 ) act of bestowing/receiving consular dignity (signified by the object conferred by the emperor). On the sceptres of Anastasius A and Anthemius the eagle perches immediately on the column capital (which in the former rests on the world-orb), with its raised wings supporting the emperor’s imago laureata.146 And, finally, in Anastasius BC the columned and wreath-encircled aquila supports the tabula ansata of the emperor and two (ex-)consuls of his family. All constellations are conceived according to the same system or order—column/orb, aquila, emperor—describing a graded ascent from the ‘earth’ via the celestial (mediary) sphere inhabited by the eagle to the supreme realm of the (apotheosised) emperor. The aquila is in all cases combined with the triumphal wreath, referring to the divinely inspired state of triumph invested in the imperial person,147 whichever aspect he appears in (consular or military). That the eagle supports the emperor’s effigy would be symbolic of the emperor’s apotheotic nature,148 which derives from his victoriousness (the triumphal wreath). The columnar aspect can be interpreted as a more or less direct reference to the traditional Roman honorific column; in the case of Areobindus A-C this analogy appears particularly intentional because of the armed emperor’s statuette crowning it. A second formal parallel to the composite or stapled sceptres of Areobindus and Anastasius was suggested (but regrettably not discussed further) by Delbrueck: military signa.149 The number of compartments and the types of motifs displayed on these military insignia may vary, but their basic structure and some of their motif categories recur

on the consular sceptres, notably the imperial imago clipeata/laureata and the aquila.150 In my view the affinities are striking enough to preclude any likelihood of chance transmission. In Areobindus’ case in particular the military connotation would have a direct relevance to the individual honorand, since he received his consular appointment in acknowledgement of military achievements;151 the military analogy would thus be an inbuilt reference to the consul’s career and personal victoriousness. Such individual relevance is not known to apply in the case of Anastasius, but this would not have deterred him from making use of the analogy anyway, considering its compatibility with the triumphal theme otherwise pervading the imagery of his diptychs, including the ‘programme’ of the sceptre itself.152 The cross-tipped sceptre occurs in two consular ivories, both western: Basilius, and the anonymous ex-Ganay medallion diptych (Pl. 17).153 Both display the same form: a small cross on a globe—a miniature variant of the imperial ‘Reichsapfel’ of later times, symbol of Christian triumph and world dominion.154 As the incorporation of the cross within consular imagery will be treated in greater depth further on,155 I will here limit myself to discussing the explanation provided by Delbrueck—unquestioned by later scholars156 —for the inclusion of this Christian symbol. Delbrueck argued that the choice of a cross-surmounted sceptre must have been motivated by the circumstance that the consulship of the respective honorand was not published in the east, and hence unsanctioned by the emperor (viz. the same explanation he offered for the eagle-tipped sceptre of Boethius and Magnus).157 Even if supposing that Basilius’ cross-sceptre is original, Cameron and Schauer have shown that the kind of political circumstances argued by Delbrueck did not apply, 150 Comparative examples include an Aurelian panel on the Arch of

Constantine, Rome, representing the emperor administering justice to a group of barbarians (e.g. De Maria 1988, Tav. 79 no.4; and Elsner 1998, 33 Fig. 12), and a Roman centurion’s funerary stele (c. 300 AD) in the Vatican (e.g. Bianchi Bandinelli 1970, 72 Fig. 65). See also Kruse 1934, 52, 64. 151 Martindale 1980-1992:1, 144; also Bury 1958:1, 308, 388; Bury 1958:2, 35. 152 See further below, III.5. 153 Cameron & Schauer 1982, 136. Variously dated to the late 5th and early 6th century. The later dating of Cameron & Schauer is in fact based entirely on the presence of the cross-tipped sceptre, which by these authors is claimed—without presenting further evidence, nor indeed arguments—to be a phenomenon exclusive to the 6th century. 154 A. Alföldi 1935, 38; M.R. Alföldi 1961, 29-32 esp.; Deér 1961, 54f, 7885; Restle 1988. For the cross-sceptre as an insignium of the imperial consul, see e.g. also a series of coins issued by Theodosius II; RIC X (1994), Pl. 7 no. 208, Pl. 9-10 passim; and Burgess 1988, Pl. 27 nos. 3, 5-5, 10-11, Pl. 28 nos. 2 and 7 (Valentinian III and Maiorianus). 155 Below, III. 6.2. 156 Cameron & Schauer 1982; also Paolucci 1994, 19f. These authors treat the cross-sceptre as an iconographical detail whose only interest lies in its (allegedly secure) datability. 157 Delbrueck 1929, 102f, 173f. Also Kruse 1934, 109. Whereas the absolute majority of western consuls appointed by Odoacer (476-493) were not published in the east, and hence not imperially sanctioned, most of the consuls appointed by the Ostrogothic leadership were; Degrassi 1952, 9499.

145 The taboo of veiled hands, manus velatae or manibus velatis, was

observed in every contact between emperor and subject as part of courtly and sacred ritual; see Cumont 1932/33, 93-97; and A. Alföldi 1934, 33-37. For a particularly close comparative example, see the representation of the emperor presenting a codicil to an official on the missorium of Theodosius in Madrid (Pl. 23). See e.g. also Bowersock, Brown & Grabar 1999, 172. 146 For a useful discussion of the functions and applications of the emperor’s laureate image, see Kruse 1934, 24f, 46-48. 147 See further III.5.2 and IV.2. 148 RE I.1 (1894), 375 s.v. ‘Adler’ (E. Oder); also e.g. Arce 1988, 131140. On the apotheotic significance of the eagle motif, see further III.3.3 and 6.3, and IV.4. 149 Delbrueck 1929, 109.

77

since his consulate was in fact eastern (541) and consequently imperially sanctioned;158 and in the case of the anonymous consul of the ex-Ganay diptych, the argument must necessarily remain a surmise. As for the alleged choice of a cross-sceptre (before an eagle-tipped one),159 Delbrueck thought that it would have been motivated by ‘ein bestimmtes Bekenntnis zum Christentum’.160 The same would presumably have applied to the honorand of the exGanay diptych, although Delbrueck did not mention it expressly. If we assume with Delbrueck, Volbach et a l . that Basilius’ cross-sceptre is original, one must allow for the possibility that the cross, like the aquila, may have been an option open to the consul/commissioner irrespective of political or other circumstances. For instance, if one finds Delbrueck’s political explanation attractive one could still argue that Basilius on his return to Rome after having laid down his office161 was formally prohibited from issuing commemorative diptychs featuring a bust-sceptre in Rome, since he had not held his consulship there. But that this would have been an actual obstacle cannot, as I understand it, be proven. And one may further doubt whether such matters would have had any real weight with this particular commissioner, considering the otherwise exceptionally elaborate ‘pagan’ imagery of the diptych—unless, of course, he thought it best to balance off that imagery with some pious reference to the Christian faith, in which case the consular sceptre would have been utilised as a vehicle for expressing religious scruples. However, as I have argued above, there is reason to suspect that Basilius’ sceptre was not originally surmounted by a cross,162 in which case it may only be explained as the innovation by a later Christian owner of the panel, who thought it desirable that its ‘pagan’ imagery—which could otherwise perhaps not so automatically be subjected to Christian reinterpretation—be complemented with a Christian symbol. Whereas one cannot rule out the possibility that the occurrence of the cross-sceptre in the hand of private consuls may have been motivated by peculiar circumstances surrounding their appointments, the historical-political explanation offered by Delbrueck does not apply in Basilius’ case (even if the cross-sceptre were original), and there is no way of either proving or disproving the argument when applied to the ex-Ganay panel. The cross’s occurrence in the latter, therefore, may just as likely be due to a personal choice on the part of the issuing consul. The origin of the cross-

sceptre as such meanwhile is obscure, but the form (and symbolism) is obviously derived from the imperial sphere.163 Its relevance to or applicability within the context of ordinary (private) consulship remains problematic, and will be discussed further under a separate section.164 Concluding discussion: The consular sceptre presents a variable motif, within prescribed limits. Of the three main types present in the corpus, only two can be defined as traditional—the scipio cum aquila and the bustsceptre—whereas the composite and cross types appear to be eastern conceptions of the Anastasian period. The bustsurmounted sceptre remains standard throughout the period covered by the consular diptychs, but the presence of sceptre types demonstrates that there existed some freedom of choice in this respect. It seems doubtful whether any more farreaching conclusions may be drawn from the circumstance that Boethius, appointed by a Germanic king, carries the scipio cum aquila, whereas Orestes, appointed by an Ostrogothic king, carries the bust-sceptre; the evidence is far too limited. The application of the scipio cum aquila or the busttipped sceptre within consular imagery is not apparently linked to specific contexts or ceremonies, i.e. to the processus consularis or pompa circensis,165 but the two types are displayed by consuls irrespective of whether they are ‘presiding’ on the sella curulis or standing, whether they are accompanied by games-scenes and/or holding the mappa circensis or not. Irrespective of whether this (seeming) lack of contextual application would reflect the ceremonial practices or not in this late period, the choice of sceptre type in a diptych would most probably have been determined by considerations apart from the realistic representation of specific ceremonies; a conclusion that is suggested not only by the different sceptres displayed by Areobindus a n d Anastasius, but also by poses and gestures and the architectural frame.166 In the composite sceptre type the bust and eagle are part of complex compositions where references to ancient triumphal symbols (the Iovian aquila) and to victory (the triumphator’s wreath) are linked to the emperor and/or to the imperial dynasty. The composite sceptre occurs only in diptychs issued by consuls with familial ties to the imperial house: Areobindus, Anthemius and Anastasius,167 something which seems to suggest that the emperor Anastasius’ consuls were allowed (or perhaps even encouraged) to refer to the concept of imperial victory through the means of their sceptres. Whether the composite sceptres had any counterparts in

158 Cameron & Schauer 1982; Paolucci 1994, 19. Cf. also Degrassi 1952,

100 no. 1294. 159 Delbrueck attributed the diptych to the western consul of 480, Fl. Caecina Decius Maximus Basilius iunior (see II.8); an attribution which means that the honorand, like Boethius (cos. 487), would have held his consulship under Odoacer’s rule of Italy. 160 Delbrueck 1929, 103. 161 Cameron & Schauer 1982, 130. 162 II.8. The somewhat generalising formulation of Shelton concerning the cross-tipped sceptres of Basilius and the allegedly consular honorand of the Monza diptych (Delbrueck 1929, N 43; Volbach 1976, Nr. 43) could possibly be interpreted as an acknowledgement that Basilius’ sceptre might be recarved; Shelton 1989, 125.

163 Restle 1988, 963f; M.R. Alföldi 1989, 322-325. 164 III.6.1. 165 Compare the arguments of e.g. Salomonson and Schäfer referred to in

the introductory section of this chapter (2.1). 166 See III.1.3 and 7.2. 167 Areobindus was married to the daughter of the western emperor Olybrius (Anicia Iuliana), Anthemius was the son of the western emperor Anthemius (467-472), and Fl. Anastasius was great-nephew to the eastern emperor Anastasius I (491-518); Martindale 1980-1992:1, 82f, 96, 99, 143, 796; also A.D.E. Cameron 1978, 261f.

78

reality, i.e. whether sceptres of this type were ever conferred by the emperor and carried in the processus and/or the pompa, cannot be known. Fictive constructs or not, they present ideograms of imperial (cum consular) triumph with a consciously programmatic and even propagandistic content: to glorify the emperor.

2.1.3. The sella curulis The official folding-stool of consuls and other curule magistrates, the sella curulis, is represented in half of the preserved western diptychs, and in all eastern ones. When included, the sella nearly always occupies a prominent place in the centre, and usually takes up a considerable amount of pictorial space. In the eastern diptychs particularly, the sella could be said to develop into an independent motif whose representation evidently required utmost visibility and clarity in the rendering of construction and ornamental details. Whereas the western diptychs display some notable differences between the renderings of the sella, the eastern counterparts are very homogeneously depicted. In general terms, the western specimens are both simpler and less monumental than the eastern ones, being lesser in size174 and less varied in motif repertory. The standard, most traditional form of the sella curulis is adhered to throughout the corpus (the Bourges diptych (5) excepted):175 the constructive elements consist of the outwardly curving lion’s legs supporting a wide and often tall seat-rail, usually with distinct projections at the outer ends, a cushion on top (pulvinar, tegmentum176 ), and a footstool or plinth (suppedaneum, scabellum, scamnum177 ) beneath. The seat-rail is commonly decorated with figural and/or ornamental motifs, and the lion’s legs—combined with lion protomes, as prescribed by ancient tradition178 —are frequently given stylised vegetative shapes. In the eastern diptychs and the diptych of Orestes the leg ornamentation conforms to a single typology, whereas in Astyrius (4) and Bourges it has been rendered in a somewhat distorted manner; in Bourges, notably, the suppedaneum is ornamented with the kind of curving lion’s legs that otherwise belong to the sella. It should be noted that the sellae in Bourges and Astyrius display rougly the same type of constructive elements: a fluted seat-rail and dramatically shortened lion’s legs ending in paws.179 Considering the likelihood that the Bourges diptych, like that of Astyrius, originated in neither of the two imperial capitals180 —something which is further suggested by the absence of triumphal pattern on the trabea, the unusual rendering of the mappa, and the inclusion of lictors—it must be concluded that the consul’s seat in

In all four sceptre types, imperial power is symbolically represented in some way or other. The emperor’s effigy (bust, head, or occasionally full figure) is the most common, and as it is usually togate, the ‘power’ referred to is that of the imperial consul. The aquila is traditionally an attribute of the emperor in his capacities of divinely inspired world ruler and conqueror, the world rule being symbolised by the orb on which the eagle is frequently perched. On the sceptres of the emperor Anastasius’ kin, the victoriousness of the Roman emperor (and/ or empire) is specifically referred to through the triumphator’s wreath encircling either the eagle or the imperial effigy (viz. his imago laureata). The eagle is further an ancient symbol of apotheosis;168 when combined with the wreath and the imperial imago it suggests that the emperor’s apotheotic nature derives from his victoriousness (victory secures immortality). Imperial conquest and world-rule are also symbolised through the orb-mounted cross, signifying the triumph of the Christian empire ruled by Christ’s representative on earth, the Roman emperor.169 The crosssceptre was, like the scipio cum aquila, primarily or even exclusively the emperor’s/imperial consul’s insignium.170 Apart from being a traditional insignium of the consul, the scipio is thus also an object through which the emperor (and occasionally his family) is celebrated and glorified. The emperor, who confers the sceptre on his elected consul, is simultaneously honoured through it. Consequently one could characterise the consular sceptre as the emblem of the emperor who confers it rather than of the consul who receives it, and maintain that the bearing of the sceptre is to a great extent an act of tribute towards the emperor. Finally, the circumstance that only those of the eastern consuls-commissioners who are connected by family to emperors—Areobindus, Anthemius, Anastasius and Magnus171 —include the aquila on their sceptres may not perhaps be mere coincidence, since the eagle is an emblem of the emperor and of imperial rule.172 Interpreting the eagletipped sceptres (simple and composite) as indices for imperial kinship, as I propose one may, then the pure scipio cum aquila displayed by Magnus could signify that particular consul’s imperial kinship as well as his pretensions to future emperorship.173

174 With the possible exception of the incomplete diptych in the Victoria &

Albert Museum, London, whose origin is however not established; Delbrueck 1929, N 44; Volbach 1976, Nr. 44 and 44a. 175 E.g. Salomonson 1956, 15; and Schäfer 1989, 167-171. 176 Wanscher 1980, 156. 177 Latin denominations vary: Salomonson uses scabellum (Salomonson 1956, 15), Restle and Bühl suppedaneum (Restle 1988, 959; Bühl 1995, 81, 203), and Wanscher scamnum (Wanscher 1980, 154). 178 Schäfer 1989, 179. 179 The columnar segments of the seat-rail in Bourges recur in the much later eastern diptych of Magnus, a circumstance which could be interpreted as evidence that this type of element was not so foreign to the (late antique) sella curulis as Gudrun Bühl has suggested; Bühl 1995, 203-207. Whether this (and some other) element would have featured on real sellae curules or are just the products of the ivory carvers’ love of ornament is another matter. 180 Delbrueck 1929, 159f; Volbach 1976, 43. See II. 4 and 5 respectively.

168 See further III.3.3 and III.6.3. 169 M.R. Alföldi 1961, 31f; Deér 1961, 78-85. 170 Restle 1988, 958f. Compare also Engemann 1988, 109f. 171 Magnus was, like Anastasius (his cousin or brother), great-nephew to

Anastasius I; A.D.E. Cameron 1978, 261f; Martindale 1980-1992:1, 701. 172 Just as the scipio cum aquila primarily belonged to the emperor’s consular insignia. On the symbolism and contextual functions of the aquila within imperial and consular imagery, see further III.6.3. 173 According to Alan Cameron Magnus was one of three possible heirs to the throne in 518; A.D.E. Cameron 1978, 260-262.

79

Bourges is in fact to be recognised as a sella curulis,181 albeit an incorrectly depicted one.182

and Constantinopolis, because of their peculiar association with the consulate—an association which is amply illustrated within the imagery of the consular diptychs as a group.190 It may be that the two are not rendered as visually distinct entities, but, as Alan Cameron argues when discussing the city goddesses in Orestes in a recent article,191 a desire for formal symmetry may sometimes result in a duplication of originally differentiated figure-motifs.192 One may expect that a typological fusion would have been particularly practical when carving figures in miniature. The fact that the busts are nimbate in my view further speaks in favour of the Roma-Constantinopolis interpretation, since the generic type of province personification is commonly not, at least (as far as we know) not in this late period.193 The nimbus in itself is suggestive of divinity, a mark of status which distinguishes its bearers from other, less prominent personifications.194 Clipeate and mural-crowned personifications without nimbi and jewellery are featured on the central part of the seat-rail in Anastasius B. These busts are juxtaposed to those of togati (on the seat’s side-projections) in the diptych’s right panel, and to gorgoneia in the left. The male busts display typal affinities in general with the imagines clipeatae of the emperor (centre) and consul (left) in the upper registers of the diptych, wherefore they would presumably be recognised as either the emperor (as consul) or a consular ancestor of Anastasius;195 the typal affinity would then be intended as family likeness, and hence as a reference to the dynastic connection of Anastasius. The togati are simply framed by the square moulding of the rail’s side-projections as such; a scheme which otherwise occurs in depictions of the sella curulis on some Roman funerary monuments.196 Even if

Perhaps the most conspicuous motif of the sella curulis are the lion’s legs, which in the 6th-century works are always combined with lion protomes. Apart from constituting the most ancient motif of the curule chair, the leonine motif is also the most symbol-laden, in itself linking the consul’s status to that of the early kings of Rome, who expressed their power and rulership through the lion.183 Often the animal characteristics are merged with vegetative, the upper parts of the legs forming into upwardly striving (acanthus) plants (Boethius (6), Orestes (7), Areobindus (9),184 Clementinus (10), Anastasius (11) and Magnus (12)). Similar plant-shaped sella legs are found on some sepulchral monuments from Rome, Italy, and Gaul.185 These stylised combination motifs would be looked upon not merely as ornamental, but as symbolic references to the forces of animal and vegetative life and regeneration.186 Most of the motifs decorating the sella seat-rail are nonfigural, usually geometric patterns. A more symbolic, nonfigural motif category is the ‘triumphal star’, which is found on the sellae of Boethius, Clementinus (right panel), Anthemius and—with some modification—Orestes. In Orestes and the left panel of Clementinus, spiral sun-discs, another astral symbol,187 replace the usual stars. The sun-disc motif is also repeated on the trabeae in Orestes (right panel) and Anastasius B (right panel). The triumphal star motif is again found on most seat cushions. Anastasius’ diptychs present a unique series of figural seat-rails. In diptych A the side-projections are ornamented with nimbate and mural-crowned female busts with classicising hairstyles, courtly costume and jewellery. Bühl has argued that these busts represent not the two city goddesses Roma and Constantinopolis, but rather two unspecific city or province personifications.188 Seeing that they are in fact totally undifferentiated, one must naturally ask oneself whether they are intended to be understood as any two city personifications, or as Constantinopolis, who originally (if much less frequently in the 6th century) wore the turreted crown.189 For my part, I consider it possible that the pair were intended to represent the city goddesses Roma

190 See further III.3.2. 191 A.D.E. Cameron 1998, 397. 192 Compare e.g. the identical pair of Romae on the east side of the

Arcadius column base; e.g. Bühl 1995, 145 Abb. 76 and 77. The modest size and visibility (for viewers standing on the ground) of the figure-couple would not have allowed much distinguishing details to be perceived, but it would presumably automatically have been recognised as a reference to a general and well-known concept, viz. the Roman empire represented by its two primary city goddesses. 193 Contemorary comparanda are scarce indeed. None of the muralcrowned province personifications in the processional frieze on the south side of Arcadius’ column base is nimbate, but their counterparts in the roughly contemporary Notitia Dignitatum are (München, Staatsbibliothek. Seeck 1876, 108; Bühl 1995, 273). Yet both of these examples predate the consular diptychs of Anastasius by a century and more, and were additionally created in a period where ancient gods and personifications to some extent still enjoyed divine status. Again, whereas Roma and Constantinopolis in the Halberstadt diptych (2), dated to the second decade of the 5th century, are nimbate, neither they nor the province personifications decorating the rim of a missorium from the Sutton Hoo ship-burial, dated to the early 6th century, are; Engemann 1988, 104-107, Taf. 1-6; also Bühl 1995, 178-180, Abb. 91-93, 274-277, Abb.138. 194 Compare the representations of Roma and Constantinopolis in the Codex-calendar of 354; Stern 1953, Pl. II.1 and III.1; Salzman 1990, Fig. 2 and 4. For the difference between Roma-Constantinopolis and other personifications in this respect, see also Engemann 1988, 105-107, 111. 195 See further III.3.4. 196 See Schäfer 1989, 143-160, 167-175, Taf.18, 20.1, 21, 22.1, 26, 27, 43.3-4, 53.1. These monuments were created earlier than the consular

181 Contra Delbrueck 1929, 159. 182 The sella curulis of Ardabur Aspar (Pl. 22), who also took office in the

province (Carthage), displays comparable inconsistencies with respect to the prescribed or traditional construction of the chair. 183 See for instance Schäfer 1989, 179. 184 A, B and D in particular. 185 Schäfer 1989, Taf. 25:1 and 3, Taf. 51:2, Taf. 63:1; and Hatt 1986, 399-402, 405; also Wanscher 1980, 168. 186 Compare e.g.Toynbee 1971, 277. Compare also the vegetative symbolisms pervading the official art in the Augustan period; Zanker 1988:1, 197-183. 187 Cumont 1942, 225, 229 Fig. 49, 237 Fig. 57 and 59. 188 Bühl 1995, 273. Contra Delbrueck 1929, 131; Bertelli 1958:1, 341; Volbach 1976, 35; and P. Williamson 1986, 53. 189 Stern 1953, Pl. III.1; Toynbee 1947, 137-143; Toynbee 1953, 262-268; Bühl 1995, 93-164 passim.

80

lacking nimbi or other more exclusive attributes of the primary city personifications, the mural-crowned female busts flanking the consul’s busts would most likely be recognised as those of Roma and Constantinopolis, the personifications associated with consulship. Juxtaposed to the martial emblem, the gorgoneion,197 the personifications may on the other hand refer simultaneously to the imperial-cum-consular capitals and the greater body of provinces conquered by the Roman empire. In Anastasius C, finally, a frieze of mural-crowned and genuflecting women extending cylindrical objects with veiled hands takes up the central part of the seat-rail, whereas highly reductive miniature heads typologically similar to those in B decorate the side-projections. The female figures have plausibly been interpreted as unspecific province personifications,198 and the objects they hold forth as stacks of wreaths intended for the emperor, whose image is either (supposedly) placed in the centre of the frieze but hidden from view by the consul’s body, or appearing as the central clipeus of the upper pictorial register. The veiled hands and kneeling pose of the figures clearly suggest that their action is directed at the sovereign, the symbolic receiver of their tribute. The frieze may be compared with the scene presented in the bottom register on the south side of the Arcadian column base in Constantinople,199 showing confronted processions of mural-crowned women with vessels or crowns200 in their veiled hands and headed by Victoriae; the object of their tribute is nowhere visualised, yet one must naturally assume that their offerings are intended for the emperor, whose supreme victoriousness is the theme of the column’s iconographic programme.201 Comparable scenes are also found in the Notitia Dignitatum202 and on a missorium from the Sutton Hoo ship-burial (Britain) dated to the Anastasian period,203 the latter of which is particularly interesting as a comparandum since it combines representations of city personifications and mural-crowned and tribute-bearing provinces (displayed along the rim of the plate) with a purely

symbolic representation of the emperor, the aquila (centre). The interpretation of the tribute objects as wreath stacks, proposed by Delbrueck and accepted by Bühl, is convincing: wreaths or crowns (also called coronae triumphales204 ) would symbolise the ceremonial bringing by provincial delegations of victory wreaths to the emperor, the aurum coronarium.205 However, vessels like those on the Arcadius column base206 and in the bottom panel of the Barberini ivory (Pl. 20) remain another possibility. Through the frieze motif Anastasius’ consulship becomes symbolically associated with the military victoriousness (conquered cities)207 of the Anastasian dynasty. The iconographic programme of the sella in Anastasius C like those in his other diptychs, may in this be said to adhere to an ancient Roman tradition within sepulchral art where defunct officials, civilian and military, simultaneously had their own deeds/careers and those of their forefathers visualised and the triumphal nature of the present imperial house celebrated.208 The side-projections of Magnus’ sella curulis show representations of youths holding fruit-filled cloths between their lifted hands. The youths are, like the gift-bringing boys or erotes in Clementinus, Orestes, the medallion diptych of Iustinus (Pl. 16) and Anastasius A (upper registers), clothed in sleeveless tunics. Youthfulness and fruit are symbolic of cyclic regeneration: the figures may be interpreted as pueri nascentes bringing abundance and happiness, felicitas temporum,209 for the new year, which is inaugurated by the incoming consul and his bringing of gifts.210 The adolescent eros (a boy between about six and twelve years of age) is a motif frequently found in sepulchral imagery, where it may play several roles. Stuveras has shown that such maturer putti are often engaged in more ‘responsible’ activities than those of the more playful baby putti, such as the performance of cultic rites (acting c a m i l l i or servants in imperial ceremonial).211 Another figure-type comparable to those in Magnus also occurs in the representations of sellae curules in sepulchral art of the period 100 BC-100 AD in the form of naked youths springing from horn-shaped plants ornamenting legs of sellae curules.212 The interpretation offered by Schäfer for this category of figures, in several examples also holding tropaea, is that their meaning is related to that of the cornucopia,213 i.e. happiness and plenty, and that their juxtaposition to the tropaeum extends the concept to symbolise the prosperity coming from military victory. Such symbolisms may be transferred to the youth motifs in Magnus, which like most consular images is concerned with

diptychs concerned, but would be representative of a tradition of depicting magisterial insignia. 197 In Rome, as earlier in Greece, the gorgoneion was traditionally used as an apotropaic, victory-inducing sign by the army; RE VII.2 (1912), 1650f s.v. ‘Gorgo’ (B. Niese); DarSag II:2, 1617 s.v. ‘Gorgones’ (G. Glotz). It decorated the breastplate of both Mars Ultor (see the copy of his cult statue in the Palazzo Altemps, Rome, reproduced in Zanker 1988:1, 200 Fig. 155), the Roman emperor, also in late antiquity (see e.g. Honorius in the consular diptych of Probus (west, 406) (Pl. 14)), and gladiators (Coarelli 2001, 107). For the apotropaic significance of the Gorgon-head within sepulchral imagery, see Cumont 1942, 339; and Salomonson 1956, 24f. 198 Delbrueck 1929, 126; Bühl 1995, 270. 199 See for instance Kollwitz 1941, Beilage 5; Bühl 1995, 267f, Abb. 131133. 200 On the practice of offering golden crowns (called coronae triumphales) to the emperor as a sign of subjection, e.g. RE IV.2.8 (1901), 1638 s.v. ‘Corona’ (A. Haebler); Baus 1940, 148f; and McCormick 1986, 82. 201 Kollwitz 1941, 54; Bühl 1995, 266-269. 202 E.g. Seeck 1876, 204 (Abb. 24); and Bühl 1995, 258-262, Abb. 124, 125, 127. 203 London, British Museum. Engemann 1988, esp. 103-105, 107-110, 114, and Taf. 6.

204 RE IV.2.8 (1901), 1638 s.v. ‘Corona’ (A. Haebler). 205 See e.g. Klauser 1944; and McCormick 1986, 46, 82. 206 Kollwitz 1941, Beilage 5. 207 Compare also Grabar 1936, 155. 208 Cf. Salomonson 1956, Fig. 8, 11; Schäfer 1989, Taf. 22.1, 25.1, 26.1-3,

27, 28.6, 29.2. 209 Schäfer 1989, 177; also Kondoleon 1999, 335f. 210 See further III.4.2. 211 Stuveras 1969, 166f. 212 Schäfer 1989, 176f, Kat.Nr. 1, 2, 5 and Taf. 20.1, 21.1-2, 25.1 and 3. 213 Schäfer 1989, 177.

81

the triumphal connotations of consulship.214 The motif combination of fruit and boys was connected by Jucker with the cornucopia.215 In the examples he cited (sarcophagus reliefs from the 3rd and 4th centuries AD) it is erotes that handle fruit-baskets, signifying ‘Fülle und Schönheit’.216 Both the cornucopia and the fruit-basket motif are also found in a diptych panel of Areobindus in Lucca,217 showing that the theme of fruitfulness and abundance was intimately linked to New Year symbolism into the 6th century.218 In conclusion I therefore suggest that the fruit-bearing youths in Magnus be primarily interpreted as genii or pueri nascentes, symbolic bringers of abundance for the novus annus.219

manner of columned statues of Victoria, such as the one(s) located on the spina in the Circus Maximus in Rome.225 None of the clipei lifted by the victoriolae show anything but togate busts, a circumstance that renders unconvincing Delbrueck’s interpretation that they represent the consuls themselves in their military capacity.226 I prefer to believe that the clipei lifted by these figurines represent either some consular ancestor/relative of the respective consuls, or—which is the more likely option—the emperor who appointed them and awarded them their consular insignia, including the sella curulis.227 For one thing, the pictorial programme of real sellae curules, according to known tradition, incorporated only imagines maiorum, when incorporating imagines at all.228 Further, the generic likeness perceived between the more detailed clipeus busts and those in the upper registers of notably Anastasius A in my view speaks in favour of an imperial interpretation. The tabulae ansatae which replace the clipei in Anthemius would likewise (by way of formal and conceptual analogy) have referred to the family name and cursus of the consul.229 The combination of Victoria and tabula ansata is also found in Roman sepulchral art of previous centuries,230 and it recurs in imperial-triumphal art of the late empire, notably on the Arcadian column base.231 Thus one may guess that the incorporation of shield-bearing and tabula ansata-bearing victoriolae both refer to the consul’s family seniors or forefathers noted for their prominent military and/or official history, rather than to the honorand himself.232

Pairs of victoriolae are mounted on the sellae of Areobindus, Anastasius and Magnus. These figurines all conform to the same type: frontally standing with one foot placed before the other in a stride, chiton flowing backwards, and arms raised above the head, supporting shields or imagines clipeatae/laureatae (Anastasius B and C excepted) or tabulae ansatae (Anthemius (Pl. 15)). The figurines stand on globes in all cases but Areobindus A and B, and in some instances they are wingless (Areobindus A-B, Anastasius B220 and Magnus221 ). Unlike the imperial victoriola crowning the ruler’s orb of the Roman emperor and the goddess Roma,222 these reductive and stereotyped consular variants do not display the triumphator’s attributes, the corona triumphalis and the palm-frond. Whether blank or inscribed with bust imagines, the shields held by the consular victoriolae can be understood as clipei virtutes, honorific shields, which serve to commemorate the virtuous deeds of their honorands (present or ancestors),223 military and/or civilian.224 A particularly interesting scheme is found in Magnus, where the victoriolae are placed on top of Corinthian columns after the

Concluding discussion: The representations of the sella curulis within the imagery of consular diptychs conform to the traditional shape of the insignium, but with a successive increase in dimensions over time. In keeping with tradition are mainly also the various kinds of ornaments which, whether figural or emblematic (vegetative, geometric), expand on a limited set of themes: victory (victoriolae, tributebearing province personifications, gorgoneia), city goddesses (the consular cities), consular dynasties (the imagines clipeatae of the consuls’ ancestors or senior family members with consular status), and New Year fecundity and prosperity

214 See further IV.2. 215 Jucker 1961, 151. 216 Compare also Cumont 1942, e.g. 496f with Fig. 104 (sarcophagus lid,

Rome). 217 Lucca, Opera del Duomo. Delbrueck 1929, N 15, Taf. 15; Volbach 1976, Nr. 14, Taf. 7. 218 The youths in the Magnus panels lack wings, it is true, but this is not uncommon for either erotes or victoriolae found in the eastern diptychs, and one could additionally argue that there is no room for wings within the limited space allowed. Stuveras has shown that the presence of wings was not absolutely obligatory for the rendering or significance(s) of the putto/eros; Stuveras 1969, 168-170. 219 See further III.5.3 and IV.3. 220 Right panel/right-side figurine. 221 The same applies for two of the three bone replicas of Magnus, including the St Petersburg panel which may possibly be a 6th-century original; Delbrueck 1929, N 23-24; Volbach 1976, Nr. 24 bis (1) and (3); A.D.E. Cameron 1984, 401; and above, II.12. 222 E.g. Calza 1926/27, 672-676; Vermeule 1959, 39f, 43, 46-50; and Mellor 1981, 1015-1017. 223 Compare the imagines clipeatae of Ardabur Aspar’s consular ancestors suspended above his head (Pl. 22). 224 E.g. DarSag I:2, 1258f s.v. ‘Clipeus ou clipeum’ (E. Saglio); and Zanker 1988:1, 92-97. See also III.3.3.

225 See e.g. Humphrey 1987, 268f. 226 The argument on which Delbrueck’s supported this conclusion was that

Clementinus’ sella lacks victoriolae because he had not held any military office—a conclusion he routinely repeated for Anastasius and Magnus; Delbrueck 1929, 63, 108f, 125, 135. Hölscher has accepted Delbrueck’s interpretation without discussion; Hölscher 1967, 130. Also Bertelli 1958:2, 602. 227 Delbrueck 1929, 59 with n. 184-190. 228 Schäfer 1989, 174f. Also Flower 1996, 77-79. 229 Compare my interpretation of the tabula ansata on the sceptres of Areobindus and Anastasius, III.2.1.2. 230 Jucker 1961, 151. It may however be mentioned that Jucker did not specify the material evidence (sarcophagi) for this motif combination, nor in which period it derived from. 231 Kollwitz 1941, Beilagen 5-7. 232 In the case of Anastasius A there can be little doubt that the imagines clipeatae held aloft by the victoriolae are to be identified as the emperor, since the imago laureata constitutes a form for the emperor’s official effigy, and as such would be exclusive to the emperor; Kruse 1934, 24f, 30.

82

symbolisms (fruit-bearing genii, animal and vegetative motifs). It is reasonable to assume that these motif categories were interchangeable in the sense that the diptych issue of one and the same consul could comprise different motif repertories/constellations on the sella; judging by the diptychs of Anastasius this was occasionally the case in the 6th century east. This would mean that the representations of curule chairs cannot automatically be understood as depictions of the real chairs owned and used by the consuls who commissioned the diptychs. In the case of Anastasius it is quite clear that the sella has been deployed as a means for introducing the themes of imperial dynasty and triumph. The sella ornamentation in Magnus’ diptychs belongs to a motif range symbolic of abundance and regeneration which also figures in consular diptychs of the medallion and ornamental varieties. More ‘un-canonic’ kinds of motifs for ordinary consuls’ imagery are the Gorgon-heads in Anastasius B (left panel) and the frieze of tribute-bearing province personifications in C: the one is the apotropaic emblem traditionally displayed by the Roman army in battle, the other the image of territories conquered. This is the iconography of the emperor, not of a private consul. As for the togate busts ornamenting the seat’s side extensions in the right panel of B and in C, they conform to an earlier Roman tradition of incorporating the ancestral busts of curule magistrates. The ‘ancestor’ referred to through these busts, like all the other motifs decorating Anastasius’ sellae—city goddesses, tribute-bearing provinces, gorgoneia—would of course be Anastasius I, the consul’s uncle and appointer. The addition of victoriolae to the seat-rail was evidently not standard in the 6th-century east, as the diptych of Clementinus shows, and the motif does not occur in any preserved western work. As has been proposed above, these figurines lift the imagines clipeatae (or tabulae ansatae) not of the honorands themselves but of their ancestors and/or senior kin. The military explanation presented by Delbrueck for the victoriolae in Areobindus does not, as far as we know, apply to either Anastasius, Anthemius or Magnus.233 Instead, the common denominator of the four consuls who have included shield-bearing Victories o n their sellae—Areobindus, Anastasius, Anthemius and Magnus—is their imperial connection; the only consul whose sella does not include victoriolae, Clementinus, is the only one entirely unrelated to an emperor.234 Since the victoriola is otherwise the insignium of the emperor I find it most probable that it is the emperor himself who is represented on the figurines’ shields, albeit—as on the sceptre—in his capacity of consul.

The shape of Magnus’ sella curulis has more recently been problemised by Gudrun Bühl,235 mainly it appears because it has no parallels within the preserved corpus. It is not so much the proportions of the structure (which does not differ significantly from the sellae of Astyrius or Clementinus for instance) that she perceives as questionable, but rather its elevation and above all its perspectival rendering. Although it must be conceded that Magnus’ sella does deviate from the common rule of frontality, and that some of its motifs do not occur elsewhere among the preserved consular diptychs (which are very few, it must be remembered), they are not so unrepresentative of the contemporary art of ivory as Bühl claims. In fact, there is at least one work that may be cited for comparative purposes, despite the fact that it does not feature a sella curulis: the so-called Archangel panel in the British Museum, London (Pl. 21 b ) , attributed to a Constantinopolitan workshop and the first decades of the 6th century.236 As Bühl rightly points out, the tallness of Magnus’ sella, which is further emphasised by the double steps of the suppedaneum, may easily be associated with a throne structure.237 Although Cassiodorus explicitly reports that the consular seat was raised on a tall substructure reached by multiple stairs,238 which means that the structure in Magnus is actually representative of the late antique sella curulis, it is possible, nay even probable, that a reference to the imperial throne was consciously intended, just as Magnus’ scipio cum aquila239 and corona triumphalis240 may be understood as references to imperial insignia. Just like these, the throne-like sella serves the function of associating the honorand with imperial rule: Magnus, greatnephew of Anastasius I, was after all one of the presumptive heirs to the throne,241 and his year of consulship (518) was also the year in which the emperor died. The place of the sella curulis within the greater context of consular ceremonial, more precisely the locations where it featured in the processus consularis and the pompa circensis, will be discussed below under the chapter concerned with the architectural frame. The sella curulis as a possible indicator of locality, hence functional context, has also been touched upon briefly under ‘Poses and gestures’ above.242

2.1.4. The fasces The fasces have a relatively limited representation within the corpus. They occur in both western and eastern diptychs, but 235 Bühl 1995, 203-207. 236 Volbach 1976, Nr. 109. Also Wright 1977, 7-9. For the formal and

artistic correspondences between the Archangel and Magnus panels, see II.12 (‘Discussion’). 237 Bühl 1995, 204. 238 Cassiod., Var. 6.16 (sellam curulem multis gradibus enisus ascende). On the throne-like tallness of the magistrate’s seat in late antiquity and the ruler symbolism associated with it, see also Instinsky 1955, 13f, 22. 239 III.2.1.2. 240 III.5.2. 241 A.D.E. Cameron 1978, 260-263. 242 III.1.3.

233 This can be deduced on the one hand from the titles (not) listed on the

tabulae ansatae, and on the other from the known history of these men; Martindale 1980-1992:1, 82f, 99, 701. 234 Areobindus was married to the daughter of the western emperor Olybrius (Anicia Iuliana), Anthemius was the son of the western emperor Anthemius (467-472), and Fl. Anastasius was great-nephew to Anastasius I; Martindale 1980-1992:1, 82f, 96, 99, 143, 796; also A.D.E. Cameron 1978, 261f.

83

it is only in two cases that they are carried by lictors, Astyrius (4) and Bourges (5), and in the former of these only by one of the attendants flanking the consul (the other holding a theca) .243 Both Astyrius and Bourges are attributable to the western part of the empire, more precisely the Gallic region, and to the first half of the 5th century,244 and the fasces featured in them largely conform to the standard shapes of the insignium as known from other (earlier) artistic representations.245 The shape of the instrument is roughly the same in both diptychs: a pair of thin and slightly bent rods (virgae) fastened to a tall and slim case. The fasces in Astyrius are more detailed: the case is patterned (or, in the lost panel,246 shaped as a spiral-fluted column), and an axe blade (securis) is attached to the rods, which are volute-shaped in the preserved panel and axe-shaped in the lost one (4 a).247 Although different in aspect, the two appendages do nevertheless correspond, albeit somewhat roughly, to securis shapes found in depictions of fasces on Roman sepulchral monuments.248 The incorporation of secures on the fasces of Astyrius is particularly interesting since this attribute appears nowhere else in the corpus. The use of the fasces cum securibus in connection with consular ceremonial in late antiquity is attested in literary sources.249 The 4th-century panegyrist Mamertinus wrote that the secures were attached to the fasces during the processus consularis but removed during the pompa circensis,250 and a passage by the later Claudianus appears to confirm that the fasces cum securibus belonged to the consul in late antiquity.251 The absence of the axe blades during circus ceremonies would have been motivated by the sacred character—also in late antiquity—of that locale.252

Then how should one interpret the singular appearance of the axe blade in Astyrius? As I see it, there are two possibilities: it could either be a reference to the processus consularis (the fact that Astyrius does not display the mappa circensis in my opinion suggests that the consul is not represented as presiding over his games from the circus tribunal,253 and the only other ceremony during which he was seated on the sella curulis was the processus); or it could refer to the circumstance that Astyrius took office outside of Rome, viz. outside the pomerium.254 Or possibly both. The inclusion of fasces-bearing lictors in the diptychs of Astyrius and Bourges may be looked upon in connection with a couple of other peculiarities within these images: both consuls’ lack of the triumphal trabea and the uncanonic shapes of their sellae curules—peculiarities that are strongly indicative of a provincial production, and which in their turn would result from both commissioners’ having taken office in the province. I would thus like to suggest that the fasces in these diptychs be interpreted as a complementary insignium in the absence of the triumphal costume, the most prominent of the consular insignia, and that they, together with the lictors who carry them, would specifically have been included in order to clarify the official’s status. Needless to say the number of lictors represented—one in Astyrius, two in Bourges—does not correspond to that accorded to the ordinary consul, which is twelve,255 but is to be understood as a ‘foreshortening’ of the real number. Whereas we know that Astyrius was appointed consul from reading the diptych’s inscription, we cannot be absolutely certain that the honorand of the Bourges diptych was so. All we can go by in his case are the official attributes represented, none of which—including the fasces—are exclusive to the ordinary consul.256

243 See further below, III.3.1. 244 Delbrueck 1929, 99, 160f; D.F. Brown 1942, 398; Volbach 1976, 43.

In the considerably later diptychs of Clementinus (10), Orestes (7) and Basilius (8) the fasces are no longer the official insignium carried by lictors, but an attribute in the hand of a city goddess.257 This apparent shift did not take place as late as in the 6th century, nor did it primarily take place in the eastern part of the empire, as may be concluded from the evidence of Ardabur Aspar’s missorium (west, 434) (Pl. 22). What however distinguishes the missorium from the preserved consular ivories is that it shows the fasces in the hands of both city goddesses (Roma and ConstantinopolisCarthago),258 a circumstance which may be cited as contrary

See above under II.4 and II.5 respectively. 245 See the chronology and typologies presented by Schäfer; Schäfer 1989, 225-227, Beilagen 1-2. The shapes of the fasces in late antiquity are less known since they very infrequently occur on sepulchral monuments. However, they appeared on the east side of Arcadius’ column base in Constantinople (Kollwitz 1941, Beilage 7), where the consular procession in the second register from the top included lictors carrying tall and subtly curvilinear staffs with two triangular banners at the top, not entirely unlike the fasces carried by the right-side city goddess in the diptychs of Clementinus and Orestes, and of Roma and Constantinopolis-Carthago on the consular missorium of Ardabur Aspar (Pl. 22)). 246 Delbrueck 1929, Taf. 4 V (1). 247 Fasces similar to those of Astyrius are found in the consular missorium of Aspar (west 434), although the shaft is here much longer, and the volute of the axe is attached to the lower part of the blade. The volute as such has also a parallel in a sepulchral relief originating from Ephesos and dated to the Neronian period; Schäfer 1989, 377 Nr. B 7, Taf. 89. However, judging by the 16th-century engraving of the lost right panel (4 a) the securis had a sharper, more axe-like shape. 248 Compare the fasces reproduced in Schäfer 1989, Taf. 87:4, 89; and Tassi Scandone 2001, 230 Fig. 2 no. 1 (‘Palazzola’; after A.M. Colini). 249 For a different interpretation (based on incomplete data?), see Tassi Scandone who claims that the secures were not carried at all within the city boundary of Rome from republican times; Tassi Scandone 2001, 148. 250 Mamertinus, Grat.act.Iul. 30; see also Delbrueck 1929, 66f and n. 234; and Tassi Scandone 2001, 148. 251 Claud., Prob.Olybr.cons. 1.232; compare Schäfer 1989, 221 and n. 173. 252 Salzman 1990, 126-140, 181f; Curran 2000, 219f, 239-259.

253 Compare III.2.2. 254 Compare Tassi Scandone 2001, 148 (referring to the republican

period); contra Schäfer 1989, 221 (who bases his statement that the consul’s fasces carried the secures on the above-cited passage from Claudianus’ panegyric to Probinus and Olybrius (coss. 395). 255 E.g. Schäfer 1989, 209f; and Tassi Scandone 2001, 147. 256 Cf. the discussion of the consular attribution of the Bourges diptych above, II.5. 257 The interpretation presented by among others Delbrueck and Alan Cameron for the staff held by the left-side goddess in the Magnus panels as a set of fasces has been rejected by me above (II.12); Delbrueck 1929, 136-138; A.D.E. Cameron 1998, 393. See further discussion under III.3.2. 258 For a discussion of the city goddesses’ representation in this work, see III.3.2.

84

evidence to the rule argued by Alan Cameron that the fasces can never be placed in the hands of any personification but Roma.259 As with Astyrius and (in all probability) Bourges, the inclusion of the fasces in Aspar’s image may be explained as a way of compensating for the loss of the triumphal toga as a result of the consul’s having taken office outside of Rome.260 This is not the place to discuss the possible motivations behind this early example of fasces-bearing city goddesses taking the place of lictors. Suffice it to note that no preserved consular diptych shows both goddesses carrying the fasces, nor is any goddess supplied with the fasces in a western (preserved) diptych until 541, when Basilius has himself represented by the side of a Roma holding a monumental set of fasces in her left hand and resting it against the left shoulder after the established lictorian manner261 (see further below). As far as may be determined, then, the fasces-carrying city goddess is chiefly a phenomenon of the 6th century. It is however interesting to note that all the consular images which feature a fascescarrying city goddess, including Aspar’s missorium but excepting the east-inspired diptych of Orestes, are issued by consuls who either took office outside of Rome (western consuls) or were appointed to the eastern consulate (also outside of Rome). The diptych of Clementinus is the earliest specimen within the corpus to display a fasces-bearing city goddess, and its scheme is repeated more or less exactly in Orestes’ diptych of seventeen years later. In these two works the goddess standing on the consul’s left side holds the fasces in her left hand: a heavily reduced instrument, shaped like a thin and curved wand—there is no question of rod bundles here—to which is attached an axe-like banner decorated with a clipeate togatus bust. Delbrueck argued that the busts represent the respective consul himself;262 relying solely on Cassiodorus, he made the generalising statement that this type of fasces banner showed the consul’s bust encircled by a laurel-wreath. However, in none of the representations at hand does the bust have the form of an imago laureata, including the fasces of Basilius where the laurel-wreath on the banner does not encircle a bust or head.263 Further, Delbrueck’s argument against an imperial interpretation of these imagines, viz. that ‘they do not appear so’,264 is unsatisfactory. The fasces, like the other insignia, were conferred on the consul by the emperor,265 and both the scipio and the trabea frequently incorporate the emperor’s togate effigy, and so

does occasionally the sella curulis (Anastasius B (right panel) and C).266 It cannot therefore be unreasonable to assume that the fasces could carry the emperor’s effigy also, if not in reality (but then again, why not?) then at least in imagery. It need not be pointed out that the banner imagines correspond perfectly to those on the sceptres in images where both occur simultaneously. In the left panel of Basilius’ diptych, Roma alone accompanies the consul. She carries a monumental set of fasces whose rods are completely hidden inside a brickpatterned case onto which is attached a rhomboid banner inscribed with a laurel-wreath, and decorated with pendants/ribbons. In ancient times the consular fasces were decorated with a laurel-wreath267 after the pattern of the triumphator’s fasces laureati.268 It is not clear whether—and, judging by the consular diptychs, not probable that—the consul’s fasces were laureate in late antiquity,269 and the emblematic manner in which the wreath on Basilius’ fasces is rendered indicates that it is to be perceived as a symbol of a wreath rather than an actual one. The wreath could also be associated with the corona laurea triumphalis of the Roman triumphator,270 in earlier times apparently also an insignium of the ordinary consul.271 By having a laurel-wreath represented on his fasces, Basilius seemingly at once refers to a previous consular tradition and to a tradition of symbolically associating the consul with the triumphator.272 The classicising Amazonian aspect of Roma adds further to the triumphal analogy, as does her typological affinity with Victoria in the opposite panel.273 Concluding discussion: The fasces do not count among the obligatory attributes of office within consular imagery. In the west the insignium only occurs in works commemorating consuls who took office outside of Rome: Astyrius, the Bourges consul, Aspar, and also Basilius (who was an eastern consul). Western diptychs featuring the fasces represent them in the hands of lictors, which makes them classifiable as real insignia of the consul. In the hand of a city goddess the f a s c e s necessarily take on a more abstract-symbolic significance. The ‘real’ fasces carried by lictors are typologically distinguished from the symbolic ones carried by the city goddess: the lictorian variety retains its traditional components (rods, axe), while the ‘divine’ category has been reshaped into a more or less ambiguous ‘sign’ for the original 266 The laureate image of the emperor also decorated the military signa in

259 A.D.E. Cameron 1985, 140f; A.D.E. Cameron 1998, 396. 260 Aspar entered his consulship at Carthage; e.g. Martindale 1980-1992:1,

late antiquity; e.g. Kruse 1934, 51f, 64. 267 Schäfer 1989, 201; also Vesnel 1970, 303. 268 RE XIII:1 (1926), 508f s.v. ‘Lictor’ (B. Kübler); DarSag III:2, 1239 s.v. ‘Lictor’ (A. Jacob); Versnel 1970, 95 with n. 1; Künzl 1988, 88; Schäfer 1989, 201. 269 It has however been affirmed that laurel was part of the consul’s triumphal insignia earlier in the imperial period; DarSag III:2, 1240 s.v. ‘Lictor’ (A. Jacob). 270 Contra Delbrueck; Delbrueck 1929, 101. For the triumphal wreath, see esp. Versnel 1970, 56f, 75f; and further III.5.2. 271 Schäfer 1989, 201 and n. 40. 272 See further III.5.2. 273 See further III.3.2 and 3.3.

166. 261 The lictor always held the fasces in this way; e.g. DarSag III:2, 1239

s.v. ‘Lictor’ (A. Jacob); and Gladigow 1972, 306. 262 Delbrueck 1929, 64f and n. 219, 119. 263 Delbrueck confidently stated that the empty space within the wreath is a ‘Bosse für eine plastisch nicht ausgeführte Büste des Consuls’, but there is no trace of such a bust; Delbrueck 1929, 102. The same type of ‘empty’ wreath also occurs on the fasces in the medallion diptych of Philoxenus (east, 525); Delbrueck 1929, N 29; Volbach 1976, Nr. 28. 264 Delbrueck 1929, 65. 265 Delbrueck 1929, 59.

85

object, to which the image of the emperor or the triumphator’s wreath has been added to further enhance its symbolic significance. In those diptychs where the fasces are carried by lictors (Astyrius and Bourges) their introduction may be ascribed to a need to compensate for the exclusion of the toga triumphalis, which could not be donned by consuls taking office outside of Rome. The introduction of the fasces in the images of Clementinus and Orestes may not be similarly explained. It may be argued that the popularity of the fascesbearing city goddess appears to have been peculiar to Constantinopolitan consuls in a period where the eastern and western parts of the empire were separated, but the diptychs of Areobindus (9) demonstrate that the presence of a fascescarrying personification was optional. Whereas it is quite clear that the lictors serve only one function, viz. to display the fasces, the city personification cannot be described in quite so simple terms; her main attributes remain those of a goddess, making her far more complex and multi-functional than the lictor. Still, the presence of the fasces in the hand of a city goddess must also mean that she, whatever capital she personifies, has ‘lost’ one of her more traditional attributes, such as a sword, spear and globe—attributes which in the 6th century could belong to both Roma and Constantinopolis.274 In the hand of a helmeted goddess, which is the only type displaying the fasces within the preserved corpus, the insignium is in a sense removed from the civilian sphere into that of war; the concepts of the civilian Roman state and the military Roman empire become interwoven. At the same time the disappearance of the secures on the fasces emphasises the civilian, intramural context in which the city goddesses and the consul have their place.275 Although one should avoid drawing any more far-reaching conclusions from material as limited as this, one may still draw attention to the circumstance that among the preserved consular diptychs the secures occur only on the fasces of consuls who have taken office in the province (Astyrius, Aspar276 ), whereas banners feature on those belonging to consuls having taken office in the capital (Clementinus, Orestes, Basilius, also Philoxenus277 ). Further, there is a geographical aspect to the distribution of secures on fasces, and possibly also a timerelated one: secures only occur in works issued by western consuls, and only in works dating before c. 450. Whether the preserved specimens are representative of the original body of consular diptychs (and other categories of consular images) in these respects is impossible to say.

contrary be understood to act as the consul’s appointer, symbolically conferring the fasces on him and thus acting the emperor’s part, as proposed by Alan Cameron?279 To be able to answer this question, one must take more than the fasces into account: other attributes of the goddesses, their gestures, their size vis-à-vis the consul etc. If, on the other hand, her primary meaning is neither that of the consul’s servant nor of his appointer, may it be that the lictorian attribute is placed in her hand solely to indicate the seat where the consul holds his office (west or east)280 —in which case it is of paramount interest to ascertain her identity (when this is not apparent)281 —or simply to add further to the theme of consulship? As the problems pertaining to the city goddesses’ identities and functions within the consular image will be discussed more fully later on,282 I will here limit myself to offering some preliminary suggestions. It is in my view more than likely that the fasces carried by a city goddess in the diptychs of Clementinus, Orestes and Basilius have a different, or rather wider, significance than the fasces held by a lictor. Alan Cameron has proposed that the role of the fasces-bearing city goddess (who according to his opinion must always be Roma) is that of the consul-maker. She does not carry the fasces in the consul’s train, but confers them on the consul. Thus, if she is at all to be characterised as a servant, it is the emperor—whose effigy sometimes decorates the fasces banner—she serves, not the consul. In all three diptychs the goddess holding the fasces simultaneously performs an active gesture with her right hand in the consul’s direction: in Clementinus/Orestes she hails him with an open-handed gesture, in Basilius she embraces him—a highly demonstrative act of preference, of course unthinkable for a figure of lictorian status. I would therefore suggest that the fasces in the hands of a city goddess be primarily interpreted as an insignium symbolically conferred on the appointed consul on behalf of the Roman emperor and state.283

2.1.5. The codicilli The representation of codicilli, the official document that the consul received from the hand of the emperor in sign of his appointment, is limited within consular diptych imagery. Contemporary (c. 380-450) representations of various categories of officials and of patricii receiving or displaying codicils—the silver missorium of Theodosius in Madrid (Pl. 23), the diptych of Stilicho in Monza,284 the diptych of Probianus in Berlin,285 the Novara patricius diptych,286 and a north African terracotta fragment in Athens featuring an

Must the fasces in the hand of a city goddess necessarily mean that she, like the lictor, is the consul’s servant, as has been suggested by Gudrun Bühl?278 Or should she on the

279 A.D.E. Cameron 1998, 396f. 280 Compare the discussion of Alan Cameron on this point; A.D.E.

Cameron 1998, 394f. 281 See further under III.3.2. 282 III.3.2. 283 In Aspar’s missorium the entire empire (as administered from the two magisterial capitals) would be intended. 284 Delbrueck 1929, N 63, Taf. 63; Volbach 1976, Nr. 63, Taf. 35. 285 Delbrueck 1929, N 65, Taf. 65; Volbach 1976, Nr. 62, Taf. 34. 286 Delbrueck 1929, N 64, Taf. 64; Volbach 1976, Nr. 64, Taf. 36.

274 Cf. Toynbee 1953, 275f; Vickers 1986, 304; Engemann 1988, 104, Taf.

1-6. See further III.3.2. 275 Compare Tassi Scandone 2001, 148. 276 Like the secures on Astyrius’ fasces, those displayed by Roma and Carthago in Aspar’s missorium display formal affinities with several types outlined by Schäfer; Schäfer 1989, Beilage 1-2 passim. 277 (Delbrueck 1929, N 29; Volbach 1976, Nr. 28.) 278 Notably Bühl 1996, 132.

86

anonymous official287 —however suggest an adherence to the Roman tradition within commemorative art of denoting official dignity by this motif288 in the said period, and predominantly in the west. The codicil also appears frequently on Christian ivories and in works in other media of the period (e.g. Ravennese church mosaics and sarcophagi), notably in scenes showing Christ performing the traditio legis, posing in the garb of a high Roman official.289 The codicilli occur as a primary attribute in only two diptychs, Felix (3 a) and Astyrius (4), and of these it is only Astyrius’ codicil that is consular, that of Felix referring to his patrician appointment. Judging by the two representations, the consul’s and the patrician’s codicils were of the same type, viz. a scroll (volumen): a thin, short, slightly rounded and oblong object with transverse lines at the ends, indicating the curls of the parchment. Like the mappa it is held in the right hand; in Felix solemnly across the chest, in Astyrius (both panels) in the lap.

its size and width, it would more likely be recognised as a diptychon (codicillar diptych), a codicil type accorded a number of magistrates but not the consul.296 But if one assumes that the area containing the imperial figure constitutes either an original part that has at some point been severed and reattached, or (if lost) a substitution modelled after the original part,297 one must naturally consider the peculiarities of this figure. The togate emperor is seated on an arch-backed throne, directing his right (veiled) hand, in which he holds a short, oval and rounded object, towards the consul. This object certainly fits Delbrueck’s description, viz. a ‘Rolle’ or scroll: a piece of consular codicilli. If the object proffered by the emperor is the consular codicil, what then is the function of the diptychon in the consul’s left hand? It should perhaps be particularly pointed out that he is not actually represented as receiving it from the emperor, he merely holds it. As I see it, there is one possible solution to this problem of double codicils: the codicillar diptych refers to the consul’s previous office, viz. in Areobindus’ case that of magister militum per Orientem, among whose official insignia the codicillar diptych belonged.298 It appears that Areobindus actually held the office of magister militum when receiving his consular designation,299 and since the consulate was almost certainly awarded him for his military achievements,300 it seems plausible that he might have desired to commemorate the military office simultaneously with the consular in some way. That we have to do with a specific reference to the cursus of Areobindus appears further strengthened by the fact that the figure-group as such is supported on a tabula ansata, an ideogrammatic motif associated with the commemoration of titles, deeds and virtues of Roman citizens.301 And to render the military theme complete, the shape of the entire sceptre recalls a military signum.302

What appears to be a codicil, or actually a pair of them, is found in the miniature couple of togati crowning the scipio of Areobindus D (9): a smaller, roll-shaped object held by the enthroned figure (left), and a larger and square-shaped one held by the standing figure (right).290 Delbrueck, who is the only scholar to have attempted an interpretation of the figurecouple, discarded the object held by the enthroned figure as unauthentic.291 The question of whether the allegedly unoriginal parts of the panel must automatically be deemed as unrepresentative of the original was however not considered by Delbrueck,292 nor did he suggest a date for the substituted parts.293 Thus, according to him the larger, square-shaped object held by the consul (viz. the standing figure to the right) is to be recognised as Areobindus’ consular codicil ‘in Form einer Rolle’, presented to him by the emperor Anastasius (enthroned figure to the left).294 This interpretation was subsequently accepted by Volbach.295 The identification of the two figures with the emperor and the consul Areobindus is very convincing, and so is the interpretation of the scene as the ceremonial conferral of the codicil onto the appointed consul. As for the identification of the consular codicil with the one held by the consul himself, it is evident that the proportions and shape of this object correspond to neither that of Felix nor Astyrius. Considering

Concluding discussion: In the few cases where codicilli are represented in a consular diptych, they serve to lend emphasis to the appointment—consular or patrician—as such, or, as in Areobindus D, the ceremonial conferral of the document of appointment. In Felix’s diptych, where the codicil relates to the honorand’s patrician appointment, it also serves to illustrate the social status on which the honorand’s consulship is in this instance ‘founded’: the patrician title is also listed

287 Salomonson 1973, Abb. 1, 15. 288 For the representation of Roman dignitaries with codicilli on sepulchral

monuments, see Ronke 1987, (iii) passim; and Pflug 1989, Taf. passim. 289 For the ivory category, see e.g. the Carrand diptych in the Museo Nazionale del Bargello, Florence (Delbrueck 1929, N 69, Taf. 69; Volbach 1976, Nr. 108, Taf. 32) and the Andrews diptych in the British Museum, London (Delbrueck 1929, N 70, Taf. 70; Volbach 1976, Nr. 233, Taf. 108). 290 See the treatment of the diptych under II.9.D and the following discussion of the problems pertaining to Delbrueck’s declaration of unauthenticity concerning the part in question. 291 Delbrueck 1929, 109, 114 with Abb. 2, 115. 292 I have not been able to establish that the allegedly unauthentic area is other than a pure mending. 293 Delbrueck 1929, 114 Abb. 2. 294 Delbrueck 1929, 114f. 295 Volbach 1976, 34.

296 See Kruse 1934, 99-101; Grigg 1979, 114; and Berger 1981, 31, 176;

also Kiilerich 1993, 136. 297 There is in my view sufficient formal/technical affinity between the carving of both sceptre figures to render the assumption valid. The same may be said of the parts in the lower register indicated as substituted parts by Delbrueck (Delbrueck 1929, 114 Abb. 1). 298 Seeck 1876, 19 (VII.2); Kruse 1934, 101 and n. 1, 4-6; Berger 1981, 41f. 299 Martindale 1980-1992:1 143-145. 300 Martindale 1980-1992:1, 144f. 301 Compare above, III.2.1.2 (concerning Anastasius’ sceptres). 302 Something which also applies to the other sceptres in the series (see III.2.1.2.).

87

immediately before the consular one on the tabula inscriptionis (lost right panel).303 In Astyrius’s diptych the incorporation of the codicil serves the function of clarifying the honorand’s status; together with the fasces-bearing lictors it compensates for the absence of the triumphal toga. As the official titles of Astyrius did not comprise that of patricius at the time of his consulship, as testified by the inscriptional tabula, the codicil could not indicate such a status, either by itself or simultaneously with the consular one. In Areobindus D the representation of official appointment—signified by the double codicilli—has received a singularly prominent place, even though carved in extreme miniature and as part of another insignium, viz. the scipio. Areobindus’ codicils are accompanied by the representation of the emperor in person, which is here seen as ‘physically present’ and active in performing the ritual of conferral. It is an actual encounter, not a symbolic scene, and it has the appearence of reciprocity since emperor and consul approach each other with gestures of giving and receiving. The symmetry of the figures’ movement is further underlined by the veiled hands of both; the consular scroll codicil is held by the conferring party, i.e. the emperor, whereas the diptychon is held by the receiving party. The scene may be compared with that shown on Theodosius’ missorium, where the enthroned emperor hands the codicil to an appointed official approaching him from the side, hands veiled by the stuff of his costume. Why the conferral of the codicilli has been introduced as a scene in its own right, and even more interestingly why it crowns the scipio in this particular diptych, can at best be speculated upon. The placement is in itself suggestive of a high symbolic value, and the fact that the figure-couple replaces the common imperial busts (or, as in the case of the other Areobindian diptychs, the armed statuette of the emperor) would indicate that Areobindus considered himself to enjoy a peculiarly privileged relationship vis-à-vis the sovereign.

Much has already been said about the modes of displaying of the mappa in connection with poses and gestures above,305 where it was argued that the position in which the kerchief is held does not automatically depend on or relate to the scene presented in the lower register. It is only in the eastern diptychs that some kind of pattern may be traced. Here the raised mappa is combined with scenes from the arena (animal fights, theatrical, musical and acrobatic performances) and a lowered mappa with ‘after’- or ‘between’- games scenes representing gift distribution (prize or sparsio, actual or symbolic). As argued earlier, in the latter case the display of the mappa does not constitute an obvious reference to the lower-register scenes. There is no perceptible pattern to be detected among the western diptychs in which the mappa occurs. It appears that the mappa was not an obligatory motif in the period up to c. 450, since Felix (3) and Astyrius (4) did without it. On the one hand, the Lampadiorum (1) and Liverpool venatio (Pl. 18) ivories indicate that the mappa had become a fairly common motif in representations of games (circus, amphitheatre) by the time of 400, probably earlier.306 On the other hand, the Halberstadt diptych ( 2 ) is the earliest preserved example among consular ivories to represent the mappa unaccompanied by games-scenes. In fact, the Halberstadt consul is neither seated on a tribunal (but standing within a space devoid of any reference to tribunal architecture or other), nor may the scene with barbarian captives below him (the same type of which is found below the patrician representation in the other panel also) relate to games, and therefore not to the mappa. But still the Halberstadt consul is seen to raise the kerchief—of the large and bulbous variety that easily catches the viewer’s eye—ostentatiously in the air. Delbrueck’s surmise that lower-register scenes of the diptych take place in the arena307 is not really borne out by the scenes themselves, which are spatially indefinite, even abstract; nor is the view that the upper register scenes, showing an imperial figure-group accompanied by city goddesses and guards framed by a laureldecorated fronton, should be recognised as a circus tribunal308 convincing. For reasons that will be presented further on,309 I would rather interpret the scenes of both the upper and lower registers in Halberstadt as related to the theme of empire, and only indirectly connected to consulship. In fact, within the official imagery of imperial consuls the m a p p a is represented as an independent attribute of consulship several decades earlier, as exemplified by a Constantinopolitan solidus issued by Valentinian I and Valens on the occasion of their joint consulship in 367/8.310

2.2. The mappa circensis After the triumphal toga and the sceptre, the mappa circensis is the most common object displayed by the consuls’ figures in the diptychs, and its inclusion was seemingly imperative in the 6th-century east. The folded kerchief, which was waved by the consul presiding in the circus tribunal as an opening signal for the spectacles to commence, is always held in the right (active) hand, either raised, lowered (resting in the lap of the seated consul or along the side of the standing consul), or held against the chest. As the denomination indicates, the context of the mappa was the circus, not (apparently) the amphitheatre.304

305 III.1.3. 306 The representation of the praeses ludorum raising the mappa on the

tribunal is found in several circus images from the 2nd to 4th centuries; for examples, see further III.7.2.1. 307 Delbrueck 1929, 88. 308 Delbrueck 1929, 88; A.D.E. Cameron 1998, 389. See further III.3.3 below. 309 III.3.4. Also III.7.3. 310 Reproduced in e.g. MacCormack 1981, 165f, Pl. 48. For further examples of imperial medals and coins showing imperial consuls with

303 On the ascending-cum-chronological order of official titles, see

Bagnall, Cameron, Schwartz & Worp 1987, 88; and above, I.1.2. 304 Jones 1964, 539.

88

And a fragmentary redware plaque possibly representing the western consul in 408, Anicius Auchenius Bassus, in the Prähistorische Staatsammlung in Munich,311 and a pair of standing togate statues with raised mappae in the Palazzo dei Conservatori in Rome dated to 370-380,312 demonstrate that the phenomenon was not restricted to the representation of imperial consuls in this period. From these comparisons one must conclude that the presence of the mappa in the Halberstadt diptych constitutes no more than a first clear testimony of its having become passable as an independent motif within the diptych imagery of private consuls by the time of c. 415.313

And in Basilius’ diptych the standing consul clasps the kerchief to his chest with a gesture closely resembling that with which Felix holds his codicil in the lost right panel of his diptych: a gesture indicating solemnity, receptivity and passivity. In Basilius’ image the mappa rather seems to be turned into a mark of honour, something in the nature of an insignium.316 Although Basilius’ m a p p a is actually accompanied by a circus scene, the diminutive and objectivised aspect of the latter defies any realistic interpretation. The circus scene and the mappa appear as two disconnected and independent attributes of Basilius. Concluding discussion: The mappa circensis is not only included in the majority of consular ivories, throughout the period of production, but it usually also enjoys a prominent position within the images. Not only is it, and the hand holding it, commonly enlarged and carved in a slightly higher relief than the elements surrounding it,317 but when the consul holds the mappa in an elevated position the diagonal movement of the arm breaks the hieratic regularity of the image, thereby immediately drawing the viewer’s attention towards the object held in the hand. The raised mappa signifies the only ‘act’ performed by the otherwise hieratically passive consul.318 When separated from its context, viz. the games, the mappa attains a symbolic value; its importance as carrier of meaning is suggested by the fact that it visually equals, and often outperforms, the scipio as a visual focal point. Viewed contrastively, the mappa and the sceptre represent action and state respectively; as a symmetrical pair of attributes they could be interpreted as representing the pompa and the processus, the two major consular ceremonies. Since the sceptre was carried in both contexts, and thus contextually neutral as it were, the mappa would be introduced to denote the consul as giver of and president at the games specifically. That part of consulship was after all the most important of

The ‘independent’ mappa predominates within consular diptych imagery: apart from the Halberstadt diptych it is found in the diptychs of Boethius (6), Orestes (7), Clementinus (10), Magnus (12) and also Basilius (8), as well as in the majority of medallion diptychs.314 This raises the question of how it should be interpreted in relation to the immediate scene of which it is part, viz. the central/consular register. Pertinent questions are: where do these ‘scenes’ take place? Is it a real place, figuring within the context of consular ceremonial—the tribunal of the circus, hippodrome or amphitheatre315 —as has been assumed by a wide number of scholars?; is a consul seated on a sella curulis with a mappa in his hand physically presiding at his games, and if so how may one explain the left panel in Boethius, where the standing consul holds the mappa passively and half hidden along the side of his body and in front of an aedicula identical to that in the opposite, allegedly ‘tribunal’ panel? Boethius is not the only diptych for which the tribunal interpretation is unsatisfactory. The spatial void in which the Halberstadt honorand and attendants stand has already been mentioned, and so have the scenes depicting the emptying of coin-sacks in Clementinus’, Magnus’ and Orestes’ diptychs. mappae, see RIC IX (1951), 50 no. 38, 76f nos. 3 and 5, 217 no. 29; RIC X (1994), Pl. 23 nos. 620-629; Burgess 1988, Pl. 26 no. 12; and also Delbrueck 1929, Texttaf. 1 nos. 1-4, 6, 8. For discussions on the mappa as an independent attribute of the consul, see Wessel 1978, 408f; Engemann 1999, 162; and Bühl 2001, 198f. 311 Spier 2003, with Fig. 2. 312 Kiilerich 1993, 111 and Fig. 57. 313 Alan Cameron’s proposition that the mappa held by the Halberstadt consul would indicate an eastern origin of the diptych—a proposition which forms part of the author’s attempt to reattribute the ivory to the eastern consul of 414, Fl. Constans—has in my view been successfully refuted by Josef Engemann; A.D.E. Cameron 1998, 401; Engemann 1999, 161-163. Cameron’s argument that there is no evidence that the mappa was displayed by western ordinary consuls before c. 450 (discounting thus the Halberstadt diptych) may be countered by pointing out that there is no evidence that the m a p p a was displayed by an eastern ordinary consul before 506 (Areobindus), and that neither of these dates really proves anything. Why ordinary consuls but not suffect consuls (Lampadiorum?) or lower officials like the togati in the Palazzo dei Conservatori should have refrained from having themselves represented with the mappa if they so wished remains unexplained by Cameron. 314 Areobindus, Philoxenus (east, 525), Apion (east, 539), Iustinus (east, 540), and the anonymous western ex-Ganay diptych (500-540?) (Pl. 17); Delbrueck 1929, N 14, N 29, N 33, N 34, N 41 and N 42; Volbach 1976, Nr. 13, Nr. 28, Nr. 32, Nr. 33 , Nr. 41 and Nr. 42. 315 See further III.7 below.

316 This manner of displaying the mappa is unique for the preserved

consular diptychs but not for the greater corpus of late antique western ivories. A similar way of holding it is witnessed in the Liverpool venatio panel, attributed to Italy/Rome and c. 400; Delbrueck 1929, 121f; Volbach 1976, 53; also Wessel 1953; and Gibson 1994, 17f. But with a couple of differences: the figure holding the m a p p a is a side-figure (right), comparable to those in Lampadiorum (right attendant) and Halberstadt (right attendant, left panel), and he is physically presiding over a venatio from behind the parapet of a tribunal. His mappa is thus ‘passive’, an unutilised attribute of official rank. Bühl’s suggestion that the imagery of the Basilius’ diptych may be derived from an earlier 5th-century diptych panel, a suggestion based on the fragment of a ceramic tablet in the Benaki Museum, Athens, showing a togatus (accompanied by a single city personification) resting his right hand on the chest whilst holding a codicil scroll in the lowered left, is interesting but—considering the obvious limitation of the evidence—somewhat weak; Bühl 1995, 170f, Abb. 90, 174, 224. The togatus represented on the fragment in question is not a consul since he neither wears the triumphal toga nor holds a sceptre, and his lack of the mappa shows that he is not a games-giver. The gesture he performs with his right hand may rather be likened to the one performed by innumerable togati in Roman honorific art, where the hand is clasped loosely around the umbo (for a late antique parallel, cf. the togatus on a 5thcentury ivory panel from Ostia; e.g. Cutler 1993, 173 Fig. 7). 317 See notably Boethius and Anastasius. 318 See III.1.3.

89

the two in late antiquity, and that which carried the most prestige and personal exposure with it. One may confidently state that the consul’s dignity as editor et praeses ludorum is an important theme within the imagery of consular diptychs, but it is never allowed to overshadow all other aspects of consulship. The mappa may appear to have become an obligatory attribute of the consul in the 6th-century east, but it did not have to be combined with games-scenes, and not exclusively with circus-scenes. The function of the mappa in an image may be passive or neutral, as in Clementinus, Orestes and Magnus;319 or it may be displayed like a mark of honour, as in Basilius; or again, completely separated from the context of the games, reduced into a sign for consulship, as in the diptych of Halberstadt. The independent function of the mappa is otherwise best illustrated in the medallion diptychs, where it certainly appears to have been an obligatory motif, and in the consular s o l i d i , the apparent prototypes of the medallion representations. A general conclusion must thus be that the mappa was regarded as a consular attribute in its own right, a ceremonial counterpart to the sceptre, and with the dignity of an insignium.

appointment, second highest on the late Roman scale of dignities,323 usually precedes that of consulship in time.324 The Halberstadt diptych shows the honorand clothed in a chlamys decorated with a segmentum which is both larger and more ornate than those on the attendants’ chlamydes, thus signifying the exclusivity of his rank. It should be particularly noted that the pattern on the honorand’s chlamys displays formal similarities to that of the senior emperor (left) in the register above.325 Unlike Felix this patrician does not display the codicilli of his appointment, something which indicates that it is not so much the patrician appointment as the patrician status that is subject to commemoration. The passive-receptive gesture of holding the codicilli witnessed in Felix’s diptych is here exchanged for the formal speech gesture; the two raised digits signal precedence of speech and are contrasted with the more passive gestures of communication performed by his attendants.326 Both the chlamys inset and the active gesture demonstrate that the honorand enjoys an especially privileged position within the collective of Roman dignitaries,327 something which in its turn agrees with the known facts about the individual to whom the diptych is commonly attributed, Fl. Constantius, at the time of his second western consulship in 417: Constantius had then been patricius for 1-3 years, and married into the imperial family on the very day of his consular accession (January 1st, 417).328

2.3. The consul as patricius Three diptychs within the preserved corpus contains representations of the honorand in the double capacities of consul and patricius, all western—Halberstadt (2), Felix (3), and Basilius (8)—in each of which the honorand is shown wearing the chlamys costume as a sign of his patrician rank.320 In Halberstadt and Felix the chlamys is decorated centrally at the front with a large, square and richly ornamented segmentum and fastened over the right shoulder with a fibula—both official marks of the wearer’s status.321 In Basilius, where the patrician image is in the form of an imago clipeata, only the uppermost part of the garment with fibula are represented. In all three diptychs the western system for ordering the panels (right to left) places the patrician representation on the back, leaving the place of honour to the consular representation.322 On the scale of official titles, likewise, the consulate always ranks highest and the patrician

In Felix’s diptych the patrician rank is further signified with the help of a complementary attribute, the codicilli, which specifically refers to the man’s appointment. Felix holds the document with a solemnly receptive gesture across his chest. The position of the hand exactly reflects that in the consular panel, something which lends a symmetry to the diptych as a whole, and conveys the impression that the patrician and consular statuses are to some degree perceived as equally important. Like Constantius’ patrician appointment, that of Felix preceded the consular.329 In the much later diptych of Basilius the honorand’s patrician rank has been expressed in an entirely different mode: the full-figure representation witnessed in the earlier diptychs (as well as in the left panel of Basilius) has been exchanged for an imago clipeata. This way of representing a consul is unique within the corpus, its nearest counterparts being the ruler’s imagines clipeatae in the upper registers of Clementinus’ (10), Anthemius’ (Pl. 15), Anastasius’ (11) and

319 Lafontaine-Dosogne has proposed that the consul’s mappa could also

be interpreted as a ‘bourse évoquant ses largessees’; Lafontaine-Dosogne 1980/81, 6. Some consuls’ mappae do have the form of sacks (notably that of Anastasius), but this does not apply in the cases of Boethius’, Clementinus’, Magnus’ and Orestes’ diptychs. The money-sacks represented in the lower registers of the same diptychs, and also in the consular image of the emperor Gallus in the Codex-calendar of 354 (Stern 1953, Pl. XV; Salzman 1990, Fig. 14), display a distinctly different form and size. 320 On the chlamys costume as a signifier of patrician rank: Cassiod., Var. 8.9.3; Delbrueck 1929, 55. 321 The segmentum, which consisted of a ‘tabula’ applied on the lower part of the chlamys, was apparently unique to the bearer and could occasionally incorporate imagines; D a r S a g IV:2, 1172-1175 s.v. ‘Segmentum’ (V. Chapot). On the imperial imago and its significance on the consular trabea, see above III.2.1.1. For other officials’ insignia, see e.g. Malte Johansen 1994, 240-242. 322 See I.1.1.

323 E.g. Jones 1964, 528. 324 See above, I1.2. On the relationship between the consular and patrician

appointment under Anastasius I, see further Mathisen 1990. 325 Due to erosion these similarities are best seen in the left/consular panel of the diptych. 326 See III.1.3. 327 On the hierarchical significances of these and other iconographic peculiarities of the Halberstadt diptych, see further IV.3. 328 Martindale 1980-1992:1, 323f; Lütkenhaus 1998, 64, 85-94. 329 Felix was probably made patricius in 425; Martindale 1980-1992:1, 461. See also III.2.1.5.

90

Orestes’ (7) diptychs. The imago clipeata of Basilius patricius is held by the goddess Victoria, who is in her turn seated on a globe supported on the wings and back of the aquila. It is clearly not the patrician rank or its official privileges that are referred to here, but a status of a considerably more elevated nature. The significance of Basilius’ patrician representation may be illuminated by looking at the imagery surrounding it, the key to which is provided by the motto inscribed around the bust on the clipeus. The message of this motto, ‘for the good of the state anew’, apparently refers to some deed performed by Basilius for the benefit of the Roman state, achieved—so the viewer is invited to think—by the honorand as a protagonist of the Roman patriciate, i.e. as a high-ranking member of the Roman aristocracy. That the deed would be considered as a major success, a victory, is clear from the rest of the panel’s imagery.330

status apparently lost some of its value or interest vis-à-vis the ordinary consulship. The last consular diptych to include a patrician representation of its honorand is that of Basilius, an eastern consul who issued the preserved diptych in Rome, evidently wishing to adhere to a western tradition of commemorative imagery. The clipeate image of Basilius as patricius may in every respect be compared to the imago clipeata virtutis accorded since republican times to citizens who had performed laudably in honour of the Roman state.334 For the 6th-century western patrician his social belonging would have been coloured by a deep-rooted consciousness of the oldRoman ideals of excellency:335 being a Roman aristocrat and p a t r i c i u s ideally meant that a man possessed such qualities—virtus, honos, auctoritas, patria and so forth—as would render glory to his state. The family to which Basilius belonged formed one of the most prominent consular dynasties in the 5th and 6th centuries,336 a status which would inevitably have fostered notions of social pride and a sense of public and historic responsibility in their members. By introducing his own image as an imago clipeata virtutis ascending with Victoria and the aquila towards heaven, Basilius not only has attention drawn to his Romanaristocratic heritage, but he glorifies the traditional values that shaped the Roman-aristocratic identity and which are neatly expressed by the Basilian motto: ‘for the good of the state anew’. The patrician representations within the preserved consular diptychs suggest that the importance ascribed to and/or the values associated with the patrician title in the western half of the empire retained their force throughout the period where consular diptychs were produced. Unlike consulship the patriciate was a social dignity, an institution which embodied the ancient status and privileges formerly (viz. before Constantine) enjoyed by the top stratum of the Roman senatorial aristocracy, for which reason its symbolic value would have been considerable. In the case of the Halberstadt honorand, Fl. Constantius, the patrician title paved way not only for his second consular appointment—a rare honour for private citizens—but also for his marriage into the Theodosian dynasty.337 Judging by the consular diptychs the eastern aristocracy did not ascribe such importance to the patrician title and/or it was not associated with consulship as closely as in the west: Clementinus was patricius in the year of his consulship, but the title is only referred to on his tabula inscriptionis. Thus, whereas the eastern consul focussed on commemorating the office he had been appointed to, viz. the consulate, the western consul, when able to, focussed on presenting himself as a carrier of dignities. In generalised terms the eastern image presents a more impersonal way of commemorating an office whereas the

Concluding discussion: From what may be determined by the preserved corpus of consular diptychs, the representation of the consul in the capacity of patricius seems to have been peculiar to the west. Why certain consuls chose to have themselves commemorated as patricians while others did not is of course a practically unanswerable question, but the fact that it is only in western diptychs that these representations are found should not prove to be so inexplicable. The circumstance that Constantius, the likely honorand of the Halberstadt diptych, and Felix obtained their patrician status more or less shortly prior to their consular appointments could account for their choice to include a patrician representation of themselves. Although Boethius appears to have received his patrician title after the consular appointment,331 it must have been either during the actual period of consulship or sometime within the time-span between his consular accession and his issuing of the preserved diptych, since he was able to include it on the tabula inscriptionis of his diptych(s); but it is not commemorated through imagery. And among the honorands of the preserved eastern diptychs (all categories) it is only Clementinus who enjoyed the title of patricius (when celebrating his consulship),332 but like Boethius he did not commemorate it in imagery. If this limited evidence may at all be regarded as representative of a pattern, one could hazard the tentative conclusion that the patrician title was only subject to pictorial representation in the years up to the ‘fall’ of the western empire;333 after that date (approximately) the 330 See further III.3.3. 331 Martindale 1980-1992:1, 233. 332 If the sequential order of the titles listed on Clementinus’ tabula ansata

reflected the chronological order of his appointments his patriciate would have dated to the year 512 or 513; see Martindale 1980-1992:1, 303. It remains unknown whether Anthemius (cos. 515) held the patrician title. 333 This tentative conclusion also appears to be supported by the other patrician representations preserved, which are all datable to the first half of the 5th century and the west, such as the Novara patricius and Carrand diptychs; Delbrueck 1929, N 64 and 69; Volbach 1976, Nr. 64 and 108. For a patrician and/or consular interpretation of the Carrand diptych (right panel), see also Shelton 1989, 123 esp.; and for its dating, see Kiilerich 1993, 153.

334 See e.g. Zanker 1988:1, 92-98. See further III.3.3. 335 Näf 1995, 193-231. Also Jones 1964, 523f; M.T.W. Arnheim 1972,

103-167; and Niquet 2000, 151-172. 336 Chastagnol 1966, 48f; Novak 1980; Bagnall, Cameron, Schwartz & Worp 1987, 7; Barnish 1988, 124-127. 337 Notably Lütkenhaus 1998, 94f, 132-134.

91

western image presents a more person-oriented way of commemorating a man’s dignitates or career.

Perhaps this youngest representative of the Lampadii has been co-commemorated with the honorand in the capacity of a new appointee to the clarissimate or one of the lower magistracies on the cursus honorum. There is no way of more closely defining the statuses and functions of the attending officials in Lampadiorum and Halberstadt. What can be concluded, however, is that they are relative, i.e. that they illustrate a hierarchical order: the mappa-carrying senior men would take the middle position on a hierarchical scale between consul and the togatus opposite. In the case of Lampadiorum the hierarchical interpretation seems particularly plausible considering the clear way in which the three praesides have simultaneously been differentiated through age and rank. Viewing the row of Lampadii from left to right, the viewer is aware of a curving scale illustrating the grades of the cursus honorum, beginning with the young senator without office or function, passing across the consul in his early thirties (?) who finds himself on the pinnacle of the cursus, and ending with the senior senator who has (perhaps) completed his career and co-presides at his consular relative’s games in the capacity of ex-magistrate or vir consularis. It is quite possible, although not as obvious as in Lampadiorum, that the same kind of official hierarchy is represented in the left panel of the Halberstadt diptych, but then without any apparent differentiation in age or other features to lend it emphasis; the two chlamydati flanking the honorand in the right panel are physiognomically differentiated, but the pattern of their segmenta is the same, and the fact that only one of them is bearded cannot automatically be taken as an index of seniority. The attendant figures in Lampadiorum and Halberstadt are also distinguished from the honorand, most particularly in Lampadiorum where the difference in scale is considerable. The primary importance of the consul’s figure is further indicated by means of a strict application of centrality and symmetry (which also means that the attending figures are subtly turned in the consul’s direction), and a placement further in the foreground, partly overcutting the attendants. The togati flanking the Halberstadt consul are far less drastically but still distinctly differentiated from their superior: they are shorter than he and stand slightly behind him, parts of their bodies being overcut by his. These are well-established methods for distinguishing primary from secondary figures within late antique art. Another factor that might help to determine the relative statuses of the attendant figures in these and other diptychs is their position left-rightwise. As this is a complex and much debated issue, I have considered it valuable to treat in a separate section.343 All hierarchical and official distinctions apart, however, it must be emphasised that the attendants in Lampadiorum and even more in Halberstadt enjoy relatively prominent positions visà-vis the consul/honorand: they are allowed to be seated with him (Lampadiorum) or to engage in communication with him (Halberstadt), and to perform an official function within the consular ceremonial (the mappa-carrying attendants).

3. SECONDARY FIGURES

3.1. Officials and functionaries The most frequently occurring type of attendant figure within the consular diptychs is the lower official: a chlamydatus or togatus, sometimes one of each category distributed between the two panels. If one may judge by the preserved corpus, the inclusion of lower officials appears to have been favoured in the west, as exemplified by the diptychs of Lampadiorum (1) and Halberstadt (2),338 whereas only one example is preserved from the east, the Areobindus series (9). Only in Areobindus, further, do the attendant officials’ costumes differ from the consul’s: the rule is otherwise that togati accompany the togate consul and chlamydati the consul in his capacity of patricius. There appear to be some functional and status-related distinctions between a togatus and a chlamydatus within the consular imagery. The togati flanking the consul in Lampadiorum are both seated, which is a more dignified and privileged position than the standing one. Also, in both Lampadiorum and Halberstadt one of the attending togati carries a mappa—a smaller variant held in a lowered position so as to distinguish it from the larger and (in Halberstadt) actively used consul’s mappa, but also to distinguish its carrier as one having participant status vis-à-vis his emptyhanded fellow attendant. The mappa-carrying officials would likely be recognised as senior magistrates who have held or hold an office comprising the duty to co-preside at games; Delbrueck proposed that the plain togas worn by three of four attendants in Lampadiorum and Halberstadt identify them as viri consulares.339 In Lampadiorum the attendants are also distinguished from each other through toga type, the latus clavus decorating the junior man’s (left) right shoulder denoting the rank o f v i r clarissimus340 or praetor/quaestor.341 The youthful appearance, senatorial costume and lack of the praeses’ attribute (or some other) combine to suggest that this person is connected to the consul—and the senior official—by other than official relationships; the physiognomical similarities between the three figures indicate that this connection is kinship.342 338 The Liverpool venatio panel (Pl. 18) may also be assigned to this

western category, even if it does not depict consular ceremonial. 339 Delbrueck 1929, 219. Compare the plain toga costumes and agedifferentiated physiognomies of the three praesides in the Liverpool venatio panel, who have variously been identified as praetors and ex-consuls; Delbrueck 1929, 225; Volbach 1976, 53. 340 Delbrueck 1929, 175. 341 A. Alföldi 1949, 76. 342 See III.1.1.

343 III.3.5.

92

Smaller stature and a receded position also characterise the chlamydati attending Areobindus in his diptychs, but here the reduction has gone one step further: the men’s bodies are almost completely hidden behind the consul, the lower halves having been left out altogether. The Areobindus series is the only surviving example derived from the east to show officials as secondary figures, wherefore any general conclusions as to its representativity can only be tentative, but the peculiarities just mentioned are suggestive of a different approach to the function and status of this figure category within consular imagery than that exemplified in the western diptychs. The Areobindian chlamydati are no more than passive background presences: they are not turned towards the consul but stare straight ahead, and their hands, with which they would have been able to communicate or perform some other relevant function, are out of view. Their equally young age (both appear to be younger than the consul) does not reveal anything about rank and neither do, strictly speaking, the faintly discernible patterns of their chlamys insets. In short, these figures are difficult to define, and could perhaps therefore be interpreted as guards344 or courtly attendants in general (as suggested by their costumes and fibulae) whose function would simply consist in providing the scene of Areobindus’ consular ‘enthronement’ with a solemnly ceremonial atmosphere. There may however be a more specific motivation behind the chlamydati’s inclusion in Areobindus’ diptychs, namely that they are intended to represent certain personages with a peculiar relevance to the consul. The right-side figure presents a youthful copy of Areobindus (particularly so in diptychs AC ); his face is seen strictly en face345 so that his physiognomical characteristics are fully displayed, and he appears to be standing slightly closer to the consul (his head is bigger than the left-side figure’s). In my opinion it is more than likely that this figure’s image or ‘imago’ is intended to be compared with that of the consul, and the resemblance between the two appreciated. I would therefore propose that this figure is a close relative, plausibly a son of Areobindus, whereas the other (whose appearance differs form the others’, and who is more of a background figure) might be recognised as a less close relative, such as a nephew or possibly a second-born son. Like the honorands of the Lampadiorum and Halberstadt diptychs Areobindus had reason to be proud of his family; counting several consuls among his ancestors, and having married the former emperor Olybrius’ daughter Anicia Iuliana,346 he might well have wished to put forward his own through the means of his consular diptychs. In this case it is the younger generation, already introduced at the court. To conclude, the juniority of the chlamydati in Areobindus’ diptychs would account for their lack of official attributes and functions, as well as for their receded position, and their familial relationship to the consul would account for their inclusion and their altogether imago-like appearances.

In two instances official attendants are in the form of lictors: one in each of the Astyrius panels (4) and two in the Bourges diptych (5).347 Both of these ivories commemorate western consuls having taken office in the province, wherefore the inclusion of lictores cum fascibus would appear to have been motivated, at least partly, by a need to make up for the imposed necessity to exclude the triumphal toga, otherwise a primary indicator of consular status; this has been argued above.348 In both diptychs the lictors are clothed in a mantle reminiscent of the sagulum (military mantle), which is in this case a short tunic beneath an equally short chlamys. The noncivilian character of this type of costume may likely also be ascribed to the provincial context in which the diptychs were created.349 Unlike the higher official type, the lictors are carriers of specifying attributes which denote an exact function vis-à-vis the consul, from whom they are also more strongly differentiated. Apart from the costume, the lictors’ subordination is expressed by means of size and age; in both diptychs they are considerably smaller than the consul, their youthful physiognomies and short stature emphasising the latter’s senior dignity. In Bourges they are further characterised by ‘barbarian’ haircuts, the long and inwardcurling shoulder-locks of the right-panel figures in particular corresponding to a Germanic type,350 thus signalling a provincial ethnicity.351 Collectively this category of secondary figures may be defined as impersonally related to the consul, their sole function being as carriers of his insignium. The left-side attendant in Astyrius’ diptych (both panels) does not carry the fasces, nor does he wear an outfit identical to that of his lictorian counterpart.352 The object that he carries, a theca,353 otherwise recurs in representations of insignia for several office categories in the Notitia Dignitatum,354 and it 347 The number of lictors represented would naturally be understood as a

reduction of the original number allowed the ordinary consul, viz. twelve, but in the case of Astyrius particularly it is also possible that the single lictor is intended to represent the lictor proximus, primus or summus, the highestranking representative within the lictorian hierarchy; DarSag III:2, 1240 s.v. ‘Lictor’ (A. Jacob); Tassi Scandone 2001, 147f. 348 III.2.1.4. 349 When in Rome, and in a period of peace, lictors would wear a variant of the toga (togulae); Tassi Scandone 2001, 148. Also Schäfer 1989, 206 n. 72. 350 Compare the hairstyle of the guards on Theodosius’ missorium (Pl. 23) and the victoriola-carrying commander in the left vertical panel of the Barberini ivory (Pl. 20); see also e.g. Kiilerich 1993, 20; and Wright 1977 respectively. 351 The same kind of status differentiation may be witnessed in the left panel of Probianus’ diptych (Delbrueck 1929, N 65, Taf. 65; Volbach 1976, Nr. 62, Taf. 34), where the scribes placed immediately to the sides of the city prefect are distinguished from their superior by the very same means as the lictors in Astyrius and Bourges: size, age, costume. 352 His chlamys is not of the same length as the other figure’s (which however may not be significant) and the fibula holding it together on the right shoulder is larger and as it were more accentuated, something which could indicate a different and higher rank. Compare description II.4. 353 Lydus, Mag. 2.14, 2.17, 3.21.4; Kruse 1934, 105; and Berger 1981, 3234. 354 Kruse 1934, 99-102, 104f; Grigg 1979, 109f; Berger 1981, 27, 32-34, 184-187.

344 Thus Delbrueck 1929, 108f. 345 As opposed to his counterpart, who is turned in the consul’s direction. 346 E.g. Martindale 1980-1992:1, 143-145.

93

is present in the ivory diptych of Probianus, vicarius urbis Romae.355 The attendant displaying such an object could consequently be identified as a theca-carrier, JhkojoroV, a functionary’s title which is attested in Johannes Lydus’ De magistratibus.356 The theca is not a consular insignium but has its place in the sphere of active magistracies, i.e. magistracies involving practical administrative service such as (apart from the vicarius urbis Romae) the praetorian prefectures of the west.357 It is only known from the context of judicial offices;358 it does not, as far as I have been able to make out, appear in connection with western comitiva.359 Thus a theca cannot refer to any previous title of Astyrius (magister militum, comes). As a piece of equipment the theca combines practical and symbolic functions. On the one hand it is a container for the magistrate’s working implements (stylus, ink),360 on the other it serves to provide the imperial ‘presence’—a substitute in the form of a bust effigy of the emperor—formally required in order to lend legitimacy to the acts performed by the magistrate.361 The consul’s office does not, needless to say, comprise such activities, wherefore the inclusion into a consular diptych of a theca-carrying attendant must denote some extraordinary circumstance pertaining to the honorand’s consulship. Since the theca cannot refer to any previous office of Astyrius, nor—as far as we know—to an office held simultaneously with the consulate,362 its presence can be plausibly explained in only one way:363 it is specifically intended to provide a symbolic imperial presence (that provided by the sceptre busts apparently being insufficient). Such an imperial presence would almost certainly have been required in a case where a consul had to take office outside of the prescribed locale, i.e. outside of the Roman pomerium, and standard protocol did not apply. The theca would then have guaranteed an imperial ‘approval’ of the procedures performed by Astyrius and the emperor’s deputy as conferrer of consulship on the occasion. From this it follows that the thekophoros must not be recognised as a consular attendant, but as a functionary of the Roman emperor’s deputy. This interpretation is in my view perfectly compatible with the

historical data on Astyrius’ consular accession, which took place at Arelate, the seat of the praefectus praetorio per Gallias,364 whose legal and administrative responsibility it consequently was to arrange the consular ceremonies. One may, accordingly, doubly account for the inclusion of the theca in Astyrius’ diptych: firstly, the theca was an insignium of the praetorian prefect of Gaul, and would have been present at all official occasions to lend them legitimacy;365 secondly, the arrangement of a consular accession would have constituted an extra-ordinary task for the prefect, for which reason it must have been considered doubly important that the imperial effigy be present. Important enough, it would seem, to have it represented in the official diptych(s) issued by a consul having taken office under such premisses.366 To conclude: on the one hand, the lictor and the thekophoros in Astyrius’ diptych announce that the consul took office in the province; on the other, the insignia they carry refer to two separate offices/contexts: the fasces to the consul, and the theca to the praefectus praetorio under whose superintendence (and in whose official quarters apparently367 ) Astyrius celebrated his consular accession. The scenic compartment with a togatus and by-stander inserted in the lower right corner of Basilius’ diptych (8) is, like so many other aspects of this work, unique within the imagery of the consular diptychs. The togatus does not display any consular attribute,368 so one may assume that he is not intended to represent a consular ancestor of Basilius. In his lowered left hand he holds what I have identified as a codicillar diptych,369 a type of codicilli belonging to a number of offices according to the representations in the Notitia Dignitatum.370 The figure is represented frontally, his head (in semi-profile) is tilted slightly backwards as if to indicate oration, and his raised right hand performs the gesture of formal speech, two digits pointing upwards. The speech seems accordingly to be directed primarily at the viewer, and at the smaller figure standing beside him, but indirectly also at Roma above. The smaller, tunic-clad figure by the togatus’ side does not display any specifying attribute, and his function seems to be that of the passive bystander; on account of his size and costume he may be interpreted as a young person without official status. There are a couple of examples outside the corpus of consular diptychs that may be compared in a general way to

355 (Delbrueck 1929, N 65; Volbach 1976, Nr. 62.) Delbrueck for some

reason denominated this figure lictor; Delbrueck 1929, 96. 356 Lydus, Mag. 2.14, 3.21.; compare Kruse 1934, 103f. 357 Per Italias, Illyricum and Africa; e.g. Seeck 1876, 107f, 113. The image for the praefectus praetorio per Gallias is missing in the Notitia; but as Kruse has also pointed out, there is no reason to doubt that this fourth western prefect would have had the same categories of insignia as his colleagues; Kruse 1934, 100 n. 1. 358 Berger 1981, 32-34. 359 In the east, however, it occurs among the insignia of the comes Orientis, as listed in the Notitia Dignitatum; Seeck 1876, 48. 360 Kruse 1934, 103f; Berger 1981, 32 esp. 361 Kruse 1943, 104; Berger 1981, 33f, 189; also Malte Johansen 1994, 241. For a definition of the meaning and function of the emperor’s image in official contexts, see also MacCormack 1981, 66. 362 A ‘hohes aktives Verwaltungsamt’ held and commemorated simultaneously with the consulate was Delbrueck’s proposed explanation for the theca’s presence in the Astyrius diptych; Delbrueck 1929, 98. 363 Astyrius’ success as magister militum would presumably have played a decisive part for his consular appointment; Martindale 1980-1992:1,174f.

364 Martindale 1980-1992:1, 175. 365 According to Lydus the insignial bearing of the theca is peculiar to the

praefectus praetorio; Lydus, Mag. 2.17; compare Kruse 1934, 105. 366 However, as far as we know such conscientiousness was only demonstrated by Astyrius. 367 It is reported that the assessor of the praefectus praetorio Galliarum delivered a panegyric to Astyrius on the occasion (Sid. App., Epist. 8.6.5-6); Martindale 1980-1992:1, 175; Bagnall, Cameron, Schwartz & Worp 1987, 432f. See also I.1.6. 368 The plain toga led Delbrueck to conclude that the figure must be a senator; Delbrueck 1929, 102. 369 II.8. 370 Compare above, III.2.1.5. Seeck 1876, passim; Kruse 1934, 99-101; Grigg 1979, 114-117; and Berger 1981, 26, 175-177.

94

the togatus in Basilius, both official diptychs datable to the period around 400 (that is, of about 140 years earlier) and both attributable to the west. Firstly, the diptych of Stilicho in Monza,371 which has convincingly been interpreted as a work commemorating the taking of office of the boy in the centre, Stilicho’s son Eucherius.372 The chlamydate boy performs the gesture of formal speech with his right hand, whereas the left hand clasps a folded diptychon, the codicilli of his office,373 in exactly the same manner as the togatus in Basilius. Secondly, the afore-cited diptych of Probianus in which the seated and togate magistrate (left panel) raises his right hand in the gesture of speech, palm towards the viewer, whilst holding a codicil scroll in his left. Like the Basilian togatus, Probianus is differentiated from his togate attendants, represented in a separate lower register, by size and body pose: the honorand is seated in frontal enthronement in the centre of the upper register (immediately flanked by two small-size scribes), whereas the ‘mediumsized’ togati standing in differentiated, spiralling poses, lift their faces in full profile towards him.374 These comparative examples suggest that the togatus in Basilius’ diptych would be the holder of some lower-ranking office than the consulate on the cursus scale; an office which has a codicillar diptych as a primary insignium, which entitles its holder to speak in public (ius sententiae dicendae)375 and to exercise any other powers coming with his office. The interpretation of Delbrueck that the togatus represents an orating senator with a ‘half rolled-out manuscript’376 fails to consider the shape of the codicil, which is distinctly diptych-like, and the smaller, tunic-clad figure by his side remains unaccounted for. Again, the plain toga is not restricted to senators: Probianus and the attending togati in Lampadiorum and Halberstadt wear it, as do the scribes in the Probianus ivory. I believe that the clue to the togatus scene in Basilius’ diptych lies in the codicil and in the speech gesture; a gesture which is not identical to

that of acclamation (the two raised digits distinguish the former from the latter). The codicil, the speech gesture, the costume and the lower-status attendant combine to denote the togatus as a man with independent official authorities, none of which relates him to the consul in any formal sense (nor is there any formal connection indicated between the consul and the togatus in Basilius’ image). According to the Notitia Dignitatum the codicillar diptych was one of the insignia belonging to the comes domesticorum,377 i.e. to the office held by Basilius (as listed on the inscriptional plaque) prior to his patrician and consular appointments. This fact enables one to propose that the togatus scene in Basilius’ diptych is intended to provide a visualisation of the honorand’s own cursus honorum, a graphic illustration of the titles listed on the tabula inscriptionis. But there must have been some further motivation behind the scene’s inclusion, seeing that it is unique within the preserved corpus, and considering that the office of comes domesticorum has been described as a mainly honorary title without distinct functions.378 One such motivation would be that Basilius held the comitiva when he was engaged as a diplomat in Justinian’s successful reconquest expedition in 540379 —a function which may be said to have provided material for the main theme of his diptych’s imagery, viz. Basilius’ ‘triumph’.380 An illustration of the comitiva would serve to commemorate the extraordinary success (as Basilius himself quite obviously perceived it) achieved during its tenure, and provide an elucidating background to the apotheotic image of Basilius patricius presented in the right panel of the diptych. If the codicil denotes Basilius’ previous office as comes domesticorum and the speech-gesture the authority exercised in that capacity, then how may one account for the smaller figure standing beside the togatus? The interpretation tentatively offered by Delbrueck for this figure as a freed slave381 is certainly a possibility, but it fails to account for a

371 Delbrueck 1929, N 63, Taf. 63; Volbach 1976, Nr. 63, Taf. 35. 372 Delbrueck 1929, 243-247; Shelton 1982, 163 esp. Also Grigg 1979,

377 Seeck 1876, 39, 157; Taf. 33, Taf. 74 (without image); Kruse 1934,

117; Berger 1981, 179, 188; and Kiilerich & Torp 1989, 352f, 364-371. 373 Grigg 1979, 117; Berger 1981, 188; Shelton 1982, 163 esp. The office ascribed to Eucherius differs between writers: Shelton claimed that he is quaestor (Shelton 1982, 163), Kiilerich claims that he is tribunus et notarius (Kiilerich 1993, 141), whereas Berger has argued that the boy’s codicil does not correspond to any of the types depicted in the Notitia Dignitatum, wherefore his office cannot be determined from it (Berger 1981, 188). 374 It was suggested by Delbrueck that these figures, who both hold a folded scroll in their left hand, be recognised as senators congratulating Probianus with a speech ‘in duet’; an interpretation which does however not take the writing utensils placed between the men (a stylus and ink-bowl placed on a low tripod) into consideration; Delbrueck 1929, 251. Also, unlike the relationship between Basilius and the togatus—who frankly speaking do not relate to one another at all—a direct link between the vicarius urbis and the senators is established by means of the corresponding right hand gestures and by the senators’ direct gaze. Finally, the codicillar diptych displayed by the Basilius togatus cannot be confused with writing implements and scrolls such as those accompanying the togati in Probianus’ diptych. 375 E.g. Näf 1995, 208. 376 Delbrueck 1929, 102. A closely related interpretation is presented by Lim, who suggests that the figure be recognised as a senator, accompanied by an attendant, ‘clearly representing the entire senatus romanus as it welcomes the new consul to the office’; Lim 1999:2, 352.

101, n. 6; Berger 1980, 176. 378 Martindale has argued that the military title of comes domesticorum, like its counterpart comes privatarum, was deprived of functions and only given in order to confer the title of vir illustris; Martindale 1980-1992:2, 174. The vague nature of the office may be said to be illustrated by the predominantly generalising way it is treated in the literature; e.g. Jones 1964, 105; and Demandt 1989, 110, 170, 175, 187, 240, 257, 261, 280, 286. On the other hand, somewhat contrary to Martindale’s valuation of it, the appointment of comes domesticorum was apparently not seldom a steppingstone towards the high military office of magister militum and to the consulate, and could comprise miscellaneous, occasionally substantial functions, mainly (presumably) of a military character, such as special missions; Jones 1964, 105, 143, 333, 372, 528, 636f. Both of these parables are applicable to Basilius cos. 541, who would not likely have been appointed to the function of messenger in the reconquest of Ravenna without a military title. If the order of the titles listed on the tabula inscriptionis in Basilius’ diptych illustrate the chronological order of their conferral (which would also correspond to their ascending order), then it appears that the comitiva preceded and would presumably have ended before he received the patrician appointment, which in turn was probably conferred some time prior to the consulship. See I.1.2. 379 Cameron & Schauer 1982, 131. 380 See further III.3.2 and 3.3 below. 381 Delbrueck 1929, 102.

95

slave’s relevance to the context. Seeing that the figure lacks attributes as well as a specific function, his inclusion must be more generally or symbolically motivated. I propose that he is included to provide an attribute to the togatus, placed beside him in order to render distinct his higher status and thus avoid his confusion with an inferior official. More generally, the figure-couple in Basilius works as an extension of the theme of magistracy, casting as it were the honorand’s consulship into relief by expounding on his laudable career as a good Roman (and as a worthy follower of his numerous ancestors decorating the consulate382 ). In fact, with the inclusion of the togatus scene three of Basilius’ four titles have been commemorated through imagery: the comitiva, the patriciate, and the consulate.

differentiations between patricius and attendants being relatively subtle: the patterns and size (minimal) of their segmenta, their right hand gestures,384 and their very slight withdrawal into the background. Honorand and attendants could very well all be holders of the patrician title, and if so it would be as much a collective as the hierarchy within that collective which is represented in the image. A collective of individual men, as the differentiated physiognomies let us know. That these individuals, like the togati in the opposite panel, were intended to be identified and their relationship—official and personal—to the honorand be recognised and valued, is almost certain. Fl. Constantius, the most likely honorand and commissioner of the diptych, is known to have surrounded himself with a certain number of publicly prominent allies in the years between his two consulships (414-417);385 the representation of such allies in his commemorative diptych(s) would effectively have announced that he had a broader ‘power-base’ on which to build his further career. The lictors and thekophoros in Astyrius and Bourges are also without counterparts in the preserved eastern images. Unlike the t o g a t i and c h l a m y d a t i they are entirely subordinated to the consul, their drastically reduced size, pose, age and costume denoting them as servants and attributes of magistracy. This type of functionary is significantly only found within diptychs belonging to a certain category of honorands: western consuls before c. 450 who took office and commissioned their consular diptychs in the (western) province. I have argued that the lictors have been incorporated into the imagery to compensate for the enforced lack of the triumphal toga,386 but an additional explanation could also be that they denote the ‘Roman’, i.e. non-provincial, nature of the office held by the honorand as well as the ceremony represented in the image.387 As for the ‘extra-consular’ thekophoros accompanying the consul in Astyrius’ diptych, it refers at once to the context in which the consul entered office, viz. the official quarters of the praefectus praetorio per Gallias at Arelate, and to the formal legitimacy accorded to his accession by the prefect’s acting the emperor’s deputy.

Concluding discussion: Although limited in number, the preserved diptychs display some fairly clear distinctions in the application of the official category of secondary figure between the west and east. There is a broader range of figure categories in the western diptychs. Togati, that is officials and senators, are found in western works created in the earliest period of consular diptych production (c. 400-420), with a late ‘reappearance’ in the Rome-produced diptych of Basilius (541). The representation of togate officials/senators could be ascribed to a wish to set the consular dignity in context, and to draw specific attention to its hierarchical values. Western attendants are allowed to stand or sit by the side of the consul, and thereby they may be simultaneously regarded as his coofficials, as members of the same greater collective of Roman dignitaries as the consul. This concept is particularly visualised in the Lampadiorum and Halberstadt diptychs. Additionally, the attendants in Lampadiorum, Halberstadt and Basilius are in all probability intended to represent specific personages somehow connected with the consul: in Lampadiorum it is members of his own gens, as suggested by the family likeness shared by three generations of Lampadian dignitaries; in Halberstadt the attendants’ physiognomies differ from that of the honorand as well as from each other, thereby suggesting that the three are individual men—particularly valued colleagues in the circle around Fl. Constantius perhaps—but not related to him by family;383 and in Basilius, as I have argued above, one may likely recognise Basilius himself as a holder of a previous office (comitiva domesticorum). By including his own image in a third official capacity and thus, as it were, putting his entire career on display, Basilius demonstrates an acute consciousness of the great value attached to the public career among his own class, the high aristocracy of Rome, for whose benefit the diptych’s imagery was created. Chlamydati are found in only one western diptych, that of Halberstadt. Like the togati of the opposite panel they enjoy a relatively prominent position, the hierarchically determined

The chlamydati in Areobindus’ diptychs, alone within the preserved corpus of eastern diptychs to feature human/male attendants, do not represent anything that may be connected with official functions or specific ranks (indicated by costume and other attributes), and their relevance to the consular context therefore appears obscure. What little can be determined is that they are distinctly inferior in rank to the consul, that they are younger that the consul (who himself has an ideally youthful appearance), and that the figure to the right is placed closer to the consul and to the foreground than his counterpart on the left, thus signalling some small degree 384 See III.1.3. 385 Palladius (cos. 416), Rutilius Numatianus, Albinus, Lucillus and Decius;

382 E.g. Bagnall, Cameron, Schwartz & Worp 1987, 7; Barnish 1988, 124-

Lütkenhaus 1998, 131f (also lists the men’s titles). 386 Compare III.2.1.4. 387 Compare Schäfer’s interpretation of lictores cum fascibus on provincial funerary monuments; Schäfer 1989, 208f. See further IV.1.

127. For further interpretation of the significances of the magisterial theme in Basilius’ diptych, see Part IV.5. 383 Instead a certain family likeness is witnessed between the honorand and the emperors seated in the upper register; see further III.1 and 3.4.

96

of precedence. The fact that the right figure also presents a perfect physiognomical reflection of Areobindus in my opinion strongly suggests that his position is motivated by some close link. Adding to this the circumstance that chlamydati (particularly in Areobindus A-C) display distinctive similarities to bust imagines,388 and the most plausible interpretation of them must be that they represent junior relatives to the consul, (as yet) without office and distinguished rank and therefore assigned to the roles of passive background pseudo-presences (being ‘half-figures’ pictorially as well as officially). The closest counterpart to the Areobindian c h l a m y d a t i within the corpus is the representation of Galla Placidia in the upper registers of the Halberstadt diptych: a figure who may also be characterised as having no formal relevance to the consular context and solely introduced into the diptych’s imagery because of her familial tie to the diptych’s honorand.389

throughout late antiquity, whereas the younger Constantinopolis displayed two basic types during the earliest Byzantine period (330-c.360): one main type corresponding to the east-inspired city tyche, to whom belonged a variety of attributes (turreted crown, bunch of flowers or laurel-twigs, sheaves of grain, cornucopia, ship’s prow, victoriola, etc.), and one corresponding to the ancient Minervan-Amazonian Roma type393 with helmet, sceptre/spear etc.—or conflations of the two.394 From about 380 the warrior aspect of the ancient Roma successively gained advantage over the tyche type.395 Another conclusion to be drawn from the extant studies is that neither of the two Constantinopolis types was ever quite consistent in itself. For instance, the earlier eastern city tyche type could wear either a turreted crown,396 a crown made of leaves and/or flowers,397 or a composite radiating crown of the kind represented in the Halberstadt diptych (2), a work dating about three decades after the goddess had received her new official form. Constantinopolis’ new Minervan-Amazonian appearance, as it features among the remaining corpus of consular diptychs, is mainly limited to a helmet.398 As would be expected, the bulk of evidence for the Roma and Constantinopolis types is derived from coins and medallions, on which they occur frequently throughout the period c. 330-518.399 Within these contexts they served to convey the emperors’ ideas of and hopes for imperial unity, stability, concord, prosperity and so forth, as is also made apparent by the accompanying legends.400 For the period of imperial unity (i.e. prior to 476), when the coins were issued by the Roman central power in both west and east, one would

3.2. City goddesses: Roma and Constantinopolis The inclusion of Roma and Constantinopolis into the imagery of the consular diptychs appears more sporadically among the western works, whereas they occur in two of the four issues preserved from the east. It cannot be securely established whether this (apparent) increase in frequency was due to time and/or place, or whether indeed the preserved corpus is representative of the original number of diptychs issued by eastern consuls. As it stands, western consuls of the 5th century appear to have had a preference for having themselves represented in the company of officials, patricians and, when (formal?) circumstances so required, lictors.390 Equally, there seems to have been a preference among eastern consuls of the 6th century for choosing the city goddesses as accompanying figures. Their inclusion seems to have become favoured in the reign of Anastasius I (491-518), during which period their appearances were also submitted to standardisation.

152-155; Mellor 1981; Kleer 1984; A.D.E. Cameron 1985; A.D.E. Cameron 1994; A.D.E. Cameron 1998; Zwierlein-Diehl 1997; Engemann 1999. 393 For a succinct definition of Roma types, see especially Mellor 1981, 1016f. 394 Such as illustrated by the statuette of Constantinopolis from the Esquiline treasure (London, British Museum), created in the early 360s to adorn the luxury litter of a high Roman official of the gens Turcia, where the helmeted personification holds a cornucopia and a patera in her hands; Shelton 1985, Pl. 30, Fig. 6; also Ensoli & La Rocca 2000, 492 Fig. 114 (c). For the most plausible interpretation and dating of the Esquiline treasure, see Shelton 1985; and also Toynbee 1947, 144. For a somewhat differently argued attribution, see A.D.E. Cameron 1985. 395 Bühl 1995, 69-78. This change of types was characterised by Shelton as a restoration of an original New Rome type; Shelton 1985, 153f. The helmeted Constantinopolis is represented on Byzantine bronze medallions and coins issued in commemoration of Constantinople’s dedication in 330 and annually through to 347/353, and also (as mentioned) by the Esquiline Constantinopolis; e.g. Toynbee 1947, 139-144; and Shelton 1985, Pl. 30 Fig. 4-6. 396 Toynbee 1947, 136-139, Shelton 1985, 153f; Bühl 1995, 10-17. 397 Salomonson 1973, 6f, 42, 71, and Abb. 1.15 (fragment of a terracotta plate in the Benaki Museum, Athens); Bühl 1995, 54-57 with Abb. 23 and 24, 170-175 with Abb. 90. 398 Compare again the Esquiline Constantinopolis, who wears a triplecrested helmet but no other military or rulership-related attributes (such as a sceptre or orb); Shelton 1985, Pl. 30 Fig. 6. 399 The upper time limit for the city goddesses’ representation in these material categories would be placed in the reign of Justinian; Toynbee 1953; Shelton 1979, 36; Bühl 1995, 10-78. The personifications also occur on gems of the 4th and 5th centuries; Zwierlein-Diehl 1997. 400 Gnecchi 1912, passim; Toynbee 1944, passim; Toynbee 1947, passim; Toynbee 1953, passim; Bühl 1995, 78 esp. Also Kleer 1984, passim.

The evolutions of the Roma and Constantinopolis types in late antique art have been studied extensively, recently and most notably by Gudrun Bühl391 who has devoted herself to the subject in monographic form. One conclusion that may be drawn from the results of Bühl, as well as a number of other authors,392 is that a fairly consistent type existed for Roma

388 Compare the imago of the chlamydate Basilius in the right panel of his

diptych and the chlamydate emperor’s imago in the upper registers of Clementinus and Anthemius (Pl. 15). 389 Galla Placidia was married to Fl. Constantius, the likely honorand of the Halberstadt diptych, on the day he entered his second consulship (January 1st, 417); e.g. Martindale 1980-1992:1, 323. For further discussion of this and related data, see III.3.4. 390 See previous section, III.3.1. 391 Bühl 1995. 392 Deonna 1940; Toynbee 1947; Toynbee 1953; Stern 1953; Vermeule 1959; Salomonson 1973; MacCormack 1975; Shelton 1979; Shelton 1985,

97

(307), and reiterated throughout the 3rd and 4th centuries.404 Constantinopolis (right) is represented as a variant of the eastern tyche type with crown, a thyrsos-shaped bunch of laurel-twigs, flowers or possibly olive-twigs in her left hand, a female variant of the contabulate toga complemented with a jewellery collar, and sandals. This goddess is the very opposite of her warlike counterpart: a courtly lady displaying few and vague attributes which cannot with any certainty be linked to any specific context or function. The crown provides a singular example of its kind: neither turreted nor floral, but of a spiky radiate variety that can be identified as nothing more specific than a sign of divinity.405 And the object held in Constantinopolis’ left hand, resting passively in her lap, can just as well refer to victory (laurel) or peaceful prosperity (olive)406 as to flourishing in general (bunch of flowers).407 Suggestions for its interpretation include, apart from a bunch of olive-408 or laurel-twigs,409 a flaming torch,410 and a thyrsos.411 Thirdly, both goddesses are nimbate. The Halberstadt diptych is the only one within the corpus to adorn the city goddesses with this divine attribute, and its interest is further enhanced by the fact that the heads of the emperors seated beside them have not been provided with it.412 Fourthly, the goddesses are enthroned, not standing, immediately beside their protegés, so that they appear as

perhaps expect that the types were conceived according to reasonably standardised and synchronised forms, but there is no universal homogeneity to be detected in the material. The tendency seems to be that east and west preferred different types of representations: in the west the two goddesses were usually contrasted, Roma consistently retaining the attributes and general appearance inherited from the traditional warriorgoddess type, and Constantinopolis being chiefly conceived as a somewhat generic and less consistently defined eastern city tyche,401 whereas in the east the development moved (as already noted) from two distinct types towards twin goddesses whose main characteristics were derived from Roma. Thus in the west the ancient imperial Roma—who should not be equated with a city tyche as MacCormack and Kleer have pointed out402 —fundamentally remained the same as when she ruled as supreme goddess of the Imperium Romanum, whereas Constantinopolis within a century after her conception acquired the traits traditionally characterising Roma in her capacity of imperial ruler goddess, i.e. the Roman aspect of Constantinopolis was strengthened. This means that the distinctions between the two goddesses became almost erased. The outline here presented is obviously a simplified one, as also becomes evident when looking at the goddesses’ representations in the consular diptychs and related material,403 where no two representations exactly correspond.

404 See Mellor 1981, 1016f; compare also Vermeule 1959, 35-43. For a

The earliest and only 5th-century diptych to include any of the city goddesses is that of Halberstadt, and this in a manner which contrasts on some fundamental points with how they are represented in later works, western and eastern. First and foremost, Roma and Constantinopolis are not found in the central pictorial register together with the consul, but in the upper register beside the emperors. By this arrangement their role within the image is linked to the sphere of empire—which is of course their original and traditional sphere—rather than to consulship. Secondly, the goddesses display a particularly high degree of differentiation. Roma (left) is arrayed in the traditional Minervan-Amazonian costume, with single-crested helmet, sleeveless (?) tunic beneath a paludamentum, laced military boots, a spear in the left hand, a large orb held aloft in the right, and additionally a balteus holding an eagle-handled sword slung diagonally across her chest. In accordance with the Amazonian type her right breast is also bared. All these attributes, together with the goddess’s enthroned position, are fundamentally in accordance with the ‘Roma Aeterna’ type conceived under Hadrian and renovated under Maxentius

particularly illustrative specimen of this type, see the representation of Roma on the column base of Antoninus Pius and Faustina in the Vatican; e.g. Vogel 1973, Fig. 3 esp. 405 Compare Deonna 1940, 185. The significance and origin of the radiate crown or nimbus was adopted by the Roman emperors in the 3rd century, and also of course by Constantine, the founder of Constantinople; it could thus present a reference to Constantinopolis’ status as an imperial goddess. For a discussion of the radiate crown of the Roman emperor and its significance, see e.g. L’Orange 1972:2; and L’Orange 1973:3. 406 On the significance of the olive in connection with Constantinopolis, see Shelton 1985, 153. 407 This quality was also a primary function ascribed to Constantinopolis as Anthousa, ‘the flourishing one’; Toynbee 1947, 136; Toynbee 1953, 273; A.D.E. Cameron 1994, 401; A.D.E. Cameron 1998, 395. Aspar’s Constantinopolis (Carthago) holds a bunch of flowers. 408 Constantinopolis appears to be holding an olive-branch, a symbol of peace and prosperity, in a number of representations on coins and medals from 330; Shelton 1985, 153. 409 Compare the personification (Constantinopolis/Carthago) on the terracotta plate fragment in Athens, roughly dated to the first half of the 5th century and attributed to North Africa; Salomonson 1973, 5 Abb.1.15, 8, 73f; Bühl 1995, 170-175, Abb. 90. See also A.D.E. Cameron 1998, 385. 410 The figure generally identified as Constantinopolis in the Vienna ‘Roma and Constantinopolis’ diptych (Delbrueck 1929, N 38, Taf. 38; Volbach 1976, Nr. 38, Taf. 21) holds such an object; see for instance Toynbee 1953, 273; and Shelton 1979, 33. As Cutler plausibly argues there are however reasons to believe that this work is not of late antique date; Cutler 1984:2. For the ‘Roma and Constantinopolis’ diptych, see further below. For the flaming torch as an attribute of Constantinopolis, see also Vickers 1986, 304. 411 A thyrsos in the hand of Constantinopolis is occasionally seen in imperial coin issues of the later 4th century; Toynbee 1953, 263f; Bühl 1995, 154. 412 Something which is however perfectly in accordance with the imperial image of the period, as exemplified by the missorium of Theodosius (Pl. 23). On the increasing frequency of the nimbus as an attribute of the emperor in late antiquity, see Ahlqvist 2001, 211 esp.

401 Shelton 1979, 30-35; Kleer 1984. 402 MacCormack 1975, 139f; Kleer 1984, 73f. Also Shelton 1979, 30. 403 Such as the silver missorium of Ardabur Aspar (Pl. 22), the back side

of the monument to the charioteer Porphyrios erected on the spina of the Hippodrome 498-502 (Istanbul, Archaeological Museum), showing a mural-crowned, chiton-clad and cornucopia-carrying Constantinopolis (?), and the already cited terracotta plate fragment in Athens; A.D.E. Cameron 1973, 12,150-152, Fig. 12-14; Salomonson 1973, Abb. 1.15; also Bühl 1995, 132-134 with Abb. 71-72 (base of Porphyrios), 171 Abb. 90 (terracotta fragment).

98

participants in the scene; their apparent physicality is further enhanced through their being protected, like the emperors, by men-at-arms, and through their ‘natural’ stature. However, the stature differs between the two: Roma is roughly the same size as the senior and taller emperor Honorius, and Constantinopolis the same as the junior and shorter emperor Theodosius II. Their active participation in the scene is expressed in different ways. Roma directs her face towards the senior emperor in a pointed manner, thereby making clear who is the object of her peculiar interest; with her weapons, which are also the insignia of the Roman emperor in his capacity of military commander,413 she symbolically protects the imperial domain, in its turn represented by the large orb resting safely in her lifted right hand. The orb as an attribute traditionally belongs to Roma,414 goddess of the Roman world rule, but also to the emperor as the human ruler of the orbis terrarum.415 Constantinopolis, for her part, rests her right hand on the shoulder of the junior emperor; a more physical gesture signifying selection, support, and even—in view of the young age of the emperor in question (he has barely reached adulthood,416 as also his smaller stature and youthfully rounded face indicate)—something like motherly protection.

artist would single out the eastern emperor as the exclusive object of such a gesture.419 Without going into the details of Cameron’s argument, something which has been done by both Engemann and Bühl,420 some comments may be ventured. Firstly, it is in my view doubtful whether the inclusion of both Roma and Constantinopolis may be claimed as conclusive evidence of an eastern origin of the diptych. The comparanda cited by Cameron are actually inconclusive: they are numerically limited, and as for the consular diptychs specifically (Clementinus, Magnus and Basilius421 ) they are all a century later than Halberstadt. Further, citing only one work, the Basilius diptych (8), as support for the theory that one goddess—Roma—or none at all could be represented in the diptych of a western consul422 must be considered as somewhat unsatisfactory. Not only is it precarious to draw far-reaching conclusions on the basis of one single piece of evidence, especially if a piece so much later and so iconographically unique as Basilius’ diptych, but in this particular case it is also slightly misleading to do so, since there is at least one other work in existence that may be cited as evidence contrary to the rule argued by Cameron: the silver missorium of Ardabur Aspar (Pl. 22). Both the date of this work (434) and the occasion of its creation, viz. the western consulship of its honorand,423 should qualify it as comparative material of the first order, quite apart from the considerable affinities in motif repertory and composition it displays with the imagery of both western and eastern consular diptychs. Thus, in the missorium two city goddesses flank the seated consul, Roma (left) and ConstantinopolisCarthago424 (right), both wearing costumes that clearly distinguish them from each other (compare Halberstadt). Aspar took office in North Africa (Carthage),425 and yet he let himself be presented with two city goddesses, both of whom carry the fasces.426 An eastern iconographic influence is not unthinkable considering the fact that Aspar—like his father and father-in-law (?), Fl. Ardabur and Plintha, both represented as named imagines clipeatae in the upper part of the image, and both previous eastern consuls—was of eastern origin,427 but it cannot be argued for a fact that the imagery

That both city goddesses have been included in this early diptych commonly attributed to Fl. Constantius’ second western consulship (417)417 has recently been problematised in an article by Alan Cameron,418 who claims that this very circumstance should be regarded as evidence against a western provenance and honorand for the diptych, and instead attributes it to an eastern consul, Fl. Constans cos. 414. According to Cameron additional support of an eastern attribution is provided by the figure commonly thought to represent the eastern Augustus Theodosius II, not the senior and western Honorius, who is the object of physical attention from one of the goddesses (Constantinopolis). The exclusivity of this gesture is emphasised by the author, who declares himself unable to see why a western patron and/or

413 Compare the military costume and insignia of the Roman emperor as

419 A.D.E. Cameron 1998, 397. 420 Engemann 1999; Bühl 2001.

compiled by Restle; Restle 1988, 948-950, 959-962. 414 Mellor 1981, 1015f; also Hölscher 1967, 167f; and Kleer 1984, 70f. 415 E.g. Deér 1961; Hölscher 1967, 22f; and Restle 1988, 946. 416 Age suggestions for this junior emperor, who has be identified as Theodosius II, are 17 and 13, depending on which consular year is chosen for the attribution of the diptych (414 or 417); Delbrueck 1929, 91f; A.D.E. Cameron 1998, 386, 391; Bühl 2001, 196-198. 417 Delbrueck 1929, 87, 91f; Toynbee 1953, 272; MacCormack 1975, 148; Volbach 1976, 42 (tentatively accepting Delbrueck’s attribution); Bühl 1995, 151 and n. 442; Bühl 2001; and Raeck 1998, 517. In answer to Cameron’s attempted eastern reattribution, Engemann has presented an alternative attribution of the diptych to Constantius’ first (also western) consulship in 414; Engemann 1999. Engemann’s attribution will be discussed further in connection with the imperial personages of the upper registers (III.3.4) and the barbarian captives in the lower registers of the Halberstadt diptych (III.5.4). 418 A.D.E. Cameron 1998. The chief aim of this article is to reattribute the Halberstadt diptych from the west to the east in order to provide art history with a 5th-century eastern consular diptych.

421 Cameron having himself discounted Orestes on the precept that

presents a recarved diptych of Clementinus, thus subscribing to Netzer’s attribution (Netzer 1983); A.D.E. Cameron 1998, 397. 422 To which category Cameron now, contrary to the conclusions presented by himself and Diane Schauer in their article of 1982, proposes that Basilius should be counted; Cameron & Schauer 1982; A.D.E. Cameron 1998, 391, 393. 423 As stated by the inscription along the rim of the plate. 424 Compare Painter 1991, 76; and Bühl 1995, 167f. 425 Martindale 1980-1992:1, 166; Bagnall, Cameron, Schwartz & Worp 1987, 402f. 426 Compare above, III.2.1.4. 427 Plintha in 419, Ardabur in 427; e.g. Bagnall, Cameron, Schwartz & Worp 1987, 373, 388f. Although an eastern general Aspar was appointed to the western consulate, and both his father and father-in-law (?) were eastern consuls, something which could very possibly account for any eastern iconographical influences, however ‘eastern’ would be defined;

99

is anything other than ‘western’. If Aspar’s imagery was influenced by an eastern practice of representing the city goddesses as a couple, the imagery of the Halberstadt diptych may have been equally so and still have been commissioned and created in the west. As Cameron himself points out, it is quite possible that formal conventions were not yet established in this earliest phase of consular iconography.428 In fact, judging by the preserved corpus, conventions in the more strict sense do not become apparent within consular imagery until c. 500. Secondly, the opinion forwarded by Cameron that Constantinopolis’ placing of her hand on the eastern emperor’s shoulder ‘clinches the point’ in favour of an eastern attribution429 does in fact leave room for some doubt. It is quite evident that the artist has given particular attention to Roma’s figure, carefully depicting a broad range of her traditional Amazonian-Minervan attributes, all of which not only make her immediately identifiable but also, and more importantly, define her as the carrier of the Roman emperor’s attributes of world rulership (orb, spear).430 It is difficult to see that she could lay by either of these insignia so central to her nature, just so that she may embrace the emperor by her side: the connection between Roma and ‘her’ emperor, i.e. the western and senior emperor Honorius, is made perfectly apparent by her turning her face towards him, by her display of his imperial insignia, and by her taller stature. The western emperor is clearly the primary owner of the imperial insignia, not his eastern colleague.431 Constantinopolis for her part lacks not only imperial attributes but clearly recogniseable attributes in general; indeed it is as if little care had been taken even to establish what her most characteristic attributes are. Her crown has no parallels among other representations of the goddess,432 and the only other object she displays—in a completely passive manner, let it be repeated—that might have been recognised as a function-related attribute cannot be identified. Could this smaller, vague and courtified figure be interpreted as the primary city goddess in an eastern diptych? It is doubtful, as has also been concluded by Engemann and Bühl.433 I would suggest that the Halberstadt Constantinopolis be primarily interpreted as a contrastive opposite to Roma. It is more than likely that her eastern tyche appearance is the conception of a western artist, who chose to adhere to her original, peculiarly eastern character in order to illustrate her complementary relationship vis-à-vis Roma, namely the see also Delbrueck 1929, 154; and Salomonson 1973, 68-74 (emphasising the North-African element in Constantinopolis’ representation). 428 A.D.E. Cameron 1998, 391. 429 A.D.E. Cameron 1998, 397. 430 Compare Engemann 1999,163. For the symbolism of the various imperial attributes, see A. Alföldi 1935, 37-47 esp.; A. Alföldi 1959, 1-4, 14-16; M.R. Alföldi 1961; Deér 1961; and Restle 1988. 431 See also the arguments on this point presented by Bühl; Bühl 2001, 199f. 432 Compare Engemann 1999, 164; also Bühl 1995, 155. As comparative evidence for the radiate crown of the Halberstadt Constantinopolis, MacCormack cites a text on Eos by Sidonius (Sid.Apoll., Carm. 7); MacCormack 1975, 148 n. 2. 433 Engemann 1999, 163; Bühl 2001, 199f.

100

relationship between the active warrior-cum-ruler goddess and the passive ‘muse’ of peaceful civilisation. To achieve this it sufficed that Constantinopolis be clearly distinguished from Roma and ‘eastern-looking’.434 Her tactile gesture towards the eastern emperor should be understood as a sign for ‘belonging’ or pairing, no more; this is the emperor to whom she belongs, whom she protects. Roma was quite evidently perceived as more individual, a goddess in her own right, and I believe that this difference is the key to understanding the entire scene in which the city goddesses appear. The western Roma represents war and victory, the eastern Constantinopolis civic peace and prosperity; Roma displays the imperial attributes/insignia, Constantinopolis does not. I am convinced that the differentiation between Roma and Constantinopolis in the Halberstadt diptych is consciously used as a means for representing the distinction of imperial power between the emperors of east and west, where the most power belongs to the senior western emperor Honorius—who is also the appointer of the diptych’s honorand, i.e. a western consul. When the couple Roma and Constantinopolis next occur within consular diptych imagery they stand by the side of the seated consul in the 6th-century eastern works issued by Clementinus (10) and Magnus (12) and the western diptych of Orestes (7). In all three diptychs the goddesses’ stature is greater than that of the consul (particularly so in Clementinus) and they stand statuesquely behind the consul’s sella with their hands positioned according to an apparently prescribed pattern, either holding attributes or performing a gesture. The goddesses are differentiated according to a similar pattern in all diptychs: the figure on the left wears a triple-crested helmet, a tall and thin sceptre-staff rests on her left arm, and she holds a small and globular object435 in her right hand, which is positioned in front of her chest; the figure on the right wears a single-crested helmet, and her raised right hand is directed at the consul, palm open. Both figures wear a long chitons, most often covered by a chlamyslike upper garment, and in Clementinus and Orestes complemented with a jewellery collar. Apart from the common traits there are a couple of others which are found in the majority of the total of six figures. Firstly, whereas the left-side goddess in all diptychs displays similar types of attributes, the right-side goddess either holds the fasces in her left hand (Clementinus, Orestes), or rests the hand on a shield (Magnus). The fasces appear in the same reduced, thin and curvlinear form onto which is attached an imago-inscribed banner; this imago, like their counterparts on 434 Compare Toynbee 1953, 273; and Bühl 1995, 154. 435 Not a disc, i.e. a flat object, except for in Magnus where it has at some

point been recarved and probably studded with gemstones (as indicated by the small drillholes in their centres); see description II.12. The notion that this object is flat (Delbrueck 1929, 119; Toynbee 1953, 275; Bühl 1995, 197, 209, 212; A.D.E. Cameron 1998, 393) is not entirely correct. On the contrary, it is decidedly rounded and protruding in Clementinus’ and Orestes’ diptychs, and no more flat than other (what we know to be) globular objects represented in consular imagery: the orb held by Roma in the Halberstadt diptych and the orbs incorporated on most consular sceptres.

other consular insignia (the scipio and the trabea) would represent the emperor.436 The shield resting by the side of the right-hand goddess in Magnus has no parallel within the imagery of consular diptychs, but it is an attribute of the ancient Amazonian-Minervan Roma,437 and is occasionally also found resting beside a helmeted Constantinopolis on coins and gems from c. 370-450.438 The shield—the military clupeus and the clipeus virtutis—is further an attribute of Victoria;439 within the corpus it otherwise appears as the emperor’s imago clipeata held aloft by Victoriae and/or victoriolae in some eastern consuls’ diptychs,440 and in Basilius’ diptych (8) Victoria supports the bust-inscribed clipeus virtutis of the consul himself. The shield is also a military insignium intimately connected with the ceremonial proclamation of a new emperor, and with the legitimacy of the emperor proclaimed (through the military ceremony of raising the emperor on the shield).441 In Magnus’ diptychs it rests peacefully by the city goddess’s side, unaccompanied by sword or spear. A spear-tipped staff is however found resting leisurely on the left arm of the goddess opposite her,442 and one might accordingly say that the personifications in Magnus divide the traditional Amazonian attributes of Roma between them: helmets, spear and shield.443 Secondly, in Clementinus and Magnus (one panel each) the left-side goddess reveals the shape of her right breast through the fabric of her chiton. Although less apparent than the naked and full right breast of Roma in the Halberstadt and Basilius diptychs, it is nevertheless consistent with the standard characteristic of the ancient Amazonian Roma. Thirdly, in Clementinus and Orestes both city goddesses’ helmets are decorated with pearl diadems.444 The diademed helmet, albeit without the crest, is an insignium of the Roman emperor,445 and could thus be interpreted as a reference to Roma’s and Constantinopolis’ status as imperial ruler-goddesses. The long staff held by the left-side goddess in Clementinus and Orestes is clearly not a military attribute, but a double-knobbed sceptre, i.e. an insignium of imperial 436 See III.2.1.4. 437 Calza 1926/27, 664, Vermeule 1959, 30-36; Mellor 1981, 1012-1017;

Kleer 1984, 70f (on contorniates). 438 Toynbee 1953, 269; Zwierlein-Diehl 1997, 91, Fig. 13. Precise dates of either material category have proved difficult to establish. 439 Cf. Hölscher 1967, 98-131. On the aspects shared by Roma and Victoria, occasionally also by Constantinopolis as Roma’s ‘twin sister’, in imperial coinage c. 370-440, see further Toynbee 1953, 263-271. 440 See III.2.1.3. 441 A. Alföldi 1935, 54; Restle 1988, 961. Also MacCormack 1981, 210f, 359 n. 254 (Honorius’ raising on the shield). 442 I have argued (II.12) that the tall and thin staff in the Magnus panels would originally have been topped by a blade, as is suggested by the three bone replicas of Magnus (one of which—the St Petersburg leaf (Pl. 13 b)—is possibly a 6th-century original; A.D.E. Cameron 1984, 401), as well as the cut marks running parallel to the upper end of the staff in the ivory diptych B. 443 The representation of Roma with spear and shield goes back to the early principate, and was perpetuated into the Christian era; see Mellor 1981, 1013-1017; also Vermeule 1959, 32, 42-48. 444 The left-side goddess in Clementinus excepted. 445 Restle 1988, 960.

101

power.446 It is of the same type as the sceptre or sceptre staff carried by the emperor and the empress as well as Roma and Constantinopolis in a number of images from the late antique period.447 As an attribute of empire, the single- or doubleknobbed sceptre derived from the sceptre of Iuppiter, and as the Roman emperor’s insignium of rulership it was (in late antiquity) specifically a part of the military ornatus.448 A particularly close parallel is found in the ivory panel in Florence representing an early Byzantine empress, commonly identified as Ariadne, spouse of Anastasius I.449 The diademed, chlamydate and jewel-collared empress holds in her left hand a double-knobbed sceptre of the same length as those of the city goddess in the consular diptychs, leaning it in the same tilted manner on her left shoulder, whilst a crosssurmounted orb rests in her right hand; the similarities to the city goddess are striking, and certainly not coincidental. Like the empress the ‘consular’ city goddess (whatever her identity) is the emperor’s co-ruler, and her manner of holding the sceptre—in her left hand and in a resting position—illustrates that her rule is passive and complementary: like Roma in the Halberstadt diptych, she holds the emperor’s insignia for him, but she herself does not actively rule. The goddess’s sceptre thus provides an imperial counterpart to the consul’s sceptre: she is primarily an imperial ruler goddess. The globular object held by the left-hand city goddess in Clementinus, Magnus and Orestes has proved to be one of the most difficult motifs to interpret within consular imagery. What seems to be a touchstone is the Greek A inscribed on most of them,450 object of diverse interpretations. Delbrueck proposed it that be recognised as a t r o c h i s k o s or ‘Zählscheibe’,451 a kind of metal number plate with which the sequence of performances in the arena or theatre would have been announced; A would then indicate the opening race of the games. The applicability of the single source cited by Delbrueck452 may however be put in question, since there is no express mention of games in it.453 And it does seem a little far-fetched that a city goddess should perform such a 446 For a treatment of the long sceptre staff, see Wessel 1978, 402f. 447 The plainer type of sceptre, spear or hasta is found as an insignium in

the hands of both city goddesses and of the emperor, usually together with the (globe-surmounted) victoriola, on medallions, coins and gems of the 4th to 5th centuries; see Gnecchi 1912, 1 Tav. 7-14 passim, Tav. 18-20 passim; Toynbee 1947, passim; Toynbee 1953, passim; Bühl 1995, 17-74 Abb. 9-42 passim; and Zwierlein-Diehl 1997, 85-87, 90-95, Fig. 3 a and b, 4, 5 b, 6 b, 13, 15, 16 and 20. Compare also the attributes of the traditional Minervan Roma; e.g. Calza 1926/27, 664-666; Vermeule 1959, 32, 35-45; and Mellor 1981, 1011-1018 passim. 448 A. Alföldi 1935, 115, Taf. 18; Restle 1988, 957. 449 Florence, Museo Nazionale del Bargello. Delbrueck 1929, N 51, 204f, Taf. 51; Volbach 1976, Nr. 51, 49, Taf. 27; also e.g. Wessel 1964; and Paolucci 1994, 17f. See also the knob-tipped sceptre of the empress Faustina as represented on the column base of Antoninus Pius in the Vatican; e.g. Vogel 1973, Fig. 6. 450 Clementinus, right panel; Orestes, both panels; and Magnus, the St Petersburg bone panel. 451 Delbrueck 1929, 119. 452 Lydus, Mag. 2.16.4. 453 Also A.D.E. Cameron 1998, 394.

vaguely attested task, particularly in an image where gamesscenes have not been included. Delbrueck’s interpretation was nevertheless accepted by Toynbee.454 Further suggestions to the globule’s interpretation have more recently been offered by Bühl455 and Cameron.456 According to Bühl, the circumstance that there are no real parallels to these flattened discs (sic) to be found within the figurative art of the period renders necessary a search for them elsewhere. Thus she finds that a type of official bronze weight for measuring coin corresponds in shape and size, as well as in being inscribed with the letter A (signifying one thousand), to the object held by the goddess in Clementinus and Orestes.457 The idea of placing a control weight in the hand of a city personification would in Bühl’s view derive from the circumstance that Clementinus had held the office of comes sacrarum largitionum, which comprised the responsibility of upholding coin standards. According to Bühl, then, the city goddess in question is assisting the consul in his capacity of count of the emperor’s sacred largesse, thereby interweaving his previous responsibility for the emperor’s generosity with his present responsibility for his own consular largitiones. Whereas the part of Bühl’s interpretation that links the consul’s generosity to that of the emperor is attractive, her identification of the globule as a weight fails to convince. The fact that the motif in question does not in any of the diptychs altogether correspond to the weight type referred to as its prototype is perhaps not the most problematic matter, since one should presumably not expect exact depictions of anything within consular imagery.458 But it is questionable whether the viewers/recipients of Clementinus’, Magnus’ and Orestes’ diptychs would have recognised the motif as such a weight, particularly when taking into account that the spherical weight type was not very common459 and, even more importantly, not an official insignium of the comes sacrarum largitionum.460 The fact that the motif would originally have been found in the diptychs of Magnus,461 a consul who never held any comitiva with financial responsibilities, clearly weakens Bühl’s interpretation, and her attempt to declare the Magnus panels as unauthentic is not an entirely unproblematic solution, as I have argued earlier.462

454 Toynbee 1953, 275. 455 Bühl 1995, 212-215; Bühl 1996, 131f. 456 A.D.E.Cameron 1994; A.D.E. Cameron 1998, 394-397. 457 Bühl 1995, 212 Abb. 109. The latter consul whose individual

iconography we allegedly see repeated in Orestes’s diptych (Bühl subscribes to Netzer’s attribution of Orestes, p. 200). See also II.7 and 10. 458 The weight type in question would in fact have inscribed with a variety of additional letters and signs, the A only constituting one of many; A.D.E. Cameron 1998, 393. 459 A.D.E. Cameron 1998, 394. 460 Seeck 1876, 35; Berger 1980, 67-73 and Fig. 15 and 57. 461 As indicated by the St Petersburg bone panel, proposed to be an original late antique work by Alan Cameron; A.D.E. Cameron 1984, 401. See also II.12. 462 Compare II.12.

102

Cameron, presenting relevant and justified objections to both Delbrueck’s and Bühl’s interpretations,463 for his part claims that the A inscribed on the disc (sic) in the left-side goddess’s hand stands for Anthusa, a denomination for Constantinopolis meaning ‘the flourishing one’, which according to legend was given the city by her founder.464 The suggestion is not a new one,465 and the arguments offered in support of the interpretation are further somewhat insubstantial. For it must be considered as problematic, as Bühl has also pointed out,466 that the name of Anthusa (Anthousa) is so poorly attested in the sources, and moreover that the sources that do remain are of a rare poetic kind.467 One may reasonably ask how the transmission from a rare poetic denomination to an A inscribed on a small globular object in a consular diptych would have taken place. For a simple A to be understood as standing for the by-name of Anthousa it would have had to be relatively diffused, and, as I understand it, it cannot be established that such was the case.468 Even allowing that the A may stand for Constantinopolis in her aspect of Anthousa, the question remains why the letter should specifically be inscribed on a small globe and not any other type of object, or indeed why Constantinopolis’ flourishing quality should not be expressed by some more straight-forward means.469 What the interpretations of the globule hitherto presented have in common is their focus on the A inscribed on it rather than on the object or motif per se, or most particularly what relevance it has to a city goddess,470 whatever her identity. As I see it, there is a need to reconnect the motif—which should be identified as precisely a small globe and not a disc471 —on the one hand to the functions of the city goddesses, and on the other to the consular context and its symbolisms. In order to do this I believe it may be useful to draw a parallel between the globules in Clementinus, Orestes and Magnus and other globes found within consular imagery, where they come in several forms and sizes, and as part of several motif categories. In Halberstadt it occurs as the orbis 463 A.D.E. Cameron 1998, 393f. 464 A.D.E. Cameron 1998, 395. Also A.D.E. Cameron 1982:2; and A.D.E.

Cameron 1984, 401. 465 Piper 1851, 1:2, 622f; Toynbee 1953, 273; Bühl 1995, 209. Toynbee ascribed the name of Anthousa-Tyche to Constantinopolis in the Halberstadt diptych—this however without presenting her source, or for that matter explaining why the name should apply to that particular representation of the goddess; Toynbee 1953, 273. The denomination Anthousa, ‘the blooming one’, is also mentioned briefly—again without references or explanations—by Salomonson in connection with the Athens terracotta fragment showing a togatus accompanied by a female personification wearing a flower-wreath and holding a laurel-twig in her right hand; Salomonson 1973, 71. 466 Bühl 1995, 209. 467 A.D.E. Cameron 1998, 395. 468 Cameron himself even admits that the name ‘never really caught on’; A.D.E. Cameron 1998, 396. 469 Constantinopolis-Anthousa’s (traditional) attributes were a turreted crown and a veil; Vickers 1986, 304. 470 Bühl connected the globule to Clementinus personally, not to the city goddess. 471 See the respective descriptions of Clementinus’, Magnus’ and Orestes’ diptychs, II.9, 12 and 7.

terrarum in Roma’s right hand, an insignium that also belongs to the emperor and empress in their capacity of world rulers. A small globe—also representing the orbis terrarum472 —is a frequent component of the consular sceptre, where it supports one or other symbol of the Roman emperor/empire, and on the consular sella curulis where it supports victoriolae, and in the right panel of Basilius’ diptych the orb provides a seat for the goddess Victoria. The globe is the symbolic complement of any instrument of imperial power, such as the sceptre or the sword/spear, which are the peculiar attributes of ancient Roma and the Roman emperor.473 As the emperor’s insignium it may be unadorned (as in the hand of the heirs to the empire on the missorium of Theodosius (Pl. 23)), or be crowned by a victoriola (as in Probus’ diptych (Pl. 14) and the Barberini ivory (Pl. 20)) or a cross;474 the size of the imperial orb may vary significantly, on some medallions actually corresponding to the globule in Orestes’ diptych.475 On late 4th- to early 5th-century coins and gems it is found in the hands of both Roma and Constantinopolis, usually crowned by a victoriola.476 An earlier, particularly striking parallel to the diptychs’ globules is provided by a coin issued by Maximinian, showing Roma with the same attributes as the left-side goddess in Clementinus and Orestes: knob-tipped sceptre and small globe.477 Lastly, the orb also appears in Christian imagery, then as a sign of Christ’s (or Mary’s) earthly and/or celestial rule, sometimes proffered by flanking angels.478 To conclude, judging by the type and shape of the object held by the left-side city goddess in Clementinus, Magnus and Orestes, and the way in which it is held, it must derive from the world orb, i.e the insignium of ancient Roma and the ruler insignium of the Roman emperor.479 Its reduced size—which is not unique, as argued—should most likely be explained by the context in which it here appears, viz. a nonimperial one (or only indirectly imperial, if you wish). A private consul should not be confused with the real world 472 See III.2.1.2 above. 473 The orb is never held in the hand of Constantinopolis (alone); e.g Calza

1926/27, 684. 474 Vermeule 1959, 48; Deér 1961, 83-85; Bühl 1995, 70 Abb. 38, 77 Abb. 46, and 76 Abb. 45. This form recurs in a couple of ivory panels originally belonging to imperial assemblages centring around the representation of a Byzantine empress; Delbrueck 1929, N 51 and 52; Volbach 1976, Nr. 51 and 52. 475 Brilliant 1963, 210, Fig. 4.132-4.133. 476 Toynbee 1953, 263-271; Bühl 1995, 61-78; Zwierlein-Diehl 1997, 8592, Fig. 3 b, 13 and 15. 477 Reproduced in Stern 1953, Pl. XXVI.3. 478 Usually also holding sceptres or hastae similar to that of the left-side city goddess in Clementinus and Orestes. See e.g. the apsis fresco (reconstructed) in the church of David-Garedja in Dodo, Georgia (5th-6th c.); Ihm 1960, 143, Taf. 14,2. Also the London ivory panel of an archangel (Constantinople, 6th c.) (Pl. 21 b). Angels flanking Mary enthroned with infant Christ and holding cross-surmounted orbs and hastae are further found in an apse mosaic of the church of Panagia Angelokistos in Larnaka, Cyprus (6th-7th c.); Ihm 1960, 61, Taf. 18,2. On the interpretation of the globe as a celestial insignium, i.e. as a sphaira, see Arnaud 1984, 102-111 esp. 479 Compare also Brendel’s interpretation of the world orb as an attribute of ‘Schicksalsgöttinen’; Brendel 1963, 59-74, Abb. 12-14.

103

ruler, but the symbols of the ruler’s insignia may be displayed by a city goddess. Meanwhile the significance of the letter A inscribed on the globule remains unresolved. Of the possible interpretations hitherto advanced it seems to me that only that of Cameron connects it in any meaningful way with a city goddess, even if this connection rests on weak evidence. There are other possibilities, equally hard to prove certainly, such as that the A stands simply for alpha, as in ‘the first’ (the first city or first-born goddess as in Roma), or for ‘primary’ (meaning Constantinopolis in the case of an eastern consul presumably). All considered, I prefer to leave the question of the A’s significance open. The identities of the two city goddesses in Clementinus’, Magnus’ and Orestes’ diptychs have been, and continue to be, an object of much discussion among scholars. Attributions have primarily been made on the basis of two criteria: 1) the attributes displayed by the two figures, chiefly the helmets, and 2) their placement in relation to the consul (left-right). Delbrueck based his attribution on the second criterion, or rather he first proposed it, by arguing that the figure standing on the consul’s left (right from the viewer’s perspective) be identified as Constantinopolis, since this side is that of honour.480 Why the left side should so be recognised was however left unexplained, nor was a linking of the figures’ attributes to any specific goddess attempted. Toynbee was the first to present an attribution opposite to Delbrueck’s,481 basing it exclusively on the helmet types worn by the two figures and arguing that the single-crested helmet may exclusively belong to Roma. The evidence cited in support of her argument was the Basilius diptych, where Roma wears the single-crested helmet, and some other images where Roma’s appearance is distinguished from that of Constantinopolis, notably the Vienna ‘Roma and Constantinopolis’ diptych.482 But Toynbee’s conclusion is rendered weak by the insecure authenticity of the Vienna ivory483 as well as her failure to take Roma’s figure in Aspar’s missorium into consideration—a Roma who is quite clearly differentiated from her counterpart, and who wears a triple-crested helmet. The triple-crested helmet is also worn by Roma on coins issued in the beginning of the 5th century.484 The cited comparanda are attributable to the west, but as both helmet types would have belonged to Roma485 480 Delbrueck 1929, 117, 135. Delbrueck’s interpretation was accepted by

Volbach, who however chose to refer to the figures in Magnus more indistinctly as ‘the city goddesses’; Volbach 1976, 35, 40. See further III.3.5 below. 481 Toynbee 1953, 273-277. 482 Delbrueck 1929, N 38, Taf. 38; Volbach 1976, Nr. 38, Taf. 21; Toynbee 1953, 275. Toynbee relied on Delbrueck’s earlier dating and attribution to the eastern consul of 469 (Fl. Zeno); Delbrueck 1929, 161, 163-165. 483 Anthony Cutler has convincingly shown that the Vienna ivory is in all probability to be recognised as a Carolingian copy (or pastiche?); Cutler 1984:2. See also Engemann 1998, 117. Contra Zwirn, who (on less substantial grounds) claims the ivory is a 6th c. eastern work; Zwirn 1983. 484 E.g. Toynbee 1953, 270. 485 Calza 1926/27, passim; Vermeule 1959, passim (makes no distinction between the two types); Toynbee 1953, 270f (an Honorian coin issue

no conclusions as to western-eastern may probably be drawn from this circumstance. Supporting Delbrueck’s view on which side of the consul is the place of honour, viz. the left, Toynbee also needed to account for Roma’s taking this place in an eastern diptych. This she did by arguing that Roma was still considered the senior capital of the two, and therefore entitled to the honorary position. The ‘disc immediately concerned with the games’ held by ‘Constantinopolis’ was explained as being a natural object to the city in which the consul’s games were held;486 the same would apply for Clementinus, Orestes (allegedly a copy of Clementinus) and Magnus. In the case of Magnus, further, the staff held by the left-side figure (‘Constantinopolis’) was interpreted as the fasces,487 thus implying that this consular insignium was not an exclusive attribute of Roma.488 In treating the helmet as t h e motif on which an identification of the goddesses in the 6th-century diptychs may be based, Toynbee automatically treated all other attributes as being of secondary importance. There are obvious drawbacks to this one-sided method of interpretation, and Toynbee’s conclusions have been questioned by Bühl489 and Cameron.490 Bühl notes that Roma does not exclusively wear the single-crested helmet, referring to Aspar’s missorium, and argues that the question of whether left or right be the place of honour is by no means so clear as Delbrueck and Toynbee represented it. She sees the helmets and other attributes (fasces and globule) displayed by the goddesses in Clementinus and Orestes491 as derived from Roma whereas their courtly costumes constitute Byzantine innovations, and consequently prefers to think (or so I take it) that both types of attributes may designate both goddesses. Bühl’s conclusions infer that the identities of the two figures are in fact fused, and that they had best be regarded as a twin couple.492 The twin aspect of the goddesses in Clementinus, Magnus and Orestes is also recognised and discussed by Cameron who however, unlike Bühl, thinks that the two may be identified. Cameron chooses to focus on the fasces and the small globe, arguing that the former are conferred by Roma whereas the A-inscribed globule is introduced in order to identify Constantinopolis (as Anthousa; see above). Like Delbrueck and Toynbee, Cameron claims that the staff held by the left-hand goddess in Magnus’ diptychs are a set of fasces but that this same goddess must be identified as Constantinopolis since she also holds a ‘disc’; Roma, for her part, is represented in her military aspect (signified by the shield). Consequently, although Cameron himself claims that the fasces may only be conferred by Roma, they may 409/10); Mellor 1981, Pl. I-VII; and Bühl 1995, 41-77 with figures, 109 Abb. 59 (the statuette of Roma from the 4th c. Esquiline treasure), 82 Abb. 47 (Roma in the Codex-calendar of 354). 486 Toynbee 1953, 275. 487 See my contrary view, II.12. 488 Toynbee 1953, 275f. In this she followed Delbrueck; Delbrueck 1929, 136. 489 Bühl 1995, 208-215. 490 A.D.E. Cameron 1998, 393-397. 491 Magnus having been discarded as unauthentic. 492 Bühl 1995, 210.

104

evidently still be carried by the younger sister provided that Roma is present; according to this modified view, Constantinopolis may never confer the fasces alone.493 The revealed right breast of the left-side goddess in Clementinus and Magnus,494 which is undoubtedly to be recognised as a peculiarly Constantinopolitan adaptation of Amazonian Roma’s bared breast (also featured in western consular images), has not been taken into consideration in any of the interpretations cited. It has been pointed out that this particular characteristic of the Amazonian Roma seems never to have been transferred to Constantinopolis together with other war-related attributes,495 but still it is clearly hinted at here. What conclusions to draw from it with respect to the goddess’s identity is indeed a difficult matter. It may be that the revealed breast, like other Amazonian characteristics, is ‘shared’ in a sisterly fashion between the goddesses (seeing that there is no room for its representation on the right-side figure). Likewise, the knob-ended sceptrestaff held by the left goddess has not been taken fully into consideration. Like the globe and the revealed right breast, this attribute is a primary attribute of Roma, as she appeared in Hadrian’s and Maxentius’ cult statue in Rome.496 It is an inescapable fact that there are considerable obstacles to finally distinguishing the identities of the city goddesses in Clementinus, Magnus and Orestes. Roma may wear either one or three crests on her helmet; it cannot be argued for a fact that the fasces are exclusive to Roma;497 from Magnus it may be concluded that both city goddesses may carry weapons;498 and the sceptre and globule in Clementinus and Orestes are symbols of imperial insignia that may appear in the hands of both city goddesses. Further, although an attribute of the ancient Amazonian Roma, the less courtly costume and half-revealed breast of the left-side goddess in the left panel of Clementinus and in Magnus could on the one hand be a shared attribute, on the other it could very possibly also derive from the ‘softer’ or more matronly oriental city tyche type to which Constantinopolis originally belonged.499 And the left-right rule argued by Delbrueck does not really say anything about their identities. And again, by claiming (as do Bühl and Engemann500 ) that ‘the correct’ mode of representing the city goddesses is illustrated in Clementinus’ diptych, whereas their 493 Cameron 1998, 396. The fasces-bearing Constantinopolis in the

Philoxenus diptych (Delbrueck 1929, N 29; Volbach 1976, Nr. 28) provides a piece of evidence contrary to Cameron’s view, something which he also admits; as a solution to the problem he argues that this personification is rather a conflation of Roma and Constantinopolis. Aspar’s consular missorium shows both city goddesses—Roma and ConstantinopolisCarthago—carrying the fasces. 494 (Including the bone replicas of Magnus.) 495 A.D.E. Cameron 1998, 396. 496 E.g. Vermeule 1959, 35-46. 497 Here the Philoxenus diptych and Aspar’s missorium may be cited as evidence; compare above II.7, 10 and 12. 498 The staff of the left-side goddess having been identified as a spear; see II.12. 499 As exemplified by Constantinopolis in the Codex-calendar of 354 and the missorium of Aspar; Stern 1953, Pl. III.1; Salzman 1990, Fig. 2. 500 As do Bühl and Engemann; Bühl 1995, 204-207; Engemann 1999, 163f.

representation in those of Magnus deviates from the norm and are thus proof of unauthenticity, nothing is gained towards clearing the issue. We cannot know that there was ever an absolute canon in force, even temporarily limited to the Anastasian period, for how the city goddesses should be represented, and two diptychs are too few to draw such farreaching conclusions from—especially if one also assumes that they are ascribable to one and the same consul (Clementinus).501 The significances of the city goddesses in Clementinus, Magnus and Orestes are linked to their identities—an aspect of obvious interest that has received relatively limited attention. Delbrueck focussed on the typological side of the figures, and so did Toynbee. A more interpretive approach has not been introduced until later years, when Bühl and Cameron have attempted to formulate what the goddesses’ functions are within the consular context. Bühl’s view (based on the assumption that only Clementinus’ diptych is original) is that Roma and Constantinopolis are more or less deprived of their supernatural status, and are to be regarded as attendants equal to the lictors whose attribute one of them displays.502 Even if Bühl believes that the choice to include personifications before human attendants may be ascribed to a wish to heighten the dignity of the consul’s status,503 she still concludes that their roles are fundamentally mundane:504 one acts the consul’s lictor and acclaimant (fasces, right-hand gesture), the other holds a work instrument of the comes sacrarum largitionum (control weight). Bühl even goes so far as to claim that the weight-bearing personification provides the key to the understanding of the entire imagery, which would be centred around the theme of public generosity: Roma and Constantinopolis represent the two official statuses enjoyed by Clementinus—the financial comitiva and the consulship, both comprising the duty of distributing gifts to the public—one celebrating him as consul (right-side goddess) and the other as count (left-side goddess).505 As I see it, there are four major drawbacks to Bühl’s interpretation. Firstly, it ascribes a function to a city personification which is unorthodox to say the least: as the displayer of a count’s working instrument, i.e. of an object that is not an official insignium of either consul or count.506 Secondly, ascribing such a directly personal content to a diptych, in this case Clementinus, must automatically mean that it cannot apply 501 Bühl 1995, 197-217; Engemann 1999, 164. 502 Bühl 1995, 169 (regarding Aspar’s missorium), 211-215. 503 Bühl 1995, 211. 504 Or ‘political’, as Bühl phrases it in her article on Constantinopolis; Bühl

1996, 128. 505 Compare Bühl’s entirely different interpretation of the city goddesses’ status in the Halberstadt diptych, where they are characterised as ‘nonhuman figures […] bestowing a broader legitimation of universal and cosmic power’ upon the figures they accompany (viz. the emperors); Bühl 2001, 194. The question of why such a cosmic power should not be symbolised in the eastern diptychs or in images where the goddesses accompany the consul and not the emperor is not addressed. 506 Of which there are plenty to choose from; see e.g. Berger 1981, Fig. 15 and 57.

105

to any other honorand; whereas there is nothing new in ascribing Orestes’ diptych to Clementinus, it seems hasty to dismiss the Magnus panels as unauthentic (for any of the reasons given by the author). Thirdly, Bühl fails to explain on the one hand why Clementinus would have felt such an urge to have an inferior office referred to in such an exceptional way in his consular diptych(s), and on the other why a city goddess was chosen to serve this purpose. And fourthly, Bühl’s unwillingness to ascribe any suprahuman or traditional significance to the goddesses presupposes that they had lost their original functions in the Anastasian period—it has been convincingly shown that this was not the case507 —as well as their wider relevance for the idea of consulship in the period and place where the images were created. I thus consider Bühl’s interpretation of the city goddesses in the diptychs of Clementinus, Magnus and Orestes too specific and reductive, and also incompatible with the idea that they represent a canonic consular imagery of the 6th century. Cameron’s interpretation of the goddesses has the advantage of being meaningfully related to the context of consulship without being too specific,508 either in relation to an individual consul or with respect to the goddesses’ functions. As opposed to Bühl, Cameron sees the goddesses’ roles within consular imagery as primarily symbolic. According to his view, ‘Roma’ confers the fasces on the consul rather than acts as his lictor, her gesture towards him being that of approval (of his appointment) rather than of subservient acclamation; and ‘Constantinopolis’ stands for herself, identifying herself by the means of an A-inscribed globule. Irrespective of whether one agrees with Cameron’s identifications of the goddesses or not, his interpretation of their functions as symbolic is more than plausible. For by making the surreal nature of the two the point of departure, one more easily grasps the symbolic aspects of consulship in the late antique period; and I prefer to think that Roma and Constantinopolis refer to consulship rather than to the consul’s individual cursus, i.e. to abstract concepts rather than concrete specifics. Their larger size and the fact that they stand, like statues, on column-like bases,509 are clearly suggestive of a suprahuman nature. And that they are superior to the consul rather than acting as his assistants is clear from their gestures, the manners and positions in which they hold their attributes (fasces, sceptre and globe): they direct them down towards the consul, letting the fasces and the sceptre overcut the sella and thereby upheaving the consul’s hierarchic pre-eminence. The right-hand gesture performed by the right-side goddess may be compared to the acclamatory gesture performed by the senior attending togatus in the Halberstadt diptych,510 but it is identical to the open-handed gesture witnessed in images of the emperor on coins and 507 MacCormack 1975; Shelton 1979; Kleer 1984. Compare also Salzman

1990, 154f (discussing the official cult of Roma in the 4th-5th c. west). 508 A.D.E. Cameron 1998, 396f. 509 The latter is clearly represented in all panels but the right one of Clementinus’ diptych. 510 For the interpretation of the goddess’s gesture as one of (subservient) acclamation, see e.g. Shelton 1989, 123.

medallions of the 3rd to 5th centuries;511 a gesture which also recurs in the representation of the empress Ariadne (?) in an ivory panel in Vienna512 and which denotes the supreme power and/or divinitas of its performer,513 particularly when combined with the ruler’s orb (symbol of the dominion over which power is wielded).514 The imperial gesture, as would be expected, originates from the gods.515 The identical or near-identical gesture may also signify protection,516 hailing517 or oration,518 the last two of which do not primarily denote hierarchical distinctions. When performed by a city goddess, this kind of open-handed gesture may thus alternatively, and in my opinion more plausibly, be interpreted as one of superior power, or more precisely (as seems to be the intention here) of empowerment.519 The ‘power’ conferred by the fasces-carrying city goddess is that which comes with the consular dignity (however temporary and symbolic that may be), whereas the power signified by the sceptre and ‘orb’ of the left-hand goddess belongs to the emperor who appoints the consul. Everything considered, I would like to interpret the city goddesses in Clementinus’, Magnus’ and Orestes’ diptychs as ‘divine’ representatives of the imperial rule; if anything, they are the ‘assistant’ goddesses to the emperor in his capacity of 511 Gnecchi 1912, 1 Tav. 7 no. 8, Tav. 8 nos. 2, 13 and 15, Tav. 10 nos. 2-4

and 8, Tav. 11 no. 1, Tav. 15 no. 1, Tav. 16 nos. 1 and 3, Tav. 18 no. 2, Tav. 36 nos. 7 and 15; Brilliant 1963, 208-211, Fig. 4.127-4.133; L’Orange 1973:3, 325-334, Abb. 4-6. 512 Delbrueck 1929, N 52, Taf. 52; Volbach 1976, Nr. 52, Taf. 27. 513 L’Orange derived the meaning of the ‘magically’ raised right hand of the emperor from his identification with Sol (Invictus), i.e. the power of divinitas; L’Orange 1973:3, 327-344. The same gesture of supreme power is occasionally also performed by Christian dignitaries, such as Christ stilling the storm (an undated sarcophagus fragment in the Vatican; Jensen 2000, 139 Fig.53) or Solomon presiding as superior judge (the San Nazaro reliquary, Milan, dedicated in 386; Elsner 1998, 230 Fig. 155). 514 The open-handed gesture recurs in the representation of an early 6thcentury Byzantine empress, probably Ariadne, in an ivory panel in the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna (Delbrueck 1929, N 52, Taf. 52; Volbach 1976, Nr. 52, Taf. 27; possibly originally pendant to the previously cited empress panel in Florence); an image that shows the enthroned imperial personage in her capacity of Christian world ruler, holding the cross-surmounted orb in her left hand whilst extending her open right hand to the side in a gesture very similar to that of the city goddess in the consular diptychs. 515 Brilliant 1963, 209; L’Orange 1973:3, 327-344. 516 Compare e.g. the mosaic representation of the saint Demetrios, protector of children, in the church of Hagios Demetrios, Saloniki (6th c.); Crippa & Zibawi 1998, Tav. 167. 517 A particularly interesting comparandum to the right-side city goddess in Magnus is found on the column base of Antoninus Pius and Faustina in Rome, where the goddess Roma, attired in a single-crested helmet and a breast-revealing chiton, hails the ascending imperial couple with her raised right hand whilst resting her left arm on a shield; Vogel 1973, Fig. 3. 518 Aldrete 1999, 8f with Fig. 1. 519 When taking a broader look at the gesture in question it becomes obvious that there are no clear rules for what it signifies with respect to the dignity (viz. hierarchical status) of the figure who performs it. The same gesture may in fact be performed by gods, Christ, saints, angels, biblical personages, Roman officials, and ordinary people witnessing for instance the performance of a miracle by Christ. Nor does the position of the raised, open hand—in front of the chest, extended near-horizontally from the body, or raised in level with the shoulder etc.—automatically suggest a hierarchically determined status (humility/subservience-power/authority).

106

appointer to consulship. One of them confers power onto the consul; she takes a more active part in the consul’s ‘rule’, not only presenting him with the fasces of his office but also communicating with him, ‘empowering’ him. She may thus be characterised as a consular goddess. The other goddess, more passive in pose and gesture, holds the insignia—sceptre and orb—of the emperor, his empress, and the personifications of his empire—Roma and/or Constantinopolis. She thus denotes imperial power, providing the scene with the presence of the imperial. The reductive appearance of her insignia announce that they are not the real thing (which may of course not be presented to a consul) but symbols. One may also say that the goddesses in Clementinus and Orestes share two sets of insignia between them, each representing an aspect of the Roman empire: the state (res publica) whose highest representative is the consul, and the empire (Imperium Romanum). If we attempt to assign identities to these goddesses, the fasces-carrying ‘consular’ goddess is most likely Roma520 whereas the one displaying the imperial insignia is Constantinopolis, either in her capacity of primary city goddess (for an eastern consul), of complementary representative of the Roman empire (for a western consul),521 or as representative of the emperor522 and/or his sanction of the consul’s appointment. In the Magnus panels none of the city goddesses displays consular attributes, only imperial ones: ‘orb’, spear and shield, the insignia of the Roman emperor in his capacity of military commander. The goddesses’ Amazonian character is also much more pronounced than that of their counterparts in Clementinus and Orestes:523 they wear helmets with visors and a volute-decoration evidently inspired by ancient Greek patterns, the rigid courtly costumes and heavy jewellery are exchanged for loosely falling, richly creased and girdled chitons covered by soft and short chlamydes, their poise and hairstyle are distinctly classicising, and so is (in a manner) their placement on short columns. The spear or hasta, which is also found in the hand of Roma in the Halberstadt diptych, denotes imperium, i.e. a military rather than civilian power (which is signified by the sceptre).524 In the images where it 520 Compare A.D.E. Cameron 1998, 396f. 521 There was no breach between the ruling powers of east and west in the

period of Orestes’ consulship, but the western consuls (Orestes and his colleague Fl. Lampadius) were proclaimed in both parts of the empire; Degrassi 1952, 99, Bagnall, Cameron, Schwartz & Worp 1987, 594f. Thus the presence and function of the city goddesses may work equally well for Clementinus and Orestes, and their attributes—whether tied to a particular personification or not—serve the purpose of symbolically connecting the consul’s ‘power’ with that of the imperial ruler, whether the ‘true’ Roman emperor in the east or his regal ‘imitator’ in the west. On the Ostrogothic regnum as an imitation of Anastasius’ I imperium: Cassiod., Var. 1.1.3 (citing a formulation by Theodoric, describing the eastern emperor’s rule as ‘unici exempla imperii’). On the Ostrogothic dynasty as perpetuators of the Roman state and civilitas, see Burns 1980, 76-78, 99; M. Fuhrmann 1994, 331-355; and Geary 1999, 122. 522 Compare MacCormack’s interpretation of Constantinopolis as especially associated with the emperor, being his partner in rulership; MacCormack 1975, 147-149. 523 Compare again the attributes of the ancient Minervan Roma type; Calza 1926/27, 664-666; and Mellor 1981, 1012-1016. 524 A. Alföldi 1959, 3-7 esp.

occurs, it is generally an attribute of the emperor as victor, whether held by himself or a city goddess: examples are provided by the Barberini ivory (Pl. 20),525 and the Romae accompanying the triumphant emperor on the east side of Arcadius’ column base in Constantinople.526 Interestingly, the single ‘triumphal star’ decorating the shield of the rightside goddess in Magnus is found on the praetorians’ shields on the west side of the Arcadian monument.527 Sharing the same category of attributes between them,528 Magnus’ goddesses would best be described as a pair of Romae whose role is not to confer consulship but rather military victory on the honorand. This interpretation is further strengthened by the corona triumphalis dangling suggestively above Magnus’ head,529 by his scipio cum aquila (traditionally the triumphator’s insignium530 ), and by the victoriolae on the sella curulis (which refer to the victoriousness of the imperial dynasty of Anastasius I531 ). That Magnus enjoys peculiar favour with these Romae seems to be indicated by the friendly manner in which the left-side goddess leans on his shoulder; a gesture comparable to that of Roma and Victoria in the Basilius diptych.532 The Basilius diptych singularly shows only one city goddess,533 Roma. She is represented as the ancient Amazonian deity with helmet (single-crested), chiton and himation, her right breast bared, and a ‘Greek’ hairstyle, but she does not carry any of her traditional attributes (orb, weapons), only a monumental set of fasces. This is not primarily the imperial war goddess, but a civilian one. As in the Halberstadt diptych she is placed by the side of the man she associates with, not behind him as in the more contemporary eastern diptychs. Again as in Halberstadt, she relates to the consul by turning her face towards him, and to emphasise the connection even further she embraces his 525 Representing the horsed emperor Anastasius I (?) in military attire and

crowned by Victoria (who precedes him mounted on the orb), and plunging his hasta into the conquered land, inhabited by Terra and a Germanic barbarian. On the hasta of the Roman emperor, see also Grabar 1936, 49; and A. Alföldi 1959. 526 Grabar 1936, Pl. 13; Kollwitz 1941, Beilage 7; also Bühl 1995, 143-150, Abb. 75 and 77. 527 Kollwitz 1941, Beilage 6. 528 The attributes shared between the goddesses in Magnus are found on coin types of Roma from the Neronian period onwards; see e.g. Vermeule 1959, 32, Pl. 1.16-23. 529 See further III.5.2. 530 III.2.1.2. 531 See III.2.1.3. 532 The ‘unhappy’ nature ascribed to this gesture by Engemann does not in my view per se indicate that it is a misconception, nor that it must be inconsistent with contemporary formal and/or iconographical prescriptions and therefore evidence of unauthenticity; Engemann 1999, 164. 533 Bühl suggests that the single-goddess scheme of the Basilius diptych derived from a compositional type that would allegedly have existed in the 5th century, citing the Athens terracotta fragment representing a provincial magistrate and personification as evidence; Bühl 1995, 224. The same kind of suggestion has been put forward by Salomonson; Salomonson 1973, 47. There is however no indication that such a scheme was ever used within consular imagery, most likely because the consulate, as opposed to provincial magistracies, was linked actually and symbolically to the two imperial capitals, i.e. to the Roman empire in its entirety.

107

shoulders: a very friendly, even wifely gesture534 that indicates a particularly close and personal bond. As in other western images (Halberstadt and Aspar’s missorium) Roma is the same scale as the consul,535 not larger as in the east. Nor is there any obvious hierarchical order to be detected between the two figures,536 but they appear as equal partners; Roma’s embrace effectively suspends any distinction between man and goddess. Her carrying of the fasces means that she takes a more direct and—as the embrace signals—personal part in this honorand’s consulship: she confers the insignium on the consul of her own especial choice, while the scipio rests between the figures’ closely standing bodies as if shared between them. Roma’s extraordinarily prominent position in Basilius’ diptych suggests that she is at once his divine and sisterly-wifely protectress, the active partaker of his consulship, and the sole conferrer of his consular fasces, even though Basilius in reality assumed the f a s c e s in Constantinople. There being no reference whatsoever to the emperor included in the diptych, Roma also appears as the sole appointer of Basilius.537 All in all, Basilius’ Roma emerges as a materialised being, a physical and active presence that cannot really be characterised as a secondary figure. A key to the goddess’s pointed favour is suggested by the fasces banner, which is inscribed with a corona triumphalis. After the analogy of the fasces laureati traditionally carried in the triumphal procession, Basilius’ fasces may be understood as awarded him in recognition of some ‘triumphal’ achievement. And as it is Roma who presents him with the ‘laureate’ insignium, it must have been in her honour that Basilius has ‘triumphed’, i.e. in honour of the Roman empire—an empire that, as in days of old and from the point of view of the Roman aristocracy, is represented by Roma alone.538 Instead of being part of the sisterly couple RomaConstantinopolis, Basilius’ Roma is part of a triad with Victoria and Iuppiter (through the eagle), all three being deities traditionally concerned with the empire-making of the Romans.539 Within this triad her function is to act as dispenser of official honours, whereas the other deities are concerned with more eternal rewards.540

534 The embracing gesture may be compared to the one performed by

wives towards their husbands on a number of sepulchral monuments from Rome and central Italy; e.g. a Trajanic stele in the Villa Medici, Rome (reproduced in Brilliant 1963, 136f and Fig. 3.80) and a series of late 4th c. sarcophagi (Koch 2000, Nr. 46-48, 53 and 63, Taf. 48-48, 53 and 63). 535 Bühl’s statement that Roma is somewhat taller than the consul is not entirely true; Bühl 1995, 221. Rather, she is slightly shorter, like a human female, the helmet-crest filling up the space above her head. 536 See further discussion under III.3.5. 537 Compare Alföldi’s conclusion concerning Roma on contorniates, that she—or ‘die Rom-idee’—was detached from the emperor in the 4th-5th centuries (when the contorniates were issued), posing as sole sovereign and guarantor of victory, peace and prosperity for the people of the old capital; A. Alföldi 1942/43, 57f. 538 See e.g. MacCormack 1975, 139-147; and Kleer 1984, 71-73; also Paschoud 1967, passim; and Mellor 1981, 1017, 1024f. 539 See notably Weinstock 1957, 215-217. 540 See III.3.3.

That the imagery chosen for Basilius’ diptych is individual-related is generally agreed on. Alan Cameron’s and Diane Schauer’s reattribution of the diptych to the eastern consul of 541,541 which I find entirely convincing,542 connects the peculiarities of its imagery (which are considerable) to the honorand’s personal history, and most especially to his involvement as a messenger in Justinian’s reconquest of Ravenna from the Ostrogoths in 540.543 Although an eastern consul, Basilius actually represents himself as a consul of Rome, Roma in a manner substituting for both Constantinopolis and the emperor. By this ‘Romanising’ adjustment Basilius announces to the viewer/recipient of this diptych that his consulship was truly and ideally a Roman one. However, Basilius’ personal history only partly explains the originality of the diptych’s imagery, as I see it. The very circumstance that he was an eastern consul who commissioned and issued consular diptychs in Rome should also prove relevant to its interpretation. The diptychs Basilius presumably issued in the east would almost certainly not have shown the same programme as the preserved specimen. What we see in this diptych is doubtless an imagery created for a certain category of recipients who would sympathise with Basilius’ appreciation of his own worth as consul and as preserver of the Roman state (as expressed by the motto surrounding his bust in the right panel), and who would not be negatively impressed by the apparent deviations from ‘correct’ consular imagery that the diptych displays. Who would, most especially, approve of the self-glorification expressed through the visualisation of a close relationship between the honorand and Roma (and to Victoria in the opposite panel) at the same time as there are no references whatever to either the emperor or to the eastern capital where he held his consulship. I therefore propose that the preserved diptych was part of a limited issue, specifically intended for a circle of like-minded members of the old aristocratic élite in Rome: family and political alliances.544

541 Cameron & Schauer 1982. 542 Primarily for the reason that the name of consul corresponds to Basilius

cos. 541 and not to Basilius cos. 480; see II.8. Alan Cameron has recently announced his intention to reattribute the Basilian consulship of 541, which is commemorated through the preserved diptych, to the west, preliminarily advancing the view that there is little to support the universally accepted information provided by the fasti consulares; Cameron 1998, 393. For the fasti, which list Basilius cos. 541 as eastern, see Degrassi 1952, 100; and Bagnall, Cameron, Schwartz & Worp 1987, 616f. On the other hand, as the consul of 541 did not have any colleague there may possibly be some uncertainty in the matter, as may also be gathered from Martindale’s omission to mention where Basilius’ consulship was held; Martindale 19801992:2, 174f. While I choose to follow the traditional attribution of the 541 consulate, I am confident that any interpretations of Basilius’ consular imagery will apply irrespective of whether he was a western or eastern consul; his origins and history are the same, and he would have been appointed by the eastern emperor (Justinian) irrespective of where he held office, since there was no longer a western sovereign to appoint western consuls in 541. 543 Procop., Goth. 3.20.118; Cameron & Schauer 1982, 127-131; also Bühl 1995, 223f. 544 On the self-image of the late Roman senatorial aristocracy as the true rulers and protectors of the Roman state, see Paschoud 1967, 149-155

108

Concluding discussion: The inclusion of Roma and Constantinopolis differs between western and eastern diptychs, and so do their appearances. Judging by the remaining works, the following tentative conclusions about what these differences may have reflected in reality can be drawn. In the west and during the period covered by the consular diptychs, Roma and Constantinopolis as a couple seem to have played a relatively limited role in consular imagery. The goddesses are usually clearly differentiated from each other, Roma retaining her ancient Amazonian-Minervan character while Constantinopolis is represented as a city tyche of the oriental type, roughly corresponding to her original 4thcentury appearance. The preserved diptychs, together with the cited comparanda, indicate that no homogeneous Constantinopolis type ever existed in the west. A clear differentiation between the goddesses thus seems to have been peculiar to the western half of the empire. Further, Roma’s retaining of her traditional characteristics reflects her special status as the primary or sole goddess of the Roman empire, as illustrated by the Halberstadt and Basilius diptychs. Common to the western representations is also that the goddesses enjoy positions in the foreground, beside the emperor or consul they accompany, and that they are represented in the same scale as the latter. In the west Roma and Constantinopolis were not exclusively introduced as accompanying figures to the consul, as demonstrated by the Halberstadt diptych, but their function was to illustrate the related ideas of imperial concord, unity and dominion. This is a traditional way of representing the city goddesses, who were first and foremost the geniuses of the Roman emperor(s).545 In Halberstadt they primarily or perhaps exclusively denote the ‘imperial conditions’ under which the diptych’s honorand celebrated his consulship. The imagery of the diptych’s upper, imperial registers is not conceived according to any standard (it may be doubted that any such existed in the early 5th century), and is quite evidently conceived to express something of great importance and relevance to the issuing consul. The city goddesses, like the emperors they accompany, in fact define the context in which Fl. Constantius was appointed to his second consulship in 417:546 his victory over the Visigoths in 416 and the subsequent reunion of the Roman empire through the emperors of west and east (ideal rather than actual), in the diptych signified by Roma and Constantinopolis. That the city goddesses could occasionally also be included into the images of private consuls in the west is shown by the missorium of Ardabur Aspar and the diptych of Basilius. Although the imperial city goddesses in Halberstadt differ from their consular counterparts in Aspar and Basilius in (negatively critical); Näf 1995, 193-196 esp; and also Lejdegård 2002, 6973 esp. 545 See particularly MacCormack 1975. 546 Martindale 1980-1992:1, 321-325; Lütkenhaus 1998, 63f, 85-93 esp; also Bury 1958:1, 197, 203, 209. For a fuller discussion of the attribution of the Halberstadt diptych and the victory-related aspects of its imagery, see III.3.4 and 5.4.

being enthroned—the enthroned Roma derives from the Hadrianic-Maxentian cult statue in the temple of Roma and Venus in Rome, a majestic ruler goddess547 —the emphasis on Roma’s Amazonian-Minervan, warlike aspects unites the two. As it happens, the images of Halberstadt, Basilius and Aspar commemorate consuls whose careers prior to their consular appointments have a common denominator: all three honorands had been engaged in military expeditions against barbarian usurpers in the western half of the empire.548 The city goddesses, especially Roma, in these consular images are thus all connectable to western victories in particular, and to the idea as well as historical reality of a reunited Roman empire in general. The consuls who had them included in their commemorative images could titulate themselves successful preservers of the western empire. The traditional Amazonian-Minervan Roma seems especially suitable for alluding to imperial victories—particularly western, of course—since she represents both the ancient Roman empire and the warlike qualities that are required to rule and expand it (or rather, in the 5th and 6th centuries, to preserve it), and to conquer. And it would seem equally suitable, as demonstrated by Halberstadt and Aspar, that Constantinopolis’ appearance be rendered distinct from that of Roma—civilian, ‘oriental’, and without imperial attributes—in order that the message of a western victory be easily grasped.549 In t h e Halberstadt diptych, Constantinopolis is secondary to Roma as a consequence of her secondary importance to the purpose of the diptych (viz. to commemorate a western consulship and victory), and in Basilius’ diptych Constantinopolis has no place at all. From the western consular images it may be concluded that the issuing consuls utilised the city goddesses as a means of alluding to the personal military achievements which won them their consular appointments, more precisely their achievements in preserving the western empire. Roma’s warlike attributes in particular—Amazonian costume, helmet, hasta, sword—link the concept of military victory to that of consulship, and in Basilius the connection between consulship and victory is alluded to by means of the corona triumphalis ornamenting the fasces banner: the western Roma is a military and civilian goddess all in one, preserving the Roman empire and its institutions. Most importantly, these 547 Calza 1926/27, 676-684; Vermeule 1959, 29f, 35-45; Mellor 1981,

1016f. 548 Constantius against the Visigoths in Gaul, holding the office of magister militum; Aspar, also magister militum, against the Vandals in North Africa (Martindale 1980-1992:1, 166), and Basilius against the Ostrogoths at Ravenna, holding the (military) office of comes domesticorum and possibly the patriciate. On the practice of using patricii as diplomatic envoys and ambassadors in late antiquity, see Mathisen 1986. 549 The city goddesses apart, the circumstance that both Ardabur and Plintha, the consular kin represented as imagines clipeatae in Aspar’s missorium, like Aspar himself had held the office of magister militum (Plintha actually held the office of M V M in the same year as Aspar’s consulship (419-438); e.g. Bagnall, Cameron, Schwartz & Worp 1987, 373, 388f) renders a peculiar interest to the military connotations of the image: what the viewer is presented with is in effect the military and consular ‘dynasty’ of the honorand’s family. The military background of Aspar’s consulship is further referred to by means of a heap of shields (i.e. war spoils) in the lower pictorial register of the plate.

109

wester representations of Roma are part of individually conceived programmes, referring to the military merits of the respective consul. The eastern representations of Roma and Constantinopolis, which date to the period 513-518, and those in the eastinspired Orestes diptych of 530 display a high degree of typological assimilation. Unlike their differentiated counterparts in the western consuls’ images, the eastern goddesses are conceived as twin sisters, neither of them enjoying precedence over the other and neither conforming to her original type. They present a pair of Romae, helmeted variants of courtly ladies. The goddesses’ courtly character is particularly striking in the diptychs of Clementinus and Orestes, whereas they have retained a more of an Amazonian character (in dress, poise, hairstyle, and attributes) in the Magnus panels. On the one hand, the position of the eastern goddesses is more receded than that of their western counterparts—they do not stand beside the consul but behind his sella curulis; on the other, they are in all cases larger than the consul and standing on columns, whereby their suprahuman nature is indicated. In my view their receded position should however not primarily be ascribed to an inferior status vis-à-vis the consul, but rather should be seen as resulting from the monumentalisation of the consul’s sella curulis, whose dimensions in these images do strictly not leave room for a full representation of the goddesses’ figures.550 The eastern goddesses’ functions vis-à-vis the consul inevitably appear more vague as a result of their fused identities. In Clementinus and Orestes the right-side goddess holds forth the consular fasces, the left-side goddess symbols of the imperial insignia, the sceptre and orb. Through her gesture of power or empowerment the fasces-carrying goddess takes a more active part in the scene; she confers the consular ‘power’ and the insignium that goes with it. The goddess displaying the imperial insignia is more passive, providing as it were a complementary presence—the presence of the imperial. Guided by these indications I have tentatively identified the fasces-carrying goddess as Roma and the other as Constantinopolis, ‘Roma’ representing the res publica and ‘Constantinopolis’ the Roman empire; the goddesses jointly play the emperor’s part in conferring and legitimising consulship. The two city goddesses also stand for old and new Rome geographically and historically, together signifying the continuity of the Roman empire and its institutions. In Magnus’ diptychs there are no distinctions between consular and imperial, but the Romae share the insignia of the Amazonian-Minervan Roma and the Roman emperor between them: the orb, hasta and shield, attributes of the military world ruler. Similar representations are found on the so-called Anastasian missorium from the Sutton-Hoo treasure,551 whose iconographic programme has convincingly been 550 (The attributes of the goddesses are placed in front of the sella seat-

rail.) 551 Engemann 1988, 114 esp., 405-413 Taf. 1-6; also Bühl 1995, 178f, Abb. 91-94.

interpreted as a symbolic tribute to the emperor,552 and where both city goddesses appear with Amazonian outfit, helmets, hastae, shields and orbs. The nature of the twin goddesses in Magnus is not civilian but military, and they do not so much confer consulship as victoriousness on the honorand; that this conferral is to be taken for a promise is suggested by the laurel-wreath hovering above the consul’s head.553 The confidence the goddesses feel towards their consul is further suggested by the intimately relaxed manner in which the leftside Roma, holding the insignia of rulership, leans on his shoulder. The gesture may not only be compared to that of Constantinopolis in Halberstadt and of Roma in Basilius; it has equivalents within imperial art from the 4th century onwards, where above all Constantinopolis was increasingly represented as a close partner in rulership to the emperor.554 The scipio cum aquila held by Magnus also traditionally belongs to the triumphator and emperor.555 Their function in relation to the consul also approximates that of Roma in the western diptychs, viz. to refer to the honorand’s military achievements in preserving the empire. That the victoriousness thus ascribed to Magnus was other than symbolic is highly doubtful; the only thing that is known of the man until his consular appointment is that he was one of the great-nephews of Anastasius I,556 a circumstance which would nevertheless be highly relevant to the interpretation of his consular imagery, since the theme suggested by the ‘warrior’ goddesses is that of imperial war and dominion. The kind of personal-historical factors that seem to have contributed towards the city goddesses’ introduction in two of three western diptychs (viz. the consul’s military achievements in preserving the Roman empire) do not apply in the case of Clementinus, Magnus and Orestes, none of whom had attained consulship on military merits.557 Also, whereas the diptychs of Halberstadt and Basilius and the missorium of Aspar were issued in close connection with imperial victories and (re)unions, a common denominator for the diptychs of Clementinus, Magnus and Orestes is that they were issued in a period where the Roman empire was divided, viz. during the Ostrogothic rule of Italy. In these diptychs, then, Roma and Constantinopolis represent a purely ideal concept. 552 Engemann 1988, 103-107, 110-114. 553 See below, III. 5.2. 554 See particularly MacCormack 1975, 144-149. (Contra Engemann, who

regards the goddess’s posture as ‘unhappy’ and hence—so I take it—suspicious from the aspect of authenticity; Engemann 1999, 164.) 555 See e.g. Versnel 1970, 57; also above III.2.1.2. 556 Delbrueck 1929, 134; A.D.E. Cameron 1978, 260-263; Martindale 1980-1992:1, 701. On the later career of Magnus (which did not include any military office), see A.D.E. Cameron 1978, 275. See also the discussion of Magnus’ membership in the imperial family in connection with the sceptre, III.2.1.2. 557 Areobindus (9), alone among the eastern consuls whose diptychs have been preserved to have held a military command, did not include the city goddesses. What conclusion to draw from this fact is uncertain, but perhaps the ‘omission’ could be ascribed to the circumstance that Areobindus’ military activities were not concerned with the keeping or reconquest of the Roman empire in terms of east-west (he fought in Persia); e.g. Martindale 1980-1992:1, 143f.

110

3.3. Victoria and the eagle in the Basilius diptych It could indeed be said that the singularly prominent, fullfigure representations of Victoria and the eagle in the right panel of Basilius’ diptych (8) are also the main figures of that image, and that the clipeate bust of the honorand appears as the attribute to the victory goddess. Unlike her other representations in the corpus, this Victoria displays her right breast after the Amazonian fashion, thereby announcing her warrior nature, but she lacks other attributes commonly associated with her: the laurel-wreath and the palm-frond.558 The manner in which Victoria holds Basilius’ image—supporting it on her lap, closing her arms around it in an embrace-like manner, and turning her face to gaze at it—may be compared to Roma’s embrace in the opposite panel and to Constantinopolis’ hand on Theodosius’ shoulder in the Halberstadt diptych: gestures of selection, protection and friendliness. Through their symmetrical appearances and gestures Victoria and Roma in Basilius’ diptych appear as a sisterly pair of ancient imperial war goddesses, offering their favour to the man of their choice. The eagle constitutes a powerful fundament for the Victoria-Basilius couple, while at the same time providing an ascending direction and movement for the image as a whole. Whatever the lost lowest compartment of this panel originally contained, and despite the columns (indicated by capitals) framing the figure-group, the remaining image clearly indicates that the scene takes place in a ‘supra-terrestrial’ sphere. The spread wings of Victoria and the eagle, both with the characteristic palmetteshaped feathers which also recur on Basilius’ consular toga in the opposite panel, take up much of the pictorial space, emphasising the image’s celestial content. Although celestial by nature, these divinities are ‘materialised’, physical and active presences. Together they convey the imago of Basilius to heaven. It is not in the capacity of consul that Basilius is presented in the company of these deities, but as patrician.559 Thus, although the consular ornamenta and ceremonial are replete with triumphal symbolism, either the type of imagery presented in this panel was seemingly regarded as incompatible with the concept of ordinary consulship, or else the image does not refer to Basilius’ consular dignity. Nor is the honorand represented ‘in person’ but through his imago clipeata, i.e. a honorific portrait. The shield on which the imago is applied is not of the common circular form used for imagines clipeatae in the corpus560 but of an oval type displayed by Victoria in traditional imperial imagery, the clipeus virtutis; an honorific shield awarded citizens for civic and military excellence in republican times, and later widely used within the public sphere, in imperial propaganda, and 558 These are also the attributes she carries as the imperial victoriola;

compare for instance the Honorius’ victoriola-surmounted orb in the Probus diptych (Pl. 14) and the Victoria and victoriola in the Barberini ivory (Pl. 20). See further III.5.1. 559 See also III.2.4. 560 Compare imagines in the upper registers of Clementinus (10), Anastasius (11), Anthemius (Pl. 15) and Orestes (7).

within the funerary context.561 Like the traditional clipeus virtutis that of Basilius contains a legend referring to the virtues of the honorand, which in this case, however, does not list the virtues as such but rather expresses a virtuous attitude, civicus amor, a feeling true to the ideal of romanitas: ‘for the good of the state anew’. Both the shape of the clipeus and the way in which it is displayed by the seated Victoria, half held in front of her, have predecessors in imperial art, including late antique coinage where the shield commonly carries a Christian symbol.562 The panel’s composition (in its preserved state) combines motif constellations featured on the sceptres and sellae curules of some 6th-century eastern consuls. The same type of eagle—head turned right, wings spread around an imago clipeata—is found in Anthemius (Pl. 15) and Anastasius A (11). Victoria-on-the-orb lifting an imago clipeata above her head is found in all of Anastasius’ diptychs,563 Victoria with an imago clipeata (but without the globe) is found in Areobindus (9), and Victoria-on-the-orb but with a tabula ansata between her raised hands in Anthemius. Then there are of course the sceptres of Boethius (6) and Magnus (12),564 which are crowned by the ancient eagle-on-the-orb constellation. Unlike the other Victory figures in the corpus and in late antique art in general, including the representations of Victoria Augusta and the victoriola of the emperor and the goddess Roma,565 the Basilian Victoria is seated on the orb;566 a composition which cannot be without significance. The seated position of Victoria may from a general view be defined as passive enthronement: a pose that is suited to express the idea of achieved conquest, of peace after battle and

of (re-)established world dominion,567 and which contrasts with the mobility or active state of the more common striding and flying Victoria types. The circumstance that the orb on which the goddess sits is supported on the back of the aquila however opens up the question of which orb is intended: the world orb ( orbis terrarum) or the celestial/cosmic orb ( orbis caelestis).568 From the ‘apotheotic’ aspect, it could be identified with the celestial variant, since the eagle may at once be defined as a divine being who inhabits heaven and conducts the souls of the immortalised there. Victoria’s role, on the other hand, is not to dwell in the heavenly sphere but to attain dominance over the world (orbis), by conferring victory on the Romans. Again, Victoria, the aquila and the orb are all emblems of the Roman emperor, signifying his divinely instated world rule.569 In late antiquity Christ had been instated as the king of the celestial sphere and as conferrer of victory on the emperor, whereas the ancient deities were regarded as genial expressions of the emperor’s ruler’s and victor’s qualities.570 However, seeing that Basilius’ image is devoid of any reference to either the emperor or Christian rulership,571 it may be argued that the orb in this case has a double significance, representing both the worldly dominion of Victoria and the celestial dwelling-place of the eagle.572 The aquila, like Victoria, is concerned with Roman empire-making and imperial victory; its connection with the orb signifies the godgiven dominion of the Romans (through their emperor, whose coat of arms it also is573 ). The eagle’s function within the context of war is indicated by it presence on the military signa. The legionary eagle essentially corresponds to the type that crowns the consular sceptre, which again corresponds to the type presented in the Basilius diptych: wings raised and semi-spread, sometimes holding a wreath (the gift of Victoria) in its beak.574 The powers ascribed to the eagle on the battlefield were those of securing

561 Hölscher 1967, 102-107; Winkes 1969, 18-43; and Zanker 1988:1, 92-

98 with. Fig. 75c, 76a, 79, 80a-c, and 274 Fig. 216 and 217. 562 For the latter material category, see for example the representations of Victoria on late antique coins (Arcadius-Zeno, 395-491) seated (facing right) on a tropaeum/cuirass and holding an oval shield in front of her (either resting on a short column or supported by a winged eros) inscribed with a cross, christogram or legend (such as a vota inscription); RIC X (1994), Pl. 1-37 passim. Victoria holding (in front of her) a shield inscribed with the legend ob cives servatos also regularly appears on so-called New Year lamps from the imperial period, demonstrating how the shield-bearing Victoria was jointly associated with civic virtues and perennial peace and prosperity; see Hölscher 1967, 111f, Taf. 13. 563 Magnus’ diptychs would originally also displayed this constellation, as suggested by the bone replicas. 564 Probably originally also Basilius himself; see III.2.1.2, also II.8. 565 Compare for instance the three types of Victoria represented in the Barberini ivory, Honorius’ victoriola in the Probus diptych, and the victoriola of Roma (e.g. Vermeule 1959, Pl. 1-8 passim). See further III.5.1. 566 Parallels to this scheme are however found on some Roman coins from the 1st to 3rd centuries AD, where the goddess is seated on either a shield or the orb; Hölscher 1967, 100-102, 108, Taf. 1.7. In the later empire (4th6th c.) the goddess could also be seated on a tropaeum; RIC XI (1951), Pls. VI.11, XI.5 and 13, XIII.6-9; RIC VIII (1981), e.g. Pls. 4.107, 11.381-382, 12.441, 23.2, 25.29 (sons of Constantine); RIC X (1994), Pls. 1.10-17, 2.29 and 32-33 a, 5.101-105, 7.206 and 210, 8.222-223, 11.270-272, 14.337-339, 22.608-610, 24.634, 25.655-656, 27.806, 28.1006-1007, 32.932, 37 passim, and Pls. 51-52 nos. 2047-2053, 2082-2083; Arnaud 1984, 80f Fig. 19 and 22; and Zanker 1988:1, 225f and Fig. 179.

111

567 Compare Hölscher’s interpretation of an early imperial coin reverse

showing Victoria seated on a large orb and extending a laurel-wreath as symbolic of Roma and Pax; Hölscher 1967, 108 and Taf. 1.7. See also Fears 1981, 813. 568 Compare Arnaud’s interpretation of this seated-upon type of sphaira as a non-terrestrial sphere in which the deity dwells as opposed to dominates; Arnaud 1984, 111. Contra Hölscher 1967, 41-46. 569 Compare Hölscher 1967, 43-46. 570 Fears 1981, 748-752, 812-823. 571 I have argued that the cross-tipped sceptre of Basilius is not original; II.8, III.2.1.2. For a Christian representation of the supra-terrestrial realm, see the diptychs of Clementinus, Orestes and Iustinus (Pl. 16), and the discussion of these under III.6.1. below. 572 The plain aspect of the Basilian orb does not offer any suggestions either way. Compare Hölscher’s and Arnaud’s orb typologies; Hölscher 1967, 37, 41; Arnaud 1984, 54-102. Against Arnaud’s distinctions it could be argued that the celestial sphere would have been considered not only as the gods’ habitat but also as their dominion. 573 RE I.1 (1894), 374f s.v. ‘Adler’ (E. Oder). 574 R E II A.12 (1921), 1335f s.v. ‘Signa’ (J.W. Kubitschek). Representations of signa are included for instance on most of the triumphal monuments in Rome, and on the Porta Argentarii in the Forum Boarium it decorates the pilasters of the front façade; e.g. Bianchi Bandinelli 1970, 71 Fig. 64; De Maria 1988, Tav. 83-85; and Coarelli 1997, 311f. For representations on imperial coins, see RIC III (1930), 453 (index), nos. 104, 131 and 248.

good auguries and leading the way to victory.575 Its apotheotic function primarily derives from the imperial consecratio, but the apotheotic eagle also appears extensively in the sepulchral imagery of private citizens.576 The connection of Iuppiter, i.e. the ancient deity associated with the eagle, with Victoria-on-the-orb has precedence in 3rd century imperial coinage, where the motif combination was used to celebrate the emperor as conservator urbis, i.e. as preserver of Rome, dominion-wise and constitutionally.577 The motto inscribed around Basilius’ bust, bono rei public(a)e et iterum, may be read as a rephrasing of the conservator urbis idea. By having represented Victoria and the eagle sharing the terrestrial-cum-celestial orb and conducting his imago clipeata towards heaven, Basilius makes perfectly clear that he considers himself a victorious man. The inscription encircling his bust further implies that his victorious achievement consists in the restoration of the Roman state, more particularly the western sphere of the state. The circumstance that Basilius’ bust does not wear the consular toga could be accounted for in three ways: 1) by being represented in the chlamys costume of a patricius, Basilius is consciously adhering to a western tradition within consular imagery;578 2) nobody but an imperial consul may be represented on a clipeus when lifted by the eagle in an ‘official’ image;579 or 3) it is not in the capacity of consul that Basilius’ has achieved the immortalising victory alluded to. It is apparent that the key to the understanding of this image must be sought in the individual history of the man who commissioned it. Despite its uniqueness within consular imagery, the right panel of Basilius’ diptych has been the object of only limited interest among scholars; the focus has been on the connection between Roma and the honorand as represented in the opposite panel, where a primarily philological interest has been directed at finding the most plausible link between Roma and the known facts about the consul commemorated. Thus, whereas the sole presence of Roma may and has been plausibly accounted for in connection with both Basilius cos. 480 and Basilius cos. 541,580 the imagery conceived for the 575 RE II A.12 (1921), 2336 s.v. ‘Signa’ (J.W. Kubitschek). 576 E.g. Arce 1988, 131-140; also Goette 1984, 586-589. For

representations of the apotheotic eagle, see notably the column base of Antoninus Pius and Faustina originally placed at the location of their consecrations in the Campus Martius, Rome (Vogel 1973, Fig. 3-5); a number of Antonine coins (RIC III (1930), 452f (index) nos. 164, 168, 349, and 441); and the sepulchral monuments of private citizens, civilian and military (e.g. Hatt 1986, 407f; also Bianchi Bandinelli 1970, 72 Fig. 65). For the late antique period, see the so-called Consecratio panel in the British Museum, London (Pl. 21 a), plausibly attributed to Rome and the period around 400 AD; Delbrueck 1929, N 59, Taf. 59; Volbach 1976, Nr. 56, Taf. 28. 577 Hölscher 1967, 46. 578 As exemplified by the Halberstadt (2) and Felix (3) diptychs. 579 Whether such a rule would have had any real weight with a commissioner who set aside a number of other official rules in his diptych may however perhaps be doubted. 580 Delbrueck 1929, 100, 102f; Cameron and Schauer 1982. In the case of the diptychs’ attribution to Basilius cos. 480 (as presented by Delbrueck and

112

right panel seemingly presents a more difficult task. Delbrueck failed to offer any explanation for it, simply leaving it out of his interpretation.581 And it is true that the known history of Basilius cos. 480 does not comprise any military involvements such as would have justified the victory imagery of this panel.582 As shown by Cameron and Schauer,583 however, the history of Basilius cos. 541 does. Still, in their reattribution of the diptych to Basilius cos. 541 the same authors left the right panel’s imagery undiscussed, even though it might advantageously have been claimed as evidence in support of their reasonings. Considering the image’s singularity as well as its compatibility with the known facts about the career of the later Basilius, there can in my opinion be no doubt whatever that the imagery of the right panel was created in order to convey a personal statement on the honorand’s part, and that this statement provides stronger evidence for the diptych’s reattribution than any technical or formal evaluations.584 Concluding discussion: In my view the history of Basilius cos. 541 may be regarded as perfectly illustrated—in highly symbolic and idealised terms—in the imagery of his preserved diptych, where the right panel featuring the aquila conveying the orb-mounted Victoria and Basilius’ clipeate bust to heaven provides a complementary and explanatory counterpart to the left panel’s visualisation of Basilius’ peculiar friendship with Roma. If the front panel represents Basilius’ consulship/public career,585 the back panel refers to some extraordinary achievement that is presumably a reflection of the virtuous attitude expressed by the Basilian motto, and for which his consulship is the reward: a victory in a very traditional Roman sense, as made abundantly clear from the choice and constellation of polytheistic-imperial motifs. The eagle symbolises on the one hand the supreme deity for whose glory the Roman state conducted war and built its empire in ancient times, on the other hand the Roman emperor whose power to conquer and rule was traditionally delegated from the god;586 it is here suggested that it accompanied Basilius on his way to victory, and now conducts his imago towards immortality. Victoria was the victorious aspect and deified ‘gift’ of Iuppiter;587 in the diptych, she is connected both with the imperial god and, through an Amazonian appearance which emphasises her by some still adhered to) the consul’s appointment to the western consulship by Odoacer, when the western and eastern empire were alienated, was considered a sufficient explanation for the sole inclusion of Roma. 581 Delbrueck 1929, 102f. The attributions by Graeven and Volbach to the western consul of 480 were entirely founded on stylistic evaluations, and the right panel’s imagery was left more or less uncommented on; Graeven 1892, 210; Volbach 1976, 31. 582 The consul of 480 was appointed praefectus praetoria Italiae three years after the consulship (483); Martindale 1980-1992:1, 216f; Bagnall, Cameron, Schwartz & Worp 1987, 494f. 583 Cameron & Schauer 1982, 127-131. 584 Cameron & Schauer 1982, 133-137. 585 See above, III.3.1. 586 E.g. Fears 1981, 744. 587 Fears 1981, 744.

warlike nature, with Roma, the deified Roman state. Her enthronement on the orb seems to indicate that (re)conquest is achieved and dominion (re-)established. The friendly way in which Victoria holds Basilius’ image expresses, like Roma’s embrace, that he is her chosen man, the inscription on the clipeus specifying that it is Basilius’ civic virtues that has won him the divine favour. Through Basilius’ virtuously inspired intervention Rome enjoys a fresh start in history, Rome’s dominion is re-established and peace rules once more. The highly traditionalistic forms and contents of this imagery is very unusual for the period, not only for consular imagery but also for imperial.588 Victoria, the eagle and the orb are all attributes of the emperor, ever since the principate divine symbols of his godgiven victoriousness and ruling power.589 In principle, nobody may emulate the emperor by posing as an apotheosised victor. However, the diptych was not issued in Constantinople, where its imagery would very likely have been considered controversial—self-glorifying, apparently ‘pagan’, without references to the emperor, and obviously deviating from the contemporary canon for how ordinary consulship should be represented. Issued in Rome, far from the imperial court, and created (as I believe) for the appreciation of a circle of Roman aristocrats and amicissimi nourishing high thoughts about their role and value in perpetuating Roman tradition and culture, this kind of pseudo-imperial auto-propaganda would not have been regarded quite as inappropriate. Rather, it may be considered likely that the recipient of the diptych understood the image of Basilius’ victorious apotheosis as an exemplum of how a man of good birth and eminent virtues, with an admirable public career (characterised by the discharge of official responsibilities in accordance with high ideals; compare the tenet of the Basilian motto), may attain the status of historic and personal immortality in accordance with time-honoured beliefs.590 The status and prestige attained by Basilius, in his own eyes as well as in the eyes of his fellow Romans (the senatorial aristocracy in particular, naturally), actually require that his dignitas be properly celebrated. Belonging to an ancient Roman-patrician family with an impressive history of high magistracies, Basilius may in fact have considered it a right to associate his person with the imperial interests through the means of his consular diptychs. Certainly, the bombastic imagery chosen to convey Basilius’ views on his importance as a representative of Rome would have the viewer believe that his part in delivering Italy from the Goths ranked with the achievements of Belisarius himself. Still there is every reason to believe, as has already been pointed out,591 that this image was if not unique, then at least one of a limited issue, specifically intended for a category of Roman patricians and patriots who would have sympathised with 588 See e.g. Grabar on the rarity of Victoria as a ‘pagan’ victory-figure in

imperial imagery from c. 450 onwards; Grabar 1936, 156-160. 589 Hölscher 1967, 31-34. See also A. Alföldi 1935, 95 esp; and Restle 1988, 946f. 590 On the ideas and ideals of the late Roman senatorial aristocracy in this respect, see notably Näf 1995, 193-231. 591 III.3.2.

113

Basilius’ estimation of his own importance for the imperial victory. Lastly, in view of the victory-theme pervading the imagery of Basilius’ diptych it seems relevant to renew the question of what may originally have been represented in the lowest part of the panel, below the eagle.592 Since the representational mode for the aquila conforms to a traditional formula within imperial art, it may have been accompanied by an equally traditional by-motif or attribute, of which there exist at least three frequently occurring categories: the orb, the corona triumphalis or civica, and the thunderbolt. Seeing that nearly half the panel is removed, there would have been ample room for any of these motifs to be incorporated. The orb is perhaps the least likely motif since the eagle already supports one on its wings, but it cannot be excluded that a pair of orbs might have represented the earthly and the celestial sphere respectively. In that case the terrestrial orb (orbis terrarum) would have been placed beneath the eagle, signifying the earthly realm dominated by itself and Victoria, and the celestial orb (orbis caelestis) supported on its wings, signifying the transcendental sphere inhabited by the same (and apotheosised Basilius).593 As for the other options, reference has already been made to the affinities in motif repertory and structure between the Basilian scheme and the composite sceptres of Areobindus and Anastasius, including both the wreath (corona triumphalis) and the orb. Judging by these parallels, the combination of an orb with a wreath would have been highly consistent with contemporary (eastern) consular imagery. To this it can be added that the wreath is the one missing motif that would make the panel’s victory programme complete. The corona triumphalis594 would have referred to Victoria’s gift, which could decorate both the victor and the eagle (see above). But the corona civica, a wreath traditionally and well into late antiquity awarded citizens for outstanding service in preserving or restoring the state (ob cives servatos, res publica restituta),595 would have combined equally well or even better with the ‘republican’ character of the Basilian motto and the diptych’s imagery at large, and served as a pointed reference to Basilius’ contribution to the imperial reconquest of 540.596 The corona civica, traditionally bound of the oaken leaves from Iuppiter’s sacred tree, constitutes a prominent attribute of the eagle in the imperial art of previous 592 The half-expressed suggestion of Delbrueck on this point, namely that

the lost part may have featured a pendant circus-scene to that in the left panel, is in my view implausible; Delbrueck 1929, 100. 593 Compare Arnaud’s definitions; Arnaud 1984, 111. 594 Or possibly the corona etrusca, the golden triumphal wreath of oakleaves; see e.g. Vernel 1970, 74-76. See also III.5.2. 595 Claudianus for example mentions the corona civica in connection with Stilicho’s acts for the preservation of the Roman state; Claud. Cons.Stil 3.7273. See further Zanker 1988:1, 89-100; and also Hölscher 1967, 111. For a particularly interesting interpretation of the corona civica see Goette, who argues that the corona civica ob cives servatos was directly linked to virtus, a chiefly military quality which rendered its bearer immortal and guaranteed him a place in the sphere of the gods (i.e. apotheosis); Goette 1984, 588f. 596 See III.3.2.

centuries.597 The removal of this type of motif from the panel (assuming that it did not result from some irreparable damage) could well have been motivated by a decision to recycle it separately. Although the wreath presents the most contemporary of the eagle’s attributes and had a much wider diffusion in Roman art and civic life, it is still possible that the eagle originally held the thunderbolt in its claws, after the manner of the eagle on the legionary signa. The thunderbolt might have served as a reference to the military context in which Basilius had distinguished himself. Unlike the orb and the wreath, further, the thunderbolt would have carried polytheistic connotations that might explain its removal by a Christian reuser of the panel.598

3.4. Imperial personages: the figures of the upper registers There are a number of consular diptychs where imperial personages are represented as independent figures in a separate register, identically composed in the two panels: Halberstadt (2), Clementinus (10), Anastasius (11) and Orestes (7), and also Anthemius (Pl. 15). It is only in the Halberstadt diptych that the emperors are rendered as full figures and as part of a scene proper; in the rest of the diptychs, much later and mainly eastern, the ruler is represented as an imago clipeata, either as part of an emperor-empress/queen-prince couple symmetrically placed beside a cross (Clementinus, Orestes) or as the central and uppermost image of three—emperor, empress, ex-consul/ex-emperor—arranged according to a triangular scheme and flanked by Victoriae or erotes (Anastasius, Anthemius). The scale of the imperial figures is reduced in relation to the consul/attendants in the register below, thus indicating their secondary role, but their placement in an upper register simultaneously announces their superior status. The emperor is always distinguished by the diadem; in Orestes this insignium has been exchanged for the Ostrogothic queen’s pearl-lined cap (whereas the prince remains bareheaded in sign of his minority (?)). The emperor wears either the c h l a m y s , i.e. his civilian military costume,599 or the gemencrusted imperial variant of the triumphal toga. The Halberstadt diptych is alone within the corpus to represent both a western a n d an eastern emperor—convincingly identified as the Augusti Honorius 597 The eagle carrying a corona civica in its claws occurs on Augustan

coins and in intaglios; see Zanker 1988.1, 92-94 with Fig. 76 b and 77 (an Augustan aureus and the ‘Eagle’ cameo in the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna). A late antique example of the motif constellation is found in the imperial chamber in the temple of Ammon at Luxor (tetrarchic period); Deckers 1979, 645 with Abb. 33. See also Goette 1984, 585-587. 598 Provided, of course, that the removal was motivated by the imagery itself as opposed to, for instance, some irreparable damage to the lower part of the panel. 599 Restle 1988, 948-957. The military nature of this costume is indicated by the sword that goes with it; see the chlamydate emperors in Halberstadt.

114

and Theodosius II by Delbrueck600 —and to present them as participants in a scene. In accordance with their superior dignity the emperors are enthroned, and Roma and Constantinopolis enthroned beside them provide them with identifications: Roma (left) flanks the senior western emperor Honorius and Constantinopolis (right) the junior eastern emperor Theodosius. As becomes a senior emperor, Honorius is larger than the junior Theodosius, and the two are further distinguished by the size and pattern of their respective chlamys inset, which is larger and more complex for the senior emperor (the distinction is most clearly perceived in the left diptych panel). The emperors’ placement in relation to each other would likely also be indicative of status; this will be further discussed in a separate section.601 Otherwise the two are identically rendered: they are seated in the identical pose with knees apart and the right foot placed before the left, they both rest their right hand across the chest with two digits raised in the gesture of formal speech (identical to that performed by the honorand as patricius in the central register), their chlamydes fall in the same way and their diadems appear to be identical. Except for the age difference, the emperors appear to be equal in status. The emperors’ facial features are no longer visible, but it may be assumed that they once displayed the same characteristics (albeit simplified) to render evident their kinship;602 the rounder and more heart-shaped facial contour of the eastern emperor is indicative of juniority603 and/or a secondary importance within the image. It may be observed that facial shapes and hairlines correspond between the emperors and the honorand—in a general way certainly, but enough to distinguish the three from the rest of the panels’ figures. One may accordingly argue that the honorand has linked himself to the emperors by means of visual correspondences—physiognomy, hairstyle, speech gesture and chlamys inset (right panel)—and most particularly to the western emperor Honorius. As was argued above in connection with the representations of the city goddesses,604 the western emperor has been given the most prominent part by having the imperial insignia displayed by the goddess Roma, whose singularly warlike appearance serves to associate ‘her’ emperor with the concept of military dominion, viz. empire; an additional reference to Roma’s and her emperor’s dominion is found in the barbarian submission-scenes of lower pictorial registers.605 The female figure placed between and behind the emperors, screened off from them by the back of the dais, 600 Delbrueck 1929, 91f; A.D.E. Cameron 1998, 385-389; Engemann

1999, 164f. Also Bühl 2001, 196-198 esp. Compare above III.3.2. 601 III.3.5. 602 Compare e.g. the emperor and the Caesares on the silver missorium of Theodosius (Pl. 23). 603 This irrespective of whether he had passed the allegedly critical age of 15 when the image was created; see A.D.E. Cameron 1998, 396; and (for a critical view) Bühl 2001, 196-198. 604 III.3.2. 605 For a further discussion of the lower register scenes in the Halberstadt diptych, see III.5.4.

would—as her jewellery collar indicates—be recognised as a member of the imperial family. Her separateness and receded position, however, suggest that she does not formally belong in the first rank of empire. Her lack of the Augusta’s attributes (chlamys and diadem with pendilia)606 makes it clear that she is neither mother nor spouse of an emperor. Nor, obviously, can she have any official function within the context of consulship, either as a ruler or as an appointer. Yet the woman is conspicuously placed in the centre and on a higher level than the men in front of her, visually forging a link between the emperors’ figures so that the three become perceived as a group: although a woman without an empress’s rank she is still intricately connected with the wholeness of the imperial dynasty and the Roman empire, a member of the innermost familial circle. No doubt this scheme is meant to suggest something specific. The identifications of the imperial woman vary. Delbrueck, who attributed the diptych to the western consul of 417, Fl. Constantius—an attribution accepted by many—identified her as Galla Placidia, Honorius’ step-sister, wed to Constantius on the day of his second consular accession.607 Another suggestion is the personification of concord, viz. Concordia,608 whose placement between and slightly above the imperial pair on late Roman coins correspond to the Halberstadt figure’s: a plausible interpretation if it were not for the fact that she lacks all specifying attributes, including the nimbus.609 More recently, Alan Cameron has attempted a reattribution of the diptych to the eastern consul of 414, Fl. Constans, arguing that the woman be identified as Aelia Pulcheria, the sister of Theodosius II.610 In answer to Cameron’s theory, and pinpointing some weaknesses in Delbrueck’s original interpretation, Engemann has subsequently proposed that the diptych be attributed to Constantius’ first western consulship in 414 and the female reidentified as Placidia, the then (merely) hoped-for bride of Constantius.611 Whereas Cameron’s identification is based on the opinion that Constantinopolis’ gesture towards the eastern emperor is significant enough to suggest an eastern origin of the diptych

606 Although the upper part of the head is completely missing in both

panels, the original lack of the diadem is made clear by the lack of pendilia, parts of which would reasonably still have remained in the regions between neck and shoulders. 607 Delbrueck 1929, 40, 87, 91f; Toynbee 1953, 272; Volbach 1976, 42 (with some reservation); A.D.E. Cameron 1998, 389, 397f; and Engemann 1999, 164-167. 608 Kollwitz 1941, 34 n. 5; Kiilerich & Torp 1989, 343 n. 122. 609 Were she a personification she would almost certainly have been nimbate like the other two goddesses in the image, so that she might be distinguished from a human female. The nimbus appears to have been one of Concordia’s more standard attributes in late antiquity; Ahlqvist 2001, 216. For a discussion of the iconography of imperial concord in east and west during Honorius’ reign, see also Grigg 1977, 478-480. A list of Concordia’s attributes throughout the imperial period is presented in RE IV.1.7 (1900), 834f s.v. ‘Concordia’ (E. Aust). 610 A.D.E. Cameron 1998, 389, 398. 611 Engemann 1999, 165-168. For Constantius’ attitude towards Placidia in 414 and subsequently, see notably Lütkenhaus 1998, 72-86, 130-155. Also Bury 1958:1, 147; and Martindale 1980-1992:1, 323.

115

(something which I have argued against above),612 the identification of Delbrueck and Engemann is chiefly based on the view that the woman is placed somewhat closer to Honorius, slightly turning her face in his direction. In response to the latter assertion, I would suggest that the seeming closeness between Honorius and the woman is only due to the fact that Honorius’ stature is greater than Theodosius’ (his head being placed higher up), that the female is actually positioned in the absolute centre between the emperors, and that her face (from what may determined from its damaged state) is not directed to the left in any more pronounced degree than are the heads of the emperors or the consul. Had a special link between the woman and Honorius been intended, it would doubtless have been indicated in a more obvious way. Agreeing in principle with Delbrueck’s and Engemann’s view that Placidia is the only plausible identity for this female figure—it is hard to come up with another name if one accepts the identifications of the emperors as Honorius and Theodosius II—I would rather suggest that the woman’s relevance to the occasion(s) commemorated in the diptych goes beyond that of her kinship with Honorius, which is only one aspect of three. Her most immediate function would be to present a third party in the imperial reunion, demonstrating that this occasion not only comprises the eastern and western empire (represented by the emperors and Roma-Constantinopolis) but also involves the imperial family. An equally or perhaps more important function, which I would think was what motivated her inclusion into the imagery of an official diptych in the first place, would however be her official connection to the diptych’s honorand. Galla Placidia was officially connected to the consul Constantius, but not before the 1st of January 417. For a further discussion of these points, and the attributions of Cameron and Engemann, see ‘Concluding discussion’ below. The imperial trio with city goddesses is placed within a ‘physical context’ in the form of an architectural frame flanked by a pair of praetorian guards.613 The architecture consists of a podium or suppedaneum supporting the imperial dais, and four columns between which hang laurel-garlands. The guards, like the architecture, lend physicality and an aspect of reality to a scene which could otherwise have appeared purely symbolic, with their bodies protecting the emperors and the empire (the latter signified by the city goddesses). But can one assume on this basis that the scene takes place in a real place or locale? It has been thought that the imperial scene in Halberstadt must be derived from a real context, that of the circus, and for two reasons: the presence of a lower-register scene (rather automatically interpreted as a circus scene), and the mappae held by the consul and one of his attendants in the left panel.614 However, the conquered barbarians do not qualify as a consular games-scene, and even if captives of war were ritually led before the emperor in the circus/hippodrome as part of the imperial triumph, the 612 III.3.2. 613 See II.2. 614 Delbrueck 1929, 88; Volbach 1976, 42; A.D.E. Cameron 1998, 391.

barbarian scenes in the diptych lack all indicators of a physical-contextual setting: something which has not been taken into consideration by those who propose that the imperial scene takes place in the circus tribunal.615 As for the mappa circensis, by the time of the diptych’s creation it had developed into an independent attribute of consulship.616 To this it may further be added that the gesture of formal speech performed by the emperors is inconsistent with those performed by praesides ludorum in late antique imagery; the games do not present a context in which official authority is expressed through formal speech.617 Highly relevant to this issue is of course also the fact that Honorius and Theodosius II never met in real life,618 which must automatically mean that the imperial scene presented in the Halberstadt diptych is symbolic: it represents a political reality, a ‘staged’ ideal image of imperial unity rather than a physical-historical event.619 The ideal nature of the scene is announced by the city goddesses’ presence. In the much later diptychs of Clementinus, Anastasius, (Anthemius) and Orestes, the images of the emperor/queen and their family alone constitute the imperial context: they do not form part of any scene, nor is a more complex idea of imperial unity expressed, since each sovereign is now unaccompanied by a western/eastern colleague. All these diptychs were issued during the Ostrogothic rule of Italy (490-540), a reality that evidently called for an adjustment or rephrasing of the mode in which the idea of empire was to be represented in consular imagery. Not only in the sense that the rulers’ images were to be included on a more regular basis, but also that these images were to be rendered as imagines clipeatae, i.e. as effigies rather than figure representations. The imagines of the ruling Augustus and Augusta or queen and prince are either placed on a level with a cross between them (Clementinus, Orestes), or combined with a third imago representing either a former consul (Anastasius) or a previous emperor (Anthemius) in a pyramidal arrangement on a triangular gable. The medallion diptych of Iustinus (east, cos. 540) (Pl. 16) presents a variant of the Clementinus-Orestes scheme, where the imagines of the imperial couple (Justinian and Theodora) flank the imago clipeata of Christ instead of the cross. The two schemes are composed according to the same principle as regards the order of placement: in the bi-clipeate scheme the male bust is placed to the left and the female to the right, and in the triclipeate scheme the emperor is placed at the top of the pyramid, the empress below him to the right and the former 615 Although the architecture displays some formal correspondences to the

tribunal structure in the Lampadiorum panel, it may be noted that the parapet normally included as a distinguishing characteristic of the circus tribunal (tribunal editoris) is lacking; see further III.5.4 and 7.3. 616 See III.2.2.2. 617 Compare the tribunal scenes represented on the Theodosian obelisk base in the Hippodrome of Constantinople; e.g. Kähler 1975, Taf. II-V; and Kiilerich 1993, Fig. 9-12. 618 E.g. A.D.E. Cameron 1998, 389. 619 See further III.5.4 and 7.3.

116

consul/emperor below to the left. The tri-clipeate type of composition is more distinctly hierarchical in that it places the (present) emperor alone in a top-central position. Why is not Ariadne, like Amalasuntha in Orestes’ diptych and Theodora in Iustinus’, presented by the side of her man? One answer could be that she, unlike the other, is represented post mortem (Ariadne died in 515),620 and thus in every sense separated from her spouse. Another answer, which I would think closer to the intention behind the imagery, would be that a different conception of imperial rule dictated the pyramidal scheme than that where the empress/queen is represented as joint ruler with the emperor/prince.621 Whereas the bi-clipeate composition is visibly centred around the idea of Christian rulership (the emperor and empress ruling jointly in the sign of Christ), the pyramidal scheme represents the idea of rulership as a ‘worldly’ concept concerned with official dignities and hierarchies. In the diptychs of Anastasius and Anthemius the (deceased) Ariadne is placed on a lower level beside another personage with ex-status, both of whom are connected to the diptychs’ respective honorand (see below). Thus, it appears, the distinction indicated through placement in these compositions is at once one of imperial hierarchy (the ruling emperor is always at the top of the hierarchy) and of present-past. Three may also signify family or dynasty, as illustrated by the imperial trio in the Halberstadt diptych. In Anastasius’ diptychs, the ex-consul’s i m a g o (left) corresponds physiognomically to both the imperial pair and to the honorand at the same time as his hairstyle differs from their cap-shaped one, from which we may deduce that a specific personage is intended. The tentative suggestion offered by Delbrueck that the bust be recognised as the consul’s father Pompeius (east, cos. 501)622 is very plausible, since he was also nephew to the emperor.623 The incorporation into the imperial register of this personage may in fact only be accounted for by a membership in the imperial house, and by a status as potential heir to the throne.624 The incorporation of the consul’s father thus provides a more direct link between the honorand, the imperial house and the emperor, each of the three personages representing a generation on the Anastasian family tree, with the empress Ariadne as their ‘ancestral mother’.625 The dynastic theme is further 620 In the case of Anthemius, who held his consulship in the same year as

the empress died, there is some possibility that the diptychs were finished after her death. The precise date of her death is unclear; Bury 1958:1, 452; Martindale 1980-1992:1, 140f. 621 Fourteen in the year of Orestes’ consulship (530), Athalaric was king under Amalasuntha’s guardianship; Bury 1958:2, 159; Demandt 1989, 205, 305. 622 Delbrueck 1929, 124. 623 Compare also the attribution of the busts on Anastasius’ sceptre in diptychs B and C, III.2.1.2. 624 A.D.E. Cameron 1978, 263. 625 Ariadne made Anastasius emperor by marrying him after the death of her first husband, the emperor Zeno, thus automatically making her new husband’s kin members of the imperial house; e.g. Martindale 1980-1992:1, 78f, 82f. Anthemius was not directly related to Anastasius I, but was reported to be personally favoured by the empress Ariadne; Martindale 1980-1992:1, 99.

emphasised and diversified in those of Anastasius’ diptychs where the emperor’s imago wears the imperial consul’s gemstudded triumphal costume (B-C), thus representing a consular ‘dynasty’ simultaneously with the imperial one. A dynasty to which he, the present consul and emperor’s greatnephew, is the most recent addition. The third imago clipeata in Anthemius’ diptych is suggestive of a similar meaning. To judge by the figure’s costume, he was an emperor, of which there is only one related by family to the consul, viz. his father and namesake, the emperor Anthemius.626 The upper register constellation in Anthemius is thus purely imperial, demonstrating that the present consul is himself of imperial birth. The space between the imagines differs between the two compositional schemes. The space in Clementinus and Orestes presents a plain background against which the clipei are symmetrically arranged, the cross in the centre underlining its abstract nature. Like the cross, the imperial couple’s representations should be regarded as symbols, as part of a superior sphere detached from that in which the consul presides, a clearly demarcated and sacred realm. And indeed, neither Clementinus nor Orestes had any family connections with the imperial/regal house, and Justinian (the appointer and uncle of Iustinus627 ) was notoriously averse to appointing private citizens, or indeed anyone, to the ordinary consulate since he thought it competed dangerously with the imperial status in the eyes of the public (he closed the office to private citizens only two years after Iustinus’ consulship).628 The spatial conception of the imperial registers in Anastasius’ and Anthemius’ diptychs differs from that in Clementinus and Orestes on two fundamental points: the aedicula surrounding the consul’s figure actually continues into the imperial register by constituting a ‘physical’ construction on which the imagines clipeatae are mounted, and the figures between clipei are spatially and physically related to both the emperor’s clipeus and to the aedicula, thus lending the image a ‘real’ appearance. The imagines in Anastasius and Anthemius represent an imperial dynasty with its inner hierarchies, a dynasty to which the respective consul is connected by family and consular title: they represent his maiores. This is a very traditional Roman way of viewing magistracy. Concluding discussion: The diptychs featuring imperial registers are not in majority within the preserved corpus. If we include the lost diptych of Anthemius, they belong to five different consuls, and fall into two distinct categories: 1) diptychs of consuls with a personal connection to the imperial family (Halberstadt, Anastasius, Anthemius), and 2) diptychs of private consuls in the more strict sense, unconnected with the ruling house (Clementinus, Orestes). Whereas the latter category may be defined as a purely symbolic-abstract way of representing the concept of empire, 626 Western Augustus 467-472, eastern consul in 455; Martindale 1980-

1992:1, 99; Bagnall, Cameron, Schwartz & Worp 1987, 565. See also Delbrueck 1929, 121f. 627 Bagnall, Cameron, Schwartz & Worp 1987, 614f. 628 Courtois 1949, 54; Bagnall, Cameron, Schwartz & Worp 1987, 10-12.

117

and an impersonal way of describing the relationship between emperor and consul, the former category uses the imperial image as a means of defining the consul’s belonging in the imperial sphere. The family likeness of Anastasius and his uncle, the emperor Anastasius I, is one obvious illustration of the latter approach. The image of the imperial/royal couple ruling jointly in the sign of Christ introduces the theme of the new state religion, more precisely the divinely ordained rulership and the apotheotic status that the sovereigns enjoy through their ‘contract’ with the Christian god. This religious content seems to have little to do with the secular context of consulship, but its wider implications—the nature of imperial rule as a reflection of a divine order—should prove highly pertinent to the ideologies (traditional and new) tied to the consulate in this late period; these issues will be treated more fully in the concluding part of the study.629 The status of the imperial imagines in Anastasius and Anthemius, although unconnected with the idea of Christian rulership, is no less suprahuman or apotheotic. As a concept, both formal and conceptual, they evidently derive from the togate imagines held aloft by Victories or erotes against the ‘celestial sphere’ (‘clipei caelestes’) in traditional Roman sepulchral imagery.630 The tri-clipeate scheme in Anastasius and Anthemius may well have been utilised by other imperially connected consuls appointed by Anastasius I.631 As the preserved diptychs (including Iustinus) show, the incorporation of imperial imagines was considered somewhat of a standard in the 6th-century east.632 Judging by the preserved corpus, a like standard never existed in the west; of the two diptychs that included imperial representations, that of Orestes clearly takes after eastern models, whereas the considerably earlier Halberstadt diptych displays a uniquely complex figure-scene whose inner relationships have multiple and intricate meanings with individual relevance to the issuing consul. The remaining discussion will be devoted to the imperial scene in the Halberstadt diptych. In the Halberstadt diptych a number of correspondences and between the imperial and the consular/patrician registers are suggestive of meaningful relationships and hence of implicit content. The most notable correspondences are found in the right (patrician) panel, where the honorand’s costume (fibula and sword excepted) and speech gesture are identical to those of the emperors; notably the segmentum on the honorand’s 629 IV.3 and 4. 630 See Panofsky 1992, 36, Fig. 115 and 126 (sarcophagi); also L’Orange

1973:1, passim; and L’Orange 1973:2, 320-324. On the significances and applications of imagines clipeatae throughout the Roman empire, both sepulchral and official, see Winkes 1969, 10-92 (notably in triumphal art). See further III.6.2. 631 Anastasius I favoured the members of his own house when appointing private consuls; Capizzi 1969, 43f; A.D.E. Cameron 1978. He also appointed himself consul three times; e.g. Degrassi 1952, 285 (index). 632 The lack of an imperial register in the diptychs of Magnus (12) could possibly be explained by the fact that the emperor was dying at the time when they were issued (Anastasius I died on July 9th, 518); see III.2.1.2 and 5.2.

chlamys, similar in size and pattern to that of Honorius, indicates that he has been awarded a peculiarly high rank within the western court hierarchy.633 Correspondences in facial shape and hairstyle between the emperors, again particularly Honorius, and the honorand further suggest that the latter’s status goes beyond the purely official, that it is also related to empire: he, unlike the attendants flanking him, shares a family likeness with the ruling dynasty.634 Passing from the formal details to the relationships between figures, both within the imperial register and between registers, the honorand celebrates his consular and patrician appointments as it were between an imperial family union (upper register) and groups of conquered barbarians (lower register), forging a link between these two scenes.635 This relationship provides the perhaps most significant key to the diptych’s imagery: the honorand connects himself with imperial victory and unity. The laurel hanging immediately above the imperial figure-group, including Roma and Constantinopolis, goddesses of imperial unity and dominion, lends a distinctly celebrational aspect to the gathering, whereas the praetorian guards protect the it from external/physical threats. The imperial scenes in the Halberstadt diptych thus represent the union and the (re)established security of the Roman empire as derived from a victory over a barbarian enemy;636 a victory in which the honorand had a personal share. The spatial relationships between figures would also be significant of implicit meaning, since they indicate in what ways the personages relate to one another and to the honorand. The absolutely central position in the upper registers is not occupied by any of the emperors (who as equal sharers of imperial dignity also share the central position on the throne) but by the female figure in courtly attire placed between and behind them. Seeing that she does not display the attributes of an Augusta, which would make her presence in a consular image official by common standards, her inclusion and her placement must be motivated by something apart from the consular context, something important enough to set aside the conventions of official iconography. The woman’s receded position and vague attributes must be interpreted positively: her presence is unofficial and her function none other than to be present, partly because she does not hold the proper rank, partly because she, as a female representative of the imperial house, does not have anything to do with consular appointments, nor imperial victory for that matter. Even if the woman’s head does not appear to be turned towards Honorius (whereby a peculiar link would have been signalled)637 there is still every reason to 633 On the exclusive status of Fl. Constantius in the year of his second

consulship in 417, see Lütkenhaus 1998, 94, 132. The date of Constantius’ patrician appointment, as has been discussed above (III.2.4), did not precede his first consular appointment in 414. 634 Compare Anastasius vis-à-vis Anastasius I. 635 See further III.5.4. 636 On the ideal of imperial unity and on the collegial victoriousness of the emperors of east and west in this period, see notably McCormick 1986, 112119. Also Jones 1964, 1, 325f. 637 As claimed by Delbrueck 1929, 92; and Engemann 1999, 164.

118

believe that her inclusion is motivated by her relevance to the western branch of the imperial family, since the senior emperor and the consul are both western.638 Everything considered, the most plausible identification of the woman remains the one originally put forward by Delbrueck: Galla Placidia, Honorius’ step-sister and Fl. Constantius’ spouse on the 1st of January 417.639 Her presence in the image—unique as it is within the consular context, where no females but personifications and Augustae (or their Gothic counterparts) otherwise appear640 —must thus serve the unique purpose of connecting the honorand’s, i.e. Constantius’, consular and patrician appointments with his dynastic prospects, enforcing the connection between the emperors and Constantius and between Constantius and empire. If the attribution to Constantius’ second consulship in 417 is correct, as I believe, the imperial scene need not automatically have been conceived as a ‘wedding tableau’ in commemoration of Constantius’ and Placidia’s union.641 Suffice a pointed reminder of the matrimonial connection so that the honorand’s status vis-à-vis the imperial family would be clear to the diptych’s recipient, who doubtlessly had the foreknowledge required both to identify the woman and to grasp the wider implications of her inclusion. A female figure lavishly dressed but without the empress’s attributes, positioned properly apart from the consular context in which she did not belong but still strategically enough to indicate her link to the consul, served this end perfectly.642 The inclusion of the princess may also refer to her relevance to the imperial unity and victory. The only victory that can have explained not only a princess’s presence, but the reunited emperors of west and east and the conquered barbarians in the lower registers was achieved in 416 when Constantius effected the Visigoths’ surrender by capturing Priscus Attalus.643 The interpretation offered by Engemann644 has the advantage over that of Cameron of making such a connection, viz. that the woman is linked to some kind of military success: in the year preceding Constantius’ first consulship (413) he had effected the release of Galla Placidia from her Visigothic custody at Ravenna,645 638 Compare the discussion of a western vs. eastern attribution above,

III.3.2. 639 Delbrueck 1929, 92; Bury 1958:1, 197, 203, 209; Lütkenhaus 1998, 63, 72-74, 133f; Engemann 1999, 165-167. Sources on the marriage of Constantius and Placidia are Olympiodorus, fr. 34; and Malalas, 350. 640 Although Cameron recognises the fact that Aelia Pulcheria—Theodosius’ II sister whom he wants to identify with the female figure—like Placidia was not Augusta in 414, he still titulates her Augusta in his final interpretation (seemingly in order to emphasise her importance to her brother); A.D.E. Cameron 1998, 388f, 397f, n. 82. 641 A.D.E. Cameron 1998, 389. 642 It would probably not have been legitimate for Constantius to represent his imperial connection in any more apparent way, considering the occasions commemorated and the fact that neither he nor Placidia had imperial titles at the time. 643 Martindale 1980-1992:1, 321-325; Demandt 1989, 149; and Lütkenhaus 1998, 85-93, 133. 644 Engemann 1999, 165-167. 645 She was released through the peace treaty with the new Visigothic king Wallia in 416; Olympiodorus, fr. 20, 22, 26.2; Bury 1958:1, 203; Matthews 1975, 354f; Martindale 1980-1992:1, 323; also Lejdegård 2002, 122f.

an achievement which in itself may certainly be regarded as a feat, but not a victory in the military sense. And in January 414, i.e. at the time of Constantius’ first consulship, Placidia was wed to the Visigothic king Athaulf.646 Thus there was neither a victory nor a formal connection between Constantius and Placidia in 414 that would motivate her inclusion into a consular diptych simultaneously featuring defeated barbarians. Consequently, I find Engemann’s attribution to 414 and Constantius’ first consulship less plausible. And Cameron’s reattribution to the eastern consul of 414, Fl. Constans, does not at all consider whether there is a meaningful connection between the woman and the triumphal imagery of the lower registers,647 nor does it explain why the western goddess Roma would display the attributes of imperial war and rulership rather than the eatsren Constantinopolis.648 Nor again is it clear from Cameron’s interpretation how the informal power behind the eastern throne (as Aelia Pulcheria is described)649 would have been relevant to Constans and the imagery of his consular diptych(s). In my view Delbrueck’s original attribution to Constantius’ second consulship in 417 has several advantages to those presented by Cameron and Engemann, although I think that it lacks somewhat in argumentation, especially when it comes to weighing the imagery against the historical data. Summing up, what speaks in favour of Delbrueck’s attribution are the following. In 417 Constantius celebrated a second western consulship as a result of his victory against the Visigoths (416), which enabled Honorius to triumph in Rome; in 417 Constantius had Honorius for a ‘colleague’, the emperor then holding his eleventh consulship;650 on the day of taking office, January 1st 417, Constantius was wed to Galla Placidia, Honorius’ then widowed step-sister, who did not hold the title of Augusta; Placidia’s return (and hence availability as a bride) was a direct result of Constantius’ victory since that victory comprised her final release from the Visigoths. Moreover, by 417 Constantius was patricius, a title he was then able to commemorate in a diptych of that year. All these data are in fact represented in the imagery of the Halberstadt diptych. The victory against the Visigoths is visualised by means of the conquered barbarians with ‘Germanic’ costumes, haircuts and weapons represented in the lower registers,651 by the emphasis on Roma’s warlike qualities and attributes, and by the laurel framing the imperial figure-group. The specific links between the western emperor 646 Bury 1958:1, 197; Martindale 1980-1992:1, 323; Lütkenhaus 1998, 85. 647 The evidence on which Cameron relies when arguing a connection

between Fl. Constans and the defeated barbarians is rather vague; A.D.E. Cameron 1998, 397. Constans was possibly, but not surely, magister militum per Thracias in 414, and there is no indication of any military successes on his part; Martindale 1980-1992:1, 311. 648 See III.3.2. 649 A.D.E. Cameron 1998, 289. 650 Degrassi 1952, 88; also Bagnall, Cameron, Schwartz & Worp 1987, 368f. 651 Cameron does not take the barbarians’ costumes, only the weapons, into account when arguing his eastern attribution; A.D.E. Cameron 1998, 391. The predominantly Germanic appearance of some of the garments worn by the figures is also paralleled by that of the royal pair (albeit Ostrogothic) in the Orestes diptych. See II.2 (‘Discussion’), and III.5.4.

119

and the honorand—who were bound together by victory, family and consulship in 417—are visualised through physiognomy, pose and costume, as well as the incorporation (the earliest such within the corpus) of Honorius’ consular bust on the triumphal trabea.652 Honorius does not wear the triumphal toga in sign of his consular status, it is true,653 but then the scene in which he is presented is not concerned with imperial consulship but with a symbolic reunion between sharers of imperial power.654 Honorius’ peculiar importance is also marked through his taller stature and through the placement of the imperial insignia in the hands of ‘his’ city goddess, Roma—goddess of the regained western empire. Thus, in conclusion I propose that the imperial scenes in the Halberstadt diptych commemorate Fl. Constantius’ double victory of defeating the Visigothic enemy and receiving the hand of a western princess, and the triple glory of sharing consulship, victory and family with the western emperor Honorius. They are pictorial representations of Constantius’ achievements—and surely of his further pretensions655 —in the year 417.

3.5. Left or right: placement as an indicator of status? The question of which side of the consul’s figure is to be recognised as that of honour, i.e. hierarchically superior, was raised by Delbrueck in connection with Roma’s and Constantinopolis’ representation in the diptychs of Clementinus (10), Magnus (12) and Orestes (7). His opinion that the left side of the consul, viz. the right seen from the viewer, should be so recognised was, however, left unsupported by any evidence or argument, and his identification of the city goddesses—which was based solely on their left-right placement—has subsequently been rejected by scholars who have preferred to base their interpretations on the goddesses’ attributes.656 The western works, including Aspar’s missorium (Pl. 22), were left uncommented on by Delbrueck; whether because he was of the opinion that the western works display no homogeneity on this point is unclear but likely. The Halberstadt diptych (2), with its multiple figures and apparently complex system for their placement, must be considered inconclusive; Basilius’ diptych (8) places Roma to the consul’s left, but without a complementary Constantinopolis to render clear an eventual distinction; and Aspar’s missorium shows Constantinopolis standing on a western consul’s left. Examples that would seem to lend support to Delbrueck’s left-side theory, all early western consular images featuring 652 See III.2.1.1. 653 Compare the argument of Kiilerich & Torp 1989, 343f; also counter-

argument of Bühl 2001, 196 n.10. 654 For the relationship of Honorius and Theodosius II specifically, see A.D.E. Cameron 1970, 51-54, 110f. 655 On Fl. Constantius’ long-term, consequent and successively realised ambition of attaining imperial status, see Lütkenhaus 1998, 64-161. 656 Toynbee 1953; Bühl 1995; A.D.E. Cameron 1998. See III.3.2.

either junior officials or emperors, are Lampadiorum (1), Halberstadt, and Aspar’s missorium. In Lampadiorum the senior (by age) attendant is found on the consul’s left, but as we do not know that the junior person on the consul’s right is not superior in rank and/or closer related to the consul—the latus clavus on his toga could indicate a higher rank, and the circumstance that the consul is slightly turned in his direction could indicate a closer tie—the representativity of this image is uncertain. In Halberstadt the junior emperor is placed at the senior emperor’s left, and the same pattern recurs in Aspar’s missorium, where the junior official (praetor and son to the consul) stands on the seated consul’s left. A similar order also appears to recur in the later eastern diptychs of Areobindus (9).657 But there is also evidence against the leftside ‘rule’, notably the missorium of Theodosius (Pl. 23), a western work from roughly the same period as the western diptychs under discussion.658 In this image the senior heir to the empire, holding the sceptre and the orb in sign of his future rulership, is seated to the emperor’s right (left from the viewer’s perspective) whereas the junior Caesar is found on his left, more receded into the background to further emphasise his lower place in the hierarchy.659 The standpoint that the right side of any central or primary figure must be regarded as that of honour has been forwarded by Toynbee,660 Nussbaum,661 Balty,662 663 664 Wegner, and Engemann. The interpretations of these writers are mainly founded on conclusions drawn from Christian imagery and ritual, but it seems more than probable that the Christian practice of placing the highest-ranking secondary personage to the right of the central figure is derived from an imperial tradition and would thus also have affected the official imagery of consuls. With respect to the Halberstadt diptych specifically, Engemann has argued that when a composition includes two main figures, the highestranking of these is placed to the left from the viewer’s perspective, i.e. to the right from within the image, right being the highest-ranking side.665 This system clearly applies to the imperial registers in Halberstadt, the officials’ figures in Aspar, and to the emperor Theodosius (centre) and Valentinian II (right) on the north-west side of the Theodosian obelisk base in Constantinople.666

657 I have argued that the chlamydatus standing on the consul’s left in

Areobindus’ diptychs represents his nearest of kin (in the junior line); III.3.1. 658 Raeck 1992, 15f; Meischner 1996, 419. (Oddly Kiilerich does not notice—or choose to discuss—this important aspect of the missorium’s imagery; Kiilerich 1993, 19-24.) 659 Compare the interpretation of this image presented by Raeck; Raeck 1992, 15-22. 660 Toynbee 1953, 273. 661 Nussbaum 1962. 662 Balty 1982, 68f. 663 Wegner 1994. 664 Engemann 1982; Engemann 1986 (includes a critical discussion of the issue); Engemann 1998, 125-129. 665 Engemann 1998, 126-129 (however, he also justly underlines that there are always exceptions to these kinds of rules, pp. 95-98). 666 Balty 1982, 68; also e.g. Kiilerich 1993, 38f, 314 f, Fig. 10 a-b.

120

Concluding discussion: From a general point of view, I would suggest firstly that there is little foundation for the opinion that the left side always indicates precedence within consular diptych imagery, and secondly that it remains unclear what may ultimately be meant by left and right: left or right of whom, from whose perspective? The concept of left or right as a distinguishing factor within consular imagery appears to be founded on the presumption that the consul always crowns the hierarchy, whether represented alone or accompanied by other figures. Within the preserved corpus there are indeed few images that may be interpreted in this way; only the diptychs of Astyrius (4) and Areobindus place the consul alone on top of the hierarchy. As a general rule there are hierarchically determined factors, often several in one and the same image, that make it more or less impossible to detect any left-right distinction. This particularly applies to those images where there are imperial/regal figures included in an upper register (thus Halberstadt, Clementinus, Anastasius (11) , Anthemius (Pl. 15) and Orestes), and/or where there is more than one central figure (upper registers of Halberstadt, Aspar’s missorium). In Halberstadt there are apparently different rules at work for defining the hierarchical relationships between emperors, between city goddesses and emperors, between emperors and princess, and between the honorand and each of the former. The senior emperor is placed on the right and ‘highestranking’ side of the junior emperor, whereas the junior emperor is seated on the left, ‘honorary’ (?) side of the senior emperor. The princess is placed in the centre, her lower rank vis-à-vis the emperors being indicated by her receded and half-screened position, whilst her key role in relation to the consul (who takes up the corresponding central position in the register below) is reflected by her very placement in the top-centre of the panel.667 The city goddesses are seated beside their respective emperor, the status of their positions being determined by the respective emperor’s status; at the same time their divinity (signalled by their nimbi) sets them above the emperors’ rank. In Aspar’s missorium each register is treated as an independent unit with an internal order: the senior magistrate to the centre-left, the junior magistrate and the consul’s son to the centre-right (to the senior’s left), the goddess of the western empire and consulate to the consul’s right, and the eastern goddess with secondary relevance to the honorand’s consulate placed further away to his left.668 In the register above the main figures, the imago of the nearest of kin, the consul’s father, is placed to the consul’s right (left from the viewer’s perspective), whereas the imago of the father-in-law is placed to his left,669 something which suggests that closeness of kin is ranked higher than seniority in age.670 667 See III.3.4. 668 Ardabur iunior’s praetorship was apparently held in Rome, or at least

this is what Delbrueck assumed; Delbrueck 1929, 156. 669 Ardabur cos. 427, Plintha cos 419; e.g. Bagnall, Cameron, Schwartz & Worp 1987, 372f. 670 Compare the placement of the junior and senior attendants in the Lampadiorum panel; see III.2.2.2, 3.1 and 3.5.

The composition is then clearly right-oriented: primary official-goddess-maius to the right, secondary officialgoddess-maius to the left. The consular image of Aspar in its entirety is then ‘read’ from left to right, the hierarchically superior side corresponding to the left half of the image. The same pattern is witnessed in the upper registers of the Halberstadt diptych and Theodosius’ missorium, but not—as far as may be judged—in the central registers of Halberstadt. Turning to the Basilius diptych, Roma stands on the consul’s left, but since the consul does not take a central position in the image, he and Roma appear as equal; the impression of equality is further strengthened by their equal stature and Roma’s friendly embrace. Who takes the highestranking place in this image? On the one hand, the right side (from within the image) is, as noted, commonly reserved for the highest-ranking figure (compare the upper registers of Halberstadt), which would be the consul here. But may it not be possible that Basilius, the goddess’s appointee, is placed on her ‘honorary side’ rather than taking the place of honour himself (compare the imperial hierarchy on the missorium of Theodosius)? And who takes the first position in the right panel of Basilius’ diptych, where Victoria and the eagle take up the centre and the honorand’s imago clipeata is placed to the right, i.e. on the goddess’s left side? The extraordinary prominence accorded the ancient deities in this work would seem to render the question of status-related placement less meaningful. Two different systems for figure placement are witnessed in the upper registers of the eastern diptychs and Orestes: a left-right-oriented system for images showing the imperial/regal couple flanking a central cross (Clementinus, Orestes), and a clockwise system for images composed according to a pyramidal pattern (Anastasius, Anthemius). The former scheme places the male sovereign to the left and the female to the right after the pattern witnessed in e.g. Halberstadt—or so it appears, because the cross in the centre could be understood as the holder of the highest-ranking position just like Christ’s imago in the upper registers of Iustinus’ diptych (Pl. 16). Irrespective of whether the order between male and female sovereigns depended on Christ/the cross or not (there is no way of being certain), one can assume that the male sovereign ranks higher than the female, also in the case of Orestes.671 In Anastasius’ and Anthemius’ diptychs, the living emperor’s image in the top-centre is flanked to its lower left by the image of the (deceased?) empress and to its lower right by a former consul and nephew (Anastasius) or a late emperor (Anthemius). In both cases the empress must be recognised as first in rank after the emperor, 671 The queen Amalasuntha was the guardian of Athalaric, the real holder

of the western throne, wherefore his lack of the royal cap (like the diadem a primary insignium) must be ascribed to his minority; see Delbrueck 1929, 149; also Demandt 1989, 305. An identical scheme is found in a 6th-century encaustic icon of St. Peter from a monastery in Mount Sinai (origin unknown) showing the youthful imago clipeata of a male saint (John?) to the left and the imago of the elder Mary to the right of Christ’s imago (centre); Elsner 1998, 258 Fig. 163. Should this composition mean that the male saint ranks higher than the mother of Christ, or may the arrangement simply be understood as having been inspired by the consular imagery of the Anastasian and Justinianic periods?

121

thus making the emperor’s right side from the viewer’s perspective that of honour. If any conclusion about status-related placement may be drawn from the consular images, it must be that the right side of the primary figure (consul, emperor) viewed from within the image most often indicates a higher status than the left, but that there can have been no absolute rule that regulated these relationships either in the west or the east. The greatest uncertainties are connected with those images where the central figure is flanked by two attendants whose inner hierarchy is not made apparent by some additional indicator (size, proximity to the central figure etc.). This indeed applies to most of the main registers in the corpus: Lampadiorum, Halberstadt, Astyrius, Bourges (5), Clementinus, Magnus, Orestes, and Basilius. In most of the images where the primary figure shares the centre with another, on the other hand, the highest-ranking personage is positioned to the right of the other, i.e. to the left as seen from the viewer: the imperial registers in Halberstadt, Clementinus and Orestes, the central and upper registers in Aspar’s missorium. If the central figures are also accompanied by city goddesses, the positions and statuses of these reflect those of the figure they ‘belong’ to; thus Roma ranks higher than Constantinopolis in the Halberstadt diptych (a relationship that is additionally marked by their differentiated statures, in their turn conforming to those of their respective emperors). In the eastern diptychs there is a decisive tendency towards fusing identities and levelling hierarchical distinctions between attendant figures, whether men or goddesses. This eastern tendency may ultimately derive from an absolutely symmetrical way of conceptualising the consular image: just as there is no ‘front’ and ‘back’ image or a centralsymmetrical arrangement between panels, there is no clear hierarchic differentiation between left and right within the images themselves.

3.6. The figures of the lower registers As the various motifs found in the lower pictorial registers of the consular diptychs will receive full treatments in the following chapter,672 I will here limit myself to presenting some general notes concerning the figures as such. There are two basic categories of lower-register figures: male contestants in the circus or amphitheatre, and a pair of children emptying coin-sacks; variants of the former include theatrical, musical and acrobatic performers, and Amazonian figures leading horses in procession (Anastasius (11)). All of these figures are participants in consular New Year celebrations, real and/or symbolic. Entirely different figurescenes are found in the western diptychs of Halberstadt (2) (conquered barbarians) and Basilius (8) (togatus with attendant), none of which relate to consulship as such but to

672 III.4.

the respective honorand’s personal achievements or career prior to their consular appointment.673 Figures that are part of games-scenes are nearly always highly reduced in size in relation to the consul—the Bourges diptych (5) presents a sole exception to this—and they usually come in groups of five or more. Counting the audience framing the arena in the diptychs of Areobindus (9) and Anastasius the numbers may rise to fifteen, and with the animals to over twenty: they literally crowd a pictorial field that is usually allowed to take up little more than one third of the panels. Although fewer in number and larger in size, the barbarian figures in Halberstadt also ‘crowd’ the lower registers, whereas it is not so much the children as the quantities of gifts they bring that fill the space in the diptychs of Clementinus (10), Magnus (12) and Orestes (7). Common to all lower register figures is their involvement in direct action of some sort, moving or turning freely in different directions, relating to and/or communicating with other figures around them. They are focussed on each other or on the action at hand, unaware of and not seldom turning their backs on the viewer—as opposed to the consuls (with attendants) in the registers above them, who are hieratically and self-consciously posing before the viewer. There is a considerable variety in the lower-register figures’ gestures and poses in comparison with the limited and formalised range performed by the consuls and their attendants. More significantly, most of these gestures and poses are expressive of states of mind—emotions, reactions, impulses—which reflect the situations in which they find themselves: concentration, forcefulness, will-power and excitement in the drivers of the quadrigae in Lampadiorum (1) and the venatores in Bourges, Areobindus and Anastasius; daring, skill, resourcefulness or fear in the animal acrobats in Anastasius; hilarity in the victors in Areobindus B; smiling happiness in the sack-carrying boys in Clementinus, Orestes and Magnus. And in Halberstadt, a unique spectrum of states of mind ranging from the resignation, humility and depression of the defeated male barbarians, across the brave determination and tenderness of the women, to the needy yearning of the children. Like the imperial trio in the upper registers, these barbarian figures constitute families, but there is a world of difference in how the respective members relate to each other. The imperial family cannot be said to relate to each other at all other than through their positions, and those are determined by rigid etiquette; there is no communication between individuals by either look or gesture, but each presents a self-contained icon, posing and unseeing. The very contrary characterises the barbarian families, who are informally and irregularly placed in organically connected groups, physically interacting and mentally close, completely unaware of the viewer. They present a drastic contrast to the hieratically posing officials immediately above them.674 All figures of the lower registers are placed or move on a ground-line, often within a specific and sometimes even a recogniseable setting designated for the activities they

perform: the circus, amphitheatre or theatre in Rome or Constantinople. In this they differ from the physically and spatially indeterminate setting in which the consuls are viewed, and even more from the superior and sometimes entirely abstract sphere where the imperial personages are found. To the spatial aspect may occasionally also be added that of temporality. This specifically concerns the gamesscenes in Bourges, Areobindus and Anastasius, where different stages in a venatio (ongoing fight-conclusion of fight/victory) or different editiones in the sequence of the spectacles are represented. Animals constitute a figure category in their own right. This specifically applies to the wild and exotic beasts that are part of venationes and acrobatic animal fights, which are mostly rendered as individuals both as to species and to behaviour, whereas the horses in the quadrigae-race follow a standard pattern allowing of little variation and individuality. Although the venatio-beasts have a great fierceness in common—indicated by their emphasised open jaws and huge, sharp teeth—it may be noted that they very rarely pose real threats to their human opponents; only in two cases675 does an animal come into close contact with a man. The pattern is that the animals are either vainly trying to get at their opponents or they are defeated and killed. Apart from the inadequacies as fighters, their inferiority is also indicated by a reduction in size vis-à-vis the men. This approach is most clearly illustrated in the diptychs of Bourges and Areobindus A-B. Concluding discussion: Besides the general characteristics shared by the figures of the lower pictorial registers (small scale, variation in movement, gestures and expressions), they are part of a limited range of scenic categories from which only that in the Halberstadt diptych deviates. They are scenes illustrating or symbolising676 one or other of the consul’s acts towards the public on entering office, his munera. The figures of the lower-register scenes are actors in physical contexts ‘on ground level’, representing the material side of consulship. They also represent the most public—and popular—aspect of consulship. The contestants and sackemptying children are the consul’s ‘gifts’ to the people of Rome and Constantinople; the people, the recipient of these gifts, is actually also represented in two diptych series (Areobindus and Anastasius). The performers in the various spectacles naturally belong to the lower strata of society, being slaves or little above it (actors/actresses and the like).677 The conquered barbarians in Halberstadt belong in the lowest sphere of all, doomed to slavery, exile or death. The status of the lower-register figures is reflected in their placement within the consular image: just as the emperors are placed above the consul, so the common people—venatores, 675 Areobindus A (left panel) and Anastasius A (right panel). 676 On the symbolic aspect of the lower register scenes in the diptychs of

Clementinus, Magnus and Orestes, see III.4, also IV.4. 677 Delbrueck suggested that the sack-carrying boys in Clementinus, Magnus and Orestes be recognised as slave boys; Delbrueck 1929, 120, 137, also 153 (N 34, Iustinus). Compare III.4.2 below.

673 Compare III.3.2 and 3.3. 674 See further III.5.4.

122

actors, musicians, barbarians, animals, and also the spectators visiting the games (Areobindus, Anastasius)—are placed below him on the hierarchical scale. Unlike the detached and hieratically posing consul, his official or divine attendants, and the imperial rulers, these ‘lowly’ beings are allowed and expected to behave in accordance with their human or animal nature—move around, act, react, express feelings—but within a confined context, and according to recogniseable and prescribed patterns. They ultimately all have the same function to fill: rendering glory to the consul.

4. MOTIFS AND SCENES RELATED TO THE CONSULAR MUNERA In this chapter, motifs and scenes that refer to the consul’s obligations as provider of public spectacles and material gifts (munera) will be treated. Such are found in most western diptychs and in all eastern.678 For further discussions of whether the consul’s figure may be understood as actually and physically presiding over these scenes—an issue that has been touched upon briefly in connection with poses and gestures and the mappa circensis679 —I refer to Chapter III.7 and Part IV respectively.680

4.1. Games There are some distinctions between west and east in how the consular games are represented. Firstly, the representation of chariot-races with quadrigae was apparently more popular in the west than in the east: two of the three western diptychs feature a chariot-race, Lampadiorum (1) and Basilius (8). Both these diptychs were created and issued in Rome by individuals belonging to prominent Roman-aristocratic houses. The third western diptych showing a games-scene, Bourges (5), features a venatio, and was almost certainly created for a consul taking office outside of Rome.681 However, venationes are represented in a couple of official diptychs (i.e. not consular) attributed to Rome and the period around 400, the Liverpool venatio panel (Pl. 18) and the ‘Kaiserpriester’ diptych in Paris (Pl. 19),682 a circumstance that could possibly suggest that the preserved Roman specimens are not statistically representative of the original amount of diptychs issued by western consuls. Chariot-races are not represented in any eastern diptych, and this (apparently) despite the fact that chariot-races were performed as part of the consular games in

Constantinople as well as in Rome, and enjoyed great popularity as a sport in general.683 As will be discussed presently, the circus race and the venatio do not only constitute different games’ categories but they can also be linked to different symbolic concepts; a distinction that may prove relevant when attempting to account for the apparently different preferences of western and eastern consuls. Secondly, the formal way in which the western gamesscenes have been handled differs on some important points from that of the eastern representations. In Lampadiorum and Bourges the games take up half or more of the pictorial space, the scale differentiation between the consul/attendants and the charioteers/venatores is not so pronounced, and there are fewer figures included. In the much later diptych of Basilius, on the contrary, the racing scene has been radically reduced spatially and scale-wise. On a superficial level it resembles those of the eastern diptychs, but the degree of reduction is much greater and would perhaps primarily be ascribed to its combination with a full-figure type of composition. The eastern games-scenes have been allowed more pictorial space than in Basilius’ diptych but less than in the other western diptychs—roughly one third in Anastasius (11) and nearly one half in Areobindus ( 9 ) , and the considerable differentiation in scale between the consul and the figures in the arena is also homogeneously rendered between all diptychs. As a group the eastern games-scenes thus present a common type. Thirdly, spectators are not included in any western gamesscene, including those of the non-consular Liverpool venatio and ‘Kaiserpriester’ ivories, whereas they occur in the diptychs of some eastern consuls: Areobindus and Anastasius (right panels), and possibly once also Anthemius (Pl. 15) whose diptych(s) evidently resembled the Anastasian series closely. The spectators’ inclusion visually expands the arena, enforcing the viewer’s impression of complexity and monumentality. Fourthly, the treatment of motifs referring to prize differs distinctly beween western and eastern representations. Whereas the eastern venatores are surrounded by plates, bowls, tablets and palm-leaves (palmae), the only reference to such rewards found within a western diptych is the single palm-leaf found beside the victorius venator in the left panel of the Bourges diptych. The venatio-scenes in the Liverpool and ‘Kaiserpriester’ ivories do not feature prize objects at all, something which seems to suggest that prize objects were regarded as a motif category which primarily or exclusively belonged in scenes representing actual victory, i.e. not in scenes representing on-going fights and races.684 It thus 683 In both Rome and Constantinople the consular games opened with a

678 For a compilation of games-types and the sequence in which they were

given, see Delbrueck 1929, 68-70 (pages include relevant references). 679 III.1.3 and 2.2.2. 680 III.7.2-3, IV.1. 681 See III.2.1.1 and 2.1.4. 682 (Delbrueck 1929, N 57; Volbach 1976, Nr. 58). For the attribution and dating of the Liverpool venatio panel, see also Wessel 1953; and Gibson 1994, 17f.

123

horse-race; e.g. A.D.E. Cameron 1976, 216-218; and McCormick 1986, 9294 esp. 684 As for the racing-scenes specifically, other evidence may be cited that confirm the plausibility of this conclusion. The on-going race represented in the 2nd c. Foligno relief (e.g. Bianchi Bandinelli 1969, 290 Fig. 324 and 325) does not comprise any references to prizes, palm-leaves or the like, whereas the concluded races in the rougly contemporary Ostia relief (e.g. Elsner 1998, 37 Fig.14) and the 4th c. circus mosaic in Piazza Armerina, Sicily (e.g. Elsner 1998, 101 Fig. 67) both include a palm-leaf. The Ostia relief appears to depict the winning equipage driving unaccompanied by the

seems that the incorporation of prize objects, particularly plate, is peculiar to eastern consular imagery.685 The possible significances of this circumstance will be discussed in the section dedicated to victory in the arena.686 In the Lampadiorum panel, where the games-scene has received most pictorial space, the most thorough attention has also been given to detail. It seems that everything must be recognised for what it is in reality: the charioteers’ costumes and equipment, the horses’ harnesses and brand-marks,687 the characteristic features of the circus in which the race takes place—an obelisk inscribed with hieroglyphs placed in the centre of the spina, the tri-conic metae at its ends, the groups of captured barbarians in between, the rippling water filling the euripus, all of which are attributable to the Circus Maximus in Rome.688 The scene is taken down as it were at the concluding moment of the race, when the winning equipage passes the finishing-line in front of the tribunal editoris,689 the victorious charioteer straightening his back and turning to face the presiding officials; the competitors behind him on the track are still intent on the race, leaning forward over the horses’ backs,690 one of them turning round to estimate the distance to the next competitor. The number of four equipages corresponds to the four teams or factions traditionally competing in the Circus Maximus (Blues, Greens, Reds and Whites).691 The movement and speed of the race have been visualised by means of diagonals and variations in bodily poses, dramatically contrasting with the rectilinear and frontal scheme of the magisterial scene above. The creator of the Lampadiorum panel has clearly striven towards the highest possible degree of representability and truthfulness when carving this circus scene. The other diptych featuring a chariot-race, that of Basilius, was created almost 150 years later than Lampadiorum, but the general scheme is the same: four quadrigae race around a spina, their movement and speed indicated by the stretchedothers around the arena, a team fellow of the winner having ascended the chariot to hold the leaf for him, and the Piazza Armerina mosaic shows the winning horses decorated with laurel-leaves walking in a slowed-down trot to meet the prize-giving official. Compare also the representations of victorious charioteers reproduced in Dunbabin 1982. 685 Western evidence supporting this conclusion is presented in the previous note. 686 III.5.3. 687 The brand-marks on the horses’ rumps could be stable-marks, but in this case perhaps more likely owners’ signs; Toynbee 1948; Dunbabin 1982, 83. 688 See further III.7.1. 689 On the placement of the presiding magistrates’ tribunal was actually placed in the Circus Maximus, see Humphrey 1986, 82-89; and III.7.2.1. 690 A similar pattern is also witnessed in a circus relief in the Vatican in which the winning charioteer straightens his back, facing and hailing the presiding magistrate in the tribunal above, whilst the equipages behind him on the track are still intent on driving; reproduced in Salomonson 1956, Fig. 22. 691 A system that was also adopted in the Hippodrome of Constantinople; see e.g. A.D.E. Cameron 1976; Dunbabin 1982, 65, 71; Lyle 1984, 834f, 838-841. For an artistic illustration of the four teams with their respective colours, see notably the mid-fourth century opus sectile panel from the basilica of Iunius Bassus in Rome representing a consul in a biga accompanied by four horsemen; Bianchi Bandinelli 1970, Fig. 88-89.

124

out legs of the horses and the forward-leaning bodies of the drivers. The spatial limitation has reduced the possibilities for depicting more specific details, but one thing cannot automatically be ascribed to these imposed limitations: whereas the tri-conic metae are in place on the spina, an obelisk—a type of monument characteristic of both capitals’ arenas—is missing. As regards locale, this representation may just as well refer to the Hippodrome in Constantinople as the Circus Maximus in Rome.692 And as for the race itself, the repetitive pattern of equipages indicates an endless circulation that, unlike all other games-scenes in the corpus (including races, venationes, acrobatic performances etc.), is characterised by suspension rather than action; the viewer is not invited to enjoy the scene as a truthful representation of a real race at the circus in Rome or Constantinople (where Basilius would have given his inaugural games) but merely to recognise the concept. The games-scenes in the Bourges diptych display some unique characteristics which distinguish it from all other preserved venatio-representations. Taking up exactly one half of each panel, the hunting scenes are also represented in the same scale as the magisterial scenes above, the venatores actually being of the same stature as the consul himself. There is only one venator in each panel, so that the focus is on the close fight between beasts and man rather than on the competition between contestants; the differences in costumes and their decoration between the panels’ figures could however suggest that they belong to opposing teams. The close-up aspect of the Bourges scenes is further emphasised by the lack of any reference to place or locale. Each of the two men single-handedly fights and vanquishes five animals, a kind of bravura that is not witnessed in any other consular diptych. Another peculiarity concerns the (possibly) temporal aspect or development of the scenes, one panel showing an ongoing fight and the other a venator relaxing after having killed an animal, raising his right hand in a gesture of victory. That the latter figure may be understood as a victor, and the scene consequently as some kind of conclusion,693 is further suggested by the palm-leaf, emblem of victory in the arena,694 suspended in space to the right of his head. The more homogeneous eastern diptychs featuring gamesscenes are composed according to roughly the same pattern, viz. in a fold-out perspective of two or three ‘registers’ which seem to rotate from a point in the centre of the field. The scenes that feature animal fights are framed by a semicircular parapet around the upper edge, and a number of portae 692 See further III.7.1. 693 As a comparative example, a temporal distinction between ongoing

fight and victory seems also to be indicated in a diptych in St Petersburg (Italy, 1st half of the 5th c.) showing venationes with lions; Delbrueck 1929, N 60, Taf. 60; Wessel 1948/49, 151-153 and Abb. 13; Volbach 1976, Nr. 60, Taf. 32. In this work the panels are clearly to be ‘read’ as a bookpage from upper left to lower right: the initial scene shows a v e n a t o r encountering a raging lion, the middle scenes show animals being conquered by their human opponents, but still alive, and the final scene shows a venator raising his right hand in a gesture of victory over an animal whom he has just speared to death. 694 See further III.5.3 below.

posticae to the sides: both standard features of amphitheatres. The groups of spectators that complement the scenes contribute to the impression of a building filled to the brim. The games categories represented in the east are chiefly animal fights, either the violent venatio where the focus is on hunting down and killing the animals with spears, or the apparently less violent (but very likely more dangerous for the human fighters695 ) acrobatic variety, where the animals are teased and evaded with the help of various apparatus and tricks. Both scenic types are found in the diptychs of Areobindus, whereas only the acrobatic variety has been represented in the Anastasius series. The artists have striven towards the highest possible diversity and liveliness when representing these fighting scenes: diversity in animal species (the wider range the better),696 in poses and directions of movement in both men and animals, in types of costume and apparatus. The costumes of the contestants have also been provided with clearly visible insets (squares in Areobindus, roundels in Anastasius) which would doubtless originally have been coloured to indicate teams. In the acrobatic fighting-scenes a vortex-like structure dominates the composition, effectively creating an impression of violent action and high excitement. The diptychs of Anastasius show other types of spectacles beside animal hunts: theatrical performances (ludi theatrales, ludi scaenici) (Greek tragedy, comedy and pantomime), various acrobatic and musical performances.697 All these activities belong to the standard programme of the consular games.698 They have been depicted in the lower of two pictorial levels, always in constellations of two scenic compartments (i.e. two types of spectacles) and framed by architectural motifs that provide a physical setting—perhaps a scaenae frons. As in the case of animal fights, these scenes clearly aim at presenting a spectrum as broad and vivid as possible of the consular editiones, the multitude of 695 The notion that the acrobatic games variants were unbloody from at

least the 5th century onward, forwarded by for instance Toynbee and Chastagnol (Toynbee 1948, 39; Chastagnol 1966, 62), is gainsaid by archaeological, literary and iconographical evidence from both Rome and Constantinople, dating well into the 6th century; for a relevant discussion, see Rea 2001:1, 235-241. It appears that the animals who were teased in the acrobatic fights were later slaughtered in venationes (Nov. 105 (from the year 538)), and men would almost certainly have lost their lives in both types of fight. There is however also evidence of staged spectacles with tamed and trained animals; a number of late Roman mosaics presenting names of wild beasts (bears, boars, leopards etc.) show that individual animals were named and considered as celebrities in their own right, just like the men who fought them in the arena, and would thus probably have taken part in successive games; see Toynbee 1948, 29, 39, Pl. X Fig. 30. The diptychs of Bourges, Areobindus and Anastasius, and the already cited non-consular 5th c. Liverpool venatio, St Petersburg venatio and ‘Kaiserpriester’ diptychs, in my view clearly demonstrate that violence and death were living phenomena of the arena in the period covered by the consular diptychs, and that bloody fights were by no means fastidious to Christian consuls in the 6th century. (On the Christian affiliation of some 6th c. consuls as announced through their consular diptychs, see III.6.1.) 696 On the varieties of wild species and their origin, see notably Rea 2001:2. 697 See II.11 A-D. 698 Nov. 105; Delbrueck 1929, 67 with n. 235 and 237; and Ward-Perkins 1984, 113f.

125

performers, arts and skills to be appreciated by the public over a period of several days and in different locales. The focus is on the breadth and complexity of the games; in space, in time, in diversity, in excitement, and in monumentality. Even more than Areobindus, and far more than the western consuls whose diptychs have been preserved, Anastasius has wanted to demonstrate to the viewer his superior capability as provider of public munificence. The confronted Amazonian figures leading festively attired horses featured in the right panels of Anastasius’ diptychs were linked by Delbrueck directly to the games.699 He suggested they be interpreted as a vanguard heading the procession of charioteers or victors in the arena, in which latter case the horses would be recognised as the winning team, and that the tabulae carried on poles contained written or pictorial announcements for the benefit of the spectators.700 At the same time Delbrueck found himself unable to account for the Amazonian costumes worn by these figures, and the architecture surrounding them was only vaguely referred to as ‘the place where such a procession would have been performed’. A second interpretation has been offered by Lafontaine-Dosogne,701 who proposes that the Amazonian figures ‘without doubt’ represent the two principal factions of the Hippodrome, the Blues and the Greens. This suggestion has the advantage of introducing a reference to the chariot-races, a games category which is not represented in the eastern diptychs, but it fails to account for the figures’ Amazonian appearance as well as the crossinscribed tabulae they carry.702 Although the interpretation offered by Delbrueck must necessarily be tentative, I still find it the most plausible one. However, what remains unclear is why such processions—supposing they represent a procession with winning horses—would be juxtaposed to scenes that feature neither chariot-races nor animal fights, and furthermore why such a procession would substitute for the races themselves. The Amazonian outfits of the women would, I think, rather suggest that we have to do with a symbolic scene. Such a conclusion also appears to be supported by the very emblematic character of the composition, which differs fundamentally from the rest of the lower-register scenes. But a symbolic scene of this nature could very well have been enacted within the context of the consular games. Amazons as a concept are traditionally linked to the (mythic) sphere of war, and in a number of consular images Amazonian characteristics have been introduced to signify the warlike qualities of Roma, Constantinopolis, and Victoria herself. Based upon these considerations I choose to treat the Amazonian figure-groups under another heading, ‘Victory in the arena’.703 699 Delbrueck 1929, 75, 125. 700 ‘[…] erklärende Aufschriften oder Darstellungen […] sonst bei

feierlichen Akten gewöhnlich’; Delbrueck 1929, 75, n. 279. 701 Lafontaine-Dosogne 1980/81, 6. 702 The latter of which the author identifies as labara, i.e. Christian military insignia/victory signs; Lafontaine-Dosogne 1980/81, 6. 703 III.5.3.

Concluding discussion: The distinction between western and eastern games-scenes may, like so many other motif categories within the imagery of the consular diptychs, be described as one between heterogeneity (west) and homogeneity (east). It has often been said that the eastern consuls of the 6th century had their diptychs adorned with scenes taken from their consular games more frequently than their western colleagues. And it is true that more eastern diptychs than western ones featuring games-scenes have been preserved. But at the same time the higher number of eastern specimens belong to a lesser number of commissioners (two against three from the west).704 What may however firmly be concluded is that the eastern games-scenes are created in series according to a common pattern or prototype, the very standardisation of which indicates that such images were produced in large quantities. Although the preserved western material does not display any like standardisation, this cannot automatically mean that it never existed in any shorter period of time. For instance, there are some considerable formal, technical and stylistic affinities between the Lampadiorum and the Liverpool venatio panels that are very likely attributable to the same period (c. 400), production centre, and perhaps workshop.705 There is no reason to believe that these works would have differed much from other consular and official diptychs of their time and place. Even if the standardisation of games representations into a limited set of types appears to have been both more highly developed and more persistent in the 6th-century east than previously (covering both the Anastasian and the Justinianic periods), there is no real foundation for the assumption that gamesrelated scenes were originally more common in eastern diptychs than in western. That the games presented a highly efficient vehicle for self-advertisement need not have been more appreciated by eastern than by western consuls.706 What fundamentally distinguishes the eastern games-scenes from their western counterparts is that they aim at including as much of the consular spectacles as possible, and as much action as possible. Whereas the western scenes are formally ordered and regular, with clear ground-lines, a limited number of figures and distinct figure-groups and few focal-points, the eastern scenes are the very reverse: as many and as various figures as possible fill the space of the arena, tumbling about each other on various intersecting planes and from several perspective angles, in an unlimited number of bodily poses, movements and directions, and without being ordered into groups. As much as possible must be squeezed into the limited pictorial space allotted, as much diversity of action as possible be depicted. It is a striving at monumentality with very restricted means. Even if the games-scenes are subordinated to the main theme of ceremonial consulship, as represented in the main register,707 they are still of such 704 Discounting Anthemius and Astyrius respectively. 705 E.g. Wessel 1953, 63-71; and Gibson 1994, 17f. 706 See e.g. Chastagnol 1966, 52-56, 60f; Bagnall, Cameron, Schwartz &

Worp 1987, 7-9; and Näf 1995, 283-285 esp. 707 See III.3.6.

126

importance that they must be represented with the utmost attention to graphic detail. The games are not only depicted, they are evidently visualised by enthusiastic connoisseurs of the games: the fighting techniques, skill and fearlessness of the animal fighters; the multitudes, varieties and ferocity of the animals; climaxes of action; the amount and types of prize objects showering over the arena. The tumult, excitement and vastness of the action has to be represented; the viewer has to be drawn into the image, become a spectator too. The only western diptych that may claim to embrace such ambitions is the Lampadiorum panel, but still its regular rows of horses and the clear direction of their movement along the track express order and harmonious synchronisation of action rather than tumult. The even flow of the four teams thus seems less intended to call forth the spectator’s excitement than the games-scenes in the eastern diptychs. The cyclic movement is evidently what best represented the circus race in the eyes of western commissioners.708 The inclusion of spectators, i.e. of the public for whose benefit the games were given, only occurs in eastern consular images. That the representation of the figure category would have been limited to the 6th century is however unlikely, since it is also found within the imperial monumental art already in the late 4th century, as exemplified by the Theodosian obelisk base in the Hippodrome in Constantinople.709 In this case the audience is of course simultaneously to be recognised as the emperor’s subjects, crowding hieratically in two regular rows below the sovereign with entourage. This monument, placed conspicuously in line with the kathisma, would surely have constituted a model for the Constantinopolitan artists who were commissioned to produce official works commemorating consuls and their games.710 That a quintessentially imperial image should constitute a prototype is at once natural and of peculiar interest, since it is actually only in diptychs issued by consuls related by family to the emperor that games-scenes accompanied by spectators occur.711 It is more than likely that Areobindus and Anastasius, who were both connected with the emperor who appointed them, wished to emulate the imperial ‘circus iconography’ after the Theodosian model, not only for formal reasons but even more for the inherent power such imagery expresses.712 Like the emperor, these consuls desired to appear as men of superior privilege, not only as 708 The smooth and uninterrupted movement of equipages around the spina

also characterises other circus representations of the central-Italian tradition, such as the 2nd c. Ostia and Foligno tomb reliefs; e.g. Bianchi Bandinelli 1969, 296 Fig. 292, 290 Fig. 324 and 325. 709 E.g. Kähler 1975, Taf. II-V; Kiilerich 1993, Fig. 6-12; and Lim 1999:2, 354 Fig. 17-18. 710 That the imperial obelisk base constituted an immediate model for the celebrated Constantinopolitan charioteer Porphyrios (among others) is demonstrated by the scenes on the bases of his own pair of commemorative monuments, which were erected on the spina of the Hippodrome about 500 AD; A.D.E. Cameron 1973, 8-20, Fig. 12-14; and Dunbabin 1982, Fig. 23. 711 Compare above, III.2.1.2 and 3.4. 712 See further the discussions of imitatio imperatoria in Part IV (1, 3 and 5).

recipients of the imperial favour but as exponents of the emperor’s power and partakers of his public image. The strong ‘hippodromian’ element peculiar to early Byzantine city culture, where the emperor constituted a central focus to his subjects gathered in the cavea and on the arena,713 would also provide an explanatory background for the incorporation of the public into these eastern diptychs. The absence of an audience in the western diptychs may not readily be explained, unless one chooses to ascribe it to chance. The western senatorial aristocracy of late antiquity (from which the majority of consuls were recruited714 ), it has often been stated, were more than ever protective of their right to seek the people’s favour by providing them with public entertainment.715 Still, judging by the preserved images including games-scenes from the west, the public was not considered a vital enough element to be represented in official diptychs.716 Whether this would reflect an attitude that the populace was not a suitable or relevant enough subject for commemorative imagery is a question that must be left unanswered. From what may be gathered by looking at western circus imagery at large (including sepulchral reliefs, and mosaics),717 spectators were not incorporated on a regular basis, not even in images which include the architecture of the arena.718 As it is, the western way of representing consular games commonly leaves out the immediate object of the consul’s official munificence, the people;719 the important thing here is to demonstrate to the viewer-recipient that the honorand has provided editiones in accordance with 713 Treitinger 1938, 169-172; McCormick 1986, 91-100; and Heucke 1994,

64-76, 216-248. 714 Barnish 1988. 715 A. Alföldi 1942/43, 45-47; Ville 1960, 301-335; Gabelmann 1978, 6265; also Paschoud 1967, 71-101 esp; A.D.E. Cameron 1998, 399-401 (arguing that the consuls issued their diptychs in commemoration of the games specifically); and Lim 1999:2, 351f. 716 Spectators are not included in any preserved western official diptych. 717 The 2nd c. Ostia and Foligno reliefs; e.g. Bianchi Bandinelli 1969, 263 Fig. 294, 290 Fig. 324 and 325. For a representative selection of mosaics, see Dunbabin 1982, Pl. 5-8, Fig. 1-2, 7, 13-18; also Lim 1999:2, 347-357 Fig. 8-11, 13, 20. It may be noted that the preserved representations of spectators nearly all derive from floor mosaics of villas and palaces, i.e. from what would be termed as ‘private’ contexts, and mostly from provincial regions (Sicilia, Africa, Hispania). 718 One notable exception is a relief fragment (Rome, date unsecure but likely 2nd-3rd c. AD), preserved through later engravings, depicting a games-scene in the Circus Maximus; Ronke 1987, (ii) 716 Nr. 148 and (iii) Abb. 155. The image, reproduced in two versions, presents the audience as a row of togate busts in a separate register above the circus-scene proper. Three things may be particularly noted about this image, however: 1) the audience apparently only consists of senators (who would in reality have been seated in the front row, immediately overlooking the arena; Humphrey 1986, 77 esp.); 2) like the praeses/editor ludorum—seen entering the arena from the right in the company of officials and extending a laurel-wreath towards the victorious charioteer—as well as the consuls in the consular diptychs, the spectators are larger than the charioteer(s) in the arena; and 3) very few indeed of them take heed of what happens in the arena, but instead talk vigorously amongst themselves as if attending a senate session rather than the races. 719 This despite the contemporary ideology—referred to in literary sources—of the public patron, be he emperor or official, as the securer of the people’s well-being and happiness; see notably Lim 1999:1, passim; and Lim 1999:2, passim.

127

time-honoured custom, and in order to satisfactorily convey this message there is no need to incorporate the third party, so to speak. Such a ‘consul-centred’ interpretation would also seem to be supported by those (western) images where only the material part of the consul’s munera (i.e. not its distribution) is represented: the diptych of Boethius (6) and the missorium of Ardabur Aspar (Pl. 22).720 To conclude, the different ways of representing consular games in the two halves of the Roman empire seem to reflect different approaches towards the subject-matter, its importance for the commemoration of consulship, and what aspects of the games are most representative of the over-all concept. The broad-scale and experience-oriented approach exemplified in the eastern representations would be interpreted as evidence of a specifically high appreciation of the games among consuls, artists and society at large—from the top to the bottom of the social scale. A like approach is not witnessed in the less complex and more orderly western representations. The western viewer is not primarily offered entertainment, nor is his admiration sought after, but he is officially informed, as it were, that the honorand has given games; particularly so in the case of Basilius, in whose diptych the circus-scene appears as no more than a reductive attribute to the consul. Something of a traditionalistic approach to the games could perhaps be detected in the fact that the circus-scenes (Lampadiorum, Basilius) take place in the most ancient and distinguished arenas of the empire, the Circus Maximus and/or the Constantinopolitan Hippodrome, where the chariot-races opened the first day of the consular games. The structure and nature of the chariot-race and the animalfight clearly differ from each other. Although both are fundamentally concerned with struggle and victory, these two aspects are far more evident in the animal fights (hunts and acrobatic fights), where violence, danger and death are in focus. The fighting-scenes, notably the eastern ones, are also the ones where victory has been most clearly illustrated: palm-leaves and prize objects fill the space between the contestants, in one case a victor is crowned with laurel,721 and the gesture of victory occurs with some frequency. In the symmetrical and evenly flowing racing-scenes the struggle is ordered and well-balanced, and victory appears as a subordinate aspect. The significances of these different ‘systems’ for illustrating the nature of the games will be further discussed in the section concerned with victory in the arena.722

720 See III.4.3 below. 721 Areobindus B; see further III.5.3 below. 722 III.5.3.

nothing in the images actually suggests that the scenes take place in that locale.

4.2. Consular gifts: sparsio and prize The lower register scenes in Clementinus (10), Orestes (7) and the bone replicas of Magnus (Pl. 13)723 have generally been interpreted either as representations of consular sparsiones, missilia or largitiones,724 i.e. the distribution of coin and other gift objects to the public in connection with the processus consularis and/or the pompa circensis, or as depicting the distribution of prizes in the arena.725 The latter interpretation appears to be based not so much on the scenic representations themselves as on the notion that the images in their entirety must a priori depict the consuls presiding at their games.726 The sparsio interpretation on the other hand rests on the view that the scenes in question may not automatically or exclusively be ascribed to the arena, since

723 A panel in the Victoria & Albert Museum in London may possibly have

featured a similar scene; Volbach 1976, Nr. 44 and 44 a, Taf. 24. 724 The terminology applied by different authors when referring to the consular gifts varies; sparsio, largitio and sportula all refer to consular gifts, and are not always distinguished from each other in the literature. Sparsio is the most common term, mainly referring to coin but sometimes evidently standing for other types of valuable objects as well; DarSag IV:2, 1418 s.v. ‘Sparsio’ (Ph. Fabia); Stern 1953, 155-157; Meslin 1970, 59-61; Berger 1981, 69f; Delmaire 1989:1, 58, 568-573; Bühl 1995, 102, 106, 141, 215f; Engemann 1998, 113. The term sparsio is occasionally exchanged for that of largitio or largesse (sometimes used simultaneously), a traditional denomination that would cover all expressions of public munificence: coin, luxury objects, prizes, games; Guilland 1954, 547f; A.D.E. Cameron 1982, 180f; Bagnall, Cameron, Schwartz & Worp 1987, 9; Delmaire 1989:1, 58, 568-572; also Malte Johansen 1994, 223f. The term largitio is used by Symmachus when referring to official gifts (comprising a gold-framed diptych) sent him by Eugenius; Symmachus, Ep. 2.81.2; also Engemann 1998, 119f. In late antiquity it seems, however, that the term largitio became primarily associated with the official munificence of the state, synonymous with the emperor’s munificence, the institution of a comitiva to administer the emperor’s ‘sacred largesse’ illustrating this development; Delmaire 1989:2, 265-267 esp. Delbrueck did not include largitio in his terminology, but referred to the distribution of coins as sparsio and the distribution of other valuable gifts (mainly plate) as missilia; Delbrueck 1929, 68-70. Other denominations include sportula (Delbrueck 1929, 68; Bowersock, Brown & Grabar 1999, 469) and dona calendarium (Painter 1990, 77). Whereas the sportula in late antiquity was synonymous with a certain sum in coin (initially in gold but after the legislation of 384 in silver; Cod.Theod. 15.1.9) offered to clients and colleagues in some sort of receptacle, originally a basket but later more precious objects such as silver bowls (Symmachus, Ep. 9.153 and 391; RE III A.2 (1929), 1883-1886 s.v. ‘Sportula’ (A. Hug); Delmaire 1989:1, 56f), the dona calendarium was an amount of coins ceremonially heaped in the imperial palace on January 1st as a gift to the state to be distributed among its representatives, viz. senators and officials (Corippus, Iust.Aug. 4.90-263), i.e. an official gift presented prior to the processus consularis, during which coins were distributed among the people. For simplicity’s sake, and because it is not always indicated in which context the coin and objects featured in the consular diptychs belong, I choose to apply the term sparsio when referring to coins and other valuable objects (plate), sportula to gifts in coin combined with some sort of receptacle, and prizes to both categories of objects when referable to the arena. 725 Notably Delbrueck 1929, 117f, 137, 149; followed by Volbach 1976, 35. Compare also e.g. Buckton, who argues that the consuls in these diptychs are represented as supervising the distribution of sparsio in the arena; Buckton 1994, 72. 726 Compare above III.1.3 and 2.2.2. Presumably the palm-leaves depicted in Clementinus and Magnus have contributed to the circus interpretation, but if so this is nowhere expressly stated.

128

The scenes in Clementinus and Orestes are formally and iconographically near-identical: a pair of confronted little children in short and sleeveless tunics and low boots, curlyhaired in the right panel and straight-haired in the left, empty bulging sacks of coin onto a ground already covered with thick layers of coin, plate and other objects—round and rectangular plate, some decorated with an 8-shaped sign that could indicate the sum 1,000.727 In the left panel of Clementinus is included a third object category, consisting of a pair of smallish and tube-shaped forms which could represent metal bars,728 and there are also a number of palmleaves interspersed among the objects. The scene takes place in front of an architectural unit consisting of two columns connected by an arch. Orestes differs from Clementinus only in the variety of objects on the ground, which includes neither palm-leaves nor bars. The three bone replicas of Magnus display a very similar scheme, particularly the St Petersburg panel (Pl. 13 b) in which the two children (here clearly boys and somewhat older than the other) perform the same task according to the same principle, but with the difference that the contents are directed into a couple of receptacles. Further, instead of being heaped on the ground, the numerous gift-objects accompanying the scene (round plates, rectangular tablets (plate, diptycha?), palm-leaves) fill the entire space surrounding the figures.729 As there is no architectural backdrop the objects appear to be weightlessly suspended in mid-air, lending the scene a surreal aspect. The clearly marked dividing-line between upper and lower registers strengthens the impression that the two scenes are independent entities, juxtaposed rather than interconnected. A close parallel to this composition is also found in the medallion diptych of Iustinus (Pl. 16). The receptacles into which coin is poured in Magnus must be recognised as caskets (scrinia). A similar object, although larger, plainer and cube-shaped, is represented in the Notitia Dignitatum, where it is included among the insignia of the comites sacrarum largitionum and rerum privatarum:730 the type has been identified with strongboxes (cistae, fiscae)731 for holding the funds (treasury) of the respective office-holder. A variant of the receptacles in the consular diptychs is also found on a gold medallion of Constantius II in Berlin,732 where a pseudo-conical container is placed together with other gift categories—torques, wreaths, palm-leaves etc.—in a compartment below the emperor driving a chariot and six accompanied by Victoriae (viz. in the capacity of 727 Compare e.g. the money bags in Boethius (6) and in the consular image

of Gallus in the Codex-calendar of 354 (Stern 1953, Pl. XV; Salzman 1990, Fig. 14). 728 Compare Delbrueck 1929, 120. 729 In Iustinus’ diptych (Pl. 16) these objects also include a ring-shaped variety most likely to be recognised as coronets. Compare Boethius. 730 For both east and west; see e.g. Seeck 1876, 35, 37, 148, 154 (nos. XIII, XIV, XI and XII); also Delbrueck 1929, 4 Abb. 1. 731 Berger 1981, 72f, Delmaire 1989:1, 156. 732 E.g. Delbrueck 1929, 69 Abb. 25.

triumphator). The introduction of a casket into a consular image does not automatically mean that it is to be identified as the insignium of an official, i.e. that the consul commemorated has held an office comprising the administration of state funds—neither Magnus nor Iustinus had held such offices prior to their consular appointment.733 Nor can it be claimed that a consular image featuring coincaskets must be unauthentic if its honorand has not held an office comprising economic responsibilities; the only diptych within the preserved corpus whose honorand has held such an office, Clementinus, does not feature caskets.734 The size, shape and ornamental appearance of these caskets (the squares and ellipses decorating them must represent jewel insets), all of which differ widely from the big wooden boxes in the Notitia, clearly suggest that they too are to be recognised as luxury objects and as such part of the consular gifts. Receptacles for coin were part of the sportula, i.e. a gift in coin presented in a precious container to colleagues, friends, clients etc. in connection with the entry into office.735 Thus, either the caskets belong to the recipients of consular sportulae or sparsiones, or their meaning is primarily symbolic and referring to the wider, ideal concept of material wealth and prosperity—the material replenishment of the Roman people for the new year. The same interpretation could apply to the other objects surrounding the sackemptying children, the types of which certainly correspond with the insignia of some officials listed in the Notitia but which may equally well have served as signs for material wealth and replenishment in general. The types and applications of the kinds of motifs found in the consular diptychs of Clementinus, Magnus, Orestes and Iustinus follow a standard prevalent in the 4th-6th centuries, which was clearly not exclusive to the representation of some officials’ insignia. The material munificence represented by means of such imagery included the sparsiones of both 733 As may be deduced from the tabula inscriptions of their diptychs. 734 On the one hand Bühl argues that the gift objects and caskets

represented in Clementinus’ diptych would refer to his previous title of comes sacrarum largitionum, among whose insignia they were included, thus automatically excluding the possibility that such motifs could be represented in diptychs issued by consuls who had not held a financial magistracy (Magnus and Orestes); Bühl 1995, 214f. But on the other hand, finding herself unable to explain the presence of the same object categories in the medallion diptych of Iustinus—whose authenticity there is no reason to doubt—in the same way, Bühl presents an alternative interpretation to them, viz that they should be related to Christ’s image in the upper register of the diptych, representing ‘die Freigebigkeit des Consuls unter dem Bilde Christi’; Bühl 1995, 216. An interpretation which acknowledges that the imagery of material largesse, including such object categories as caskets, could illustrate consular generosity without necessarily having to refer to a previously held financial office. Concering the symbolic connection between Christ’s image and the consul’s generosity, I think that the cross would serve equally well for its expression (Clementinus, Orestes). Still, I do not share Bühl’s view that consular generosity could not be represented in an official diptych unless ‘explained’ by something other than itself, i.e. without referring directly to a previous office or to the image of Christ, simply because munificence was an absolutely central ingredient of late antique consulship and as such a subject for iconographic formulation in its own right. 735 RE III A.2 (1929), 1883-1886 s.v. ‘Sportula’ (A. Hug); Delbrueck 1929, 68.

129

emperors and consuls,736 and coin and/or coin-sacks as a signifier of material wealth occasionally also accompany representations of city personifications, such as Roma and Constantinopolis in the Codex-calendar of 354.737 In the Codex-calendar image of Roma the symbolic significance of material riches is indicated not only by means of a coin-sack, but also through a winged eros holding an open coin-sack on his shoulder in a manner identical to that of the figures in the consular diptychs. Material riches in the form of gem-studded luxury objects are also suspended in the air beside the personification of Treberis (Trier) in the same work,738 symbolising the material wealth brought to the empire through the conquest of that region;739 the manner in which the objects are suspended is identical to that in the diptychs of Magnus and Iustinus. That any of these images should be directly or even indirectly connected with the distribution of prizes in the arena is naturally out of the question. On the other hand, the palm-leaves or fronds included in all consular images but Orestes would primarily refer to the games, i.e. represent prizes for victors in the arena.740 Within the context of official insignia, where they occur among those of the comites sacrarum largitionum and rerum privatarum,741 the palm-leaf would refer to the responsibility of these officials for overseeing the production of objects intended for distribution in imperial largitiones, including editiones.742 However, since the palm-leaves in the Notitia Dignitatum are evidently made of gold and silver, it is possible that they may have been used as luxury gifts to other categories of recipients than victors in the arena.743 The imagery of the lower-register scenes in Clementinus, Orestes and Magnus display some distinctive features that indicate a meaning beyond the official and ceremonial, and so does that of Iustinus’ medallion diptych. The emblematic character of the composition, and the decorative manner in which the objects surrounding the sack-carrying children are displayed tend towards the ideal rather than the actual. More 736 An image of imperial generosity, liberalitas/congiarium, is found on the

north side of the Arch of Constantine in Rome (Constantinian frieze); L’Orange & von Gerkan 1939, 89-102, Abb. 12, Taf. 5 b, 16, 17 and 22; De Maria 1988, Tav. 99.2. For examples of the emperor’s consular generosity, see the consular representations of the emperors Constantius II and Gallus in the Codex-calendar of 354 (Pl. 24), Boethius, the missorium of Ardabur Aspar (Pl. 22), and the consular diptych of Areobindus in Lucca depicting various motifs of abundance (Delbrueck 1929, N 15, Taf. 15; Volbach 1976, Nr. 14, Taf. 7). 737 Stern 1953, Pl. II.1 and Pl. III.1; Salzman 1990, Fig. 2 and 4. 738 Stern 1953, Pl. III.2; Salzman 1990, Fig. 5. 739 The theme of military conquest is further symbolised by the personification’s Amazonian aspect and weapons, the barbarian captive whom she suppresses with her right hand, and the weapons scattered around the feet of the latter. 740 Cf. Rumscheid’s interpretation of the ringshaped objects in Iustinus’ diptych as ‘Preiskronen’; Rumscheid 2000, 181. 741 Seeck 1876, 35, 37, 148, 154 (nos. XIII, XIV, XI and XII); Delbrueck 1929, 4 Abb. 1; also Berger 1981, 67-72. See further III.5.3 below. 742 Berger 1981, 68f. On the responsibility of the comes sacrarum largitionum for the capture and transport of animals for venationes in particular, see Rea 2001:2, 252. 743 Compare Berger 1981, 68; and Delmaire 1989:1, 57f.

importantly, the type of children—their age, pose, dress, activity—does not derive so much from nature as from art, where they have innumerable precursors. Delbrueck’s ‘realist’ interpretation that the children must be recognised as Germanic and African slave boys carrying forth prizes in the arena744 cannot of course be refuted by any evidence to the contrary, but one may express some doubt as to whether so small children, mere babies, were actually ever employed in the distribution of prizes in reality; Delbrueck himself did not refer to any source in this matter. And it is clear from comparative evidence that the sleeveless tunics worn by the children do not exclusively signify slave status.745 Looking beyond the specific towards the typical and generic, one immediately detects some unmistakable characteristics in these figures that link them to a Roman pictorial tradition of long standing, namely that of the eros (genius, putto). The eros is usually winged and naked—in signification of its transcendental nature—but far from always.746 Erotes are small and plump little children, often active in some toil symbolic of the good life, of bringing joys and ‘gifts’;747 a toil which they perform with a smile on their face, and with swift and light movements.748 They are the administrators of plenty and happiness, both in this world and the next, as demonstrated by their frequent presence in all types of Roman art: imperial, official, religious, decorative (private and official), and sepulchral.749 They do not occur 744 Delbrueck 1929, 69f, 120. 745 Short and sleeveless tunics, for instance, are also worn by the winged

erotes lifting the emperor’s imago in Anastasius A; see further III.5.1. 746 Within sepulchral imagery children and erotes/genii or putti basically present a common, viz. generic, type, winged or naked or neither; Stuveras 1969, 165-171. 747 For listings of the contexts in which the eros figure appears within antique art, see LIMC III.1 (1986), 850-942, s.v. ‘Eros’ (A. Hermary, H. Cassimatis & R. Vollkommer), 942-952 s.v. ‘Eros (in peripheria orientali)’ (Ch. Augé & P. Linant de Bellefond), 952-1049 s.v. ‘Eros/Amor, Cupido’ (N. Blanc & F. Gury). 748 Wine-making, harvesting (handling fruit-baskets, which is a speciality of seasonal erotes), house-working, assisting at feasts, playing musical instruments, writing etc., or ‘playing’ (chariot-racing, cavorting); see Cumont 1942, passim; Stuveras 1969, passim; Koch & Sichtermann 1982, Taf. 452-466 esp; LIMC III.2 (1986), 683-726 s.v. ‘Eros/Amor, Cupido’, nos. 61-702 passim (N. Blanc & F. Gury). Compare also LafontaineDosogne’s interpretation of the putti scenes (sic) in the consular diptychs as symbolic configurations of either largesse or abundance; LafontaineDosogne 1980/81, 10. 749 The bulk of comparanda of the eros or putto in Roman art dates from the first three centuries of our era, particularly from the funerary context (sarcophagi etc.) but also from the decorative arts (wall-paintings, architectural reliefs etc.). For a useful treatment of the putto’s activities, the genre-scenes in which it features, and the possible meanings of these scenes, see Stuveras 1969, 85-107, Pl. LXXV-LXXXII, and Fig. 163-176 passim. From the imperial context, see e.g. a Licinian gold medallion showing the four seasons (as erotes) carrying their respective attributes on their backs, prancing forward in a confronted scheme similar to that of the consular diptychs, and surrounded by the legend FELICIA TEMPORA; Gnecchi 1912, 1 Tav. 6 no. 6. From the religious context may be cited a marble frieze from the temple of Venus Genetrix in the Forum Iulii, Rome, showing a row of erotes toiling to lift various (war-related) objects which are far too big and heavy for them; e.g. Bianchi Bandinelli 1969, 260 Fig. 290. From the context of private buildings, the house of the Vettii in Pompeii (c. 62 AD) presents a rich example; Ling 1991, Pl. XIV c. Within funerary art, notably sarcophagi, erotes/genii are frequently represented as

130

less frequently in late antiquity than previously, and their association with sacred or transcendental figures/scenes (the sphere of the immortal, afterlife) remains unbroken well into the Byzantine period, as demonstrated for instance by the representations of the four city goddesses in the Codexcalendar of 354,750 the Theodosian missorium in Madrid (Pl. 23), and a consular diptych of Anastasius (A) (11).751 The very same traits characterise the sack-emptying children in the consular diptychs: a pair of well-fed little creatures moving lightly and smiling happily despite their burdens, the thin fabric of their garments lifting into graceful curves in the breeze (suggesting that they are air-borne), bringing gifts in abundance.752 Concluding discussion: The gift-bringing figures in the lower registers of Clementinus, Magnus, Orestes and in the medallion diptych of Iustinus belong to the same generic type as the eros, both formally and in the kind of activity they perform. The ‘real’ content of these images, viz. their representativity of consular gift distribution, is clearly paired with the ideal.753 The pertinence of this iconographic analogy cannot be dismissed, but must be taken into account when interpreting the scenes. There is every reason to believe that the analogy was immediately recognised and understood by the viewer, who appreciated the symbolic link between the ceremonial distribution of riches, viz. the consul’s official generosity, on the New Year, and the ideal gift-bringing by erotes. The hybrid figures tell the viewer of the honorand’s prosperity, a quality with a double significance within the consular context: on the one hand, material prosperity is a prerequisite in the man who is appointed to the consulate, and on the other the consul’s personal prosperity traditionally represents an ideal and hoped-for prosperity and abundance for the new year.754 The material aspect of the consul’s gifts is represented by means of the coin, plate, tablets and palmleaves; the ideal aspect is referred to by the erotes—ideal

performing tasks characteristic of seasonal labour (‘Seasons’ sarcophagi); Cumont 1942, 46 and 340-349 with Fig. 77 and 97; Deichmann 1967, Taf. 10.29.1-3, 41-42, 105; Stuveras 1969, 138-144; Bianchi Bandinelli 1970, 80 Fig. 72; Elsner 1998, 151 Fig. 100 and 153 Fig. 101. See also Scarpellini 1987, Tav. 23, 28 and 29 Fig. 48 (stelae). 750 Stern 1953, Pl. II-III; Salzman 1990, Fig.2-5. 751 See below, III.5.1. 752 A related motif (within Roman sepulchral and other commemorative art) is the camillus assisting priests or depositing sacred objects to a god; Stuveras 1969, 137-144. This real category of assistant, however, differs distinctly from both the consular ‘putti’ and the eros in that it commonly (always?) constitutes a secondary figure category within a larger group (priests, various senior types of assistants, sacrificial animals etc.) and that their action is directed towards a definite goal (an altar). The camillus may thus rarely if ever be characterised as an ideal figure. For a selection of scenes featuring camilli (3rd-4th c. AD), see Ronke 1987, (iii) Abb. 131151 passim. 753 Compare Natanson’s interpretation that the ‘two men (sic) symbolise the generosity of the nominated magistrate’; Natanson 1953, 3. 754 A. Alföldi 1943, 37-48; Stern 1953, 164; and Versnel 1970, 301-303 esp. Also Piganiol 1923, 148f, and Meslin 1970, 61. On the (winged) eros as representative of seasonal activities and festive rituals, i.e. as a motif pertinent to the theme of temporal cycles in general, see also Kondoleon 1999, 335f. See further IV.4.

servants who invest the consul’s official functions with a transcendental, regenerative symbolism.755 The function and meaning of the gift-bringing children in the consular diptychs may be compared to that of the pueri nascentes holding cloths or baskets of fruit on the sella curulis of Magnus, which are also figures of regeneration,756 and the city goddesses who are at the same time ‘practical’ conferrers and protectresses of consulship and transcendental beings representing the ideal or ‘eternal’ qualities of the consulate as an institution. The gift-bringing children in these diptychs provide evidence for the highly charged and very traditional symbolisms associated with consulship in the 6th century, perhaps particularly in Constantinople.

4.3. Related motifs in the Boethius diptych In the diptych of Boethius (6) the full-figure scheme has been combined with a set of gift motifs comparable to those found in the 6th-century diptychs of Clementinus (10), Magnus (Pl. 13), Orestes (7) and Iustinus (Pl. 16). The objects—small coin-sacks, a round plate, a coronet, palm-leaves—are found in the lowest part of the pictorial field, distributed in different constellations beneath or in front of the consul’s feet, but not separated from the consular ‘scene’. This is irrespective of whether the consul is seated on the sella curulis with the m a p p a raised, or standing with t h e mappa lowered—something which indicates that the objects do not refer to any specific part of the consular ceremonial (as indeed the consular representations do not either). The objects are few and rendered in the same scale as the rest of the image. The coin contained in the sacks, the amounts of which are announced by the marks inscribed on them (2,000 each), and the selection of object categories aim at depicting a representative variety rather than quantity. In comparison with the later eastern counterparts these scarce and scattered objects give a rather modest impression, and since they are handled neither by the consul himself757 nor any eros-like children they appear as direct attributes of the consul. Parallels to the marked coin-sacks are found in the representations of the imperial consul Gallus and the city goddesses of Rome and Constantinople in the Codex-calendar of 354,758 and on some reliquaries ornamented with representations of Christ as distributor of food and wine.759 None of the preserved eastern diptychs include such sum specifications; they hint at impressive amounts through the means of idealising imagery instead. The matter-of-fact approach towards the subject of money represented by Boethius, however, gives a precise and factual picture of the honorand’s economic capacity and the

755 Compare Versnel’s interpretation of the inaugurator of the novus

annus, the consul/triumphator; Versnel 1970, 301-303. 756 Compare III.2.1.3. 757 As in the representation of e.g. the consul Constantius II in the Codexcalendar of 354 (Pl. 24). 758 Stern 1953, Pl. XV, II.1 and III.1; Salzman 1990, Fig. 14, 2 and 4. 759 Buschhausen 1971, Taf. 38 Nr. B.11.

131

considerable sum spent on the occasion of his entry into office.760 In the left panel the objects placed between the moneysacks include a single coronet placed centrally between two palm-leaves, an arrangement which could provide a clue to their meaning with reference to a specific context: a coronet symmetrically framed by two palm-leaves may be associated with the crowning of the victor in the arena.761 No such motif combination occurs in the right panel, and in view of this distinction I propose that the gift objects represented in the left panel are intended to be associated with prize distribution more specifically. Concluding discussion: By comparing the gift motifs in Boethius’ diptych with their closest parallels, those of Roma and Constantinopolis and the imperial consuls in the Codexcalendar of 354 on the one hand, and the missorium of Ardabur Aspar (Pl. 22) on the other, it is possible to get some further clues regarding the purpose behind their representation. Common to the three works is their incorporation of gift motifs unaccompanied by specifying contextual references: the objects are simply spread out beneath or before the standing or seated consul/goddess. In the Codex-calendar the gifts are exclusively in the form of coin; in Constantius’ II image (Pl. 24)762 the coins cascade from the consul’s outstretched hand onto the ‘ground’ beneath his sella curulis, and in Gallus’ image the money is contained in a large sack placed by the standing consul’s feet. There can be no doubt that these images refer to the imperial largesse as distributed to the people during the consular celebrations, but there is no reference whatever to the specific context (locale) in which the acts take place. The focus is entirely on the amount of money offered, which in Gallus’ case is specified as a thousand solidi.763 The ultimate aim of these representations must then be to impress the viewer with the consuls’ wealth, and in its extension the prosperity that this wealth brings to the Roman people.764 And the moneysack is, as previously noted, also found in the calendar 760 The requisite sum for an eastern consul in the early 6th century would

amount to 2,000 pounds gold, and the sums spent by western consuls are generally held to have exceeded those of their eastern colleagues significantly; see Guilland 1954, 548; Jones 1964, 537-540; Bagnall, Cameron, Schwartz & Worp 1987, 9; and Delmaire 1989:1, 572-574. On the considerable sums spent by Symmachus on his own consular games and on the quaestorian and praetorian games of his son Memmius in the period around 400, see A.D.E. Cameron 1999:1, 492-499; and also Lim 1999:1, 272-277. 761 Compare Rumscheid 2000, 183f. 762 (Stern 1953, Pl. VIX; Salzman 1990, Fig. 13.) 763 That the coins are golden solidi cannot be doubted seeing that the consuls in question were emperors and also that gold coin was permitted in the sparsio for all consuls—private and imperial—in the period of the calendar’s creation, i.e. before the Theodosian law of 384 (Cod.Theod. 15.9.1). As Stern has plausibly suggested the letter ‘S’ found above the sign of 1,000 on Gallus’ sack would be standing for solidi; Stern 1953, 156. 764 The coins streaming from the outstretched hand of Constantius II in the Codex is a motif that recurs on 4th-5th c. coins and medallions representing the money-distributing emperor driving a (triumphal) quadriga; Gnecchi 1912, 1 Tav. 8 no. 7, Tav. 10 nos. 6-7; also Delbrueck 1929, 69 Abb. 25. The type, but without the coins, is also seen in the figural segmentum on Basilius’ consular trabea (8); see III.2.1.1 and IV.1.

representation of the primary city goddesses, who by this attribute are defined as particularly rich and prosperous (being the seats of the prosperous emperors/consuls). The distribution of prizes in the arena has not been deemed a necessary means for expressing the imperial consul’s wealth and prosperity in the Codex-calendar. In Aspar’s missorium, conversely, coins have not been included at all among the variety of objects featured below the seated consul with attendants. Unlike the scattered and modestly proportioned assortment pictured in Boethius’ diptych, the objects referring to Aspar’s consular gifts are large and arranged according to category. Although the number of objects is not drastically higher than that in Boethius, their size and the heap-like fashion in which the central objects—a couple of large shields—are displayed visually enhance them in the eyes of the beholder, who is immediately reminded of a collection of war spoils. As Delbrueck hinted, it would not be altogether surprising if the last-mentioned object category represents either real spoil or ‘copies’ shaped to look like such, considering that the honorand had received his consular appointment as a reward for military success.765 Whereas the shield-shaped objects are associated with military victory,766 the palm-leaves are associated with victory in the arena. The allusive link between war and games, military victory and victory in the arena, fits the ancient ideal of the ‘victorious’ and prosperitybringing consul perfectly:767 the consul distributes the riches he has amassed through success in war (i.e. spoils) as prizes to other victors.768 The range of object categories represented in Boethius’ diptych may also be compared to the gifts presented to the officers and soldiers in connection with the Roman triumph (phalerae, coronae, torques).769

Having compared the gift objects in Boethius’ diptych with the cited comparanda, the following conclusions may be drawn. Firstly, the categories of objects and the manner in which they have been depicted adhere to a seemingly wellestablished and predominantly western mode of representation which is matter-of-fact rather than symbolic or idealising. The sums of money intended for distribution in sparsiones are clearly declared so that the viewer is informed of the size of the honorand’s wealth and generosity, and can accordingly be satisfied that they are up to the high-set standards expected of a western consul in Boethius’ time. Likewise, the types of larger objects distributed during the consular festivities (processus and pompa) are depicted in a matter-of-fact fashion that aims at showing a representative selection of gift categories rather than suggesting i t s actual—or ideal—volume. The symbolic and idealising conception of consular generosity seems primarily to have been a phenomenon of 6th-century Constantinople. The Codex-calendar of 354 and Aspar’s missorium also open up for a more specialised interpretation as to the meanings of the different object categories represented in Boethius’ diptych: coins, money-sacks and plate primarily refer to sparsio and missilia, coronets and palm-leaves to prizes distributed in the arena. This conclusion also seems to be supported by the object categories included in the amphitheatre-scenes in Areobindus’ (9) and Anastasius’ diptychs (11). Although both kinds of gift distribution evidently consisted in coin as well as larger objects,770 a tendency towards iconographic specialisation in the representation of the different gift categories can be detected in consular imagery; categories in one and the same image would indicate that both kinds of distribution are referred to simultaneously. Thus, in the reductive and non-idealised object constellations of Boethius’s diptych the entirety of the honorand’s official generosity has been illustrated.

765 Delbrueck 1929, 156. Here as elsewehere Delbrueck without

discussion defined the gift objects as prizes (‘Siegerpreise’), thus exclusively relating them to the games. Again, one should perhaps not automatically conclude, as Delbrueck did, that the motifs in question are faithful reproductions of real prototypes, viz. actual depictions of the gifts/prizes distributed by the Aspar in reality. Also, it would be no coincidence that the ‘heap’ of shields in the missorium displays typological affinities with the shield-heaps frequently featured behind or next to the goddess Roma on imperial coins from late rebublican times onwards, including the statue types of Hadrian and Maxentius; see e.g. Vermeule 1959, 31-46, Pl. 1-5 passim. 766 See my interpretation of Roma above, III.3.2. 767 On the tradition of rewarding victorious generals with consular appointments from the republic onwards, see Jones 1964, 533; Versnel 1970, 301-303; and Bagnall, Cameron, Schwartz & Worp 1987, 4-6. Compare also Procopius’ description of Belisarius’ distribution of war spoils on the occasion of his consular celebrations in 535; Procop., Vand. 2.9.1516; Bagnall, Cameron, Schwartz & Worp 1987, 10f. On the related symbolisms of victory and f e l i c i t a s , the triumphator and the consul/magistrate, see Versnel 1970, 356-388. 768 The same types of objects and the same manner of dividing them into three distinct categories (shield in the centre, round plates and palm-leaves to the sides) are interestingly also found in the adventus representation of Constantius II on a largitio bowl in St Petersburg; e.g. Delbrueck 1929, 71 Abb. 26. 769 E.g. Künzl 1988, 44. Compare the objects—beside coronae laureae with a central jewel, also coronets or torques and palm-leaves—shown on the ‘ground’ beneath the emperor Constantius II riding a currus triumphalis

132

5. MOTIFS AND SCENES RELATED TO VICTORY The purpose of this chapter is to gather a number of motif categories related to the theme of victory under one heading. The primary interest lies in how these are applied and combined in the consular images, and how each of them may be meaningfully related to the images’ contents as a whole, and to the idea of late antique consulship.

5.1. Victoriolae, Victoriae and erotes The common way of representing the goddess Victoria within the consular diptychs is as an emblem or symbol, usually in and six on a gold medallion in Berlin; reproduced in Delbrueck 1929, 69 Abb. 25. 770 Delbrueck 1929, 68-72; Delmaire 1989:1, 56-59 (citing, among other things, the objects represented in the consular diptychs as evidence).

small scale and always in duplicate form, i.e. in pairs. The figure-type is only found in diptychs commemorating eastern consuls (6th c.). The denominations victoriolae and Victoriae (Victories) are here applied to distinguish between the smallscale figurines attached to the sellae curules of Areobindus (9), Anastasius (11), Magnus (12), and Anthemius (Pl. 15), and the more independent type represented in the upper registers of Anastasius’ and Anthemius’ diptychs. Having made this distinction, it must however be emphasised that it is chiefly of a typological nature: the two types (victoriola and Victoria) are very similar, any nuances in their significances chiefly depending on their placement and hence function in relation to motifs/figure-scenes that surround them. The erotes—also in pairs—that replace the Victoriae in Anastasius A are seemingly closely related in function and meaning to the Victory. Before going into what the three figure categories have in common, I will concentrate on their specifics. The Victory-figure most frequently represented within consular imagery, the victoriola, displays a highly standardised form: frontal, striding, wearing a girdled chiton which is blown backwards as if caught by a wind, a ‘Greek’ (Amazonian) hairstyle with bow-knot above the forehead, and raising a clipeus (or in Anthemius a tabula ansata) above her head. The victoriola is normally winged and supported on a small orb, but either or both of these attributes are occasionally left out.771 Although the victoriola is derived from the imperial insignia, where it (commonly) crowns the emperor’s (and Roma’s) orb772 —one representative example of which is found the hand of the emperor Honorius in the consular diptych of Probus (Pl. 14)—the consular variant has either shed or transformed some attributes and characteristics of the imperial prototype. Apart from being duplicated (i.e. a reproducible ornament), it is not directed towards the man whose insignium it crowns, which means that the Victory does not relate to the consul as she does to the emperor. The orbis terrarum on which the figurine stands is, if included at all, reduced in size, and most importantly the consular victoriola does not hold the laurel-wreath and the palm-frond. Each of these adjustments reduces the possibility that the victoriola is to be understood as an insignium of the consul. The function of the consular victoriola is to elevate the emperor’s imago clipeata, viz. effigy.773 The shield or 771 In all of Areobindus’ diptychs, and in Anastasius C. See also under

III.2.1.3. 772 On the Maxentian statue of Roma and her representation on a number of medallions and coins, see III.3.2. The imperial victoriola sometimes stands not on an orb but on a thin, quadrangular ‘base’, as in e.g. the Barberini ivory in the Louvre, Paris (Pl. 20) and the representation of the imperial consul Gallus in the Codex-calendar of 345 (Stern 1953, Pl. XV; Salzman 1990, Fig. 14) (in the latter case it is held towards the emperor by the military figure in the left side-panel). 773 On the identification of the togate bust inscribed on most of these clipei as the emperor, viz. Anastasius I, see III.2.1.3 above. On the transcendental or symbolism of the clipeus- or medallion-lifting Victoria, see Cumont 1942, 487-489; and Winkes 1969, 66-92. For typological and symbolic correlations between the ‘celestial’ clipeus (clipeus caelestis) and the solar disc, see also L’Orange 1973:2, 322-324, Fig. 12. The cosmic and

133

clipeus is another traditional attribute of Victoria, referring to her function or participation in Roman warfare,774 but since it is here furnished with the bust of a consul (imperial) it must obviously be recognised as an honorific portrait shield, an imago clipeata, of the kind traditionally displayed within a number of official contexts in Roman civic life.775 Although the clipeus commemorating the senior magistrate is mostly typologically indistinct from that with which military victors are honoured (which constitutes the original type of imago clipeata),776 the symbolic link between civil and military illustrated by the clipeus-motif is retained throughout the imperial period.777 The clipeus-lifting victoriolae in the 6th century consular diptychs testify to the endurance and perennial actuality of this type of victory symbolism in Roman official art. Delbrueck’s opinion, stated with reference to the victoriolae on Areobindus’ sella curulis, that the motif must specifically refer to the military history of a consul778 is disproved by its reoccurrence in Anastasius and Magnus, neither of whom had pursued military careers in the strict sense779 and could thus claim to be victorious in war. In Anthemius’ diptych the victoriolae are, as it were, further removed from the sphere of war and victory, tabulae ansatae replacing the shields. As already discussed in connection with the scipio in Anastasius B and C,780 the tabula motif may be understood as an index for names and titles, that is family (ancestry) and public career. On one level the function of the tabula inscriptionis is analogous to that of the imago clipeata, since both serve as vehicles for ‘immortalising’ the excellence of the man they commemorate. The consular victoriolae do not refer to military victory other than symbolically, and then to the victory/victoriousness of the personage whose imago decorates their clipei: the emperor Anastasius I. The circumstance that there exists a common denominator between the four eastern consuls (including Anthemius) apotheotic connotations of the circular shape (disc, shield), see also Kiilerich’s intepretation of Theodosius’ missorium; Kiilerich 2000, 280. 774 Compare Victoria recording victorious events on the shield of Mars (a frequent motif on triumphal monuments; cf. the columns of Trajan and M. Aurelius and the Arch of Constantine in Rome (socle), and the east side of Arcadius’ column base in Constantinople) or seated on a shield or a heap of shields, viz. war spoils (notably on coins); L’Orange & von Gerkan 1939, Taf. 21 b, 29 b and 30 b; Kollwitz 1941, Beilage 7; Hölscher 1967, 98-135, Taf. 11-16 passim; and Winkes 1969, 66-92. In late antiquity, notably in the reigns of Arcadius to Zeno (395-491), there is a variety of Victoria who is seated on a cuirass/tropaeum holding a shield inscribed with a cross or christogram in front of her; RIC X (1994), Pl. 1-34 passim. See also above, III.3.3. 775 Winkes 1969. 776 Hölscher 1967, 98f; also Winkes 1969, 5-7, 41-45. 777 Hölscher 1967, 102-107, 111f; Zanker 1988:1, 92-98. 778 Delbrueck 1929, 108f. 779 The title of comes domesticorum equitum, which is listed on the tabula in Anastasius’ diptychs, was military but in the 6th century mainly or even exclusively decorative, and firmly tied to the court; Jones 1964, 636. Precisely what duties it (originally) comprised is uncertain. Martindale even notes that Anastasius is not recorded to have enjoyed this title other than on his consular diptychs; Martindale 1980-1992:1, 83. 780 III.2.1.2.

whose diptychs feature the victoriola, which is their kinship with the emperor,781 suggests that the motif could not be included in every ordinary consul’s diptych. Rather, the victoriola remained an imperial attribute. It is not associated with the consul’s career (military or otherwise) but with Victoria Augusta; the laureate variant of the imago clipeata carried by the victoriolae in Anastasius A, identical to that crowning the consular sceptre in the same diptych, illustrates the point perfectly. The consul whose sella curulis is ornamented with victoriolae is a personage who may act as an exponent of the imperial house and its victory ideology: a consul related to the emperor. The more independent and somewhat larger Victoria type represented in symmetrically placed pairs in Anastasius B-C and Anthemius are removed from the immediate sphere of the consul, and placed on the roof of an aedicula in the manner of acroteria on a Roman temple. The type is near-identical to the victoriola: costume, hairstyle and pose are the same, and so is the small orb on which it stands, and it lifts the imago clipeata of the emperor. The Victories’ bodies may be frontally rendered, but their heads are subtly turned in the direction of the emperor’s imago which is placed in the centre between them, and which they jointly support on a long laurel-garland or serta. The laurel provides a reference to the goddess Victoria’s—and the imperial victoriola’s—function of rewarding the victorious emperor with laurel. The Victorytype is thus directly related to the emperor (compare the city goddesses in Clementinus (10), Magnus and Orestes (7)) and to the concept of imperial victory. Whereas the type as such is essentially derived from the imperial victoriola, its function and placement within the image must however be derived from the confronted Victoriae type traditionally represented on triumphal monuments (arches, columns),782 in sepulchral art,783 on coins,784 and also on the emperor’s currus triumphalis:785 a type which represents the goddess 781 Compare III.2.1.2, 2.1.3 and 3.4. 782 E.g. the arches of Titus, Septimius Severus and Constantine in Rome,

and the column base of Arcadius in Constantinople. Related to the imperial victory monuments is also the Porta Argentarii in the Forum Boarium, Rome (e.g. Bianchi Bandinelli 1970, 71 Fig. 64; De Maria 1988, Tav. 83-85), which presents a particularly interesting example because commissioned by private citizens in honour of the emperor (Septimius Severus) and consequently offering a picture of how the idea of imperial victoriousness was translated into private-offical art. In a compartment immediately above the emperor-empress are represented two striding Victoriae holding a heavy laurel-garland between; the scene they accompany is not related to imperial victory but to pietas, the imperial couple posing as sacrificing priest and priestess. The imagery demonstrates how victory was conceived as an attribute of the emperor, and as such relevant to whatever context he found himself in—pietas, like other imperial virtues, being victory-inducing; see e.g. Fears 1981, 745-748. The essence of this concept was inherited by the Christian empire. 783 Koch & Sichtermann 1982, Taf. 143, 206-208, 256-257; Scarpellini 1987, Nr. 37-40, Tav. 49-52. 784 See notably coins issued by Constantine I and his sons, showing a pair of confronted Victoriae holding a clipeus or occasionally a tropaeum between them; RIC VIII (1981), Pl. 1-19 passim. 785 A pair of Victories lifting a shield (clipeus) between them is recorded to have decorated the currus triumphalis of both Tiberius and Marcus Aurelius; Künzl 1988, 92f, also 86 Abb. 51 a-b, 89 Abb. 53 (a silver cup

134

(in duplicate form) flying, i.e. separated from the orb, and holding forth some symbol of victory—a laurel-wreath, a palm-frond, a tropaeum, a tabula inscribed with a celebratory text or (in late antiquity) a cross.786 Confronted Victoriae also occur in some late antique and early Byzantine imperial ivory assemblages, such as the Barberini ivory in Paris (Pl. 20).787 On late-imperial victory monuments, as in the Barberini ivory, the clipeus or corona laurea triumphalis held by the Victories does not encircle the emperor’s effigy but the bust or symbol of Christ, and the Victories themselves are increasingly transformed into angels; androgynous or male, but essentially similar to the Victory type.788 The cross or christogram is here as in every imperial context, needless to point out, synonymous with the imperial sign of victory.789 An interesting comparandum to the diptychs’ figures is, further, the series of Victoriae holding laurel-garlands interconnected by clipei that flank the portico arches (left and right) in the p a l a t i u m mosaic in Sant’Apollinare Nuovo, Ravenna.790 In all of these compositions the Victoriae are found in an upper pictorial register, or flanking the uppermost part of a fornix, that is in a register which corresponds to the sky or to a mediary sphere between earth and heaven. Finally, the dissemination of the confronted Victory type in late antiquity apparently went hand in hand with the dissemination of the imperial effigy;791 the emperor was to be associated with victory in as many contexts as possible. As an illustration of this phenomenon, it may be mentioned that the insignium shield of the comes domesticorum equitum for the east—an office which, coincidentally, Anastasius held prior to his consulship—was, according to the Notitia Dignitatum, decorated with a pair of confronted Victories holding the emperor’s imago clipeata between them.792 In Anastasius B-C the Victoriae accompany the emperor’s effigy wearing the triumphal toga of the imperial consul, whereas in diptych A a pair of winged erotes accompany his from Boscoreale and a marble relief in the Palazzo dei Conservatori, Rome, respectively). A related scheme from the late antique period is witnessed on the reverse of a previously cited gold medallion of Constantius II (Delbrueck 1929, 69 Abb. 25), showing the emperor standing on a triumphal chariot flanked by a pair of confronted Victories extending laurel-wreaths towards him. 786 For the latter, see e.g. the east side of Arcadius’ column base; Kollwitz 1941, Beilage 7. 787 Other examples, also attributed to the period around 500, include a couple of top panels showing a pair of confronted Victories holding the wreath-framed bust of Constantinopolis between them; Delbrueck 1929, Nr. 49 and 50, Taf. 49 and 50; Volbach 1976, Nr. 49 and 50, Taf. 26. 788 See the Arcadian column base; Kollwitz 1941, Beilagen 5-7. A very similar scheme is found on some late antique Christian sarcophagi from Constantinople, where the winged figures are however transformed into angels; see e.g. Koch 2000, Taf. 111, 114. 789 See further III.6.1 below. 790 Deichmann 1958, Taf. 108-110. 791 On the dissemination of the imperial effigy, particularly the imago laureata, a form which presented the honorand as victorious and hence legitimate as a ruler; see Kruse 1934; Winkes 1969, 60f, 66-80; and Malte Johansen 1994, 225, 240-242. On the dissemination of the imperial image under the emperors Anthemius and Anastasius I specifically, see also MacCormack 1981, 67-70. 792 Seeck 1876, 39 n. XV.

chlamydate effigy. Whether this distinction was systematically employed throughout the Anastasian diptych issue may perhaps be doubted, since Victoriae flank the chlamydate emperor in Anthemius’ diptych. The Victoria seems rather to have been an attribute of the emperor whichever capacity he appeared in, and the chlamys costume of the emperor was in fact a military one.793 The allpervading quality of imperial victoriousness as well as the military basis on which the emperor’s legitimacy as ruler rested are illustrated in the war-connotations of his three ornati (the chlamys costume, the triumphal toga costume, and the military costume). Winged erotes replace the Victoriae in Anastasius A. Like the Victories they flank the central imago clipeata of the emperor, supporting it on a long laurel-garland. Unlike the Victories, however, they are represented as striding—or rather skipping—sideways from the centre, with their faces turned back towards the emperor’s effigy; the effect is a spiralling and dynamic motion that differs distinctly from the frontalhieratic pose of the Victory figures. Typologically these figures have much in common with the sack-emptying children represented in the lower registers of Clementinus’ (10), Magnus’, Orestes’ (7) and Iustinus’ (Pl. 16) diptychs: they are very young and chubby, dressed in short and sleeveless tunics, and move vigorously with knees bent. The last-mentioned characteristic either represents a ‘childlike’ movement pattern in general, or refers to the formerly discussed eros type kneeling under the burden of the (ideally oversized) object he carries or task he performs.794 Even if these erotes, like their counterparts the Victoriae, support the imperial effigy on a laurel-garland, they cannot refer to the idea of victory as explicitly as the others do. The distinction may be illustrated by a comparison with the erotes represented on the column base of Arcadius in Constantinople,795 where they are found in the uppermost registers with flying Victoriae (west and east sides) and on the upper socle (between base and column; all sides). Even though they all are naked and plump little figures engaged in playful movement, either flying about the Victories with or without torches (top) or prancing in a row on top of a monumental laurel-garland holding smaller garlands between them (socle), there are some distinctions that seem significant of their double nature. The erotes accompanying the Victories are winged and in flight, and on the west side of the base they are further accompanied by Sol and Luna, wherefore their habitat must be the sky; the erotes dancing on the garland lack wings, and are accompanied by river gods (lower corners), wherefore their habitat must be the earth. The former join the Victories in celebrating imperial triumph as a ‘celestial’ event,796 whereas the latter engage in its earthly

793 The civilian variant; Restle 1988, 948. 794 Compare III.4.2 above. 795 Kollwitz 1941, Beilagen 5-7. 796 On the significance of the torch-bearing eros as a motif serving to

glorify a victorious goddess (Victoria or a city goddess), see Stern 1953, 134f. The torch-bearing eros appears together with Constantinopolis and

135

celebration.797 From this example the eros may be characterised as a being whose habitat—like that of Victoria—spans heaven and earth, but whose function unlike the goddess’s is not to bring about victory but to rejoice in it, and to express sublime happiness for the emperor’s glory.798 Like their counterparts on the Arcadian monument the winged erotes in Anastasius’ consular diptych refer to a transcendental happiness deriving from the emperor’s (ideal rather than actual) victoriousness.799 The association of winged erotes with the celebration of victory is also exemplified in the Codex-calendar of 354, where a pair of confronted putti hold a laurel-wreath over the head of Constantinopolis;800 a goddess whose mural-crowned and chiton-clad appearance announces civilian peacefulness rather than military activity and dominion (compare the Amazonian Roma in the same work). Together with the candle-bearing and playing erotes surrounding the goddess’s feet, these ‘acolytes’801 join in celebrating the symbolic triumph of the goddess.802 The figure-type’s function in imperial art may also be exemplified by some 4th- and 5t-century Roman and eastern coin issues showing the goddess Roma holding a clipeus virtutis in the company of an eros,803 a motif combination which would presumably illustrate the intimate connection between Roman dominion, peace and happiness/fecundity. Alexandria in the Codex-calendar of 354; Stern 1953, Pl. III.1 and II.2 respectively; Salzman 1990, Fig. 3-4. 797 Compare the winged erotes playing and carrying fruit in the lower (terrestrial) and upper (‘celestial’) registers in Theodosius’ missorium (Pl. 23), engaged in the celebration of the earthly fecundity engendered by the rule of the emperor and his family. Compare also the sack-carrying children in the diptychs of Clementinus, Magnus, Orestes and Iustinus. 798 The connection of the laurel-carrying eros with the idea of public rejoicing in the victory/victoriousness of their emperor in late antiquity may be illustrated by a number of Constantinian gold coins showing a pair of erotes with a laurel-garland surrounded by the legend GAVDIVM AVGVSTI NOSTRI or a vota formula; Gnecchi 1912, 1 Tav. 6 no. 14, Tav. 7 no. 1, Tav. 9 nos. 7-8; M.R. Alföldi 1963, 230-232, Pl. 18 nos. 141-143; Kiilerich 1993, 24. Another variety shows a pair of confronted erotes (or Victoriae) holding a large corona laurea triumphalis encircling a vota legend between them; Gnecchi 1912, 1 Tav. 8-13 passim. The laurel-garland is often exchanged for the fruit-and-flower variety (serta) symbolising the terrestrial fecundity resulting (presumably) from imperial victory. On erotes and Tellus in imperial iconographic tradition, see Stuveras 1969, 147f. On the aspect of the eros’ or genius’ subservience (as symbolic performer of ceremonial functions) in religious, imperial and sepulchral art from the 4th c. AD: Stuveras 1969, 141-143. See further also Kondoleon 1999, 335f. 799 On the mediocre results of the imperial victoriousness during the final years of Anastasius’ I reign (when the diptychs of Anastasius and Anthemius were issued), see e.g. Demandt 1989, 191-194. 800 Stern 1953, Pl. III.1; Salzman 1990, Fig. 4. 801 Stern 1953, 133f. 802 That the ‘real’ triumphator among city goddesses is Roma, not Constantinopolis, is made clear by the facts that she (like Roma in the Halberstadt diptych) is an Amazonian war-goddess carrying the insignium of imperial rulership, the victoriola-surmounted orb, and that she is the only goddess enthroned; Stern 1953, Pl. II.1; Salzman 1990, Fig. 2. The wreath that Constantinopolis holds extended in her right hand would, as Stern suggested, probably be meant as a tribute to Roma; Stern 1953, 134. 803 RIC VIII (1981), Pl. 11 no. 300, Pl. 13 no. 44, Pl. 23 no. 2, Pl. 25 no. 29, Pl. 26 no. 100, Pl. 27 no. 180; RIC X (1994), Pl. 34 no. 1211, Pl. 37 nos. 1256-1257, Pl. 39 no. 1312, Pl. 51 nos. 2047-2050. Also RIC IX (1951), Pl. XIII nos. 6 and 9.

That erotes frequently appear in sepulchral art, chiefly from the western half of the Roman empire, need hardly be pointed out. The confronted-pair types holding either the imago clipeata of the deceased honorand or heavy laurel or fruit sertae between them804 present close parallels and assumably precursors to the erotes in the consular images. The role ascribed to the imago-lifting eros is that of conveying the soul of the dead to afterlife; he may be identified as Eros Psychophoros,805 and his duplication and introduction into images commemorating living individuals, like the emperor in Anastasius’ and Anthemius’ diptychs, do not weaken or change the fundamental significance of this figure-type.806 Whereas the eros holding laurel (wreaths, garlands) appears to have been associated with the idea of victory over death—in which it is closely related to the figure of Victoria807 —the serta-carrying type would refer in more general terms to the abundant ‘gifts’ that await the deceased in afterlife.808 That the significances associated with the (duplicated) eros were applicable to nearly every type of transitional event in the life-cycle of the individual and of the Roman state is demonstrated by the presence of the clipeus-, laurel- or fruit-holding eros in art commemorating deaths,

804 Deichmann 1967, Taf. 2-165 passim; Honroth 1971, Taf. V-XIII

passim; LIMC III.2 (1986), 686-715 s.v. ‘Eros/Amor, Cupido’, nos.113-542 passim (N. Blanc & F. Gury); Scarpellini 1987, Tav. 49-52; Pflug 1989, Taf. 14-15, 38, 43; Koch 2000, Taf. 10-212 passim. Compare Toynbee, who interpreted the erotes accompanying Constantinopolis and Alexandria in the Codex-calendar of 354 as ‘emblems of prosperity’, Toynbee 1953, 273. The garland-carrying type predominates in Greek and eastern sepulchral imagery; L I M C III.1 (1986), 850- 942 s.v. ‘Eros’ (A. Hermary, H. Cassimatis & R. Vollkommer), 942-952 s.v. ‘Eros (in peripheria orientali)’ (C. Augé & P. Linant de Bellefond); LIMC III.2 (1986), 663-666 s.v. ‘Eros’, nos. 972-980 passim, 669f nos. 20, 25 (S. Hermary, H. Cassimatis & R. Vollkommer); Koch & Sichtermann 1982, Taf. 31-64 passim, 219, 231, 237, 269-277 passim, 467-571 passim. 805 L’Orange 1973:1, 257-262 esp.; L’Orange 1973:2, 321f; LIMC III.1 (1986), 1047 s.v. ‘Eros/Amor, Cupido’ (N. Blanc & F. Gury). See also Cumont 1942, 346 with n. 7, 398, 402, 407, 410, 452; and Stuveras 1969, 4447, 94f, 176f. 806 The liminal nature and functions of the winged eros may be illustrated by a group of equestrian stelae from Italy; Scarpellini 1987, nos. 37-39, Tav. 49-51. In these, a confronted pair of erotes hold the imago of the honorand in a register between the ‘sphere of the living’ (lower register, showing the horsed honorand engaged in a fight or hunt) and the ‘sphere of afterlife’ (upper register, showing the immortalised honorand reclining on a couch amongst food-baskets etc., assisting at his own funerary banquet). 807 LIMC III.1 (1986), 1047 s.v. ‘Eros/Amor, Cupido’ (N. Blanc & F. Gury); also Stuveras 1969, 47, 81; L’Orange 1973:2, 322f and Fig. 12. 808 Compare e.g. Panofsky 1992, 35; and also LIMC III.1 (1986), 1048 s.v. ‘Eros/Amor, Cupido’ (N. Blanc & F. Gury), which also offer other possible interpretations.

136

betrothals and marriages,809 victories, imperial jubilees,810 and consulships.811 That magisterial accessions provided occasions for celebrating the supreme victoriousness and earthly prosperity of the Roman emperor and his rule is not only demonstrated by the consular diptychs of Anastasius, Anthemius and others,812 but even more by the category of works commissioned by officials (including consuls) in celebration of the emperor who appointed them. To this category belong the missorium of Theodosius in Madrid (Pl. 23), the Barberini ivory in Paris (Pl. 20), and also the consular diptych of Probus (Pl. 14). Whereas Probus’ imagery focusses exclusively on imperial victory and its Christian connotations, the imagery of the missorium expounds on the terrestrial fecundity that a decade of Theodosian rule has brought;813 a fecundity symbolised by fruit-carrying erotes bouncing about the reclining figure of Tellus below and flying (according to the confronted scheme) on the fastigium above the three representatives of the Theodosian dynasty. In the Barberini ivory, which has variously been attributed to the reigns of Anastasius I and Justinian and is thus contemporary with the consular diptychs under consideration,814 the themes of imperial victory and earthly prosperity are fused under the greater theme of an adventus.815 In the central panel of the assemblage the horsed emperor gallops forth preceded by an orb-mounted victoriola, followed by a barbarian (who hails him submissively whilst clasping the shaft of his hasta in acknowledgement of his surrender), and welcomed by Tellus reclining on the ground with fruits in her skirt, her right hand humbly touching the sole of the emperor’s boot. In the panel below is a confronted procession of tribute-bearing barbarians headed by Victoria, above the clipeate image of Christ wielding the cross-surmounted sceptre as a sign of his supreme rulership and held against the sky by a pair of 809 See e.g. the Roman late 4th c. silver casket of Secundus and Proiecta

(part of the Esquiline treasure in the British Museum, London) on whose lid are represented the couple’s busts within a laurel clipeus held by two winged erotes standing on clouds; e.g. Grabar 1966, 300 Fig. 344 and 345; Shelton 1985, Pl. 29, Fig. 1-2. The same theme is illustrated in one of the 5th c. Queriniano or ‘Lovers’ diptychs in Brescia, showing Phaedra and Hippolytus; Volbach 1976, Nr. 66, Taf. 38; also Belloni 1956, Tav. 2. On the types and significances of the pair of erotes in Graeco-Etruscan tradition, see Gambogi 1998, 189-198. See also Stuveras 1969, 100f. 810 The missorium of Theodosius. 811 Compare the fruit-carrying pueri on the sella curulis of Magnus, and the gift-bringing children in Clementinus, Magnus, Orestes and Iustinus; III.2.1.3 and 5.2. 812 Halberstadt ( 2 ) , Clementinus, Orestes and Iustinus. See further discussions of this theme in Part IV.3 and 4. 813 The missorium jointly commemorates an official’s accession and the decennalia of the emperor Theodosius I; e.g. Toynbee & Painter 1986, 27f (no. 16); Raeck 1992, 15f; Raeck 1998, 520-522; Kiilerich 1993, 22-24; Kiilerich 2000, 273; and also Oliver 2002, 708f. Contra Meischner, who argues that the work celebrates the decennalia of Theodosius II in 425 (when the youngest of the imperial heirs, Valentinian III, was only aged two—a fact which must necessarily render Meischner’s attribution problematic); Meischner 1996. 814 On the attribution of the Barberini ivory, see e.g. Delbrueck 1929, 188195; Wright 1977; Cutler & Nesbitt 1986, 23f; and Cutler 1991. 815 Compare MacCormack 1981, 71-73.

Victoriae/angels. And to the emperor’s sides (side panels), turning and walking in his direction, a military commander bringing him a victoriola as a tribute (left) and—likely—a consul (right).816 Although the correlated themes of imperialChristian victory, adventus, prosperity, and military and civilian office are treated on a much more ambitious scale in above all the Barberini ivory than in the consular diptychs of Anastasius and Anthemius, it is clear that the consular imagery is an expression of the same ideology,817 viz. the ideology of the Roman emperor as the embodiment of victory, as the divinely appointed bringer of prosperity and perpetual joy to the world. Concluding discussion: The types, placement and functions of the Victoria and eros figures within consular imagery follow a certain pattern. The three categories have four fundamental characteristics in common: their small size, their stereotype nature, their duplication, and their exclusive function as holders of the emperor’s effigy. Their heraldic placement on tectonic structures (sella and aedicula) further underlines their emblematic nature. The victoriolae attached to the sellae curules of the kin of emperor Anastasius I constitute a kind of pseudo-insignium of consulship, through which means the consul is allowed to share in the attributes of imperial rulership and (thus) officially partake of the imperial quality of victoriousness. As a consular variant of an imperial insignium, these victoriolae may be likened to the imperial insignia displayed by the leftside city goddess in the diptychs of Clementinus, Magnus and Orestes, which have also been reduced in order that they not be confused with the real thing. Like the imperial effigy crowning the consular sceptre, the imagines clipeatae held by the consular victoriolae announce who the true victor is, and who is the superior honorand of the consular celebrations: the emperor. The figurines are one more means for the emperor through which to advertise the glory of himself and his clan, and to describe that glory in terms of military victoriousness and apotheosis.818 Both these phenomena seem to be specific hallmarks of the Anastasian period, and in a wider sense they mirror that emperor’s preference for appointing his own relations to the consulate.819 The significance of the victoriolae is further, as it were, set in context by some other motifs on the sellae curules to which they are attached. In the diptychs of Anastasius, as already discussed,820 the seat-rails feature various motifs related to imperial war and victory—busts of Roma and/or Constantinopolis, tributebearing province personifications, gorgoneia—but also to consular busts, presumably of the emperor. Through these motif combinations and juxtapositions, imperial conquest, 816 On the consular attribution of the lost right side-panel: Delbrueck 1929,

194; Volbach 1976, 47; MacCormack 1981, 71; and Cutler 1991, 338f (more tentative). 817 This will be discussed more fully in Part IV.3. 818 Compare Hölscher’s interpretation of Victoria holding aloft a portrait shield as an apotheotic motif, Hölscher 1967, 130. 819 A.D.E. Cameron 1977, 260-262, 274f; Bagnall, Cameron, Schwartz & Worp 1987, 9. 820 III.2.1.3.

137

unity and consulship are fused into one greater theme, centered around the idea of Victoria Augusta: imperial victory is the force by which the Roman empire and state prosper. The consulship of the present honorand (Anastasius) is a symbolic extension of this greater concept. The Victoriae supporting the imperial effigy in the upper registers of Anastasius’ and Anthemius’ diptychs also refer to the sovereign’s innate and transcendental victoriousness, and the placement of both the emperor’s imago and the Victories in an upper register would refer to the superior or heavenly sphere in which the ever-victorious emperor with family dwells.821 The meaning of this imagery may be compared to that of Basilius’ diptych (8), where the imago clipeata of the ‘victorious’ honorand is elevated to the heavens by Victoria and the aquila. Although less explicit, and certainly less polytheistic in expression, the general idea is the same in the Anastasian imagery: victoriousness leads to apotheosis. Whereas the apotheosis ‘administered’ by Victories results from the victoriousness of the emperor, reflecting a traditional ideology of the divinely ordained victoriousness of the ruler, the apotheosis ‘administered’ by erotes would be the reward for the universal prosperity and happiness that the imperial victoriousness has brought. In the diptych of Anastasius (A) the function and meaning of the erotes clearly indicate apotheosis in life, a ‘terrestrial immortality’. An immortality which may certainly also be linked to the idea of dynastic continuation,822 since the figures actually also frame the imagines of the empress and a potential heir to the throne. Dynastic continuation naturally presents a variation on the theme of imperial fecundity, a theme that is also represented on Theodosius’ missorium (see above). The quality that generates this fecundity is that of imperial victoriousness (as signified by the laurel on which the erotes elevate the imperial effigy). Since the erotes are also symbolic bringers of prosperity, terrestrial and celestial, they would in these instances simultaneously symbolise the prosperity brought by the victorious emperor for the new year, a year inaugurated by his consul and kinsman. In short, these erotes symbolise the felicitous rule under which the Roman state and people may flourish, in the new year and ‘eternally’. To conclude, the victoriola, Victoria and eros motifs in consular imagery function as means for interconnecting consulship with the symbolic values and ideals of empire: victoriousness, prosperity (felicitas),823 and eternity (apotheosis). The consul who includes these motif categories 821 Compare Grabar’s interpretation of this kind of imagery; Grabar 1936,

31-43. Also Jucker’s interpretation of the ‘Himmelsschild’ in Roman sepulchral art, which is a medallion portrait (of an emperor) elevated by Victories; Jucker 1961, 143f. 822 On the eros or amor as a figure signifying dynastic continuation in Roman imperial tradition (notably of the Augustan era), see LIMC III.1 (1986), 1047f s.v. ‘Eros/Amor, Cupido’ (N. Blanc & F. Gury). Compare also Stuveras’ interpretation of erotes as symbolic of the emperor’s terrestrial immortality (as opposed to posthumous immortality); Stuveras 1969, 176f and n. 6. For an interpretation of the dynastic significance of the upper registers in Anastasius’ and Anthemius’ diptychs, see above. III.3.4. 823 On felicitas as a quality that stands for good fortune, an immanent ‘ability to enlist the support of the gods’ and to induce victory and prosperity, and its relation to pietas within the civilian context, see Versnel 1970, 361-371; and Wistrand 1987, 9, 72-76.

into his diptychs announces that he, as the emperor’s kin, partakes of the superior victoriousness and ‘eternal felicity’ characterising the rule of the Anastasian dynasty.

5.2. Victory emblems: the wreath and the garland The laurel motif in one or other form occurs in nearly all preserved diptychs, but less frequently as an independent motif. Most often it forms part of another motif, such as the scipio, the toga (hem borders) or the sella curulis (Boethius (6)), embroidering as it were on the triumphal symbolism of the consular ornamenta and ceremonial. As a general rule the independent (i.e. free-standing) laurel motif, wreath and garland, appears in works of western origin, whereas the dependent varieties (i.e. those that are parts of other motifs) primarily occur in eastern works. Likewise, the inclusion of the wreath and garland motifs into lower-register scenes is limited to the east. The last-mentioned category refers to a specific context, viz. victory and/or the distribution of prizes in the arena, for which reason it will be treated under the next section.824 A considerable stylisation characterises all leaf motifs featured in the consular diptychs, including the more prominent representations, such as the wreaths in Boethius and Magnus (12). But still two basic types to which all representations conform may be distinguished: the wreath (corona) and the garland. The two are conveniently illustrated by the Astyrius diptych (4). In the preserved left panel the small, crescentshaped garlands flanking the fronton gable are in the form of a cable with a central line and multiple needle-like protrusions along the edges. Its closest parallels are found in Lampadiorum (1) and Halberstadt (2), where near-identical crescents hang between columns in the upper registers. A related pattern, although with less dense leaves, also appears on Basilius’ fasces (8). The circular knob attached to the centre of the side garlands in Lampadiorum may clearly be recognised as a counterpart to the front jewel (‘Stirnjuwel’) of the triumphal wreath,825 wherefore this type of garland may be termed a corona longa. 826 In the lost right panel of Astyrius (4 a), which has been preserved in a detailed 17th century engraving, the garlands were evidently replaced by semi-wreaths formed of pointed triplet leaves and decorated at the centre with a four-petalled rosette.827 This leaf motif gives a more substantial impression due to the greater 824 III.5.3. Representations of laurel in games-scenes include the wreath

held by a togatus in Areobindus B, a garland decorated with a central ‘jewel’ in Anastasius D, and possibly the crossed branches above the doors leading onto the arena in the right panel of Anastasius B (an alternative interpretation for these branches is palm-fronds; see further below). 825 On the characteristics of the corona laurea triumphalis and other types of coronae, see Baus 1940, 147-152; and Versnel 1970, 56f, 74-77. 826 E.g. Panofsky 1992, 37f. 827 That the wreath-shape of these elements would present more or less faithful reproductions of their originals is indicated by the perfect correspondence between original and engraved garlands for the opposite (preserved) panel; see Delbrueck 1929, Taf. 4 R (c).

138

complexity of the pattern, and the central rosette is locked between the meeting leaves rather than attached onto a cable of leaves—a characteristic that corresponds perfectly with the front jewel of the corona laurea triumphalis.828 Both the triplet-leaf pattern and the front rosette/jewel recur in Boethius and Magnus. The jewel motif—which in later diptychs appears as a smooth oval—is also found on the banner wreath in Basilius. A hybrid between these two types is found in Clementinus (10) and Orestes (7), where garlands hang from the arch above the consul’s head. Delbrueck stated that the wreaths decorating the aedicula in Boethius and the fasces in Basilius must be recognised as coronae etruscae,829 that is the heavy golden oak-wreath traditionally held by a servus publicus above the triumphator’s laurel-crowned head as he stood on the currus triumphalis.830 The oak-leaf is, however, not easily distinguishable from the laurel-leaf in the consular diptychs. The respective ways of rendering the leaves of laurel and oak have not been formally analysed and, furthermore, it is not entirely clear from the ancient written sources whether the corona etrusca, like the corona laurea triumphalis, was decorated with a front jewel and ribbons;831 the corona civica evidently was.832 Representations of the corona civica further suggest that the oak-leaves could be rendered as either pointed or rounded, the former variety predominating in small-scale representations.833 The pattern of pointed triplet leaves also 828 For late antique representations of the corona laurea triumphalis,

compare e.g. the c o r o n a e accompanying the representation of Constantinopolis in the Codex-calendar of 354 (Stern 1953, Pl. III.1; Salzman 1990, Fig. 4), and the triumphal wreaths held by victoriolae or Victoriae in the Barberini ivory (Pl. 20) and a pair of upper panels belonging to imperial ivory assemblages attributed to Constantinople c. 500 (Delbrueck 1929, N 49-50, Taf. 49-50; Volbach 1976, Nr. 49-50, Taf. 26). The corona laurea triumphalis is frequently represented on late Roman coins, particularly in 4th c. issues, all of which display the same form: a circular cable with a central line, finely hatched edges and a disc-shaped front jewel suspended between the meeting leaves in the centre (above), and a ribbon rosette (below); RIC VIII (1981), Pl. 1-28 passim; RIC IX (1951), Pl. I-XVI passim; RIC X (1994), Pl. 2-73 passim. 829 Delbrueck 1929, 64, 105. 830 Plin., HN 21.6 and 33.11; Juv., Sat. 10.39; Tert., De cor. 13; RE IV.2.8 (1901), 1638 s.v. ‘Corona’ (A. Haebler) (equates the corona etrusca with the corona laurea triumphalis); Baus 1940, 149 (equates the corona etrusca with the corona laurea triumphalis); Versnel 1970, 74-76. See also Künzl 1988, 86 Abb. 51 b (a silver cup from Boscoreale showing the emperor Tiberius riding the currus triumphalis), 86 Abb. 51 a-b; and e.g. Lim 1999:2, 350 Fig. 12 (‘Mafeiorum’ relief (1600th c. drawing), showing the pompa of a togatus (consul?) driving a biga in the Circus Maximus, with a figure standing behind him on the chariot holding a wreath above his head). 831 See Versnel’s typological discussion; Versnel 1970, 72-77. Künzl however states that the corona etrusca was ornamented with both jewel and ribbon; Künzl 1988, 87. 832 For illustrative examples see e.g. a pair of Augustan aurei and a Pompeian funerary altar from the same period, reproduced in Zanker 1988:1, 93 Fig. 76 a-b, 277 Fig. 219. Also a couple of marble tripod bases from the same period in the Museo Nazionale Romano (Rome), where the wreath is combined with the eagle; Goette 1984, 585 Abb. 11-13 and n. 33. The thick jewel-and-ribbon-adorned oak-wreath encircling the aquila on a marble relief from the Forum Traiani in Rome would also be a corona civica and not, as Künzl states, a triumphal wreath; Künzl 1988, 93 Abb. 59. 833 Compare the corona civica on the Pompeian funerary altar cited in the previous note, and the Augustan ‘Eagle’ cameo in the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna; e.g. Zanker 1988:1, 94 Fig. 77.

occurs in some other late antique images, such as the Consecratio diptych panel in London (Pl. 21 a) in which an enthroned togatus is seen holding forth a leafy branch quite undoubtedly representing laurel, and the wreath-and-festoons featured in the palatium representation in Sant’Apollinare Nuovo, Ravenna.834 Further, the fact that the corona laurea often displayed the shape of a thick and compact cable formed of rows of densely applied leaves835 may be used as an argument against the oak-leaf interpretation, and so could the fact that neither of the wreaths concerned show traces of gold pigment.836 However, the wreaths in Boethius are alone in the corpus not to display the characteristic central line (suggesting the stem of the laurel), and a very fine net of crossing lines distinguishable within each leaf section could be suggestive of the meandering contour of the oak-leaf (neither Magnus’ nor Basilius’ wreath displays such lines).837 The corona laurea could not have formed part of the consular insignia in the period where the consular diptychs were created,838 even less the corona etrusca one would reckon, wherefore the inclusion of any wreath within consular imagery—apart from those framing the emperor’s bust or the aquila on some sceptres—must be purely symbolic.839 The triumphal wreath however continued to have a place within the imperial context: adventus, tribute-ceremonies (aurum coronarium), emperor-making.840 The heavy golden Etruscan wreath, which originally belonged to Iuppiter and was borrowed from the Capitoline temple by the triumphator to 834 Deichmann 1958, Taf. 107-110; also Grabar 1966, Fig. 14. 835 Examples contemporary with Boethius’ diptych (apart from the wreath

in Magnus) include the wreaths enclosing the bust of Constantinopolis on a couple of imperial assemblage panels; Delbrueck 1929, N 49 and 50, Taf. 49 and 50; Volbach 1976, Taf. 26. More ancient examples include a number of laurel-wreaths represented on Roman sepulchral monuments; Salomonson 1956, Fig. 1, 10, 13, 23. 836 Compare Delbrueck 1929, 134-139; Connor 1998, Appendix A no. 74 (Magnus A, Paris). 837 Delbrueck also claimed that the hems of Boethius’ tunic-sleeves were ornamented with an oak-leaf pattern; Delbrueck 1929, 105. Indeed the sleeve pattern is distinguished from the laurel pattern ornamenting the hems of the colobium and trabea, which is more similar to a laurel-branch than to a cable-shaped wreath. 838 According to Schäfer the laurel-wreath with front jewel could not have been an exclusive attribute to the emperor (in his capacity of perpetual triumphator) since some literary sources mention that the wreath was also worn by praetors during the pompa circensis; something which, according to him, must indicate that the consul would have worn it too; Schäfer 1989, 182f. However, this assumption cannot be valid for the 4th to 6th centuries AD, if the consular diptychs are to be regarded as evidence (which they undoubtedly are), at least not if one assumes—as most do—that the consuls are represented as presiding over their games. It is only in the diptychs of Magnus that the corona appears as anything like an insignium of the consul, but the consul does not actually wear it, and the scene in the lower registers is not related to the arena specifically (compare above, III.5.2). 839 Compare Baus’ interpretation of the wreaths in Magnus and the exGanay panel (Pl. 17) (the latter of which is a composite wreath of leaves, pomegranates, corn ears etc.) as (somewhat vaguely) representative of the consular status rather than as depictions of magisterial attributes; Baus 1940, 65f. 840 Kruse 1934, 24-48; A. Alföldi 1935, 36-39; Klauser 1944; MacCormack 1981, 174, 195, 243-246; McCormick 1986, 82; Restle 1988, 951.

139

be carried in the processus triumphalis, is only attested in connection with triumphs, and not by any late antique source. In a western consular diptych of the late 5th century, the inclusion of the corona etrusca must thus have provided a pointed reference to an ancient, essentially republican triumphal concept. If it is actually the Etruscan wreath that has been represented in Boethius’ diptych, something which is quite possible, it would correspond in a meaningful way to the equally ancient (Iovian and republican) scipio cum aquila carried by the same consul.841 If we try to formulate typologies of the wreath and garland in consular diptych imagery, the simple line-and-hatch variety is primarily used for representing laurel-garlands (with or without a central jewel), whereas the more complex tripletleaf variety (always with jewel) is used for representing the corona triumphalis—chiefly the corona laurea, but possibly occasionally also the corona etrusca. The placement of the independent type of wreath within a consular image is always the same: in the centre of the uppermost part of the pictorial field, above and separated from the consul. In the Magnus panels it hangs suspended above the consul’s head, and in Astyrius’ and Boethius’ diptychs it is applied onto an architectural superstructure. The most immediate conclusion one may draw from this must be that the wreath was treated as the symbol it actually was, not as a consular attribute. In the lost right panel of Astyrius’ diptych the wreath appears to have been the most deprived of symbolic content; reduced in half, duplicated and oversized (in relation to the garlands in the opposite panel as well as the consul’s figure), its decorative properties seemingly take precedence over any implicit significance. It is in fact only when comparing them with the garlands in the opposite panel that one realises that these semi-wreaths represent coronae and not garlands, and that they must thus be intended as something other and more than pure ornaments. In the front panel of the diptych, thus, the consulship of Astyrius is more explicitly associated with the concept of triumph. The triumphal wreath featured in Boethius is big, thick and conspicuously positioned in the centre above the consul’s head, filling the gable of an aedicula. Visually prominent, the wreath is nevertheless slightly smaller than natural size, i.e. too small to fit the consul’s head, and its attachment onto an architectural structure seems to suggest it be primarily taken for a piece of ornamentation. However, as the wreath encircles the family monogram of the Boethii, its triumphal connotations are only apparently weakened and dissociated from the consul; rather, it explicitly serves to express the success of the Boethian house, naturally including the present consul, in terms of victoriousness. As a symbol emphasising the triumphal nature of the consul’s status, the wreath may also be related to the laurel motifs adorning Boethius’ triumphal toga and sella curulis, i.e as part of a greater ‘triumphal theme’. But as a symbol of family glory, that is

841 See III.2.1 and 2.1.2 above.

the glory of Boethius’ ancestry,842 it may also be interpreted as a symbol of immortality, of ‘triumph over death’, in this case more particularly triumph over oblivion in the historical sense. Of the three diptychs where the independent wreath motif occurs, that of Magnus indisputably goes farthest in suggesting a real corona laurea triumphalis. Magnus’ wreath is conceived as an integral part of the consular scene, hanging in twined cords between a pair of jewelled coronae longae from an imaginary ceiling immediately above the consul’s head, not as an architectural ornament. It is represented in ‘natural’ size, and its physical or realistic appearance is further enhanced by a perspective rendering. The high degree of relief with which the laurel motifs are carved and their setting against an entirely plain background combine to create a visual effect that immediately attracts the viewer’s attention. Even if the wreath’s suspension between garlands makes it part of a decorative theme,843 its position right above the consul’s head still implicitly suggests coronation. The same type of wreath-and-garland motif recurs for instance in the palatium mosaic in Sant’Apollinare Nuovo, Ravenna, where it adorns the gabled fastigium;844 in this case there can be little doubt that the motif refers to imperial triumph, symbolising as it were a perpetual celebration of the ruler’s victoriousness.845 Further interest to the uniquely prominent laurel motif in Magnus is added by its juxtaposition to the war-like city goddesses, whose tall helmet-crests brush against the garlands, repeating their curving forms. The juxtaposition of the emperor’s military attributes with the emblem of victory unequivocally invites the viewer to associate Magnus’ consulship with imperial victory and rulership. As previously discussed in connection with the city goddesses,846 the Magnus Romae seem to be conferrers of victoriousness as much as of consulship. The wreath decorating the fasces banner in Basilius cannot be defined as an independent motif, but it is still conspicuous enough. As argued above847 there is no foundation for 842 The Boethii were prominent on high magistracies in Rome during the

5th and early 6th centuries; Martindale 1980-1992:1, 231-233, 1044; Barnish 1988, 125f. 843 That the combination of laurel-wreath and garlands may occasionally have been used to decorate the tribunal of the praeses ludorum is suggested by a drawing of an Hispanian villa mosaic (Bell-lloch) cited by Humphrey (a date is not given by the author, but the representation’s formal characteristics appear to be late antique); Humphrey 1986, 239 Fig. 120. What conclusions, if any, one may draw from this provincial and private parallel as regards the consular context is however difficult to say. As Kondoleon has argued, in their roles of games-givers—official and private—provincial notables widely imitated the models presented by the arena cultures of the capitals, thereby associating themselves with the culture, status and social privileges of the great aristocratic families; Kondoleon 1991, 105f, 109-112. 844 E.g. Deichmann 1958, Taf. 107-109. 845 Dyggve’s proposed reconstruction of the original mosaic (in my view very plausible), showing the Ostrogothic king Theodoric enthroned beneath the central intercolumnation, provides a close parallel to the Magnus scheme; Dyggve 1941, Fig. 35; also Kiilerich 1996, 99f and Fig. 4. See further III.7.2.3. 846 III.3.2. 847 III.2.1.4.

140

Delbrueck’s opinion that it originally would have enclosed Basilius’ bust, nor for that matter—which would have been more in line with contemporary practice—that of the emperor.848 However, the wreath doubtlessly belongs to Basilius, who receives it as part of the fasces from the hand of his friendly protectress, Roma; indirectly this wreath is also the reward Victoria, Roma’s sister goddess in the diptych. The fasces adorned with the laurel-wreath, the fasces laureati, were the especial insignium of the triumphator,849 and when conferred by Roma they would refer to a peculiarly western victory. However, on the basis of a passage by Martialis850 Versnel has proposed that the consular fasces were always laurel-adorned as a sign of the link between consular ceremonial and the triumph.851 How far this would have applied in late antiquity cannot, as I understand, be determined. Judging by the evidence provided by the consular diptychs, the consul did not carry laurel—wreath, branch, or laureate fasces—in connection with any part of the inauguration ceremonies in this period. Else one must conclude that they were not allowed to have themselves presented as donning the laurel in the commemorative diptychs they issued. The laurel-garland occurs in both western and eastern works where it is commonly part of an architectural structure, usually decorating intercolumnar spans: Lampadiorum, Halberstadt (upper register), Astyrius, Orestes, Clementinus, Anastasius D (11) (lower register), and Magnus. Laurelgarlands are also held by Victoriae or erotes in the upper registers of Anastasius’ and Anthemius’ (Pl. 15) diptychs; these were treated in the previous section.852 The function and significance of the garland within consular imagery mostly seems straightforward enough: to decorate the architectural structure that frames the consul or emperor(s). It may be noted that garlands are only found in images where the consul is enthroned, but it is uncertain whether this circumstance would be significant. Whether adorning the tribunal editoris in the circus (Lampadiorum), the fastigium framing an imperial dais (Halberstadt), or some other less specific structure, the laurel-garland would refer to the festive aspect of consulship. Laurel-garlands decorated the city in connection with all major festivities (coronatio urbis), such as triumphs, adventi, imperial birthdays and jubilees, and the New Year celebrations,853 and they traditionally 848 Compare the fasces banners in the diptychs of Clementinus and

Orestes. See also III.2.1.4 above. 849 Versnel 1970, 95 with n. 1; Künzl 1988, 88; Schäfer 1989, 201. 850 Mart., Ep. 10.10 (‘laurigeris annum qui fascibus intras’). 851 Versnel 1970, 303 with n. 5. 852 III.5.1. 853 RE XIII.2 (1927), 1440f s.v. ‘Lorbeer’ (A. Steier); DarSag I:2, 1537 s.v. ‘Coronarius, coronaria’ (E. Saglio); McCormick 1986, 86; Künzl 1988, 88, 86 Abb. 51 a (showing a laurel-garlanded temple on a silver bowl from Boscoreale); also Versnel 1970, 378f with n. 4 (referring to the laurelleaves presented to the incoming magistrates by the citizens of Rome). See also the laurel-garlanded arches and porticoes on the Aurelian relief panels on the Arch of Constantine in Rome, which variously accompany scenes representing the emperor’s adventus, profectio and liberalitas; e.g. De Maria 1988, Tav. 79.1-3.

decorated the triumphator’s chariot.854 However, the manner in which the garlands are applied in the diptychs suggests that this is not their only or even primary significance, but that they should be directly linked to the figures they frame: the consul and his family (Lampadius, Clementinus, Orestes), the emperor and his family (Halberstadt, Anastasius, Anthemius), and the celebration of victory in the arena (Anastasius D).855 The laurel-garlands, especially the kind ornamented with a central jewel—a reference to the corona triumphalis—present victory emblems that in a simple yet direct way expound on the ‘triumphal’ nature of consulship and/or the perpetual victoriousness of the emperor/imperial dynasty. This triumphal symbolism also permeated the consular ceremonies, including the games performed and victories won in the arena, which were ‘claimed’ by the consul and ultimately the emperor as a tribute to the superior victoriousness which (ideally) characterised the Roman empire.856 The frequent connection of laurel-garlands with the figure of Victory on honorific monuments (triumphal, sepulchral)857 demonstrates that the motif was intimately associated with the interrelated concepts of imperial victory and immortality—a connection which is also illustrated in the diptychs of Anastasius and Anthemius.858 The imperial connotations of this victory emblem are exemplified not only in Halberstadt, Anastasius and Anthemius, but indirectly also in Clementinus, Magnus and Orestes where the laurelgarlands simultaneously frame the personifications of the united Roman empire, Roma and Constantinopolis. The particularly strong imperial connotations of the laurel motifs in Magnus’ diptychs have already been discussed above. In the Halberstadt diptych the garland motif would refer to something even more explicit. What we see in this image is the commemoration of a specific event, albeit one that never occurred in the physical sense: a reunion of the emperors of west and east, Honorius and Theodosius II, with the princess Galla Placidia in the divine company of Roma and Constantinopolis.859 The historical context from which this image springs is that in the year when the diptych was issued (417) Honorius and Theodosius II were able to celebrate the re-establishment of imperial dominion and unity after the defeat of the Visigoths and the subsequent return to the imperial court of Galla Placidia from Visigothic custody.860 The twofold reunion, made possible by an imperial victory (explicitly referred to by the vanquished people in the lower registers861 ), takes place within a physical setting in the form

854 RE IV.2.8 (1901), 1643f s.v. ‘Coronarii’ (A. Mau); Künzl 1988, 92f,

also 86-90 Abb. 51 a, 53 and 55. 855 On the interpretation of the Amazonian procession-scenes in Anastasius’ diptychs, see further below III.5.3. 856 Notably Treitinger 1938, 170-178. See further III.5.3 and IV.2. 857 References are offered under III.5.1. 858 Compare discussion under III.5.1. 859 See III.3.4. 860 For discussions of the diptych’s attribution, including identifications of the imperial figures and the historical data that may be linked to the scenes of the upper registers, see III.3.2, 3.4 and 5.4. 861 See further III.5.4.

141

of a fastigium.862 The fronton, like the palatial mosaic in Sant’Apollinare Nuovo, Ravenna, is decorated with laurelgarlands, indicating that a celebration of imperial victory—temporal in Halberstadt, perpetual in Sant’Apollinare—takes place within the building. However, even if an imperial victory would present the main reason for the festive celebration, since the victory is what won the honorand, Constantius. Together with his military victory, the consular appointment and the imperial marriage would have presented great personal victories to Constantius, and thus have been referred to simultaneously in the image. Concluding discussion: The triumphal wreath (corona laurea, corona etrusca) and the laurel-garland could be introduced into a consular image to emphasise the triumphal symbolism traditionally tied to the consular status. There is certainly a distinction between the wreath, which constitutes an explicit reference to the triumphator’s insignium, and the garland, whose essentially decorative nature makes it a more neutral tool for introducing the triumphal theme. The manner in which the motifs have been presented within each image (placement, juxtaposition) allows the viewer to derive some understanding of their functions, particularly in cases where the use of victory emblems can be meaningfully connected to known facts of the issuing consul. The circumstance that all commissioners did not make use of these emblems—both of which traditionally belonged within the consular context and would, if applied with discretion, therefore serve as ‘legitimate’ attributes of consulship—would presumably be ascribed to individual interests. The preserved consular images where the wreath and/or garland feature as independent motifs indicate that the use of such victory emblems served to expound on three related, and often overlapping concepts: the ‘triumphal’ glory of the consul himself, of his family/ancestry, and of the imperial dynasty. It is only in the diptychs of Astyrius, Magnus and Basilius that the laurel motif refers exclusively to the consul himself. Of these, Astyrius and Basilius could call themselves victors in the real sense, having been awarded their consulships in acknowledgment of their military achievements;863 the triumphal wreaths included in their diptychs could be understood as announcements of their personal victoriousness. One may guess that this sort of triumphal reference would have been particularly useful in Astyrius’ case, since he could not don the triumphal toga,864 otherwise the most prominent of the consular attributes. The victoriousness of Magnus on the other hand would have been of an entirely ideal and self-ascribed nature.865 This consul’s imperial ancestry almost certainly provided the main motivation behind the extensive use of laurel emblems in his 862 See further III.7.2.3. 863 On Astyrius’ military career, see Martindale 1980-1992:1, 174f. On

that of Basilius, see above, III.3.2 and 3.3 (with footnotes). 864 See III.3.2. 865 Official records of Magnus are sparse, and his (known) titles did not include any military office; Martindale 1980-1992:1, 701; A.D.E. Cameron 1978, 261, 275. Compare also the discussions of Magnus’ sceptre and sella curulis under III.2.1.2-3.

diptychs, introducing the notion that the honorand’s victoriousness is inherited (Victoria Augusta). But the imperial ancestry as such has not been given any room, and in this Magnus differs from Anastasius, who was also greatnephew to Anastasius I but who chose to employ the laurel motif to render homage to the emperor and the imperial dynasty. The pointed reference made to coronation in the imagery of Magnus’ diptychs seems to suggest that the honorand poses as an official claimant to the imperial throne, which at the time of his consular accession was about to be made vacant.866 The warlike appearances and imperial ruler’s attributes displayed by the accompanying Romae—orb, spear and shield867 —combine with the victor’s wreath in announcing the superior victoriousness of Magnus. Lampadiorum, Halberstadt, Boethius, Clementinus, Anthemius, Anastasius and Orestes all make use of victory emblems to celebrate the honorand’s family, which in the case of Halberstadt, Anthemius and Anastasius is also synonymous with the imperial family. Although the triumphal glory symbolised by laurel primarily would reflect on the present representatives of the families, their personal glory in achieving consulship is set as it were in relief against the greater family history; all of the consuls in question belonged to prominent families with histories on high magistracies, and at the time of their own consulships most of them counted one or several consuls among their ancestors.868 The application of wreaths and garlands in these consuls’ images may be compared to their application within the traditional sepulchral imagery of Roman officials, where the wreaths—laurel, oak (corona civica)—served as a means for commemorating the honour gained through performance of public duties, whether these be military or civic.869 The laurel-wreath was both a consular emblem and a symbol of victory over death, i.e. of immortality,870 and could thus serve the double function of glorifying the honorand in life and afterlife. In the diptychs of Halberstadt, Anthemius and Anastasius the glorification of the consul’s own family is also synonymous with the glorification of the imperial family. Constantius is tied to the family of Honorius by an imperial victory he has himself achieved, the reward of which is not only consulship but the hand of Honorius’ sister in marriage; one may thus claim that this consul has a doubly personal 866 And so, it appears, does the scipio cum aquila; see III.2.1.2. 867 Compare e.g. the representations of Honorius in the consular diptych of

Probus (west, 406) (Pl. 14). 868 Including the imperial ancestry acquired by of Fl. Constantius in 417; Martindale 1980-1992.1, 303. Clementinus descended from Fl. Taurus cos. 361 and Fl. Taurus cos. 428 (Martindale 1980-1992:1, 96f, 99, 717); Anthemius was the son of Anthemius Augustus, cos. 455, and brother of Marcianus cos. 469 and 472 (Martindale 1980-1992:1, 82f); Anastasius was great-nephew to Anastasius Augustus, cos. 492, 497 and 507 (Martindale 1980-1992:1, 78f, 82; also Degrassi 1952, 95-97); and Orestes was (probably) son of Avienus cos. 502 and grandson of Faustus cos. 490 (Bagnall, Cameron, Schwartz & Worp 1987, 594f). 869 DarSag I:2, 1535f s.v. ‘Corona’ (E. Saglio); Cumont 1942, 429, 482; Salomonson 1956, 18, 34f; Goette 1984, 586-589; Zanker 1988:1, 274-278; Panofsky 1992, 32-37. 870 On the apotheotic significance of the wreath (in sepulchral art), see Baus 1940, 123, 173-180; and Goette 1984, 586-589.

142

share in the festive occasion celebrated in the upper registers of his diptych. A similar but differently expressed concept is behind the dynastic celebrations in the diptychs of Anastasius and Anthemius. Here representatives of the imperial family are not engaged in celebrating a specific victory, but appear as ancestral effigies elevated to a supra-terrestrial sphere and accompanied by laurel-carrying Victories or erotes in a symbolic apotheosis. Before concluding, it may be interesting to briefly mention another kind of wreath found in the anonymous ex-Ganay diptych panel (Pl. 17). In this the consul’s bust is encircled by a thick wreath variously bound of laurel, vine leaves with grapes, pomegranates and corn ears, decorated with a rosette jewel at the front and tied with ribbons. This composite wreath combines the traditional corona laurea triumphalis with the serta of vegetative fruitfulness and abundance, thereby fusing two primary symbolisms associated with the New Year and the consular ceremonies inaugurating it: victory and felicitas temporum.871 This type of wreath also occurs within sepulchral imagery where it, like the genii of the four seasons, may be connected to the ideas of life cycles and rebirth.872

5.3. Victory in the arena The concept of victory in the arena is represented in one form or other in all consular diptychs featuring games-scenes; within the preserved corpus, only the artistic performances represented in Anastasius (11) and the chariot race in Basilius (8) can be described as ongoing and therefore unresolved action. Usually the focus is on the action preceding the actual moment of victory. Rarer still is the kind of scene that depicts the celebration of victory. Here Areobindus B (9) represents a single preserved example. A couple of other motif categories related to victory in the arena are present in some diptychs, mainly eastern: prize objects and palm-leaves (Bourges (5), Areobindus, Anastasius),873 and processions of Amazons (Anastasius). The earliest example within the corpus to represent victory in the arena is found in the Lampadiorum panel (1), which shows a chariot race with quadrigae. The means by which victory has been represented are rather subtle: the winner does not perform the demonstrative gesture of victory (viz. raising his arm), nor are any prize objects present, and the race is still in progress. The viewer recognises the victorious charioteer by the fact that he is the only one to have reached the finishing-line,874 that he is placed centrally and at the highest 871 Compare A. Alföldi 1934, 94-99; A. Alföldi 1943, 25-48; and Panofsky

1992, 32f. See also above, III.4.2. 872 Cumont 1942, 488-491; also Panofsky 1992, 32f. 873 Compare also the object categories represented in the lower registers of Boethius (6), Clementinus (10), Magnus (12), Orestes (7) and the medallion diptych of Iustinus (Pl. 17), discussed under III.4.2-3. 874 The location of the finishing-line in the Circus Maximus was half-way up the spina; Humphrey 1986, 84-91; and Curran 2000, 246.

level within the register—immediately below the presiding consul and next to the eye-catching obelisk—and that he stands up directing his face at the presiding consul. His victor’s status is thus expressed through a combination of hierarchical composition (placement on the central vertical axis, vicinity to prominent figures) and pose. It is to be assumed that the victor, according to traditional procedure, would not have made an immediate halt to receive his prize but continued to make a lap of honour around the arena.875 Victory as it were in progress is represented in the venatio scenes in Bourges and Areobindus A (left panel), both of which show venatores in the act of killing animals. Although the two venatores in Bourges fight with confidence and success, they have not finished off all the animals; yet the man in the left panel raises his right arm in the victor’s gesture whilst ‘receiving’ the victor’s prize, which is in the form of a palm-leaf (upper right corner). Fight and victory are simultaneously represented. The venatio-scene in Areobindus A is very near its conclusion, each of the four human combatants liquidating an animal whilst a fifth man runs about the arena waving his hand vigorously in a victorious gesture. The animals’ bodies hang limply from the spears that have been thrust into their bodies, and in the moment of dying their eyes meet the gaze of their vanquishers as if in acknowledgment of defeat. There is no hesitation in the force and movements of the venatores’ muscular bodies: victory is complete. Another form of victory ‘in progress’ is represented in the scenes featuring acrobatic animal fights: Areobindus A (right panel), C and D, and Anastasius A and B (right panels). Here the men confront their animal opponents without weapons, which naturally makes their situation more precarious, as is also illustrated in Areobindus A, where two bears tug their teeth into men’s legs. The fighting-scenes in Areobindus A present the most violent within the category, forcefully visualising the contrast between men threatened by defeat (left panel) and men enjoying the culminating moment of victory (right panel), i.e. between crisis and relief. Other acrobatic fight-scenes focus on the successful teasing-and-evasion artistry of the men, who also dexterously manage a variety of apparatus. Faced with this kind of opposition the animals become frustrated and enraged, and in Areobindus C they have been so confused that they turn on each other. In Areobindus B, finally, venatores are celebrating their victory in an arena emptied of all beasts; the victors move vigorously about in all directions making eloquent gestures, surrounded by their material reward: palm-leaves and prize objects. There is also a victor’s laurel-wreath included in the scene, brought onto the arena by a man clothed in a fully patterned, laurelbordered toga costume and carrying a tall and knob-tipped sceptre on his left arm: the consul and praeses himself,876 875 Humphrey 1986, 88. For comparison, a lap of honour appears to be

represented in the Ostia circus relief in the Vatican, where the winning charioteer however continues along the track accompanied by another figure holding a palm-frond; see e.g. Ronke 1987, (iii) Abb. 163 (Kat.Nr. 154). 876 Contra Delbrueck, who described the figure’s costume as an ungirdled tunic with a criss-cross pattern; Delbrueck 1929, 112. In doing so, however,

143

extending the wreath to crown a venator who ceremoniously kneels before him. As opposed to the triumphal wreath, which serves as a symbolic attribute of the consul in some diptychs, the venator’s wreath is plain, unadorned by front jewel or ribbon. Although the scene is unique among the preserved diptychs, it has parallels on the south side of the Theodosian obelisk base in Constantinople, where the emperor extends a wreath towards an unseen victor below him in the arena,877 and in the 4th-century floor mosaic from the villa at Piazza Armerina in Sicily878 representing the Circus Maximus in Rome,879 where a man in patterned toga, and holding a palm-frond, walks to greet a victorious charioteer. The pair of confronted Amazonian figures leading festively attired horses in the upper compartment of the lower register in the left panels of Anastasius’ diptychs suggest the performance of a procession or parade. As already discussed880 the Amazon as a type is related to war, and within consular imagery as elsewhere the Amazon has lent her characteristic features (costume, hairstyle) to Roma and Victoria.881 The tabulae carried on poles by the Amazons may, in consistency with the Roman-imperial analogy, be likened to the contemporary military standard, the labarum,882 which was carried in battles and military processions;883 varieties of these are for instance carried by Honorius in the Probus diptych (Pl. 14) and Valentinianus I on a largitio bowl in Geneva.884 In two of four diptychs the processional scene is also accompanied by a victory-emblem, placed conspicuously at the centre between the Amazons: a palm-leaf in A and a laurel-garland in D. The horses’ ornamental trappings leave no room for doubt that the parade is of a celebrational kind: a victory procession. Such a parade may very likely have been enacted as part of the consular pompa circensis, where men or women dressed as Amazons or Victories headed a line of contestants or victors before, between or after performances.885 Whether the horses should be identified as the winning horses of the first race, as he failed to note that the costume is clearly conceived as being in two layers, with a stiff hang and with a set of converging, curving lines across the left shoulder; all of which are suggestive of a contabulate toga (a trabea over a tunic). The costume’s diagonal criss-cross pattern must then be recognised as a (necessarily) highly reduced variant of the triumphal pattern of the consular toga. That the praeses-cum-editor himself occasionally descended onto the arena to crown the victor is illustrated by a codex reproduction of a relief fragment (‘Mafeiorum’) representing a circus-scene, presumably taking place in the Circus Maximus in Rome; Ronke 1987, (iii) Abb. 155 (Kat.Nr. 148). See also Baus 1940, 149-152; and Humphrey 1986, 87. 877 Kähler 1975, Taf. II, XI; Kiilerich 1993, Fig. 12b. 878 E.g. Elsner 1998, 101 Fig. 67. 879 See below, III.7.1. 880 III.4.1. 881 See III.3.2 and 3.3. above. Compare also the Amazonian aspect of the personification of Treberis (Trier) in the Codex-calendar of 354; Stern 1953, Pl. III.2; Salzman 1990, Fig. 5. 882 See also Lafontaine-Dosogne 1980/81, 6. 883 E.g. Grabar 1936, 31-78 passim; McCormick 1986, 101. 884 Geneva, Musée d’Art et d’Histoire. Reproduced in e.g. MacCormack 1981, Pl. 52; and Toynbee & Painter 1986, Pl. IX no. 15. 885 Compare McCormick 1986, 15.

Delbrueck suggested,886 must be left unsaid. However and by way of comparison, plumed or otherwise ornamented horses are also found in late Roman mosaic representations of victorious charioteers.887 Furthermore, the winning horses of a circus race were traditionally thought to be carriers of felicitas and thus generally beneficent to the community to which they belonged.888 The cross decorating the Amazons’ standards in Anastasius B lends a decidedly imperial aspect to the scene, suggesting that the procession is also meant to illustrate the concept of imperial victory.889 A peculiarly eastern practice of celebrating imperial victories, as well as other festive occasions, with victory parades in the Hippodrome was established since the last decades of the 4th century at least.890 A preserved 6th-century papyrus from the eastern provincial town of Oxyrhynchos, containing the only circus programme which has come down to posterity,891 states that the opening ceremony of the first day involved Victories; whether these were statues carried in a procession and placed at the finishing-line892 remains unknown but seems plausible. The same document also states that each performance was followed by a procession. The probability that this programme reflected a contemporary standard set by the major arenas of Rome and Constantinople is not only suggested by the fairly impressive set of performances listed, but also by the circumstance that the Constantinopolitan Apion family financed the games.893 The nature and purpose of the processions between performances are not explained in the text, but one possibility is that they were conducted in celebration of the victors and/or victories achieved in the foregoing competitions. Statues of Victoria are also reported to have preceded the triumphator in the processus triumphalis in the imperial period.894 It is thus more than possible that the Amazonian processions in Anastasius’ diptychs provide an implicit reference to such imperial celebrations, even if they explicitly refer to the victories achieved during the consul’s own games. Typological parallels to the Amazonian figures in Anastasius’ diptychs are found in imperial triumphal imagery 886 Delbrueck 1929, 75. 887 Dunbabin 1982, Pl. 5-9 passim. 888 Versnel 1970, 375. 889 See further III.6.1.

from c. 400 onwards, where the figure of Victoria—often represented as a confronted pair—is heading processions of tribute-bearing barbarians or province personifications. Particularly interesting comparanda are found on the south and west sides of the Arcadian column base in Constantinople,895 and in the bottom register (panel) of the Barberini ivory in Paris (Pl. 20), commonly attributed to the reign of Anastasius I. The Victoria represented in these works shares many characteristics with the Amazons in the consular diptychs: the forward-leaning and vigorously striding movement, the Greek hairstyle with bow-knot, the girdled tunic blown backwards, the carrying of a staff crowned by a victory-emblem of some sort (in the imperial images a tropaeum), and that she leads other figures—some of which animals—behind her in a procession.896 The analogy provided by the imperial-triumphal images in my view lends further support to the interpretation of the Amazonian scenes in Anastasius’ diptychs as victory processions symbolic of imperial triumph; the jewelled corona longa in Anastasius D adds still further to its plausibility. If one assumes that the image represents an actual performance in the arena—which all other lower register scenes in Anastasius’ diptychs do—then it follows that the games given by Anastasius among other spectacles might have featured staged victory processions.897 Palm-leaves (palmae) and prize objects nearly always accompany games-scenes in the eastern diptychs,898 whereas they present more rare motifs in the western works. Neither motif occurs in connection with circus-races. In the western images the objects are usually fewer and plainer, while they are numerous and often decorated in the eastern ones. The palm-leaf or frond is the especial emblem of victory in the arena.899 The kind featured in the consular diptychs always displays the same stylised form: smallish, spadeshaped, with sharply incised ‘veins’ separating the single leaves, and with a thick nether end marking the cut of the branch. The identical shape is found in, for instance, the missorium of Ardabur Aspar (Pl. 22), and a very similar shape in the Notitia Dignitatum.900 The cross-laid branches over the portae posticae in Anastasius B (right panel) could alternatively be interpreted as palm-branches, the palm-branch having been considered an emblem with apotropaic properties in antiquity.901 The prize objects are partly of the same kinds that were distributed in sparsiones and missilia, as suggested

890 Grabar 1936,

62, 69; McCormick 1986, 92 esp. On the Constantinopolitan Hippodrome as a locale for perpetual celebration of the emperor’s victoriousness, see Treitinger 1938, 170-178, 210; Grabar 1936, 65-70; MacCormack 1981, 76, 242, 249; McCormick 1986, 91-100; and Heucke 1994, 139-151, 233. 891 Humphrey 1986, 518f; Curran 2000, 258. Not counting the regulated lists in a Justinianic law text (Nov. 105); Delbrueck 1929, 67; and I.1.6 above. 892 Humphrey 1986, 519; Curran 2000, 258. 893 Humphrey 1986, 518. The Apion family belonged to the Constantinopolitan élite in the 6th century, and held high offices under both Anastasius I and Justinian (one Fl. Strategius Apion was appointed consul in 539, and was the commissioner of a preserved diptych; Delbrueck 1929, N 33; Volbach 1976, Nr. 32). See Bagnall, Cameron, Schwartz & Worp 1987, 613; and also Delbrueck 1929, 150. 894 Joseph., BJ 7.5.5; McCormick 1986, 15.

144

895 Kollwitz 1941, Beilagen 5-6. 896 A symbolic reference to the Amazons is also introduced on the west

and east sides of the Arcadius base, where the mythic warriors’ weapons feature among the heaps of war spoils represented in the lower registers; compare e.g. Grabar 1936, 77, Pl. XIII, XV. 897 On the symbolical and ideological conflation of imperial victory and victory in the arena, see notably Treitinger 1938, 169-173; and McCormick 1986, 91f, 94-100. Also Grabar 1936, 62-70; Pleket 1975, 78-80; Dunbabin 1982, 82-86; and Salzman 1990, 137f. See further III.6.1. 898 Anastasius A presents the only exception. 899 Grabar 1936, 62; Berger 1980, 67-72; Dunbabin 1982, 66-82; and Humphrey 1986, 275. 900 Berger 1981, 67-72 Fig. 15, 57. See III.4.2. 901 Cumont 1942, 220.

by the diptychs of Boethius’ (6), Clementinus (10), and Magnus (12),902 mainly round and rectangular plate. The broad and flat rim and bowl-like concavity of some round objects in Areobindus C-D indicate that they could be coronae rather than plate. In the eastern works, palmae and prize objects are interspersed between figures in a manner suggestive of suspension in space rather than physical placement. Like the coin and precious objects filling the air around the sackcarrying children in the bone replicas of Magnus (Pl. 13) and the medallion diptych of Iustinus (Pl. 16) their nature is primarily emblematic and symbolic, something which is not only suggested by their placement but also by the fact that they accompany games-scenes irrespective of whether these show concluded fights (i.e. victory achieved) or not. Even the mortally threatened men in Areobindus A are showered with prize. Further, palm-leaves and prize objects are never handled by any figure, not even in Areobindus B where the final victory is celebrated and one of the victors is crowned by the consul. Again, the objects are usually spread out over the entire arena, by which would be understood that they are abundant enough to cover it. Together with the equally numerous and widely distributed fighters and animals on the ground, they convey to the viewer an idea of extraordinary lavishness and monumentality. Concluding discussion: Within consular imagery, victory in the arena is a rather fluid concept that may be visualised in more than one way, and which contains several aspects. Although the achievement of victory would be considered the ultimate aim of the performers’ endeavours, the final moment of victory is rarely depicted. One could say that the ‘iconography of victory’ developed in the consular gamesscenes, especially the eastern ones, consists of two parts: the struggle (race, fight, contest) and the material reward. The honour of winning, and the glory of the winner, are themes that are relatively toned down; it is only in Areobindus B that victory is celebrated and a victor crowned. The victor is nowhere celebrated in the way he is on some late antique circus mosaics, for instance, where victorious charioteers are allowed to shine forth in the manner of triumphing emperors or gods.903 As for the Amazonian scenes in Anastasius’ diptychs, they present symbolic, possibly staged enactments of victory which cannot immediately or exclusively be linked to victory in the arena but as much or even more to the concept of imperial victory. Victory as visualised through the animal-fight usually throws the viewer right in medias res, into moments where the men display their courage and strength to the fullest: a venator is conquering a lion by thrusting his lance into its 902 Compare above, III.4.2 and 4.3. 903 L’Orange 1973:3, 337; Dunbabin 1982, 66-78, 84-86. As a note of

interest, the number of circus races traditionally held to Sol Invictus in connection with his Natales amounted to 30, an unusually high number which would reflect the peculiar popularity of this god/cult with the Roman people; Salzman 1990, 127. That the late Roman emperor for a period closely associated himself with Sol Invictus naturally would add further significance to these typological and symbolic parallels.

145

body, an acrobat is evading a bear by jumping over its head or hiding behind a dummy, and so on. It is the climax of an encounter and the superiority of the human combatant in that encounter which represent victory. But even more important is the victoriousness as such, the superior force of the human fighters. The venationes and acrobatic fights depicted in the consular images quite evidently aim at illustrating the superior quality of victoriousness in the men as opposed to the brutal force of the animals. The victor’s qualities, such as they are visualised here, are technical, mental and physical: the men are more focussed, organised and versatile, and their physical superiority is further illustrated by a reversion in size between men and beasts. Certainly, as has already been pointed out,904 reducing the scale of any figures enables the inclusion of larger numbers, but had there existed a wish to illustrate the animals’ powerfulness in order that the heroism of the men set against them be fully appreciated (as representations of fighting gladiators from previous centuries do905 ), this would undoubtedly have been realised by the artists. As it is, there is a stereotype way of rendering the animals that clearly tells the viewer how to valuate their power. Dumb fierceness—open jaws, circular movements and the occasional, ineffective tugging at opponents—coupled with physical smallness demonstrate the innate inferiority of the beasts; they are meant to appear as inadequate creatures whose endeavours must ultimately be futile. Their human adversaries on the other hand are presented as predestined conquerors, not so much performing heroic acts as going about their business in an efficient and formidable manner. The men are ‘performers of victory’ like actors in a play whose end is given. The venator and the acrobatic fighter thus have a clear advantage over the charioteer for displaying the victor’s art, which may be one of the reasons why animal fights became such a favoured motif in the 6th-century eastern diptychs. In the games-scenes of the eastern diptychs, the inclusion of palmae and prize takes the viewer beyond the result of the fight, presaging victory before it has been achieved: victory’s reward is presented as an attribute of victory. However, as may be understood from the presence of these motifs in consular images without circus scenes (Boethius, Clementinus and Magnus, Iustinus, the missorium of Aspar), their representation within a diptych primarily refers to the generosity of the consul who distributes them. The numbers of precious gifts must be displayed in such a manner that the viewer may know how admirably the honorand has acquitted himself as consul. Ultimately, both victory in the arena and its material reward are intended to reflect on the consul in whose honour the spectacles are performed. The viewer is not so much called upon to admire the contestants’ feats (although he is often clearly invited to do so) as to acknowledge the consul’s excellence as a provider of games and as a distributor of lavish prizes. The artistic, that is non-violent, contests depicted in Anastasius’ diptychs clearly illustrate the point. 904 III.3.6 and 4.1. 905 For illustrative representations, see La Regina 2001, 170f Fig. 22-23.

The consul’s excellence in providing games demonstrates how he lives up to the superior qualities traditionally associated with a Roman who has attained high office.906 On a higher level, the victories achieved by the charioteers and venatores are symbolic of victory as a universal ideal of the Roman empire, their victor’s qualities illustrating the superior quality of felicitas907 as well as the association of victory with a new beginning, viz. the novus annus.908 The victory parade enacted by Amazonian figures in Anastasius’ diptychs demonstrate how victory in the arena may be translated into a metaphor for imperial victory. It seems highly significant that this kind of scene is only found in diptychs commemorating a consul belonging to the imperial family, and most particularly a consul whose imagery is otherwise rich in references to the imperial dynasty and its victoriousness.909

5.4. The barbarian captives in the Halberstadt diptych The lower-register scenes in the Halberstadt diptych (2) have already been discussed in connection with the imperial imagery of the upper registers.910 In this section the main points of what was said there will be further developed. The barbarian-cum-war spoils or submissio theme does not belong in consular imagery of private citizens.911 Since the emperor is the exclusive victor of the Romans, it is only he who can have victories commemorated through official imagery. In late antiquity more than in earlier periods of the empire, this type of imagery is found in works celebrating the emperor as superior imperator and triumphator, i.e. on triumphal monuments. One mode of representing conquered barbarians from the late 4th to the 6th century was by means of a procession of tribute-offering figures in exotic costumes, usually headed by Victoria or Victoriae carrying tropaea or some other kind of s p o l i u m elevated on a pole, as exemplified by the reliefs on the Arcadian column base (south and west sides),912 the Barberini ivory (Pl. 20), and an early 6th-century ivory panel originally belonging to another socalled imperial ivory assemblage in Milan.913 The scheme found in the Halberstadt diptych derives from another, earlier and pre-Byzantine type of imagery for representing conquered 906 On the virtutes associated with the holder of high Roman magistracies

in late antiquity, see notably Näf 1995, 213-287. For a comparison between the consul’s ideal virtues and those of the military commander and triumphator in Roman tradition, see Versnel 1970, 365-383 esp. 907 Cf. Piganiol 1923, 116-125; and Dunbabin 1982, 65, 82-84. 908 Notably Versnel 1970, 301f, also 379 (on the vegetative, luck-bringing symbolism of victory in the arena). 909 For allusions to imperial victory in Anastasius’ diptych imagery, see III.2.1.2, 2.1.3 and 3.4. 910 III.3.4, also III.3.2. 911 On the forms and meanings of submissio-scenes in Roman art, see e.g. Brilliant 1963, 189-195. 912 Kollwitz 1941, Beilagen 5-6. 913 Delbrueck 1929, N 49, Taf. 49; Volbach 1976, Nr. 49, Taf. 26.

146

barbarians, which presents them as captives with backbound hands, hunching dejectedly on the ground, sometimes tied to a t r o p a e u m and surrounded by war spoils, and sometimes—as in the diptych—accompanied by their women and children.914 This is a type that describes the barbarian as a wild man who would not surrender to Rome but by brutal force, a man doomed to slavery or death at the hands of his conqueror.915 It contrasts significantly with the ‘willing’ and ceremonial surrender characterising the tribute-paying barbarian. The type featured in Halberstadt is an uncivilised warrior, the type featured in the Barberini ivory a civilised provincial citizen; the former surrenders his arms to his conqueror under force, the latter offers him the riches of his country (golden coronets/coronae triumphales,916 ivory, fruits) together with his loyalty. The distinction between the two types of barbarian surrender is illustrated with great clarity on the west side of the Arcadian column base, where Victoria-headed processions of barbarians ceremonially seeking their conqueror’s grace are placed immediately above scenes where kneeling and backbound barbarian men, accompanied by their women and children, are surrounded on all sides by war spoils. The scheme of the relief’s four superimposed registers follows a hierarchical order, where the bottom stratum is reserved for the lowest category of humans: barbarian captives. From the bottom upwards, on an ascending scale, then follow barbarian processions, emperors as military commanders accompanied by magistrates and members of the army, and, crowning the whole, the laureate cross—the imperial victory sign—held against the sky by Victoriae/angels. The distinction between willing surrender and captivity is underlined by the inner compositions of the two scenes. The bottom sphere in which the captives are found can be described as chaotic yet static, a place where the shattered remnants of a people and their arms are heaped together in an irregular composition mainly based on horizontals and diagonals (the only vertical elements are four columns to which barbarians or their weapons are attached). In contrast, the sphere of barbarian processions, which comes next, displays compositional regularity, symmetrical order, a greater degree of verticality, and 914 The most prominent late antique examples are found on the west and

east sides of the Arcadian column base in Constantinople; Kollwitz 1941, Beilagen 6-7. Another late antique example is provided by a solidus issued by Valentinian I and Valens in commemoration of their joint consulship in 367/8 (reproduced in MacCormack 1981, 165f, Pl. 48), which like the Halberstadt diptych shows crouching and backbound barbarian captives below the (here enthroned) consuls. Earlier submissio-scenes with close affinities to that in the Halberstadt diptych are represented on the 1st c. ‘Grande camée de France’ in the Bibliothèque nationale de France, Paris (e.g. Bianchi Bandinelli 1969, 196 Fig. 210) and—from the non-imperial context—the 3rd c. Roman Ammendola battle sarcophagus (lid) in the Musei Capitolini, Rome (Koch & Sichtermann 1984, 67-92, Taf. 74). Like the Halberstadt diptych, the battle sarcophagi would have been commissioned by Roman generals. 915 On the disordered and temperamental nature traditionally ascribed to the barbarian by the Romans, and on the intensified sense of superiority (moral, cultural) expressed vis-à-vis the empire’s neighbours in the beginning of the Christian era, see Heather 1999. 916 RE IV.2.8 (1901), 1638 s.v. ‘Corona’ (A. Haebler). Compare also the representations of tribute-paying provinces on the sella curulis in Anastasius C, III.2.1.3.

movement: the figures are neither shattered nor passivised, but organised performers of a Roman ceremony. The barbarian scenes in the Halberstadt diptych correspond perfectly to their counterparts in the bottom register of the obelisk composition. The two modes of representing conquered barbarians may also be related to two aspects of the Roman emperor as conqueror. For the subjects partaking in the processional scene the emperor is a Christianising, civilising and approachable sovereign; for the captives, on the other hand, the emperor is a distant and unapproachable overlord who humiliates his defeated enemies and denies them the privileges that come with Roman citizenship. The composition of superimposed registers in the Halberstadt diptych corresponds to those of the Arcadian column base and the Barberini ivory assemblage. Like the consular diptych, the column base includes officials (consuls, senators) as a middle rank between emperors and barbarians. The stratification into three registers is however best illustrated in the Barberini ivory, where the emperor—attended by a military commander (left side-panel) and a consul (lost right side-panel)917 —is placed in a central register between tributebearing barbarians (bottom panel) and the celestial apparition of Christ (top panel). The emperor, humbly waited upon by his commander and consul, is thus presented as the intermediary link between the ‘world’ below, conquered by the Roman emperor (symbolised by subjugated barbarian tribes,918 and also by Tellus reclining on the ground immediately beneath the riding emperor), and the divine sphere inhabited by Christ above. In the diptych, the consul and patricius Fl. Constantius, the presumptive honorand,919 poses as the intermediary link between the conquered barbarians below and the semi-divine sphere of emperors and goddesses above. In both images the uppermost figures present a superior power whose influence ‘directs’ the intermediary ‘agent’ in the middle sphere to ‘achieve’ what is represented in the bottom sphere: military conquest. As Christ encourages the emperor to conquer in his name (by blessing his action; Christ’s right-hand gesture is one of benediction), so the emperors—here supported by city goddesses—have assigned Constantius to conquer in their name. Christ in the Barberini ivory and the emperors in the Halberstadt diptych are thus presented as the superior powers behind victory, and it is they that ultimately claim any victories achieved. 920

917 I agree with Delbrueck that the most likely figure for the lost right side-

panel would have been a consul in triumphal toga, presumably identical with the commander in the left side-panel and the commissioner of the work; Delbrueck 1929, 188-195. Compare also MacCormack 1981, 171f; and Cutler 1991, 338f. Not only would a ‘civilian’ magistrate present a balancing counterpart to the ‘military’ commander, but a triumphally attired consul would have accorded perfectly with the theme of imperial triumph on which the ivory in its entirety centres. 918 Indians and Scythians (?); compare Delbrueck 1929, 192f. 919 See III.3.2 and 3.4. 920 On the concept of Christ as the conferrer of Roman victory in late antiquity (4th-5th c.), see Paschoud 1967, 222-232 (discussing Prudentius’

147

The surrender and tribute of vanquished barbarians likewise belong to the emperor and ultimately, or so we are encouraged to believe, to Christ. In the Barberini ivory, the commander, who has presumably achieved the victory in the field, is seen to present it to the emperor in the form of a victoriola, and it is of course to the emperor that the conquered barbarians in the bottom panel offer their tribute. A similar pattern is witnessed in the Halberstadt diptych, where however no ceremonial offering is made to the conquering party. By subtle means the viewer is made aware that the consul is the actual victor over the people crowded in the registers below him: it is towards him, Constantius, that a conquered barbarian (right panel) extends his shield with a gesture of surrender. The costumes, weapons and general appearance of the barbarian figures in the Halberstadt diptych need also be considered. As was noted in the discussion following the diptych’s description in Part II,921 their costumes appear to be western—in a general rather than specific sense, certainly—and the distinct shape and ornamentation of the shields interspersed between figures display considerable affinities with, for instance, the war spoils represented on the Arch of Tiberius at Orange, a Gallic monument. Even more interesting is the well-to-do appearance of the figures and their clothing. The rich embroideries on the men’s tunics, the distinctly courtly dress, headdress and jewellery worn by two of the women (compare Amalasuntha’s attire in the Orestes diptych (7)), and the plumpness of the children are all signs of such wealth and prosperity as comes with a high societal status—that the society in question would be Roman in clearly indicated by the women’s attire. The cap-shaped and straight-haired coiffures and long, equally straight beards of the male figures are generally characteristic of Germanic (i.e. western) tribes. Guided by these indications I would propose that the figures may be recognised as western barbarians who have been assimilated into and attained a relatively prominent position within Roman society. The Gallic Visigoths, a people who may more or less exactly be described in these terms, were Honorius’ and Constantius’ opponents in the struggles for sovereignty in the west in the years between Constantius’ two consulships (414-417).922 It is of course possible that the viewer is intended to understand the submissio-scenes in Halberstadt as referring to a more specific context, i.e. as depictions of a real ceremony in a real locale. There are three ceremonies that spring to mind. The most likely source of inspiration for the scenes must be the actual events recorded in connection with Honorius’ triumph over the Visigoths in 416—the last to be celebrated by a western emperor in Rome923 —when representatives of the latter, perhaps clad in the finest and

books against Symmachus); Klein 1985, 129-138; McCormick 1986, 100111; and Heim 1992, 27-41. 921 II.2 (with footnotes). 922 E.g. Lütkenhaus 1998, 76-93. 923 McCormick 1986, 56-58.

most traditional costumes of their people,924 would have been conducted into the circus to perform a ritual submissio (in the form of proskynesis; compare the kneeling man in the left panel) in front of the emperor presiding on the tribunal.925 Or they may refer to a more traditional and essentially military ritual, where the leaders of the conquered enemy were led in front of the supreme commander (the emperor) who was seated on a tribunal surrounded by representatives of the army (compare the men-at-arms framing the imperial group in the diptych), and there forced to surrender their weapons.926 Such a scene would however never have occurred in reality, since the victory over the Visigoths in 416 was not achieved in the battlefield but by the capture of the enemy leader, Priscus Attalus.927 A third possibility could be that the barbarian figures in Constantius’ diptych are inspired not by an actual submissio of the Visigoths but by a theatrical sketch on the theme of conquered Goths, the so-called show of the Goths,928 which, apparently derived from a military rite,929 became somewhat of a standard ingredient in victory spectacles in the 5th and 6th centuries.930 This play featured an ‘emperor’ seated on a tribunal beside a river and a group of actors dressed in ‘Gothic’ costumes performing a submissio in front of him. Whether this type of sketch was part of ordinary consuls’ games is doubtful, but in view of the extraordinary circumstances pertaining to Constantius’ consulship in 417—his Gothic victory, his imperial marriage, and the fact that the emperor Honorius celebrated consulship in the same year—it is not unthinkable that his consular editiones might have included certain staged representations of imperial victory, among them a ‘show of the Goths’.931 Such a show would in any case have been performed to the emperor’s honour, even if its content would have been associated with the achievements of his general and kinsman.

Concluding discussion: When regarding the comparative examples derived from imperial triumphal imagery, the historically oriented explanation of the Halberstadt imagery which has hitherto received the focus of scholarly attention may be supplemented. The diptych’s composition and motif repertory clearly emulate imperial triumphal imagery, but translated into a form more appropriate for a private consul. A private consul cannot pose as the recipient of conquered barbarians’ surrender, since that is naturally the emperor’s privilege. Thus the introduction of any scene referring to imperial victory in the official diptych of a private consul must mean that this personage has somehow gained the right to make use of such imagery. Belonging to the imperial family would be the obvious way of gaining that right, and Constantius entered the imperial house as of the 1st of January 417, when he married Honorius’ step-sister Galla Placidia.932 By making use of imperial iconography of conquest in his consular imagery, the honorand of the Halberstadt diptych in a certain measure usurps the privilege of the emperor, who is the exclusive and perpetual triumphator of the Roman empire. The newly acquired membership in the imperial family, viz. his ‘excuse’ for introducing the scenes, would inevitably have encouraged ambitions of future rulership. By means of the triumphal imagery the honorand explains his legitimacy in view of a future emperorship by referring to his proven victoriousness, victoriousness being a primary and innate quality of an emperor (Victoria Augusta). The conquered Visigoths, over whom Honorius celebrated a Roman triumph in 416, are gathered in submission beneath him, their costumes and general appearance bespeaking the prominent status they had attained within Roman society in the early 5th century. To conclude, the barbarian captives represented in the Halberstadt diptych provide further evidence in favour of the attribution to the western consul of 417 and future emperor of the west, Fl. Constantius.

924 In accordance with triumphal tradition; compare Joseph., BJ 7.123-

131; McCormick 1986, 15 and n. 19. Compare the rich and ‘ethnic’ costumes of the barbarian figures in the diptych. 925 The Visigothic leader defeated by Constantius was publicly humiliated by being forced to walk in front of the emperor’s chariot in the triumph of 416; e.g. Matthews 1974, 354f; and McCormick 1986, 57. It is not reported that other members of Attalus’ clan were subjected to a similar treatment on this occasion, but whether they were or not would be irrelevant to how the triumph was commemorated in imagery, since submissio scenes in Roman art are by nature—most particularly in late antiquity—generic and symbolic rather than specific and realistic. 926 McCormick 1986, 96f. 927 Demandt 1989, 149; Martindale 1980-1992:1, 323; Lütkenhaus 1998, 85-93, 133. 928 A.D.E. Cameron 1976, 214-216; McCormick 1986, 98f. 929 On the military rite of presenting conquered and chained enemy leaders before the emperor seated on tribunal in the presence of his troops, see McCormick 1986, 97-99 with n. 85-86, 117-119. 930 Such a sketch is reported to have been staged in Constantinople to mark the defeat of Attalus in 416; A.D.E. Cameron 1976, 214-216. 931 Compare III.3.4. Additionally, Lütkenhaus has proposed that Honorius honoured Constantius by allowing him to personally punish Attalus in connection with the triumphal celebrations in 416, something which would illustrate the exceptionally high status that Constantius enjoyed already before he was married into the imperial house; Lütkenhaus 1998, 133.

148

6. OTHER SYMBOLIC MOTIFS The motifs treated in this section do not count among the standard repertory of consular imagery, although some of them occur as integrated parts of motif constellations. The motifs in question are the cross, the shell (concha) and the confronted eagles ornamenting the frame in the Bourges diptych (5). A motif that will not receive a separate treatment here is the monogram clipei in the diptychs of Clementinus (10) and Orestes (7), which have been treated in connection with victory emblems above.933 As for the eagle-motif in Bourges, its unique form and application indicate a somewhat different aspect of the aquila from the usual, wherefore an 932 For a more detailed discussion of the historical data pertaining to Fl.

Constantius’ second consulship in 417, and how these data correspond to the imagery of the Halberstadt diptych, see III.4.4. 933 III.5.2.

investigation into it may prove meaningful. As always, a basic assumption is that the application of each motif (placement, relationships to other motifs) is suggestive of specific meaning; depending on where and how it is introduced in an image, it may refer to different aspects of consulship, even peculiar circumstances pertaining to the consulship of an individual honorand. I hope to show that despite their infrequent appearance within consular imagery, and in some cases their very decorative appearance, the motifs in question have not been introduced randomly and without consideration of their implicit meaning and their relevance for the consular context.

6.1. The cross The cross only occurs in consular diptychs produced in the 6th century.934 Its placement within an image seems to have been dictated by certain rules since it invariably features in four specific areas of the pictorial field, each of which corresponds to certain contextual levels or spheres: in the upper register (Clementinus (10), Orestes (7)); on the consul’s scipio (Basilius (8), the ex-Ganay panel (Pl. 17)); on the tabula ansata (Clementinus, Anastasius A-C (11)); and on the tabulae carried by Amazonian figures in the lower registers of Anastasius B. The four contexts answering to these areas are the imperial/regal sphere, more precisely the ruling couple, the consul’s ‘rule’ (the sceptre being the principal insignium of power), the consul as an individual and as member of a g e n s , and the triumphal procession/victory parade.935 The cross determines the meaning of a scene or context, not only adding a Christian dimension to it but suggesting a certain interpretation of its nature and purpose(s). The large cross placed in the centre of the upper registers in Clementinus’ and Orestes’ diptychs may basically be understood as the symbol of Christian faith as embraced by the ruling house and (ideally) the Roman empire. Its placement at the centre of the field, between the imagines clipeatae of the imperial/regal couples, underlines its central importance for the idea of imperial rulership, which is perceived as an earthly realisation of Christ’s heavenly kingdom.936 There is no marked hierarchical distinction between the cross and the rulers in these representations, since the three are placed on the same horizontal level. The same scheme and concept are witnessed in the medallion diptych of Iustinus (Pl. 16),937 where the cross-nimbate imago clipeata of Christ is placed in the same position between the imagines of Justinian and Theodora. Here as in the other diptychs, the hierarchical distinctions between the imperial couple and the divine personage are only indicated by Christ’s nimbus 934 Diptychs of the medallion and ornamental categories included. 935 See above, III.5.3. 936 For relevant treatments of this concept, see e.g. Grabar 1936, 98f; and

Kelly 1999, 181f; also Heather 1999, 236f, 247-249 (including the Ostrogothic adoption of the Roman system); and Matschke 2002, 145f. 937 Compare III.3.4.

149

(attribute of divinity) and central placement; his status in this ‘trinity’ may be described as that of the foremost among equal partners in imperial rulership. The cross’s or Christ’s placement in the centre of the uppermost register of a pictorial field is a scheme that occurs in imperial art, notably the column base of Arcadius in Constantinople938 and the Barberini ivory (Pl. 20), but then unaccompanied by the emperor, his co-emperor or consort. In these images the cross/Christ is exclusively associated with imperial victory, and the motifs’ function is to represent the divine source from which imperial victory springs. A similar scheme also occurs in some Christian ivory works, such as for instance the Saint-Lupicin diptych in Paris,939 and on some sepulchral monuments,940 where the cross signifies the apotheosis in Christ, viz. victory over death. None of these significances would, however, apply to the consular images. Comparanda more congenial to the scheme in the upper registers in Clementinus and Orestes are found on a number of imperial coins issued in the latter half of the 5th century (Anthemius-Leo I)941 representing the emperors of west and east standing with a cross or a cross-surmounted orb between them, an image illustrating their divinely inspired concord and the harmony of their joint rulership in the sign of Christ. A similar kind of imagery recurs in some late antique works in the minor arts showing the imagines of a married couple flanking a central cross.942 The cross or Christ’s imago in the consular diptychs should not then primarily be associated with the victory sign of the Roman emperor and the idea of Christian conquest, but instead be linked to the idea of rulership harmoniously shared between spouses—or mother and son, as in Orestes’ case. This interpretation seems to be supported by the fact that the cross, within the preserved consular diptychs, is nowhere used in connection with imagery referring to the dynasty or house of the ruler. The idea of dynastic succession, as it is formulated in the diptychs of Anastasius and Anthemius (Pl. 15),943 does not comprise any suggestion that the emperor and his clan are a Christian ruler-dynasty or that the emperor’s victoriousness (symbolised by the laurel-carrying Victoriae)944 would emanate from Christ. The cross-sceptre has already been treated under the section dedicated to the scipio,945 where the authenticity of the crosstip in Basilius’ diptych is put in question. Setting the problem of Basilius aside for the moment, I will focus on the possible motivations for introducing a cross instead of the emperor’s bust on the sceptre of an ordinary consul. The political and religious explanations offered by Delbrueck for the Basilius and ex-Ganay diptychs were based on the 938 Kollwitz 1941, Beilagen 5-7. 939 Volbach 1976, Nr. 145, Taf. 77; also Grabar 1966, 294 Fig. 338. 940 Notably Ravennese sarcophagi; e.g. Koch 2000, Taf. 95-96 and 98. 941 Reproduced in Grigg 1977, Fig. 7-9. 942 Grigg 1977, 476- 478 and Fig. 10-11. 943 See III.3.4. 944 See III.5.1 and 5.2. 945 III.2.1.2.

assumption that a consul appointed under extraordinary circumstances could choose what kind of sceptre-tip to have represented in his commemorative diptychs, and that the same extraordinary circumstances prevented him from making use of the bust-sceptre. The scipio cum aquila and the crosstipped sceptre would, according to this hypothesis, have presented equally valid choices, and the choice made by a consul would reflect his personal values—in the crosssceptre’s case presumably the strength of his Christian persuation. Delbrueck’s religious explanation of the crosssceptre’s presence in the diptychs in question can neither be proved nor disproved; the religious feelings of Basilius cos. 541 are no more known to posterity than those of his ancestor, Basilius cos. 480, and the issue cannot be pursued any further. The significances of the cross-sceptre in the diptych of a private consul have not received much interest beyond those proposed by Delbrueck.946 Naturally the cross-sceptre had no tradition like that of the scipio cum aquila.947 The sceptre crowned by a cross-surmounted orb being primarily an insignium of the imperial consul,948 it would have expressed the idea of the Christian world rule as realised by the Roman emperor, in itself illustrating a shift from the idea of Iuppiter (symbolised by the eagle-on-a-globe) as the divine power behind the Roman empire. As long as the ordinary consulate remained, viz. into Justinian’s reign, the eagle-tipped and cross-tipped sceptre were however used in parallel by the emperor.949 Meanwhile, it seems that the scipio cum aquila and the bust-sceptre were interchangeable for private ordinary consuls throughout the period of diptych production, even if the latter was standard.950 As for what the cross-tipped sceptre in a private consul’s hand might signify (there is no reason to doubt that the sceptre in ex-Ganay is authentic or that the consul was anything other than a private consul951 ), I would like to propose that the cross, like the eagle and the 946 Cameron and Schauer regrettably abstain from discussing Basilius’

cross-sceptre from any other aspect than the technical; Cameron & Schauer 1982. 947 See above, III.2.1.2. 948 For representations on imperial coins: RIC X (1994), Pl. 7-10 passim, Pl. 22-23 passim, Pl. 27 no. 1805, Pl. 50-51 passim, Pl. 58 no. 2602, Pl. 60 no. 2703, Pl. 62 no. 2806; also Burgess 1988, Pl. 27 nos. 3, 5-6, 10-11; and M.R. Alföldi 1989, passim. Although not mentioning the cross-tipped sceptre specifically, Restle argues that the cross-surmounted orb (like the orb and the cross) were imperial insignia; Restle 1988, 958f, 964. For the crosssurmounted orb and its interpretation, see also M.R. Alföldi 1961, 31f; M.R. Alföldi 1989, 322-325; Deér 1961, 83f; Wessel 1978, 399f; and Dinkler & Dinkler-von Schubert 1995, 45f, 55f. 949 To judge by the consular diptychs and coins. See also M.R. Alföldi, 325. For the scipio cum aquila, see Gnecchi 1912, 1 Tav. 8 no.15, Tav. 10 no. 7, Tav. 14 no. 4; Delbrueck 1929, Texttaf. 1 no. 1; and RIC X (1994), e.g. Pl. 34 nos. 1207-1208, Pl. 41 no. 1330. For the use of the scipio cum aquila by the imperial consul into the reign of Justinian, see Restle 1988, 956. For the cross-tipped sceptre, see e.g. Delbrueck 1929, Texttaf. 1 nos. 4, 6 and 8. 950 Compare Restle 1988, 956f; and above, III.2.1.2. 951 The consul’s titles listed on the inscriptional plaque (vir clarissimus et inlustris, ex comes domesticorum, consul ordinarius) are quite representative of those of a western aristocrat, although the patrician title is lacking (perhaps the consul was very young when he received his appointment; compare Orestes).

150

bust effigy, represents the sovereign—in the ex-Ganay consul’s case the Ostrogothic king, through his regent mother—who appointed the consul and conferred the sceptre on him, not the Christian faith of the consul himself. The cross-tipped sceptre does not occur in any preserved eastern diptych, the medallion type included. The crosses incised on the tabulae carried by the Amazonian figures in Anastasius B (and possibly painted on in the other diptychs) further support the interpretation of this scene as a victory parade or symbolic triumphal procession.952 As already discussed in connection with victory in the arena, the tablets on poles may be compared to the labarum, the crossor christogram-inscribed military standard-cum-victory sign of the late Roman emperors.953 That the Amazonians display considerable similarities with Victories, and that crosscarrying Victoriae are frequently seen in imperial-triumphal art were discussed in the same section.954 As for the cross specifically, its presence in Constantinopolitan arena ritual is well attested: it was carried as a victory sign in imperial victory parades, which were regularly conducted in the Hippodrome,955 and it has been argued that the display of the cross introduced all games in Constantinople,956 thus comprising those given by private officials. Staged enactments of imperial triumphal processions were part of many, perhaps all, circus spectacles in the Constantinopolitan Hippodrome from at least the latter half of the 4th century.957 The horses led by the Amazons or Victories in Anastasius’ diptychs are fairly easily associated with the Hippodrome, the arena for horse-races (which initiated the consular games in Constantinople as well as in Rome958 ) and imperial victory parades, and the place before all others where the emperor was ceremoniously hailed by his subjects as supreme and eternal victor.959 One such victory parade was conducted in 515, when the emperor Anastasius after several years of threats from the contender Vitalianus finally succeeded in putting him down;960 the religious motivation behind Vitalianus’ revolt would have guaranteed that the parade was conceived as a Christian triumph. That Anastasius, the great-nephew of the emperor Anastasius I, may have included staged victory parades in his consular games in one or other form seems very plausible, and even if the representations of a victory parade in his 952 See III.5.3. 953 III.5.3. The cross as a (triumphal) insignium of the emperor was

introduced in the middle of the 5th century; e.g. Grabar 1936, 156. For useful discussions and interpretations of the labarum, the victory-inducing standard of Constantine I, see Grigg 1977, 470 and n. 12; M.R. Alföldi 1989, 319-325; and Dinkler-Schubert 1995, 37. 954 III.5.1 and 5.3. 955 Grabar 1936, 31-33, 62-76, 145; McCormick 1986, 62 with n. 91, 111 (discussing the triumphal-Christian parade staged by Anastasius I in celebration of the suppression of Vitalianus’ rebellion in 515). 956 Piganiol 1923, 138. 957 McCormick 1986, 91f, 95-99. 958 See III.4.1. 959 E.g. Treitinger 1938, 169-173 esp.; and Matschke 2002, 155f. 960 A.D.E. Cameron 1972, 128; McCormick 1986, 62.

diptychs would not depict a real spectacle, they still provide his consular imagery with yet another reference to the supreme and divinely inspired victoriousness of his uncle, the emperor.961 The minuscule crosses incised on the tabulae in Clementinus and Anastasius A and C present the only type of cross in the consular diptychs which does not form part of the imagery, and whose significance would not be related to the greater concept of consulship but to the honorand as an individual, as it were supplementing the individual data given in the inscription. As I see it there are two possible ways of accounting for these crosses: either they are attributes to the consul personally, i.e. signs announcing his Christian faith, and/or they refer to his membership in the Christian community at large. Why these particular consuls should wish to announce their Christianity in this way can only be speculated upon. Perhaps Clementinus, being one of the few consuls in 6thcentury Constantinople without family connections to the house of Anastasius I, felt a need to advertise himself as a pious man and so deserving of the imperial favour, i.e. to advertise himself a faithful Christian serving a Christian emperor (as announced by the cross beside the imperial imago in the upper register). Membership in the imperial family could serve as an explanation, at least partly, for the ‘declaration of faith’ in Anastasius’ diptychs. This type of cross, incised beside the honorand’s inscription on the tabula or, as the case may be, beside the dedicatory text contained in the centre of an non-figural medallion diptych, is otherwise only found in three diptychs issued by Justinian on the occasion of his eastern consulship in 521962 —a consul who like Anastasius belonged to the imperial house.963 A similar kind of cross, this time sculpted and slightly larger, is also found immediately above the consul’s monogram in a panel of Areobindus in Lucca;964 like Anastasius and Justinian, Areobindus was a consul with imperial connections who thus associated his person (the monogram) with the cross symbol. There is also the possibility that the inscribed crosses in Clementinus and Anastasius are not original, but incised at some later date when the diptychs were reused within a Christian context, which most or all of them were.965 The crosses would in this case have served the same purpose as the cross on Basilius’ sceptre, viz. to Christianise the imagery and the consul’s figure in order to render them fit for their new function.966 However, the shape of the crosses perfectly matches those incised in Justinian’s diptychs, only

961 Compare III.2.1.2, 2.1.3, 5.1 and 5.2. 962 Delbrueck 1929, N 26-28, Taf. 26-28; Volbach 1976, Nr. 25-27,

Taf.12-13. 963 Justinian was the nephew and adopted son of the eastern emperor Justin I, whom he succeeded on the throne in 527; e.g. Bury 1958:2, ix (genealogical table of the house of Justin I); and Demandt 1989, 197, 503 (geneaology Theodoric-Justinian). 964 Delbrueck 1929, N 15, Taf. 15; Volbach 1976, Nr. 14, Taf. 7. 965 Delbrueck 1929, 120f, 126-133; also Sansterre 1984. 966 II.8 and III.2.1.2.

151

one of which has been reused by the church,967 wherefore they must almost certainly be original. Concluding discussion: The conclusions that may be drawn from the ways in which the cross is presented in the consular diptychs are few and relatively uncomplicated. From what may be determined by the preserved corpus, the cross was not part of consular imagery before c. 500, i.e. it is a late and very likely eastern introduction. Chronologically it corresponds to the reigns of Anastasius I and Justinian,968 both emperors who profiled themselves as great Christian sovereigns and Christianisers of the world. There can be little doubt that the impulse for the development of consular iconography came from the imperial sphere in 6th century Constantinople, reflecting an ever-increasing association of the emperor with the doctrine of Christian rulership. Nor would it be a coincidence that the introduction of the cross—and occasionally Christ’s effigy—into consular imagery took place in a period of Ostrogothic rule in Italy and more or less constant threat from neighbouring peoples along the empire’s frontiers.969 Christianity (or rather the ‘right’ Christian faith) became synonymous with legitimate rule and civilisation, which were built, safeguarded and (ideally) extended in the sign of the cross.970 There is a distinction between the cross as a pictorial motif, i.e. one which forms part of the imagery, and as an incised (written) sign on an inscriptional plaque. The ‘pictorial’ cross is in all cases directly or indirectly associated with the ruler: either with the idea of joint rulership between emperor-empress/king-queen in Christ (Clementinus, Orestes, Iustinus), or with the idea of imperial victory in the sign of Christ (Anastasius). This suggests that the 6th-century ‘Christianisation’ of the consular diptych imagery was a reflection of imperial ideology. The cross is not an emblem of consulship, which is an entirely secular institution, but a signifier of the emperor and of the Roman empire. The presence of a cross-surmounted sceptre in the hand of a private consul, which only occurs in a diptych belonging to a western consul appointed by an Ostrogothic king—the anonymous ex-Ganay medallion diptych971 —suggests that it was not exclusively a ruler’s attribute under the Ostrogoths;972 nor, indeed, did the Ostrogoths appoint 967 Delbrueck 1929, 143 (N 27) (inscribed on the back with a liturgical

text in the 9th or 10th century). 968 Presumably also the reign of Justin I (518-527), but no consular diptych featuring the cross—except those of Justinian cos. 521, which contain the incised sign variant only—have been preserved from that period. 969 For an overall picture of imperial war during the period c. 480-542, see Bury 1958:1, 274-309, 372-427; Demandt 1989, 169-210; and A. Cameron 1993, 33-42, 104-127. 970 See especially Heather 1999, 236f, 245-249. Also R. Egger 1960, 4-20; Restle 1988, 963f; and Dinkler-von Schubert 1995. 971 (The cross-sceptre of Basilius—an eastern consul who issued his only preserved diptych in Rome—most probably being unauthentic.) 972 If at all carried by the Ostrogothic king. The Ostrogothic king’s insignia, as represented in Ostrogothic coin issues, mainly correspond to those of the eastern emperor, but the cross-surmounted sceptre (like indeed the sceptre as such) does not figure among these, possibly because the coins do not commemorate any regal consulships (which there were none); Kraus 1928, 138f, Taf. IX-X (reproducing coins showing the regent in a cross-

themselves to the consulate as the Roman emperors did.973 The imperial insignium, viz. the cross-surmounted orb, replaces the ruler’s effigy on the consul’s sceptre, and he appears as designated by the holy Roman empire; like the bust effigy and the aquila, the cross represents the appointer, not the appointed. How exceptional the ex-Ganay crosssceptre is for western consuls in this period, and whether it ever presented an alternative to the bust-sceptre under extraordinary circumstances, cannot be determined from such limited material. But it seems fairly secure to assume that the cross-sceptre was not conferred on private consuls by the eastern emperors Anastasius I and Justinian. The written cross on the tabulae ansatae of Clementinus and Anastasius, both eastern consuls whose consular imagery contains the pictorial type of cross, would be understood as a reference to the Christian faith of the respective consul, which could be seen as a reflection of the Christian faith of the emperor who appointed them and of the Roman empire. Orestes’ diptych, which is very similar to that of Clementinus, does not feature this type of cross, nor does any other western diptych; a circumstance that cannot be explained by anything more determinate than that this kind of personal advertisement of faith was primarily, perhaps exclusively, an eastern phenomenon. Finally it is interesting to note that the cross is in all instances found in diptychs that otherwise include several motifs referring to the greater idea of the Roman empire. In Clementinus’ and Orestes’ diptychs it is represented by Roma and Constantinopolis, personifications of a whole and united Roman empire,974 and Anastasius’ consular images constitute veritable embroideries of imperial allusions, from the celebrations of the victorious Anastasian dynasty in the upper registers and on the sceptre,975 to the various allusions to imperial war, triumph and unity introduced on the sella curulis976 and the victory processions in the lower registers.

6.2. The shell The shell motif or concha977 appears in the diptychs of two consuls, Astyrius (4) and Anastasius (11), and it was also found in the diptych(s) of Anthemius (Pl. 15) whose imagery seems to have corresponded closely to that of Anastasius. Although time and place of production differ between these works, the way in which the shell motif has been applied is the same: on or in front of the gable of an aedicular fronton. On a basic level, it may thus be regarded as an architectural motif. As such it is primarily derived from the shell conch ornamenting Roman monumental architecture from the latter embroidered costume); Ercolani Cocchi 1983, 110-117 no. 330 esp; and Demo 1994, 302-304 (list of obverse types). See also Wessel 1978, 400. 973 Degrassi 1952, 94-99 (the years 476-534). Compare also Bagnall, Cameron, Schwartz & Worp 1987, 7-9. 974 Which does not reflect historical realities for the consular years concerned. 975 III.2.1.2 and 3.4. 976 III.2.1.3. 977 (Cockle-shell.)

152

half of the 3rd century AD,978 and which was also widely diffused in other types of art, notably sarcophagi.979 A standard way of applying the shell motif is as the crowning part of a rounded or triangular niche fronted by a bicolumnar frame. The function of such a niche is consistent in all contexts where it occurs: to frame statues of a divine or immortal character, either polytheistic or Christian—gods, Christ, saints and, in the case of sepulchral monuments, dead (immortal) humans.980 This type of shell remains unseparated from the architectural framework, and may therefore not be considered an independent motif. The conchshaped baldaquin, apsis and cupola, stylised (and in the case of the cupola inverted) derivations of the shell form, present other distinctly decorative architectural varieties of the motif. Favoured in the Anastasian-Justinianic period, they appear as frames for, for instance, the empress Ariadne (?) in the ivory panels in Florence and Milan,981 and Theodora in the apsis mosaic of San Vitale in Ravenna.982 An evolved, increasingly independent variant of the columnar shell-niche is found in a number of 6th-century works of art from both halves of the empire, among which works in ivory such as the throne of the bishop

978 Such as the Constantinian quadrifrons in the Forum Boarium, Rome, and

the clerestory arches of the presbytery in San Vitale, Ravenna; Deichmann 1958, Taf. 312-313; and Grabar 1966, 23 Fig. 21. On the eastern origin of the architectural shell conch, see Hornbostel-Hüttner 1979, 195-199. 979 Of both Near Eastern and western production from c. 250 and c. 350 onwards respectively. For western examples, see e.g. Koch 1995, Taf. 97107 passim (Ravennese sarcophagi), 133, 147-154 passim (Gallic sarcophagi), 226, 230; also Deichmann 1967, nos. 40, 55, 57, 680 (sarcophagus of Iunius Bassus in the Vatican, Museo Storico del Tesoro della Basilica di San Pietro), 678, 812. Near Eastern examples include an Asiatic sarcophagus from Sidmara (Asia Minor) in the Archaeological Museum of Istanbul (e.g. Kitzinger 1980, Fig. 24), and another Asiatic sarcophagus in the Palazzo Massimo in Rome (e.g. Bianchi Bandinelli 1970, 46 Fig. 40). Other types of works containing the motif include ivories (e.g. the throne of Maximinianus in Ravenna (see below) and Christian diptychs); Volbach 1976, for instance Nr. 66 Taf. 38, Nr. 68 Taf. 39, Nr. 82 Taf. 45, Nr. 134-135 Taf. 69, Nr. 137 Taf. 71, and Nr. 153-154 Taf. 80. 980 On the predominantly sacral application of the shell niche in both eastern and Roman architecture, see Hornbostel-Hüttner 1979, 196-201. As for the Constantinian quadrifrons in the Forum Boarium, although its façade niches are now empty, the religious or mythic character of their former statuary is suggested by the female deities (Roma, Iuno, Minerva and Ceres (?)) still in situ above each of the four arches (e.g. Coarelli 1997, 312). The clerestory arches in San Vitale are open and columnated structures without statuary, the large shells filling their rounded ‘tympana’ being superimposed by wreath-encircled crosses. A further example of how the architectural shell type may be applied is found in a 5th-c. pulpit from Saloniki, whose side niches enclose the enthroned Virgin with infant Christ and the Magi, the shell motif being located immediately behind the figures’ heads like radiate haloes (compare the sarcophagi cited in the previous note); Grabar 1966, 234f Fig. 263-265. See also the Christian sarcophagi from Ravenna; Lawrence 1945, Fig. 18-66 passim. The sarcophagi cited in the previous note feature the Capitoline triad with Castores, Muses with philosophers, biblical scenes, and Christ presenting the apostles with the law (traditio legis) respectively. For a related application of the columnar shell-niche within late antique ivory carving, see the 5th c. Queriniano diptych in Brescia representing mythic/divine couples (Phaedra-Hippolytus, DianaEndymion); Volbach 1976, Nr. 66, Taf. 38; also Belloni 1956, Tav. 2. 981 Delbrueck 1929, N 51 and 52, Taf. 51 and 52; Volbach 1976, Nr. 51 and 52, Taf. 27. 982 E.g. Deichmann 1958, Taf. 358 and 360.

Maximinianus in Ravenna983 and the Archangel diptych (?) panel in London (Pl. 21 b ) , and the representations of Constantius II and Gallus in the Codex-calendar of 354 (Pl. 24). On the seat-front of the bishop’s throne, the figures of Christ and the apostles are placed within columned niches crowned by shells that are partly suspended in space, lightly protruding to close around the figures’ heads. There can be little doubt that these shells are intended to be understood as nimbi, i.e. attributes of sanctity. In the Archangel panel the same type of tall and rounded niche recurs, but here the shell is detached from the arch’s edge and suspended in space above the angel, thus constituting a free and complete element in itself;984 it closes around a wreath-encircled cross, symbol of Christ’s triumph. And in the Codex-calendar the shell motif fills the triangular gables of the pair of aediculae that frame the nimbate emperors, here appearing in their capacity of consuls.985 Roman sepulchral art offers further comparanda in the form of the entirely independent, non-architectural type of shell occurring on Roman stelae and sarcophagi from the 2nd century onwards.986 This variety serves the same function as the clipeus, viz. to hold the bust imago of the commemorated dead. The shell-clipeus may be accompanied by figure-scenes (biblical or other)987 or held aloft by a pair of erotes or Victoriae.988 When comparing the shell motif in the consular diptychs with the types discussed, one can state that even though it is contained within an architectural structure—a columnar and gabled fronton—it is only in Astyrius that the motif is actually part of this structure. In Anastasius and Anthemius the shell is not placed in the centre of the aedicula tympanum, but overcuts its lower frame (horizontal lintel); it is detached from the architecture to enclose the consul’s head, i.e. it belongs to the consul and not to the architectural frame surrounding him. In effect it has taken the form of a nimbus. As for the representation of the shell motif in Astyrius, which is schematised with distinctly floral characteristics (oblong petals centring in a round knob), it is also comparable to, for instance, the rosette-shaped star motif adorning the aedicula in the Consecratio panel in London (Rome, c. 400) (Pl. 21 a),989 a number of sepulchral monuments of the 2nd to 6th

983 Ravenna, Museo Arcivescovile. See e.g. Grabar 1966, 290f Fig. 334

and 335; and Crippa & Zibawi 1998, Tav. col. 184. 984 A variant of this is also found in the representations of prophets inside tabernacles in the Orthodox baptistery in Ravenna; e.g. Grabar 1966, 248 Fig. 282; and Kitzinger 1980, Fig. 102-103. 985 See also e.g. Baus 1940, 221. 986 Deichmann 1967, nos. 34, 85, 101, 144, 188, 239, 244 a; Scarpellini 1987, 37, 89f; Koch 2000, Taf. 47-48, 63, 87, 139. 987 Mainly 4th–5th c. sarcophagi, such as the mid-4th c. ‘Two brothers’ sarcophagus in the Musei Vaticani; e.g. Kitzinger 1980, Fig. 42. 988 These figure categories are usually represented in pairs and as supporting the honorand’s clipeus, just as in the upper registers of the Anastasius and Anthemius diptychs; e.g. Scarpellini 1987, 90, nos. 37, 38 and 39, Tav. 49 Fig. 89, Tav. 50 Fig. 90, and Tav. 51 Fig. 91 respectively. Stelae from Roman Gaul (3rd c.) also feature the shell-niche; see Hatt 1986, 236. Compare also above, III.5.1. 989 Delbrueck 1929, N 59; Volbach 1976, Nr. 56.

153

centuries,990 and representations of temples/shrines from the imperial to late antique period;991 a motif that refers to the sky, the habitat of immortals (gods and humans).992 The significance of the shell motif within sepulchral imagery, it has plausibly been proposed, is related to apotheosis and immortality,993 its sea symbolism originating in the myth of Aphrodite’s birth (creation, fecundity, epiphany), and of the passage of the deceased’s souls to Elysium or the Blessed Isles (apotheosis, eternity, happiness).994 Within sepulchral imagery, the shell motif serves as a signifier of the immortalised status of the dead, who is always shown (when male) in the highest capacity he attained in public life, viz. in official costume and often with some attribute of office such as a codicil scroll or/and, as on a sarcophagus from Sidmara (Asia Minor),995 a sella curulis.996 It is the individual Roman’s merits in the civic and social spheres—a cursus well performed, intellectual and spiritual pursuits, the living up to Roman-aristocratic virtues in short—that are in focus.997 The immortalised state of the commemorated is often illustrated by something apart from the shell or clipeus, usually ‘immortal’ personages: gods, 990 Chiefly of northern origin (Illyrian, Norican and Dacian); see e.g.

Brandenburg 1967, Abb. 5, 10; Bianchi Bandinelli 1970, 113 Fig. 101,118 Fig. 105, 121 Fig. 108, and 126 Fig. 114 and 116 (chiefly provincial stelae, sarcophagi and funerary altars). The shape of the Astyrian shell motif has parallels on 5th c. Ravennese sarchophagi; Lawrence 1945, Fig. 18-39 passim, 61-66 passim; and Koch 2000, Taf. 100. 991 For instance a silver plate from the 4th c. Sevso treasure, showing Victoria with company in front of an aedicular building; e.g. reproduced in Elsner 1998, 104 Fig. 69. 992 The rosette motif is frequently found in the vault(s) of Roman triumphal arches, e.g. those of Titus and Septimius Severus in Rome, and Trajan in Beneventum, where they would symbolise the star-spangled sky (the promised home of the triumphant emperor and divus); compare Smith 1956, 30-32; also Cumont 1942, 225, 239, and e.g. Pl. XLV (showing an Italian grave cippus crowned by a ‘celestial’ vault filled by an eagle in ascent (symbol of apotheosis) between two rosettes (symbolising the celestial sphere into which the eagle conducts the human soul). A similar celestial significance would clearly apply in the case of the gable rosette in the Consecratio panel. 993 Engemann 1973, 65f; Scarpellini 1987, 89f; Caillet & Loose 1990, 44. 994 Stuveras 1969, 153f; Toynbee 1971, 276; and Engemann 1973, 67, 88f. Compare description of Venus by Ovidius; Ov., Fast. 1.39. The imperial connotations of the shell motif seemingly originate in their common association with Venus, Venus Augusta constituting an aspect or variation of Venus Genetrix, the divine mother of the Caesars—something which would presumably explain its popularity as a symbol of immortality; Smith 1956, 72f. Contra Brandenburg, who claims that the shell motif was derived from the clipeus virtutis, apparently (although no explanation is actually given) because it is applied in the same way as the clipeus on some honorific monuments; Brandenburg 1967, 195-209, 229-233. This interpretation, however, does not take into consideration the circumstance that the shell occurs so frequently in connection with divine figures (gods, saints etc.). 995 Istanbul, Archaeological Museum; Bianchi Bandinelli 1970, 347 Fig. 327; Kitzinger 1980, Fig. 24. 996 For the correlation between immortality and the accomplishments of a public career, as illustrated by official insignia (coronae, fasces etc.) on Roman sepulchral monuments, see Salomonson 1956, passim; and Schäfer 1989, passim. 997 Compare the discussion of Shelton 1983, 20-22; and Ronke 1987, (i) 123. For an exhaustive treatment of the civic and social virtues of the senatorial aristocracy in Rome and Constantinople in the late antique period, see Näf 1995, 273-287 (concluding synopsis).

Muses, philosophers,998 or biblical personages. Other monuments, predominantly from the first three centuries of the imperial period, feature scenic representations of the meritorious work achieved by the honorand in life (within the civic or military context),999 whereas the works of Christ—a model of social and spiritual piety for the followers of the new religion—are increasingly represented on Christian monuments from the 3rd century onwards. The fundamental tenet of these kinds of representations is that a life spent in consistency with civic, moral, intellectual and spiritual ideals renders glory and immortality to a man.1000 Needless to say, such a tenet is also at the core of the consular imagery, which represents the honorand i n his highest civic capacity—presumably attained with the help of eminent social and moral qualities—and accompanied by scenic representations of his ‘works’ in that capacity: providing games and distributing material gifts to the public, i.e. giving proof of munificentia and liberalitas. As already mentioned, the transcendental significance of the shell motif, apart from the sepulchral, is amply illustrated by its application in images or architecture featuring deities, saints, imperial personages etc.

998 Compare also a number of so-called private ivory works of the 5th

century (which were often created in commemoration of their commissioners’ appointment to high office), representing ancient gods, Muses and philosophers; Delbrueck 1929, N 36, 39, 55 and 61; Volbach 1976, Nr. 34, 57, 61 and 66. As Shelton has convincingly argued, these representations served the purpose of illustrating their honorand’s philosophical and literary qualities, which ranked as high among the aristocratic élite as the attainment of high office; Shelton 1983, 20-22. Illustrations of these ideals are for instance found on one of the aforementioned sarcophagi from Sidmara (Bianchi Bandinelli 1970, 347 Fig. 327; also Cumont 1942, 90f) and in the 5th c. cupola mosaics of the Cathedral baptistery in Ravenna (Deichmann 1958, Taf. 39, 62-71; Grabar 1966, 123 Fig. 132.). On the front of the Sidmara sarcophagus, the togate figure of the commemorated is seated on a sella curulis in front of the central shellniche, reading from a scroll to an audience consisting of the Dioscurides (placed in front of another pair of shell-niches), a Muse, and the honorand’s wife—a visualisation of how intellectual pursuits may bring a man nearer to the divine. On the short side of the same monument is a single shell-niche enclosing a door—the door to eternity—in front of which is placed a sella curulis, flanked by the deceased magistrate in toga and holding a codicil scroll, and his wife. In the Ravennese baptistery the motif of an empty sella curulis (or rather a fusion of the lion-legged curule chair and a backed throne) within a columnar shell-niche is repeated around the lower circle of the cupola, alternated with representations of pulpits. The previous occupiers of these seats and pulpits, the apostles, have transcended into a higher sphere, their togate figures forming a procession around the central image of Christ further up in the cupola. One way of ‘reading’ this programme would be that it aims at presenting a moral lesson to the viewer: a pious life, ideally composed of the performance of public duties (the sella) and the study of Christian teachings (the pulpit), paves way for apotheosis—a traditional Roman concept in a Christian reinterpretation. 999 Gabelmann 1984, 189-195, 198-203, and Taf. 21-22, 30-32, 34-36; Wrede 2001, 18-21, 57-65, 94-109. 1000 Niquet 1999, 151-172 esp. The theme as illustrated through Roman honorary inscriptions has also been studied by Elisabeth Forbis, whose conclusions are highly relevant to the iconographical material under consideration, even if the group studied is the provincial élite and the period mainly the first two centuries of our era; Forbis 1996. Compare Engemann’s interpretation of the sepulchral clipeus and shell motifs as symbols of heroisation; Engemann 1973, 39,67, 88f.

154

Concluding discussion: Having established the basic significance of the shell motif and in what contexts it occurs, viz. that it denotes the immortal or divine status of the personage it accompanies, the next question must be how these things apply in the cases of Astyrius’, Anastasius’ and Anthemius’ consular diptychs; what motivations might lie behind its introduction in the commemorative image of a living consul, and what content it is intended to convey to the viewer. In Astyrius’ diptych the shell motif is more indirectly linked to the consul: it is placed at some distance above him on an entablature, forming a visual centre between laurelwreaths/garlands. The most straight-forward way of accounting for its presence would be that its transcendental connotations might lend an exalted solemnity and ‘otherworldliness’ to the scene it accompanies, in a similar way as its counterparts on sarcophagi do. The traditional association of the consular dignity with that of the triumphator1001 would, however, have contributed further to its introduction, as suggested by its juxtaposition to the triumphal emblems. From this aspect the shell motif could additionally be categorised as one among several incorporated in Astyrius’ imagery to ‘compensate’ for the enforced exclusion of the triumphal toga (the consul having taken office outside of Rome),1002 i.e. to denote the honorand’s peculiarly elevated and ‘immortal’ status. From the manner in which the shell has been applied in Anastasius’ and Anthemius’ diptychs one can conclude that it derives from the divine tradition of the motif, i.e. an attribute, directly or indirectly, of divinity or sanctity. Like the nimbus, with which it displays great similarities, it elevates the person whose head it encircles to the dignity of divinities, Christ, saints and the emperor. What may have been the intention behind the apparent self-glorification of these consuls? Both honorands were related to the emperor, albeit not the same one, a fact which both have otherwise made the most of by incorporating various references to the imperial dynasty in the upper registers and on the consular insignia (scipio, sella curulis, toga).1003 There is accordingly ample reason to infer that the imperial connection explains the application of the shell motif in these diptychs. Being related to the emperor has made it acceptable and desirable to celebrate that circumstance, to make the viewer aware of the distinction between a private ordinary consul and one of the imperial house. The imperial relation may associate himself, on a symbolic level, with the divine quality ascribed to the emperor, borrow the emperor’s attribute for a moment.1004 It would seem that the versatility of the shell motif—a versatility that makes it equally compatible with human magistrates and suprahuman beings, and equally applicable within a polytheistic and Christian context—has been exploited to create a suggestive and ambiguous image. 1001 Notably Versnel 1970, 95-98, 129-131, 302f. See further IV.2. 1002 See III.2.1.1, 2.1.4 and 3.1. 1003 III.2.1.2, 2.1.3 and 3.4. 1004 On the interpretation of the nimbus as an attribute of imperial and

divine power, especially when accompanying an enthroned figure (the emperor, Christ etc.), compare Ahlqvist 2001, 210-215.

Ultimately, the shell closing around the head of Anastasius and Anthemius like the nimbus of an emperor or a saint remains open to interpretation; it may be seen as an architectural motif with a more indirect and impersonal reference to transcendence, or it may be compared to the ‘celestial’ clipei holding the bust of the emperor, empress and their kin in the upper registers. I.e. the consul’s head could be understood as a fourth imago in a representation of the imperial dynasty. In conclusion, the introduction of the shell motif into some consular images appears to have been motivated by wishes specific to each individual commissioner (and/or artist), whether for compensatory or complementary resasons, to heighten their symbolic content. The transcendental significance of the shell motif serves to glorify the honorand’s status, suggesting that it renders him immortal.

6.3. The eagle motif in the Bourges diptych The pair of eagles incorporated into the architectural superstructure in the otherwise sparingly ornamented Bourges diptych (5) have been detached from the standard and ‘official’ context normally allotted to the eagle within consular imagery, the scipio. Apart from being conceived as a confronted pair, rendered in profile rather than frontally as is standard for the emblematic variant of the motif, the eagle is also unaccompanied by its usual attributes, the orb and the wreath. Although recognisable as eagles by their curved beaks, plumage and spread wings (indicating ascent), their overall aspect is still rather hybrid: small and slender bodies, duck’s heads, and long and blade-shaped wings. This ambiguous nature it shares with innumerable bird motifs in Roman art, particularly sepulchral imagery from the 2nd to 5th centuries. This will be discussed presently. The following treatment will be focussed on tracing the possible origins, typological and contextual, of the doubleeagle motif in the Bourges diptych in the hope that some light may be shed on its significance(s) within the commemorative imagery of a 5th-century western consul. The closest parallels to the Bourges eagles are found within the greater corpus of late antique and early Byzantine ivories, namely in the pair panels in Florence and Vienna probably representing the empress Ariadne, the spouse of Anastasius I.1005 In both these panels the empress is placed beneath a baldaquin in the form of a shell-fluted cupola supported by Corinthian columns, and perched on acanthus acroteria above the columns are a confronted pair of eagles, bodies turning to the sides and heads curving over their open wings towards the cupola in the centre; in the Florence panel, which shows the empress in her capacity of ruler (with sceptre and crosssurmounted orb) the eagles hold a corona longa of laurel between them. Except for the cupola—whose symbolic significance may be compared to that of the arch, both 1005 Delbrueck 1929, N 51-52, Taf. 51-52; Volbach 1976, Nr. 51-52, Taf.

27.

155

representing the heavenly vault1006 —the scheme is identical to that of the Bourges diptych. Although the consular diptych was presumably created half a century earlier or more and in the province, its affinity with the imperial images suggests that the idea of framing the representations of high dignitaries of the Roman empire with a pair of eagles incorporated in an architectural, ‘celestial’ superstructure was a widespread concept with tradition. The origins of the double eagle (‘Doppeladler’) within Roman commemorative imagery appears to have been sepulchral: it occurs for the first time in the relief on the column base of Antoninus Pius and Faustina in Rome (161 AD),1007 where two eagles conduct the busts of the emperor and the empress, supported on the wings of a genius, towards the immortal heavens—a scene referring to the imperial consecratio ceremony performed in the Campus Martius.1008 The eagle’s function as the conveyor of souls to immortality is subsequently introduced to the sepulchral imagery of private citizens, where the ‘apotheotic’ eagle becomes widely diffused in both single and double form.1009 The double eagle returns in the early 5th-century Consecratio panel (Pl. 21 a),1010 where a pair of eagles ascend from the funerary pyre of the honorand. That the a q u i l a could occasionally be conceived simultaneously as the bird of apotheosis and the legionary symbol is illustrated by a centurion’s funerary altar dated to c. 200 AD,1011 where the libation-pouring honorand is flanked by a pair of pilasters decorated with (eagle-crowned) signa supporting a gable enclosing a single eagle, body en face, head turned left and wings spread in the identical manner to the legionary type.1012 The function of the 1006 Notably Smith 1956, 56-70. 1007 Vogel 1973, Fig. 3-5; also Elsner 1998, 36 Fig. 13. See also RE I.1

(1894), 375 s.v. ‘Adler’ (E. Oder). 1008 Arce 1988, 131-140. On the imperial consecratio, see MacCormack 1981, 99-101, 112; Goette 1984, 586 with n. 34; and also Engemann 1988, 109f. 1009 For a particularly rich use of the eagle motif, see the sepulchral monument of the Haterii (Rome), where a relief depicting the templeshaped tomb of a female family member is decorated with eagles on the four prostyle columns of the edifice as well as on its roof; Musei Vaticani, e.g. Bianchi Bandinelli 1969, 217 Fig. 242. For some examples of the eagle motif, either single or in confronted pairs, decorating the upper registers on Roman (Italian and provincial) funerary stelae, sarcophagi and altars, see Cumont 1942, Pl. XLV; Bianchi Bandinelli 1970, 71 Fig. 65, 126 Fig. 114; Honroth 1971, Taf. V.3-4; IX.3; and Koch & Sichtermann 1982, Taf. 33-34, 36, 162, 396, 398. Confronted double eagles are occasionally also found in 5th c. Christian ivories, where they may be perched on the roof of an aedicula or flanking a central cross in a non-figural upper register; Volbach 1976, Nr. 120 Taf. 64, and Nr. 146 Taf. 78 (both of western origin). 1010 (Delbrueck 1929, N 59, Taf. 59; Volbach 1976, Nr. 56, Taf. 28.) See also e.g. MacCormack 1981, 142. 1011 In the Vatican (Galleria Lapidaria). Provenance unknown, but probably Italian; e.g. Bianchi Bandinelli 1970, 72 Fig. 65; and Elsner 1998, 40 Fig. 16. On the combined apotheotic and military significances of the eagle, which would derive from the triumphator’s coronation by Iuppiter and the subsequent ornamentation of the legionary signa with a wreathcarrying eagle, see Goette 1984, 586. 1012 An apparent conflation of the legionary and apotheotic eagle is witnessed on a funerary altar from Rome, dated to the Trajanic period,

legionary eagle as a luck-bringing and victory-inducing sign1013 is here combined with its function as bringer of souls into immortality, resulting in a synthesis that corresponds to the idea of the victor’s divinely inspired felicitas and (hence) immortality.1014 The sepulchral art of private citizens, from Italy and both western and eastern provinces, fairly frequently also features the motif combination of two antithetically rendered birds of a generic shape—they may be either eagles, doves, peacocks, crows or ravens, or conflations of these—in an upper architectural compartment, usually an arch or a gable, immediately above either the defunct honorand(s) or a divine figure.1015 As usual, and in accordance with ancient Roman tradition, all of these monuments—including that of Antoninus and Faustina—represent the deceased honorands in their public capacity, i.e. wearing toga (or in the case of military honorands chlamys) and holding some attribute of office, such as a codicil or a sceptre etc.1016 The sepulchral monuments thus commemorate the honorands as living, focussing on their societal status and merits.1017 The eagle-motif is of course also found within the triumphal context, and then not only as the crowning emblem where eagle acroteria accompany the bust of a (presumably) military man flanked by shields; Boschung 1987, 87 Nr. 318, Taf. 8. 1013 RE II A.1-2 (1921), 2335f s.v. ‘Signa’ (J.W. Kubitschek). 1014 Notably Versnel 1970, 361-380 esp. Compare discussion under III.3.3. 1015 The material originates from several parts of the Roman empire (central and northern Italy, Illyria, Dacia and Africa, the eastern provinces) and mainly from the 2nd to 5th centuries AD; Bianchi Bandinelli 1970, 57 Fig. 51, 113 Fig. 101, 72 Fig. 65, 126 Fig. 114, 132 Fig. 122, 217 Fig.200; Hatt 1986, 223f; Koch 2000, Taf. 99-101, 107, 129, 193. All of these bird motifs were traditionally associated with transcendence. In Roman polytheistic symbology, a pair of doves drinking from a cup or engaged in some other mutual activity was a motif symbolic of Venus, as the reliefs on an Augustan votive base to Venus Augusta exemplify (see Zanker 1988:1, 136 Fig. 112), whereas they would symbolise spiritual salvation in the case of the outer lunette mosaics of the so-called Galla Placidia’s mausoleum in Ravenna (e.g. Deichmann 1958, Taf. 2-3, 26-27); Hall 1979, 128. The symbolism of the dove is otherwise manifold, depending on the context—private/funerary or Christian—in which it occurs (love, concord and constancy for married couples, the Holy Spirit and heavenly inspiration for saints); Hall 1979, 109. The peacock, ancient bird of Iuno, is also a symbol of immortality, whereas the crow/raven is the messenger of Apollo and (within the Christian context) the symbol of hope; Hall 1979, 238 and 79 respectively. What must be the messenger bird of Apollo is represented on an Augustan marble tripod base in the Musée du Louvre (Paris), perched on top of the celestial orb resting on the god’s tripod flanked by laurel-trees; Goette 1984, 575f with Abb. 2; Zanker 1988:1, 123 Fig. 99b. The aspect of this crow corresponds closely to the birds flanking the tabula ansata of the late 3rd-century Roman sarcophagus of Publius Peregrinus (e.g. Bianchi Bandinelli 1970, 57 Fig. 51), where the togate honorand is seated on his sella curulis with an open parchment scroll (posing as an ideally educated Roman) in the company of Muses and philosophers (an Apollonian theme). That the theme of Muses and philosophers was a favoured one among late antique senatorial aristocracy in Rome/Italy has been illuminated by Shelton in her article on a lost diptych of Fl. Constantius; Shelton 1983. Other, related examples may be cited, such as a 5th c. Constantinopolitan (?) sarcophagus fragment showing five standing togati beneath a gable surmounted by a pair of birds pecking at a bunch of grapes (left); see Grabar 1966, 230 Fig. 259. 1016 Interestingly Antoninus Pius holds a scipio cum aquila. 1017 Compare also Zanker 1988:1, 276-278.

156

of the triumphator’s scipio.1018 As a motif symbolic of Roman victoriousness the aquila is traditionally included in the programmatic imagery of triumphal arches, where it relates equally to the Roman victories commemorated and to the glory of the emperor who achieved them. The triumphalapotheotic meaning of the aquila carrying the emperor on its spread wings towards heaven in the centre of the vault of the Arch of Titus in the Forum Romanum is a well-known example.1019 Aquilae were also included in the programme of Arcadius’ column base in Constantinople,1020 where they were perched on the socle and juxtaposed to the monumental laurel-wreath of the torus, victory-celebrating erotes and flying Victories. The legionary eagle also occurs on imperial victory monuments, as part of the military signa, some examples of which are found in the Aurelian panels incorporated on the Arch of Constantine in Rome (representing lustratio, iustitia, and adlocutio).1021 In an example of the legionary signa derived from the province, a triumphal procession scene from the Britannic arch of Claudius at Hever Castle,1022 the crowning eagle has a distinctly hybrid form and is, like the eagles in the Bourges diptych, rendered in profile. Yet another example, this time from a monument outside of the category of triumphal arches proper, is the Porta Argentarii in the Roman Forum Boarium,1023 where legionary signa decorate the exterior pilasters and the legionary type of aquila crowns the acanthus borders of their interior counterparts. The triumphal connotation of the monument in its entirety is additionally represented by laurel-carrying Victories (interior). What makes the Porta Argentarii relevant as a comparandum to the Bourges diptych is the fact that it was commissioned by private citizens of Rome, and that its imagery strives to emulate imperial models. It thus reflects the perception of private commissioners and artists of how the ideology of imperial victoriousness (and the related concepts of piety, dynastic continuity etc.) is expressed and celebrated through imagery, and what motifs and representational modes were central to this purpose.1024 The eagle continued to be 1018 III.2.1.2. 1019 E.g. reproduced in De Maria 1988, Tav. 69. The ‘eagle of victory’

could apparently also find a place in the context of arena buildings, as is suggested by another relief from the Haterii grave monument; e.g. Bianchi Bandinelli 1969, 165 Fig. 180. Among the monumental edifices represented is the façade of an amphitheatre (Colosseum) whose uppermost arcade frames three eagles rendered according to the traditional pattern with frontal body and spread wings; the relevance of the eagle symbolism within the context of the games is indicated by the row of athletes (‘immortal’ victors of the arena) placed in each of the arcade niches below them. The Haterii relief also shows various temples and triumphal arches, three of which are ornamented with a double-bird motif similar to that in the Bourges diptych. That the relief’s representations would constitute depictions of the respective monuments is doubtful; see further under III.7.2 passim. 1020 Kollwitz 1941, Beilagen 5-7. 1021 E.g. De Maria 1988, Tav. 79 no. 4, Tav. 80 nos. 3-4. 1022 Paris, Musée du Louvre; De Maria 1988, Tav. 61 no. 2. 1023 Raised a year after the Severan arch in the Forum Romanum (204); e.g. Coarelli 1997, 311f. 1024 The eagle could occasionally be incorporated in the later Christian version of the triumphal arch, which marked the transition between nave

associated with imperial victory and to be carried on the legionary signa throughout the late antique period,1025 and as suggested by the cited examples from art (including the signa-like consular sceptres of Areobindus and Anastasius) its basic shape remained the same through the centuries.1026 Concluding discussion: The interest of the eagle motif in the Bourges diptych lies in its possible functions and purposes in the imagery of this particular consul, which would in their turn be related to the circumstances in which the work was issued. Based on the comparanda presented above I would like to propose that the form given to the eagle, typologically and compositionally (duplication, hybrid shape, application onto an architectural superstructure), derives mainly from sepulchral art. This proposition may be further supported by the circumstance that the most likely origin of the diptych is the Gallic region, where the eagle is a frequent motif in funerary imagery.1027 That the carver of the Bourges diptych only possessed an approximate knowledge of standard consular imagery is indicated not only by the ‘sepulchral’ appearance of the eagle motif, but also by the ambiguous forms of the consul’s sella curulis and the mappa.1028 The borrowing from sepulchral imagery would hardly be surprising, considering that the official diptych and the grave monument essentially commemorate the same thing, often with very similar means, viz. the Roman citizen. Inspiration from sepulchral imagery on the one hand suggests that the aquilae are associated with the concept of transcendence and immortality, and their placement in an upper register immediately next to an arch enforces its celestial connotations. But mere inspiration does not account for the inclusion of the eagles in the consular diptych of this particular honorand. Their combination with the arch motif draws attention to the concept and programme of triumphal arches, and from there it is a short leap to the military context and the legionary eagle. As has been argued above, the peculiarities of the Bourges consul’s costume and insignia together with the inclusion of lictors1029 indicate that he commissioned the diptych in the province, which would in its turn mean that the he took office in the province. As exemplified by Ardabur Aspar (west, 434) (Pl. 22) and Astyrius (west, 449) (4), consuls who took office in the and apse in the church, as exemplified by the emblematic pair of eagles (rendered frontally with wings spread according to the ancient formula) framing the clipeate star-cross at the summit of the triumphal arch in San Vitale, Ravenna (c. 540-47); Deichmann 1958, Taf. 311, 347. The victory symbolism of the eagle would here refer to Christianity’s conquest of the world, which is a reflection of Christ’s triumph over death: triumphant Christ’s togate and nimbate figure sits enthroned on the celestial orb, in sign of his cosmic rulership, in the apsis conch immediately below the archivolt. 1025 See e.g. Kruse 1934, 64. 1026 Compare also the eagle presenting the centrepiece on the so-called Anastasius plate from the Sutton Hoo ship-burial, showing a constellation of motifs (including Roma and Constantinopolis and tribute-bearing province personifications); notably Engemann 1988, 109f esp., Taf. 1-6. 1027 Hatt 1986, 407f. 1028 See III.2.1.3. 1029 III.2.1.4.

157

province would most likely have been stationed there as a result of a military mission,1030 i.e. under the emperor’s command and under the military signa.1031 Evidently favouring a single significance of the Bourges eagles, Delbrueck even suggested that they define the architectural frame they ornament as an imperial tribunal.1032 I would however like to propose that the inclusion of aquilae in this diptych could simultaneously refer to the military merits of its honorand prior to his consular appointment (presumably a victory), to the context in which he took office (military), to his imperial command and/or imperial appointment (viz. consulship), and to the transcendental significance of the eagle as the conveyor of the well-merited Roman’s soul—and name—to immortality; especially if a victor (compare Basilius (8)).1033

7. THE ARCHITECTURAL FRAME The fully figural consular image always includes an architectural structure of some kind. Visually this structure provides a decorative surrounding to the figure-scene(s) and lends an impression of physical setting; an enclosed space in which the consul and any other figures perform their ‘roles’. As for the structure framing the consul’s figure, i.e. the architectural frame of the main pictorial register, this has generally been thought to represent a specific place and locale: the tribunal at the Circus Maximus or an amphitheatre, or (in the case of Felix (3)) the consul’s residence.1034 In this chapter the architectural frame of the consular diptychs will be treated from the aspects of type, comparanda (possible sources and influences), functions and meanings. The basic assumption is that this motif category, like all others within the imagery of the consular diptychs, is meaningfully connected to the consular context on more than one level, and the aim is to problematise the common ‘realist’ view of it and to offer alternative interpretations. As I hope to show, a closer study of these architectural structures and their thematic variations may contribute towards a broadened understanding of consular imagery.

1030 Martindale 1980-1992:1, 166, 174f. 1031 The practice of appointing generals to the consulate in late antiquity is

well documented; Bagnall, Cameron, Schwartz & Worp 1987, 4-6; also Jones 1964, 533. Among the consuls whose diptychs have been preserved, Fl. Constantius (Halberstadt) (2), Astyrius, Areobindus (9) and Basilius (8) were appointed on military merits. The military connotation of some motifs in these works (as well as Aspar’s consular missorium (Pl. 22)) have been discussed under III.3.2 and 4.3 above. 1032 Delbrueck 1929, 158f. See also Engemann 1988, 109. 1033 III.3.3. 1034 For references and discussions of these interpretations, see further III.7.2 below.

7.1. Types and characteristics Beginning with the architectural frame of the main pictorial register, surrounding the consul’s figure, the most basic type consists of a pair of vertical elements placed against the outer border frame, usually in the form of Corinthian columns, supporting a tabula inscriptionis, the whole being suggesting a tectonic unit. Column-bases and ground level (stylobate) are usually vaguely indicated, if at all, and the columns are often reduced to a pair a capitals. The consul with bystander(s) are placed in front of the structure, over-cutting most of it with their bodies. The lack of a ground-line makes the figures appear to be suspended in space. The scheme occurs in both western and eastern diptychs of the 6th century: Areobindus A-B (9) and Basilius (8). An elaboration of the simple frame is found in Areobindus C-D, Clementinus (10) and Orestes (7), where the intercolumnar span is supplied with an arcuated spandrel, thereby increasing the architectonic or ‘real’ aspect of the structure. But only in its upper part; the sellae and suppedanea on which the consuls are placed are juxtaposed to the lower-register scenes without any partition. The frame in Felix’s diptych (3) represents a variant of the column-and-tabula type where the columns have been exchanged for curtains suspended from the tabula and tied to the sides with big knots attached to the panel frame. Although evidently derived from the simple type of architectural frame, the structure (if it may at all be called so) in Magnus’ diptychs (12) really falls beside all architectural types within the preserved corpus. It consists of nothing but a tabula inscriptionis—only fully preserved in the bone replicas (Pl. 13)—from which a laurel-wreath and garlands are suspended, and the would-be columns supporting the tabula have been reduced as it were to the pair of short and fluted imposts on which the city goddesses stand. The most architectural element in this consul’s image is instead constituted by the particularly monumental sella curulis with its accompanying suppedaneum which, together with the goddesses’ imposts, rest directly on a ground-line in the form of a lintel. A second type of architectural structure is found in the western diptychs of Lampadiorum (1) and Bourges (5).1035 It may be compared to the so-called Syrian fronton,1036 a motif notably exemplified through an architectural unit of four columns and three spans the central of which is arcuated. The motif is found in Roman monumental architecture, eastern and western, where it adorns imperial palaces, religious buildings and city-gates, as well as the occasional triumphal arch.1037

1035 It also recurs in a heavily reduced (levelled) diptych panel in the

Victoria & Albert Museum, London, and in the early mediaeval San Gregorio diptych in Monza; Delbrueck 1929, N 44 and 43; Volbach 1976, Nr. 44 and 43. 1036 D.F. Brown 1942. 1037 D.F. Brown 1942, 393f. The arch of Tiberius at Orange represents the last-mentioned category; the motif is found on the side façades of the monument; see e.g. Bianchi Bandinelli 1970. 147 Fig. 137.

158

The rendering of the fronton differs slightly between the two diptychs. In Lampadiorum it forms part of a complete architectural unit including four columns, a tall entablature and a parapet. The different elements of the structure are tectonically and spatially integrated, and physically distinct from the arena below. In the Bourges diptych, however, the architectural frame lacks tectonic values almost completely, neither entablature nor columns being properly represented. The structure includes a clear groundline, but its spatial relationship to the scenic compartment below may be likened to that of an upper to a lower storey in a dolls-house. Common to Lampadiorum and Bourges is that the architectural frame has been utilised for emphasising the consul’s figure, the greater height and width of the central arch enabling its drastic enlargement vis-à-vis the secondary figures. The third type of frame is the aedicula, a small building or rather, as in this case, a fronton: a complete architectonic unit consisting of two to four columns and a gabled superstructure. The fronton may display a simple form or be complemented with extensions of varying complexity. Architectural frames conforming to the aedicula type are found in the diptychs of Astyrius ( 4 ) , Boethius (6), Anastasius (11), and Anthemius (Pl. 15). The Boethius diptych contains the most simple aedicula: a pair of columns supporting an entablature consisting of architrave and triangular tympanum. The architrave functions as a tabula, and the conception of the gable with its pedimental ‘sculpture’ conforms to the standard scheme of Roman temple architecture. The superstructure’s protrusion from the background (it overcuts the panel frame on three sides) creates an illusion of three-dimensionality. The consul’s figure is positioned in front of the structure, the body overcutting both columns and architrave, and it is also positioned at some distance from it as suggested by the feet’s placement on a significantly lower level than the column plinths. The beholder’s impression is thus that Boethius is seated or standing in front of a real and solid building. More complex aediculae are found in Astyrius, Anastasius and Anthemius. The structure in the two eastern diptychs could in a sense be defined as an enriched variant of the type in Boethius, with a triangular gable superposed on a pair of columns. The superstructure is however no more than a shallow niche, the lower/horizontal cornices meet the abaci of the capitals in an entirely unrealistic manner, and the tympanum does not feature the equivalent of pedimental sculpture since the shell it frames has been dislocated from the centre to close around the consul’s head.1038 The tabula inscriptionis does not form part of the structure but is supported on pillar-shaped elements emerging from behind the gable in the uppermost section of the pictorial field, and ‘acroteria’ in the form of imagines clipeatae are attached to the three corners of the gable in a spatially and perspectively nonsensical way. 1038 I have chosen to treat this shell motif as an independent attribute of

the consuls; see III.6.2.

In Astyrius’ diptych tympanum/cornices, wreaths, garlands and acroteria are evenly rather than connectedly distributed across the surface of an entablature which is supported on four spiral-fluted columns. There are no vertical correspondences between supporting and supported parts—the tympanum being actually slightly dislocated to the left from the centre1039 —and the columns discontinue below the level of the consul’s sella. The most interesting feature about the architectural structures in Astyrius, Anastasius and Anthemius is perhaps that they continue above the level of the aedicula proper, and in ways that defy tectonic coherence. Formally and visually, the aediculae in these diptychs can be characterised as structured assemblages of architectural motifs that serve to provide monumentalising, decorative, and at least partly symbolic set-pieces for the figure-scenes they frame. The upper pictorial registers of the consular diptychs, when included, sometimes contain architectural motifs. In the diptychs whose main register features an aedicula (Astyrius, Anastasius, Anthemius) the upper register is determined by its superstructure, i.e. it forms a kind of continuation of the aedicular fronton. Within the preserved corpus it is only in the Halberstadt diptych (2) that the upper register has been conceived as an independent architectural unit. The upper registers of Halberstadt are structured after a similar pattern to the architectural frame in the Lampadiorum panel: four columns with three spans, the central of which is wider. The uppermost part of the structure is lost in both panels, but the height of the female figure in the centre suggests that this part of the architrave was spanned higher, which makes an arcuation probable. The wider central span frames the imperial family trio, whereas the dais and podium on which the emperors and city goddesses are enthroned lend further structure and spatiality to the register, indicating a certain physicality which a distinct ground-line (a wide and profiled edging) emphasises. The structure in its entirety conforms to the fastigium (ceremonial pediment) scheme.1040 The architectural elements found in the majority of lower pictorial registers have partly been treated already in connection with the scenes they frame.1041 Typologically they may (roughly) be divided into three: 1) a spina and racecourse (Lampadiorum, Basilius), 2) a more complex arena achitecture referring to the amphitheatre or theatre (Areobindus, Anastasius), and 3) a column-and-arch unit (Clementinus, Orestes). The spina naturally refers to the circus or hippodrome where races were conducted. Applied in the middle of the pictorial field, diagonally or horizontally, it constitutes a centre around which the action revolves. In Lampadiorum the spina has been given specifying details serving as indices for a particular locale, the Circus Maximus in Rome: the Augustan and/or Constantian obelisk inscribed with 1039 The same phenomenon evidently appeared in the lost right panel also

(4 a). 1040 See further III.7.2.3 and 7.3. 1041 See III.4.1 and 4.2.

159

‘hieroglyphs’,1042 the sculpture-groups of tropaea and barbarian captives, the triple-cone metae marking the turningpoints, and the water-filled euripus.1043 Basilius’ diptych presents a reductive version of the circus where only the basic structure of the spina with triple-cone metae is represented—a pictogram rather than a depiction. Whether this would be the Circus Maximus in Rome or the Hippodrome in 1042 The obelisk of Constantius II was placed to the south of the Augustan

obelisk, which it apparently resembled, around 358, and both obelisks where in situ in the 6th century when Cassiodorus described the Circus Maximus; Cassiod., Var. 3.51.8; also Ward-Perkins 1984, 38; and Curran 2000, 249. It has been suggested that the obelisk represented in the Lampadiorum panel is the (‘original’) Augustan one; Humphrey 1986, chapter 5 passim; Curran 2000, 247f and Fig. 30. 1043 It should be noted that none of the divine sculptures and shrines originally found on the spina of the Circus Maximus have been represented here (Roma/Minerva, Cybele on the lion, Apollo, and a columned Victoria among others; cf. Humphrey 1986, 240f, 280f; Coarelli 1997, 314-316). This à propos the polytheistic-cosmological interpretation of the Lampadiorum circus-scene proposed by Bertelli; Bertelli 1961. On the cosmological and religious interpretation of the Roman circus, which is mainly based on passages by Tertullian (Tert., De spect.) and Cassiodorus (Cassiod., Var. 3.5), see also Cumont 1942, 349, 460; Stuveras 1969, 60; A.D.E. Cameron 1976, 231-233; Lyle 1984; and Curran 2000, 236-258. It remains unclear how many of the monuments on the spina remained c. 400 AD when the Lampadiorum panel was created. According to Humphrey more warlike pieces—tropaea, sculptures of barbarian captives, military standards—proliferated on the spina in the late empire, but whether these were ancient or later additions or substitutions is not entirely clear; Humphrey 1986, 281, also 175 n. 1. On a funerary relief from Ostia (in the Musei Vaticani; e.g. Elsner 1998, 37 Fig.14), dated to the first quarter of the 2nd century, a spina surmounted by a number of monuments has been depicted in great detail, the range of which clearly reflects that of the Circus Maximus in Rome (although in a foreshortened perspective): triplecone metae, central obelisk, two columned statues—the right one (by the second meta) of which may be recognised as Victoria holding the laurelwreath and palm-frond—a four-columned aedicula with a row of heavy roof acroteria probably identifiable as the Agrippan counter with its silver dolphins (compare Humphrey 1986, 240f, 280f; Zanker 1988:1, 71f and Fig. 56; and Coarelli 1997, 314-316), and in the background (far right) the monumental arch marking the semicircular end of the arena (see e.g. Billig 1977, 15). The late 3rd-early 4th c. Foligno relief (Foligno, Museo Archeologico) showing a circus race with quadrigae presents a spina crammed with monuments that identify the arena as the Circus Maximus in Rome: apart from the central obelisk, the metae and columned statues (one or two of Victoria?), the sculpture group of Cybele on the lion (centre right) and a number of small edifices/altars one of which structurally corresponds to the four-columned Agrippan counter (compare the Ostia relief); Bianchi Bandinelli 1969, 290 Fig. 324 and 325; also Billig 1977 Nr. 2 Abb. 4, p. 21; Humphrey 1986, 82 Fig. 121, 87, 246; Lim 1999:2, 345 Fig. 4; and Curran 2000, 250f, 254. Detailed representations of the Circus Maximus also include some tomb reliefs from central Italy—a Flavian relief from Nepi, the 2nd-3rd c. ‘Mafeiorum’ relief from Rome (e.g. Ronke 1987, (ii) 667, 716 (Kat.Nr. 5 and 148), (iii) Abb. 18 and Abb. 155; and Lim 1999:2, 350, Fig. 12), and a sarcophagus in Naples (2nd-3rd c.?) showing a circus-race with erotes as charioteers (Koch & Sichtermann 1982, 210f, Taf. 245)—and the large and detailed floor mosaics in the atrium of the villa at Piazza Armerina in Sicily (Humphrey 1986, 223-333; Lim 1999:2, 348f, Fig. 9-11; Curran 2000, 237f, Fig. 32; Ciancio Rossetti 2000, 128 Fig. 4), and Hispanian Barcelona (e.g. Henig 1983, 132 Fig. 104; Coarelli 2001, 172, Fig. 24) and Gerona (Humprey 1986, 240f, Curran 2000, 245, Fig. 28), all dated to the 4th century. The creators of these images have taken great pains to include as many as possible of the monuments adorning the Roman spina: the triple-cone metae, the central obelisk with its hieroglyphic signs, the statues (Victoria, Mercurius, Fortuna; see also Curran 2000, 239f), the sculpture-group of Cybele on the lion, the aedicular counter, the ‘Eggs’ (ovarium), a shrine with roof acroteria, an altar, a small control-tower, even the palm-trees of Iuppiter, and the water-filled euripus.

Constantinople (which was modelled after the former1044 ) must remain an open question. Basilius was an eastern consul but regarded his consulship as a truly Roman one, as the programme of his diptych attests,1045 and the circus representation may therefore have been intended as a reference to either or both arenas. A more comprehensive arena architecture is only represented in 6th-century diptychs of eastern origin. The most frequent type is the amphitheatre, rendered as a semicircular space delimited by a fence (upper edge) with one or two pairs of side-doors (portae posticae). Similar schemes are however found in much earlier western ivories, the early 5th-century Liverpool venatio panel (Pl. 18) and the roughly contemporary ‘Kaiserpriester’ diptych (Pl. 19),1046 which demonstrate that the eastern artists in some measure relied on a pictorial tradition previously established in the Roman west. In Areobindus C-D the arena structure has been complemented with a vaulted piece of background wall (behind the row of spectators), suggestive of the interior tier of a cavea; its form and scale however correspond closely to the arch spanned between the columns in the main register above, indicating that it was introduced to ‘build’ the image as much as to represent an architectonic section.1047 As for the wall and arcades variously featured in the right panels of Anastasius’ diptychs, these might on the one hand refer to some theatre structure (a scaenae frons), on the other to the arcades lining the arena of the Hippodrome.1048 The pair of towers or pylons framing the Amazonian figures in the same diptychs could signify a gate or possibly a city (the doors/windows and tiled roofs of the structures in Anastasius A-C are suggestive of the portals of houses). The fence between the theatrical and Amazonian compartments would most likely be recognised as devices for subdividing the pictorial field. The background architecture in the lower registers of Clementinus’ and Orestes’ diptychs reflect, in a simplified form, the column-and-arch scheme in the main register of the same. The rougher nature of this architecture is indicated by a 1044 The iconographical programme of the Theodosian obelisk base in the

Hippodrome in Constantinople includes (on the lower base) the representation of a chariot-race along a spina which displays some distinct correspondences to the Roman counterpart: two obelisks, a couple of statued columns, and an aedicular structure; see for instance Kähler 1975, Taf. V. Numismatic evidence (4th c.) indicates that the Hippodrome’s spina would have included two sculpture groups of barbarian captives and tropaea similar to those of the Circus Maximus; cf. Grabar 1936, 45 and n. 3. A number of monuments are listed by Dagron: two obelisks (of Constantine/Constans and Theodosius respectively), a statued column, a four-columned edifice possibly identifiable as the counterpart to the Roman ‘eggs’ counter, various sculptures among which were a group with Scylla, barbarians, and monuments to victorious charioteers (Porphyrios, Constantinos, Ouranios etc.); Dagron 1974, 306-327 with Fig. 1 (p. 321). 1045 See above III.3.2 and 3.3. 1046 For further references to these works, see III.3.1 and 7.2.6. 1047 The square piece of brick wall represented in the left panel of Areobindus A must be regarded as a mobile screen, i.e. as a piece of apparatus. 1048 Cf. the lower register on the Theodosian obelisk base. Compare also Grabar’s view, based on the relief representations on the same base, that musical and related performances took place in the Hippodrome; Grabar 1936, 155.

160

squatness in the columns, a plainer and vaguely Tuscan shape of the capitals,1049 and (in Clementinus) wall-rustication. The spatial relationship between central- and lower-register architecture could be likened to that of two superimposed storey sections, albeit non-tectonically connected. This impression is strengthened by what appears to be a conscious reference to the traditional system of superimposed orders for the façade decoration of Roman amphitheatres, where the Tuscan/Doric order is applied to the ground-level and the Corinthian order to the uppermost storey. Whether a specific place, i.e. the interior or exterior of a specific building, is intended by the composition is however doubtful.1050 Concluding discussion: Since the types of architectural frame outlined will be analysed in greater depth in the following sections, I will here limit myself to summing up and commenting on the main points of what has hitherto been said. The architectural frame of the main register in a consular diptych conforms to one of three basic types: the simple column-and-tabula unit, the ‘Syrian fronton’-scheme, and the aedicula or aedicular fronton. The three types occur in diptychs of both eastern and western origin, but the degree of architectonic conception varies between diptychs and between east and west: the most complex and fantastic schemes are found in the eastern diptychs of Anastasius and Anthemius, the most ‘realistic’ in the western Lampadiorum and Boethius. There is a relatively low degree of formal correspondence between the architectural frames of the different diptychs, something which could suggest that they are not derived from a common model. This will be discussed in the concluding section of this chapter. The manner in which the architectural frames in the different registers relate to each other is generally ambiguous, either because of differences in scale and perspective and/or because a lack of transitional elements. The only exception to this pattern is found in the Lampadiorum panel, where the tribunal parapet conceptually, if not tectonically or optically correctly, relates to the arena below; since the latter is specified as the arena of the Circus Maximus, the tribunal must naturally be understood as belonging to the same building complex. Although the structures of the central and lower registers in Clementinus’ and Orestes’ diptychs essentially belong to the same type and are roughly represented in the same scale, the non-specific character of both must necessarily preclude any conclusions concerning its representativity of a ‘real’ architectural context. The architectural frame featured in the upper registers of the Halberstadt diptych serves to set the imperial scene apart from the rest of the diptych’s imagery, which completely lacks architectural features. The Halberstadt scheme may refer equally to a real and a symbolic context or setting.1051

1049 Except in the left panel of Clementinus, where a dentil-like motif

crowns the columns. 1050 Compare the symbolic interpretation presented for the figure-scenes taking place in front of these architectural structures under III.4.2. 1051 See III.7.2.3 and 7.3 below.

The arena structures featured in a number of lower pictorial are doubtless the most illustrative of specific models; they are defined by the activities carried out within them, and there is thus no need or scope for further interpretation. As for the main registers, it is only the Lampadiorum panel that may truly be said to represent a specific locale, viz. the tribunal of the Circus Maximus in Rome. But whether this architectural structure may be considered a truthful depiction of its model, as it would have appeared in the period around 400, is a matter open to discussion.

7.2. Real or symbolic architecture? Identifying the architectural frame within consular imagery It is generally held that the majority of fully figural consular images, in fact all except that of Felix’s diptych (3), represent the consul presiding in the tribunal editoris1052 at the circus or amphitheatre. To what degree this interpretation has been reached from considering the architectural frames as such is however not always clear. Rather, the tribunal interpretation is generally held to apply when the consul’s figure is accompanied by the mappa circensis.1053 The mappa’s importance for the tribunal interpretation is best illustrated by the Halberstadt diptych (2), where the mappa-displaying consul stands against a plain background and above a lower register scene that has nothing to do with games and which also recurs in the opposite ‘patrician’ panel.1054 As I have argued earlier,1055 it is necessary to make a distinction between the mappa as a physical object used in a physical context (the arena) and as an index for the consul’s role as editor et praeses ludorum. When interpreting the meaning of the mappa according to the latter alternative, viz. in a symbolic sense, the entire concept of games-giving is understood as an implicit meaning of the motif. The lack of architectural frames in the central and lower registers of the diptych is one of several factors that speak in favour of a symbolic interpretation. The date of the Halberstadt diptych further proves that the function and meaning of the mappa were established already in the earliest period of consular 1052 The term tribunal editoris is used by Billig among others to denote the

circus tribunal in which the games-giver (the editor et praeses ludorum) presided; Billig 1977, 12-16. 1053 E.g. Capps 1927, 62; Delbrueck 1929, 88, 100, 104, 108, 117, 121, 123, 135, 154f (Aspar’s missorium (Pl. 22)); Grabar 1936, 146; Toynbee 1953, 273; Volbach 1976, 28, 30, 32, 35f; Shelton 1989, 123; A.D.E. Cameron 1998, 391, 399f. For a somewhat differently argued tribunal interpretation, see G. Egger 1959, 20f. For a contrary view, arguing that the ‘briefly sketched indications of an architectural environment, […] simply typical for consular diptychs, […] have no special meaning’, see Shelton 1983, 17. Meanwhile, Engemann has convincingly shown that the mappa could work as an independent attribute of consulship from at least the latter half of the 4th century, but he does not actually consider the identity or significance of the architectural frame in the consular diptychs; Engemann 1999, 161-163. See also discussion in III.2.2.2. 1054 See discussions above, III.2.2.2, 5.4, and also 3.4. 1055 III.2.2.2.

161

diptych production, and the diptychs of Boethius (6), Clementinus (10), Magnus (12), Orestes (7) and partly also Basilius (8) demonstrate that they remained essentially unchanged until 542 (when Justinian closed the ordinary consulate to private citizens). Another determining factor for the tribunal interpretation has naturally been the games-scenes depicted in the lower registers of many diptychs. When the mappa, especially if displayed in the elevated position, is included in an image simultaneously with a games-scene, it has automatically been concluded that the consul is presiding over his games, more precisely giving the start signal for them to begin; this irrespective of whether the games represented are circus-races (the games-type for which the mappa was used1056 ) or other. But again, the diptychs of Halberstadt, Boethius etc. together with representations derived from other media, show that the raised mappa may function independently of any gamesscene, or in some cases independently of which phase in the games is depicted.1057 And in those images where the consul ‘presides over’ s p a r s i o -related scenes (Boethius, Clementinus, Magnus and Orestes) with the mappa lowered, the connection between consul/mappa and the act performed below seems even less clear. To this may again be added the scale differentiation—often drastic—between the main and lower registers, and the disconnected manner in which the registers are commonly juxtaposed (see 7.1 above). At the bottom of the much-favoured tribunal interpretation appears to lie the (more or less automatic) assumption that the scenes represented in the consular images must depict factual events taking place in factual settings. Guided, presumably, by the predominantly graphic and carefully detailed representations of the various figures and motifs in the diptychs as a whole, many have apparently deduced that everything in the consular image must have an identical or—allowing the peculiarly late antique synoptic mode of representation—at least similar counterpart in physical reality, including any architectural frame. One of the purposes of this and the following section is to determine in what degree this way of seeing is justified or tenable. The present section primarily focusses on the architectural frames of the main pictorial registers, i.e. the frames surrounding the consuls. The aim is to show how the architectural types and their decorative programmes may be derived from a number of sources, and that the application of certain motifs would reflect commonly agreed ideas about what motifs are suitable to convey certain significances associated with consulship, in the past as well as in the present. These sources are on the one hand found within the sphere of monumental architecture—the circus/hippodrome/amphitheatre with its tribunal editoris, the pulvinar and other sacral architecture, the triumphal arch, and palatial architecture; on the other hand in categories of art that traditionally make use of the architectural frame, notably 1056 Jones 1964, 539. 1057 See e.g. Billig 1977, 19 Abb. 5 (a sepulchral relief in the Vatican

showing the praeses vigorously raising the mappa at the moment when the victorious charioteer passes in front of the tribunal).

sepulchral art but also such phenomena as the armarium or case for the keeping of codicilli and ancestors’ imagines, and the sedia gestatoria.1058 Before going into the variety of alternative and complementary sources for the architectural frames in the consular diptychs, however, I will concentrate on the tribunal editoris in the hope of establishing whether there existed any formal standards for its elevation, and in what degree these would correspond to the architectural frames featured in the consular diptychs. As the treatments in the respective subsections will be of a discursive nature, there will be no need for separate concluding discussions at the end of each. Instead the chapter in its entirety will be closed with a comprehensive discussion (7.3), where all the investigated material will be weighed together and its relevance for the consular context evaluated.

7.2.1. The tribunal editoris The archaeological evidence for the tribunal constructions of circuses and amphitheatres is generally scarce. And the archaeological evidence for the elevation of the tribunal of Circus Maximus in Rome, the universal model for circuses throughout the empire1059 and the alleged prototype for the architectural frames in some western ivory diptychs, is inconclusive on a number of points. From what has been determined through excavations on the site, the tribunal, which was located on the Palatine side and half-way up the spina, was a c. 30 metres wide building in two storeys, flanked on each side by a (covered?) staircase leading to the arena.1060 The presiding magistrate with attendants had their seats in the central part of the upper storey, which consisted of a protruding section (balcony) spanning four columns. The central seat, in front of and between the two middle columns, would have been reserved for the highest-ranking praeses. The structure suggested by the archaeological remains is roughly depicted in the Foligno relief (2nd-4th c. AD), which is believed to represent the Circus Maximus.1061 Placed in conjunction with the second meta (here optically fused with the carceres)1062 is the tribunal editoris: a wide balcony with a columnar and apex-shaped aedicula in the centre,1063

1058 For references and exemplifications, see 7.2.6. 1059 Humphrey provides a thorough analysis of the formal reliance of the

provincial circuses vis-à-vis Circus Maximus; Humphrey 1986, passim. 1060 Humphrey 1986, 84-91; and Curran 2000, 246 and Fig. 31 a-b. See also reconstructive drawing in Coarelli 1997, 314. 1061 E.g. Bianchi Bandinelli 1969, 288, 290 Fig. 324; Billig 1977, 21f, Nr. 2 Abb. 4; Humphrey 1986, 87 Fig. 121; and Lim 1999:2, 345 Fig. 4. See above, III.7.1. 1062 On the location of the finishing-line relative to the second meta, see Humphrey 1986, 84-91; and Curran 2000, 246. 1063 The tall structure below the balcony is probably not intended to represent a lower storey of the tribunal building, but rather the carceres and porta principalis on the N-W short side (opposite the porta triumphalis) in the vicinity of which the tribunal editoris was located. The spatial relationships between the two portae and the arena/spina are represented in a reduced perspective in the relief, and so are the relationships between the tribunal and the finishing-line/first meta and the porta principalis or porta pompae (the ‘goal’ portal located at the N-W end of the circus; compare e.g. Dunbabin 1982, 67).

162

in front of which a praeses and two attendants are seated.1064 Spanned from the centre and to the side-corners of the gable are two cable-shaped elements that would probably be recognised as a sun screen.1065 Although the representation is very sketchy it still provides information on the tribunal’s basic components: a parapet and a pointed gable supported by columns.1066 These components are also found on a marble relief in the Vatican,1067 where all four columns of the president’s box are represented, and in a circus mosaic from Carthage;1068 both could very well represent the Circus Maximus in Rome.1069 As for more specific details, it has been assumed that the tribunal parapet was subdivided by herm pilasters, hermali, crowned by barbarians’ heads.1070 Evidence for this is chiefly derived from late antique reliefs such as the oratio-scene on the north façade of the Arch of Constantine in Rome (which however does not represent the circus tribunal but the rostra),1071 the parapets in Lampadiorum (1) and the Liverpool v e n a t i o panel, both from Rome1072 and representing the tribunal of the Circus Maximus and an amphitheatre (presumably the Flavian amphitheatre), and the representation of the kathisma on the Theodosian obelisk base in Constantinople (see below). All of these tribunal representations also show grilled parapets, those in Lampadiorum and Liverpool venatio being the most ornamental. From the relatively wide distribution of images depicting herm-pilastered parapets it has been concluded that hermali constituted something of a standard element in late antique tribunal architecture.1073 The symbolic significance 1064 The highest-ranking magistrate holds a scipio and is bigger than the

attendants. 1065 Compare Billig 1977, 20. 1066 Billig evidently mistook the presiding magistrate’s sceptre for a column when stating that the tribunal is a four-columned structure; Billig 1977, 20. 1067 Galleria Chiaramonti. E.g. Billig 1977, 19 Nr. 3 Abb. 5; and Lim 1999:2, 345 Fig. 3. Billig believed this structure to be a temple located at some distance behind the tribunal. 1068 Dunbabin 1982, 87 no. 4, Pl. 5 no. 2. 1069 The gable relief of a sepulchral monument to C. Lusius Storax at Chieti, from the 1st c. AD (Chieti, Museo Nazionale. Rodenwald 1940, 33 Abb. 16; Torelli 1963/64, 72-84, Fig. A, Tav. XXX-XXXII; Gabelmann 1984, 201-204 (Nr. 98); Ronke 1987, (iii) Abb. 3; Lim 1999:2, 346 Fig. 5), represents a tribunal scene with a togate games-giver (Storax himself) seated on a podium in the centre and accompanied by officials and functionaries in front of a row of six Tuscan columns which originally possibly supported a triangular gable (lost top-central segment). Although the number of columns exceeds the standard (2-4) illustrated in the examples representing the tribunal of the Circus Maximus, the scheme of this provincial specimen clearly conforms to the same generic type. That the arena in question would be a circus is not explicitly indicated by the gladiatorial scene represented in a separate register below, which is reduced to a single band of figures. 1070 Delbrueck 1929, 219; Billig 1977, 22; Humphrey 1986, 168f; Wrede 1987, 139. 1071 L’Orange & von Gerkan 1939, 81-83, Abb. 12, Taf. 5 a, 14 a-15 a; Billig 1977, 23 Abb. 10; De Maria 1988, Tav. 99:1; also Elsner 1998, 18f, Fig. 7. 1072 For the attribution of the Liverpool panel to Rome, see Delbrueck 1952:1, 179; and more recently Gibson 1994, 17f. 1073 Wrede 1987, 139.

ascribed to them, good fortune,1074 would of course have been congenial to the purpose of the games.1075 As for the appearance of the kathisma of the Hippodrome in Constantinople, which is the only securely verified arena tribunal in Constantinople,1076 the evidence is even more scarce than for its Roman counterpart. The reliefs on the Theodosian obelisk base, erected on the spina of the Hippodrome c. 390, provide the only physical source from which one may derive any idea of its façade, or more particularly how that façade was iconographically formulated in the late 4th century.1077 Although the construction of the kathisma in its entirety differed from that of the Circus Maximus, constituting an interconnected part of the imperial palace with a series of rooms for the accommodation of the emperor with entourage,1078 the box proper apparently derived some basic elements from its Roman predecessor. From what may be gathered from the obelisk reliefs it was a columnar, aedicula-shaped section fronted by a parapet. The structure is possibly equivalent to three intercolumnar spans, and herm pilasters divide the balcony into three sections, but apart from an architrave no superstructure is indicated; possibly the out-jutting top of the base-block is intended to represent a roof. The tribunal representations on the four sides of the base, however, do not display the same shape:1079 three of the four sides (north-west, north-east and south-west) show a wider structure with an arcuated spandrel between the two central columns, whereas a narrower structure spanned by a horizontal and distinctly protruding cornice is featured on the fourth side (south-east). The placement of the columns also differs between the two types of representation: on the first-mentioned three sides the columns are short and supported on top of the balcony parapet, whereas they run down to the ground-line and in front of the parapet on the south-east side. The differences between the two shapes, it has been proposed, would derive from the circumstance that the one (north-west, north-east, south-west) represents the kathisma proper, i.e. the imperial box, whereas the other (south-east) represents the stama, a platform located below the kathisma and connected to it by means of a vaulted stairway.1080 That the deviating appearance of the architecture in the south-east relief could partly have been motivated by considerations other than the visually correct depiction of the

1074 Humphrey 1986, 168. 1075 Hermali also ornamented the carceres (between gates) in the Circus

Maximus (see the Foligno and Ostia funerary reliefs); e.g. Billig 1977, 18 Abb. 13; and Dunbabin 1982, 79. 1076 The evidence for amphitheatres is virtually nonexistent. 1077 E.g. Kähler 1975, Taf. II-V; Dagron 1974, 306f, 317-322; and Kiilerich 1993, 31. 1078 Bruns 1935, 34-36; Dagron 1974, 306f; Bardill 1999, 220-225 with Fig. 2; also Kiilerich 1993, 35f and n. 106. 1079 For a series of good photographic reproductions, see Kähler 1975, Taf. II-V. 1080 Kiilerich 1993, 36f.

163

kathisma or stama1081 is suggested by two things: firstly, the emperor’s standing position requires a higher level of both roof and parapet of the box to allow for and/or emphasise the verticality of that position, and secondly this side is the ‘first’ side of the obelisk as signified by the fact that it faces the kathisma (and thus the presiding emperor himself).1082 The primary importance of the south-east side is also indicated by the fact that the emperor is represented as performing an act as opposed to being passively seated. The act is that of extending a laurel-wreath in the direction of the arena below, which means that the representation of the finale of the circus games, the crowning of the victor, is reserved for the principal side of the base.1083 Thus one may guess that the appearance of the kathisma/stama could have been adjusted so that it might lend a particular emphasis to the imperial act. The architecture is not perceived as a structure in its own right, but as a frame whose purpose is to lend a symbolic distinction to the figure-scene it encloses. Its representability, i.e. its truthfulness as a depiction of its prototype, would therefore be relative. Whether private consuls presided from the kathisma or from a separate tribunal reserved for officials1084 remains unknown. As for amphitheatre tribunals, apart from the ornately grilled parapet—which represents a tribunal in its totality—in the Liverpool venatio panel, a scheme corresponding to the representation of the Constantinopolitan kathisma on the Theodosian obelisk base—two columns, a grid-grilled parapet, and a gable-less superstructure—is featured on an early 5th-century terracotta lanx fragment from North Africa,1085 showing an amphitheatrical scene. The columnand-parapet scheme recurs in the ‘Kaiserpriester’ diptych (Pl. 19), like the Liverpool venatio attributed to Rome and the early 5th century,1086 which represents a tribunal with a 1081 A realist interpretation of the Hippodromian kathisma represented on

the Theodosian obelisk base put forward by, among others, Bruns and Egger; Bruns 1935, 34-36, 57; G. Egger 1959, 26. 1082 And also the longer Latin text inscribed on a tabula ansata on the lower part of the base (the shorter inscription on the opposite side is written in Greek, the non-offical language of Byzantium); see Bruns 1935, 30-32; Kähler 1975, 47; and Kiilerich 1993, 35-37. 1083 Significantly, the moment of victory is not represented by the actual victors of the arena, who are nowhere to be seen on this side of the base. Instead victory is represented by the emperor’s person and the part played by him in the arena, viz. as joint recipient, rewarder and embodiment of victory. Compare Grabar’s interpretation; Grabar 1936, 65f. 1084 Dagron has proposed that such a magistrate’s tribunal would have been situated at the northern carceres end of the arena; Dagron 1974, 322. Compare the placement of the kathisma in the same area by Mamboury and Wiegand (whose publication predates the excavations of the central part of the eastern side where the imperial box with its adjoining palatial room-suite have subsequently been located); Mamboury & Wiegand 1934, 39-53 and Taf. CII. 1085 Salomonson 1969, 12 Fig. 14; Salomonson 1973, 11 Fig. 8; Weitzmann 1978, 92f no. 83. 1086 Another representation featuring the bi-columnar front with parapet is found in an Hispanian villa mosaic of late antique date, the Gerona mosaic from Bell-lloch, reproduced in drawing by Humphrey; Humphrey 1986, 239 Fig. 120. Here the superstructure supported by the columns is in the form of a simple architrave, and the balustrade in front of the presiding magistrate is

rounded (here solid) parapet and two spiral-fluted columns ‘supporting’ a wide, shell-patterned conch. When summarising the evidence for the tribunal editoris and comparing it to the architectural frames found in the consular diptychs, some preliminary conclusions may be drawn: 1) the representations in the consular diptychs are far more heterogeneous, and generally more complex, than the comparanda; 2) the correspondences between the structures in the diptychs and the comparanda are limited, more so in the eastern works, and (when occurring) of a partial nature only; and 3) except for Lampadiorum, no consular diptych displays an architectural frame that places the consul and attendants behind a parapet—a feature that is ubiquitously represented in the comparanda, whether it refers to the circus/hippodrome or the amphitheatre.

7.2.2. The pulvinar and the temple By the pulvinar is meant the seat at the Circus Maximus originally reserved for the gods, which was given an architectonic form under Augustus and from then on used occasionally by the emperors when they presided over the games. It was located directly opposite the tribunal editoris and the finishing-line (viz. on the Aventine side) but at a higher level.1087 The elevation of the building reflected that of an aedes or temple, and it appears that this form became standard throughout the Roman empire. What could possibly be recognised as the pulvinar is seen in a pair of graphic reproductions of the Mafeiorum relief (Rome, 1st-2nd c. AD (?)),1088 representing the Circus Maximus. The building in question is found in the left half of the relief, where it is raised on a tall podium at an elevated level in the cavea and right in front of a sculpture-group of three. The building itself is a very simple structure: a pair of Corinthian columns supporting an undecorated triangular gable, the space between columns presenting an empty ‘niche’ without either figures or a door, and with no balcony/parapet attached. Its shrine-like form, its elevated position and its (visually) immediate vicinity to the sculpture-group—which could represent the gods to whom the building was dedicated—in my view suggest this is the pulvinar, not the tribunal editoris. The fronton of a pulvinar is also represented in a mosaic from Luni.1089 From what remains of this representation it can be gathered that it included a row of prostyle Corinthian columns, a tall and banded architrave supporting a triangular gable, a pedimental decoration in the form of a wreath with central rosette/jewel and bound with ribbons, and roof acroteria of flame-shaped acanthus-leaves or vice versa. The façade in its entirety displays some affinities with those in Boethius (6) and Anastasius (11), and partially in two partitions only. Although the representation refers to an unknown provincial arena, and perhaps presents little more than a simplified version of a generic model, it may still be cited as evidence for the ‘standard’ tribunal editoris. 1087 Humphrey 1986, 78-81; also Coarelli 1997, 316. 1088 Rodenwaldt 1940, 24-26, 29 Abb. 10 and 11; Ronke 1987, (ii) 716 Kat. Nr. 148, (iii) Abb. 155. 1089 Humphrey 1986, 81 Fig. 35b, 123 Fig. 55.

164

also Astyrius (4); the appearance of the architrave recurs in Lampadiorum (1), the gable wreath in Boethius, and the flame-shaped acroteria in Astyrius. It is of course impossible to determine in what degree the Luni pulvinar is representative of a model, but it is interesting that it, like the structure in the Mafeiorum relief, displays fundamental similarities to some of the aediculae in the consular material. That there may have been a tendency, at least partial, to give the pulvinar and the tribunal editoris a similar shape is attested from Hispanian circuses.1090 The pulvinar’s temple-like aspect would naturally have resulted from its sacral nature and function. The laurel-wreath adorning the pediment on the Luni mosaic further suggests that it was also regarded as a shrine dedicated to victory;1091 this irrespective of whether a corona laurea decorated the original building, or presents an addition by the artist who created the image.1092 That consulship was associated with victoriousness by means of the same symbol is illustrated by Astyrius, Boethius and Magnus (12). The flame-shaped acroteria, finally, could be associated with the flaming torch, a phenomenon which occurred both in imperial court ceremonial and in festive and other processions throughout the Roman empire.1093 Some architectural structures in the consular diptychs display affinities with a small temple or shrine. The image of a consul seated or standing within a gabled aedicula displays distinct typological similarities to a deity placed within his temple or shrine (aedicula sub divo1094 ) as for instance represented on Roman coins.1095 As a pair of examples among innumerable ones may be cited a coin issued by Octavian on whose reverse are depicted the altar and temple of deified Caesar,1096 and a Maximinian reverse showing the temple of Roma.1097 Although differing in the number of prostyle columns, these representations display the same basic components: an apex-gabled fronton on a podium, a tall 1090 Humphrey 1986, 343. 1091 Although earlier than the Augustan pulvinar in the Circus Maximus,

the façade of the temple to Venus Victrix in the theatre of Pompey would probably have displayed a similar form, not least as regards its high placement; cf. Zanker 1988:1, 20 Fig. 16 (reconstructive drawing by L. Canina). 1092 Compare for instance the abundant number of wreaths decorating the various buildings (arches, temples) in the Haterii relief; Bianchi Bandinelli 1969, 217 Fig. 242. 1093 E.g. A. Alföldi 1934, 111-118. 1094 The term aedicula sub divo was applied by Cagiano de Azevedo (when interpreting the architectural frame in the Stilicho diptych in Monza) to denote the simple constellation of a (divine/holy) figure within or immediately in front of an aedicula; Cagiano de Azevedo 1963, 106f. 1095 Primarily from the 1st-2nd centuries AD; for a representative series of coin reverses depicting Roman deities inside their temples, see for instance Bianchi Bandinelli 1969, Fig. 428, 429, 431-433.; and Zanker 1988:1, 109 Fig. 89 a-b, 111 Fig. 90, 300 Fig. 231b. 1096 Bianchi Bandinelli 1969, 156 Fig. 166. For a discussion of the temples/aediculae featured on imperial coins, cf. Stern who argues that these types of temple representations are identical (sic) to the ones enclosing the imperial consuls Constantius II and Gallus in the Codexcalendar of 354 (Pl. 27); Stern 1953, 310f. 1097 Stern 1953, Pl. XXVI.3.

and inscribed architrave, a tympanum ornamented with some symbol—star, eagle, wreath, disc—or statuary, and a god placed between the central pair of columns. They display typological affinities with the aediculae in the diptychs of Boethius, Anastasius and Anthemius, whose pure aedicular forms are also very similar to a shrine to lesser deities.1098 Numerous representations in various media confirm that the iconographic formula for a temple/shrine in the Roman and early Byzantine periods consisted of the simple combination of a triangular gable with columns.1099 A series of particularly interesting illustrations of the aedicula sub divo formula is found in a relief from the Haterii tomb which shows a selection of monumental buildings erected under the Flavians, among which are an arcus or quadrifrons dedicated to Isis, an arcus in sacra via summa likely to be identified with the Arch of Titus in the Forum Romanum, a second arch plausibly identified as the porta triumphalis of Titus in the Circus Maximus, the Colosseum, and a temple to Iuppiter.1100 In each of these buildings one or several deities (Isis, Roma, Minerva, Cybele etc.) are standing or enthroned between a pair of columns interconnected by an arch and/or crowned by a triangular gable.1101 Irrespective of whether the deities are to be understood as placed in front of or within the structures (like statues in their temples), none of them would belong to the respective monument in reality, but the whole implies either a fusion of different buildings and/or that the deities serve to indicate the locality—hence identity—of the different monuments. Coronae laureae or civicae decorate the temple gable and the arches’ entablatures, and additional façade sculpture fills the spaces between gable and upper lintel of both (compare Astyrius and Boethius); the arches’ entablatures also include a field for commemorative inscription (tabulae inscriptiones) (compare Astyrius, Boethius, Areobindus, Clementinus and Orestes). A purely abstract and symbolic type of aedicula sub divo or temple fronton, closely resembling the aediculae in Anastasius’ and Anthemius’ (Pl. 15) diptychs,1102 encloses 1098 Such as lares; for a representative example, see Zanker 1988:1, 131

Fig. 106. 1099 See for instance the Trajanic reliefs exhibited in the Curia in the Forum Romanum (Rome) and the Aurelian marble relief panels on the Arch of Constantine and in the Palazzo dei Conservatori (Rome), all showing the emperor in front of temples; e.g. De Maria 1988, Tav. 79.1 and 81.2-3. See also the 4th c . (London, British Museum; provenance uncertain); e.g. Kitzinger 1980, Fig. 56; Elsner 1998, 191 Fig. 128; and Ensoli & La Rocca 2000, 483 Fig. 103. The simple bi-columnar and gabled structure denoting a temple has its forerunners in Etruscan art, such as terracotta votive models of temples/shrines; Staccioli 1968, Tav. XII-XIII, XV and LIV esp. 1100 Castagnoli 1941, Tav.1-4; G. Egger 1959, 10 Abb. 2, 12; Bianchi Bandinelli 1969, 165 Fig. 180; De Maria 1988, Tav. 72. The interpretations of De Maria and also Künzl have the advantage over those of Castagnoli and Egger in taking into account the entire façade decoration of the monuments represented, convincingly arguing (Künzl particularly so) that they all commemorate the Judaean victory of Titus and Vespasian in 71 AD; Castagnoli 1941, 65-67; G. Egger 1959, 10; De Maria 1988, 62, 65, 6870, 72, 75, 81, 121, 155, 285f, 288, 292-294; and Künzl 1988, 45-49. 1101 Castagnoli 1941, 65-67. For detailed reproductions, see also Künzl 1988, 47 Abb. 22 a-c. 1102 The structures also display close affinities with the aedicular frontons enclosing mythological etc. figure representations on red-figure Apulian

165

the imperial consuls Constantius II and Gallus in the Codexcalendar of 354 (Pl. 24). 1103 It consists of two slender Corinthian columns rising from a ‘stylobate’ and a triangular entablature from which is suspended a pair of curtains, bound up in bulging knots to the sides (compare Felix (3)). The ornamentation of the aedicula’s superstructure partly follows the ancient Etrusco-Italic system for temples with its voluteand-palmette acroteria,1104 whereas the arch-framed shell on the pediment presents a peculiarly late antique element (compare Astyrius, Anastasius, Anthemius).1105 At some distance from the gable are two rosettes whose symmetrical placement in indefinite space indicates the surreal and celestial nature of the ‘place’ in which the aedicula-enclosed emperors appear.1106 Within each of these entirely twodimensional aediculae is suspended, above ground and against the empty background, the figure of an emperor. Both emperors’ poses are modelled after those assumed by gods in traditional Roman-Hellenistic art, either enthroned with one foot in front of the other (Constantius), or poised in a curving contrapposto, leaning on a sceptre/hasta and holding forth some other attribute (such as a victoriola) with the right hand (Gallus). The emperors’ divine nature is proclaimed by the nimbi encircling their heads. In fact, all elements in these images combine to tell the viewer that the personages represented are equivalent to deities manifest inside their temples, suprahuman beings performing ceremonies robed in the richly bejewelled ornatus Iovis of the triumphator.1107 Finally, in late antique imagery the temple or shrine was occasionally applied mainly for representing Romanpolytheistic and Old-Testamental sacral buildings, among which houses of biblical personages.1108 The aedicula sub vases; e.g. RVAp 42 (1983), Pl. IV, VII-X, XII-XIX; RVAp 60 (1991), Pl. XXVI-XXXIV. 1103 Indeed, Stern derived this frame from the divine temple; Stern 1953, 310f. 1104 Such as notably the Capitoline temple of Iuppiter; cf. the reconstruction of its façade by E. Gjerstad and B. Blomé (originally published in A. Boethius et al., Etruscan culture, New York & Malmö 1962, Pl. 13-14) reproduced in Henig 1983, 15 Fig. 3. 1105 Whilst attributing the Codex-calendar to Rome, Stern claimed that the single motifs derived from Graeco-Oriental sources; Stern 1953, 313, 334340. 1106 The same type of radiating rosettes is found above the ‘ciborium’ roof represented on the Corbridge lanx (4th c.), where their half-hidden placement and understated appearance suggest that they were not looked upon as primarily ornamental motifs; e.g. Kitzinger 1980, Fig. 56; Elsner 1998, 191 Fig. 128; Ensoli & La Rocca 2000, 483 Fig. 103. As not only the cited examples but also examples from sepulchral art (notably Gallic and Hispanic) suggest, the application of the radiating or conch-like rosette within imagery seems to have been motivated by some ascribed symbolic significance, viz. the supra-terrestrial, celestial or transcendental; compare Cumont 1942, 237 Fig. 57 and 59. 1107 On the triumphator’s garb as the ornatus Iovis and on the ancient victory symbolism associated with it, see Versnel 1970, 58-65. The transcendental theme is also continued in the astrological figures incorporated into the pattern of Gallus’ triumphal toga; cf. Stern 1953, 167. Compare also the images of deified emperors’ statues within baldaquins or shrines reproduced in Smith 1956, Fig. 107, 109, 111, 116, 118-120 (imperial period, 1st-3rd c.). 1108 See for instance the church mosaics of Santa Maria Maggiore in Rome and San Vitale in Ravenna, notably the imagery cycles derived from the Old Testament and the childhood of Christ (Santa Maria Maggiore, wall

divo scheme was inherited by Christian funerary art, where it was frequently combined with the shell motif to enclose holy figures or the immortalised dead; the bi-columnar niche aedicula has been discussed above in connection with the shell motif.1109 Being primarily iconographic phenomena (i.e. pictorial rather than architectural motifs), these structures often display abstracted, tectonically contorted and fantastic forms. The aediculae found in the diptychs of Anastasius and Anthemius would primarily or even exclusively derive their form and type from the iconographic variant of the aedicula sub divo. This comprises the basic structure—a shallow, nontectonically conceived façade, occasionally combined with the shell motif—in front of which the consul is enthroned. Additionally, the clipei attached to the gable roof display definite similarities to the manner in which acroteria were attached to the gable of a traditional Roman temple, with the sculptures of the divine being(s) to whom it was dedicated placed on the summit.1110

7.2.3. The fastigium By a fastigium is here meant the type of ceremonial fronton predominantly found within late antique palatial architecture, the most notable example of which is the entrance façade in the inner court of Diocletian’s palace at Split.1111 The standard form for the imperial fastigium consists in four columns and a gabled entablature where the architrave of the wider central span is arcuated. Its representation in figural art includes the palatial façade in the nave mosaic of Sant’Apollinare Nuovo in Ravenna,1112 the fronton enclosing of the arcus maior) showing a temple to Roma; Deichmann 1958, Taf. 312327 passim; Grabar 1966, 151 Fig. 162. Billig provides an illustrative range of biblical and other houses (mosaics and wall-paintings); Billig 1977, 47-53 Abb. 31-41. Further examples are provided by a 5th c. ivory book-cover in five parts representing the life of Christ (Milano, Tesoro del Duomo) and the ‘Brescia Lipsanotheca’ of about a century earlier; e.g. Grabar 1966, 288 Fig. 333; and Elsner 1998, 234 Fig. 160 respectively. A close parallel to the aedicula in Boethius’ diptych, but also to the reductive and twodimensionally conceived Anastasian/Anthemian specimens, is found in a mid-4th c. Carthaginian mosaic representing a rural shrine to Diana and Apollo (Tunis, National Museum of the Bardo); Bianchi Bandinelli 1970, 250 Fig. 232. This again may be compared to the above-cited 4th c. Corbridge lanx enclosing the figure of Apollo, and a 4th c. silver dish from the Sevso treasure (provenance unknown); Elsner 1998, 103-105, 104 Fig. 69. 1109 III.6.2. 1110 Cf. the temples to Capitoline Iuppiter, Concordia, and Antoninus Pius and Faustina; Coarelli 1997, 51; Zanker 1988:1, 111 Fig. 90; and Bianchi Bandinelli 1969, 291 Fig. 327. 1111 E.g. Elsner 1998, 75 Fig. 46. 1112 Dyggve 1941, 8-10, 23f, 36-38, Fig. 31, Tav. XIII; Deichmann 1958, Taf. 107-109; Duval 1978, 101 Fig. 1 a-b; also Kitzinger 1980, Fig. 107. See also Dyggve’s reconstruction of the mosaic, where each arch is filled with a figure: the enthroned Theodoric flanked by guards in the centre, and smaller acclaiming figures—their extended right hands still remain, overcutting some of the columns—to the sides; Dyggve 1941, Fig. 35; also Duval 1978, 94-97; and Kiilerich 1996, 99f and Fig. 4. The proposed figure scheme, which I find highly plausible, displays close affinities with the roughly contemporary schemes on the Theodosian missorium (Pl. 23), the Halberstadt diptych (2), and also the Lampadiorum (1), Astyrius (4) and Bourges (5) ivories.

166

the imperial figures in the silver missorium of Theodosius (Pl. 23), and the four-columned structure in the upper registers of the Halberstadt diptych (2). The late antique palatial-ceremonial architecture would be understood as reflecting the divine and triumphal nature of the emperor;1113 the combination of an arch with a gabled pediment—the gable symbolising the sky1114 —is well suited for the expression of this triumphant-divine nature.1115 It has forerunners in the sacral architecture of the Roman east (the so-called Syrian fronton), for example the temple of deified Hadrian at Ephesos,1116 but there are also earlier examples of the scheme in the art and architecture of the western half of the Roman empire. One such example is the so-called sword of Tiberius, found in Germany and dated to the 1st century AD,1117 whose ornamentation includes a structure identical to the Split fastigium. The concept was adopted by Christian architecture and art, notable examples being the early 4thcentury Lateran fastigium in Rome,1118 a long since disappeared screen-like structure erected in front of the apse inside the basilica, and the pre-Justinianic portico of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople.1119 In the Theodosian missorium the fronton would primarily be of a symbolic nature,1120 providing the figure-scene with a structured frame that serves to emphasise its imperial-divine and hierarchic content. The arcuated central span allows the 1113 On the association of the late Roman emperor’s palace with a temple,

see e.g. MacCormack 1981, 25, 269. 1114 See e.g. Hommel 1954, 8. 1115 Dyggve 1941, 37-38; D.F. Brown 1942, 393f; Smith 1956, 31-35, 5273; Elsner 1998, 75; and Kinney 2001, 133f. In the palace at Split, Diocletian’s statue was originally placed on the summit of the fastigium gable, just like the statue of a god on a traditional Roman temple, marking the entrance to what can be described as the temple city to the emperor’s cult. 1116 E.g. Bianchi Bandinelli 1969, 130. Hadrian’s and his architects’ predilection for the arcuated lintel motif as one suitable to enclose or denote divinity may for instance also be witnessed in the arcade along the canopus in the imperial villa at Tibur, where the statue of a deity is placed beneath each arch. 1117 Klumbach 1970, Taf. 8 and 9; Künzl 1988, 125 Abb. 83; De Blaauw 2001, 143 Fig. 5. See also Koch, who argues that the Lateran fastigium would have served as a model for the carvers of contemporary and later Italian sarcophagi with architectural compositions; Koch 2000, 128f. 1118 De Blaauw 2001, 140f, Fig. 1 and 2; also Kinney 2001, 126f and Fig. 11-12. 1119 E.g. Grabar 1966, 82 Fig. 87. Examples from figural art include the frame structure enclosing the biblical figure-scenes in the 7th c. so-called David plates from the ‘Second Cyprus Treasure’, Lambousa, and attributed to Constantinople (Nicosia, National Museum of Cyprus; New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art); see for instance Kent & Painter 1977, 102, 105-108 nos. 180-183. 1120 It has been suggested that, although symbolic by nature, the fastigium in this image was modelled after the entrance façade of Diocletian’s palace; Dyggve 1941, 37f; D.F. Brown 1942, 396f; De Franchovich 1970, 22. The theory is plausible considering the missorium’s western origin and the occasion it was created to commemorate, viz. the decennalia of Theodosius’ I reign and the announcement of his successional intentions; see e.g. Kiilerich 1993, 19-26. A ‘realist’ interpretation of the fronton is proposed by Stern and Kiilerich, who both argue that it should be recognised as the architecture of the audience hall in the imperial palatium (which one is left unsaid); Stern 1953, 309, 312; Kiilerich 1993, 22. In a later article, however, Kiilerich puts a stronger emphasis on the symbolic values associated with the ‘palatial’ scheme; Kiilerich 2000, 276.

primary figure, the emperor, to grow considerably in scale vis-à-vis the personages presiding at his sides—the junior heirs to the empire—making him appear as the colossal effigy of a god rather than a man. The pattern recurs in the diptychs of Lampadiorum (1) and Bourges (5), and the antithetically placed erotes on the pediment in the missorium may further be compared to the pair of eagles in Bourges. Whether erotes or eagles (in these forms) would have decorated the gable of an imperial fastigium or a circus tribunal is doubtful,1121 but in imagery they serve to lend transcendental overtones to the scene(s) they accompany. To illustrate the wide use of the fastigium motif in late antique art one may cite a 4th-century glass largitio dish found in the Forum Romanum,1122 showing three male figures within a four-columned and gabled fronton. In this image the architrave runs horizontally across the width of the structure, and the tympanum is decorated with a wreath held by a pair of confronted Victories—a motif and composition comparable to the laurel-carrying Victoriae/erotes in the diptychs of Anastasius (11) and Anthemius (Pl. 15), the fruitoffering erotes in the Theodosian missorium, the corona triumphalis in Boethius (6), the aquilae in Bourges, and their counterparts on innumerable sepulchral monuments.1123 As in the imperial missorium, Lampadiorum and Bourges, the central figure is considerably larger than his attendants. The vota inscription encircled by the wreath,1124 the chlamys costume of the smaller right-side attendant, and the inclusion of an even smaller horsed guard beside the fronton (far right)1125 suggest that the image represents an imperial throne ceremony equivalent to the scenes presented in the Theodosian missorium and the upper registers of the Halberstadt diptych. The architectural frame in the glass dish would, accordingly, probably be recognised as a symbolic imperial-ceremonial fastigium of the kind represented in the missorium rather than a real and specific building in Rome. There are distinct affinities between this ceremonial scenecum-architecture and those in Lampadiorum, Astyrius (4) and Bourges.

7.2.4. The portal and the triumphal arch The structure and motif repertory of the architectural frames in many of the consular diptychs display affinities with the Roman architecture of portals, city-gates and triumphal arches dating from the early principate and onwards. The tectonic structure and façade treatment of these types of buildings were more or less standardised, the central or main unit being composed of an arcuated opening (fornix) between a pair of 1121 Compare Delbrueck’s view that the eagles denote the ‘tribunal’ in the

Bourges diptych as imperial; Delbrueck 1929, 158f; and III.6.3. 1122 Rome, Antiquarium. H. Fuhrmann 1939. 1123 See III.5.1, 5.2, and 6.3. The vota legend encircled by the wreath on the dish obviously has little in common with the form used for the inscriptions on architectonic monuments. 1124 Stating that the occasion is the vincennalia of the honorand, who would be identical with the central figure; see H. Fuhrmann 1939, 162f, 175. 1125 Both these attendants would have had their counterparts on the other, now lost side of the central figure.

167

(usually Corinthian) half columns or pilasters, and a tall entablature/attic carrying a commemorative inscription, occasionally in the form of a tabula ansata.1126 The theme provided by the central unit could then be wholly or partially repeated twice (with or without side fornices), the façade in its entirety counting four columns with three spans. As exemplified by the Porta Maggiore and the arch of Augustus in Rome,1127 the arch of Tiberius at Orange and the representations of arches in the aforementioned Haterii relief, the opening(s) could further be superimposed by a triangular gable, thus creating a form of aedicula.1128 The scheme may be compared to that of the f a s t i g i u m (see previous section).1129 The constellations described recur in various forms in the consular diptychs: the Lampadiorum panel ( 1 ) with its tripartite subdivision with four columns, its taller and arcuated central opening, and its entablature inscribed with classic Roman block capitals; and the diptychs of Areobindus (9), Clementinus (10), Orestes (7) and Basilius (8) with their simpler pairs of columns connected by an arch (Basilius excepted) and superimposed by an inscriptional entablature in the form of a tabula ansata.

1126 For the structures, components and thematic variations of the

triumphal arch, and its representation in Roman art, see De Maria 1988, Fig. 6-14, 24, 36, 40-41, 46-48, 54, 59-61, 63, 67, 72, 76, 79, Tav. 1-7, 14-24 passim, 27-23, 37, 47-48, 51 (coins), 56 (2), 74 (coins), 82-83, 86-87, 94-95, 102, 104, 106-112 passim; and Künzl 1988, 53 Abb. 26 a-d (Augustan fornices with a single opening). Compare also Cutler’s association of the tabula ansata-crowned arch with triumphal arches like the Porta Aurea of Claudius in Ravenna; Cutler 1984, 98. 1127 For the latter, see e.g. Künzl 1988, 55 Abb. 28 (after a reconstruction by Gamberini Mongenet). 1128 For the Haterii relief, see III.7.2.2; and e.g. Bianchi Bandinelli 1969, 217 Fig. 242. As an example of a repetitive use of the aedicula arch on a city-gate may be cited the Porta dei Borsari in Verona (e.g. Henig 1983, 35 Fig. 19). Another and innovative treatment of the traditional elements is exemplified by the arch of Hadrian in Athens; see for instance a reconstructive drawing reproduced in Elsner 1998, 121 Fig. 80 (after J.B. Ward-Perkins, Roman imperial architecture, New Haven, Conn. 1981, 269). The elevation of this arch is in two storeys, where the lower one is conceived according to the main principles for a single arch and the upper as an open façade. The latter, which is of most interest here, consists of a four-columned portico supporting a cornice entablature to the centre of which are added two columns ‘in antis’ with a triangular gable above, creating a slightly protruding aedicula; placed beneath this aedicula and above the monumental opening of the ground storey is the armed statue of Hadrian. Although the arch is a monumental portal (erected in honour of the emperor by the citizens of Athens) it displays distinct affinities with the triumphal arch as well as the aedicula sub divo (Hadrian having divine status) and the circus tribunal. Notably, the honorand’s setting apart in an aedicula in an upper storey is mirrored in the consular diptychs composed according to the ‘tribunal’ scheme, but it can also be compared to the structure in Boethius’ diptych. For the arcus theme characterising the façade of Diocletian’s palace at Split, also exemplified on the Porta Aurea in Salona, which incorporated images of gods and (likely) divi, see Smith 1956, 34f, 39, Fig. 5. 1129 The Orange arch, which commemorates an imperial victory over Gallic tribes revolting, additionally presents a perfect specimen of the fastigium theme described above (east short side), including the arcuated lintel motif over the central intercolumnar span. The introduction of such a front on a 1st-century triumphal monument proves that it could serve to express the idea of Roman triumph besides defining divinity well before late antiquity. The structure recurs in Lampadiorum and Bourges.

The tradition of commemorating imperial victories with triumphal arches discontinued in the late antique period. The last one erected in Rome was that to Honorius (403/404),1130 and the monument type was never developed in Constantinople. Although a phenomenon of the past, the triumphal arch nevertheless remained an integral part of the physical context in which western consuls performed their inaugural ceremonies, since part of the processus consularis passed through the arches in the Forum Romanum.1131 However, any iconographic reference to triumphal arches within eastern consular diptych imagery would primarily derive from the historical association of the arch motif with the Roman triumph, i.e. represent a concept. Such a conceptual formulation of the arch or portal, in its most reductive form, is also illustrated on some silver medallions from the latter half of the 4th century,1132 showing the emperor(s) standing within an arch in military attire and with ruler’s insignia, and surrounded by the legend GLORIA ROMANORVM. The triumphal arch features in two other contexts: the circus and the Christian church. The earliest arch marking the passage-way at the semicircular end of the Circus Maximus (196 BC)1133 was replaced by the Flavian porta triumphalis in 80-81 AD, erected in commemoration of Vespasian’s and Titus’s Judaean victory.1134 Both structures followed the traditional pattern for the triumphal arch and served the same purpose: to commemorate victory and to serve as portals for ceremonial (triumphal, consular etc.) processions. The inclusion of a porta triumphalis at the semicircular end of the arena became something of a standard element in provincial circus buildings.1135 The arch was adopted by the church, where its victory symbolism came to express the idea of Christian triumph; the porta triumphalis marking the transition between nave and apse in the 5th century basilicas of Santa Maria Maggiore (arcus maior) and San Paolo fuori le Mura in Rome are notable examples of a widespread concept. These triumphal arches symbolise the porta coeli opening on the heavenly

world beyond,1136 resurrected Christ or the cross appearing in the uppermost register of the apse—the celestial vault—immediately beneath the summit of the arch. The application of the arch motif as a symbolic frame for holy figures frequently recurs in both church mosaics and on funerary monuments, polytheistic and Christian, where it is often combined with the shell motif; a selection of examples have been presented in a previous chapter.1137 By placing a figure within or beneath an arch, the personage represented is set apart from the physical world. The arch indicates a portal opening to something beyond, and a figure standing in front of or within such a portal is understood as passing or having passed into another sphere or state. An interesting convergence of the Roman-traditional and Christian significances of the arch motif may be witnessed in the consular diptych of Probus (Pl. 14). In this work a reduced form of porta triumphalis, simply consisting of an arch spanned between two columns (compare the silver medallions cited above), is found immediately behind emperor Honorius’ figure, indicating that he has passed through it and now stands before the viewer in his capacity of eternal victor, as also stated by the inscriptions surrounding him.1138 His military outfit suggests that the entrance may also be associated with a city-gate, a passage-way which also served as a kind of triumphal arch for the emperor returning home;1139 the emperor is the adventor entering his city after having accomplished victory.1140 Honorius is presented as a representative of the long line of Roman emperors who have conquered to the glory of the Roman gods and people, an ‘armed statue’ holding the insignia of world rulership, the sceptre and Victory-surmounted orb. The deity honoured by the emperor’s victory is no longer Iuppiter but the god of Christianity, as announced by the inscription on the labarum (left panel), and the emperor’s own immortality or divinity—which is intimately linked to his victoriousness1141 —is announced by his nimbus. The architectural frame in Felix’s diptych (3) is alone within the preserved corpus in featuring a simple curtained opening beneath a tabula inscriptionis.1142 The curtained opening is a 1136 Euseb., Hist.eccl. 10.4.69-70; Smith 1953, 15 n. 22, 31; also Ahlqvist

1130 Claud., VI.Cons.Hon. 369; also e.g. McCormick 1986, 90. 1131 See further 7.3 below. 1132 Gnecchi 1912, 1 Tav. 32 nos. 1-3, Tav. 34 nos. 3 and 6, Tav. 35 nos. 1

and 3. 1133 Coarelli 1997, 316. 1134 E.g. Humphrey 1986, 97; and Künzl 1988, 18f, 46. 1135 Humphrey 1986, 23-29, 336, 538. Also Billig 1977, 14. The Foligno relief (e.g. Bianchi Bandinelli 1969, 290 Fig. 324 and 325.) shows what could be recognised as the Flavian portal: a triple-arched structure whose tall attic is surmounted by a multi-figure group (a quadriga?). The triplearched form corresponds to the Flavian structure as indicated in the Forma Urbis as well as to the archaeological remains on the site; Ciancio Rossetto 1985, 221; Künzl 1988, 16-19, Abb. 4 b. Compare also reconstructive drawing in Coarelli 1997, 314f. The Hippodrome in Constantinople did apparently not follow the Roman circus in this respect; its semicircular end was unbroken by any portal; e.g. Dagron 1974, 321f. What form the entrance (behind the carceres on the northern end) took in this case remains unknown.

168

2001, 214. 1137 III.6.2. 1138 The victory in question would be that over the Goth and polytheist Radagaisus in 405; A.D.E. Cameron 1988, 51. 1139 On the symbolic correlation between the city-gate and the triumphal arch, see Smith 1956, 22-39. It is interesting to note that a 16th c. engraving of a lost relief from Arcadius’ triumphal column in Constantinople (Paris, Musée du Louvre; McCormick 1986, 53 Fig. 3) representing the triumphal entrance of the emperor into a city, depicts an arch typologically close to that in Probus’ diptych: a simple fornix framed by a pair of Corinthian columns on both entrance and exit façade. 1140 On the symbolic and actual convergence between the triumph, adventus and consular accession under Honorius, see notably MacCormack 1981, 52-55. On Honorius’ consular adventus into Rome in 404, see Claud., IV.Cons.Hon. 361-425. 1141 Wistrand 1987, 71 esp.; Heim 1992, 28-41. 1142 The only indication of an architectural superstructure (or ‘building’) is found in the subtly broken upper frame.

motif that recurs in numerous 5th- and 6th-century images, notably of western (Italian) origin, and in both secular and religious—polythestic and Christian—contexts. Secular examples include the consular representations of Constantius II and Gallus in the Codex-calendar of 354 (Pl. 24) and the official diptychs of Probianus and the Novara patricius,1143 and the polytheistic Queriniano or Lovers’ diptych in Brescia.1144 The examples originiating from Christian contexts are the most prolific, including a number of western 5th-6th century ivories, among which a late 5th-century book cover whose central panel features a large cross within a columnar and curtained portal,1145 the Ravennese palatium mosaic in Sant’Apollinare Nuovo,1146 the mosaic representing the empress Theodora with suite in the apse of San Vitale, the representations of bishops in the apse of Sant’Apollinare in Classe,1147 and the temple of Roma pictured in the mosaic of the arcus maior in Santa Maria Maggiore in Rome.1148 The common denominator of all these examples is that the curtained opening functions as a door leading to an unspecific interior: a domed cubicle in Novara,1149 an office-room in Probianus, a palace in Sant’Apollinare Nuovo, a divine sphere in the Queriniano diptych, a church in San Vitale, a ceremonial-symbolic interior in the Codex-calendar and Sant’Apollinare in Classe (as the shell motif above the openings and/or the coronae hanging from the ceiling suggest), the Church and/or the sacred realm of Christ in the Milanese ivory panel, and a temple cella in Santa Maria Maggiore. Their nature is either official, symbolic or divine/sacral, in no instance ‘real’ or private: the figure standing in front of, moving towards or being enclosed behind (hidden from view) such a curtained portal is engaged either in the performance of some ceremonial act or ritual, or else he/she is a divine being to whom the room is consecrated, or he/she stands on the threshold to ‘the beyond’ (afterlife, the realm of the gods, the kingdom of Christ). The identity of the building to which such a portal belongs is however not always clear; or more correctly, when a building is represented only by a portal, there is no possibility of establishing its identity. Is the very simple, in the strict sense not even architectural, backdrop in Felix’s diptych then intended to 1143 Delbrueck 1929, N 65 and 64; Volbach 1976, Nr. 62 and 64. 1144 Brescia, Civici Musei d’Arte e Storia. Delbrueck 1929, 278; Volbach

1976, Nr. 66, Taf. 21; also Kiilerich 1993, 150f, Fig. 84. 1145 Milan, Tesoro del Duomo. Grabar 1966, 288 Fig. 333; Volbach 1976, Nr. 119, Taf. 63; Kitzinger 1980, Fig. 85. For a range of Christian ivories showing the curtained portal motif, see further Volbach 1976, Nr. 120 Taf. 64, Nr. 137 Taf. 71, Nr. 148 Taf. 78, Nr. 150 Taf. 79, Nr. 153-154 Taf. 80. All of these works were created in the western part of the empire (northern Italy, Gaul). 1146 See III.7.2.3. 1147 Deichmann 1958; Taf. 394-400; also e.g. Kitzinger 1980, Fig. 185. 1148 One of several representations of temples; Grabar 1966, 151 Fig. 162. Compare also the city-scapes featured on the Christian so-called Lateran sarcophagus, which Egger argued cannot be understood as anything more than coulisses comparable to theatrical stage sets; G. Egger 1959, 11 Abb. 4-5, 13. 1149 With distinctly imperial connotations: compare the domed entrance hall of the imperial palace in Constantinople; Smith 1956, 18, 59-70, 130151, Fig. 130-138.

169

represent anything but a decorative frame with formal and symbolic associations to the ceremonial portals represented in late antique art? Or does it indicate the physical dwelling of the figure placed in front of it, i.e. is it a sign for residence, as Delbrueck thought?1150 Nothing within the diptych itself provides a conclusive answer to this question, whereas the comparanda decidedly speaks in favour of a symbolic (as in transcendental) interpretation.

7.2.5. The sepulchral monument As already discussed in connection with the shell motif,1151 both it and the columnar aedicula frequently occur on sarcophagi and stelae of the 1st to 4th centuries, western and eastern.1152 There are also preserved examples of Etruscan and Roman-imperial ash urns that are shaped as entire temples with columned and gabled fronts.1153 Combined with these motifs are often wreaths, garlands, pairs of erotes or Victoriae, imagines clipeatae and eagles, as well as tabulae ansatae holding commemorative inscriptions. The fornix or ‘triumphal arch’ also occurs in traditional Roman sepulchral art.1154 All of these motifs have been discussed in previous chapters of this study. Several of the consular diptychs display structural and compositional affinities with funerary monuments of Italian and Gallic production. This particularly pertains to those diptychs that are composed in horizontal registers with a central/main register featuring the honorand, such as the diptychs of Astyrius (4) and Bourges (5). The constellation of imagines clipeatae against an abstract background and framed by apotheotic figures or symbols in the upper ‘celestial’ registers in the diptychs of Clementinus-Orestes (10) (7) and Anastasius-Anthemius (11) (Pl. 15) is also consistent with Roman funerary tradition, where the imagines of the dead are frequently arranged after similar patterns, notably on stelae.1155 1150 Delbrueck 1929, 93. 1151 III.6.2. 1152 Stern 1953, 308f; Pflug 1989, Taf. 1-52 passim and typological chart. 1153 Staccioli 1968, Tav. XII-XV, XXXIV, XLV, LIV; Giuliano & Buzzi

1994, 32; Zanker 1988:1, 278f Fig. 220 (a marble ash urn of P. Volumnius, of Augustan date). Temple-shaped funerary monuments are also known from Roman Gaul; Hatt 1986, 172, 179, 223. See also III.7.2. 1154 Cumont 1942, 156 Fig. 25, Pl. XX.1; Hatt 1986, 118f; Boschung 1987, 848, 861, 997 and Taf. 95-383 passim; Koch 2000, passim. 1155 The division into registers where the honorand’s bust or full figure representation is found in the central register, a scene referring to his lifetime activities in the lower register, and his immortalised self is projected in the upper register—a scheme which in the consular diptychs has been ‘translated’ into the consul (centre), his public duties (below) and the superior sphere of transcendental beings (the emperor/empress, Christ/the cross, Victorieae/erotes)—is found on a number of Italian funerary stelae and altars; Bianchi Bandinelli 1969, 88 Fig. 96 (stele of P. Longidienus’ family), 105 Fig. 113 (altar to Vitellius Successus); Bianchi Bandinelli 1970, 126 Fig. 14; Scarpellini 1987, passim; Pflug 1989, Taf. 50.5 The architectural structures in the diptychs of Bourges, Clementinus, Magnus and Orestes are in this respect also similar to those of some 2nd c. Italian/Roman funerary altars and stelae; Boschung 1987, 87 Nr. 327, 90 Nr. 397, Taf. 9 and 12; Pflug 1989, Taf. 1.2, 17.2, 23.4, 29.1, 31.3 and 5; also Toynbee 1971, Pl. 79. The combination of an aedicula with a pair of birds in funerary art has been discussed under III.6.3. For gabled

Astyrius’ diptych displays more similarities to the compositional structure of a funerary monument than any other work within the corpus. The combination of a columnar fronton (including a triangular gable with a central shell motif, wreath, eagle, etc.) and spiral-fluted columns of a type featured on many sepulchral monuments from the 1st to 6th centuries in Italy, Gaul and Asia Minor1156 ) with a separate upper register containing a number of evenly distributed motifs (a pair of horizontal cornices, laurel-wreaths/garlands, corner acroteria), together with the predominantly abstract and tectonically disconnected way in which the whole has been assembled, in my view strongly suggest that the model for this scheme was mainly or even exclusively derived from sepulchral art, not from architecture. The horizontally drawnout and block-like aspect of the upper register is particularly reminiscent of the sarcophagus shape, and considering that the probable place of production for Astyrius’ diptych was the Gallic region around Arelate, where the consul took office, one possible source of inspiration would be the so-called columnar sarcophagus type which was produced in the south of Gaul from c. 340 into the 5th century.1157

7.2.6. Other Beside the architectural categories treated above, a few single representations of aediculae display formal affinities with those featured in the diptychs of Boethius (6), Anastasius (11) and Anthemius (Pl. 15), illustrating both the versatility and the context-related application of the motif in late antique art. The first example is the so-called Consecratio diptych panel (Pl. 21 a) in the British Museum, London;1158 a work likely created in Rome c. 4001159 and representing the pompa funebris, pyre (rugus) and apotheosis of a man who has been variously identified as an emperor/divus1160 and a private

monuments and their motif repertory in particular, see also Hommel 1954, 60-62 esp. 1156 Lawrence 1945, Fig. 1-66 passim; Toynbee 1971, 273f, Pl. 85-87; Hatt 1986, 236f; Boschung 1987, Taf. 32-44; Kleiner 1987, Pl. XXXV.2, XLVIII.1, LXI.3, LXII.1, LXV.3, LXVI.3; Koch 2000, 382-390, Taf. 9697, 100, 107. 1157 See e.g. Koch 2000, Taf. 143, 146-155. For the chronological list of motifs and motif combinations, see esp. Hatt 1986. 1158 Delbrueck 1929, N 59; Volbach 1976, Nr. 56. 1159 The Roman attribution of the panel is in my opinion the most plausible: it has been forwarded by Weigand 1937; Cracco Ruggini 1977; Weitzmann 1979, 70f; A.D.E Cameron 1986, 45-52; Buckton 1994, 57f; and Arce 2000, 248. Volbach also pointed out that the panel displays formal-stylistic affinities with the Lampadiorum (1) and Liverpool venatio (Pl. 18) panels; Volbach 1976, 52. 1160 In view of the polytheistic content naturally a pre-Christian emperor, notably one who would have represented an ideal ruler to the non-Christian commissioner of the ivory; suggestions include Constantius Chlorus (Graeven 1913, 271, 301, 304), Antoninus Pius (Delbrueck 1929, 229; Wright 1998, 363f), Marcus Aurelius (Arce 1988, 154; Arce 2000, 248), and Julian ‘Apostata’ (St. Clair 1964; Weitzmann 1978, 71; McCormack 1981, 141; Engemann 1998, 122).

170

member of the Roman aristocracy.1161 In my view the monogram incised at the top of the panel, which has been deciphered as reading SYMMACHORUM,1162 and the circumstance that the main figure neither wears an imperial costume nor displays any other exclusively imperial attribute or insignium, speak in favour of the latter interpretation.1163 Further, as Alan Cameron has pointed out,1164 nothing of what is represented in the image is strictly exclusive to the funerary ritual or apotheosis of an emperor.1165 Consequently one may look upon the imagery of the Consecratio panel as representing a scene that is neither specifically imperial nor divine, but reflects the ancient funerary traditions and beliefs of the Roman élite, in this case the Symmachi.1166 The family’s most notable representative, Q. Aurelius Symmachus, died in 402, and it has plausibly been proposed that the panel commemorates this personage and event.1167 However, there can be little doubt that the panel’s imagery is influenced by imperial apotheotic representations from earlier centuries, i.e. that it presents an example of imitatio imperatoria, perhaps of the Antonine period in particular.1168 Beginning with the architectural structure enclosing the main figure, which is of primary interest here, it has the form of a bicolumnar aedicula ‘in antis’ supported on a tall podium/suggestus on wheels. The columns are plain-shafted with Corinthian capitals, and the triangular gable has dentil1161 Suggestions include Theodosius’ I father, Theodosius comes (Cracco

Ruggini 1977, 478), and Q. Aurelius Symmachus (A.D.E. Cameron 1986, 50-52; Elsner 1998, 30). 1162 Weigand 1937, 125-127, 138; also A.D.E. Cameron 1986, 46, 49. 1163 The latter is also true of the row of figures, male and female, that are seen welcoming the apotheosised honorand (lifted towards heaven by Hypnos and Thanatos) to the sphere of the immortal in the uppermost part of the panel, a fact that further supports the attribution of the work to a private Roman. 1164 A.D.E. Cameron 1986, 48-52; also Engemann 1998, 121f. 1165 On the paraphernalia of the Roman funus: Brelich 1938; and Versnel 1970, 98-117. The fact that the honorand does not wear the laurel-wreath, emblem of the divus, the triumphator and Iuppiter Capitolinus (cf. a bronze statuette of Iuppiter in the Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum, Mainz, reproduced in Künzl 1988, 95 Abb. 60), in my view provides further support for the non-imperial interpretation, as does the lack of the orb, an insignium ritually ‘conferred’ on the emperor during the consecratio (see Restle 1988, 964). Compare the ‘Grande camée de France’ (Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MMA; e.g. Bianchi Bandinelli 1969, 196 Fig. 210), and also the column base of Antoninus Pius in the Vatican, where the winged genius transporting the imperial couple to the heavens holds the globe decorated with the moon, a star and zodiacal signs, and encircled by a snake—symbol of the sun’s movement across the sky (Deubner 1912, 19f) or of renewal and eternity, which is a closely related concept (Vogel 1973, 37)—thus referring to the cosmic and eternal aspect of the apotheosised emperor’s rule. 1166 I find Cameron’s attribution of the diptych (of which the left panel is lost) to the joint families of the Symmachi and the Nicomachi convincing. 1167 A.D.E. Cameron 1986, 50-52; also Buckton 1994, 57f; and Elsner 1998, 30. 1168 E.g. Arce 1988, 138-140, Fig. 48-49. From the 3rd century imagines were only allowed in imperial funerary processions; Flower 1996, 263f. However, as Flower also points out, the actual practices of the Roman aristocracy in this late period (when the emperor only infrequently resided in the old capital) are not well documented, and one can only to assume that they held on to the old traditions concerning the keeping and use of imagines; meanwhile statues of ancestors were used and (possibly) allowed to be displayed in public, at least in the 4th century; Flower 1996, 267-269.

ornamented cornices framing a central rosette or star: a scheme very similar to the structures in the consular diptychs. The wagon (carpentum)1169 is pulled by four ridden elephants led by a man, all considerably reduced in scale visà-vis the main figure. The honorand wears a plain toga (which could very possibly have been painted with a triumphal pattern) and calcei; he is enthroned on a seat with curved legs reminiscent of those of a sella curulis, clasping a tall and knob-tipped sceptre with his left hand and extending a laurelbranch with a demonstrative gesture with his right. Considering that the scene depicts a funerary procession, the representation of the honorand must be understood as his imago or statue.1170 The tradition of representing the dead being conducted in the funerary procession in a chariot-andfour dates back to Etruscan times, and has been compared, typologically and symbolically, to the triumphator’s riding the currus triumphalis in the Roman triumph.1171 The imago of the dead conducted in the funus traditionally wore the costume and insignia of the highest office he had held in life,1172 for an ex-consul the vestis triumphalis and the scipio, and for an emperor the ornamenta triumphalia in sign of his perpetual triumphatorship. Further triumphal connotations are introduced by means of the elephants—an animal associated not only with immortality, consecration and apotheosis,1173 but also with triumph1174 —and the laurel-branch, an emblem traditionally displayed by the triumphator standing in his chariot1175 and subsequently also by the consul in the pompa circensis (riding his ‘triumphal’ chariot).1176 In late antique times the emperor performed triumphal processions seated in the currus, not standing as previously;1177 the same applied to the late Roman consul performing the processus consularis (see below). The large size of the honorand’s figure in relation to the other figures in the panel (including his own apotheotic representation projected above) suggests that it is above life-size, and its 1169 The four-wheeled wagon represented in the adventus frieze on the

Arch of Constantine in Rome, which is similar to the construction featured in the Consecratio panel, would probably be identified with the carpentum described by Ammianus Marcellinus (Amm.Marc. 10.16.6) and Claudianus (Claud., IV.Cons.Hon. 551, 579), which according to McCormick would have been a standard vehicle in the 4th century; McCormick 1986, 87 with n. 32. Other suggestions are the tensa (Scullard 1974, 255; Arce 1988, 153; Arce 2000, 247) and the ferculum (McCormick 1986, 20; Künzl 1988, 105), floats on which gods and war spoils were drawn or carried in the pompa circensis and the pompa triumphalis respectively. A wagon drawn by four elephants seems also to have gone under the denomination of currus elephantorum; Wrede 2001, 82 and Taf. 21.1 (Roman sarcophagus). On the iconographical representation of tensae in Roman art, see Szidat 1997, 8494; and Koeppel 1999. 1170 On the funerary procession, see Flower 1996, 97-106. 1171 Brelich 1938; Versnel 1970, 115-118. 1172 Versnel 1970, 118. 1173 Barini 1952, 17f n. 1; Scullard 1974, 254-259. 1174 Pompeius planned to have (but did not carry it out) and Severus Alexander, Gordianus III and Diocletian did have their triumphal chariots drawn by elephants; Barini 1952, 17f n. 1; McCormick 1986, 95f; Künzl 1988, 38-40, 85, Abb. 18-19 (on triumphal arches). 1175 Künzl 1988, 87f with Abb. 51, 91 Abb. 56. 1176 Lydus, Mens. 3.3-4; Versnel 1970, 303 and n. 5. 1177 McCormick 1986, 87, 90.

171

pose is identical to that of an enthroned cult statue,1178 both of which peculiarities lend it a suprahuman monumentality. The combination of a monumental statue with a processional wagon may again be associated with another ingredient of the ancient Roman triumphal procession, namely the drawing of the gods’ effigies on sediae gestatoriae or tensae. The aedicula on wheels pulled by animals in the Consecratio panel may thus be said to serve equally well for conveying a triumphal, religious (divine) and funerary content. There is one dimension to the Consecratio image which is of particular relevance to the consular context: from at least the late 4th century the ordinary consul performed the processus consularis seated on the sella curulis raised on a portable suggestus (sedia gestatoria, lectica consularis) and carried on the shoulders of men.1179 What the precise shape of this construction may have been is not mentioned in the sources, but it must have been similar to a palanquin.1180 Thus, as I see it, the monumental vehicle featured in the Consecratio panel could additionally be intended as a reference to the processus consularis of the honorand, presumably Symmachus,1181 complementing the other traditional consular attributes displayed (sella curulis, scipio, laurel-branch).1182 The panel’s imagery presents a conflation of imperial-triumphal, divine, consular and funerary symbolism where the public achievements and prominence of a Roman senator are directly linked to apotheosis—not only the honorand’s own apotheosis but indirectly also the (previous) apotheoses of his ancestors, whose togate figures receive him with welcoming gestures in the image’s celestial compartment.1183 The theme is fundamental to traditional (polytheistic) Roman beliefs about afterlife and has been expressed in a number of imperial images and on funerary monuments.1184 What distinguishes the Consecratio panel from Roman funerary art in general is its narrative treatment of the concept, at once describing a temporal course of events—the processus funebris, the cremation at which the 1178 Cf. the representation of the emperor’s triumphal adventus on the east

side of the Arch of Constantine (312); L’Orange & von Gerkan 1939, Taf. 12 a; McCormick 1986, 38 Fig. 1. Note that the emperor like the honorand in the Consecratio panel wears a plain toga, something which cannot mean that he did not wear the vestis triumphalis but only that its pattern would have been painted on rather than carved (and then filled in with colour and gold). 1179 Procop., Vand. 2.10.15-16; Lydus, Mag. 1.32; Claud., IV.Cons.Hon. 584-585; Amm.Marc. 25.10-11; Mamertinus, Pan.Lat. 11.30. See particularly the discussion and interpretation of these sources by Stern; Stern 1953, 158-161. Also Delbrueck 1929, 64, 67. 1180 From this it would seem that the chariot or currus bigalis was probably used exclusively in the pompa circensis, which the consul opened by driving round the arena dispersing coin; A. Alföldi 1935, 92-96; Stern 1953, 159161. Delbrueck however interpreted the sources differently, citing only Symmachus (Ep. 6.40) who mentions the biga as a processional vehicle for the suffect consul in 401; Delbrueck 1929, 64. 1181 Q. Aurelianus Symmachus was ordinary consul in 391; e.g. Degrassi 1952, 85, 157. 1182 Compare the consular interpretation by Cameron; A.D.E. Cameron 1986, 51. 1183 Neither of whom, it may be added, can be recognised as an imperial figure (divus/diva). 1184 Esp. Strong 1915, 30-89 passim (includes the ‘Grande camée de France’).

genius of the deceased is released and initiates its apotheotic ascent,1185 the reception into the immortal heavens by ancestors—and a causal relationship between the honorand’s virtues and accomplishments in life, his immortality ‘resulting from’ his noble birth, prominent ancestry, senatorial and consular status, and material prosperity (the elephants and the monumental currus funebris would both be signifiers of wealth).1186 When comparing the Consecratio image with the consular images of Boethius, Anastasius and Anthemius one finds that they are structurally analogous from several aspects: the aedicula within which the togate honorand is enthroned in full view on his sella curulis, the placement of the imagines of the honorand’s ‘apotheosised’ ancestors in an upper ‘celestial’ register (represented as clipeate roof acroteria in Anastasius/Anthemius), and the stratification of the pictorial field into superimposed spheres. As for the wheeled suggestus in the Consecratio panel, its basic structure—a box-like platform on which the sella rests—may be compared to the thin platform in Anastasius (A in particular) which serves to elevate the enthroned consul into isolated majesty above the scenes on the ‘ground level’ below. The comparison between the Consecratio panel and the consular diptychs gives rise to the question of how one may distinguish between a sedia gestatoria and a tribunal editoris on the one hand, and between real and symbolic architecture on the other. A second comparandum to the aedicula in Anastasius and Anthemius is provided by two identical structures presented in west-Roman images of the 4th/5th and 6th century respectively: the ‘Kaiserpriester’ diptych (Pl. 19)1187 and the representation of the empress Theodora with suite in the apsis mosaic of San Vitale, Ravenna.1188 Each of these structures takes the form of a bi-columnar niche with a shell-shaped conch flanked by a pair of figure-busts (clipeate and/or nimbate) on the façade; Helios and Selene in the diptych,1189 imagines clipeatae in the mosaic. In the diptych the curving border of a tribunal parapet overcuts the lower part of the niche, which encloses the seated figure of a crowned togatus officiating as praeses ludorum; in the mosaic the columnar niche provides a backdrop to the empress’s figure, the conch framing her nimbate head. Although the two representations were created nearly 150 years apart and for different types of commissioners and 1185 Pictured as a small, naked and distinctly Apollonian figure ascending

from the pyre in a quadriga preceded by a pair of eagles. 1186 Symmachus’ accounts of how he managed to provide impressive numbers of exotic, hence expensive, animals for his son’s official editiones may be cited as an illustration of his wealth and of the things he thought it an obligation to spend it on, viz. public display; Symmachus, Ep. 2.76-77, 4.12, 7.59, 7.121, 9.132-144. For a treatment of these sources, see Rea 2001:2, 252f; and also Näf 1995, 60-67. 1187 See also Wessel 1953, 66f; Salomonson 1973, 26f; and Rumscheid 2000, 20-24 (plausably proposing a date before 381 on account of the divine busts on the figure’s crown). 1188 E.g. Deichmann 1958, Taf. 358 and 360. 1189 Helios with radiate crown, Selene with head covered; compare Delbrueck 1929, 221.

172

contexts, they display fundamental correspondences in form, function and symbolism. Firstly, in each of the images the columnar shell-niche framed by imagines accompanies figures who are engaged in the performance of a religious ritual, wherefore the architecture—real or symbolic—may be defined as sacral-ceremonial; there is even a correspondence between the rituals performed, viz. rituals of offering.1190 Secondly, the general context is analogous between the two: imperial cult.1191 Now, the question is whether these columned nichestructures are to be understood as depictions of real buildings: in the case of the diptych, the tribunal editoris of a Roman amphitheatre,1192 in the case of the mosaic some part of an architectonic complex in or between the church of San Vitale and/or imperial palace at Ravenna. As for the tribunal in the diptych, it does not correspond to any known representation of a circus or amphitheatre tribunal in either of the imperial cities,1193 and as for the empress mosaic it must be considered as doubtful whether any part of the architectural frame surrounding the figure-scene1194 may be termed as anything more precise than a constellation of emblematic motifs; motifs indicating an hierarchical subdivision of spheres—such as ‘outer world’, ‘imperial residence’, ‘sacred space’—and a processional movement through these spheres. The only plausible interpretation of both these architectural structures must be that they do not depict real prototypes but present emblematic frames expressive of certain symbolic conceps: the sacred, the imperial, the ceremonial-ritual.1195 A final comparandum to the aediculae in the Anastasius and Anthemius diptychs specifically is the armarium for the keeping of imagines maiorum, codicilli etc.1196 The part of the Notitia Dignitatum referring to the eastern magistracies includes a pair of frontispieces showing an aedicular case shaped as an armarium inside each of which codicilli (epistulae, libri mandatorum) are arranged in four rows (Pl. 25).1197 Each case forms a gabled rectangle with a nimbate 1190 The one offering games in honour of the divine emperor(s) (who are

present as minuscule busts on the priest’s crown), the other offering a precious cup to the divine patrons of the church. The ritual act of offering gifts to God/Christ is repeated in the figures decorating the hem border of Theodora’s cloak, which are modelled after the traditional pattern of tribute-bringing barbarians (a type that recurs in the representations of saints and the Magi in many late antique church mosaics, for instance in the domes of the Orthodox and Aryan baptisteries in Ravenna; see also Cumont 1932/33). 1191 The priest conducts his ceremonial in honour of the holy emperor(s) and the Roman empire; the empress—a personage of imperial and holy status herself—conducts her ceremonial in honour of the god of the Christian Roman empire. 1192 See Delbrueck’s interpretation; Delbrueck 1929, 221. 1193 See III.7.2.1. 1194 Apart from the niche in the centre, also a curtained portal (left), a wider opening draped with a striped cloth (right), and three subdivisional elements only vaguely reminiscent of pillars. 1195 Compare MacCormack 1981, 263. 1196 For a compilation of types, denominations and functions of armaria, scrinia, arcae etc., see Budde 1940, 2-5, 33-49, Abb. 19, 21-29, 44-47. 1197 Seeck 1876, 101 (XLV); Delbrueck 1929, 5 Abb. 2; Grigg 1979, 110, Pl. I.2-3; Berger 1981, Pl. 44-45.

and clipeate bust attached to each of the five corners, and with a pair of confronted Victories flanking the central bust on the apex. The top busts represent Divina providentia and Divina electio, ‘heading’ the four other personifications of imperialcum-magisterial qualities—Auctoritas, Felicitas, Scientia rei militaris,1198 Virtus—and the four seasons respectively,1199 all wearing official costume (chlamys or toga). The functions of Divina providentia/electio may be regarded as analogous to that of the emperor in the consular diptychs: the divine power from which the imperial appointment derives (indicated by the codicilli), the favourable conditions for its successful accomplishment (symbolised by the four virtues and the Victories),1200 and the continuance of the Roman state through the emperor’s ‘divine choice’ (symbolised by the four seasons and also the Victories). The sacral connotations of the concept are indicated by the personifications’ nimbi and also by the fact that the armaria as such would derive from the sacra scrinia of the imperial palace,1201 both of which again refer to the sacred nature of the emperor who delegates power to his state officials.1202 The aedicular shape of the Notitia armarium recurs in, for example, the representation of an armarium pictured in the south lunette mosaics of the socalled mausoleum of Galla Placidia in Ravenna,1203 displaying two rows of codices labelled with the names of the evangelists—another kind of sacred codicils. The form and functions of these cases or armaria are of course no late antique invention, nor is their sacral character so. The most sacred of armaria, the family armarium for the housing of the imagines maiorum, was traditionally conceived as a shrine to the gens1204 whose immortal glory was thought to be attained and perpetuated by the successfully accomplished public careers—presumably through virtus, auctoritas, felicitas and scientia among other qualities—of the generations. The combination of an aedicular frame with imagines clipeatae and transcendental motifs (confronted winged figures, conchae) thus appears to 1198 The form used by Delbrueck is Scientia rei militae. 1199 Berger considers the qualities exclusively imperial, i.e. as referring

not to the qualities required of the emperor’s elected officials but only to the emperor in his divinely inspired capacity of law-giver and appointer of officials; Berger 1981, 135-141. However, the same qualities—auctoritas, felicitas, scientia rei militaris, virtus—were ideally ascribed to, and required in, the officials themselves (Niquet 2000, 151-172), so that one may argue that the Notitia personifications refer to the emperor and his officials simultaneously. 1200 On the ideology of victory in the late Roman state, see e.g. Fears 1981, 812. On Victoria as an expression of imperial virtue (and its translation into imperial acts), see also MacCormack 1981, 171f, 174. 1201 Berger 1981, 134; also Jones 1964, 575. 1202 The representations of insignia in the Notitia otherwise abound with nimbate bust effigies of the emperor(s), a central component since it provides the imperial ‘presence’ required to lend legitimacy to the magistrates’ acts; see III.3.1 (concerning the theca in the Astyrius diptych). 1203 (C. 450.) Deichmann 1958, Taf. 2-6; also Elsner 1998, 229 Fig. 154; and Bowersock, Brown & Grabar 1999, Col.pl. 13. 1204 For a useful treatment of the concept and character of the armarium within the civic, religious, social and private life of the Romans, see Flower 1996, 206-209, 271. For their representation in Roman sepulchral art (stelae), see Zadoks-Josephus Jitta 1932, Taf. 4 a-b, 40; and Budde 1940, 46-49, Abb. 19, 21-23.

173

have constituted a theme with ample applicability and versatility,1205 reflecting the sacred nature of the late Roman aristocracy’s traditional ideals and values. The iconographic formulation of these ideals, which may be gathered under the heading of nobilitas and which comprise patria, genitatis fortuna, gloria stemmatis,1206 would be a constellation of certain motifs suited to illustrate these: 1) a set of imagines maiorum, for instance arranged in a formation reminiscent of a family tree,1207 2) a structure signifying ‘house’ (the house of the gens, the shrine to the maiores), 3) the representation of the present exponent of the gens/house displaying the insignia of his appointment (signs of his public virtues and success, which are also extensions to those of his gens), together with 4) some symbolic reference to success and prosperity (Victoriae, erotes, laurel). The analogies between the armarium of the palatial official, the household armarium and the aediculae in Anastasius’ and Anthemius’ diptychs lie in structure and symbolic significance: they are kindred forms with kindred functions, applications and meanings.

7.3. Concluding discussion When taking an overview of the architectural frames in the main registers of the consular diptychs two things become evident: that all conform to a basic and essentially generic structure composed of two to four columns and an entablature, and that beyond this basic structure they differ more or less widely from each other. If assuming that all architectural frames derive from or represent a single type of edifice, the tribunal editoris as suggested, then how does one account for their formal diversity? The problem may be illustrated by the following examples. A first point in case is provided by the diptychs of Lampadiorum (1) and Boethius ( 6 ) , both of which commemorate consuls who took office and thus held their inaugural games in Rome. If one assumes that the architectural structures in these diptychs depict, or at least in some degree reflect, the tribunal editoris of the Circus Maximus, then one must try to explain the considerable difference between them; something which no-one, to my knowledge, has hitherto done. One possible explanation could be that the circus and its tribunal were destroyed and rebuilt sometime between the years c. 400 and 487, such as in 410 when the Vandals sacked Rome, or as a result of an earthquake;1208 but the sources do not report whether the Circus Maximus was affected by these events, and if it was, a new elevation of the tribunal need not have differed 1205 Aedicular armaria represented in funerary reliefs include the shell

motif (see III.6.2), confronted birds, inscriptional ‘architraves’ etc.; Zadoks-Josephus Jitta 1932, 26; Budde 1940, Abb. 19-23, 47. 1206 Cassiod., Var. 1.42.1; Näf 1995, 206f. 1207 Compare Grabar’s discussion of the imperial family tree in late Roman group portraiture; Grabar 1936, 28f. 1208 At least two earthquakes affected Rome and its monumental buildings (notably the Flavian amphitheatre) in the 5th century, one of which is dated to 443; see Orlandi 1999, 256f, citing CIL VI 1716=32094 and Martindale 1980-1992:2, 665 (Lampadius 6) respectively.

essentially from the previous one.1209 Again, even if the Lampadiorum panel shows a tribunal scene referable to the Circus Maximus—as indicated by the specifics of the spina below—it is by no means proved that the tribunal structure in the image visually resembles the real building as it appeared in the period around 400.1210 Particularly the ‘Syrian’ scheme with an arcuated central span presents a doubtful feature considering that the motif does not occur in any other tribunal representation but that of the Bourges diptych (5), which presents a highly ambigious structure in several respects.1211 A second case in point is provided by the diptychs of Areobindus (9) and Clementinus (10) versus Anastasius (11) and Anthemius (Pl. 15), eastern consuls who issued their commemorative ivories within a time-span of eleven years (506-517). Delbrueck explained the discrepancies between the architectural structures in the diptych issues of 506/513 and 515/517 by ascribing them to a city fire in 513,1212 i.e. as one pre-fire and one post-fire tribunal. But this explanation is not unproblematic. For one thing, there is a certain confusion as to what tribunal is actually meant—the tribunal editoris of the Hippodrome or of an amphitheatre. The historical event on which Delbrueck founded his interpretation has further proved hard to corroborate, irrespective of whether the Hippodrome or an amphitheatre is intended, since there are no data for what parts of the major arenas were destroyed by fire in that year.1213 Delbrueck’s theory must consequently be considered as highly conjectural. The Basilius diptych (8) presents, as in so many things, a case of its own. Produced in Rome for the eastern consul of 541,1214 its imagery could refer simultaneously to the Roman and the Constantinopolitan circus or to either of them. If one assumes (with Delbrueck and others) that Basilius stands at the tribunal of the circus (sic) or hippodrome, then how may one explain why this tribunal displays the same characteristics as those found in Constantinopolitan diptychs produced before the alleged fire of 513? It is also interesting to note that the presumed tribunal architecture of the consular panel (left) is identical to that in the opposite ‘apotheotic’ panel.

1209 Cf. Bury who discusses the sources; Bury 1958:1, 183, 184 n.1 and 2;

also Demandt 1989, 145f with notes. No repairs to the Circus Maximus are recorded after the middle of the 4th century; Ward-Perkins 1984, 42-48; Pani Ermini 1999, 50-52 esp.; Curran 2000, 235; Ciancio Rossetto 2000, 128. For a more pragmatic view of the tribunal structures in the Lampadiorum and Liverpool venatio (Pl. 18) panels, see G. Egger 1959, 19. 1210 That it does so has however been assumed by a number of authors, who regard the Lampadiorum panel as evidence for how the Circus Maximus appeared in late antiquity; cf. Delbrueck 1929, 80; Billig 1977, 1124; Humphrey 1986, 169, 240f, 254, 281, 289. 1211 See III.7.1 above. 1212 Delbrueck 1929, 80, 125. 1213 Delbrueck did not cite any source as to the 513 city fire, and I have not been able to find any reference that could lend support to Delbrueck’s theory. 1214 The attribution of the diptych to the eastern consul of 541, proposed by Cameron and Schauer (Cameron & Schauer 1982) and accepted by me, must cancel Delbrueck’s interpretation of its architectural structures as representing those of the Circus Maximus; Delbrueck 1929, 100.

174

Finally, how may one interpret the architecture in Astyrius’ diptych (4) considering that two of the most essential factors commonly thought to favour the tribunal interpretation are not represented in either of the panels (as they are preserved): a mappa and a games scene? The inclusion of a lictor with fasces cum securibus and a thekophoros, further, would rule out the possibility that the consul is represented as presiding at the games.1215 As I see it, all these examples illustrate the untenability of the tribunal interpretation as generally and equally applicable to all diptychs, let alone the interpretation that excludes any alternative or parallel ones. The evidence for the tribunal editoris derived from other images than those of the consular diptych is numerically limited, mostly of an elementary nature only (2-4 columns, entablature with or without triangular gable, parapet), and derives from earlier periods (1st-4th c . AD). Still the comparanda have two advantages over the consular representations: a greater structural homogeneity, and the fact that they are generally related to the arena by the means of a mediating element—a parapet, a section of the cavea, proximity to some known part of the arena (metae, carceres)—which is somehow consistent with real architectonic structures. As for the circumstance that the consular material postdates the comparanda by up to 200 years, one may of course opine (as some have1216 ) that the consular diptychs may be considered as evidence for the tribunal structures of the two major circuses in the 5th and 6th centuries; but the great variety of shapes and predominantly a-tectonic and even fantastic manner in which they have been rendered remain unaccounted for, and so does the incorporation of various emblematic motifs—tabulae ansatae, imagines clipeatae, Victoriae, laurel-wreaths and garlands etc.—onto the structures, motifs which cannot solely be regarded as fanciful additions to a tribunal editoris. The Halberstadt diptych (2) demonstrates that it was not considered necessary to include an architectural frame in order to denote the consul as editor et praeses ludorum: the inclusion of the mappa is sufficient for this. Contrariwise, the formal variatio between architectural frames must not automatically mean that they are no more than free and optional motif combinations, conceived by artists with a flexible approach to reality, and without intrinsic significance. Rather, as I hope to have shown in the previous sections of this chapter, the architectural structures featured in the consular diptychs often display similarities, typologically and in detail, to several categories of architectonic monuments as well as the iconographic formulae derived from them—categories with definite functions and with symbolic properties that are well suited to express the concept, real and ideal, of late antique consulship. The difference between the depiction of a specific edifice and a pictorial representation of an edifice type is often difficult to distinguish, as illustrated by the problem of how 1215 Compare above, III.2.2.4. 1216 Billig 1977, 15f.

to account for the multiple aspects of the allegedly same tribunals. For instance, the representation of a temple on a Roman coin may on the one hand display some specifying details that make it visually identifiable with the building it represents, or it may simply be intended as an ideogram for a temple where the beholder is expected to grasp an idea rather than visually identify a specific building. Taking a look at the tribunals cited under section 7.2.1, it is more or less obvious that they are not depictions but pictorial variations on a theme—simplified and even abstracted versions of one or several models. That these variations were created regardless of the real tribunals they were supposed to represent only proves that form was subordinate to ‘idea’ or concept. Having reached this conclusion, it becomes impossible to claim that the identity or significance of an architectural representation must be unique. The very beauty of the figurative art is that it can work independently of the laws of reality and actuality. By adding, exchanging or conflating forms of one type of structure (such as a circus tribunal) to/with other types, the result may allude to several contexts and hence significances simultaneously. It is not possible to detect a single, basic type of architectural structure in any of the preserved consular diptychs. On a general level all the categories of architecture that have been discussed here, including the circus tribunal, have a common denominator: they belong in sacral and/or ritual contexts. On a more specific level, all categories do or may relate either ritually, symbolically or both to the concepts of victory/triumph and immortality (apotheosis). The pulvinar, which is the gods’ counterpart to the tribunal editoris in the Roman circus, could symbolically be likened to a temple to victory, since victory is what the games are about; the gods, through their effigies, were traditionally the conferrers and ultimate honorands of the victories achieved in the arena.1217 The fastigium, the ceremonial fronton with its characteristic central arch functioning as a monumental entrance in palatial architecture, may symbolically be defined as a triumphal arch in honour of the ever victorious and divine emperor. Its application in imagery serves to emphasise the transcendental nature of the emperor’s majesty at the same time as it provides this majesty with a palatial frame symbolic of the physical stability or ‘power-base’ of his rule and dynasty. The triumphal arch is of course the monument par excellence to victory, and the man who ritually passes through it, viz. the triumphator, gains immortality for himself and secures regeneration for the Roman state.1218 A related symbolism 1217 In the late antique period the gods’ role shifted over to the emperor,

who, present or not (in Rome his presence at the circus would have been a rare event), became the supreme focus and honorand of the games, claiming all victories achieved in the arena in his own name; Treitinger 1938, 170-173 esp; McCormick 1986, 35, 95-100 Salzman 1990, 131-140, 181-189; and Heucke 1994, 72-76, 139-151, 216-248. Curran has argued, however, that the ancient gods—in the form of statues—continued to be perceived as divine presences in the circus as long as games were held there; Curran 2000, 239-259. 1218 Cf. Versnel’s interpretation of the triumphator; Versnel 1970, 356396. The interpretation of the triumphal arch is not technical but symbolic, since the monument type was erected after the actual celebration of the

175

pertains to the city-gate, which marks the entrance to the pomerium, the consecrated dominion of the gods and home of the divine emperors;1219 some city-gates also took the form of regular triumphal arches.1220 The concept of the triumphal arch later became translated into the symbolic passage into immortality of Christ and his followers through the porta coeli in the Christian basilica. A concept closely connected with the city-gate and the triumphal arch is that of the adventus, the ritual entrance of the (triumphant) emperor into his city.1221 The ultimate goal of triumphator and ‘adventor’ alike was traditionally the temple of Capitoline Iuppiter, on the way to which he passed through the triumphal arches erected by generations of emperors along part of the same route, the Via Sacra, which was also taken by processus consularis on the ‘advent’ of the new year (although the ultimate goal of both processions changed in late antiquity).1222 The related concepts of victory and immortality recur in sepulchral imagery, where victory is defined as immortality gained through a successfully accomplished public career, the ultimate proof of a man’s qualities and virtues. A type of architectural frame that frequently provides a means for symbolising the transcendental sphere into which the deceased has entered is the columnar aedicula, to which may be added motifs suggestive of victory and immortality/regeneration: the shell motif, clipei, Victories, erotes, aquilae, laurel-wreaths and garlands, flowers and fruits etc. The funerary carpentum-cumsedia gestatoria in the Consecratio panel, the ‘aedicula sub divo’ in the ‘Kaiserpriester’ diptych and the Ravennese Theodora mosaic, the armaria depicted in the Notitia Dignitatum and the armarium for displaying imagines maiorum all provide symbolic references to the official statuses of the persons they frame or belong to, and the sacral connotations of those statuses. When considering the analogies between the architectural frames in the consular diptychs and the comparanda, one is convinced that the very ambiguities of the diptych structures were conceived specifically to trigger associative processes in the minds of the viewers, who would undoubtedly have been well able to recognise and appreciate any allusions as relevant to the ‘idea’ of consulship. The unspecific, often agglomerative and fantastic character of the architectural structures featured in the corpus indicates that they would as a rule have been intended to allude to several phenomena and hence symbolisms at once. The relevance of these allusions to a late antique ‘ideology of consulship’ may be formulated as follows. By having the triumphally attired consul placed in front of or within an aedicula the viewer is invited to consider the victory it commemorates, but its symbolic function is to provide a passage for the emperor who returns to Rome in triumph; Smith 1956, 21-31; Versnel 1970, 161-163; Künzl 1988, 48-50. 1219 Compare Smith 1956, 19-37. 1220 For example the Arch of Hadrian in Athens; see e.g. Elsner 1998, 121 Fig. 80 (restored elevation). 1221 Notably Smith 1956, 21-37. 1222 Delbrueck 1929, 66; Künzl 1988, 48-64, 107f.

suprahuman qualities associated since ancient times with the Roman triumphator;1223 the scheme is typologically and symbolically equivalent to an aedicula sub divo. Transcendental or sacral connotations may be introduced by incorporating motifs such as the shell, Victoriae and erotes, and the triumphal significances of these and other motifs emphasised by adding coronae triumphales and/or laurelgarlands. Adding roof acroteria in the form of imagines clipeatae, the aedicula may be associated with a shrine, such as the armarium for the housing and display of the ancestral imagines. A consul seated in front of such a ‘shrine’ is recognised as a descendant and representative of the distinguished and immortalised maiores of his gens, and as an heir to his ancestors’ legacy in terms of noble qualities and public prominence. From what may be determined from literary sources, it is not unthinkable that the sedia gestatoria on which the consul was carried in the processus consularis was (occasionally at least) in the form of a roofed aedicula; the aedicula within which the togate effigy of Symmachus is enthroned in the Consecratio panel (Pl. 21 a) suggests the possibility.1224 The sedia gestatoria may have been referred to in all images where the consul is seated without a parapet in front of him, i.e. all so-called tribunal images but Lampadiorum. If we allow of the possibility that the consul seated on his sella curulis in front of a prostyle building may also refer to the moment in the processus when he sat down to receive the greetings of the public,1225 then Astyrius may be added to the number. The introduction of the essentially imperial fastigium or Syrian fronton motif in a consular image may serve as a signifier for the extraordinary power traditionally—in late antiquity chiefly symbolically—invested in the consul. As the motif’s application in both imperial and consular imagery testifies, the f a s t i g i u m is particularly suitable when hierarchical distinctions between several figures are to be illustrated. 1223 Versnel 1970, 356f, 364f. 1224 See III.7.2.6. 1225 Being seated on the sella curulis was part of the processus as well as

the ceremony performed between processus and pompa circensis which, apart from sacrificing, traditionally consisted in presiding in front of the Capitoline temple to receive the greetings of the people; Stern 1953, 158161; Ogilvie 1969, 74; and Versnel 1970, 302f. The consul proceeded from his residence or the imperial palace (when the emperor resided there) via the Forum Romanum to the Atrium Libertatis in the Forum Traiani; Mamertinus, Grat.act.Iul. 30; Delbrueck 1929, 66f; also DarSag I:2, 1470 s.v. ‘Consul’ (G. Bloch). As for the route taken in Constantinople, judging by Procopius’ account of Belisarius’ consular-cum-triumphal procession in 534 (Procop., Vand. 4.9) it went through the central parts of the capital—the main street, Mese, and four central fora (Arcadii, Bovis, Tauri, Constantini)—to end in the Hippodrome. Compare Heucke, who convincingly argues that this was the route regularly taken by ordinary consuls as well as the processus triumphalis; Heucke 1994, 152-155; also McCormick 1986, 125. Contra DarSag, where it is stated that the consular procession—no distinction is made between imperial and private consuls—had the Hagia Sophia as its final goal towards the end of the 5th century; DarSag I:2, 1470 s.v. ‘Consul’ (G. Bloch). What route the processus consularis may have taken in a western provincial city I have not been able to find out, but in Astyrius’ case it seems likely that it both began and ended at the headquarters of the praefectus praetorio at Arelate where that consul took office; Martindale 1980-1992:1, 175; Bagnall, Cameron, Schwartz & Worp 1987, 432f; also III.3.1.

176

By surrounding the consul’s figure with a frame that reflects the structure and motif repertory of a triumphal arch, the viewer is reminded of the processus consularis moving along the Triumphal Way with the triumphally attired consul, carried on his ‘triumphal’ sella c u r u l i s (or sella triumphalis)1226 after the model of the triumphator. In Constantinople the processus would presumably have passed through some kind of monumental archway marking the entrance to the Hippodrome. A portal, whether it be associated with a triumphal arch or not, may simultaneously be understood as symbol of entrance and/or passage. The ritual passage through a portal would signify a closure and a new beginning, irrespective of whether the ‘realm’ entered is a place, a new periodical cycle, or the kingdom of Christ. It is a symbolism that applies perfectly to the inaugural ceremonies performed by the consul on the novus annus, the victor’s triumph, and the emperor’s adventus, all of which were traditionally thought to herald a new golden era for Rome and her people.1227 Within the preserved corpus of consular diptychs there are several works whose architectural frames, like other categories of motifs, have been utilised for individual advertisement purposes. The common denominator of the frames in question—Lampadiorum, Halberstadt ( 2 ) , Boethius, and Anastasius/Anthemius—is that they enclose not only (or in Halberstadt at all) the honorand but also the figure representations of, or some more symbolic reference to, his family. In Lampadiorum the representation of the tribunal editoris has been given the composite form of a fastigium and a triumphal arch, like the imperial fronton in Halberstadt decorated with laurel-garlands, in front of which the ‘triumphator’ of the moment, the consul, is enthroned in the company of two male members of his family.1228 The scheme, including the distinct size differentiation between primary and secondary figures, is near-identical to that in Theodosius’ missorium (Pl. 23) representing the emperor and his heirs. What is commemorated in the diptych panel is in effect the ‘triumphal’ glory of the Lampadii, as (re)confirmed by the consulship of the present honorand. The blatant borrowing from an imperial mode of representation is not unique in the art of the period around 400, as the Consecratio panel shows. The high senatorial aristocracy of Rome was not subject to imperial/regal control when it came to enjoying and demonstrating—politically, through public munificence, and through the images they commissioned—their status as the true heirs of Rome, with their own ‘dynasties’.1229 1226 See III. 2.2.3. Also Corippus, Iust.Aug. 4.107; Delbrueck 1929, 63. 1227 See Versnel 1970, 356-380, 371-373 esp.; also Gustafsson 2000, 31.

See further IV.2. 1228 For a discussion of the relationships between these three men, see III.3.1. 1229 For useful treatments related to this issue, see A. Alföldi 1943, 193231; M.T.W. Arnheim 1972, 74-102, 168; A.D.E. Cameron 1986; A.D.E. Cameron 1992; Bagnall, Cameron, Schwartz & Worp 1987, 8f; Painter 1991; Painter 1993; Näf 1995, 53-78; Lim 1999:1, passim; and Lejdegård 2002, 163f.

In Boethius’ diptych the aedicula pediment is ornamented with a triumphator’s wreath encircling the monogram of the Boethian family name. In accordance with the temple/shrine analogy, the latter motif refers to the honorand(s) to whom the building is ‘erected’, the Boethii, a prominent family among the high nobility of Rome in the 5th and 6th centuries.1230 A consul standing or sitting in front of such a shrine may, to pursue the analogy, be likened to an officiating party in the cult of his g e n s , viz. his ancestors.1231 This architectural frame thus serves as a vehicle for expressing the very traditional values of the Roman aristocracy: the glory of the family and its immortal ancestors, as perpetuated by the generations’ successes. Through his consular appointment Boethius—the symbolic commissioner of the shrine—has also secured a place for himself in the family ‘pantheon’, destined to become one of its most distinguished maiores in futurity. Obvious but less pointed references to the concept of family glory by means of the architectural frame are found in the diptychs of Clementinus and Orestes (7), whose family monograms are inscribed on clipei (‘honorific shields’) and suspended by laurel-garlands from the archivolts of the ‘triumphal arches’ beneath which they are seated. The a e d i c u l a e in the diptychs of Anastasius and Anthemius serve as veritable shrines to the emperor Anastasius I and his family (in Anthemius paired with the previous emperor Anthemius, the consul’s father).1232 The consuls themselves included, these shrines or ‘armaria’ display the imagines of three generations. The present emperor and founder of the Anastasian house is naturally granted the place of honour on the summit of the structure; in a middle register below him are the effigies of his dynasty—the empress and ‘progenetrix’ of the imperial house, one of its presumtive heirs (in Anastasius) or a predecessor on the imperial throne (in Anthemius)—and below them the representation of the consul himself. Just as in Boethius’ diptych, the concept of family glory has been given a frame symbolic of triumph and immortality, here in the form of Victoriae and erotes elevating the effigy of the dynastic father on laurel-garlands. ‘Reading’ this imagery, the viewer learns that the house of Anastasius I is founded on the successful careers and dynastic fecundity of its members. For by shaping the architectural frame as a house for the display of family imagines, the creators of these diptychs have achieved the perfect pictographic form for the conveyance of the dynastic idea. The consul enclosed by the ‘house of Anastasius’ may more or less automatically be regarded as an heir to that house—or, as in the case of the emperor Anthemius’ son Anthemius, an imperial heir in more general terms—and as the perpetuators of its immortal glory. The architectural frame in the upper registers of the Halberstadt diptych could be regarded as a more complex and 1230 On the family history and consular ‘dynasty’ of Boethius’ family, see

Martindale 1980-1992.1, 231-237; and Barnish 1988, 125f. 1231 On the survival of the republican concept of family glory as expressed through the veneration of maiores in late antiquity, exemplified by the writings of Boethius iunior, see notably Flower 1996, 265-269. 1232 See III.3.4.

177

advanced variant of the ‘dynastic house’ presented in the diptychs of the consuls of Anastasius I. As opposed to the physical vacuum in which the honorand of the diptych is presented, the imperial family, accompanied by city goddesses and guards, are surrounded by a complex and spatially conceived architecture of the same palatial fastigium type as found in the Sant’ Apollinare Nuovo nave mosaic in Ravenna and the Theodosian missorium. A symbolic dimension to the pseudo-historical imperial gathering1233 is indicated by the goddesses’ presence, whereas the ‘real’ (as in physical) nature of the occasion is suggested by the guards (compare Theodosius’ missorium). The architecture is conceived in two perspective planes, which means that the scene, unlike those of the central and lower registers, is provided with physicality through spatial relationships. The figure-group in the foreground, i.e. the emperors and city goddesses of west and east seated on the dais, is clearly placed in front of and screening the building behind, and the guards are placed beside it, whereas the imperial female positioned in the centre is placed beneath or within the fastigium in the further plane, half screened by the dais. As it happens, this fastigium and the physical relationships indicated by it may be interpreted as metaphors for the historical data connected with Fl. Constantius’ second western consulship in 417,1234 which he entered at Ravenna.1235 The structure could be understood as a symbolic representation of the imperial palatium at Ravenna, which had been threatened by the Visigoths and subsequently relieved from that threat through Constantius’ victory in 416, and the ‘triumphal’ character of the scene taking place in the image is suggested by the laurel-garlands ornamenting the architecture. The emperors seated in the company of Roma and Constantinopolis present an—again symbolic—confirmation of the restoration of imperial power in the west, the imperial unity is signified by their all coming together under the same palatial roof, and the praetorian guards illustrate at once the military arms on which the Roman emperors rely to maintain their power and the reestablished physical safety of the palace and the dynasty it houses.1236 The palatial fastigium, however, does not only symbolise the restitution of imperial power in the west. It should perhaps primarily be regarded as an enclosure for the imperial female, the princess Galla Placidia,1237 who was restored to the imperial family from the Visigoths by Constantius in 416 and who is here seen to be safely installed within it.1238 On a more advanced level the palatial fastigium 1233 See III.3.2 and 3.4. 1234 This attribution has been argued under III.3.4 above, where also the

historical events in question have been recounted. 1235 Delbrueck 1929, 92. 1236 Compare Smith’s discussion of the imperial palace as a castrum composed of or conflated with the praetorium and the imperial domus, i.e. a castrum-palatium; Smith 1956, 53-56. 1237 See III.3.4. 1238 On the urgency of retrieving Placidia from the Visigothic camp not only for the sake of Fl. Constantius’ personal glory and promotion but for the safeguarding of Honorius’ legitimacy as imperial ruler, see Lütkenhaus 1998, 72-75.

illustrates the ‘house’ of which Constantius, consul and the bringer about of the imperial reunion, became member as of January 1st 417, when he married Placidia—a house he now had good prospects of inheriting along with the emperor’s title.1239

1239 On Fl. Constantius’ ambitions in this respect—ambitions which were

intimately connected with the marriage to Placidia, see Lütkenhaus 1998, 72-101,130, 133-161.

178

IV. SYNTHESIS: THE MEANINGS OF THE CONSULAR DIPTYCHS This part aims at presenting some concluding interpretations concerning the meanings of the consular images. Gathering the results of the analyses and interpretations presented in the previous part under broader thematic headings, it attempts to formulate what purposes, ideas, values and needs, collective and individual, engendered the consular image in the late Roman period. The material is reassembled and further discussed under five chapters corresponding to five main themes—or ways of defining consulship—on which the imagery of the consular diptychs centres, ranging from its most immediate purpose, viz. to commemorate the consul as a representative of his office and as a performer of its functions, through the implicit or symbolic meanings of consulship—triumph, empire/imperial world order, transcendence—to that of auto-representation (individual content). All the preserved fully figural diptychs contain references to several or all of these themes. By limiting myself to five themes I do not mean to imply that these constitute the only ones to be detected within the consular imagery, but rather that I consider them to be the most manifest as well as the most fundamental. It will be noticed that the themes in question frequently overlap. This is an inevitable and natural reflection of the fact that one and the same motif often refers to several themes or contexts simultaneously, i.e. that their implicit meanings are interconnected. Accumulative or multilateral meanings may be detected in certain motif combinations and in the motifs’ placement within the compositional structure. Motifs may variously be interpreted by considering the original contexts from which they spring, and acquire widened significances when related to Christian ideology, etc. The ultimate aim of the following discussions is to show how the consular images reflect their times, in general and sometimes in detail; how they may in fact be ‘read’ as historical documents, not only on the men who issued them but above all on the social, military, political and religious history of the Roman empire in a period thoroughly characterised by upheaval and transformation.

1. THEME ONE: CONSULAR ORNATUS AND CEREMONIAL The most direct way of representing consulship is, naturally, to depict the consular costume and insignia together with such motifs and scenes as refer to specific parts of consular ceremonial, notably games-scenes and gift distribution. These 179

things may be defined as the first layer of meaning within consular diptych imagery, constituting the outward aspects of consulship, immediately recognisable to all. They have often been regarded as the only layer of meaning, or at least the only one of scholarly interest. That the consular image in general should have as its chief purpose to present the consul as he appeared physically during the performance of his inaugural ceremonies could seem to be supported by the images themselves: the minutely detailed ceremonial costume and the carefully sculpted shapes and motifs of the scipio and the sella curulis are quite evidently intended to be not only recognised and admired as truthful reflections of their prototypes, but absolutely expected to do so. That the representation of the consular insignia was in some measure officially regulated is demonstrated by the togas of two consuls whom we know to have taken office outside of Rome and who were thus forbidden to wear (and have themselves depicted wearing?) the vestis triumphalis: Astyrius (4) and Ardabur Aspar (Pl. 22). Whether the pattern variants of the triumphal trabea displayed in the consular diptychs would reproduce the actual textile patterns worn by the respective consul cannot be known, but seems likely. All pattern categories ornamenting the consuls’ triumphal togas—stars, sun-discs, laurel hem borders, segmenta etc.—constitute traditional motifs most of which are emblematic and/or symbolic rather than purely ornamental, as would be expected from a costume originally belonging to a god. Thus one may safely conclude that the protocol prescribing how the consular costume had to be depicted was dictated by its symbolic significances and by the ancient context from which it derived.1 The same may generally be argued for the representation of the scipio and the sella curulis, even if it these insignia display diverse forms. As for the sceptre specifically, some consuls are represented as carrying what has generally been considered an imperial variant (the scipio cum aquila), others different kinds of top constellations in different diptychs/panels (Areobindus (9) and Anastasius (11)), others yet three sceptre busts, and one a cross-tipped variant (the anonymous honorand of the western ex-Ganay medallion diptych (Pl. 1 7 ) ). Are these representations to be recognised as depictions of prototypes carried in the processus consularis, or may their forms not occasionally derive from a wish on the respective consul’s

1 Compare Meslin’s description of the consular trabea as an obligatory

garment ‘embroidered with cosmic images and portraits of the divine emperors’; Meslin 1970, 35.

part to individualise the representation of his sceptre in order to convey individual meaning?2 But primarily it must be determined how all the consular ornatus relate to certain parts or acts within the consular ceremonial, and more precisely whether the consul’s figure may be interpreted as performing any specific part of the ceremonial dependent on what types of insignia and other attributes he displays, what type of pose he assumes, and what gestures he performs. In addition one must consider the physical setting, if included: whether and how different motifs and scenic representations form a coherent whole, thus suggesting they are interconnected parts in a time-space continuum, or simply separate compartments with no spatial or temporal connection. Consular ceremonial is represented through costume, insignia and a limited range of ‘acts’—poses and gestures—that may be connected with one or several roles performed by the consul.3 The ornatus— vestis triumphalis, scipio, sella curulis—was displayed both during the processus consularis and the pompa circensis. The late antique consul was carried in the processus seated on the sella curulis which rested on a portable suggestus or sedia gestatoria, a ceremony that was concluded by the consul’s presiding (seated on his sella curulis) to receive the greetings of the public. In late antique Rome this last act no longer took place before the Capitoline temple but at the Atrium Libertatis in the Forum Traiani; in Constantinople it presumably took place in the Hippodrome, where all official and festive processions ended. The consul was also seated on the sella curulis when presiding at the circus and amphitheatre. Consitituting a portable insignium, just like the sceptre and the toga, the representation of the sella in a consular image may thus refer to either or all of these ceremonies. It is known that the consul distributed sparsio in the form of coin during the processus consularis, i.e. when he was seated on the sella curulis carried on the sedia gestatoria. Whether any part of the sparsio was also performed from a permanent tribunal apart from that in the circus and amphitheatre is unclear.4

2 In the cases of Boethius (6), Magnus (12) and possibly Basilius (8) the

lack of bust-sceptres could be due to political circumstances, to the emperor’s death, or to the fact that the consul issued his diptych in a different capital from that in which he held office; in the case of Areobindus the honorand’s wish to commemorate the military achievements for which he was honoured with his consulship; and in the case of Anastasius a wish to announce his and his family’s pretensions to the throne in a period where the imperial succession would have developed into an issue of more imminent concern. See III.2.1.2 and further IV.5. 3 Sources and references for the following discussions are, unless otherwise stated, presented in Part III.2, 4 and 7. 4 The representation of Constantius II as consul in the Codex-calendar of 354 (Pl. 24) could be understood as depicting an actual ceremony of the ‘tribunal’ kind, but whether the sparsio of the ordinary consul differed from that of the imperial consul in this respect is a question that I have not been able to find an answer to. There is of course also the symbolic aspect of all imperial representations, those of late antiquity in particular, to be taken into account: two or three different acts/ceremonies may well have been fused into one single representation, and motifs considered representative of the various aspects of consulship added to the figure-scene in order to create a comprehensive image.

180

The fasces were carried in the processus consularis, but it is not absolutely clear whether and in what form (with or without the secures) they were present when the consul was presiding at the circus.5 Thomas Schäfer has argued that the lictors were only escorting the magistrate during processions (and other transportations, official and private), but did not stand on the tribunal with him.6 Consequently pictorial representations of lictores cum fascibus beside a magistrate sitting on tribunal in Roman art, especially on funerary monuments, would usually have been included for the sake of the insignium they carry.7 It is particularly interesting to note that no lictors but only the fasces are represented on sepulchral monuments of curule magistrates (as an insignium dignitatis), whereas the monuments to municipal magistrates frequently include the lictors.8 According to Schäfer the lictors’ inclusion would in the latter case have served to lend emphasis to the magisterial dignity and to embody its Roman source, and the same would very likely have applied in the case of a consul taking office outside of the capital. Astyrius and the anonymous honorand of the Bourges diptych (5) were both consuls who took office in the province in the first half of the 5th century, and in consequence of this were not allowed to wear the triumphal toga, the most conspicuous of consular insignia; the greater reason then to display all insignia that were allowed a consul taking office outside of Rome, so that his superior status might be appreciated. The representation of fasces-carrying lictors in these provincial diptychs may thus be interpreted as referring at once to the consular dignitas and to the consular ceremonial; but this without depicting any specific scene. The lictors in the western diptychs represent real assistants to the consul, but the city goddess displaying the fasces in the 6thcentury diptychs of Clementinus, Orestes and Basilius (8) would, because of her suprahuman nature, have a somewhat different function to perform. Although she—most likely Roma in all three cases9 —holds the fasces with her left hand resting against the left shoulder in the prescribed lictorian manner, the right hand does not support the insignium (as in Astyrius and Bourges) but instead performs a gesture that in neither case may be defined as one of subservience. In 5 Schäfer 1989, 206-209, 219f; see III.2.2.4 above. 6 In the republic, and likely in the imperial period, the lictors were

adstantes when a magistrate performed official acts; Tassi Scandone 2001, 150. Presumably their placement would have been at a certain ‘safety distance’ from the presiding magistrate in order to keep people away. There is no reason to believe that the lictor’s placement would have differed between categories of officials. 7 Schäfer 1989, 208f. 8 Schäfer 1989, 208f. The representation of one or two sets of fasces (with or without lictors) is, in the case of a consul, obviously to be understood as a symbolic reduction. Relying on a statement by Cicero (Cic., Verr. 2.32.13) Tassi Scandone claims that the lictors of municipal magistrates were only allowed to carry the bacula, viz. a tall baton, and not the fasces; Tassi Scandone 2001, 149, 169 n. 73. Judging by the evidence presented by Schäfer, most of which is dated to the 1st to 3rd centuries AD, such a rule was seldom adhered to when municipal magistrates had their insignia represented on their funerary monuments; Schäfer 1989, Taf. 54-77, 84120 passim. Anyhow, consuls taking office outside of Rome would still have been accompanied by fasces-carrying lictors. 9 See III.3.2.

Clementinus and Orestes it is an open-handed gesture of power, benediction or greeting, comparable to that performed by the emperor in numerous late Roman representations, and in Basilius a friendly embrace of the consul’s shoulders: both suggestive not of servitude but of favour, approbation and empowerment. The goddess’s function in the image is rather as the conferrer of the fasces on the consul, acting the imperial designator’s part,10 and in Basilius’ diptych Roma even acts on her own initiative. To conclude, the introduction of the fasces within consular diptych imagery may serve different purposes: as a denoter of official status for western consuls having taken office outside of Rome and/or as reference to the processus consularis (the lictors), or of the consular designation (Roma).11 The codicilli is represented in only three diptychs of the corpus: in the lost right panel of Felix (3), Astyrius and Areobindus D. This insignium would refer both to the official appointment as such (in the case of Felix the patriciate) and to the ceremony performed on the occasion of its reception by the appointed. The actual conferral of the consular codicilli is only referred to in Areobindus’ diptych, where the miniature scene on the consul’s scipio depicts the codicil scroll being handed over by the enthroned emperor to the consul standing beside him. The sacral nature of the ceremony is, like any encounter between the emperor and his subject, signalled by the veiled hands of both figures, and the ‘locale’ where the scene is enacted would (judging by the throne) be the reception hall of the imperial palace. Astyrius is seated on the sella curulis holding both the codicilli and the scipio, flanked by a lictor and a thekophoros. Whereas the codicil is a consular insignium of Astyrius, the theca refers to the specific context in which Astyrius took office: in the province and at the headquarters of the praefectus praetorio per Gallias at Arelate, among whose insignia the theca counted. The theca’s function in Astyrius’ official image is thus to illustrate the formal legitimacy of the ceremonial procedures performed on the occasion of his consular accession. The architectural fronton in the background, although evidently supplied with some decorative elements that are not likely to have been found on a praetorian building, would probably refer to the ceremonial frame provided by that particular locale. Did the consul ever sit down on his sella curulis holding the codicilli at any stage in the consular ceremonial, in or outside of Rome and Constantinople? It is recorded that the emperor occasionally sent the appointed consul the sella curulis and the fasces together with the codicilli in advance of his accession instead of presenting them in a physical act of conferral.12 In Astyrius’ case the codicil and other insignia would have been sent to Gaul, and probably received by the praetorian prefect, who then conferred them onto the consul; consequently, the image of Astyrius could be ‘read’ as a representation of how 10 For the most extensive treatment of the designation of the late antique

consul, see Delbrueck 1929, 59. 11 The possible reason(s) for including the fasces in the eastern diptychs and in the diptych of Basilius (also an eastern consul) will be discussed further in sections 2 and 3 of this part. 12 Auson., Grat.act. 8.11.53; Delbrueck 1929, 59; and I.1.4.

181

the consul takes possession of his insignia within ‘the setting’ where the ceremony of conferral/accession was performed. The mappa circensis displayed by the majority of consuls in the diptychs has induced many to identify the entire ‘scene’ as taking place in the circus or amphitheatre, i.e. the part of the consular ceremony where the honorand presides at his inaugural games. But the mappa does not exclusively feature in diptychs containing circus scenes, as is exemplified by the diptychs of Halberstadt (2), Clementinus, Magnus and Orestes; and the number of different ways in which it may be held—raised, resting in the lap, clasped to the chest, and held passively to the side of the body—by the either seated (on the sella curulis) or standing consul, clearly indicate that its function within the consular image would not primarily have been to denote the physical act of presiding at the games, but to symbolise the giving of games as a prominent part of consulship, designating the consul as an editor et praeses ludorum. Games-scenes, if included, illustrate the games as such, and the consul’s ability to spend large sums on them (see notably the eastern diptychs). The mappa circensis and the ludi circenses are thus contextually rather than realistically connected. Only in one instance, the Lampadiorum panel (1), can the architectural frame surrounding the consul be identified as a tribunal editoris, allowing the viewer to identify the image in its entirety as representing a scene from a specific consular context (the ludi circenses). There are two vital aspects of consular ceremonial that have nowhere been scenically represented within the preserved corpus: the opening ceremony of the pompa circensis where the consul drives around the circus/hippodrome in the currus b i g a l i s , and the consul’s actual performance of largitio/sparsio. Together with the processus these ceremonies constitute the most conspicuous aspects of consulship. The opening of the pompa circensis would certainly have been considered a particularly glorious act to perform because of its strong triumphal connotations and because of the maximal public exposure it entailed. As images in other media (mosaics, medallions and coins) from the 4th to 6th centuries testify, there existed a clearly defined iconographic form—a perfectly frontal and hieratic conception—for representing the triumphant charioteer, whether he be an emperor,13 a racer in the circus,14 a consul,15 or a deity.16 Likewise, the image of Constantius II

13 See e.g. Gnecchi 1912, 1 Tav. 36 no. 15 (silver medallion of Honorius);

Delbrueck 1929, 69 Abb. 25 (gold medallion of Constantius II). 14 Notably mosaics, but also the base of Porphyrios from the Hippodrome in Constantinople, erected in 498-502 and showing the honorand driving a q u a d r i g a with a laurel-wreath in his raised right hand (Istanbul, Archaeological Museum); Dunbabin 1982; A.D.E. Cameron 1973, 12, 150152, Fig. 12-14; also Bühl 1995, 132-134 with Abb. 71-72. 15 See the representation in opus sectile of a consular charioteer from the basilica of Iunius Bassus in Rome, dated to 330-350; e.g. Bianchi Bandinelli 1970, Fig. 88-89. 16 In late antiquity notably Sol Invictus, Iuppiter, Apollo, and Neptunus. For the represenation of Sol Invictus, see notably L’Orange 1973:2; L’Orange

as consul in the Codex-calendar of 354 (Pl. 24) and on coins shows that a formal mode for the representation of the consular sparsio/largitio had been developed when consular diptychs were beginning to be issued. A single deviation from the apparent taboo of representing the consul’s initial biga drive around the circus is found in Basilius’ diptych, in the form of a small-scale figural inset on the consular trabea. This figure, standing frontally on a biga, is also seen extending its open right hand, fingers spread, in a gesture strongly reminiscent of imperial representations of triumphalcum-consular sparsiones, but there are no traces of coin; perhaps they were considered too small for representation, or simply superfluous because implicit in the iconographic type. The figure would not be identified as an emperor17 but most likely as a previous consul: one of several out of the ‘consular dynasty’ of the Decii and Anicii that decorated the consulate in the 5th and 6th centuries,18 or Basilius himself. The form for representing the consul performing the opening ceremony of the pompa displays evident affinities with the standard form for representing the emperor riding his triumphal chariot-and-four, i.e. with the ‘Sinnbild’ for the evertriumphant emperor, in its turn derived from divine imagery.19 One can only speculate upon why the consul’s chariot-drive received no place within the official imagery of private consuls, but it is likely that the imperial-divine connotations of the iconographic type contributed to it. Whereas the image of the victorious circus charioteer is not very likely to have been confused with that of an emperor or god (although typologically close and undeniably related on some symbolic level),20 an ordinary consul—being temporarily the emperor’s equal21 —thus represented would almost certainly have been considered in another light. That is, the analogy might have been regarded as close enough to actually confound, and a private consul’s use of the auriga imagery accordingly as a transgression. Basilius, upon returning to Rome after the termination of his eastern consulship, did nevertheless consider himself at liberty to make use of imperial triumphal imagery on a grand scale in 1973:3; and Dunbabin 1982, 70-78, 84. See also III.2.1.1 (concerning the segmentum with a frontal charioteer on Basilius’ trabea). 17 Since the figure displays no imperial attributes, and since the emperor drove a quadriga both as consul and triumphator; see e.g. Künzl 1988, 128f; and also Pekáry 1985, 88f. (As triumphator the emperor could also be presented as driving three pairs of horses, as the previously cited silver medallion of Honorius shows; Gnecchi 1912, 1 Tav. 36 no. 15.) 18 Martindale 1980-1992:1, 216f; Cameron & Schauer 1982, 143; Bagnall, Cameron, Schwartz & Worp 1987, 7, 616f; Barnish 1988, 124-127. 19 For treatments of the auriga imagery and its imperial and divine applications, see Grabar 1936, 63f; and Dunbabin 1982. 20 I do not altogether agree with Dunbabin in her rejection of the idea that the victorious charioteer was in any way symbolically associated with the greater theme of imperial/divine victory; Dunbabin 1982, 84-86. The image of the victorious charioteer, especially the frontal type, must surely be derived from the imperial-divine type; this, I think, is suggested by the predominantly close affinities (smaller details apart) between the representations of aurigae. The notion that some of the prototypes’ symbolic significances would not have followed with this adaptation thus appears too categorical in my view. 21 On the consul’s status as the emperor’s equal or colleague, which also comprised the privilege of iurisdictio, see e.g. Heucke 1994, 79f; also Guilland 1954, 545f.

182

the diptych(s) he commissioned there, and the image on his segmentum constitutes only a small part of this imitatio imperatoria and thus a rather modest transgression. Judging by the diptychs of Clementinus, Magnus and Orestes, the distribution of material gifts was a theme important enough to receive a standard iconographic form, but apparently not before the 6th century. In the western Boethius diptych (6), which is the only diptych preserved from the 5th century to refer to consular gifts, the consul is on the one hand seated on the sella (right panel) and on the other standing (left panel) in front of objects that refer to both largitio/sparsio and prize distribution (and in both cases holding the mappa circensis), but in neither case does he perform the actual act of distribution,22 and the templeaedicula in front of which Boethius is placed is an imaginary building, an honorific monument to the consul’s ‘victorious’ gens.23 Clementinus’ (10), Magnus’ (12) and Orestes’ (7) diptychs show the consul’s figure in a separate register from the gift objects. The scenes may be taking place in connection with the processus consularis, in the circus, or in an unspecific and ideal place—as indicated by the eros-like children officiating as distributors, and the emblematic way in which the gift objects have been presented—or in all of these simultaneously. And the architectural frames in these diptychs can in neither case be taken for a reference to a specific locale; rather, their generic and emblematic forms imply that several—symbolically related—contexts may be referred to, among which are the temple/shrine, the portal, and the triumphal arch. In Magnus’ diptychs there is no reference whatever to a physical setting: the laurel decorations suspended above the figure-group and the columnar posts on which the city goddesses stand constitute mere hints at an architecture, imaginary and without links to any specific or real context. Nowhere, thus, is the consul represented as physically distributing his gifts. Although it appears that larger objects such as missilia may have been presented to the public in heaps to be plundered—a similar but presumably more lively variant of the dona calendarium presented to state officials at the imperial palace24 —and although it is reasonable to assume that the consul did not personally hand around all his gifts to the public, there is nothing to suggest that the private consul was physically detached from the performance of his largesse, i.e. that he merely presided over it.25 So the fact that the consul is nowhere depicted as throwing coin, after the manner of Constantius II in the Codex-calendar for instance, must have some explanation. The only one that would make any sense would, once again, be that the imagery of sparsio was considered exclusive to imperial art, and thus too explicitly associated with a wealth 22 A related scheme is shown in the earlier Aspar missorium (Pl. 22),

issued in Carthage. 23 See further IV.2. 24 Delbrueck 1929, 68; Painter 1990, 77. See III.4.2. 25 Compare Meslin, who stated that the consul threw coins (sparsio) to the people from his elevated position on the sedia gestatoria during the games (whithout however citing any source); Meslin 1970, 59. Also Buckton, who argued that the consuls’ figures in the diptychs ‘supervise’ their sparsiones in the arena; Buckton 1994, 72.

and munificence that only the emperor could exemplify—expressions of the emperor’s superior ability to bring material prosperity to his subjects. That eastern emperors were jealous of their privilege in this respect is attested through imperial legislation restricting the value and amount of coin for the consular sparsio, and setting an upper limit to the total sum to be spent by private consuls on games.26 The eastern consuls were also regularly supplied with means from the imperial treasury in order that they might cover the expenses for their inaugural festivities, which means that the source of the consular munificence was often the emperor himself.27 The western consuls appointed by Odoacer and the Ostrogothic kings were on their part encouraged to spend as much as possible on their public munificence;28 something which could be seen as illustrated in the diptychs of Boethius and Orestes, in the latter by the same kind of symbolic imagery as in the eastern diptychs of Clementinus, Magnus and Iustinus (Pl. 16). Whereas the coin-sacks and gift objects spread out before Boethius’ feet may be regarded as direct attributes of the consul, their counterparts in the 6th century diptychs are conceived in terms of an impersonal and ideal abundance, i.e. in a mode that separates from the consul from his gifts and hence from their distribution. Wealth and munificence appear as symbolic of ideal concepts rather than as attributes or qualities of the individual consul. It is in my view reasonable to assume that this imagery resulted from imperial impositions of one kind or other restricting the eastern consul’s possibility of aggrandising his own person through official imagery.29 Why some consuls chose to include a scene symbolic of largesse and others scenes related to the giving of games would perhaps seem an impossible question to answer. The two types of scenes in an equal degree illustrate what late antique consulship is about: public munificence and display, the outward signs of prosperity. Whether the choice of imagery would have been motivated by individual interests 26 A Theodosian law of 384, which is equivalent (?) to a paragraph in the

Justinianic Nov. 105 (of the year 537/38), dictated that coins must only be in silver (not gold) and not weigh more than 1/60 pound (5.376 grams); Delbrueck 1929, 68; Bagnall, Cameron, Schwartz & Worp 1987, 10f. The sum prescribed for eastern consuls (restrictions were not imposed on western consuls) was the equivalent of 2,000 pounds in gold in the 5th century and 4,000 in the beginning of the 6th (Justinian’s consulship in 521); Delmaire 1989:1, 572. 27 See Delmaire 1989, 572f; also Bagnall, Cameron, Schwartz & Worp 1987, 9; and Salzman 1990, 137 n. 42. It is of course difficult to estimate to what degree, if any, the circumstance that many consuls were unable to cover the expenses of their appointment with their own means and had to apply to the imperial treasury for funds (particularly eastern consuls) may have influenced the manner in which the theme of largitio/sparsio was conceived in their diptych imagery. The comes sacrarum largitionum is reported to have been responsible for the supply of funds (from the imperial treasury) to the eastern consul of the year, to be distributed in his largesse; Procop. An., 26.12; Delmaire 1989, 270 esp. 28 The ‘formula’ of the Ostrogothic rulers speaks of magnanimity (in the material sense) as a consular virtue; Cassiod., Var. 2.4.6, 3.39, 9.22-23; Bagnall, Cameron, Schwartz & Worp 1987, 8-10; and Näf 1995, 210. 29 The eastern emperors, especially Justinian, did not look kindly on competion for public favour from private citizens; Bagnall, Cameron, Schwartz & Worp 1987, 9; Heucke 1994, 79f.

183

can only be speculated on. Seeing that the number of preserved diptychs is so very small in relation to the number originally issued, one must allow the idea that one and the same consul could have commissioned diptychs featuring different categories of munera-related motifs and scenes.30 Furthermore, even if there once existed motif variants and scenes that are not represented in the preserved material, it is still more than probable that many diptychs issued by different consuls would have shared the same imagery. One factor behind the development of a standardised scenic reference to consular munificence—games and gift distribution—that seemingly took place in 6th-century Constantinople could be sought in the financial prosperity of the emperor Anastasius I:31 a prosperity which would have been considered a proof of imperial felicitas, and which practically made possible a number of consulships for both himself and his kin. Another influential factor would have been the values and ideals of the eastern senatorial class in this period, which set the qualities of material prosperity, munificentia and liberalitas, at the top of the list of aristocratic virtues; as opposed (in part) to their western counterparts, who held in high esteem a number of moral virtues besides.32 Although the eastern aristocracy’s valuation of material wealth is not necessarily a phenomenon unique to the Anastasian period, it combines neatly enough with the material prosperity of their emperor to explain the focus on the theme of munificence—and the grandiose scale of it—in the eastern consuls’ diptychs. The financial situation of the eastern consuls themselves, who in this period were not seldom obliged to seek help from the imperial treasury to afford their consular obligations (including that of issuing consular diptychs), evidently did not always reflect the ideal.33 If the consul was the emperor’s kin this would pose no problem, but if he was not (like Clementinus) he would very probably have considered it a duty to officially acknowledge the imperial munificence towards him. One way of doing so would be to include idealised images of wealth and plenty in a lower register and to combine them with the ruler’s effigy in an upper register, thereby visualising how all material riches and munificence, including that of the consul himself, ultimately derived from the ruler and his prosperous reign. 30 Certainly, the idea that a former comes sacrarum largitionum would find

the theme of largesse particularly suitable as a means for referring to one’s own cursus honorum is tempting, but that the imagery of largesse would have been unique to that consul is contradicted by diptychs issued by consuls who had not held that office or any other that comprised financial responsibilities: Magnus, Orestes, and also Iustinus. See III.4.2. 31 On the wealth (and successful financial politics) of this emperor, see e.g. Jones 1964, 235-237; and A.D.E. Cameron 1978, 274f. 32 Näf offers very useful compilations of the aristocratic virtues as listed and defined by late antique authors, among them Claudianus, Boethius, and Libanius; Näf 1995, 79, 213 with n. 58 and 59, 229-231, 252 with n. 19, 254f. 33 On the relatively good financial situation of the western senatorial class in the later years of the Ostrogothic reign, see particularly Barnish 1987, 162, 177-183; and Barnish 1988, 141-150. Also Burns 1980, 124f. On the financial situation of the senatorial aristocracy in general in late antiquity, see Jones 1964, 554-556; also M.T.W. Arnheim 1972, 168; and Lim 1999:1, 272.

Do the imperial figures included in some diptychs refer to consular ceremonial, i.e. does their inclusion reflect some formal procedure in connection with the consuls’ taking of office? The diverse appearance of the imperial representations within the preserved corpus would perhaps seem to exclude such an interpretation, but the question is still of interest. In the case of the Halberstadt diptych we know that the ‘ceremony’ performed by the imperial group in the upper registers is of an unspecific and ideal nature: the emperors of west and east never met, and the consul would not have been designated by the pair of emperors, far less in the presence of a princess. The image is, to paraphrase Alan Cameron, a symbolic tableau of an imperial family reunion and a reunited Roman empire. The ceremonial aspect of the scene is certainly inspired by imperial models, but there is nothing in it that suggests a relevance to consular ceremonial as such. The inclusion of the imperial/regal couples in the upper registers of Clementinus’ and Orestes’ diptychs cannot be ascribed to any such individual considerations on the part of the issuing consul, since neither of them enjoyed any family ties with their appointers. From an official point of view, these imagines represent a ruler’s presence comparable to that of imperial effigies mounted on higher officials’ insignia.34 This would however not be their only significance, since the emperor’s image is accompanied by that of his female coruler, and in the case of Anastasius another member of his house. Salzman has argued that the late Roman magistrate did not, as previously, make his inaugural sacrifices (gifts) to the gods but to the emperor and his house.35 It is known that ordinary consuls presented the emperor with gifts, and that the initial ceremony of the inauguration was performed at the imperial palace (when the emperor resided there).36 The presence of imperial/regal effigies in the diptychs of Clementinus and Orestes could thus, at least partly, be motivated by their (symbolic) role as recipients of the consul’s munificence. But they could also refer to the type of rulers’ effigies set up in the circus tribunal in late antiquity,37 to which the consul must ceremonially render homage before taking his seat: a reminder to the emperor’s momentary equal that he is still an imperial subject.38 Despite the fact that late antique consulship is essentially synonymous with the performance of ceremonial, this is only rarely depicted in consular imagery. ‘Lampadius’ presiding at his chariot-races from the tribunal editoris of the Circus Maximus is the only preserved departure from what appears to have been a predominantly synoptic way of representing 34 The emperor was, as far as I have been able to determine, not present in

person during either the processus or the pompa; cf. Heucke 1994, 77-80. His effigy was however present in most if not all celebrations in the circus/hippodrome; Kruse 1934, 40f; Meslin 1970, 68. 35 Salzman 1990, 179. 36 See III.4.2 with footnotes. 37 Meslin 1970, 68 with n. 5 (referring to Cod.Theod. 15.4.1). See also Treitinger 1938, 210 and n. 220. 38 On the ‘power conflict’ between emperor and consul within the hippodromian context, see especially Heucke 1994, 79f.

184

the ceremonial nature of consulship: consular ceremonial is symbolised rather than depicted. This would at least partly be explained by the late antique mode of representing imperial consulship, which must be considered the most immediate prototype for the consular image, and which presents the emperor-consul seated on the sella curulis (or throne) clothed in the characteristically patterned and gem-incrusted triumphal toga, holding the scipio (with aquila or cross) in the left hand and the mappa in the raised right, and occasionally accompanied by objects and/or confronted figures inserted beneath the suppedaneum referring to his consular largesse.39 This type of image is equivalent to an ideogram, a reductive visualisation of the most representative ingredients of consulship, viz. the display of insignia and attributes according to the most characteristic mode. The consular ceremonial is, as it were, encapsulated within this ideogram: the raised mappa signifies the giving of and presiding at games, the occasional gift objects (with accompanying figures) the distribution of largesse, the enthronement on the sella curulis with the sceptre the performance of the processus, the presiding at the games and (occasionally) the ‘superintending’ of the gift distribution all in one. The consistency of this synoptic/symbolic mode of representation may in general terms be explained by the hieratic and symbolic character of all late antique art, which favours state before action when representing high dignitaries of the state, the church, polytheistic deities, Christ etc. In more specific terms, the late antique consul’s ‘state’ would reflect a conception of his office as an institution whose essence is ancient tradition and ritual, static by nature, and best conveyed by the means of hieratic imagery.

2. THEME TWO: TRIUMPHAL CONSULSHIP The second layer of meaning within the imagery of the consular diptychs may also be defined as the primary level of symbolic meaning of late antique consulship: the consul as symbolic representative of the Roman triumphator. There are some distinctions within the concept of triumphal consulship as it is expressed in the diptychs. Firstly, there is the official symbolism of consulship which is represented through costume, insignia, and ceremonial-symbolic victory celebrations, all taken over at an early stage from those of the Roman triumph. Secondly, there are more personal-symbolic references to victory introduced into some commissioners’ diptych imagery: military achievements and the glory of the individual consul and his family may both be expressed through the means of victory motifs, i.e. in terms of victoriousness. A third category of triumphal symbolism refers to imperial triumph: the victoriousness of the emperor, the eternally triumphant Roman empire, and so forth. The three categories of triumphal meaning are traceable, in varying 39 Notably the consular solidi and vota coins issued by emperors from c.

350, but also the Codex-calendar of 354. See e.g. the obverse of a solidus issued by Valens (364-378) reproduced in Delbrueck 1929, Texttaf. 1 no.1.

degrees of complexity and often interwoven, in all of the preserved diptychs. The triumphal symbolism of consulship in its official formulation is synonymous with the display of triumphal costume and insignia, the performance of the processus consularis and the pompa circensis, which are modelled after their triumphal counterparts (the processus triumphalis and the ludi circenses (triumphales)), and the distribution of largesse.40 The games, even if not exclusive to the celebration to consulship, are enactments of struggle and victory that form an integral part of the consular ‘triumph’, in themselves victory-inducing for the new year.41 According to ancient tradition the triumphator and the consul were of equal rank,42 and in the late Roman period the distinctions between the emperor’s consular accession, triumph and adventus were as good as erased.43 A relatively wide range of motifs refer to the triumphal symbolism of consulship. Simple and generic kinds of triumphal reference are introduced through emblematic motifs: laurel-wreaths and garlands, Victoriae and victoriolae, eagles, and architectural frames displaying typological affinities with the triumphal arch. If several such motifs are combined in certain ways, their accumulative meaning may occasionally allow more specific interpretations. Fornices decorated with laurel-garlands (Lampadiorum (1), Halberstadt (2), Clementinus (10), Orestes (7)) may be associated with triumphal celebrations and the passing of the triumphator along the festively garlanded Via Triumphalis, aquilae decorating the architrave of an arch (Bourges (5)) may be associated with a monument erected to imperial triumph, and so forth. None of these motifs can strictly be considered standard within consular diptych imagery, nor can they be characterised as carriers of more specific or individual-related meanings, but they encourage the viewer to associate consulship with triumphal celebrations and hence the consul with a triumphator. Their significances, general as these may be, are well-established within the Roman tradition of honorific imagery—imperial-triumphal and sepulchral—and thus automatically grasped. More individually motivated references to the triumphal symbolism of consulship are introduced by way of various ‘extra-ordinary’ motifs or motif combinations. Their peculiar relevance for the individual consul rather than consulship in general seems to be indicated by the fact that each of the these motif/combinations only occurs in one diptych (issue): Lampadiorum, Halberstadt, Astyrius (4), Bourges, Boethius (6), Areobindus (9), Anastasius (11), Magnus (12) and

Basilius (8). What characterises the individual-related triumphal imagery is that it centres on the achievements and/or virtues of the respective honorand, be they of an imperial nature (Halberstadt, Anastasius and Magnus), a Roman-aristocratic nature (Lampadiorum, Boethius and Basilius), or a military nature (Halberstadt, Astyrius, Bourges, Basilius). Ultimately the themes by which an individual triumphal content is conveyed relate to consular eligibility, i.e. they explain the consul’s superior qualities and merits in terms of victoriousness, thus providing an explanatory background to the appointment. This practice seemingly derives from a republican ideal of excellence, which had it that the consul-elect was the bearer of the divine gifts of virtus and felicitas, the military victor’s most prominent qualities.44 And indeed many of the consuls appointed in the 5th and 6th century were generals, including some of those whose diptychs have been preserved. 45 Triumphal references may be introduced if the honorand for some reason has wanted to particularly distinguish his consular dignity from those of other official dignitaries, the display of the triumphalia being a peculiar mark of consulship. The architectural frames in the diptychs of Astyrius and Bourges both incorporate motifs with triumphal connotations: laurel-wreaths and garlands or aquilae decorating the architrave of a columnar fronton or arch. It seems reasonable to suppose that the triumphal, and in the case of the eagles imperial, motifs in these two diptychs are introduced in order to compensate for the lack of the triumphal costume, as well as referring to the honorands’ military victoriousness in more general terms (the Bourges consul, like Astyrius, being presumably a general appointed as a result of military merits). Again, both these honorands held their consulships in the west, and the Bourges consul, like Astyrius, would almost certainly have been engaged in the military preservation of the western part of the empire. Their consulships, like their consular diptychs, may thus be expected to commemorate the same kind of achievements (although perhaps not of the same momentum) as those of Constantius, Basilius and Aspar, the latter of whose consular missorium (Pl. 22) was commissioned under circumstances similar to those of the ‘Gallic’ consuls’ diptychs.46 The most apparent references to individual victoriousness are witnessed in diptychs issued by western consuls who have distinguished themselves within the military context: Constantius (Halberstadt) and Basilius. Both of these consuls make rather free use of imperial-triumphal iconography, thereby in some measure allowing themselves to take official credit for the victories achieved in the emperor’s name. Constantius refers to his Visigothic victory by having submissio-scenes introduced into the lower registers of his

40 For a discussion of the correspondences between triumphal and consular

ceremonial and symbolism, see Versnel 1970, 95-98, 129-131, 302f; and McCormick 1986, 84-91 esp. 41 Versnel 1970, 374f. 42 See esp. Rüpke 1990, 231. 43 This development is notaby exemplified by the combined adventus, triumphal and consular ceremonies in Rome of Antoninus Pius in 140 and 145, and of Honorius in 403; MacCormack 1981, 52-55; McCormick 1986, 85-89; Künzl 1988, 106, 129.

185

44 See notably Versnel, who also argues that the appointment of former

victors to high office (the consulate, priesthoods) was a way of ensuring that their superior ‘powers’ could continue to benefit Roman society; Versnel 1970, 356-397 (377f esp.). 45 E.g. Bagnall, Cameron, Schwartz & Worp 1987, 4-6. On Anastasius’ habit of attaching generals to his family by marriage, see A.D.E. Cameron 1978, 261. 46 On the Gallic attribution of the Bourges diptych, see II.5.

diptych, an otherwise exclusively imperial imagery by which the emperor is celebrated as military conqueror and world ruler. Although Constantius is formally separated from the barbarian captives below, a link is still established between him and one of the defeated men, who turns his face directly to the honorand whilst extending his shield towards him in a gesture of surrender (right panel)—an act otherwise performed in a formalised ritual between the conquered and the victorious military commander on the battlefield.47 In this particular case the borrowing from imperial-triumphal imagery can be explained by the honorand’s having gained membership in the imperial family (through marriage),48 an elevation directly related to the imperial victory he has himself brought about by having effected the Visigothic enemy’s defeat in the year prior to his second consular appointment (416). Basilius, whose military commission and ‘victory’ were not on the battlefield but in the field of diplomacy,49 does not make direct reference to military conquest, but instead introduces the theme by means of a symbolic repertory of imperial-triumphal motifs mostly derived from Roman polytheistic tradition: the eagle, Victoria, Amazonian-Minervan Roma (holding the ‘fasces laureati’ of the triumphator), and the honorand’s imago clipeata, ascending jointly towards heaven. Victoria and the eagle—here materialised numina—refer to a pre-Christian concept of Roman victoriousness, seemingly entirely dissociated from that of Victoria Augusta. The daring of this pseudo-imperial self-glorification would, however, be somewhat modified by the fact that it is devoid of connotations to the contemporary concept of imperial victoriousness, which is Christian. The victories of Constantius and Basilius were not insignificant, but contributed (briefly) towards re-establishing the unity of the eastern and western empires. The heavily symbolic value of these victories would particularly derive from the fact that it was the western part of the empire, Rome herself, that was regained. And it is clear that both Constantius and Basilius consider their achievements in the light of true Roman triumphs, and their consulships as the victor’s reward: donning the triumphalia would for these men have been as close as they could get to celebrating triumphs of their own. This triumphatorial aspect is most straightforwardly illustrated in the left panel of Basilius’ diptych, where Roma hands the ‘laureate’ fasces, viz. the triumphator’s insignium, to her restorer. In Magnus’ diptychs, grand references are made to triumph and imperial war by the means of a corona laurea triumphalis dangling pointedly above the consul’s head, and by the warlike Romae flanking the monumental sella on which he is enthroned. Neither of these motifs may be claimed to refer to any actual military victoriousness on the consul’s part (of which nothing whatsoever is recorded), nor to the victoriousness of his gens (which is that of the emperor Anastasius I, dying or just deceased), none of whose 47 McCormick 1986, 96f. See III.5.4. 48 See III.3.4 with footnotes. 49 On the fusion of the civilian and the military in the minds of the

senatorial class of 5th-century Rome, see Matthews 1975; and Tomlin 1976.

186

representatives has been presented in the image. The overt triumphal connotations in Magnus provide a pure example of self-advertisement that has a bearing on nothing but the selfimage of the honorand, who for political reasons—so one must assume, seeing that Magnus counted among the possible heirs to the throne50 —wishes to represent himself as a possessor of the quality of felicitas imperatoria, as a man worthy not only of consulship but also of emperorship.51 Although adorning a consular insignium, the orb-mounted victoriola—previously an imperial insignium—holding aloft the imagines clipeatae of togati mounted on the sellae curules of Areobindus, Anastasius, Magnus and Anthemius (Pl. 15) does not refer to the consuls’ military merits or personal victoriousness: the shield-busts represent effigies of the emperor, and they exclusively adorn the sellae of the emperor’s kin.52 Since the sella curulis, like the other consular insignia, was given the consul by the emperor, it is in my view evident that these consuls were officially allowed to appear as exponents of the imperial quality of victoriousness by making a formalised use in their official diptychs of an imperial emblem: the victoriola, here divested of her most triumphal attributes, the corona triumphalis and the palma. The victoriolae on the sellae curules of all four Anastasian consuls are consequently indicators of their imperial connection, and a reference to imperial victoriousness. The glory of the consul’s gens and ancestry—other important assets for the Roman who aspires to public prominence—can also be expressed by means of the triumphator’s attributes. Within the corpus exemplifications of this concept include the corona triumphalis or etrusca enclosing the family monogram adorning the temple-like fronton in Boethius’ diptych, and the family group seated under the family name inscribed on the laurel-adorned fastigium-cum-triumphal arch in Lampadiorum. A more modest form for this kind of triumphal reference is found in Clementinus’ and Orestes’ diptychs, where medallions inscribed with the family name are suspended beneath a laurel-decorated arch. The same concept would again be referred to in the upper registers of the Halberstadt diptych, where the imperial trio accompanied by Roma and Constantinopolis pose under a laurel-decorated, triple-arched fastigium. The triumphal glory illustrated in this image is of course that of the imperial dynasty, of which the consul, Fl. Constantius, was a part from the day of his consular accession. References to imperial triumph or to the victoriousness of the emperor, the imperial dynasty and/or the Roman empire are made in several diptychs. The diptych of Probus (Pl. 14), representing the emperor Honorius as an eternally victorious military commander, provides the most explicit piece of evidence for the symbolic connection between consulship and imperial victory, but unlike other diptychs it excludes the 50 A.D.E. Cameron 1978, 260-273. 51 See further IV.3 and 5. 52 See III.2.1.3.

consul entirely from the imagery. Generally, however, one may say that references to imperial victory are intended to reflect the concept of imperial victoriousness onto the consul himself. The references may be figural and complex (as in the upper registers of Halberstadt and Anastasius) or more reduced and pseudo-emblematic (as on Areobindus’ sceptre). Constantius, Areobindus, Anastasius and Magnus were all related to the imperial family, and Constantius, Areobindus and Basilius had achieved imperial victories as the emperor’s military commanders or envoys. Only Basilius’ diptych does not comprise any reference whatsoever to the emperor.53 The image of the emperor as triumphator, either as consul wearing the triumphal ornate or as military commander carrying the insignia of imperial rulership, is included in most diptychs. The consular bust-sceptre is always—when the bust’s costume can be made out—crowned by the imperial effigy exhibiting the toga costume and occasionally the sceptre that designate him as consul and perpetual triumphator. The sceptres of Areobindus and Anastasius display symbols of the Roman empire and world dominion (the orb and the aquila, both imperial insignia) and triumph (the corona triumphalis) supporting the emperor’s effigy. In Areobindus A-C this effigy is conceived as a triumphant military commander holding the insignia of world rulership, sceptre and orb. The lower segmentum on Constantius’ laurelbordered toga showing the emperor’s bust with helmet and shield—presumably Honorius, the victorious emperor of the west—refers to the same concept. The choice to present the emperor’s image in this manner, as opposed to the traditional bust, was doubtless motivated by a wish to celebrate the military victoriousness of the sovereign, and through it the military achievements of the issuing consuls themselves.54 The composite form and motif constellations of Areobindus’, Anastasius’ and Anthemius’ sceptres are furthermore similar to military signa—a similarity which acquires a peculiar interest in the cases where the sceptre is crowned by a representation of the emperor as military commander (Areobindus A-C) since it invites the viewer to associate the consul’s own military victory with that of the emperor. The column-shaped grip crowned by the emperor’s military statuette is a combination that must inevitably remind the viewer of the honorific columns erected to commemorate Roman triumphators since the republic, enforcing the victory analogy even further. Anastasius’ diptychs perhaps contain the most complex repertory of imperial-triumphal motifs within the preserved corpus, displaying different types and combinations in each panel. The image of the triumphally attired emperor Anastasius I in a clipeus crowning the apex of an aedicula, supported on a laurel-garland by confronted Victoriae, and accompanied by the imagines clipeatae of the empress Ariadne and the honorand’s father—a consul wearing the vestis triumphalis—combine to present the imperial dynasty 53 Basilius’ sceptre may or may not have featured the emperor’s bust

originally; compare III.2.1.2 above. 54 Areobindus having received his consulship as a reward for his success as magister militum against the Persians in 504-505; Martindale 19801992:1, 144.

187

in the apotheosis-like state of the eternally victorious, as sharers of the universal quality of felicitas.55 The togate emperor recurs ‘in triumph’ encircled by a corona triumphalis and held between the spread wings of the aquila on the sceptre (A), in the clipei held aloft by the victoriolae on the sella curulis (A, presumably once also in B and C) and, probably, on the seat-rails in the left panel of B and in C. The curious set of three heads on a tabula ansata and wreathencircled aquila crowning the sceptres in B and C introduces the idea of a greater collective of ‘triumphant’ rulers than the present emperor alone, the tabula a n s a t a specifically suggesting that this collective be recognised as members of the same family (by analogy sharing the same name). The father and uncle of Anastasius cos., Pompeius (cos. 501) and Hypatius (cos. 500), fit the case perfectly.56 Not only were they, like Anastasius himself, nephews to the emperor, but they both held military commands in 517.57 The victorious imperial family and their world rule, the latter signified by the wreath-encircled aquila and the orbis terrarum, are thus celebrated through this consul’s sceptres. The figural themes on Anastasius’ sellae curules further present a coherent iconographic programme of imperial victory, including representations of the imperial capitals (centres of Roman world dominion), conquered provinces, martial emblems (gorgoneia), and Victories. And the Amazonian procession scene in the lower register of each right diptych panel is clearly modelled after imperial prototypes on triumphal monuments representing Victoria(e) heading processions of tribute-paying peoples, referring to imperial conquest, their cross-inscribed ‘labara’ (B) undoubtedly presenting a reference to the victory sign of the late Roman emperor. Irrespective of whether the Amazonian scenes represent staged triumphal processions as part of the ordinary consuls’ spectacles58 or imperial victory shows in the Hippodrome, or again just symbolic references to the concept of imperial triumph, their function within the image must be to connect the celebration of Anastasius’ consulship to the idea of imperial victory.59 In contrast to Anastasius’ images, those of Basilius and Magnus refer to imperial victory without referring to the emperor. From what may be gathered from Basilius’ diptych in its present state of preservation, its imperial victory imagery relates exclusively to the idea of the Roman empire/state as an entity. The full-scale representations of Roma, Victoria and the aquila on the orbis terrarum together with the motto inscribed on the imago clipeata-cum-clipeus 55 Compare Picard’s interpretation of juxtaposed imagines clipeatae as an

image of dynastic virtus; Picard 1957, 482f. 56 See III.2.1.2 and 2.1.3. 57 Martindale 1980-1992:1, 898f and 577-580 respectively; also Bagnall, Cameron, Schwartz & Worp 1987, 535-537. Pompeius was magister militum per Thracias in 517, Hypatius magister militum per Orientem between 516/7 and 518. 58 It seems very possible that the processions performed before and between spectacles occasionally took the form of symbolic triumphal processions; see above, III.5.1 and 5.3. 59 For aspects of dynastic victory-consular victory, see McCormick 1986, 82f. For the military career of Areobindus, see Martindale 1980-1992:1, 144.

virtutis—‘for the good of the state anew’—combine to call forth the idea of imperial victory as a concept more or less independent of and/or greater than the emperor’s person.60 Likewise, the war-goddesses accompanying Magnus displaying the military insignia of the emperor (orb, hasta, shield), the corona laurea, the scipio cum aquila and the distinctly throne-like sella curulis are the attributes of the consul, not of the emperor.61 Roma and Constantinopolis also refer to the imperialtriumphal aspect of consulship. The presence of warlike (Amazonian-Minervan) Roma in the diptychs of Constantius and Basilius and the consular missorium of Ardabur Aspar coincides with the circumstance that all three honorands had been engaged in successful military campaigns in the west prior to their consular appointments, where their achievements resulted in safeguarding or re-establishing the unity of the Roman empire. In two of these images (Halberstadt, Aspar) Roma is accompanied by a Constantinopolis of the city tyche type, whose distinctly civilian character and lack of ruler’s attributes contribute towards emphasising Roma’s leading role as an imperial goddess. The warlike Roma type is further accompanied by some war-related motifs which serve to clarify the connection between the goddess and imperial victory: in Halberstadt submissio-scenes, in Basilius an apotheotic ‘scene’ where Victoria and the eagle elevate the honorand’s imago to the heavens, and in Aspar a heap of war spoils. However, it is only in the diptych where Roma is related to the emperor, i.e. in Halberstadt, where she is enthroned beside Honorius in the upper registers, that she displays the attributes of the ancient imperial goddess: orbis terrarum, spear, sword and shield. In Aspar she retains the orb as a sign of her world dominion but combines it with the fasces, and in Basilius she carries only the fasces, but then a set designed to be specifically associated with the triumphator’s laureate insignium. The distinctions within the Roma type itself and between Roma and Constantinopolis in these works may be described in terms of contrastive and complementary functions: war versus peace, victorious action versus prosperous state. It is particularly interesting to note that the complementary city goddesses occur in works created in years of imperial reconquest of the west, i.e. of imperial (re)union. They may consequently be interpreted as figures that share in the inauguration of new periods of peace and prosperity in the history of the Roman empire.62 The common notion that Roma’s and Constantinopolis’ inclusion primarily or even exclusively refers to consulship, i.e. to a civilian context, is in my view tenable only for the consuls who held office in the period covered by the diptychs of Clementinus, Magnus and Orestes (513-530), neither of 60 Compare Beck’s discussion of the imperial person’s identification or

equation with the state in the late Roman/early Byzantine period; Beck 1975, 385-388. 61 On these insignia as imperial, see Restle 1988. 62 The prominence of Roma and Constantinopolis in the consular imagery may be compared to the resurging popularity of Roma in the period c. 350400; compare e.g. A.D.E. Cameron 1970, 365f; and Kleer 1984.

188

whom held or had held a military office, and neither of whose consulship was held in a year of imperial unity. The representations of the city goddesses in these diptychs are characterised by typal assimilation, referring in equal degrees to the military and civilian spheres, to the concepts of war and peace, and to a unified Roman empire where imperial rule (sceptre and orb) and state functions (fasces) are perpetuated. The predominantly civilian aspects of the sister goddesses in Clementinus and Orestes are somewhat toned down in Magnus, where the near-identical pair of Romae share exclusively imperial attributes of war and dominion between them: spear, shield and orb, attributes of the ancient Roma. These personifications are seemingly not primarily intended to represent complementary aspects of the Roman empire and state, but rather the complementary aspects of one and the same concept, viz. the military unity and dominion of the Roman empire.63 As already noted, the representations of Roma and Constantinopolis in the diptychs of Clementinus, Magnus and Orestes cannot be connected with any military achievements on the part of the issuing consuls, wherefore their incorporation must be motivated by something else.64 In my view, the most rational explanation for their inclusion would be that they represent the Roman empire in its entirety. The equal distribution of military and civilian attributes between the goddesses—helmets, sceptre, orb, chlamydes, fasces—corresponds to the idea of the Roman empire’s eternal preservation as both a military/territorial domain and a state. The visualisation of the empire’s unity by the means of Roma and Constantinopolis in the eastern diptychs could reflect a more pronounced consciousness of the ‘fall’ of the Roman empire in the east than in the west in this period,65 and the dream nurtured by Anastasius I and Justinian of reconquering the west to restore the empire to its former grandeur.66 I would consequently like to suggest that the primary meaning and function of Roma and Constantinopolis in the diptychs of Clementinus, Magnus and Orestes are to enforce the idea of a whole and perpetual Roman empire in a period when east and west were not ruled 63 A complete assimilation of Roma and Constantinopolis in the purely

civilian and eastern guise of mural-crowned city tychai is presented on the seat-rail of the sella curulis in Anastasius A-B. Although lacking specifying attributes of imperial rulership (sceptre, orb), warfare (helmet, sword, spear, shield) and magistracy (fasces), these personifications are integral parts of the greater theme of imperial victory, triumph and warfare elaborated on Anastasius’ insignia (including the emperor’s imago laureata and the aquila on signa-like sceptres, tribute-bearing provinces and gorgoneia). 64 The absence (if so it may be interpreted) of the city goddesses in the diptychs of Areobindus, who like the others was consul under Anastasius I but who unlike them had a military command prior to his consulship, could possibly be suggestive of two things: either a standard for including Roma and Constantinopolis did not set in before c. 510, or the inclusion of the city goddesses would have been irrelevant to Areobindus’ consulship since his military missions had been carried out on the eastern front and were therefore, technically, not concerned with imperial unity in terms of eastwest. 65 Especially Näf 1995, 193-196. 66 That the eastern emperors considered the empire as in some measure united also after 476 is demonstrated by the continued practice of sending imperial effigies to the west; e.g. Kruse 1934, 32.

as a unity. For the eastern empire, this would be in a period when the victoriousness invested in the emperor’s person was not as it were forceful enough to hold the empire together;67 in the west, the imagery would be an expression of the Gothic rulers’ as well as the senatorial aristocracy’s ambition to act as heirs and upholders of the Roman state. To conclude, the city goddesses’ presence in consular imagery symbolises the continuity of the Roman empire and state either in years of Roman (re)conquest in the west, i.e. periods that may be characterised as victorious, or in periods of disunion, i.e. periods characterised by ‘absence of victory’ and hence lapse in continuity, between east and west. Each consul whose image is accompanied by one or both city goddesses may be understood as symbolically celebrating an historical victory (Constantius, Basilius) or an ideal and hoped-for one (Clementinus, Magnus, Orestes) in the name of the undivided and eternal Roman empire. There can be little doubt that the consul remained a vital exponent of the tradition and ideology of Roman victory, irrespective of whether the men appointed were ‘victorious’ in themselves or not, as long as the office remained. To judge by the consular diptychs, the consul’s function as emblematic triumphator grew in importance in the 4th to 6th centuries—a period that saw the disintegration of the western empire and was characterised by separations, reunions, wars, reconquests and losses,68 not to speak of a successive (and far from uncomplicated) growth and assimilation of barbarian peoples into the Roman army and society. The late antique consul served to uphold an official image of the Roman state and empire as an unbroken continuum, as an historical force capable of forever regenerating itself through victory. The victoriousness of the Roman empire and emperor was also a dominant theme in the annual cycle of civic life, as shown by the festivals listed in the west-produced Codex-calendar of 354,69 and the ‘triumphal’ ceremonies with which the incoming consul inaugurated the new year were an intergral part of this greater idea of associating Rome’s regeneration with imperial victory. Later and in the east, the reigns of Anastasius I and Justinian saw a surge in dynastic victory festivals, some of which were celebrated in connection with imperial consulships.70 The consular diptychs issued by the great-nephew of Anastasius I in 517 indicate that the dynastic victory theme suffused the consular celebrations of the imperial kin also.

67 Compare MacCormack’s interpretation of the city goddesses’ role as

connected with the joint ideas of imperial rulership and Roma Aeterna; MacCormack 1975, 143-149. 68 Compare Versnel’s discussion of the public need for victors in periods of crisis; Versnel 1970, 371-374. 69 Salzman 1990, 137-139 esp. 70 McCormick 1986, 61-79, also 91-100 and 111.

189

3. THEME THREE: THE HIERARCHIES OF THE ROMAN STATE AND WORLD ORDER Almost all preserved fully figural consular diptychs display features that have been conceived according to one or several hierarchical rules of representation, and that in different ways serve to clarify the value distinctions between figures and elements within the composition. Such hierarchically determined features appear with increased regularity in the 6th century works, where they are systematically conceived and clearly structured. Hierarchical orders are chiefly expressed by means of differentiations in size/scale, gestures, pose, and placement. Generally speaking, stratification and other ways of conceptualising hierarchical relationships in the consular image mostly, if not always, correspond to various levels in a value system with cosmic connotations: the celestial sphere of deities, the emperor/king, representatives of the state, the lower strata of Roman society, conquered barbarians etc. On a more worldly level, this system may also be said to reflect the system of differentiated dignitates within the late Roman state, in which men are categorised according to the official privileges they enjoy, and which emanates from the emperor, its crowning figure and ‘conceptor’.71 The most simply structured images, exemplified by works belonging to the full-figure type and commemorating 5th century western consuls—Felix (3) and Boethius (6)—are completely dominated by the consul’s figure, displaying only two components that may be interpreted as in some way hierarchically determined: the frontal ‘sole majesty’ and the large scale of the consul’s representation, expressive of the singular importance and grandeur of his person. The consuls thus represented are set apart from the world, enclosed within ceremonial-symbolic frames that denote the separateness, independence and self-containment of their state. But there is nothing ethereal about these consuls’ representations. They are firmly planted on the ground, standing or seated in the foreground as if immediately in front of the viewer, and in Boethius the consul’s figure extends across the outer frame, thereby adding to the impression of physical presence, weight and potential mobility (‘action’), qualities associated with power and authority. The same method for visualising physical presence and power is also witnessed in other western diptychs: Probus (representing the emperor Honorius) (Pl. 14) and Basilius (8). The men celebrated in these diptychs appear as centres unto themselves, with no need or wish to make distinctive their status by means of hierarchic relationships within complex structures. In fact, the only reminder of the dependent and subordinate (i.e. relative) status of the ‘full-figure’ consuls is found on the sceptre of Felix, which is crowned—in accordance with custom—by the emperors’ effigies. In Boethius’ diptych there is no such

71 Compare Näf 1995, 284 esp.; and also Lim’s discussion of eutaxia

(‘good order’) as illustrated in the hierarchically determined segregation of social classes within the context of the arena (and visualised in the reliefs of Theodosius’ obelisk base in Constantinople); Lim 1999:2, 353-355.

reminder of the imperial source of the consul’s dignity, nor in that of Basilius (see below). A hierarchical distinction of the consul by means of formal differentiation occurs in several western diptychs: Lampadiorum (1), Halberstadt (2), Astyrius (4), Bourges (5) and Basilius. In all but Basilius the honorand is flanked by two figures who define his primacy within an official context, i.e. as a magistrate among a collective of magistrates or, as in the right panel of Halberstadt, a patricius among other high dignitaries of the state, perhaps patricii. The superior dignitas of the honorand is visualised through the application of centrality, size/scale differentiation, the honorand’s placement in the foreground, gestures (active-authoritative vs. passive-subordinated), differentiations in costume (pattern/segmenta) and other attributes (mappa). Below the consul, who finds himself on the pinnacle of the scale of dignitates, are other citizens active on different levels within the magisterial sphere—junior magistrates, senators, exconsuls/viri consulares, lictors and other functionaries—the relative ranks of whom in their turn are indicated by means of scale, placement (left-right), gestures, costume, the occasional insignium, and age. In the diptych of Basilius, on the contrary, hierarchical relationships appear as more ambiguous, the goddess Roma being presented as the consul’s partner in magistracy, standing by his side in the foreground. Being secondary to the consul, her place is on his honorary (left) side, but apart from this the relationship between consul and goddess is characterised neither by hierarchical conventions (as in for instance Lampadiorum or Halberstadt) nor ceremonious solemnity (as in the more contemporary eastern diptychs of Clementinus (10) and Orestes (7)), but rather by informal friendliness. Roma’s embrace is a sign of her personal selection and appreciation, and the fasces she presents Basilius with are an ‘official’ proof of her esteem. Like the emperors Honorius and Theodosius II in the Halberstadt diptych, Basilius enjoys a direct communion with the suprahuman realm. In Lampadiorum, Astyrius, Bourges and Basilius (left panel) hierarchical relationships are also indicated by a subdivision of the pictorial field into two superimposed registers. The upper register in these diptychs is automatically to be identified as the hierarchically superior level since it contains the representation of the highest-ranking personage (viz. the consul), but other formal distinctions serve to emphasise and diversify the nature of ‘superior’ and ‘inferior’ between registers. In Lampadiorum such distinctions are expressed by the means of scale differentiation and composition: the quadrigae are considerably smaller than the officials’ figures, and the frontality, centrality and hieratic structure of the upper register are dramatically contrasted with the free, diagonally and peripherally conceived composition of the lower register. Similar patterns characterise the composition of the Bourges diptych, although this untypically displays no scale differentiation between the consul and the venatores, and it seems likely that they originally characterised the composition of Astyrius also (irrespective of what scene was represented in the lower register). The distinctions between the consul and the lower190

register figures are the most drastic in Basilius’ diptych, where two miniature scenic compartments have been inserted in sequence into a narrow slip of space below Basilius-Roma like toy models placed on the ground. This mode of representation presents a pure example of objectification, the lower register scenes being reduced to little more than ideograms of the phenomena they depict, appearing as attributes of consulship rather than as realities. The closest parallel to the lower-register scenes in Basilius is found in Boethius’ diptych, where the objects of the consul’s largesse are spread out on the ground before the consul’s feet in an identical manner. Together with all consular images of the socalled tribunal type, showing the consul seated in a frozen posture flanked by statuesque bystanders and surrounded by an architectural frame, the representation of Basilius is visually, physically and symbolically removed from the events in the arena. The contrastive compositional patterns of upper and lower registers in these images may be characterised as iconic state vs. physical action, order vs. chaos, emblematic-symbolic abstraction vs. concretion, and nontemporal/eternal vs. temporal. The consul is hierarchically superior not only to the men and animals in the arena, but to the very realities of giving games and distributing largesse. The Halberstadt diptych presents the most complex system of hierarchically determined differentiations among the western works, and indeed within the entire corpus.72 Although there are certain basic similarities between the composition of Halberstadt and the triple-registered scheme including imperial representations developed in the east from c. 500, it cannot be assumed that it, like the latter, exemplifies a regularised type.73 It is clear that the imagery of this particular diptych was created with reference to a specific consulship, since it commemorates several events—historical and pseudo-historical—simultaneously: the consular and patrician appointments of the honorand, a military victory, a reunion of the emperors of west and east and of the Roman empire (represented by Roma and Constantinopolis), the reunion of the imperial family with their princess, and the peculiar relationship between the honorand and the imperial family. Alone among the preserved western 5th-century diptychs to contain an upper, imperial register, it also deviates from common consular imagery in presenting scenes entirely unrelated to (ordinary) consulship in its lower registers, viz. submissio-scenes. The barbarians heaped together with their weapons appear in a non-spatial setting, suggesting they constitute iconographic formulae rather than depictions of real people and events; an impression that is strengthened by the completely unrealistic manner in which their ‘sphere’ is separated from that above. The act of formal surrender directed at the honorand, whom one with all probability may recognise as Fl. Constantius, victor over the 72 The central register and the hierarchical relationships represented

within it have already been treated above. 73 The left, ‘official’ panel of the western, early 5th c. Carrand diptych, although triple-registered (with the honorand in the centre), is otherwise entirely differently conceived; Delbrueck 1929, N 69; Volbach 1976, Nr. 107; Shelton 1989, 119-124.

Visigoths in 416, is also unheeded. The hierarchical significances of these relationships are evident: the honorand is absolutely superior to the figures of the lower registers in the same way that a conqueror is absolutely superior to the conquered and a Roman patrician is superior to a barbarian. Had it not been for the presence of the emperors ‘in person’74 in the upper registers, which serves as a reminder of who the true victors are, the viewer might have been led to believe that Constantius is taking sole credit for a victory which, like all victories and submissiones, belongs to the emperor. The upper registers in Halberstadt present a complex network of hierarchically determined relationships, all of which in different ways also reflect on the honorand below and the conquered barbarians below him. The western and senior emperor Honorius (centre left), supreme victor and Constantius’ appointer, has a greater stature than the junior eastern emperor seated on his left and honorary side. In the second place of honour, at Honorius’ right, is enthroned the goddess Roma displaying the military ruler’s insignia which she shares with the Roman emperor, the sceptre-staff and the orb. Roma may be regarded as Honorius’ co-ruler as much as or even more than young Theodosius, something which clearly distinguishes her from Constantinopolis who is seated farthest from the senior emperor and displays no ruler’s attributes. Indeed Constantinopolis’ only function is that of accompanying and protecting ‘her’ emperor; a function which is of lesser relevance to Honorius as western emperor and to Constantius as western consul. The fact that Constantinopolis shares the smaller stature of Theodosius, her placement and her lack of specific attributes and functions combine to announce that her importance and relevance are less than Roma’s, and thus that she is hierarchically inferior to Roma in the same way that Theodosius is hierarchically inferior to Honorius. Although of secondary status vis-à-vis the emperors, the goddesses’ nimbi define them as suprahuman, a status the emperors do not enjoy (in this image; compare Honorius in Probus’ diptych). But again, that their status is equal vis-à-vis the emperors is indicated by their equal size and by their physical presence and behaviour, whereas the emperors’ direct communion with the divine suggests they are more-than-human. The woman standing in the centre behind the imperial dais, most plausibly identifiable as Honorius’ step-sister Galla Placidia, is positioned in a way indicative of several hierarchical correlations: her receded position, passive state and lack of imperial attributes define her as hierarchically inferior to the emperors and goddesses in front of her, but at the same time she takes up the central position at the very top of the panels, a position that would originally have been further emphasised by the wider and laurel-garlanded central arch. Thus, although the woman’s receded and passive state indicate a secondary and inofficial role, her centrality and very inclusion suggest some extraordinary status—a status that does not relate to imperial

rule or to the official appointments of the diptych’s honorand, but still is highly pertinent. Placidia’s introduction into the imagery of a consular diptych, where she can have no official role (being neither empress nor having any function connected with the consulate), can only be motivated by her relevance to the honorand, her husband, with whom a link is forged through their corresponding central placements. The reason why Constantius desires to refer explicitly to his marital connection is obvious: it announces the imperial connection he has acquired through it. Constantius’ membership in the imperial family distinguishes him as a consul with a status above that of the ordinary private consul, closer to that of the imperial consul.75 It enables him to set aside any conventions dictating the diptych imagery of private consuls, which is otherwise exclusively concerned with representing things pertaining to magistracy, official status and acts. The representations of a spouse and a submissio place the honorand, and the celebration of his consulship and patrician appointment, properly within the greater sphere of imperial dynasty and victory. The imperial connection further enables him to have himself represented in a mode that visualises his peculiar dignity vis-à-vis the emperors: physical resemblances (facial shape and features, hairstyle), and (in the right panel) correspondences in costume, segmentum pattern, and righthand gesture. All of which demonstrate how this particular consul’s place in the hierarchy of the Roman state exceeds that enjoyed by consuls in general and, to an extent, suspends the supremacy of the emperors.

74 As distinct from the emperor(s) in effigy, which is the official image of

75 The extraordinary status of Constantius in 417 is also suggested by the

the emperor within the magisterial context, such as the bust portrait on the sceptre and other official insignia (e.g. theca), or in the form of imagines clipeatae such as those found in the upper registers of Clementinus’, Anastasius’, Anthemius’ and Orestes’ diptychs.

fact that he then celebrated his second consulship, the honour of holding several consular appointments mainly being reserved for emperors. On Fl. Constantius’ dominant position in western politics from 417, see Lütkenhaus 1998, 94-101, 130-134.

191

A standard for the application of hierarchical rules, or a system of values, was evidently developed in Constantinople in the reign of Anastasius I, consolidating into a canon in the Justinianic period: a stratified image within an increasingly elongated panel that enforces a central-vertical composition, a consul’s figure that takes up nearly the entire space of the central/main register, enthroned in an identical pose of hieratic frontality on a sella curulis of monumental proportions ‘elevated’ above a lower register scene. Attendant figures, if included, always flank the consul from behind the sella, both placement and pose emphasising their inferior status. There is also a hierarchical distinction between the two categories of attendant figures: figures belonging to the human category (the chlamydati in Areobindus’ diptychs) are smaller than the consul and their bodies are almost entirely hidden behind his, whereas those belonging to the suprahuman category (the city goddesses in Clementinus’, Magnus’ and Orestes’ diptychs) are taller of stature and somewhat larger in scale than the consul, and represented in their full height. More importantly, the goddess is not a passive bystander but has a specific role to perform in the ‘scene’: empowering the consul, presenting him with his fasces, or displaying the symbols of imperial rulership. From these distinctions one may deduce that the city goddess

enjoys a higher place in the hierarchy than the official and even to some degree the consul. The pattern basically conforms to the one witnessed in the western diptychs of Halberstadt and Basilius, where the pair of nimbate city goddesses accompany the emperors or Roma is the consul’s appointer and protectress. However, the Roma and Constantinopolis represented in the Anastasian consuls’ diptychs—and that of Orestes, which emulates the eastern mode of representation—are referred to a receded position behind the consul’s sella, something which deprives them of any remaining independence as divine manifestations.76 The upper registers of Clementinus-Orestes and Anastasius-Anthemius (11, Pl. 15) present two related but different ways of representing the concept of imperial rule, both realised by distributing imagines clipeatae according to certain patterns. The hierarchical values embedded within each of these patterns are contained within the upper registers as well as the images in their entirety, but fundamentally both represent the highest level on the hierarchic scale, below which follow the levels of consulship and consular munificence in a descending order. Of the two different patterns that shape these essentially symbolic conceptions of the imperial sphere, one focusses on the transcendental nature of rulership, the other on its dynastic side. The first, exemplified by Clementinus-Orestes and presenting the emperor-empress/king-queen as a couple flanking a central cross, completely separates the rulers’ effigies (through the insertion of a tabula ansata) from the sphere in which the consul appears. In the second, realised in AnastasiusAnthemius, the imago of the respective consul’s father is introduced beside those of the imperial couple on an aedicular gable that also frames the consuls themselves. The hierarchical distinction between these schemes is obvious: honorands unconnected with the ruling dynasty remain entirely separated from it, whereas honorands connected with it have the separation line between the consul and the imperial sphere overbridged. Whereas one may safely assume that consuls unrelated to the imperial house could not make use of the ‘dynastic’ scheme witnessed in the diptychs of Anastasius and Anthemius, the ‘transcendental’ scheme witnessed in Clementinus-Orestes was not adopted exclusively by private consuls, as shown by the medallion diptych of Iustinus (Pl. 16), eastern consul appointed by his uncle Justinian. Since no fully figural diptych issued by an eastern consul in Constantinople is preserved from Justinian’s reign (Basilius’ diptych having been issued in Rome), there is no way of ascertaining whether Iustinus’ imagery somehow would have reflected a Justinianic policy of discouraging relations appointed to the consulate from overtly associating themselves with the imperial house in their official diptychs. Although the concept of an imperial imago clipeata accompanied by Victoriae or erotes refers to the divine and/or apotheotic nature of the ruler and his family, it is only the couple-and-cross scheme that may be said to express a

theological content.77 By introducing the cross—or, as in Iustinus’ diptych, the imago clipeata of Christ—between the couple of worldly regents, their power becomes relativised and (at least partly) subordinated to that of Christ, the celestial regent. The degree of subordination, however, is subtle: the cross is on the same level as the rulers’ effigies, between and not above them. The inner hierarchies of the constellation assign the highest status to the central position, taken up by the cross, the second highest to the emperor/king who is placed on Christ’s right side, and the third highest—or the lowest—to the empress/queen.78 The ‘capacity’ in which the imperial ruler, through his effigy, enjoys a place at the side of Christ/the cross could be likened to that of the jilocristoV, ‘friend of Christ’, an epithet by which the Byzantine emperor is recorded to have been hailed since the middle of the 5th century.79 In Clementinus’ and Orestes’ diptychs the inclusion of the cross further coincides with the inclusion of the city goddesses of Rome and Constantinople, so that the representations of the new and the old state religion in effect become juxtaposed. In these images, then, a ‘religious’ distinction between the spheres of the emperor and the consul seemingly corresponds to a conception of their different statuses as ‘rulerships’ protected by the deities of Christianity and polytheism respectively.80 The hierarchical significances implicit in these relationships may be formulated in terms of two overlapping concepts: 1) the rule of the Roman emperor/king is associated or synonymous with the rule of Christ, whereas that of the consul is associated with the realm of the ancient city goddesses (who, like Christ, confer the power on their appointee); 2) the rule of the emperor/king, which is the true rule, is sacred (i.e. Christian) and hence hierarchically superior, whereas the consul’s nominal rule is ‘pagan’—secularised but never Christianised—and hence hierarchically inferior. The pyramidal conception of the upper registers in Anastasius’ and Anthemius’ diptychs presents a visually purer hierarchical scheme, but at the same time the distinctions between it and the consul’s figure are less absolute. The emperor and his family are not conceived as something sacred set apart from the consul, but form a frame around him: both consuls are seated in front of a shrine-like edifice mounted by these imagines, representing his closest relative, viz. his father (in Anthemius’ case a previous emperor), his ‘paterfamilias’ the emperor, and the dynastic mother the emperor’s spouse, the frame forming a house around them all. The inner hierarchies of the gables’ effigy groups descend from the emperor on the apex. Below and on his honorary left side is his empress, and opposite her the lowest-ranking of the three, the respective father of the consuls, Pompeius (Anastasius) and Anthemius (Anthemius), represented in the garb of their highest title, viz. consular and imperial respectively. Each consul’s shell-framed head is 77 See IV.4 below. 78 See III.3.5.

76 As opposed to the Halberstadt diptych where they are equal to the

emperors, and the diptych of Basilius and the missorium of Aspar (Pl. 22) where they are equal to the consul.

192

79 J. Martin 1997, 56. On the Christ-like nature ascribed to the Roman

emperor from Constantine to Justinian, see also Matschke 2002, 145-148. 80 The religious connotations of this relationship will be treated under IV.4.

placed immediately below the emperor’s clipeus, thereby suggesting of a fourth imago to complete the dynastic group. Apart from the pseudo-nimbus with its imperial and transcendental connotations, a number of things combine to enforce the message of familial belonging and imperial status of Anastasius in particular: close correspondences in physiognomy and hairstyle between consul and emperor, the triple-busted scipio in Anastasius B-C representing the emperor (centre) together with the consul’s father and uncle, the extraordinary range of references to the imperial victory made on sellae curules and sceptres (particularly in A), and the reference to imperial triumph introduced through the processional scene with ‘labarum’-carrying Amazons-cumVictories in the lower registers of the right panels. The most significant hierarchy-suspending element, however, is doubtless the inclusion in the upper registers of Anastasius’ diptychs of a non-imperial imago, the consul’s father, like his son nephew to the emperor. Pompeius’ ‘admittance’ into the imperial sphere would be synonymous with a claim for a prominent place in the dynastic line on the part of his son, a claim reiterated on the sceptre (B-C). To conclude: although the images of Anastasius and Anthemius display a structure that clearly reflects an hierarchical subdivision between the imperial and consular spheres, the boundaries between them—and thus between hierarchical levels—are weakened by the numerous references to the consul’s status as a member of the imperial dynasty and as potential heir to the throne.81 81 By way of contrast, an image representing an apparently reversed order

between consulship and imperial rulership is found in the imperial ivory panel most probably representing the empress Ariadne, Anastasius’ I spouse, in the Museo Nazionale del Bargello, Florence; Delbrueck 1929, N 51, p. 202 Abb. 1 (enlarged detail); Volbach 1976, Nr. 51; also Grabar 1966. 276 Fig. 318 (enlarged detail). In this image the empress, surrounded by and displaying symbols and insignia referring to her status as Christian and victorious (co-)ruler over the Roman empire—laurel-swaying aquilae, the cross-crowned orb and the orb-tipped sceptre of rulership—wears the bust imago of the emperor as consul in an inset on her chlamys. The fact that the empress does not wear the triumphal trabea (loros) of the consul’s spouse (cf. Delbrueck 1929, 55-57) must mean that she is here the representative of imperial power and therefore (momentarily) hierarchically superior to the consul-emperor whose effigy decorates her robe. The most interesting feature about this image is, however, the fact that the inset-bust displays the insignia of both the imperial consul (the jewelled variant of the triumphal trabea, the imperial diadem) and the ordinary consul (the bust-tipped sceptre), which could suggest that the emperor in this instance is ordinary consul (Anastasius I appointed himself to the ordinary consulate three times during the course of his reign (492, 497 and 507); e.g. Bagnall, Cameron, Schwartz & Worp 1987, 518f, 529, 548f.). It is in my view possible that the panel in its entirety—like its counterpart in Vienna in which the empress’s chlamys has an inset featuring a city goddess (Delbrueck 1929, N 52; Volbach 1976, Nr. 52)—was originally part of an ivory assemblage issued in connection with an emperor’s consulship. As in the case of the figural insets on some trabeae in the consular diptychs (Halberstadt, Areobindus C, Anthemius, Basilius), the image of the imperial consul was intimately connected with the celebration of ordinary consulship. The pair of imperial panels—that in Florence in particular—could thus present unique representations of the hierarchical complexities characterising consulship when held by an emperor, who is simultaneously ruler, consular appointer and consular appointee (imperial and ordinary, as indicated by the mixed insigna in the Florence panel), the hierarchically superior spouse of his empress and the hierarchically inferior magistrate of both himself (as emperor) and his empress. From these considerations it seems plausible that the Florence panel was created in commemoration of Anastasius’ first consulship in 491, viz. the consulship

193

Finally, the hierarchical distinction between the consul’s figure and the figures in the lower registers, the games-scenes in particular, by means of scale differentiation increases dramatically in the 6th-century diptychs, emphasising the consul’s majesty even further and effectively abolishing any realistic connection between scenes: the consul and the competitors in the arena are not part of the same reality. The larger-than-life consul hieratically enthroned above multitudes of miniature figures moving chaotically around the amphitheatre may be compared to that of manifest Christ in ascension or transfiguration, hovering in majestic isolation above the heads of men, in church mosaics and gospel illuminations later in the 6th century. The distance between the two ‘spheres of reality’ appears insuperable. Hierarchically determined relationships are also present within the lower registers of diptychs showing games-scenes, particularly animal fights. The hierarchical differentiation between men and beasts is on the one hand visualised through size—lions, bears etc. with few exceptions appear as mere cubs compared to their human opponents—and on the other hand through a focus on the difference between human and animal nature. The beasts’ behaviour is violent, disorderly, and fundamentally inept in the face of human opposition. The illustration of their mindless rage serves to set off to great advantage the human qualities that are required in order to conquer: courage, strength, swiftness, discipline, skill and intelligence, virtus in short. These are the very same qualities that ideally belong to the Roman soldier, i.e. qualities that ensure victory in war;82 ideally they are also qualities that in their turn inspire fear in an opponent and induce his surrender. In fact, the fighting scenes presented in the diptychs of Bourges, Areobindus and Anastasius may be regarded as veritable studies in the unequal relationship between dumb animal nature and intelligent human nature—or, to express it by way of an analogy relevant to the triumphal content of the consular image, the ‘natural’ hierarchy between victorious civilisation and doomed barbarism as the Romans viewed it.83 It is not the primary purpose of these fighting scenes to represent the true force of the animals or the real danger to which the men who oppose them are exposed (which are of course what the audience in the amphitheatre would have been acutely aware of and tickled by). The only positive trait that may be acknowledged in animal nature, as it is depicted within consular imagery, lies not in the forcefulness with which it fights to survive, but in the pathos which it is occasionally capable of expressing when giving up life at the hand of a human conqueror. Such pathos may be revealed in the final moment when the defeated animal recognises a venator’s superiority and surrenders before it. It is illustrated in the right panel of with which he celebrated his imperial accession, the latter of which was entirely due to Ariadne’s choice (Martindale 1980-1992:1, 79). 82 On the intimate analogies between the virtues of the venator and the Roman soldier, see Grabar 1936, 139 esp.; and Pleket 1975, 74-79. 83 On the ideology of superior Roman civilization versus animalistic barbarian inferiority, see Heather 1999. On the conception of the barbarian enemy as an animal demon in late imperial art, see e.g. Grabar 1936, 43f.

Areobindus A, where four lions lock their gazes into those of their formidable opponents as if in consent in the moment of death.84 The men for their part are never depicted as succumbing to an animal, even when caught by the leg between its jaws: they are always guarded against defeat by the force of their superior human abilities, and victory is their predestined reward, as signalled by the palm-leaves and prize objects surrounding them. The ideology of superiority expressed in the consular venatio-scenes is exemplified on many imperial victory monuments, where the supreme force and cold determination of the ever-victorious Roman soldiers are sharply contrasted with the wild rage, physical agonies and desperate expressions (frequently as stylised as the expressions of ferocity in beasts) of defeated and dying barbarians. The submissio-scenes featured in the Halberstadt diptych, although non-violent and less caricaturistic, are essentially conceived in accordance with the same tradition. The incoming consul temporarily suspends the absolute power of the emperor; during his brief tenure of office he ranks equal with the emperor. The consular image is a document of the considerable status and public exposure that went with consulship. The increasingly glorifying representations of the consul witnessed in the fully figural consular diptychs may be termed examples of imitatio imperatoria,85 i.e. as emulations of a standard for representing the Roman emperor. Indeed, the importance so clearly ascribed to the consular image as a means for selfadvertisement and glorification in the eyes of their commissioners and (so one must assume) recipients may only be compared to that of the imperial effigy in the transmissio imaginis, viz. the emission of a new or supplicant ruler’s images in order to have his status officially recognised and establish or confirm good relations with colleagues and subjects.86 Such emulation is most apparent in the Lampadiorum panel and in the diptychs of the eastern consuls, particularly Anastasius, where the degree of hierarchical emphasis of the consul’s figure is the most striking. The dominant characteristic of these representations is the majestic appearance of the consul’s figure: its nonphysical, impersonal and larger-than-life appearance in comparison with surrounding figure-motifs, its frontally hieratic attitude of enthronement, and its setting apart within 84 The concept of animal pathos in death has ample precedence in the art

of the ancient east, to which one may assume that the art of Constantinople was an heir: Assyrian, Persian, Near-Eastern and Hellenistic. An illustrative example is found in the Assyrian relief series representing the hunts of Ashurbanipal (Nineveh, 7th c. BC) in the British Museum, London; Reade 1990, 53-60, Fig. 76-88. Here the prey shot down by the king’s arrows or stabbed by his sword in breast-to-breast combat is depicted with a great perceptiveness of animal behaviour and suffering, with a special attention on facial expressions. The killing-scenes in Areobindus A display particularly striking similarities to a scene showing the single combat between the king and a male lion (Reade 1990, 59 Fig.87), where the stabbed and dying animal meets the penetrating gaze of his conqueror. 85 For definitions, see McCormick 1986, 10 and passim (using the form imitatio imperii); and Ahlqvist 2001, 214f. 86 For an treatment of the transmissio imaginis, see notably Bruun 1976, 125f esp.

194

a frame whose nature—reflecting that of the consul’s status—is emblematic-symbolic rather than real. It is particularly interesting to note that the mode of representation adopted for the consular diptychs closely resembles the imperial image as conceived in the tetrarchic period (c. 300)87 and reproduced throughout the 4th century.88 In the cases of the western Lampadiorum, Astyrius and Bourges ivories this representational mode is still fairly contemporary, whereas its elaboration and consolidation in the eastern diptychs of a century later must be understood as a programmatic archaism. It is indeed difficult to estimate to what degree the representation of, say, Anastasius actually would reflect a contemporary image of the emperor, since the evidence for the majestic imperial image is so scarce for this period. We know that the mode for representing the emperor went through a significant change in the reign of Justinian,89 whereby the idealised image of the emperor exalted in majestic, suprahuman isolation was (for a period) supplanted by a new mode where the emperor was presented as more of a physical presence, moving on the ground and communing with his subjects (accompanying figures, viewers) through a direct gaze and (pseudo-)spatial relationships. On the other hand, the emblematically enthroned consul of the Anastasian era exhibits considerable affinities with the image of Christ and holy figures in the mosaic programme of San Vitale in Ravenna,90 which contrast with the ‘earthly’ emperor by their emblematic isolation, enthronement and gestures. The essentially abstract 4th-century mode for expressing imperial rulership as exemplified through the Theodosian missorium91 was one equally suitable for expressing the symbolic rulership of the consul and the sacred rulership of Christ in the first decades of the 6th century, whereas the image of the real and worldly ruler, the emperor, came to be distinguished from the ‘unreal’ types through a moderate return to the physically ‘real’. It thus appears that by the time of c. 500 a century-old imperial mode of representation had evolved into 87 See the representation of two tetrarchic emperors with entourage in the

imperial chamber (throne-room) of the temple of Ammon at Luxor, which displays considerable typological affinities with the imperial representations in the upper registers of the Halberstadt diptych; Gabelmann 1984, 204f, Taf. 37; and Elsner 1995, 173-175. For a presentation of the overall programme of the Luxor chamber, see Kalavrezou-Maxeiner 1975; and Deckers 1979. 88 Compare e.g. the representation of Gallus Caesar in the Codex-calendar of 354 (Stern 1953, Pl. XV; Salzman 1990, Fig. 14), Theodosius I with entourage on the obelisk base in the Hippodrome of Constantinople (the south-east and north-east sides; see Kähler 1975, Taf. IV and XI), and Theodosius I enthroned between his junior co-emperors on the silver missorium in Madrid (Pl. 23). See also IV.4. 89 For analyses of the modal shift in the emperor’s representation, most clearly exemplified in the apse mosaic of San Vitale in Ravenna, and its possible implications for the nature of the emperor vis-à-vis man and god, see Kitzinger 1980, 81, 87; and Elsner 1995, 167-170, 177-186. 90 E.g. Kitzinger 1980, Fig. 156, 157. See further below, IV.4. 91 Viz. through a frontally enthroned position, generic types of gestures (e.g. the right-hand gesture of speech) and ditto ways of displaying insignia. Compare also the contemporary image of Christ in majesty exemplified in the apse mosaic in Santa Constanza, Rome (c. 390); e.g. Ahlqvist 2001, 211 Fig. 6. This mode continued to characterise representations of Christ in majesty well into the middle ages; for a discussion of the concept, see e.g. Ihm 1960, 42f esp., Taf. 2-8 passim; and Torp 1996.

a type adapted to suit the representation of the Constantinopolitan consul in particular. Another form of imitatio imperatoria in consular imagery is detected in the application of a stratified composition that subdivides the ‘realities’ represented into superimposed spheres according to a hierarchically determined system. The prototype for this type of composition is found within the imperial triumphal art of the 4th to 5th centuries: on the obelisk bases in Constantinople and other eastern cities,92 and in related categories of art such as ‘imperial’ ivory assemblages of the 5th and 6th centuries.93 In such works the hierarchical order of the Roman world is illustrated with pedagogic clarity. The bottom register(s), closest to the viewer who is standing on the ‘level of the earth’, shows representations of the peoples and lands conquered by the Roman emperor; higher up, in the central register(s), are official representatives of the Roman state (magistrates, senators, military men) flanking the triumphant emperor; and crowning the composition, soaring towards the sky, are the representatives of the divine source of the Roman emperor’s power, Christ himself or his sign elevated by Victories/angels. Correspondences with the imagery of some consular diptychs—Halberstadt and Orestes, Clementinus, Anastasius, (Anthemius), and also Iustinus—are evident. In the diptych images the consul has taken the emperor’s place in the middle register, whereas the emperor is placed in the ‘celestial’ sphere. The common people, temporarily the consul’s subjects—citizens visiting his inaugural games, artists, animal fighters, slaves, and in Halberstadt conquered barbarians—are found in the lower register. Unlike the imperial prototypes, however, the consular images do not distinguish the imperial from the Christian (when Christian motifs are included); imperial rule and Christian rule are presented as synonymous in Clementinus, Orestes and Iustinus. Thus, in the imperial cosmogony the heavenly ruler crowns the hierarchic scale, whereas the emperor/king is understood as the highest source of power in its consular counterpart. Before concluding this chapter, I would like to offer some suggestions as to what concepts lie behind the hierarchical contents of the consular images, how they may be related to the contexts in which they were created, and for what purposes. The most complex hierarchical systems represented in the preserved consular diptychs, both western and eastern, were commissioned by consuls who were related to the emperor: Constantius (Halberstadt) and Anastasius. These consuls’ diptychs are also those in which the hierarchical distinctions between the private citizen, i.e. the consul himself, and the imperial sphere are least rigorous, since the honorands are officially allowed—and consequently do—identify themselves with the imperial house. The imperial registers as 92 E.g. Saloniki. For an in-depth interpretation of the hierarchical content

of the relief representations on the Arcadian obelisk base, see Balty 1982. Also Grigg 1977, who focusses specifically on the triumphal aspects of the base’s imagery. 93 Among which is the Barberini ivory (Pl. 20).

195

such are also the most complex in these diptychs, illustrating the various relationships within the respective dynasty; something which would be of relevance to the issuing consul since he was linked by special ties to at least one of their respective members. The boundaries between consul and emperor are transcended in two ways, which are the same in both diptychs: by one or several references to their imperial kinship, and/or by the introduction of various motifs referring to imperial victory. The nearest of kin—Constantius’ spouse Galla Placidia, Anastasius’ father Pompeius—are the vehicles by which the consuls gain legitimate access not only to the imperial palace but potentially also to the imperial throne. And by referring to imperial victory both Constantius and Anastasius announce that they also are the bearers of the quality of victoriousness (Victoria Imperatoria), which is so essential an ingredient in the nature of an emperor.94 Those diptychs which place the consul alone at the top of the hierarchy, i.e. which do not make any direct or indirect reference to the emperor as the source of the consul’s appointment, would also reflect certain realities outside the images themselves. Boethius, Magnus and Basilius all issued their consular diptychs in circumstances more or less independent of imperial control: Boethius under Odoacer’s sole rule in Italy, Magnus in a period when the ruling emperor was dying or dead, and Basilius back in Rome after the conclusion of his eastern consulship. Instead of honouring their appointer by incorporating his effigy (on the sceptre95 or other) according to custom, they ‘explain’ their appointments by referring to personal merits and qualities, such as a fine ancestry (Boethius), inherent victoriousness (Magnus), or a personal victory achieved (Basilius). By doing so they very consciously adher to a republican, aristocratic tradition of public self-advertisement.96 It is probably not accidental that two of the three diptychs in question were commissioned by Roman aristocrats, whose independence vis-à-vis the emperor or king was considerably greater than that of their eastern counterparts. Generally speaking, and in relative terms, the western consul was free to emphasise his own importance and to go about it almost in any way he fancied. He could choose to forego all reference to the emperor/king (Boethius), or on the contrary to introduce imperial references in a way that reflects a very special glory onto his own person (Halberstadt). He 94 Whereas the references to this concept in Anastasius’ diptychs are of a

general and emblematic nature only, suggesting that his victoriousness is an abstract reflection of his imperial kinship, those in Constantius’ diptych refer to a factual and personally accomplished victory and thus to a concrete and personal victoriousness. Compare III.3.4 and IV.2. 95 As I understand it, it has not (and cannot perhaps) been finally shown that the bust-sceptre was not conferred on Odoacer’s consuls (to which category Boethius belonged), in which case the bust would presumably have represented Odoacer. Nor that the representation of a sceptre in a consular diptych could not include the appointer’s bust if he had died in the interim between the New Year celebrations (during which the consul would have displayed the bust-sceptre) and the carving/issuing of his commemorative diptychs (Magnus). Nor again that a consul could not, even if he so wished, have a bust-sceptre represented in his diptychs if issuing them after the conclusion of his tenure of office and/or in a different capital from that in which he had held it (Basilius). 96 See further IV.5.

could have himself represented in solemn isolation to express the exclusivity of his status (Felix, Boethius), or present himself in the company of smaller, subordinate bystanders to illustrate—by way of contrast—the superiority of his dignitas (Lampadiorum, Halberstadt, Astyrius, Bourges). He could emulate the emperor outright (Lampadiorum), or have himself represented as the select favourite of the ancient gods (Basilius). Or he could choose to have his consulship commemorated according to the mode developed in Constantinople, where the consul’s dependent and subordinate status vis-à-vis the emperor had received a peculiar formulation in imagery (Orestes). The eastern consul on the contrary was obliged to conform to one rule: the effigy of the emperor, the consul’s appointer, must be included in some form or other. The eastern consul must appear in his right context and in his proper place, which basically means that he must not appear as if his status were independent. In Clementinus, Anastasius and Anthemius the consul’s dependence is made perfectly clear: the emperor (with family) crowns the composition so that the viewer is reminded that the consul’s eminence descends from that superior source. In Clementinus’ diptych one is further reminded of the ultimate source of all worldly power, viz. the Christian god. In Areobindus’ diptychs the dependent nature of the consul’s status is perhaps not so prominently visualised, but the distinction has been quite graphically referred to through the scenic representation of the enthroned emperor conferring the insignia on Areobindus that crowns his scipio in diptych D. The preserved corpus of fully figural diptychs may represent only a fraction of the number once issued, and distributed somewhat unevenly over time and place, but what remains still displays clear enough patterns to allow more farreaching interpretations concerning their significance. It cannot be deemed far-fetched to suggest that the divergent approaches in west and east to how the consul’s status should be represented in official imagery reflect divergent views on the function and values of the consulate in the two halves of the empire. The relative freedom with which the western consul could glorify his person through official imagery—a phenomenon that will be treated further in the final chapter of this part97 —may be seen as a reflection of the essentially conditional relationship between the sovereign and the senatorial aristocracy of Rome that persisted throughout late antiquity. Absent emperors and foreign kings conceded the Roman aristocrats considerable political and economic privileges in return for their loyalty, paid homage to their historical greatness and encouraged them to nurture their social and cultural heritage—traditions, values, ideologies—and they consequently enjoyed a relatively liberal relationship vis-à-vis their sovereign, retaining a high consciousness of their worth as individuals and as representatives of their gentes and social class.98 Such a 97 IV.5. 98 For treatments and discussions of the more or less self-governing Roman

aristocracy in the 4th to 6th centuries, see A. Alföldi 1942/43; Chastagnol 1966; Paschoud 1967 (somewhat biassed in approach and conclusions); M.T.W. Arnheim 1972, 74-102, 167f; A.D.E. Cameron 1978, 276; A.D.E. Cameron 1999:1; Barnish 1988; and Näf 1995, 4, 193-195 with n. 8, 277-

196

consciousness is reflected in the diptych imagery of the western consul. In its turn the emphasis in the east on putting the consul into his proper place within an hierarchically determined construct mirrors a peculiarly Byzantine socialpolitical system: a centralised autocracy with distinct cosmogonic connotations. As the emperor is related to God, so the appointed official is related to the emperor. The consular appointment may be looked upon as a symbolic emanation of the emperor’s divinely inspired power, in the sacred as well as secular sense.99 The eastern consul was directly dependent on the emperor and his goodwill. His class was effectively a court aristocracy, and unless he was entrusted with a military command (like Areobindus) his cursus was essentially a courtly one.100 The court state, moreover, was thoroughly regulated by a ceremonial that had as its purpose to promulgate the concept of the divine nature of the emperor and the notion that his rule was an immediate reflection of Christ’s celestial kingdom.101 Additionally, the eastern aristocrat’s chances of attaining the consulate were considerably enhanced if he was related by family to the emperor (like Anthemius, Anastasius and Magnus). His consular diptychs were as good as certainly produced in an imperial atelier, and in reality often paid for by the emperor along with the other gifts of his munificence.102 An eastern consul was thus in every respect the emperor’s dependant, and it is of paramount importance that this dependence—or favour, as it would have been formulated—be made clear in his official diptychs. He must not appear as a glorious man in himself, but as one who is glorious in the name and by the will of his sovereign.

286. Relative to the theme of senatorial independence versus imperial lenience in the political life of late antique Rome, I would also like to refer to a lecture by Mark Humphreys, ‘Roman senators and absent emperors in late antiquity’, presented at a symposium on Rome in late antiquity organised by the Norwegian institute of classical archaeology in Rome in December 2001; and Lejdegård 2002. For issues related to art within a social context (as expressions of status, for purposes of diplomacy etc.), see Shelton 1985; Shelton 1989; Painter 1991; Painter 1993;8; Chrysos 1992; and Wrede 2001. 99 Compare Treitinger 1938, 219. The hierarchical order of late Roman society is also reflected in the works of Cassiodorus (Variae), which have been extensively analysed by Näf with a special focus on the differences between west and east; Näf 1995, 205-208, 247, 274, 284. The western system is characterised by a relative closeness between classes—emperor, aristocracy and people form a continuous body—whereas in the east, the emperor’s sacred status makes him as good as unapproachable by his subjects. In both halves of the empire the social orders and their relationships were in the main regulated by the emperor (more so in the east), the different ranks or dignitates descending from him. See also A. Cameron 1979, 33-35 esp. 100 For treatments of the court-oriented Byzantine state and its structure: Jones 1964, 333-347 esp.; A.D.E. Cameron 1978, 276; Chastagnol 1982; Demandt 1989, 231-244 passim; Mathisen 1991. 101 Beck 1975, 379-385; MacCormack 1981, 245, 248f; Demandt 1989, 223; Heather 1999, 237; and Kelly 1999, 171-174. Also Grabar 1936, 98f; and M. Fuhrmann 1994, 25-28. 102 See IV.1.

4. THEME FOUR: TRANSCENDENTAL SYMBOLISM OF CONSULSHIP The triumphal and hierarchical aspects of consulship treated in the previous sections are both suffused with the ideology of the eternal continuance of the Roman empire; in this section their transcendental significances will be more fully discussed. A group of motifs that convey a content closely related to the Roma Aeterna idea serve to describe consulship in terms of cyclic regeneration and immortality, which are different ways of describing eternity. They are motifs mostly derived from the vegetative sphere and by long-standing tradition associated with new beginnings and the coming of new eras: the new year, imperial victories and birthdays etc., but also death and apotheosis. Finally, the representational mode in many diptychs applied to the consul’s figure per se emphasises the symbolic values and ideals associated with consulship. When interpreting the transcendental content of consular imagery a fundamental assumption must be that motifs and modes of representation have been applied for certain purposes, and that they answer to more or less defined and commonly recognised conceptions of the nature of consulship in late antiquity. One may of course argue, as has been done by some concerning the meanings of Roman sepulchral imagery103 — w h o s e i m a g e r y d i s p l a y s significant correspondences with that of the consular diptychs—that a continued and frequent application of certain motifs must a priori mean that they successively become banal and devoid of implicit meaning.104 But the validity of such a conclusion is in my view considerably weakened by the fact—which I hope to have demonstrated in Part III—that motifs are never chosen randomly, nor ever combined or distributed in a random manner within an image. Rather, the conscious ways in which motifs are chosen and applied indicate a clear knowledge of their meanings and applicability within the ‘new’ context, which to all intents and purposes is nothing but an extension or permutation of traditional Roman commemorative art. In the following I will try to formulate how motifs and representational modes have been applied in order to convey transcendental meanings, and how these meanings may in fact be connected to a late antique ideology of consulship. The broadest category of ‘transcendental’ motifs constists in emblematic symbols of a more or less simple and generic nature. They are chiefly found on the consular insignia: the celestial star- and sun-motifs, in divine gold and purple, on the triumphal trabea and the sellae curules of Boethius (6),

103 E.g. Brandenburg 1967; also, although with less emphasis, Koch 2000.

Contrarily, for a positive interpretation of the sepulchral repertory (other than biblical scenes), see Strong 1915; Cumont 1942; Stuveras 1969; L’Orange 1973:1; Panofsky 1992, 32-37; and Wrede 2001. 104 In particular, it has not infrequently been alleged, when the monuments on which polytheistic imagery occurs commemorate Christians.

197

Clementinus (10) and Orestes (7);105 the aquila, and the ‘cosmogonic’ constellations on a number of sceptres, most particularly the composite ones of Areobindus (9) (A-C) and Anastasius (11); the fruit-carrying pueri nascentes on the sella curulis of Magnus (12); the animal and vegetative ornamentation on the sellae curules of e.g. Boethius and Magnus; the victoriolae on the sellae of Areobindus, Anastasius and Magnus; the calyx (‘Blätterkelch’) holding the emperor’s bust on Clementinus’ sceptre;106 and also the various laurel motifs, notably the wreath, which was traditionally associated with an empowering life force.107 These motifs are symbolic of sky and earth, of the link between man and the divine—mainly chanelled through the emperor—and of the regenerative forces of animal and vegetative nature.108 The consul who displays them symbolically enters a ‘cosmic realm’ over which he wields a ruler’s power. More or less complex systems for describing the emperor’s cosmic power are developed on the sceptres of Areobindus and Anastasius, where his bust—occasionally along with those of potential heirs to the throne109 —rests supported on the open wings of the aquila, in its turn surmounted on the orbis terrarum. The emperor’s imago laureata or clipeata lifted on the wings of the aquila, like the aquila inscribed within the corona triumphalis, are symbols of apotheotic triumph and the emperor’s triumphal apotheosis. The vital importance of these emblematic representations for the understanding of the ‘idea’ of consulship is proven by the meticulously detailed way in which they are always rendered, suggesting that their correct representation has a near-sacred value in itself. Symbolic-emblematic motifs that are occasionally accorded more prominent places as well as more individually related significances within consular imagery are the laurel motif (wreath, garland), the clipeus, and the shell. These are motifs that are found in abundance on Roman sepulchral monuments, often combined with the tabula ansata listing the names, titles, virtues and res gestae of the commemorated.110 Their similar placements and functions in the consular images suggest parallels in significance also. The motifs in question are as a rule found above the consul’s figure, separated from him in an upper pictorial register 105 On the celestial emblems and purple colour of the triumphal costume,

and their divine origin, see Versnel 1970, 84-93; also A. Alföldi 1935, 51; Cumont 1942, 239 with n. 6; and Meslin 1970, 55. Compare also the astral emblems (star constellations) on Gallus’ consular trabea in the Codexcalendar of 354; Stern 1953, Pl. XV; Salzman 1990, Fig. 14.. 106 And a number of other eastern consuls commemorated in medallion diptychs; see III.2.1.2. 107 Versnel 1970, 379. 108 Alföldi interpreted the sun-discs represented on the late Roman contorniates as a symbol of happiness and prosperity—a suitable motif for a gift category presented in connection with the New Year celebrations; A. Alföldi 1942/43, 35. 109 Anastasius B-C; compare III.2.1.2 and III.3.4. 110 See Strong’s discussions of the correlation between apotheosis and the res gestae of the deceased in imperial sepulchral imagery; Strong 1915, 3037, 62-65, 181f. Also Engemann 1973, 35-39. On the correlation between a Roman’s deeds and virtues and his immortality (as reflected in the consecratio), see MacCormack 1981, 95-97.

comparable to the celestial sphere on many sepulchral monuments: the wreath encircling the Boethian monogram decorates the gable of an aedicular ‘shrine’ in front of which the consul is placed, the corona cum sertae laureae in Magnus’ diptychs frame the consul and city goddesses from above an imaginary ceiling, the laurel-garlands suspended from the monogram clipei in Clementinus’ and Orestes’ diptychs decorate the fornix above the consul’s head; the eagles in Bourges (5) are placed on the architrave on both sides of the central fornix framing the consul’s head; the imagines clipeatae accompanied by Victoriae and erotes holding laurel-garlands in Anastasius and Anthemius (Pl. 15) are mounted on top of the aedicular fronton enclosing the consuls; the imago clipeata of Basilius (8) is conducted to heaven by Victoria and the eagle in the upper half of the panel. All these motifs, including the arch, refer to the concept of victoriousness—and related qualities such as felicitas, virtus etc.111 —that transcend the realities of the moment, suggesting the ‘immortal state’ of the individuals whose commemorative images they crown, whether the consul’s family and ancestors or, as in Magnus, Basilius, Astyrius (4) and Bourges, the consul himself. The clipeus, a motif which removes the person’s image it carries into a realm above and beyond the physical,112 displays considerable affinities with the shell which surrounds the heads of Anastasius and Anthemius. This shell presents the most pointed reference to the consul’s ‘immortality’ within the preserved corpus, proposing to the viewer that the men it accompanies possess some transcendental or even sacred quality that sets them apart from the ordinary world. The nimbi of Anastasius and Anthemius could indicate both the historical immortality secured by their consular appointments113 and the ‘quality of omnipotence’ inherited through imperial kinship.114 A significant number of motifs of transcendence refer to the related concepts of imperial victory, dominion and unity. A prominent aspect of this imperial theme is represented by means of ancient deities: apart from the aquila already discussed, Roma, Constantinopolis (also a polytheistic conception), and Victoria. Although no longer object to imperial cult (Constantinopolis probably never was115 ), these goddesses are by no means deprived of their suprahuman nature.116 On the contrary, even if officially reduced to the 111 On the corona civica as a reference to the ‘immortalising’ quality of

virtus specifically (concerning the possible presence of a corona civica in the right panel of Basilius’ diptych): Goette 1984, 588f. 112 Notably L’Orange 1953, 90-102. 113 The year in which a consul held his office will, through the fasti consulares, bear his name ‘for eternity’. On the intimate connection between the concept of temporal continuity and consulship in late antiquity, as expressed through the fasti, see also Bowes 2001, 347-353. 114 Compare MacCormack 1981, 165, 216, 228; and Ahlqvist 2001, 218226; also Kiilerich 2000, 280 (discussing the imperial-divine power associated with the circular and spheric shapes). 115 Vickers 1986, 301. 116 For reappraisals of the divine status of Roma and Constantinopolis and other Roman gods in late antiquity, see notably MacCormack 1975; Salzman 1990, 17-21, 27f, 146-233; and Curran 2000, 218-259; also Kaegi 1966. On

198

status of attributes to the emperor, their original functions remain essentially the same throughout late antiquity, and their functions within the consular image are mainly consistent with ancient tradition: Roma and Constantinopolis are the protectresses of the emperors, of imperial concord, unity and dominion (Halberstadt (2)),117 of consuls who have achieved victories that secure imperial unity (Basilius, indirectly Halberstadt),118 and of consuls appointed in periods of imperial disunion (Clementinus, Magnus, Orestes). The city goddesses represent a supreme and timeless unifying force, uniting the two halves of the empire, the past with the present and with perpetuity. Victoria rewards those who have conquered by her favour with the victor’s immortality (Basilius), and she is the genius—Victoria Imperatoria, Victoria Augusti, Victoria Augusta119 —who ensures the emperor eternal victory and prosperity (Anastasius, Anthemius). And the eagle embodies the divine gift of power to the Roman emperor (the consular scipio) and of victory to his army (Basilius, Bourges), and is the medium by which virtuous and meritorious men of both the old and new religions are apotheosised (Basilius). The ancient deities remind the viewer that the Roman empire was and continues to be built and maintained with divine support—that they are on some level still the source of the triumphator’s, the emperor’s and the consul’s felicitas.120 Their ancientness proclaims the ancientness of the consulate, and although officially dethroned their images continue to evoke the divine origin of Roman victoriousness and to be associated with the eternal preservation of the Roman empire (Roma Aeterna).121 Roma’s, Constantinopolis’ and Victoria’s suprahuman quality is however dependent on to whom they relate within an image: the emperor or the consul. When Roma and Constantinopolis accompany the emperor(s), as in the Halberstadt diptych—a western work created in a period when the cult of Roma still survived122 —they carry nimbi in signification of their divine status, and Victoria is the emperor’s genius and attribute whose function is to the survival of polytheistic faith among the aristocracy of Rome and Constantinople well into the reign of Justinian, see Whitby 1991. The gods of the ancient pantheon, like Roma and Victoria, would have had a peculiar importance for the Roman aristocracy who continued to make use of polytheistic imagery in their art, associating them not only with things divine but also, or perhaps primarily, with traditonal ideals of piety and learnedness (philosophy); e.g. Shelton 1983. There can be little doubt that the overtly ‘pagan’ imagery of Basilius’ diptych is an expression of a surviving polytheistic culture among the category of recipients for whom the diptych was destined, but, as e.g. Alan Cameron has argued, ‘pagan culture’ must not a priori be equivalent to polytheistic faith in late antique Rome; A.D.E. Cameron 1999:2. 117 MacCormack 1975, 131f, 139-141 esp; Shelton 1979, 29. 118 Also Ardabur Aspar (Pl. 22). 119 Picard 1957, 470; Weinstock 1957, 237-243; Fears 1981, 737-743, 750752; McCormick 1986, 11-29, 112-119; and Wistrand 1987, 72-75. 120 Weinstock 1957, 229, 237-243; Versnel 1970, 356-380; Fears 1981, 742-748 esp.; MacCormack 1981, 177f; and Wistrand 1987, 71-76. See also Heidenreich, who described the triumph as a temporary apotheosis where the triumphator temporarily became a god; Heidenreich 1951, 335. 121 On Roma’s close association with the idea of aeternitas in late antiquity, see especially Mellor 1981, 1016-1025. Also MacCormack 1975, 142f; MacCormack 1981, 268; and Salzman 1990, 153-156. 122 E.g. Mellor 1981, 1024f; and Salzman 1990, 154-156.

elevate his effigy in the victor’s apotheosis;123 Victoria’s representation in the Basilius diptych constitutes a single deviation from this norm. When accompanying the consuls Clementinus and Orestes, the city goddesses are removed to a secular domain: the consul holds an official appointment, he is not a divinely ordained ruler. The cross, not the ancient goddesses, symbolises the divine source of the ruler’s power in these diptychs, whereas the consulate is associated with the state religion of pre-Christian Rome, viz. of the historical period in which Rome’s institutions were shaped. These late city goddesses are also subordinate to the emperor/king, serving as his deputies in conferring the ‘ruler’s insignia’ onto his appointed consuls. Like the personified qualities of Felicitas, Virtus, Scientia rei militaris a n d Auctoritas represented on the armarium in the Notitia Dignitatum (Pl. 25), Roma and Constantinopolis in these images may also be said to represent ideals that prosper under the influence of the sovereign’s divina providentia. The cross is a symbol of imperial victory and unity; it is the divine sign by which the Roman emperor conquers.124 Within consular imagery, however, this concept is only referred to once, and then indirectly, through the means of the cross-inscribed ‘labara’ carried by Amazons-Victories in the diptychs of Anastasius, the emperor’s great-nephew. In its more prominent form, the cross accompanies the imagines of the ruling couple (Clementinus, Orestes). The concord in Christ between the ruling couple was considered a vital force for establishing and maintaining harmony and unity on all planes of existence: cosmos, the Roman empire, the lives of its citizens (including marital life), and afterlife.125 Within consular symbolism, which incorporates both polytheistic and Christian New-Year symbolisms of regeneration and prosperity, the harmony between emperor and empress or king and queen may be interpreted as a determinant force not only in the regeneration of the ruling house, but more broadly of the annual cycle and in the perennial regeneration of imperial dominion (Roma Aeterna as part of a cosmic order). Roma and Constantinopolis, goddesses of the perpetuated and united empire, also have their place in this greater scheme,126 and the consul’s role as ‘regenerator’ could be seen as a symbolic and secular reflection of the rulers’ divinely ordained role as regenerators of the cosmic harmony.127 The transcendental nature of the sovereign in the late diptychs of Clementinus, Orestes and also Iustinus (Pl. 16) would derive from the Roman emperor’s sacred contract with the Christian god, whose celestial rule he is commissioned to

123 On the convergence of the Roman-polytheistic and the Christian

Victoria, see Fears 1981, 749-823. 124 Compare IV.2. 125 Notably Grigg 1977, 476-478. A harmonious state would be equally relevant in the cases of husband-wife and mother-son (like Amalasuntha and Athalaric), although the latter would obviously be associated with dynastic rather than marital fecundity. 126 Compare Grigg 1977, 478f. 127 For an illuminating discussion of the theme, see Heather 1999, 236f.

199

reproduce on Earth.128 The ruling couple’s effigies suspended in a separate register above the consul, however, are not part of the earthly realm; they, like Christ, belong in the mediary sphere between earth and sky, between man and god. Unlike the ruling couple, the ruling dynasty represented in the diptychs of Halberstadt, Anastasius and Anthemius is not associated with a Christian-theological concept. Its transcendental or suprahuman qualities are visualised by other, more traditional (pre-Christian) means: the imperial family is either accompanied by city goddesses (retaining their suprahuman quality, as proclaimed by their nimbi) and placed within a laurel-decorated palatial fronton, or their imagines clipeatae accompanied by laurel-carrying Victoriae/erotes are surmounted on the gable of a shrine-like aedicula. These dynastic representations are removed from the ordinary world too, but the sphere to which they belong is not absolutely detached from it: the imperial palace is sacred—sacrum palatium, domus divina129 —but still part of the physical world, and the aediculae on which the imperial effigies are mounted in the eastern diptychs incorporate the consuls themselves. Likewise, the dynastic relationships are visualised as worldly constructs—albeit inherently sacer, like everything pertaining to the late Roman emperor—rather than cosmogonic harmonies: kinship and successional issues are political realities, not (apparently) reflections of a Christian world order. The emperors may be ever so devout Christians—both Honorius and Anastasius I regarded themselves as such130 —but religion itself has less interest for the brothers-in-law, great-nephews and emperor’s sons who commissioned these ‘dynastic’ diptychs. What is of primary interest is the means or qualities by which imperial power is attained, how the imperial line and the empire’s unity are safeguarded: imperial kinship, victoriousness, felicitas,131 divinely inspired imperial qualities which the consuls choose specifically to render homage to because they wish to claim them for themselves.132 Thus, when making dynastic claims, referring to qualities of excellence evidently serves the purpose better—or is more acceptable, since only the emperor 128 For useful discussions of the Christian nature of late antique

emperorship, see e.g. Beck 1975, 379-385; A. Cameron 1991, 123-154; and J. Martin 1997, 51, 60; and Matschke 2002. 129 The imperial house went under the denomination of domus divina from the tetrarchic period and throughout (at least) the reign of Anastasius I; J. Martin 1997, 48f. The denomination sacrum palatium is written on the palatial fastigium in the nave mosaic of San Vitale, Ravenna (e.g. Deichmann 1958, Taf. 107-110). On the sacrality of the imperial palace (in Constantinople), see Matschke 2002, 151-155. On the imperial palace’s association with a temple, see also MacCormack 1981, 25, 269. 130 Bury 1958:1, 430-441; Jones 1964, 938 (legislation); Capizzi 1969, 109137; Martindale 1980-1992:1, 79; A. Cameron 1993, 24f; Bowersock, Brown & Grabar 1999, 298. 131 Whereas Honorius and Theodosius II were both of imperial descent, Anastasius I was a chamberlain at the imperial court prior to being chosen as consort by the widowed empress Ariadne, thus—like Fl. Constantius once—having married to the throne; e.g. Martindale 1980-1992:1, 79; and Threadgold 1997, 154, 164f. 132 As they were allowed and expected to do, since membership in the imperial house (by birth, adoption or marriage) automatically guaranteed that they possessed imperial qualities, i.e. that they had inherited qualities such as imperii fortuna and nobilitas originis virtutis; J. Martin 1997, 48f.

could claim a Christian mandate—than referring to a common Christian affiliation. The diptych(s) of Magnus support the conclusion that dynastic claims must, on the part of an ordinary consul, be separated from overt allusions to the Christian side of emperorship. The consul’s entry into office symbolically inaugurates a new year of prosperity and abundance. As a sign of his felicitas, his personal prosperity, the incoming consul offers gifts to the public in the form of games and largesse: with the example of his success and through the means of his gifts the consul, like the triumphator whose role he enacts, regenerates the prosperity of the Roman state and people.133 Whether personally wealthy and/or victorious or not, the consul personifies these qualities, and most consuls make references to either or both in their diptychs. The most obvious way of advertising one’s prosperity is of course to introduce motifs referring to consular munificence. Sometimes such references consist in straightforward representations of gift categories, their costliness, number or volume (games-contestants, animals, coin, plate etc.), which visualise the consul’s capacity of providing and ideally even exceeding what is formally required of him. These kinds of representations may additionally suggest that the consul’s prosperity derives from another superior quality, military victoriousness, as exemplified in the consular missorium of Aspar (Pl. 22) and, although less explicitly, the diptychs of Areobindus;134 but they do not, as it were, raise the theme to a higher symbolic level. In the diptychs of Clementinus, Magnus, Orestes and Iustinus, on the contrary, material prosperity and munificence have been represented by means of scenes with distinctly symbolic and transcendental connotations: the plump little children emptying coin sacks amidst piles of precious objects would certainly be intended to refer to the distribution of consular largesse, but the mode in which the scenes have been rendered invites the viewer to associate them with the happy activities of erotes, transcendental beings, as these appear in traditional Roman art (sepulchral, sacral, triumphal). The consul’s gifts would then be understood as material reflections of a greater transcendental and eternal abundance. The presence of the imperial/regal effigies in these images further serves to place the gift-bringing ‘erotes’ within a universal context, indicating the higher source from which all worldly abundance springs: the harmonious rule of the imperial/regal couple in Christ—a harmony that also encompasses the unity of the empire, represented by Roma and Constantinopolis, warrior goddesses safeguarding its territorial wholeness. Thus consular munificence, like the consul himself, is visualised as an integral part of the everharmonious, ever-victorious, ever-prosperous Christian rule of the emperor or king. The consul becomes an expression of

133 On the association of munificence, i.e. the bringing of gifts, with future

prosperity, see Stern 1953, 164; Meslin 1970, 59-61; Versnel 1970, 384-397 (linked to victory/triumph); and Salzman 1990, 34. 134 Whose gift objects are mainly made up of war spoils (shields), actual or ‘reproduced’. See III.4.2 and 4.3.

200

felicitas temporum, the perennial renewal of Rome’s prosperity as a nation. The idea of renewal is also expressed through the games, which were traditionally associated with the cyclic regeneration of the year and the revolving movements of the cosmos.135 The four circus teams moving around the spina with its central obelisk were likened to the four seasons circling around the sun, illustrating the annual cycle as well as the daily movement of the sun across the sky from east to west (symbolised by the metae).136 Whereas the circus race represents renewal through cyclic movement, the fight between men and beasts in the amphitheatre presents a chaotic struggle of life and death that has been associated with the struggle between darkness and light, winter and spring, or between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ gods, where the victor’s conquest releases new life.137 The analogies to the Roman ideology of victory are obvious: by vanquishing the enemy of Rome the victor gives his nation a new lease of life, his triumph initiating a new era of prosperity.138 The transcendental connotations of the games, whether circus races or animal fights, are also illustrated in sepulchral art of previous centuries, where erotes are occasionally seen racing with chariots or fighting each other.139 It has further been argued that the circus symbolism of late antiquity became transferred, via the identification of the emperor with Sol (Invictus), to the Christian emperor—notably Theodosius I—who presented the new focus for the games,140 the new invincible power securing the regeneration of the cosmos.141 A concept of this nature seems to have inspired the image of the Lampadiorum panel (1), where the larger-than-life consul enthroned in his triumphalia beneath a laurel-garlanded arch presents an iconic focus for the viewer as well as the victorious charioteer on the circus track below him. The eastern consuls’ seeming preference for having amphitheatrical 135 Bertelli 1961, 464; Versnel 1970, 269f, 379; Dagron 1974, 330-344;

Dunbabin 1982, 84; Lyle 1984; Salzman 1990, 182; Kiilerich 1993, 487. 136 A list of the ancient sources, including Johannes Lydus, Corippus and Cassiodorus, is presented by Lyle; Lyle 1984, 827 n. 2. 137 Piganiol 1923, 141-144; also Heidenreich 1951, 329f; and Versnel 1970, 262f, 268f. 138 Notably Versnel 1970, 371-380. See IV.2. 139 Stuveras 1969, 58-60, 102f. 140 E.g. A.D.E. Cameron 1973, 248-252; Dagron 1974, 314-347; MacCormack 1981, 242; McCormick 1986, 91-100; Heucke 1994, 139-151, 233; also Kiilerich 1993, 487. 141 For an illustration of the intimate connection between imperial victory and the cyclic movements of the cosmos, see the illustrations of the planets in the Codex-calendar of 354 whose accompanying tables list imperial birthdays and other festivities, where each of the (five) celestial bodies is presented within a tabernacle-like aedicula supported by atlantes in the form of barbarian captives; Stern 1953, Pl. V-VII; Salzman 1990, Fig. 8-11. The movement or life-cycle of the planets is also mirrored in the human life-cycle, as illustrated by the ages of these barbarian figures—a youth (left) and an elderly man (right)—and the legend tables they support are arranged according to night and day. In these images, then, the allembracing cosmological connotations of the Roman emperor’s rule are made manifest: the subjugation of barbarian peoples constitutes an integral part of the natural cycles of the universe on all planes, and imperial victory is determined by and/or is a guarantor of the regular flux of time. On the cosmological formulation of Rome’s primacy over barbarians, see Heather 1999, 235-238.

games represented before circus races in their diptychs could perhaps partly be explained by the latter’s very intimate connection with the emperor, the absolute centre of that ‘cosmic’ arena and the recipient of all victories achieved there, in official art.142 The same did not apply in the case of the western consuls, who had no reason to associate the circus so intimately with the emperor either in the years around c. 400, when the Lampadiorum panel was created, or in the Justinianic period when Basilius issued his preserved diptych. The numerical limitation of the corpus does not, however, encourage any more far-reaching conclusions in this respect. Suffice it to point out that different types of ‘gamescosmologies’ have been represented in the images of western and eastern consuls, the violent struggle between opposing forces being evidently favoured before the ‘cyclic becoming’ by 6th-century eastern commissioners. The mode of representing the consul himself—his face, his body and his pose—has much in common with representations of the emperor and sacred personages in late antiquity; i.e. with immortal humans who transcend the border between man and god.143 Generally speaking, this mode is characterised by a generic rendering of the human physiognomy, which combines reductive and stylised features with a mask-like neutrality of expression, a reduction of the body into a non-plastic, hieratic and static carrier of attributes and into a performer of prescribed gestures illustrative of official function(s) or a specific field of activity. The man, whether emperor or a religiosus, is always subordinated to the role he is called to perform in the world; through the role he transcends his own individuality and the limits of physical life. In most of the consular diptychs created in the first decades of the 6th century, conforming to a mode apparently favoured in the reign of Anastasius I, stylisation and standardisation characterise the consul’s representation: the face, hairstyle, body-shape, pose of Areobindus, Clementinus, Anthemius, Anastasius, Magnus and Orestes are virtually the same, physiognomical dissimilarities being no less frequent between different representations of the same consul than similarities between representations of different consuls. What the viewer is presented with is the representation of a consul, not a man, and far less an individual.144 Even consulship is a symbol of itself rather than a real office, and the man appointed to it becomes reduced—or rather elevated, since consulship is considered the greatest honour a private Roman can achieve—to the symbol of a symbol. The consul’s suprahuman status is usually expressed by more means than an iconic mode of representation. The 142 Another possible explanation for this seeming preference has been

suggested under IV.1, viz. that the amphitheatrical scenes offered a wider scope for illustrating the wealth of the consul, wealth and generosity being ranked very high on the eastern-aristocratic ‘list of virtues’. 143 Compare the discussion concerning imitatio imperatoria in IV.3. For an interesting interpretation of a ‘Byzantine’ mode of figure representation as a way of expressing the suprapersonal and divine aspects of man, see Weitzmann 1966. Compare also Heidenreich 1951, 337. 144 For a discussion of individuality and individual imagery, see further IV.5.

201

consul may be set apart from or above the ‘ordinary world’ by means of an architectural frame incorporating motifs associated with sacral contexts, polytheistic and/or Christian (temples/shrines, churches, palaces (fastigia), triumphal arches or other kinds of ceremonial portals, screening curtains, shell motifs, clipei, laurel-wreaths and garlands, emblematic/symbolic acroteria); a greater size in relation to other figures; a majestically frontal and elevated enthronement in the centre of the image. These are all means consistent with the common way of representing sacred persons—the emperor, Christ, saints, apostles etc.—in late antiquity. The consul may further be accompanied by transcendental figures—Roma, Constantinopolis, Victoria, the aquila—whose presences suggest that he has ‘ascended’ from the world of mortals. Basilius has himself represented as if actually having gained his place among the ancient gods, as having reached a state of apotheosis—the victor’s apotheosis—and the same may partly be said of Magnus. And Anastasius and Anthemius present themselves after the fashion of immortal men, their heads surrounded by shellshaped nimbi and their bodies enclosed within aedicular ‘shrines’; after all, they are not mere consuls but the holy emperor’s kin, and as such bearers of divine qualities. What notions of consulship may have motivated the iconic visualisation of the consul in late antiquity? The most apparent answer must be that the consul was perceived as a symbol for the Roman triumphator, i.e. intimately associated with the idea of imperial victory. The consul’s ‘triumph’, enacted through the consular ceremonial, is in its essence a celebration of all Roman triumphs in the past and of triumphs to come. Quite apart from the circumstance that several of the consuls whose diptychs have been preserved were also appointed to consulship in reward of military achievements,145 thereby reconfirming and perpetuating the dominion of the Roman empire, victory constituted the force by which the Roman empire was created and maintained, from its earliest period and throughout its existence. Victory was from the first perceived as a gift from the gods, above all Capitoline Iuppiter, in acknowledgement of the Roman people’s piety: Roman world dominion was willed by the gods and promised to last and expand as long as the Romans fulfilled their part of the divine contract. The credo acquires a new meaning and impetus in the late empire, when Iuppiter’s victory-granting capacity is transferred to the Christian god and imperial conquest rephrased as religious mission.146 In the period when the consular diptychs are created, the emperor is of course—as he has been ever since the principate—supreme triumphator, victor omnium gentium: his felicitas, pietas, virtus, fortuna imperii etc. together constitute the divinely inspired force by which Roman victoriousness is generated. The consulate remains an important tool for the emperor through which he can express

145 (Constantius, Astyrius, the anonymous consul of the Bourges diptych

(?), Areobindus, Basilius, and also Ardabur Aspar.) 146 Paschoud 1967, 222-232 esp. (discussing Prudentius’ Contra Symmachum); Fears 1981, 746-752, 823; Wistrand 1987, 71-78; Noetlichs 2001, 21 esp.; and Matschke 2002, 144f. Also Storch 1968.

his felicitas,147 through which he may simultaneously appear as a primary representative and a victorious guarantor of the Roman state.148 The triumphator’s and the emperor’s natures—which are perceived as virtually identical—are considered to be infused with divinity, and so is, on a symbolic level and by long-standing tradition, the nature of the consul.149 I would like to propose that the key to the increasingly apotheosising representation of the consul within the imagery of the consular diptych be primarily sought in the interconnected concepts of the triumphator’s divine force and the eternal (since deriving from a divine source) triumphatoriousness of the Roman empire. The consulate is intimately connected with the idea of Roma Aeterna, an idea which is both literarily and theologically formulated in a period where the ultimate source of the Romans’ eternal victoriousness is the Christian god,150 and which lives on well after the separation of west and east in 476.151 The consul posing as triumphator is understood as a symbol of Eternal Rome, the divinely instated ruler of the world. The consul’s appointment and his inaugural ceremonies on the New Year are reaffirmations of the eternal preservation of Rome and of the gloria romanorum, a celebration of the felicitas temporum brought to the empire and her citizens by the victorious rule of the emperor,152 and an invocation of continued victoriousness. Although it is a religiously neutral celebration, it is clearly not deprived of transcendental significances. Past glory is the foundation of future glory, continuity with the past ensures continuity for the future, and the preservation of Roma Aeterna is a sacred task; the consul can be said to embody all of these ‘truths’, hence his iconic representation. The suprahuman majesty of the consul’s figure is primarily a phenomenon of the 6th century, and as such interpretable as a reflection of the times: in a period of imperial disunion and continuous, only modestly successful wars against outer enemies, the triumphal image of the consul meets a need to sustain and strengthen the belief in eternal victory. It can be no coincidence that the mode for representing the ‘triumphant’ consul displays such close affinities with that of representing Christ in this period: the one expresses a belief in an eternal Roman state in the historical and secular sense, the other a belief in a celestial

147 Compare notably MacCormack 1981, 165-168, 196f, 226. Also Lim

1999:1, 269f. 148 The triumphal ornatus, deriving from the ornatus Iovis, continues to be worn ceremonially by the emperor in his capacity of perpetual triumphator; Delbrueck 1932, 117; A. Alföldi 1935, 25-34. The ubiquitous togate busts of the emperor found in consular imagery, notably on the consular insignia (scipio, trabea, sella curulis), suggest that it was in the capacity of (perpetual) triumphator that the emperor appointed and/or presented his appointee with the insignia at the inauguration ceremony. 149 For formulations of how this divinity is understood, see Versnel 1970, 356-397. 150 On Roma Aeterna: Paschoud 1967, 226-232, 323-334; A.D.E. Cameron 1970, 363-366; Christiansen 1970; MacCormack 1975, 143, 268f; Klein 1985, 116-131. 151 See e.g. MacCormack 1981, 268f esp. 152 Compare e.g. Engemann 1988, 111f.

202

kingdom which is a cosmic-divine reflection of the Roman state. To sum up, the transcendental content of the consular images centres around three intimately linked themes: victory, prosperity, and regeneration (eternity, immortality153 ). Victory is the primary element: it is the force by which the life of Roman state and society are created and perpetuated, and is at the heart of imperial ideology and religion. In his capacity of symbolic triumphator the consul embodies the divinely inspired quality of felicitas, which generates victory and prosperity, both for the individual who is a bearer of it and for his community.154 The consul’s ‘victoriousness’ confirms the continuous, god-given victoriousness of the Romans, his prosperity enriches his fellow citizens and promotes fecundity for a new year in Roman history. The annually incoming consul secures continuity with the past and promises continuity for the future; his entry into office is a proof that the idea of Roma Aeterna holds true. The consul’s image, especially in the 6th century, may be likened to a symbolic node in which the different planes of life—all engendered and regenerated by the force of victory—converge: divine, human, animal, vegetative, and material. Fundamentally, consulship is about ‘eternity’: eternal victory, the eternal continuity and prosperity of the Roman empire and the res publica, the eternal contract between the Roman empire and her god(s), the eternal glory of the Roman emperor and his dynasty, the eternal glory of Rome’s ancestors and their heirs, and the preservation of Romanaristocratic values and traditions for eternity. All of which may be summed up as the eternal preservation of the cosmic order as perceived—or conceived—by the Romans. The visual expression of this cosmic order is a clearly stratified system comprising the hierarchical relationships between god(s), emperor, consul etc. on a descending scale.155

5. THEME FIVE: AUTO-REPRESENTATION. CONSULAR IMAGERY AS A VEHICLE FOR THE CONVEYANCE OF INDIVIDUAL MEANING Within consular diptych imagery, individual meaning is commonly introduced by deploying a set of ‘standard’ motifs or motif combinations in certain patterns, i.e. with the help of a pre-established ‘consular repertory’. The conveyance of individual meaning thus relies on association, allusion and analogy. It would be understood that the viewer-recipient of a consular diptych possessed the foreknowledge required to appreciate the intentions and meanings behind the imagery, 153 For relevant interpretations of the close parallels between the triumphal

and the funerary spheres within Roman ritual (triumph and death), see Brelich 1938; Heidenreich 1951; and Versnel 1970, 115-131. 154 On the association of victory/new year/new beginning (novus annus, initium saeculi felicissimi), see notably Versnel 1970, 301f. 155 See IV.3 above.

general and specific, since he would be living in the same period, culture and societal collective as the commissioner. Commissioner and recipient would thus in a sense have been co-creators of the individual content of the consular image. The flexibility of the consular motif repertory, the creativity and inventiveness of the artists, and the personal engagement of the commissioners in the formulation of their diptych imagery seem to have varied in time and place, and also between different honorands within the consular group. The heterogeneous western diptychs testify to a somewhat higher degree of freedom to self-advertise through official imagery, most particularly for those commissioners who belonged to the top stratum of Roman society, viz. the high aristocracy of Rome (Lampadii, Boethii, Anicii etc.) and men with close ties to the imperial house (Constantius). At the other end of the scale, the most unpretentious representations are also found among the western diptychs: Felix (3) and Probus (Pl. 14), the latter of which presents not the consul but his appointer, the emperor Honorius.156 Judging by the preserved material it seems reasonable to assume that western consuls issued consular diptychs with a relatively high degree of ‘individual iconography’, i.e. diptychs whose compositions, although consisting of motifs derived from a more or less established repertory, were unique to the honorands commemorated. This in turn would suggest that the western consul in general was more active in his commissioner’s role, both in conceiving his diptych imagery and in communicating his wishes to the artists. The eastern diptychs, conversely, display at once the most complex and the most stereotyped images. The eastern commissioner in general clearly had less influence over the conception of his diptych imagery, his part having at most consisted in choosing from a fixed range of ‘ready-made’ types, from the representation of his own person to the scenes or themes of the upper and lower pictorial registers. The possibilities of introducing any individual content into such a system were limited. Consequently, it appears, any elements that may in any way be associated with the individual honorand are usually in the form of small details, and usually of an emblematic character. Further, they are—as far as may be determined from the preserved corpus—only found in diptychs issued by consuls who were related to the emperor.

would-be indicator of personal character, serve any relevant purpose unless it convey something that may be recognised as some ‘state of mind’ appropriate to the occasion, such as solemnity, dignity, authority—neutral ‘states’ or qualities traditionally associated with the holder of high office, and civic-social rather than personal. Hence the predominantly impersonal and in some cases distinctly idealised appearance of the consul’s face. Whereas the western part of the corpus comprises a couple of representations that appear to be at least partly individualised—Boethius (6), Basilius (8))—one may seriously doubt whether the images of the 6th century eastern consuls were intended as likenesses. An ever stronger tendency towards the simplified, generic and nonphysical develops over time, and is partly also diffused to the west;158 a tendency that not only affects the representation of the consul’s face but also of his body, which in the 6th-century east becomes almost signlike in its formal reduction, both size-wise and in range of poses and gestures. The man is increasingly subordinated to the physical trappings and symbolic values of consulship. The circumstance that this depersonalising development primarily took place in the east and not the west (as demonstrated by Basilius’ diptych) is probably not a coincidence. As Beat Näf has shown, the eastern senatorial élite seems to have been altogether less selfconscious as a collective, or as representatives of a class, than their western counterparts.159 Their place within the state, above all their role within the court ceremonial, and their selfeffacing dependence on the emperor—their ‘commander’, ‘father’ and supreme role-model in all things—did not leave room for, or allow of, much in the way of self-advertisement. The western senatorial aristocracy, an independent class who were not only allowed but actively encouraged by their sovereign to take pride in their public and cultural traditions,160 continued to place much value on personal qualities and achievements. Virtues and merits, expressions of nobilitas, were held up as exempla for everyone to emulate.161 As pointedly demonstrated by the imagery of Basilius’ diptych, a man who could claim to have accomplished things ‘for the good of his state’ was also qualified to publicly advertise these accomplishments—and the noble qualities that contributed towards them.

The individuality of a man, revealed externally through physiognomical peculiarities and expression of personal qualities (as these may be interpreted by the artist), is essentially irrelevant to the consular image: whether the images are serially produced or not, the commissioners do not figure as ‘sitters’ for their ‘portraits’. I have argued above that the man is lesser than his official status,157 something which is not a sign of personal insignificance but rather of suprapersonal greatness. To put it simply, physiognomical characteristics are unimportant since they cannot serve to convey anything about consulship. Nor can facial expression,

The choice of certain motifs and motif combinations distributed in certain patterns within an image can often be interpreted as motivated by individual interests on the part of the issuing consuls, at least to some extent. Many consuls have evidently wished to illustrate certain qualities or virtues

156 On the close ties between the Probus family and the Theodosian

dynasty (and its Christian-dogmatic foundations), see Martindale 19801992:1, 913f; also A.D.E. Cameron 1988; and Lejdegård 2002, 87f. 157 IV.1 and 4.

203

158 Examples of western diptychs created after the ‘eastern’ fashion

include Orestes and the anonymous ex-Ganay panel (Pl. 17). 159 Näf 1995, 262-273. For a related discussion, see also A.D.E. Cameron 1978, 276. 160 As exemplified by Theodoric’s form letter to his consuls, cited by Cassiodorus; Cassiod., Var. 2.2, 3.39, 6.1; Bagnall, Cameron, Schwartz & Worp 1987, 8f. See also e.g. Lim 1999:1, 271f (on the Roman senatorial élite as largely taking over the responsibility for civic patronage from the absent emperors); and IV.1. 161 Näf 1995, 275-283 esp.

traditionally ascribed to the man who attains the office. Sometimes such references have a relevance for the personal history of a consul; at other times they appear as little more than allusions to ideals or unsubstantiated (at least as far as posterity can determine) claims to virtues and merits on the part of the honorand himself. A good example of the first category is the military victoriousness referred to by Constantius in the Halberstadt diptych (2), whereas Magnus’ (12) very pointed references to a victoriousness yet to be proven, as it were, exemplify the second category. A consular appointment does tell a lot about a man. It is the proof and sum of a man’s qualities as a Roman citizen, of his capability to perform the duties expected of him as a member of his family—honouring an ancestral tradition of public prominence, securing the good name of his family for generations to come;162 as a member of a social collective—Roman aristocracy, imperial dynasty/court etc.; and as a member of Roman society at large, for whose good a man of high dignitas is expected to take responsibility (by service to the state and by public munificence).163 The worth or civilitas of a man appointed to the consulate may accordingly be expressed in different ways, by emphasising certain qualities traditionally required in order to qualify for high office.164 Such qualities were not necessarily personal in the strict sense of the word, but rather ascribed, and mainly civic by nature. Apart from the fundamental virtus and felicitas, applicable in both military and civic life and equivalent to pietas,165 the list of desirable qualities included celeritas, consilium, fortitudo,166 iustitia, auctoritas and providentia among others.167 A prominent ancestry—patria, genitatis fortuna168 — was also considered to guarantee, particularly in the west and particularly during the Ostrogothic reign, a good performance of official duties.169 These and related qualities would also have been lauded in

162 On the correlation between virtues and competence in public life and

immortality, something which is expressed through all types of Roman commemorative monuments, see e.g. Gabelmann 1984, passim; and Forbis 1996, passim. For a broad analysis of iconographic themes on Roman and Italian sarcophagi from the 2nd-5th centuries as reflections of how the senatorial class perceived themselves, see Wrede 2001, 24-35, 94-100. 163 The consul’s and other high magistrates’ duty to provide public entertainment was officially regarded, at least until the reign of Justinian, in the light of virtuous generosity and a moral and legal obligation that equally benefitted the public and the provider of the games; Cod.Theod. 15.76, 16.10.3; Cassiod., Var. 2.2, 6.1; Bagnall, Cameron, Schwartz & Worp 1987, 8f with n. 54-55); Curran 2000, 230-234 (n. 76). 164 According to a late antique fragment of a panegyric addressed to the Roman senate, a formal ‘catalogue of virtues’ (demonstrating that the applicant possessed the civilitas required in order to perform his public duties well) was to be presented to the senate and king in order to gain entrance into the senatorial class and access to magistracies; Näf 1995, 213f, n. 58 and 59. 165 Wistrand 1987, 72. 166 Compare the qualities ascribed to Fl. Constantius/Constantius III by contemporary sources; Martindale 1980-1992:1, 324. 167 Wistrand 1987, 74. Compare also the qualities presented as personifications on the armarium in the Notitia Dignitatum (Pl. 25). 168 Cassiod., Var. 1.42.2; Näf 1995, 206f. On the superior value ascribed to noble birth, see also M.T.W. Arnheim 1972, 103-142. 169 Näf 1995, 213f with n. 58-59.

204

the panegyrics officially recited in connection with consular accessions.170 There are a number of ways in which a consul’s qualities and merits may be referred to in his official imagery. For instance, a man who has attained consulship—wholly or partly—by virtue of his good birth and prominent family, may refer to the glory of his own gens by introducing some of its members as secondary figures (Lampadiorum (1), Areobindus (9)); he may introduce the family name on the entablature of a ‘triumphal arch’ (Lampadiorum), within a clipeus suspended with laurel-garlands from an arch (Clementinus (10), Orestes (7)) or encircled by a triumphal wreath placed on the gable of a shrine-like aedicula (Boethius); or he may refer to his family by placing the imagines of its most prominent members on top of an aedicular ‘shrine’ or on his consular insignia (trabea, scipio, sella curulis) (Halberstadt, Basilius, Anastasius (11), Anthemius (Pl. 15)), preferably accompanied by one or other motif referring to some triumphal aspect of consulship, such as driving a chariot or being enclosed within a ‘triumphal arch’. Physiognomical correspondences between honorand and secondary figures—officials, emperors—may serve to enforce the idea of clan and ancestral heritage. What may be understood as family likenesses can be detected in Lampadiorum, Halberstadt (between the honorand and the emperors), Areobindus, and Anastasius. The consul who wishes to refer to his material prosperity, and hence his ability to spend large sums on public munificence, may do this by having an illustrative variety of gift categories represented: sacks bristling with coin—or inscribed with the impressive sums filling them—the contents of which are poured into precious receptacles, plate of different shapes and sizes, and/or a broad range of spectacles with numerous beasts of several exotic species engaged in different types of fight, or various performers engaged in theatrical and musical competitions. Referring to material prosperity in one’s consular imagery is, however, not always synonymous with the possession of personal wealth, particularly not in the east. If the consul is the emperor’s nephew, the wealth displayed would instead reflect the prosperity of the imperial house, in which case the consul’s prosperity could be understood as an imperial quality, one that the consul claims for himself. A reference to material prosperity made by a private consul, such as Clementinus, might on the other hand be understood as a reference to the benevolence and generosity that the emperor has shown towards his deserving subject, something which renders glory to consul and emperor alike. Individualised imagery may in some cases result from necessity rather than a positive wish for auto-representation on the commissioning consul’s part. The plain toga costumes and lictors in the diptychs of Astyrius (4) and Bourges (5) and the thekophoros with theca in Astyrius would all be 170 Olybrius and Probinus (coss. 395), Stilicho (cos. 400), and Astyrius (4)

are known to have received such panegyrics; Claud., Prob.Olybr.cons.; Claud., Cons.Stil; Sid.Apoll., Epist. 8.6.5-6. See I.1.6. For a discussion of these qualities, illustrated in consular panegyrics as well as listed by various late antique authors, see e.g. Niquet 2000, 151-172.

explained by these consuls’ having taken office outside of Rome. The most interesting of these motifs is undoubtedly the theca with attendant, which are not attributes of the consul but of the praefectus praetorio per Gallias at whose headquarters Astyrius took office: a direct reference to the peculiar ceremonial performed on a specific occasion and within a specific context, and a declaration of its formal legitimacy. Several consuls have desired to illustrate their titles as listed on their tabulae inscriptiones. Some western consuls have referred explicitly to their patrician status by having themselves presented—according to a fashion that appears to have been peculiarly western—in the patrician chlamys: Constantius, Felix, and Basilius. It may be that the illustration of this title was in all three cases motivated by specific circumstances: Constantius and Felix were awarded the patrician title relatively shortly before their consular appointments,171 and Basilius would have considered it desirable to adhere to a western iconographic tradition, considering that he wanted to advertise himself as an exemplum of Roman-aristocratic civilitas and as a restorer of the res publica. All three honorands moreover enjoyed peculiar statuses at the imperial court, i.e. had held or did hold courtly appointments.172 If the honorand has attained consulship as a reward of his military merits, the introduction of triumphal motifs is the most common, and straightforward, way of referring to this fact. The diptychs of Astyrius, Bourges and Areobindus, all of whom were presumably awarded their consulships as a result of their military successes,173 include triumphal motifs of a generic or unspecific nature: laurel-wreaths/garlands, ‘triumphal arches’, eagles, and triumphal motifs on the sceptre (among which the statuette of the emperor as world-ruler crowning the sceptre in Areobindus A-C). More specific references to the individual cursus of the honorand are found in the diptychs of Basilius and Areobindus. In Basilius, the small togatus holding a codicillar diptych and extending his right hand in the gesture of adlocutio is likely to be interpreted as a reference to the honorand’s previous office of comes domesticorum, under the tenure of which he qualified himself for the consulate. The scenic representation on the sceptre in Areobindus D of the honorand receiving the consular scroll codicil from the hand of the emperor also features a codicillar diptych (held by the consul on his left arm), a type of codicil not given to a consul but, among others, to a magister militum per Orientem; an office held by Areobindus immediately prior to the consular appointment. Anastasius’ diptychs present the most complex schemes for expounding on the honorand’s patria and gloria stemmatis, viz. the imperial family whose glory is reflected in his own person and relative to whom he and his father 171 See III.2.4. 172 Martindale 1980-1992:1, 174f, 322, 461; Martindale 1980-1992:2, 174.

That Boethius’ patrician title is not illustrated through imagery must likewise be ascribed to the fact that (as indicated by the order of titles on his tabula inscriptionis) it was awarded him after his consulship; see I.1.2. 173 See III.2.1.4 and 2.1.5.

205

Pompeius—whose imago clipeata accompanies those of the imperial couple on the a e d i c u l a gable above the consul—display a perfect physiognomical similitudo. Further, the consul’s father’s and uncle’s (?) busts accompany that of the emperor on Anastasius’ sceptre (B-C); his sellae curules feature, beside his father’s effigy (B), various motifs referring to imperial war and conquest; and the lower registers comprise a scene referring to triumphal processions, i.e. imperial victory celebrations.174 Although at least the sceptre constellation would be interpreted as a statement of dynastic pretension of one kind or other, Anastasius does however nowhere refer in imagery to any merits earned by himself as an individual. More rarely individual meaning takes the form of what may be termed as auto-propaganda proper. There are only two diptychs within the preserved corpus that can be said to convey this type of content: Halberstadt and Basilius. These diptychs are also the only ones for which one may relatively safely attribute an active role in the conception of the iconographic programmes to the commissioners themselves, who must have had their ideas and purposes transmitted to the artists in more or less explicit terms; it is difficult otherwise to account for the carefully worked-out and individually suited imagery of these works. Both Fl. Constantius and Basilius clearly took a keen interest in their public image, and wanted their consular imagery calibrated so as to achieve the highest possible effect on the person or persons to whom it was destined. I have argued that it seems probable that either or both of these diptychs were individualised so that they might be appreciated by special categories of recipients, i.e. that they did not form part of any standardised bulk issues. The diptych imagery of both Constantius and Basilius focusses on connecting and expounding on the themes of consulship, patriciate and military victory on a monumental scale and in explicitly individual ways, yet both make use of what can only be described as traditional imagery: what they do is make use of a certain range of ‘standard’ motifs in ‘non-standard’ ways. The whole register of Constantius’ deeds and statuses is represented in the Halberstadt diptych. The viewer is informed of the meritorious performances that won the honorand the consulship, viz. his success as a military commander in putting down the Gothic enemy (pictured as captives of war in the lower registers); he is made aware that the honorand has not only qualified for a second consulship but also for the patriciate and an elevated courtly rank (enjoying precedence of speech and wearing a chlamys inset having close formal affinities with the emperors’), and that he is allied to a circle of prominent individuals who like himself are tied to the western court (commemorated together with him as attendants);175 and last but not least the viewer is informed with the news that the honorand’s merits have won him the hand of the imperial princess Galla Placidia in 174 See III.2.1.2 and IV.3. 175 On the interpretation of the attendant figures as individual men tied to

Constantius personally, and their possible identities, see III.3.1.

marriage.176 Thus Constantius wants to impress on the diptych’s recipient that he has legitimate occasion to commemorate four extraordinary achievements—achievements that have as much to do with his personal capabilities as with imperial favour. His personal qualities, among them the superior quality of felicitas, are of imperial calibre. The programme of Basilius’ diptych is likewise centred around the ‘military victory’ of the honorand and the glory that victory has rendered both Basilius himself and the Roman state. In fact consulship represents only half of what is commemorated in this diptych, the extraordinary apotheosis enjoyed by Basilius as a result of his victorious feat having received as much space as the official commemoration. The glory of Basilius is twofold, conforming to an ancient (republican) ideal of a good Roman’s worth or civilitas: he has achieved both a victory and the highest office on the civilian cursus, both of which are represented as the gifts of Roman goddesses: Victoria and Roma. In republican times consulship would come to a man as a reward for victory, i.e. the triumphator would have received the consular appointment as a result of his military victoriousness,177 and it is apparent that Basilius views his own achievement in the light of this tradition. No references whatever are made to the emperor under whose commission Basilius pursued his military task and who subsequently rewarded him with consulship; he is not even represented as a bust on the sceptre. The idea of Rome is here dissociated from the Roman emperor,178 and Roma is the sole bestower of the consular fasces (adorned with the triumphator’s laurelwreath in signification of Basilius’ ‘victory’). And the res publica, not the emperor, is the body for whose benefit Basilius has exerted himself, as made clear by the inscription encircling his imago clipeata.179 Basilius presents himself as a model perpetuator of traditional Roman-aristocratic values and ideals: his successes in pursuing a public career are formulated in terms of a very significant contribution towards the preservation of the Roman state, earning him the status of an exemplum among his fellow citizens, in the present and—so one must assume—for eternity.

fundamental level, consulship is about Roman tradition, about the formidable qualities that have made and will continue to make Rome’s greatness, and that may be gathered under the headings of civilitas, v i r t u s and felicitas. Traditional content calls for traditional modes of expression. Each consul must choose for himself—if he is in a position to exploit his consular imagery for purposes of autorepresentation, that is180 —how to illustrate the nature of his peculiar qualities, and thereby explain to the viewers of his diptychs what made him qualified to be honoured with consulship. The western consul generally glorifies himself—his merits, his family—in a higher degree and in more varied and personalised ways than does the eastern consul, but ultimately every consular image may be understood as a formalised expression of the greater idea that the Roman state is perpetuated with the help of its citizens’ superior virtues and achievements.

To conclude, individual meaning within the imagery of the consular diptychs, even the most explicit, is always conveyed by means of the available ‘standard’ consular motif repertory. The basic purpose of the consular image is to celebrate the civic and military virtues and achievements of its honorand, and since the nature of these virtues and achievements are valued as traditional they had best be illustrated in a traditional, i.e. an officially established, manner. On a 176 See III.3.2, 3.4 and 5.4. 177 Or triumphed, when holding an imperium under the tenure of

consulship; Künzl 1988, 94f. This tradition was periodically adhered to under the reigns of Anastasius I and Justinian; A.D.E. Cameron 1978, passim. 178 Compare the precedence of Rome (Roma/the idea of Rome) over the Roman emperor as expressed by Symmachus; e.g. Klein 1985, 111. 179 This unique feature is the more intriguing since the Roman emperor and the Roman state were habitually perceived and referred to as synonymous entities in the Byzantine period; Sinogowitz 1953; and Beck 1975, 385-388.

206

180 This is said in consideration of the individually ‘neutral’ images of

consuls such as Felix, Clementinus, Orestes and not least Probus, whose preserved diptych presents a self-effacing panegyric in imagery to the glory of the emperor Honorius.

V. SUMMARY

The consular diptychs present a unique group of figural works within late Roman and early Byzantine art. Not only do they offer a firmly dated series of reliefs covering a period from which few plastic works of art have otherwise been preserved, but they are official works commissioned by private citizens and within a specific context. The aim of this study has been to link the imagery of the fully figural category of consular diptychs to the context which contributed towards its conception, showing how it corresponds to well-developed ideas about the nature and functions of the ordinary consulate in the last 150 years of its existence (c. 400-542). Two basic assumptions have thus guided the investigation: the appearance and development of an increasingly complex consular imagery from the latter half of the 4th century were determined by historical and socio-cultural factors peculiar to the period; and the consular images served a wider purpose than simply to commemorate the consular appointment of their honorands—they were used as a vehicles for conveying a multi-facetted ‘ideology of consulship’. Preceded by a presentational introduction (Part I), the study has been carried out in three consecutive steps. The descriptions of the diptychs’ images (Part II) aim at complementing those presented by previous scholars, providing a broad basis for the subsequent iconographical analyses. Each image is described according to a fixed order and then discussed with regard to formal and iconographical peculiarities and occasionally attributional matters. Western and eastern diptychs are treated separately, beginning with the predominantly earlier western works; an order that has turned out to be fruitful in that it has contributed towards illuminating the chronologically and iconographically determined variations within the preserved corpus, which in many respects coincide with a geographical subdivision. The iconographical analyses (Part III) investigate the motif repertory of the consular image: the representation of the consul himself, consular insignia and attributes, secondary figures (official attendants, city goddesses, imperial figures etc.), motifs/scenes related to the consul’s munera and to victory, other symbolic motifs, and the architectural frame surrounding the figure-scene(s). Each motif category is treated with the purpose of explaining its functions and significances in relation to the image as a whole and to the consular context: motifs are characterised, compared with their counterparts in other diptychs and in a variety of examples from Roman art (notably triumphal, sepulchral and sacral), linked to other motifs in the image with related or complementary significances, and interpreted from the aspect

207

of how they illustrate consulship. Possible motivations behind motif selection and combination, compositional structures and representational mode(s) are sought with the ambition of defining what aspects of consulship were considered the most representative, important and symbolladen to the commissioners and creators of the consular diptychs. The iconologically oriented synthesis (Part IV) reassembles and further discusses the results of the iconographical analyses under five thematic headings which may be said to correspond to the most prominent functions or significances of consulship in the late Roman period. The themes range from the immediate content or purpose of the consular image, viz. to commemorate the honorand in his official capacity, to the more implicit contents referring to the various ideas and symbolisms associated with consulship—triumphal, imperial, transcendental—or to the individual honorand as an exponent of the consulate and all it stands for (auto-representational content). The imagery of the consular diptychs is set in a wider historical and sociocultural context and concluding interpretations are offered. Part III, summary of conclusions: Generally speaking, the representations of the consular diptychs focus on consulship rather than the consul: the consul is presented as an impersonal carrier of attributes and performer of official functions. The conception of the consul’s face is for the most part generic and physiognomically undifferentiated from any secondary figures’ and occasionally even from the faces of other consuls (the latter phenomenon occurring in diptychs of eastern production), and the consul’s body presents a reductive surface on which the complex pattern and draping of the toga have been carved. Whereas the consular costume and insignia are depicted in minute detail, the mode in which the consul’s figure and the ‘acts’ he performs are represented may in the main be characterised as symbolic. Standardised and condensed into a limited set of ‘patterns’, they are very rarely referrable to a specific act/function within a specific context; only the early western Lampadiorum panel (1) provides something approaching a realistic representation of a particular consular act (presiding with the mappa circensis in a parapeted tribunal editoris) within a clearly specified context/setting (the Circus Maximus in Rome). The advanced hieratic abstraction of the consul’s figure witnessed in the 6th-century eastern diptychs, which show it enthroned in frontal majesty on an ever more monumental sella curulis, completely detached from the small-scale scenes represented below, holding the mappa raised or lowered in the lap, and

enclosed within an architectural frame that may be anything from exceedingly reductive to complex and fantastic, illustrates how consulship became transformed into an essentially symbolic concept in the final decades of its existence. Exceptions to the general rule are only found among western diptychs, which are more heterogeneous than the eastern ones: what may be interpreted as portrait likenesses occur in at least two cases (Boethius (6), Basilius (8)), the enthroned position is not obligatory, there is more variation in right-hand gestures, and the occasional combination of the consular representation with one of the honorand as p a t r i c i u s (Halberstadt ( 2 ) , Felix ( 3 ) , Basilius)—an exclusively western phenomenon which seemingly reflects a particularly high valuation among the Roman (western) aristocracy o f the patrician dignitas—introduces a second set of poses and gestures as well as attributes and ‘acts’. The western consul generally also has a more physical appearance than his eastern counterpart: apart from a less pronounced physiognomical stereotypification, his body is less reductively rendered, and in the large-figure and related compositions (Halberstadt, Felix, Boethius, Basilius) he is positioned close to the foreground, a ‘grounded’ presence rather than a distanced and isolated majesty. The consular insignia, which visually provide the main theme of consular imagery, correspond to those of the Roman triumphator. The vestis triumphalis, scipio eburneus, sella curulis, fasces and codicilli are more or less regularly used as vehicles for rendering tribute to the appointing emperor(s) or king, whose gifts they are: the toga is ornamented with insets (segmenta) inscribed with the emperor’s full figure or bust, the sceptre is crowned by the imperial/regal effigy, the sella may carry his clipeate busts (seat-rail, victoriolae) as may the banner of the fasces (Orestes (7), Clementinus (10)), and in one instance the sceptre is crowned by a miniature representation of the enthroned emperor conferring the codicilli on the consul himself (Areobindus D (9)). The effigies are either togate, viz. wearing the vestis triumphalis of the imperial consul, or attired in military costume and displaying the insignia of world rulership, the sceptre, orb or shield; the latter category, significantly, is only found in diptychs issued by ex-generals (Halberstadt, Areobindus AC). The effigy-lifting victoriola, apparently a consular variant of the imperial insignium, decorates the sellae curules of eastern consuls related to the emperor only (Areobindus, Anastasius (11), Magnus (12), also Anthemius (Pl. 15)), thus indicating that this victory attribute was kept within the imperial sphere. Diptychs issued by consuls related by family to the emperor, to which category the likely honorand of the western Halberstadt diptych (Fl. Constantius) is also assigned, tend to include a greater number of imperial effigies on the consular insigina, the most notable example being the series of Anastasius, the sceptres and curule chairs of whom present veritable programmes dedicated to the interconnected themes of imperial triumph and dynasty. Exceptions to the general pattern are chiefly found among western works, the insignia of Boethius, Basilius, and also the anonymous consul of the medallion diptych formerly in the Collection 208

Marquis de Ganay, Paris (Pl. 17) entirely lacking ruler effigies. The western diptych of Astyrius (4) includes a theca, insignium of the praefectus praetorio among others but not of the consul: a reference to the circumstances under which this particular honorand took office, viz. at the headquarters of the praetorian prefect at Gallic Arelate, and an announcement of the official legitimacy of the installation proceedings. The plain toga costumes of Astyrius and the anonymous consul of the Bourges diptych (5), also attributed to the western half of the empire, would likewise refer to the circumstance that they took office in the province (the triumphal costume could only be donned within the pomerium of Rome). The secondary figures included in many images in various ways serve the purpose of setting the consular status in context. The togati and chlamydati accompanying the honorands of the Lampadiorum and Halberstadt ivories tell the viewer that these consuls considered themselves part of a greater collective to whom they had specific ties—familial and/or collegial—and therefore desired to co-commemorate with themselves, and whose inclusion could also contribute towards illustrating—by means of differentiations in stature, placement, gestures and costume—the hierarchical superiority of their dignity. Similar functions should probably also be ascribed to the chlamydate attendants appearing like bust imagines behind Areobindus, the perfect resemblance between the consul and the right-side figure in particular being suggestive of kinship. The lictors and thekophoros flanking Astyrius and the Bourges consul represent the lowest-ranking category of consular attendants, as also announced by their small size; serving the single purpose of displaying official insignia, their exclusive presence in diptychs commissioned by consuls having taken office in (a western) province in the first half of the 5th century indicates a geographical and timerelated as well as ceremonial distinction. The small-scale togatus with attendant represented beside the circus-scene in the lower register of Basilius’ diptych (left panel) would, as suggested by the codicillar diptych and formal speech gesture, most plausibly be identified with the honorand himself in his previous capacity of comes domesticorum; an office that he held when engaged in Justinian’s western reconquest in 540, the year in which he was also designated consul. The most frequently occurring category of secondary figure is the city goddess. Roma and Constantinopolis appear throughout the corpus, but their types, attributes and functions mostly differ between western and eastern diptychs. In the western images their representations are the most heterogeneous and typologically distinguished from each other, Roma mainly retaining her ancient warrior-like (Amazonian-Minervan) appearance (Halberstadt, Basilius) whereas Constantinopolis is presented as an orientalising city tyche (Halberstadt). The helmeted and courtly dressed eastern goddesses in the eastern diptychs are on the contrary conceived as near-identical sisters, a pattern that recurs in the diptych of the western consul Orestes. Symbolising the two halves, capitals and consulates of the Roman empire, Roma’s and Constantinopolis’ role is also to display attributes. In the early Halberstadt diptych, the nimbate goddesses are

enthroned beside the emperors of west and east (Honorius, Theodosius II) in the upper registers of the panels; their attributes announce not only the emperors’ identities but their relative statuses and importance to the event(s) commemorated through the diptych. Roma, tall-statured like Honorius, displays the insignia of imperial war and rulership—hasta, orb, sword—and her Amazonian-Minervan appearance refers to warfare and conquest, whereas the smaller Constantinopolis seated beside the junior Theodosius displays a radiate-cum-leafy crown, leafy wand and contabulate costume that signal a vaguer, peaceful and civilian nature. Roma’s precedence and imperial attributes implicitly refer to the victorious rule of Honorius, the honorand’s (Fl. Constantius) appointer to the western consulate in 417, and triumphator over the Visigoths in Gaul (pictured as barbarian captives in the lower registers of the diptych) in the previous year—a triumph made possible by Constantius’ personal achievement. The city goddesses in the Halberstadt diptych would thus more specifically symbolise the re-established unity of the Roman empire through a military victory. A Roma of the Amazonian-Minervan type also accompanies the consul Basilius, but now alone and with a monumental set of fasces whose wreath-decorated banner may be associated with the Roman triumphator’s fasces laureati. Like Constantius, Basilius had been involved in an imperial reconquest of the western empire (this time from the Ostrogoths), prior to his consular appointment; the glory of this victorious feat is more explicitly celebrated in the right panel of the diptych, where the honorand’s chlamydate imago clipeata is conducted to heaven by orbenthroned Victoria and the aquila. The peculiarly western correlation between western victories and the warrior-like Roma is further exemplified through the missorium of Ardabur Aspar (Pl. 22), a western consul who had received his appointment as a reward for his military success against the Vandals at Carthage. No such historical or military connotations may be ascribed to the city goddesses’ representation in the diptychs of the eastern consuls Clementinus and Magnus and of the western Orestes, who all held their consulships in a period characterised by peaceful disunion between east and west. The larger-than-life twin goddesses accompanying the enthroned consuls here hold forth two types of attributes: the right-side goddess (‘Roma’) the fasces and the left-side goddess (‘Constantinopolis’) a knob-tipped sceptre and a small orb, the former referring to the consulate and the latter to imperial rule. Together they confer the consulship and its imperial sanction on the honorands, the open-handed right-hand gesture of the fascescarrying goddess indicating empowerment. In the diptych(s) of Magnus a spear replaces the left-side goddess’s sceptre, the right-side goddess holds a shield instead of the fasces, and the general appearance of both is altogether more Amazonian: these particular ‘Romae’ refer solely to imperial war and rulership, and the conferral of their insignia would be understood as a symbolic conferral of imperial victory and legitimacy (as also signalled by the triumphal wreath suspended above the consul’s head). The city goddesses in these three diptychs represent not a real but an ideal unity of the Roman empire, a military and constitutional whole. 209

Imperial/regal personages constitute a third category of secondary figures within consular imagery. Always found in an upper register, they appear either as full-figure representations in a complex scene (Halberstadt) or as imagines clipeatae symmetrically arranged against an abstract or architectural background (Clementinus, Orestes, Anastasius, Anthemius). The imperial scene in the early western Halberstadt diptych presents a complex pattern: through correspondences in physiognomy, gestures, attributes and placement, the imperial family—the western emperor Honorius, the eastern emperor Theodosius II and Honorius’ step-sister Galla Placidia—is in various ways implicitly linked to the consul/p a t r i c i u s below, simultaneously illustrating how the emperors of west and east are united as a sign of the empire’s reunion, how the imperial house is reunited with its erstwhile alienated princess, and how Constantius, the princess’s restorer and newly-wed husband, is connected with the imperial dynasty. The nimbate Roma and Constantinopolis lend a surreal aspect to this pseudohistorical scene (the emperors never met in reality), whereas the palatial fronton and armed guards enclosing the imperialdivine group provide it with a physical setting. The biclipeate and tri-clipeate constellations in the later and predominantly eastern diptychs define imperial rule in different ways, and they also relate to the consuls differently. The dynastic theme illustrated in the Halberstadt scenes recurs in another formulation in the diptychs of Anastasius and Anthemius, both eastern consuls related to emperors. In Anastasius’ case the emperor’s imago clipeata, supported by laurel-carrying Victoriae or erotes on the summit of the triangular gable above the imagines clipeatae of the empress and the consul’s father, present a scheme where the consul himself—whose ‘imago’ is placed immediately below the emperor’s in front of the gable—is incorporated, thus illustrating the generations of the victorious Anastasian dynasty. In Anthemius’ case, the consul’s father—the previous emperor Anthemius, presented in imperial attire—constitutes the imperial link. The bi-clipeate scheme in the diptychs of Clementinus and Orestes, on the other hand, represents the imagines clipeatae of the ruler couple (Anastasius I-Ariadne/Athalaric-Amalasuntha) as part of a wholly abstract sphere defined as sacred by the cross at its centre, and from which the consul is clearly separated. It describes the imperial/regal rule as shared by man and wife in the sign of Christ, the celestial ruler, i.e. as a divine rather than dynastic concept. Hierarchically determined distinctions between imperial figures as well as between the consul and his attendants in the main registers are generally (but not always) conveyed by means of placement: the figure second-highest in rank to the emperor/senior emperor or consul is usually placed on the his right side from the viewer’s perspective. The figures of the lower pictorial registers represent the most physical-contextual ingredient within consular imagery. Reduced in scale and much less hieratically composed, the scenes of which they are part illustrate the consul’s gifts to the public or, in the case of the Halberstadt diptych which shows barbarian captives, his ‘gift’ as a victorious general to the Roman empire. As prescribed by their function and status

within the context, these figures—venatores, actors, acrobats, musicians, sack-carrying children, barbarian captives, animals—act, interact and express various states of mind. All the lower-register scenes but those of the Halberstadt diptych refer to the consul’s munera or official generosity, the representation of games being the most common. The preserved material suggests somewhat different approaches to games-scenes in west and east. Circus-races only appear in western diptychs (Lampadiorum, Basilius), complex multifigure amphitheatrical scenes were favoured in the 6th-century east, and the representation of spectacles apart from chariotraces and animal fights (various artistic contests) only occurs in the east as does the representation of spectators, the diptychs of Anastasius incorporating several different categories of spectacles as well as spectators. There is further a distinction between west and east in how the games are represented: the western scenes, most particularly the chariotraces, present symmetrically ordered, directed and synchronised action, while the eastern venationes and acrobatic animal fights show broad-scale, variegated and disorderly action centered on calling forth the viewer’s excitement and admiration, the multitudes of actors, animal species and prize objects filling the relatively large space conceded to the arena illustrating the issuing consuls’ extraordinary wealth. In the scenes referring to consular gift distribution or sparsio in the 6th-century diptychs of Clementinus, Magnus and Orestes, the real is fused with the ideal: the confronted pair of plump and smiling children that stride vigorously amongst a mass of coins and precious objects—plate, tablets, metal bars, palm-leaves (real or in precious metal) and ornamental casks—with bulging, coin-pouring sacks on their shoulders display typological affinites with the traditional Roman eros-figure. The material side of consulship, viz. the consul’s role as gift-bringer, is thus coupled with the ideal qualities associated with the consul as a bringer of prosperity and happiness for the year he inaugurates. A matter-of-factly informative rather than idealising representation of the consul’s largesse is, on the contrary, found in the 5th-century western diptych of Boethius, where a limited number of representative objects, including varieties distributed both in sparsiones and as prizes in the arena and small coin-sacks inscribed with signs indicating the sums contained in them, are spread out before the feet of the consul. Comparanda derived from the western empire (the consular images of Ardabur Aspar and Constantius II-Gallus in the Codexcalendar of 354 (Pl. 27)) suggest that this reductive mode of representation was, at least in the 4th-5th centuries, characteristic of western illustrations of the consul’s largesse. A number of motifs and scenes within consular imagery refer to victory. The monumental representation of Victoria ascending with the eagle and the honorand’s imago clipeata to the heavens in the right panel of Basilius’ diptych refers to an historical victory in which that individual consul had had a share. Unlike all other representations of the victory goddess within the corpus, which have the form of duplicated effigy-lifting figurines, it is separated from the idea of the 210

emperor’s victoriousness (Victoria Augusta). The imagines clipeatae elevated by the victoriolae on the sellae curules of Areobindus, Anastasius, Magnus and Anthemius are those of Anastasius I, whose imperial victoriousness the consuls—all men related to the imperial house—thus all become exponents of. The Victoriae supporting the imperial imago on a laurel serta on the summit of the aedicula gable enclosing the consuls Anastasius and Anthemius would refer to the transcendental, apotheotic victoriousness not only of the emperor but also of the imperial dynasty (empress, greatnephew/ex-emperor), and when substituted for erotes (Anastasius A) the concept is linked to universal prosperity, happiness, and a terrestrial immortality, i.e. to dynastic continuation. Through the means of these victory- and erosfigures, then, the consulships of the kin of Anastasius I become expressions of the supreme victoriousness and prosperity ideally characterising that emperor’s rule. The wreath and the garland present versatile emblems with which the triumphal symbolism traditionally associated with consulship and its festive celebration may be emphasised, the wreath specifically constituting a reference to the triumphator’s corona laurea triumphalis or the corona etrusca, previously also an insignium of the ordinary consul. The incorporation into consular imagery of the victor’s wreath serves to expound on three, often correlated, things: the triumphal glory of the consul himself, of his family/ancestry, or of the imperial dynasty. Astyrius and Basilius allude to their personal victoriousness—both had been involved in successful military expeditions in the west—by the means of it, the wreath ornamenting Basilius’ fasces explicitly referring to the laureate insignium of the Roman triumphator. The triumphal wreath suspended above Magnus’ head would also symbolise a personal victoriousness; attached to a pair of laurel garlands, the whole ‘laurel theme’ in this consul’s diptych(s) may be associated with an imperial coronation ceremony. Framing figure representations or name inscription of the honorand’s gens, the Lampadiorum, Halberstadt, Boethius, Clementinus, Anthemius, Anastasius and Orestes diptychs all employ victory emblems to glorify the consuls’ own publicly prominent families (all of which counted several high ex-magistrates among their members), thereby illustrating their perennial successfulness. In the cases of Halberstadt, Anastasius and Anthemius, the glorification of the consul’s family is synonymous with that of the imperial family. Within consular diptych imagery, victory in the arena does not present a standard theme with a standardised iconographic formulation comparable to those witnessed in the contemporary imagery of the victorious emperor or charioteer (coins, medals, mosaics). Indeed, victory in its strictest sense is only depicted in a diptych of Areobindus (B) where venatores celebrate the conclusion of a fight and a victor is crowned; otherwise the struggle itself (race, fight, contest) and its material reward (prize) represent victory in the arena. The venator’s thrusting of a spear into the body of a lion, the acrobatic fighter’s skilled evasion from an enraged bear etc. are illustrative of the quality of victoriousness rather than of victory itself, and the plate and palmae showering over the combatants presage victory before it has been

achieved. Both the (successful) struggle and its reward are ultimately intended to reflect on the consul himself, demonstrating to the viewer/recipient of the diptych how gloriously the commissioner has acquitted himself of his duties as a provider of games. On a more symbolic level the victories achieved by the charioteers and venatores represent a universal victory, and the victor’s qualities the superior quality of felicitas. The procession scenes with Amazonian figures, or Victories, in Anastasius’ diptychs, which display considerable typological affinities with contemporary imperial-triumphal imagery, should probably be recognised as symbolic references to imperial victory processions, possibly of a kind staged in connection with consular games given by the emperor’s kin. The barbarian captives and war spoils represented in the lower registers of the Halberstadt diptych do not conform to the standard iconography for ordinary (private) consuls’ diptychs, but emulate imperial-triumphal imagery. The commissioner’s familial connection with the imperial house is the only thinkable explanation for its presence in the diptych—Fl. Constantius, the future Constantius III, was married to Galla Placidia on the same day he entered his second consulship, the 1st of January 417—and the background to the scenes would be a military victory. The costumes, hairstyles and weapons of the barbarian figures present a mixture of Germanic, Gallic, Gothic and Roman, and the richness of some of the women’s attire and the plumpness of the children suggest prosperity and high societal status: all traits which may be associated with the Visigoths, the enemy conquered by Constantius in Gaul in 416. The triumphal scenes, for so they must be termed, thus serve the purpose of illustrating the honorand’s proven victoriousness. A small number of single motifs refer to various symbolic aspects of consulship. The cross first appears in consular diptych imagery in the 6th century, viz. in the period covered by the reigns of Anastasius I and Justinian—both emperors with a high Christian profile—and it could be seen as a reflection of the ever-increasing association of the emperor (or king) with the doctrine of Christian rulership and empire-making (victory). In its most prominent form the cross appears between the imperial/regal couple in the upper registers of Clementinus’ and Orestes’ diptychs, symbolising joint rulership in Christ and its divine legitimacy. The cross-surmounted sceptre being an insignium of the emperor, symbolising his Christian rulership over the world, would—as also confirmed by the preserved diptychs—not likely have been conferred on an eastern ordinary consul, to which category Basilius belonged (the unauthenticity of the sceptre cross in Basilius’ diptych has been argued under II.8); the anonymous western ex-Ganay panel, however, suggests that the Ostrogothic rulers, who did not themselves carry the cross-sceptre, did occasionally confer it on their appointed consuls. The small crosses incised beside the consul’s names and titles on the tabulae ansatae in Clementinus’ and Anastasius’ diptychs must refer to the Christian faith of the respective consul; judging by the preserved material, which also includes a couple of 211

ornamental diptychs issued by Justinian in 525, the phenomenon was exclusively eastern. The shell motif (concha) occurs in the diptychs of Astyrius, Anastasius and Anthemius, where it is found on the architectural fronton framing the consul’s figure, thus conforming to a tradition within Roman architecture and art—primarily sacral and sepulchral—for applying the motif. Like the nimbus, the shell motif denotes the divine or immortal status of the personage it accompanies. Its placement between victory emblems (wreaths, garlands) above Astyrius’ head suggests to the viewer that the consul’s exalted state is somehow linked to the victor’s immortal status. In Anastasius’ and Athemius’ case the shell, dislocated from the aedicula gable to close around the consuls’ heads, may more directly be associated with the emblem of immortality or divinity. As the son (Anthemius) and great-nephew (Anastasius) of an emperor, these consuls are, up to a point, sharers of the emperor’s divine quality, and the pseudo-architectural shell-nimbus was evidently considered as an appropriate means for announcing this shared quality in official imagery. The typological affinities of the pair of confronted eagles flanking the arch of the architectural superstructure in the Bourges diptych with constellations on Roman funerary monuments would seem to confirm a sepulchral inspiration, at the same time suggesting that the motif’s significance at least partly reflects the one ascribed to it with the sepulchral context, viz. transcendence and immortality. The eagles’ juxtaposition with an arch, a motif symbolic of the sky which constitutes a central theme on triumphal arches, further combine to link the eagles’ transcendental significance to victory and triumphal celebrations—and from there yet further to the military sphere, where the eagle forms part of the legionary signa, a symbol of the Roman emperor and his imperium. Based upon the various uncanonical elements in the diptych it has plausibly been proposed that the Bourges consul took office in the province, where he was most probably stationed as the result of a military command, and the eagle motif could thus refer simultaneously to this military command (under the imperial s i g n a ), to victoriousness and to the victor’s and consul’s ‘immortal’ status. The architectural frame included in one form or other in all diptychs except those of Magnus does not conform to a single type, but ranges from very simple and quasi-tectonic shapes (Felix), via variants of the arch and the aedicula, to complex fantasy structures (Anastasius). The common assumption that most if not all architectural frames represent a single type of edifice, the tribunal editoris of the circus/hippodrome or amphitheatre, does not take this typological diversity into account. The limited comparanda for arena tribunals display a considerably greater homogeneity than the structures in the diptychs, but are at the same time generally much less complex. Acknowledging the formal diversity of the architectural frames in the consular diptychs, and also the fact that it is often difficult to distinguish a depiction of a specific building/type from its iconographic representation, I have

proposed that they be recognised as simplified, extended or abstracted versions of several different models: by adding, exchanging or conflating forms of one type of structure (e.g. a circus tribunal) to/with other types, the result may allude to several contexts simultaneously. Comparing the architectural frames in the diptychs with a number of typologically related building types and architectural structures in various images—the pulvinar and the temple, the fastigium, the portal and the triumphal arch, the sepulchral monument, the conch-vaulted aediculae enclosing the empress Theodora in the apse mosaic of San Vitale and the honorand presiding at the amphitheatre in the ‘Kaiserpriester’ diptych (Pl. 19), the aedicular sedia gestoria enclosing the main figure in the Consecratio panel (Pl. 21 a), the armarium for the keeping of imagines maiorum or codicils (such as the armaria ornamented with the busts of Divina providentia, Divina electio, imperial-civic virtues, the four seasons and Victories in the Notitia Dignitatum (Pl. 25))—one realises that they all have a common denominator: they belong to sacral and/or ritual contexts whose function—real or symbolic—is connected with victory and/or immortality (apotheosis). The triumphally attired consul standing or enthroned in front of an aedicula (a scheme identical to that of the aedicula sub divo) reminds the viewer of the divine qualities traditionally associated with the Roman triumphator, an association which is naturally strengthened if the structure is ornamented with victory motifs (coronae triumphales, laurel garlands, Victoriae). By enclosing the enthroned consul within a fastigium, a motif characteristic of late Roman palatial architecture, he becomes associated with the extraordinary power which temporarily makes him the emperor’s equal. By surrounding the consul with a structure whose shape and motif repertory conform to those of a triumphal arch, the viewer is reminded of the processus consularis moving along the Triumphal Way after the model of the processus triumphalis; in late antiquity, the consul would have been carried in the procession on a portable, possibly palanquinshaped suggestus/sedia gestatoria. The portal, to which the triumphal arch is formally and symbolically related, is an opening for entrance and passage, the personage ritually moving through it (such as the triumphator or the emperor in the adventus ceremony) symbolically initiating a new era—a symbolism that also applies well to the inaugural ceremonies performed by the consul on the novus a n n u s . The combination of an aedicular fronton with imagines clipeatae may be associated with an armarium for the housing of ancestral imagines. A consul seated in front of such a structure is recognised as a descendant and representative of his ‘immortal’ gens and as a carrier of the noble qualities that contributed to its public distinction. The architectural frame may be utilised for individual advertisement purposes. The honorand and (presumably) commissioner of the Lampadiorum panel glorifies his own person and family (at the same time illustrating his superior status vis-à-vis the other male members of his family copresiding with him) by having his own enlarged person framed by the arcuated lintel hanged with laurel-garlands and crowned by a large-letter name inscription. Boethius poses in front of an aedicula whose gable is adorned with a corona 212

triumphalis encircling the Boethian family monogram: a ‘shrine’ to his own prominent gens. The aediculae in Anastasius’ and Anthemius’ diptychs have the distinct form of shrines, or a r m a r i a , to the eternally victorious and prosperous (as signified by the laurel-carrying Victoriae and erotes) imperial dynasty of Anastasius I (and the emperor Anthemius), displaying the imagines—including the consul’s own—of three generations. The pedimental architecture enclosing the imperial figure group in the upper registers of the Halberstadt diptych displays close affinities with the palatial fastigium, notably those represented in the Sant’Apollinare Nuovo nave mosaic in Ravenna and the Theodosian silver missorium in Madrid (Pl. 23). The laurelgarlanded, four-columned structure serves as a physically and spatially conceived setting for the figures—Honorius, Theodosius II, Galla Placidia, Roma, Constantinopolis, and praetorian guards. The whole may be interpreted as a metaphor for the historic events surrounding Fl. Constantius’ second western consulship in 417: the laurel-decorated architectural fronton may be recognised as the imperial palace at Ravenna, relieved from the Visigothic threat through a victory in the previous year—a victory brought about by Constantius personally. The gathering of the emperors and goddesses of west and east under the palatial roof refers to the re-established unity of the Roman empire, a unity whose physical safety is illustrated by the armed guards protecting the imperial persons and the palace housing them. And lastly, the palace is an enclosure for the imperial princess Placidia, who is seen installed within it, once more a part of the imperial family after having been restored to it by Constantius’ personal efforts. Part IV, summary of conclusions: The first layer of meaning within consular imagery, and the immediate function of the consular diptych, is to represent the honorand in his official capacity: the consular insignia and ceremonial. The very detailed way in which the consular ornatus—the toga costume with its star pattern and figural insets, the sceptre with its minute motifs, the shape and ornamentation of the sella curulis etc.—has been rendered demonstrates how much symbolic or even sacred value was attached to it. The consular insignia were displayed in connection with both the processus consularis and pompa circensis, and the different functions performed by the consul during these ceremonies are represented means of poses and gestures. The mode of representation is, however, synoptic rather than descriptive: the physical performance of specific acts is rarely if ever represented, but different functions of consulship are usually referred to simultaneously (the giving of/presiding at games simultaneously with the distribution of gifts, the processus simultaneously with the pompa). The architectural frame is only in one case, Lampadiorum, identifiable as a specific locale in which a specific ceremony/function is performed—the Circus Maximus in Rome—whereas the columnar fronton enclosing the imperial group in the upper registers of the Halberstadt diptych presents a reference to the imperial palace. The fasces were carried in the processus but it is uncertain whether lictors accompanied the consul in the tribunal of the circus or amphitheatre. Only found in diptychs

issued by consuls having taken office in the province (Astyrius, Bourges) and hence not allowed the don the triumphal toga, the lictors may be interpreted as a compensatory attribute of consulship, denoting the Romanimperial source of the consul’s dignity. A city goddess holding the fasces, presumably Roma, would act the emperor’s part in conferring consulship on the appointed (Clementinus, Orestes, also Aspar). The consular codicil of appointment, which appears in the diptychs of Astyrius and Areobindus (D), is only connected with a specific ceremony in the latter, the scenic compartment crowning Areobindus’ sceptre evidently referring to the conferral ceremony in the imperial palace. The thekophoros holding a theca beside Astyrius has no function within consular ceremonial proper, but announces the official legitimacy with which the accession of this particular consul was performed (at the headquarters of the praefectus praetorio per Gallias at Arelate); the architectural fronton in this diptych could, although evidently a fantasy structure, denote the locale in which Astyrius took possession of his insignia. The mappa circensis, the games-giver’s attribute, may and often does function as an entirely independent attribute of consulship, frequently occurring in images that do not comprise gamesscenes and displayed in a variety of ways, mostly passively, which seem less characteristic of the kerchief’s practical function—a function that is best illustrated by the activedemonstrative raised-arm gesture commonly understood as the start signal for the games to begin. The mappa is an index for the consul’s role of editor et praeses ludorum, a consular insignium in its own right. The two publicly most conspicuous consular ceremonies, the consul’s biga-drive around the circus/hippodrome that opened the pompa circensis and the actual distribution of consular gifts (sparsio, missilia), have nowhere been scenically represented. The imperial-triumphal connotations of the former ceremony (the triumphally attired emperor riding the currus triumphalis was a well-established type within imperial imagery since the 4th century) could explain its absence in the diptychs of private consuls—although Basilius appears to have set this rule aside when having a consular charioteer represented on his trabea. The fact that the consul has been detached from his gift distribution, especially in the east, would plausibly be explained in a similar way: only the emperor could have his material prosperity and munificence represented in official art (for which there also existed well-established types), since these were expressions of his supreme and exclusive ability to bring prosperity to his subjects. The impersonal and symbolic way in which consular gift distribution was conceived in the 6th-century east might also reflect the fact that many eastern consuls received financial support from the imperial treasury in order to cover the costs for their public munificence (including the commissioning of ivory diptychs), with the result that consular prosperity and generosity literally became reflections of the emperor’s. By having wealth and munificence formulated as symbolic and ideal concepts rather than personal qualities in their diptychs, the eastern consuls seemingly conformed to imperial impositions against selfaggrandisement through official imagery by private citizens. 213

Public munificence and display, the outward signs of prosperity, are what late antique consulship is about. The iconographic standardisation of games- and sparsio-scenes in the 6th-century east could be sought on the one hand in the financial prosperity of the emperor Anastasius I—a prosperity which made possible a number of consulships within his own family (among which those of Anastasius and Magnus)—and on the other in the particularly high evaluation of material prosperity as an aristocratic virtue in the east during this period. The grandiosity of the games-scenes in Areobindus’ and Anastasius’ diptychs and the idealised richness of the coin and other gift objects in Clementinus’ and Magnus’ diptychs, are clearly reflections of these occurrences. The rulers’ imagines clipeatae crowning the consular images of Clementinus, Anastasius, Anthemius and Orestes could signify the appointer’s ‘legitimising’ presence not only symbolically, but perhaps also actually. The presence of the ruler’s effigy on the tribunal of the circus (and presumably amphitheatre), like its incorporation on the consular insignia, demonstrates how the appointed official was at each stage in his ceremonial performances reminded of the source and conditional nature of his ‘power’, particularly so (to judge by the consular diptychs) in the east. Clearly inspired by imperial prototypes, consular ceremonial is represented through its most prominent features—insignia, poses, gestures—condensed into a reductive ideogram for consulship, a symbolic image which mainly describes consulship as a passive state, and its functions as symbolic attributes to the consul. The consul as symbolic representative of the Roman triumphator presents the second layer of meaning within consular imagery, the triumphalia and the consular ceremonies being the most immediate reflections of this. Consular imagery abounds with motifs referring to the triumphal symbolism of consulship: laurel-wreaths and garlands, Victoriae/victoriolae, eagles, architectural frames displaying typological affinities with the triumphal arch etc. all encourage the viewer to associate consulship with triumphal celebrations. Some victory motifs may be associated with the individual achievements and/or virtues that contributed to individual consuls’ appointments, describing them in terms of victoriousness (felicitas). In several cases the consul’s merits are of a military nature: Constantius (Halberstadt) and Basilius, who had both been engaged in successful campaigns in the west immediately prior to their consular appointments, announce this fact with the help of traditional imperialtriumphal imagery (submissio-scenes, Victoria and Roma, the a q u i l a , the orb); and the laurel-wreaths and garlands ornamenting the architectural frame in Astyrius’ diptych and the eagles flanking the arch enclosing the Bourges consul could be interpreted as references to the honorands’ military merits which, presumably, won them their appointments. The laurel-wreaths and garlands framing the consul with official relations in the Lampadioum panel and the family monograms in the diptychs of Boethius, Clementinus and Orestes on the other hand serve to glorify the honorands’ gentes/ancestry. Such a significance may also be ascribed to

the laurel garlands decorating the fastigium that frames the imperial group—the consul’s newly-acquired family—in the upper registers of the Halberstadt diptych. The victoriousness of Magnus, on the other hand, is self-ascribed and strictly personal, the corona triumphalis suspended above his head announcing that he possesses the quality of felicitas imperatoria, the imperial quality of victoriousness. Numerous references are made to imperial victory in the consular diptychs, most notably on the consular insignia. The stapled sceptre-tips of Areobindus and Anastasius combine the symbols of empire, world dominion and triumph (orbis terrarum, aquila, corona triumphalis) with the emperor’s effigy, in Areobindus A-C in the form of a armed statuette holding the sceptre and orb, and in Anastasius B-C accompanied by the busts/heads of two dynastic ‘pretenders’ (the consul’s father and uncle, both military commanders in 517); the lower inset on Constantius’ trabea shows the emperor’s helmeted bust holding a shield; and the sellae curules of Areobindus, Anastasius, Anthemius and Magnus are mounted with victoriolae elevating the togate shield effigies of the emperor, the seat-rails of Anastasius’ sellae additionally displaying a range of motifs referring to imperial war and triumph (gorgoneia, tribute-bearing province personifications, city goddesses). The diptychs of Anastasius contain the most complex repertory of imperial-triumphal motifs within the corpus, suffusing the entire imagery, from the Victoriae elevating the imagines clipeatae of the imperial dynasty in the upper registers, through the various motifs on the consul’s insignia, to the victory-parades with labarumcarrying Amazons in the lower registers (right panels)—motifs through which the consulship of Anastasius becomes explicitly associated with the imperial dynasty of his uncle, the emperor Anastasius I, and the supreme victoriousness of its rule. By contrast, the victory imagery of Basilius’ diptych is unrelated to the emperor, referring exclusively to the Roman state (Roma) and empire (orb, eagle), entities evidently regarded as separate from or greater than the emperor’s person. Roma and Constantinopolis symbolise, among other things, the imperial-triumphal aspect of consulship. Referring—particularly Roma—to military victories that reestablished imperial dominion and unity in the images of western generals (Constantius, Basilius, Aspar) and to the ideal unity and continuity of the Roman empire in diptychs issued by consuls in the period of Ostrogothic rule in Italy, they may alternatively be interpreted as divine sharers in the inauguration of new periods of peace and prosperity in the empire’s history, and as co-celebrants of a hoped-for or eternal victory and imperial unity. The consular diptychs indicate that the consul’s function as emblematic triumphator successively grew in importance in the 4th-6th centuries, a period in Roman history more than any other characterised by war, upheaval and disunion. The late antique consul served the function of upholding an official image of the Roman state and empire as an unbroken continuum, as an historical force capable of forever regenerating itself through victory.

214

Hierarchical features appear with increasing regularity and complexity in the 6th-century diptychs, but they are present in one form or other in nearly all consular images. The superior dignitas of the consul vis-à-vis any figures accompanying him is visualised by means of centrality, size/scale differentiation, a placement further to the foreground, gestures (active-authoritative), differentiations in costume and other attributes—junior officials, senators, lictors etc. being in their turn ‘graded’ by means of placement (left-right), poses and gestures (half turned towards the consul, passive-subordinate), costume, attributes and occasionally also age—whereas Roma and Constantinopolis are of either equal (Halberstadt, Basilius) or taller stature (Clementinus, Magnus, Orestes) than the consul or, as in Halberstadt, the emperors. A subdivision of the pictorial field into two or more superimposed registers, and differentiations in scale and compositional structure between these, emphasise the prominence of the consul’s figure at the same time as they effectively remove him from physical-temporal relationships. This hierarchical elevation of the consul is particularly welldeveloped in so-called tribunal type of images of the 6th century. The early western Halberstadt diptych presents the most complex system of hierarchically determined differentiations in the preserved corpus, comprising all three registers. In the upper register, senior and junior Augusti are distinguished by size and left-right placement, their respective statuses being reflected in Roma and Constantinopolis seated beside them on the dais. Although secondary in importance, the city goddesses are nimbate, an attribute of divinity which indicates superiority vis-à-vis the emperors, who in their turn are characterised as more-than-human since they physically commune with the deities. The status of the woman placed between the emperors is made ambiguous by lack of imperial attributes (she is not an Augusta), her central yet receded position, her passivity, and her unclear relevance to the official content of the diptych. Plausibly identified as Galla Placidia, the step-sister of the senior emperor Honorius, her presence can only be explained by her marital connection to the consul, Constantius, who by her means announces his membership in the imperial family, i.e. she presents a means by which the honorand may overbridge the barrier between himself and the imperial sphere. The correspondences between Constantius and the emperors in physiognomy, costume and gestures (in the left, patrician panel especially) work the same way, and so do the submissio-scenes in the lower registers, an imperial-triumphal imagery which demonstrates to the viewer that the honorand is officially allowed to take credit for his military victory, and that his status in this respect also exceeds that normally enjoyed by private consuls. A standard system for the application of hierarchical rules evidently developed in Constantinople in the reign of Anastasius I, serving as a model for some western consuls’ diptychs as well: a clearly stratified image where the frontally enthroned consul takes up nearly the entire central register, and where attendant figures have a more receded position. The upper registers in the diptychs of Clementinus, Orestes, Anastasius and Anthemius present abstract, essentially symbolic conceptions of the imperial sphere, hierarchical

distinctions between figures being less emphasised in the horizontally composed bi-clipeate scheme, where the imperial/regal couple flanking the cross appear as equal corulers in Christ, than in the pyramidally composed tri-clipeate scheme which gives an absolute precedence to the emperor in the top centre. The Christian ruler-couple is clearly separated from the consular scene below, demonstrating that the boundary between the imperial and consular spheres is insuperable, and there is also an implicit hierarchical order between the cross and the city goddesses, between the new and old religions, sacred and secular(ised), in these bi-clipeate images. The boundaries between the imperial and consular spheres are less rigid in the ‘dynastic pyramid’, which actually encloses the consul’s own shell-nimbed ‘imago’, thereby announcing that he also belongs to the dynastic house—which both Anastasius and Anthemius did, the former also displaying a perfect physiognomical similarity to his uncle the emperor. The inclusion of a non-imperial personage, the consul’s father, in the imperial register of Anastasius’ diptychs presents the most hierarchy-suspending element in these two diptychs, and would be understood as a claim for a prominent place in the dynastic line on the part of his son—a claim which is reiterated in the triple-bust sceptre tip in diptychs B-C. Hierarchically determined relationships are also witnessed within the games-scenes of the lower registers, where the human fighters, the predestined victors, are distinguished from their animal opponents not only by size but by their display of technical and mental—human—superiority. The increasingly glorifying representation of the consul witnessed in the 6th-century diptychs may be termed a form of imitatio imperatoria, the majestic imperial image developed in the 4th century (tetrarchic to Theodosian period) evidently serving as a model. The stratification of the image into superimposed ‘spheres’, which occur in both western and eastern diptychs, would also have imperial imagery as its most immediate prototype, the bases of Theodosius and Arcadius in Constantinople and the Barberini ivory assemblage (Pl. 20) displaying close typological affinities with some of the consular compositions. In these works the hierarchical order of the Roman cosmogony, illustrated with pedagogic clarity, range from the celestial-divine sphere to the sub-human sphere of conquered barbarians. But whereas the heavenly ruler crowns the hierarchical scale in the imperial image, the worldly ruler is understood as the highest power source in the consular image. The most complex hierarchical systems are found in diptychs issued by consuls who were related by family to an emperor: Constantius (Halberstadt), Anastasius and Anthemius. The internal relationships between members of the imperial dynasty and the consul are described not only with the help of formal techniques, but also with motifs referring to imperial victory, victoriousness being an innate quality of the emperor and (by ‘inheritance’) his kin. The least hierarchically complex images, on the other hand, are those which place the consul on the top of the hierarchy, i.e. which do not refer clearly or at all to the source of the honorands’ dignity: Boethius, Basilius, also Magnus. The common denominator of these diptychs is that they were 215

issued under circumstances more or less independent of imperial control. Eastern issuers of consular diptychs were obliged to conform to one rule: the emperor’s effigy must always be included. This emphasis on putting the consul in his ‘proper place’ within a hierarchically determined construct would mirror the peculiarly Byzantine social-political system: a centralised autocracy with distinct cosmogonic connotations. Unlike their western counterparts, who lived under less restrictive conditions vis-à-vis their sovereigns, the eastern consuls must not appear as glorious men in themselves, but as glorious by the will and in the name of their sovereign. The transcendental content of consular imagery is centered on one idea or ideology: the eternal continuance of the Roman empire. The triumphal and hierarchical aspects of consulship are suffused with this ideology. Another group of motifs, mainly vegetal and traditionally associated with transitions such as the new year, describe consulship in terms of cyclic regeneration and immortality. The symbolic or transcendental values of consulship are also conveyed by the iconic mode in which the consul’s figure is represented in many diptychs. The broadest category of ‘transcendental’ motifs are of a more generic nature: the star pattern of the consular trabea, the eagle, floral chalice or ‘cosmogonic’ constellations on the consular sceptres, the fruit-carrying pueri nascentes on Magnus’ sella curulis, and the victoriolae ornamenting the same insignium in the diptychs issued by the kin of Anastasius I are in various ways symbolic of the link between man and the divine (mainly channelled through the emperor) and of the regenerative forces of animal and vegetative nature. The consul who displays them temporarily becomes the ruler of a cosmic realm. Transcendental signifiances may naturally also be ascribed to the laurel-wreaths/garlands, imagines clipeatae, shells (conchae), eagles, Victoriae and erotes incorporated in an upper, ‘celestial’ compartment of some images, which—especially if combined with an arch or a gable (both symbolic of the sky)—in different ways refer to a transcendental victoriousness, suggesting the immortal status of the personages whose images (or name inscriptions) they accompany. A number of transcendental motifs refer to imperial victory, unity and dominion. Roma, Constantinopolis, Victoria and the eagle are polytheistic deities whose functions within consular imagery are mainly consistent with ancient tradition. The city goddesses are protectresses of the emperors, of imperial dominion and unity (Halberstadt), of consuls who have achieved victories that secure imperial unity (Basilius, indirectly Constantius (Halberstadt)), and consuls in periods of imperial disunion (Clementinus, Magnus, Orestes). Victoria rewards her victors with immortality (Basilius), and is the genius (Victoria Imperatoria, Victoria Augusta) who ensures the emperor eternal victory (Anastasius, Anthemius). The eagle is the divine bird embodying the gods’ gift of power to the Roman emperor (the consular sceptre) and victory to his army (Basilius, Bourges), and the medium by which meritorious men are apotheosised. The ancientness of these deities proclaims the ancientness of the consulate, their images

continuing to evoke the divine origin of Roman victoriousness and to be associated with the eternal preservation of the empire (Roma Aeterna). The cross is likewise a symbol of imperial victory and unity, the divine sign by which the Roman emperor conquers, but this concept is only referred to once within consular diptych imagery: the labarum-carrying Amazons in the lower register of Anastasius’ diptychs. In its more prominent form the cross symbolises the divinely inspired concord between rulers, a harmonising and regenerating force encompassing all planes of existence: cosmos, the Roman empire and state, the lives of its citizens, the annual cycle. When enthroned beneath the cross (Clementinus, Orestes) the consul’s rule becomes a symbolic and secular reflection of the rulers’ sacred role as regenerators of this all-embracing harmony. The consul inaugurates a new year of prosperity and abundance, ideal reflections of his personal prosperity and felicitas, by offering public gifts. Games and gift distribution are on a symbolic level victory- and prosperity-inducing rituals, and their representation within consular imagery occasionally conveys these transcendental connotations. Rather than depicting real gift distributions, the heaps of coin and precious objects amidst which the eros-like children empty their bulging sacks in the diptychs of Clementinus, Magnus, Orestes and the medallion diptych of Iustinus (Pl. 16) refer to a greater, universal abundance which ultimately springs from the Christian rule of the emperor-empress/kingqueen, and the consul is a means through which this allembracing felicitas temporum is expressed. The games are likewise symbolic of the cosmic renewal associated with the new year and other ‘regenerative’ events, such as triumphs, adventi and imperial birthdays. The even circulation of the four teams in the circus/hippodrome presents a reflection of the eternally revolving movement of the sun, the seasons and the cosmos, and the violent fights enacted in the amphitheatre a reflection of the struggle between life and death, darkness and light, the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ forces of nature, where the victor releases new life—a concept affiliated to the ideology of imperial victory. The iconic mode in which especially the eastern consuls are represented is closely related to representations of other categories of high dignitaries—the emperor, Christ, saints etc. in late antique art: personages who through their roles, to which their individuality is subordinated, transcend the limit between man and god, are or become immortal. Like these, the consul represents something greater than himself: the continuity of the Roman state, the perennial triumph of the Roman empire. The consul’s ‘triumph’, enacted through the consular ceremonial, is in its essence a celebration of all Roman triumphs in the past and of triumphs to come. The consulate remains an important tool for the emperor by which he can express his victoriousness and prosperity (felicitas), through which he may simultaneously appear as a primary representative and victorious guarantor of the Roman state. The triumphator’s and the emperor’s nature are considered to be infused with divinity, and so is, on a symbolic level and by long-standing tradition, the nature of the consul. The consulate is intimately connected with the idea of Roma Aeterna, and the consul’s inaugural ceremonies on the New 216

Year function as reaffirmations of Rome’s eternal preservation and as invocations of continued victoriousness. In a period characterised by continuous wars and imperial disunion, the consul’s triumphal image meets a need to sustain the belief in eternal victory. The consul’s ‘victoriousness’ confirms the continuous, god-given victoriousness of the Romans, and his ‘prosperity’ enriches his fellow citizens and promotes fecundity for a new year in Roman history; the annually incoming consul secures continuity with the past and promises continuity for the future. The consul’s suprahuman majesty and surrounding with various motifs of transcendence (among which architectural frames with sacral connotations) reflect all this. Within consular diptych imagery, individual meaning is commonly introduced by deploying a set of ‘standard’ motifs or motif combinations in certain patterns, i.e. with the help of a pre-established ‘consular repertory’. The conveyance of individual meaning thus relies on association, allusion and analogy. The more heterogeneous western diptychs testify to a higher degree of freedom on the part of their commissioners—mainly members of the top stratum of the Roman aristocracy and men with close ties to the imperial court—to self-advertise through official imagery, something which in its turn suggests that the average western consul was more active in his commissioner’s role, both in conceiving his diptych imagery and in communicating his wishes to the artists. The stereotyped diptychs issued by the eastern consuls conversely indicate restricted possibilities to introduce individualised content; in these, any elements that may in any way be associated with the individual honorand are usually in the form of small details, always of an emblematic character, and only found in diptychs issued by consuls who were related to the emperor. The individuality of a man—his physiognomical peculiarities and his personal character—is basically irrelevant to the consular image, since it cannot serve to convey anything about consulship: hence the predominantly impersonal, neutral and in some cases distinctly idealised appearance of the consul’s face. Whereas a couple of western consuls’ representations appear to be at least partly individualised (Boethius, Basilius), it may be seriously doubted whether the images of the eastern consuls were intended as likenesses. An ever stronger tendency towards the generic and non-physical develops over time, the man becoming increasingly subordinated to the trappings and symbolic values of his office. That this development takes place primarily in the eastern half of the empire is likely not a coincidence: the eastern senatorial élite were less selfconscious than their western counterparts, and their dependence on the emperor in all things would not have allowed much room for public self-advertisement. The choice and constellation of certain motifs may sometimes be ascribed to personal interests on the part of the issuing consul. Individual qualities and merits—actual or self-ascribed, and always expressive of the civilitas traditionally associated with holders of high office—such as victoriousness (Constantius, Astyrius, Basilius, Magnus), a prominent family/ancestry (Lampadiorum, Constantius,

Boethius, Clementinus, Anastasius, Anthemius, Orestes), material prosperity (Boethius, Areobindus, Clementinus, Anastasius, Magnus, Orestes), a fine career (Constantius, Felix, Basilius, also Areobindus (sceptre)) may be illustrated in imagery. Victoriousness is illustrated by triumphal motifs—laurel-wreaths and garlands, Victory-figures, warrior goddesses (Roma, Victoria), the arch motif—and so is often also a good family. Physiognomical similarities between honorand and kin enforce the idea of clan and ancestral heritage, suggesting that other qualities—victoriousness, material prosperity—are shared between the members of the same family or dynasty. References to the individual cursus is a way of explaining by what merits a honorand attained his consular appointment. The diptychs of Fl. Constantius (Halberstadt) and Basilius display individualised imagery with an advanced auto-propagandistic content, both expounding on the themes of victory and official statuses on a grand scale and in highly uncanonical ways. Constantius’ imagery is centred on his western victory (416) which re-established imperial unity, his prominence among the collective of high officials and patricians, and his newly acquired membership in the imperial family (through the marriage to Galla Placidia, whose figure is placed at the top centre of the panels)—a membership he gained in recognition of his personal victoriousness. Basilius refers to his contribution to the western victory in 540 by more symbolic yet glorifying means, presenting himself as the very personal protegé of Roma and Victoria, and as a Roman patrician whose high civic ideals (expressed through his motto ‘for the good of the state anew’) and victorious achievement have gained him apotheosis.

217

BIBLIOGRAPHY ANCIENT SOURCES Amm.Marc. Auson., Grat.act. Boethius, Phil.cons. Cassiod., Var. Cic., Verr. Claud., III.Cons.Hon. Claud., IV.Cons.Hon. Claud., VI.Cons.Hon. Claud., Cons.Stil. Claud., Prob.Olybr.cons. Claud., Pan.Manl.Theod. Cod.Theod. Corippus, Iust.Aug. Euseb., Hist.eccl. Joseph., BJ Juv., Sat. Lib., Ep. Lydus, Mag. Lydus, Mens. Malalas Mamertinus, Grat.act.Iul. Mart., Ep. Nov. Olympiodorus Ov., Fast. Pan.Lat. Plin., HN Procop., An. Procop., Goth. Procop., Vand. Sid.Apoll., Carm. Sid.Apoll., Epist. Symmachus, Ep. Symmachus., Rel. Tert., Cor. Tert., De spect. Vopiscus, Aurel.

Ammianus Marcellinus Ausonius, Gratiarum actio Gratiano Boethius, Philosophiae consolationis Cassiodorus, Variae Cicero, In Verrem Claudianus, De tertio consulatu Honorii Augusti Claudianus, De quarto consulatu Honorii Augusti Claudianus, De sexto consulatu Honorii Augusti Claudianus, De consulatu Stilichonis Claudianus, Panegyricus dictus Probino et Olybrio consulibus Claudianus, Panegyricus Manlio Theodoro Codex Theodosianus Corippus, In laudem Iustini Augusti minoris Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica Josephus, Bellum iudaicum Juvenalis, Saturae Libanius, Epistulae Johannes Lydus, De magistratibus Johannes Lydus, De mensibus Johannes Malalas Mamertinus, Gratiarum actio Iuliano Martialis, M. Valeri Martialis epigrammaton Novellae Olympiodorus Ovidius, Fasti Panegyrici Latini Plinius, Historia naturalis Procopius, Anecdota Procopius, De bello gothico Procopius, De bello vandalico Sidonius Apollinaris, Carmina Sidonius Apollinaris, Gaii Sollii Apollinaris Sidonii epistularum Symmachus, Epistulae Symmachus, Relationes Tertullianus, De corona Tertullianus, De spectaculis Vopiscus, Aurelianus

218

MODERN SOURCES Abbreviations follow those recommended (http://www.ajaonline.org/shared/s_info_contrib_7.html).

by

Ahlqvist 2001

the

American

Journal

of

Archaeology

Ahlqvist, A. ‘Cristo e l’imperatore romano: i valori simbolici del nimbo’, in Imperial art as Christian art—Christian art as imperial art. Expression and meaning in art and architecture from Constantine to Justinian, eds. J.R. Brandt & O. Steen, (ActaAArtHist 15), Rome, 207-227. Aldrete 1999 Aldrete, G.S., Gestures and acclamations in ancient Rome, Baltimore & London. Alexander 1976 Alexander, J.J.G., ‘The illustrated manuscripts of the Notitia Dignitatum’, in Aspects of the Notitia Dignitatum, eds. R. Goodburn & P. Bartholomew, (BAR Suppl. 15), Oxford, 1149. A. Alföldi 1934 Alföldi, A., ‘Die Ausgestaltung des monarchischen Zeremoniels am römischen Kaiserhofe’, RM 49, 1-118. A. Alföldi 1935 Alföldi, A., ‘Insignien und Tracht der römischen Kaiser’, RM 50, 1-171. A. Alföldi 1942/43 Alföldi, A., Die Kontorniaten. Ein verkanntes Propagandamittel der stadtrömischen heidnischen Aristokratie, Budapest. A. Alföldi 1949 Alföldi, A., ‘Die Spätantike in der Ausstellung “Kunstschätze der Lombardei” in Zürich’, Atlantis 21, 61-80. A. Alföldi 1959 Alföldi, A., ‘Hasta—summa imperii. The spear as embodiment of sovereignty in Rome’, AJA 63, 1-27. M.R. Alföldi 1961 Alföldi, M.R., ‘Signum Deae. Die kaiserzeitlichen Vorgänger des Reichsapfels’, JNG 11, 19-32. M.R. Alföldi 1989 Alföldi, M.R., ‘Historische Wirklichkeit—historische Wahrheit: Constantin und das Kreuzszepter’, in Migratio et commutatio. Studien zur alten Geschichte und deren Nachleben. Festschrift Th. Pekáry, eds. H.-J. Drexhage & J. Sünskes, St. Katharinen, 318325. Arce 1988 Arce, J., Funus imperatorum. Los funerales de los emperadores romanos, Madrid. Arce 2000 Arce, J., ‘Morte e apoteosi del principe’, in Aurea Roma. Dalla città pagana alla città cristiana, eds. S. Ensoli & E. La Rocca, Roma, 244-248. Arnaud 1984 Arnaud, P., ‘L’image du globe dans le monde romain: science, iconographie, symbolisme’, MÉFRA 96, 53-116. M.T.W. Arnheim 1972 Arnheim, M.T.W., The senatorial aristocracy in the later Roman empire, Oxford. R. Arnheim 1974 Arnheim, R., Art and visual perception. A psychology of the creative eye2, Berkeley, Los Angeles & London. R. Arnheim 1982 Arnheim, R., The power of the center. A study of composition in the visual arts, London. Bagnall, Cameron, Schwartz & Worp 1987 Bagnall, R.S., A. Cameron, S.R. Schwartz & K.A. Worp, Consuls of the later Roman empire, (Philological Monographs of the American Philological Association 36), Atlanta. Balty 1982 Balty, J.C., ‘Hiérarchie de l’empire et image du monde. Le face nord-ouest de la base de l’obélisque théodosien à Constantinople’, Byzantion 52, 60-71. Bardill 1999 Bardill, J., ‘The great palace of the Byzantine emperors and the Walker Trust excavations’, JRA 12:1, 216-230. Barini 1952 Barini, C., Triumphalia. Imprese ed onori militari durante l’impero romano, Torino. Barnish 1987 Barnish, S.J.B., ‘Pigs, plebeians and potentes: Rome’s economic hinterland, c. 350-600 A.D.’, BSR 55, 157-185. Barnish 1988 Barnish, S.J.B., ‘Transformation and survival in the western senatorial aristocracy, c. A.D. 400-700’, BSR 56, 120-155. Baus 1940 Baus, K., Der Kranz in Antike und Christentum, Bonn. Baxandall 1985 Baxandall, M., Patterns of intention: on the historical explanation of pictures, New Haven & London. Bayet 1904 Bayet, C., L’art byzantin4, Paris.

219

Beck 1975

Beck, H.-G., ‘Res publica romana vom Staatsdenken der Byzantiner’, in Das byzantinische Herrscherbild, ed. H. Hunger, Darmstadt, 379-414. Beckwith 1958 Beckwith, J., ‘The Werden casket reconsidered’, ArtB 40, 1-11. Beckwith 1961 Beckwith, J., The art of Constantinople. An introduction to Byzantine art, London. Belloni 1956 Belloni, G., Avori tardo-classici e alto-medioevali, Milano. Berger 1981 Berger, P.C., The insignia of the ‘Notitia Dignitatum’, New York & London. Bertelli 1958:1 Bertelli, C., ‘Anastasio’, in EAA, 1, 341-342. Bertelli 1958:2 Bertelli, C., ‘Areobindo’, in EAA , 1, 601-603. Bertelli 1961 Bertelli, C., ‘Lampadi’, in EAA, 4, 463-464. Bertelli 1992 Bertelli, C., ‘Roma e Milano nell’ultimo conflitto col paganesimo. Aspetti della committenza cristiana’, in Felix temporis reparatio. Atti del convegno archeologico internazionale ‘Milano capitale dell’impero romano’, 1990, eds. G. Sena Chiesa & E.A. Arslan, Milano, 441-453. Bianchi Bandinelli 1956 Bianchi Bandinelli, R., Organicità e astrazione, Milano. Bianchi Bandinelli 1969 Bianchi Bandinelli, R., L’arte romana nel centro del potere, Milano. Bianchi Bandinelli 1970 Bianchi Bandinelli, R., Roma. La fine dell’arte antica, Milano. Billig 1977 Billig, E., Spätantike Architekturdarstellungen 1 , (Diss., Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis 10:1), Stockholm. Boschung 1987 Boschung, D., Antike Grabaltäre aus den Nekropolen Roms, (Acta Bernensia 10), Bern. Bovini & Ottolenghi 1956 Bovini, G. & L.B. Ottolenghi eds., Avori. Catalogo della mostra degli avori dell’alto medioevo2, Ravenna. Bowersock, Brown & Grabar 1999 Bowersock, G.W., P. Brown & O. Grabar eds., Late antiquity. A guide to the postclassical world, Cambridge, Mass. & London. Bowes 2001 Bowes, K., ‘Ivory lists: consular diptychs, Christian approbation and polemics of time in late antiquity’, Art History 24:3, 338-357. Braemer 1988 Braemer, F., ‘”Portrait officiel, portrait privé”. Essai de classement’, in Ritratto ufficiale e ritratto privato. Atti della II conferenza internazionale sul ritratto romano, Roma 26-30 settembre 1984, Roma, 183-195. Brandenburg 1967 Brandenburg, H., ‘Meerwesensarkophage und Clipeusmotiv. Beiträge zur Interpretation römischer Sarkophagreliefs’, JdI 82, 195-245. Breckenridge 1968 Breckenridge, J.D., Likeness: A conceptual history of ancient portraiture, Evanston. Breckenridge 1979 Breckenridge, J.D., ‘Portraiture’, in Age of spirituality. Late antique and early Christian art, third to seventh century, ed. K. Weitzmann, New York, 2-7. Bréhier 1936 Bréhier, L., La sculpture et les arts mineurs byzantins, (Histoire de l’Art Byzantin), Paris. Brendel 1936 Brendel, O., ‘Symbolik der Kugel. Archäologischer Beitrag zur Geschichte der älteren griechischen Philosophie’, RM 51, 1-95. Brelich 1938 Brelich, A. ‘Trionfo e morte’, Studi e materiali di storia delle religioni 14, 189-193. Brescia 1978 San Salvatore di Brescia. Materiali per un museo I. Brilliant 1963 Brilliant, R., Gesture and rank in Roman art, (Memoirs of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences 14), New Haven. Brilliant 1997 Brilliant, R., Portraiture2, London. D.F. Brown 1942 Brown, D.F., ‘The arcuated lintel and its symbolic interpretation in late antique art’, AJA 46, 389-399. P.R.L. Brown 1982 Brown, P.R.L., ‘Art and society in late antiquity’, in Age of spirituality: a symposium, ed. K. Weitzmann, New York, 17-27. Bruns 1935 Bruns, G., Der Obelisk und seine Basis auf dem Hippodrom zu Konstantinopel, (Istanbuler Forschungen 7), Istanbul. Bruun 1976 Bruun, P., ‘Notes on the transmission of imperial images in late antiquity’, in Studia Romana in honorem Petri Krarup, Odense, 122-131. Buckton 1994 Buckton, D., ed., Byzantium. Treasures of Byzantine art and culture from British collections, London. Budde 1940 Budde, E.G., Armarium und KibwtoV . Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des antiken Mobiliars, Würzburg. 220

Bühl 1995 Bühl 1996 Bühl 2001

Burgess 1988 Burns 1980 Bury 1958:1 Bury 1958:2 Buschhausen 1971 Cagiano de Azevedo 1963 Caillet 1985 Caillet & Loose 1990 Calza 1926/27 A. Cameron 1979 A. Cameron 1991 A. Cameron 1993 A.D.E. Cameron 1970 A.D.E. Cameron 1972 A.D.E. Cameron 1976 A.D.E. Cameron 1978 A.D.E. Cameron 1981:1 A.D.E. Cameron 1981:2 A.D.E. Cameron 1982:1 A.D.E. Cameron 1982:2 A.D.E. Cameron 1984 A.D.E. Cameron 1985 A.D.E. Cameron 1986 A.D.E. Cameron 1988 A.D.E. Cameron 1992 A.D.E. Cameron 1998 A.D.E. Cameron 1999:1 A.D.E. Cameron 1999:2

Bühl, G., Constantinopolis und Roma. Stadtpersonifikationen der Spätantike, Zürich. Bühl, G., ‘Constantinopolis: das Neue im Gewand des Alten’, in Innovation in der Spätantike. Kolloquium Basel 6. und 7. Mai 1994, ed. B. Brenk, Wiesbaden, 115-136. Bühl, G., ‘Eastern or western?—that is the question. Some notes on the new evidence considering the eastern origin of the Halberstadt diptych’, in Imperial art as Christian art—Christian art as imperial art. Expression and meaning in art and architecture from Constantine to Justinian, eds. J.R. Brandt & o. Steen, (ActaAArtHist 15), Rome, 193-203. Burgess, R., ‘Quinquennial vota and the imperial consulship in the fourth and fifth centuries, 337-511’, NC 148, 77-96. Burns, T.S., The Ostrogoths. Kingship and society, (Historia, Einzelschriften 36), Wiesbaden. Bury, J.B., History of the later Roman empire, from the death of Theodosius I to the death of Justinian, Vol. I, New York. Bury, J.B., History of the later Roman empire, from the death of Theodosius I to the death of Justinian, Vol. II, New York. Buschhausen, H., Die spätrömischen Metallscrinia und frühchristlichen Reliquarie. 1. Katalog, Wien. Cagiano de Azevedo, M., ‘L’architettura di sfondo nel dittico di Stilicone’, ArchCl 15, 105110. Caillet, J.-P., L’antiquité classique, le haut moyen âge et Byzance au Musée de Cluny, Paris. Caillet, J.-P. & H.N. Loose, La vie d’éternité. La sculpture funéraire dans l’antiquité chrétienne, Paris & Genève. Calza, G., ‘La figurazione di Roma nell’arte antica’, Pedalo 7, 663-688. Cameron, A., ‘Images of authority: Elites and icons in late sixth century Byzantium’, PastPres 84, 3-35. Cameron, A., Christianity and the rhetoric of empire, Berkeley & Los Angeles. Cameron, A., The Mediterranean world in late antiquity AD 395-600, London. Cameron, A.D.E, Claudian. The poetry and propaganda at the court of Honorius, Oxford. Cameron, A.D.E., Porphyrius the charioteer, Oxford. Cameron, A.D.E., Circus factions. Blues and Greens at Rome and Byzantium, Oxford. Cameron, A.D.E., ‘The house of Anastasius’, GRBS 19, 259-276. Cameron, A.D.E., ‘Boethius’ father’s name’, ZPE 44, 181-183. Cameron, A.D.E, ‘Pagan ivories and consular diptychs’, in The 7th Annual Byzantine Studies Conference. Abstracts of papers, 54. Cameron, A.D.E., ‘A note on ivory carving in fourth century Constantinople’, AJA 86, 126129. Cameron, A.D.E., ‘Anthusa: notes on the iconography of Constantinople’, i n The 8th Annual Byzantine Studies Conference. Abstracts of papers, 41. Cameron, A.D.E, ‘A new late antique ivory: the Fauvel panel’, AJA 88, 397-402. Cameron, A.D.E., ‘The date and owner of the Esquiline treasure’, AJA 89, 135-145. Cameron, A.D.E., ‘Pagan ivories’, in Colloque genévois sur Symmaque à l’occasion du mille six centième anniversaire du conflit de l’autel de la Victoire, Genève 1984, ed. F. Paschoud, Paris, 41-72. Cameron, A.D.E., ‘The Probus diptych and Christian apologetic’, in The 14th Annual Byzantine Studies Conference. Abstracts of papers, 51-52. Cameron, A.D.E., ‘Observations on the function and distribution of late Roman silver’, JRA 5, 178-185. Cameron, A.D.E., ‘Consular diptychs in their social context: new eastern evidence’, JRA 11, 384-403. Cameron, A.D.E., ‘The antiquity of the Symmachi’, Historia 48, 477-505. Cameron, A.D.E., ‘The last pagans of Rome’, in The transformations of VRBS ROMA in late antiquity, ed. W.V. Harris, (JRA Suppl.ser. 33), Portsmouth, R.I. 109-121.

221

Cameron & Schauer 1982 Capizzi 1969 Capps 1927 Castagnoli 1941 Chastagnol1962 Chastagnol 1966 Chastagnol 1982 Chastagnol 1986 Christiansen 1970 Chrysos 1992 Ciancio Rossetto 1985

Ciancio Rossetto 2000 Coarelli 1997 Coarelli 2001 Coburn Soper 1938 Compostella 1990:1 Compostella 1990:2 Connor 1998 Courtois 1949 Cousin 1941 Cracco Ruggini 1977 Cracco Ruggini 1986 Crippa & Zibawi 1998 Cumont 1932/33 Cumont 1942 Curran 2000 Cutler 1981 Cutler 1984:1 Cutler 1984:2

Cameron, A.D.E. & D. Schauer, ‘The last consul: Basilius and his diptych’, JRS 72, 126145. Capizzi, C., L’imperatore Anastasio I (491-518). Studio sulla sua vita, la sua opera e la sua personalità, Roma. Capps, E. Jr., ‘The style of the consular diptychs’, ArtB 10, 1, 60-101. Castagnoli, F., ‘Gli edifici rappresentati in un relievo del sepolcro degli Haterii’, BullCom 69, 59-69. Chastagnol, A., Les fastes de la préfecture de Rome au Bas-Empire, (Études Prosopographiques 2), Paris. Chastagnol, A., Le sénat romain sous le règne d’Odoacre. Recherches sur l’épigraphie du Colisée au Ve siècle, Bonn. Chastagnol, A., ‘La carrière sénatoriale du Bas-Empire (depuis Dioclétien)’, Tituli 4, 167194. Chastagnol, A., ‘Discussion’ [comments to A.D.E. Cameron 1986], in Colloque genévois sur Symmaque à l’occasion du mille six centième anniversaire du conflit de l’autel de la Victoire, Genève 1984, ed. F. Paschoud, Paris, 71. Christiansen, P.G., ‘Claudian and eternal Rome’, AntCl 40, 670-674. Chrysos, E., ‘Byzantine diplomacy, A.D. 300-800: means and ends’, in Byzantine diplomacy. Papers from the twenty-fourth spring symposium of Byzantine studies, Cambridge, March 1990, eds. J. Shepard & S. Franklin, Aldershot, 25-39. Ciancio Rossetto, P., ‘Circo Massimo’, in Roma. Archeologia nel centro 1, (Lavori e studi di archeologia pubblicati dalla Soprintendenza Archeologica di Roma 6), eds. A.M. Bietti Sestieri, A. Capodiferro, G. Morganti, C. Pavolini, M. Piranomonte & F. Scoppola, Roma, 213-233. Ciancio Rossetto, P., ‘Il Circo Massimo’, in Aurea Roma. Dalla città pagana alla città cristiana, eds. S. Ensoli & E. La Rocca, Roma, 126-128. Coarelli, F., Roma3, (Guide Archeologiche Mondadori), Milano. Coarelli, F., ‘L’armamento e le classi dei gladiatori’, in Sangue e arena. Roma, Colosseo 22 giugno 2001—7 gennaio 2002, ed. A. La Regina, Roma, 153-173. Coburn Soper, A., ‘The Italo-Gallic school of early Christian art’, ArtB 20, 145-192. Compostella, C., ‘Dittico “del patrizio”’, in Milano. Capitale dell’impero, Milano, 340. Compostella, C., ‘Dittico consolare (di S.Gregorio)’, in Milano. Capitale dell’impero, Milano, 344. Connor, C.L., The color of ivory. Polychromy on Byzantine ivories, Princeton, N.J. Courtois, C., ‘Exconsul. Observations sur l’histoire du consulat à l’époque byzantine’, Byzantion 19, 37-58. Cousin, J., ‘Le diptyque consulaire de Besançon’, MémAcInscr 38, Paris, 152-155. Cracco Ruggini, L., ‘Apoteosi e politica senatoria nel IV s. D.C.: il dittico dei Symmachi al British Museum’, RivStorIt 89, 425-489. Cracco Ruggini, L. ‘Discussion’ [comments to A.D.E. Cameron 1986], in Colloque genévois sur Symmaque à l’occasion du mille six centième anniversaire du conflit de l’autel de la Victoire, Genève 1984, ed. F. Paschoud, Paris, 65-70. Crippa, M.A. & M . Zibawi, L’arte paleocristiana. Visione e spazio dalle origini a Bisanzio, Milano. Cumont, F., ‘L’adoration des mages et l’art triomphal de Rome’, MemPontAcc 3, 81-105. Cumont, F., Recherches sur le symbolisme funéraire des romains, (BAHBeyrouth 35), Paris. Curran, J.R., Pagan city and Christian capital. Rome in the fourth century, Oxford. Cutler, A., ‘Art in Byzantine society: motive forces of Byzantine patronage’, Jahrbuch der österreichischen Byzantinistik 31, Wien, 759-787. Cutler, A., ‘The making of Justinian’s diptychs’, Byzantion 54, 75-115. Cutler, A., ‘“Roma” and “Constantinopolis” in Vienna’, in Byzanz und der Westen: Studien zur Kunst des europäischen Mittelalter, ed. I. Hutter, Wien, 43-64.

222

Cutler 1985 Cutler 1991 Cutler 1993 Cutler 1994 Cutler 1995:1 Cutler 1995:2 Cutler & Nesbitt 1982 Dagron 1974 Dagron 1991 Dalton 1961 De Blaauw 2001

Deckers 1979 Deér 1961 Degrassi 1952 De Francovich 1963 De Francovich 1970 Deichmann 1958 Deichmann 1967 de Juliis 1978 Delbrueck 1929 Delbrueck 1932 Delbrueck 1952:1 Delbrueck 1952:2 Delmaire1989:1 Delmaire 1989:2 Delvoye 1965 Delvoye 1967 Delvoye 1971 Demandt 1989 De Maria 1988

Cutler, A., The craft of ivory. Sources, techniques, and uses in the Mediterranean world AD 200-1400, Washington 1985. Cutler, A., ‘Barberiniana. Notes on the making, content, and provenance of Louvre, OA.9063’, JAC 18 (Tesserae: Festschrift für Josef Engemann), 329-339. Cutler, A., ‘Five lessons in late Roman ivory carving’, JRA 6, 167-192. Cutler, A., The hand of the master: craftsmanship, ivory, and society in Byzantium, Princeton, N.J. Cutler, A., ‘Le Consulardiptychen de Richard Delbrück et l’hégémonie de la Klassische Archäologie’, in Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres. Comptes-rendues des séances de l’année, avril-juin 1995, Paris, 393-411. Cutler, A., ‘Late antique or medieval? The “consul” in the Prague Castle Library and the question of “recarved” ivory diptychs’, in Byzantino-Slavica=Stephanos: Studia Byzantina ac Slavica Vladimíro Vavrínek ad annum sexagesimum quintum dedicata, Prague, 701-707. Cutler, A., & J.W. Nesbitt, L’arte bizantina ed il suo pubblico, (trad. S. Martinotti Gianetti), Torino. Dagron, G., Naissance d’une capitale. Constantinople et ses institutions de 330 à 451, Paris. Dagron, G., ‘Holy images and likeness’, DOP 45, 23-33. Dalton, O.M., Byzantine art and archaeology2, London. De Blaauw, S., ‘Imperial connotations in Roman church interiors. The significance and effect of the Lateran fastigium’, in Imperial art as Christian art—Christian art as imperial art. Expression and meaning in art and architecture from Constantine to Justinian, eds. J.R. Brandt & O. Steen, (ActaAArtHist 15), Rome, 137-146. Deckers, J.G., ‘Die Wandmalerei im Kaiserkultraum von Luxor’, JdI 94, 600-652. Deér, J., ‘Der Globus der spätrömischen und byzantinischen Kaisers. Symbol oder Insignie?’, ByzZeit 54, 291-318. Degrassi, A., I fasti consolari dell’impero romano dal 30 avanti Cristo al 613 dopo Cristo, Roma. De Francovich, G., ‘L’Egitto, la Siria e Constantinopoli: problemi di metodo’, RivIstArch 11-12, 83-229. De Francovich, G., Il palatium di Teodorico a Ravenna e la cosidetta “architettura di potenza”, Roma. Deichmann, F.W., Frühchristliche Bauten und Mosaiken von Ravenna, Baden-Baden. Deichmann, F.W. ed., Repertorium der christlich-antiken Sarkophage 1, Wiesbaden. de Juliis, G., ‘Le vicende degli antichi avori della collezione Riccardi’, Commentari 29, 144-156. Delbrueck, R., Die Consulardiptychen und verwandte Denkmäler, (Studien zur spätantiken Kunstgeschichte 2), Berlin & Leipzig. Delbrueck, R., ‘Der spätantike Kaiserornat’, Die Antike 8, 1-21. Delbrueck, R., ‘Zu spätrömischen Elfenbeinen des Westreichs’, BJb 152, 165-189. Delbrueck, R., ‘Constantinopler Elfenbeine um 500’, FelRav 3.8:59, 5-24. Delmaire, R., Largesses sacrées et ‘res privata’. ‘L’aerarium’ impérial et son administration du IVe au VIe siècle, (CÉFR 121), Rome. Delmaire, R., ‘Le déclin des largesses sacrées’, in Hommes et richesses dans l’empire byzantin 1, Paris, 265-277. Delvoye, C., ‘Les ateliers d’arts somptuaires à Constantinople’, Corsi di cultura sull’arte ravennate e bizantina 12, Ravenna, 170-210. Delvoye, C., L'art byzantin, Paris. Delvoye, C., ‘Les ivoires paleobyzantins’, Corsi di cultura sull’arte ravenneate e bizantina, Ravenna 21 marzo-3 aprile 1971, Ravenna, 191-220. Demandt, A., Die Spätantike. Römische Geschichte von Diocletian bis Justinian 284-565 n.Chr., (HAW 3:6), München. De Maria, S., Gli archi onorari di Roma e dell’Italia romana, Roma.

223

Demo 1994

Demo, Z., Ostrogothic coinage from collections in Croatia, Slovenia and BosniaHerzegovina, Ljubljana. Deonna 1940 Deonna, W., ‘Histoire d’un emblème: la couronne murale des villes et pays personnifiés’, Genava 18, 119-236. Deubner 1912 Deubner, L., ‘Die Apotheose des Antoninus Pius’, RM 27, 1-20. de Vries 1999 de Vries, L., ‘Iconography and iconology in art history: Panofsky’s prescriptive definitions and some art-historical responses to them’, in Picturing performance. The iconography of the performing arts in concept and practice, ed. T.F. Heck, Rochester, N.Y. & Woodbridge, 42-64. Dinkler & Dinkler–von Schubert 1995 Dinkler, E. & E. Dinkler-von Schubert, ‘Kreuz I’, in Reallexikon der byzantinische Kunst 5, 2-219. Dinkler-von Schubert 1995 Dinkler-von Schubert, E., ‘CTAYPOC: vom “Wort zum Kreuz” (1 Kor. 1, 18) zum KreuzSymbol’, in Byzantine east, Latin west. Art-historical studies in honor of Kurt Weitzmann, eds. C. Moss & K. Kiefer, Princeton, N.J., 29-39. Diehl 1910 Diehl, C., Manuel d’art byzantin, Paris. Dunbabin 1982 Dunbabin, K.M.D., ‘The victorious charioteer on mosaics and related monuments’, AJA 86, 65-89. Durand 1992 Durand, J. ed., Byzance. L’art byzantin dans les collections publiques françaises. Musée du Louvre, 3. novembre 1992-1er février 1993, Paris. Duval 1978 Duval, N., ‘La mosaïque du “palatium” de S. Apollinaire le Neuf représente-t-elle une façade ou un édifice aplani?’, Corsi di cultura sull’arte ravennate e bizantina 25, 93-122. Dyggve 1941 Dyggve, E., ‘Ravennatum palatium sacrum. La basilica ipetrale per ceremonie. Studii sull’architettura dei palazzi della tarda antichità’, Arkeologisk-kunsthistoriske Meddelelser/Det Kgl. Danske Videnskabernes Selskab 3:2, København, 1-63. G. Egger 1959 Egger, G., ‘Die Architekturdarstellung im spätantiken Reliefs’, JKSW 55, 7-23. R. Egger 1960 Egger, R., Das labarum, die Kaiserstandarte der Spätantike, (SBWien 234:1), Wien. Elsner 1995 Elsner, J., Art and the Roman viewer. The transformation of art from the pagan world to Christianity, New York. Elsner 1998 Elsner, J., Imperial Rome and Christian triumph, (Oxford History of Art), Oxford. Engemann 1973 Engemann, J., Untersuchungen zur Sepulchralsymbolik der späteren römischen Kaiserzeit, (JAC Erg.-Bd. 2), Münster. Engemann 1982 Engemann, J., ‘Der Ehrenplatz beim antiken Sigmamahl’, in Jenseitsvorstellungen in Antike und Christentum. Gedenkschrift für Alfred Stuber, (JAC Erg.-Bd. 9), Münster, 239-250. Engemann 1986 Engemann, J., ‘Zur Position von Sonne und Mond bei Darstellungen der Kreuzigung Christi’, in Studien zur spätantiken und byzantinischen Kunst. F.W. Deichmann gewidmet 3, Bonn, 95-101. Engemann 1987 Engemann, J., ‘Elfenbeinfunde aus Abu Mina/Ägypten’, JAC 30, 172-186. Engemann 1988 Engemann, J., ‘Ein Missorium des Anastasius. Überlegungen zum ikonographischen Programm der “Anastasius”-Platte aus dem Sutton Hoo Ship-burial’, in Festschrift für Klaus Wessel zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. M. Restle, München, 103-115. Engemann 1998 Engemann, J., ‘Zur Anordnung von Inschriften und Bildern bei westlichen und östlichen Elfenbeindiptychen des vierten bis sechsten Jahrhunderts’, in Chartulae. Festschrift W. Speyer, (JAC Erg.-Bd. 28), Münster, 109-130. Engemann 1999 Engemann, J., ‘Das spätantike Consulardiptychon in Halberstadt: westlich oder östlich?’, JAC 42, 158-168. Ensoli & La Rocca 2000 Ensoli, S. & E. La Rocca eds., Aurea Roma. Dalla città pagana alla città cristiana, Roma. Ercolani Cocchi 1983 Ercolani Cocchi, E., Imperi romano e bizantino. Regni barbarici in Italia attraverso le monete del Museo Nazionale di Ravenna, Ravenna. Fears 1981 Fears, J.R., ‘The theology of victory at Rome’, in ANRW 2.17:2, Berlin & New York, 736826. Fillitz 1987 Fillitz, H., ‘Avori di epoca altomedievale nell’Italia del Nord’, in Il millennio ambrosiano. Milano, una capitale da Ambrogio ai carolingi, ed. C. Bertelli, 250-275. Flower 1996 Flower, H.I., Ancestor masks and aristocratic power in Roman culture, Oxford.

224

Forbis 1996 Formis 1967 Fuchs 1943 H. Fuhrmann 1939 H. Fuhrmann 1940 M. Fuhrmann 1994 Gabelmann 1978 Gabelmann 1984 Gambogi 1998 Geary 1999 Gergel 1994 Gibson 1994 Gillett 2001 Gnecchi 1912 Giuliano & Buzzi 1994 Gladigow 1972 Goette 1984 Goette 1990 Gombrich 1959 Gombrich 1982 Grabar 1936 Grabar 1966 Graeven 1892 Graeven 1913 Greenhalgh 1989 Grigg 1977 Grigg 1979 Guilland 1954 Gustafsson 2000 Hall 1979 Haseloff 1930

Forbis, E., Municipal virtues in the Roman empire. The evidence of the Italian honorary inscriptions, Stuttgart & Leipzig. Formis, C., ‘Il dittico eburneo della cattedrale di Novara’, CistMilano 1, 171-191. Fuchs, S., ‘Bildnisse und Denkmäler aus der Ostgotenzeit’, Die Antike 19, 109-143. Fuhrmann, H., ‘Studien zu den Consulardiptychen verwandten Denkmälern I’, RM 54:3, 161-175. Fuhrmann, H., ‘Studien zu den Consulardiptychen verwandten Denkmälern II’, RM 55:1, 92-99. Fuhrmann, M., Rom in der Spätantike. Porträt einer Epoche, Zürich. Gabelmann, H., ‘Der Tribunaltypus der Consulardiptychen und seine Vorstufen’, in Classica et provincialia. Festschrift Erna Diez, eds. G. Schwarz & E. Pochmarski, Graz, 51-65. Gabelmann, H., Antike Audienz- und Tribunalszenen, Darmstadt. Gambogi, P., ‘Ancora su Eros e Anteros’, in In memoria di Enrico Paribeni, eds. G. Capecchi, O. Paoletti, C. Cianferoni, A.M. Esposito & A. Romualdi, (estratto), 189-198. Geary, P.J., ‘Barbarians and ethnicity’, in Late antiquity. A guide to the postclassical world, eds. G.W. Bowersock, P. Brown & O. Grabar, Cambridge, Mass. & London, 107129. Gergel, R.A., ‘Costume as geographic indicator: barbarians and prisoners on cuirassed breastplates’, in The world of Roman costume, eds. J.L. Sebesta & L. Bonfante, London & Madison, Wisc., 191-209. Gibson, M., The Liverpool ivories. Late antique and mediaeval ivory and bone carving in the Liverpool Museum and the Walker Art Gallery, (HMSO), London. Gillett, A., ‘Rome, Ravenna and the last western emperors’, BSR 69, 131-167. Gnecchi, F., I medaglioni romani, Milano. Giuliano, A. & G. Buzzi, Etruschi, (Guide Archeologiche Mondadori), Milano. Gladigow, B., ‘Die sakralen Funktionen der Liktoren. Zum Problem von institutioneller Macht und sakraler Präsentation’, in ANRW 1:2, 295-314. Goette, H.R., ‘Corona spicea, corona civica und Adler. Bemerkungen zu drei römischen Dreifussbasen’, AA, 573-589. Goette, H.R., Studien zur römischen Togadarstellung, Mainz am Rhein. Gombrich, E.H., Art and illusion. A study in the psychology of pictorial representation, New York. Gombrich, E.H., The image and the eye. Further studies in the psychology of pictorial representation, Oxford. Grabar, A., L’empereur dans l’art byzantin. Recherches sur l’art officiel de l’empire byzantin, Paris. Grabar, A., L'età d’oro di Giustiniano. Dalla morte di Teodosio all’Islam, (trad. G. Veronesi), Milano. Graeven, H., ‘Entstellte Consulardiptychen’, RM 7, 204-221. Graeven, H., ‘Heidnische Diptychen’, RM 28, 208-304. Greenhalgh, M., The survival of Roman antiquities in the Middle Ages, London 1989. Grigg, R., ‘Symphonian aeido tes basileias. An image of imperial harmony on the base of the column of Arcadius’, ArtB 59, 469-482. Grigg, R., ‘Portrait-bearing codicils in the illustrations of the Notitia Dignitatum?’, JRS 69, 107-124. Guilland, R., ‘Études sur l’histoire administrative de l’empire byzantin. Le consul, o upatoV’, Byzantion 24, 545-578. Gustafsson, G., Evocatio deorum. Historical and mythical interpretations of ritualised conquests in the expansion of ancient Rome (diss.), (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Historia Religionum 16), Uppsala. Hall, J., Dictionary of subjects and symbols in art2, London. Haseloff, A., Pre-Romanesque sculpture in Italy, Firenze & Paris.

225

Hatt 1986 Heather 1999 Heck 1999 Hegemann 1988 Heidenreich 1951 Heim 1992 Henig 1983 Hermerén 1969 Heucke 1994 Holly 1984 Hölscher 1967 Hölscher 1987 Hommel 1954 Honroth1971 Hornbostel-Hüttner 1979 Hostetter et al. 1991 Hostetter et al. 1993 Humphrey 1986 Ihm 1960 Instinsky 1955 James 1996 Jensen 2000 Jones 1964 Jucker 1961 Kaegi 1966 Kähler 1949 Kähler 1975 Kalavrezou-Maxeiner 1975 Kelley 1999 Kent & Painter 1977

Hatt, J.-J., La tombe gallo-romaine. Recherches sur les inscriptions et les monuments funéraires gallo-romains des trois premiers siècles de notre ère, Paris. Heather, P., ‘The barbarian in late antiquity. Image, reality, and transformation’, in Constructing identities in late antiquity, ed. R. Miles, London & New York, 234-258. Heck, T.F., ‘The evolving meanings of iconology and iconography: towards some descriptive definitions’, in Picturing performance. The iconography of the performing arts in concept and practice, ed. T.F. Heck, Rochester, N.Y. & Woodbridge, 15-41. Hegemann, H.-W., Das Elfenbein in Kunst und Kultur Europas: ein Überblick von der Antike bis zum Gegenwart, Mainz. Heidenreich, R., ‘Tod und Triumph in der römische Kunst’, Gymnasium 58, 326-340. Heim, F., La théologie de la victoire de Constantin à Théodose, (Théologie Historique 89), Paris. Henig, M. ed., A handbook of Roman art. A survey of the visual arts of the Roman world, Oxford. Hermerén, G., Representation and meaning in the visual arts. A study in the methodology of iconography and iconology (diss.), (Lund Studies in Philosophy 1), Lund. Heucke, C., Circus und Hippodrom als politischer Raum. Untersuchungen zum grossen Hippodrom von Konstantinopel und zu entsprechenden Anlagen in spätantiken Kaiserresidenzen, (Altertumswissenschaftliche Texte und Studien 28), Hildesheim. Holly, M.A., Panofsky and the foundations of art history, Ithaca & London. Hölscher, T., Victoria Romana. Archäologische Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Wesensart der römischen Siegesgöttin von den Anfängen bis zum Ende des 3. Jhs. n.Chr., Mainz am Rhein. Hölscher, T., Römische Bildsprache als semantisches System, (AbhHeidelberg 1987:2), Heidelberg. Hommel, P., Studien zu den römischen Figurengiebeln der Kaiserzeit, Berlin. Honroth, M., Stadtrömische G i r l a n d e n , (Sonderschriften herausgegeben vom Österreichischen Archäologischen Institut 17), Wien. Hornbostel-Hüttner, G., Studien zur römischen Nischenarchitektur, (Dutch Archaeological and Historical Society 9), Leiden. Hostetter, E., T.N. Howe, J.R. Brandt & A. St.Clair, ‘Palatino. Verso nordorientale. Complesso tardoromano’, BdA 9, 47-56. Hostetter, E., T.N. Howe, J.R. Brandt & A. St.Clair, ‘Versante nordorientale. Complesso tardoromano’, BdA 19-21, 81-88. Humphrey, J.H., Roman circuses. Arenas for chariot racing, London. Ihm, C., Die Programme der christlichen Apsismalerei von vierten bis zur Mitte des achten Jahrhunderts, Wiesbaden. Instinsky, H.K., Bischofsstul und Kaiserthron, München. James, L., Light and colour in Byzantine art, Oxford. Jensen, R.M., Understanding early Christian art, London & New York. Jones, A.H.M., The later Roman empire 204-602. A social, economic and administrative survey, Oxford. Jucker, H., Das Bildnis im Blätterkelch. Geschichte und Bedeutung einer römischen Porträtform, (Bibliotheca Helvetica Romana 3), Lausanne & Freiburg. Kaegi, W.E., ‘The fifth century twilight of Byzantine paganism’, ClMed 27, 243-275. Kähler, H., Wandlungen der antiken Form, München. Kähler, H., ‘Der Sockel des Theodosiusobelisken in Konstantinopel als Denkmal der Spätantike’, ActaAArtHist 6, 45-53. Kalavrezou-Maxeiner, T., ‘The imperial chamber at Luxor’, DOP 29, 225-251. Kelley, Ch., ‘Empire building’, in Late antiquity. A guide to the postclassical world, eds. G.W. Bowersock, P. Brown & O. Grabar, Cambridge, Mass. & London, 170-195. Kent, J.P.C. & K.S. Painter, Wealth of the Roman world AD 300-700, London.

226

Kiilerich 1991 Kiilerich 1992 Kiilerich 1993 Kiilerich 1996 Kiilerich 2000 Kiilerich & Torp 1989 Kinney 2001 Kitzinger 1954 Kitzinger 1976:1 Kitzinger 1976:2 Kitzinger 1980 Klauser 1944 Kleer 1984 Klein 1985 Kleiner 1987 Klumbach 1970 Koch 1995 Koch 2000 Koch & Sichtermann 1982 Koeppel 1999 Kollwitz 1941 Kollwitz 1964 Kondoleon 1991 Kondoleon 1999 Kraus 1928 Kruse 1934 Künzl 1988 Krzyszkowska 1990

Kiilerich, B., ‘A different interpretation of the Nicomachorum-Symmachorum diptych’, JAC 34, 115-128. Kiilerich, B., ‘”Individual types” and “typified individuals” in Theodosian portaiture’, in Ancient portraiture: image and message, eds. T. Fischer-Hansen, J. Lund, M. Nielsen & A. Rathje, Copenhagen, 237-248. Kiilerich, B., Late fourth century classicism in the plastic arts. Studies in the so-called Theodosian renaissance, (Odense University Classical Studies 18), Odense. Kiilerich, B., ‘Continuity and change in ruler imagery. The eternal victor, c. 400 to c. 800 A.D.’, in Rome and the north, eds. A. Ellegård & G. Åkerström-Hougen, (SIMA 135), Jonsered, 95-110. Kiilerich, B., ‘Representing an emperor: style and meaning on the missorium of Theodosius I’, in El disco de Teodosio, eds. M. Almagro-Gorbea, J.M. Álvarez Martínez, J.M. Blázquez Martínez & S. Rovira, (extract), Madrid, 273-280. Kiilerich, B. & H. Torp, ‘Hic est: hic est Stilicho. The date and interpretation of a notable diptych’, JdI 104, 319-371. Kinney, D., ‘The church basilica’, in Imperial art as Christian art—Christian art as imperial art. Expression and meaning in art and architecture from Constantine to Justinian, eds. J.R. Brandt & O. Steen, (ActaAArtHist 15), Rome, 115-135. Kitzinger, E., ‘The cult of images in the age before iconoclasm’, DOP 8, 83-150. Kitzinger, E., ‘On the interpretation of stylistic changes in late antique art’, in The art of Byzantium and the medieval west, ed. W.E. Kleinbauer, Bloomington & London, 32-48. Kitzinger, E., ‘Some reflections on portraiture in Byzantine art’, in The art of Byzantium and the medieval west, ed. W.E. Kleinbauer, Bloomington & London, 256-269. Kitzinger, E., Byzantine art in the making. Main lines of stylistic development in Mediterranean art, 3rd-7th century, Cambridge, Mass. Klauser, Th., ‘Aurum Coronarium’, RM 59, 129-153. Kleer, B., ‘Roma auf Kontorniaten’, in Spätantike und frühes Christentum. Ausstellung in Liebighaus, Museum alter Plastik, Frankfurt am Main, 16. Dezember bis 11. März 1984, ed. F. Gerke, Frankfurt am Main, 70-74. Klein, R., ‘Das spätantike Romverständnis vor Augustin’, BJb 185, 97-142. Kleiner, D.E.E., Roman funerary altars with portraits, (Archaeologica 62), Rome. Klumbach, H., ‘Altes und Neues zum “Schwert des Tiberius”’, JRGZM 17, 123-132. Koch, G., Frühchristliche Kunst. Eine Einführung, Stuttgart, Berlin & Köln. Koch, G., Frühchristliche Sarkophage, München. Koch, G. & H. Sichtermann, Römische Sarkophage, München. Koeppel, G., ‘A historical relief from Rome and considerations on tensae and the pulvinar’, JRA 12:2, 596-599. Kollwitz, J., Oströmische Plastik der theodosianischen Zeit, (Studien zur spätantiken Kunstgeschichte 12), Berlin. Kollwitz, J., ‘Alexandrinische Elfenbeine’, in Christentum am Nil. Internationale Arbeitstagung zur Ausstellung Koptische Kunst, Essen, Villa Hügel, 23-25 Juli 1963, ed. K. Wessel, Recklingshausen, 207-220. Kondoleon, C., ‘Signs of privilege and pleasure: Roman domestic mosaics’, in Roman art in the private sphere. New perspectives on the architecture and decor of the domus, villa and insula, ed. E.K. Gazda, Ann Arbor, 105-115. Kondoleon, C., ‘Timing spectacles: Roman domestic art and performance’, in The art of ancient spectacle, eds. B. Bergmann & C. Kondoleon, (Studies in the history of art 56), New Haven & London, 321-341. Kraus, F.F., Die Münzen Odovacars und des Ostgotenreiches in Italien, Halle. Kruse, H., Studien zur offiziellen Geltung des Kaiserbildes im römischen Reiche, (Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des Altertums 19:3), Paderborn. Künzl, E., Der römische Triumph. Siegesfeiern im antiken Rom, München. Krzyszkowska, O., Ivory and related materials: an illustrated guide, (BICS 59), London.

227

Lafontaine-Dosogne 1980/81

Lafontaine-Dosogne, J., ‘Le diptychon Leodiense du consul Anastase (Constantinople 517) et les faux des Musées Royaux d’Art et d’Histoire à Bruxelles’, RBArch 49/50, 5-19. La Regina 2001 La Regina, A. ed., Sangue e arena. Roma, Colosseo 22 giugno 2001-17 gennaio 2002, Roma. Lawrence 1927/28 Lawrence, M., ‘City-gate sarcophagi’, ArtB 10, 1-5. Lawrence 1932 Lawrence, M., ‘Columnar sarcophagi of the Latin West’, ArtB 14, 145-146. Lawrence 1945 Lawrence, M., The sarcophagi of Ravenna, New York. Lejdegård 2002 Lejdegård, H., Honorius and the city of Rome. Authority and legitimacy in late antiquity (unpubl. diss., Uppsala University), Uppsala. Lim 1999:1 Lim, R., ‘People as power: games, munificence, and contested topography’, in The transformations of VRBS ROMA in late antiquity, ed. W.V. Harris, (JRA Supp.ser. 33), Portsmouth, R.I., 265-281. Lim 1999:2 Lim, R., ‘”In the Temple of Laughter”: visual and literary representations of spectators at Roman games’, in The art of ancient spectacle, eds. B. Bergmann & C. Kondoleon, (Studies in the history of art 56), New Haven & London, 343-365. Ling 1991 Ling, R., Roman painting, Cambridge. London 1963 Victoria and Albert Museum. Late antique and Byzantine art. Longhurst 1927 Longhurst, M.H., Catalogue of carvings in ivory, Part I, Victoria and Albert Museum, Department of Architecture and Sculpture, London. L’Orange 1933 L’Orange , H.P., Studien zur Kunstgeschichte der spätantiken Porträts (diss.), Oslo & Cambridge, Mass. L’Orange 1947 L’Orange, H.P., Apotheosis in ancient portraiture, Oslo. L’Orange 1953 L'Orange, H.P., Studies in the iconography of cosmic kingship in the ancient world, Oslo. L’Orange 1958 L'Orange, H.P., Fra principat til dominat, Stockholm. L’Orange 1973:1 L’Orange, H.P., ‘Eros Psychophoros’, in Likeness and icon: selected studies in classical and early mediaeval art, Odense, 251-262. L’Orange 1973:2 L’Orange, H.P., ‘Expressions of cosmic kingship in the ancient world’, in Likeness and icon: selected studies in classical and early mediaeval art, Odense, 313-324. L’Orange 1973:3 L’Orange, H.P., ‘Sol invictus imperator. Ein Beitrag zur Apotheose’, in Likeness and icon: selected studies in classical and mediaeval art, Odense, 325-344. L’Orange & von Gerkan 1939 L'Orange H.P. & A. von Gerkan, Der spätantike Bildschmuck des Konstantinbogens, Berlin. Lusardi Siena & Rossignani 1986 Lusardi Siena, S. & M.P. Rossignani eds., Cultura e tecnica artistica nella tarda antichità e nell’alto medioevo, Milano. Lütkenhaus 1998 Lütkenhaus, W., Constantius III. Studien zur seiner Tätigkeit und Stellung im Westreich 411-421, Bonn. Lyle 1984 Lyle, E.B., ‘The circus as cosmos’, Latomus 43, 827-841. MacCormack 1975 MacCormack, S.G., ‘Roma, Constantinopolis, the emperor, and his genius’, CQ 25, 131150. MacCormack 1981 MacCormack, S.G, Art and ceremony in late antiquity, Berkeley & London. Maier 2004 Maier, H.O., ‘Kleidung II (Bedeutung)’, in RAC 162, 1-59. Malte Johansen 1994 Malte Johansen, I., ‘Rings, fibulae and buckles with imperial portraits and inscriptions’, JRA 7, 223-242. Mamboury & Wiegand 1934 Mamboury, E. & T. Wiegand, Die Kaiserpaläste von Konstantinopel zwischen Hippodrom und Marmara-Meer, Berlin & Leipzig. F.D. Martin 1961/62 Martin, F.D., ‘On portraiture: some distinctions’, Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 20, 61-72. J. Martin 1997 Martin, J., ‘Das Kaisertum in der Spätantike’ in Usurpationen in der Spätantike. Akten des Kolloquiums “Staatsreich und Staatlichkeit”, 6.-10. März 1996, Solothurn/Bern, eds. F. Paschoud & J. Szidat, Stuttgart, 47-62. Martindale 1980-1992:1 Martindale, J.R. ed., The prosopography of the later Roman empire, II. A.D. 395-527, Cambridge.

228

Martindale 1980-1992:2 Maskell 1875 Mathisen 1986 Mathisen 1990 Mathisen 1991 Matschke 2002

Matthews 1975 Mazzarino 1942 McCormick 1986 Meischner 1990 Meischner 1996 Mellor 1981 Meslin 1970 Metz & Hirmer 1962 Milburn 1988 Millar 1977 Modigliani 1889 Morey 1941 Näf 1995 Natanson 1953 Netzer 1983 Neumann 1965 Niquet 2000 Noethlichs 2001 Novak 1980 Nussbaum 1962 Ogilvie 1969 Oliver 2002 Onians 1980 Orlandi 1999 Osborne 1991 Painter 1991 Painter 1993 Pani Ermini 1999

Martindale, J.R. ed., The prosopography of the later Roman empire, III. A.D. 527-641, Cambridge. Maskell. W., Ivories. Ancient and mediaeval, London. Mathisen, R.W., ‘Patricians as diplomats in late antiquity’, ByzZeit 79, 35-49. Mathisen, R.W., ‘Clovis, Anastasius, and Byzantine honorary titles circa A.D. 508’, in The 16th Annual Byzantine Studies Conference. Abstracts of papers, Baltimore, 46-47. Mathisen, R.W., ‘A family affair: the purpose of the patriciate in the early Byzantine empire’, in The 17th Annual Byzantine Studies Conference. Abstracts of papers, 62-63. Matschke, K.-P., ‘Sakralität und Priestertum des byzantinischen Kaisers’, in Die Sakralität von Herrschaft. Herrschaftslegitimierung im Wechsel der Zeiten und Räume. Fünfzehn interdisziplinäre Beiträge zu einem weltweiten und epochenübergreifenden Phänomen, ed. F.-R. Erkens, Berlin, 143-149. Matthews, J., Western aristocracies and imperial court A.D. 364-425, Oxford. Mazzarino, S., Stilicone. La crisi imperiale dopo Teodosio, Roma. McCormick, M., Eternal victory: triumphal rulership in late antiquity, Byzantium, and the early mediaeval west, Cambridge. Meischner, J., ‘Das Porträt der theodosianischen Epoche, 380 bis 405 n.Chr.’, JdI 105, 303324. Meischner, J., ‘Das Missorium des Theodosius in Madrid’, JdI 111, 389-432. Mellor, R., ‘The goddess Roma’, in ANRW 2.17:2, 950-1030. Meslin, M., La fête des kalends de janvier dans l'empire romain, (CollLatomus 115), Bruxelles. Metz, P., & H. Hirmer, Elfenbein der Spätantike, München. Milburn, R., Early Christian art and architecture, Aldershot. Millar, F., The emperor in the Roman world (31 BC-AD 337), London. Modigliani, G., ‘Avori de’ bassi tempi rappresentanti un’imperatrice’, L’arte 1, 365-367. Morey, C.R., ‘The early Christian ivories of the eastern empire’, DOP 1, 41-60. Näf, B., Senatorisches Standesbewusstsein in spätrömischer Zeit, (Paradosis. Beiträge zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur und Theologie 40), Freiburg. Natanson, J., Early Christian ivories, London. Netzer, N., ‘Redating the consular ivory of Orestes’, BurlMag 125, 265-271. Neumann, G., Gesten und Gebärden in der griechischen Kunst, Berlin. Niquet, H., Monumenta virtutem titulique. Senatorische Selbstdarstellung im spätantiken Rom im Spiegel der epigraphischen Denkmäler, Stuttgart. Noethlichs, K.L., ‘Die “Christianisierung” des Krieges vom spätantiken bis zum frühmittelalterlichen und mittelbyzantinischen Reich’, JAC 44, 5-22. Novak, D.M., ‘Anicianae domus culmen, nobilitatis culmen’, Klio 62, 473-492. Nussbaum, O., ‘Bewertung von rechts oder links in der römischen Liturgie’, JAC 5, 158171. Ogilvie, R.M., The Romans and their gods, London. Oliver, A. Jr., ‘The ‘Missorium of Theodosius’’, JRA 15:2, 707-710. Onians, J., ‘Abstraction and imagination in late antiquity’, Art History 3, 1-24. Orlandi, S., ‘Il Colosseo nel V secolo’, in The transformations of VRBS ROMA in late antiquity, ed. W.V. Harris, (JRA Suppl.ser. 33), Portsmouth, R.I., 249-263. Osborne, J., ‘A drawing of a consular diptych of Anastasius (A.D. 517) in the collection of Cassiano del Pozzo’, EchCl 35.10:2, 237-242. Painter, K., ‘The silver dish of Ardabur Aspar’, in Papers of the fourth conference of Italian archaeology. 2: The archaeology of power, University of London, January 1990, London, 73-80. Painter, K., ‘Late Roman silver: a reply to Alan Cameron’, JRA 6, 109-115. Pani Ermini, L., ‘Roma da Alarico a Teodorico’, in The transformations of VRBS ROMA in late antiquity, ed. W.V. Harris, (JRA Suppl.ser. 33), Portsmouth, R.I., 35-52.

229

Panofsky 1939 Panofsky 1955:1 Panofsky 1955:2 Panofsky 1992 Paolucci 1994 Paschoud 1967 Pekáry 1985 Peschlow 1984 Pflug 1989 Picard 1957 Piganiol 1923 Piltz 1994 Piper 1851 Pleket 1975 Raeck 1992 Raeck 1998 Rea 2001:1 Rea 2001:2 Reade 1990 Reichert 1996 Restle 1988 Riegl 1901/27 Roberts 2001 Rodenwald 1940 Ross 1945 Rumscheid 2000 Rüpke 1990 Sabbatini Tumolesi 1988 Salomonson 1956

Panofsky, E., Studies in iconology. Humanistic themes in the art of the Renaissance, Oxford. Panofsky, E., ‘The history of art as a humanistic discipline’, in Meaning in the visual arts, Harmondsworth, 23-50. Panofsky, E., ‘Iconography and iconology: an introduction to the study of Renaissance art’, in Meaning in the visual arts, Harmondsworth, 51-81. Panofsky, E., Tomb sculpture. Four lectures on its changing aspects from ancient Egypt to Bernini, ed. H.W. Jansson, New York. Paolucci, F., Museo Nazionale del Bargello. Reperti archeologici, Firenze. Paschoud, F., Roma aeterna. Études sur le patriotisme romain dans l’occident latin à l’époque des grandes invasions, (Bibliotheca Helvetica Romana, 7), Rome. Pekáry, T., Das römische Kaiserbildnis im Staat, Kult und Gesellschaft dargestellt nach den Schriftquellen, Berlin. Peschlow, U., ‘Zum Kaiserporträt des 4. bis 6. Jh.n.Chr.’, in Spätantike und frühes Christentum. Ausstellung im Liebighaus, Museum alter Plastik, Frankfurt am Main, 16. Dezember bis 11. März 1984, ed. F. Gerke, Frankfurt am Main, 61-68. Pflug, H., Römische Porträtstelen in Oberitalien. Untersuchungen zur Chronologie, Typologie und Ikonographie, Mainz am Rhein. Picard, G.C., Les trophées romains. Contribution à l’histoire de la religion et de l’art triomphale de Rome, (BÉFAR 187), Paris. Piganiol, A., Recherches sur les jeux romains. Notes d’archéologie et d’histoire religieueses, Strasbourg & Paris. Piltz, E., Le costume officiel des dignitaires byzantins à l’époque paléologue, Uppsala. Piper, F., Mythologie der christlichen Kunst von ältesten Zeit bis in’s sechzehnte Jahrhundert, Weimar. Pleket, H.W., ‘Games, prizes, athletes and ideology. Some aspects of the history of sport in the Greco-Roman world’, Arena (=Stadion) 1, 51-89. Raeck, W., Modernisierte Mythen. Zum Umgang der Spätantike mit klassischen Bildthemen, Stuttgart. Raeck, W., ‘Dolcissimus imperator—ein Aspekt des Herrscherideals in der spätantiken Kunst, AA, 509-522. Rea, R., ‘Il Colosseo, teatro per gli spettacoli di caccia. Le fonti e i reperti’, in Sangue e arena. Roma, Colosseo, 22 giugno 2001-7 gennaio 2002, ed. A. La Regina, Roma, 223243. Rea, R., ‘Gli animali per la venatio: cattura, trasporto, custodia’, in Sangue e arena. Roma, Colosseo, 22 giugno 2001-7 gennaio 2002, ed. A. La Regina, 245-275. Reade, J., Assyrian sculpture5, (British Museum Publications), London. Reichert, E., ‘Ästhetische Präferenz des Alten? Epigonentum, Kreativität und Originalität in der spätantiken Kunsttheorie’, in Innovation in der Spätantike. Kolloquium Basel 6. und 7. Mai 1994, ed. B. Brenk, Wiesbaden, 377-392. Restle, M., ‘Herrschaftszeichen’, in RAC 14, 937-966. Riegl, A., Spätrömische Kunstindustrie, Wien. Roberts, M., ‘Rome personified, Rome epitomized: representations of Rome in the poetry of the early fifth century’, AJP 122, 533-565. Rodenwald, G., ‘Römische Reliefs Vorstufen zur Spätantike’, JdI 55, 12-43. Ross, M.C., ‘Fragment of a consular diptych’, AJA 49, 449-451. Rumscheid, J., Kranz und Krone. Zu Insignien, Siegespreisen und Ehrenzeichen der römischen Kaiserzeit, (Istanbuler Forschungen 43), Tübingen. Rüpke, J., Domi militae. Die religiöse Konstruktion des Krieges in Rom, Stuttgart. Sabbatini Tumolesi, P., Epigrafia anfiteatrale dell’occidente romano, I. Roma, Roma. Salomonson, J.W., Chair, sceptre and wreath. Historical aspects of their representations on some Roman sepulchral monuments (diss.), Amsterdam.

230

Salomonson 1973 Salzman 1990 Sande 1975 Sande 1993

Sansterre 1984 Scarpellini 1987 Schauer 1981 Schäfer 1989 Schulze 1980:1 Schulze 1980:2 Schulze 1980:3 Schulze 1980:4 Scullard 1974 Seeck 1876 Severin 1972 Shelton 1979 Shelton 1982 Shelton 1983 Shelton 1985 Shelton 1989 Sittl 1890 Smith 1918 Smith 1956 Spätantike 1983 Speyer 1989 Spier 2003 Staccioli 1968 St.Clair 1964 Stella 1987 Stella 1990 Stern 1953 Stone 1994

Salomonson, J.W., ‘Kunstgeschichtliche und ikonographische Untersuchungen zu einem Tonfragment der Sammlung Benaki in Athen’, BABesch 48, 5-82. Salzman, M.R., On Roman time: the Codex-calendar of 354 and the rhythms of urban life in late antiquity, Berkely & Los Angeles. Sande, S., ‘Zur Porträtplastik des sechsten nachchristlichen Jahrhunderts’, ActaAArtHist 6, 65-106. Sande, S., ‘The icon and its origin in Graeco-Roman portraiture’, in Aspects of late antiquity and early Byzantium. Papers read at a colloquium held at the Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul 31 May-5 June 1992, eds. L. Rydén & J.O. Rosenqvist, (Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul Transactions 4), Uppsala, 75-84. Sansterre, J.-M., ‘Où le diptyque consulaire de Clementinus fut-il remployé à une fin liturgique?’, Byzantion 54, 641-647. Scarpellini, D., Stele romane con ‘imagines clipeatae’ in Italia, Roma. Schauer, D., ‘The consular diptych of Basilius (V5) re-evaluated’, in The 7th Annual Byzantine Studies Conference. Abstracts of papers, 56-57. Schäfer, T., Imperii insignia. Sella curulis und fasces, (RM-EH 29), München. Schulze, M., ‘Felix’, in Gallien in der Spätantike. Von Kaiser Constantin zu Frankenkönig Childerich. Ausstellungskatalog, Mainz am Rhein, 42-43. Schulze, M., ‘Asturius’, in Gallien in der Spätantike. Von Kaiser Constantin zu Frankenkönig Childerich. Ausstellungskatalog, Mainz am Rhein, 42. Schulze. M., ‘Elfenbeinsdiptychon’, in Gallien in der Spätantike. Von Kaiser Constantin zu Frankenkönig Childerich. Ausstellungskatalog, Mainz am Rhein, 44-45. Schulze, M., ‘Elfenbeinsdiptychon’, in Gallien in der Spätantike. Von Kaiser Constantin zu Frankenkönig Childerich. Ausstellungskatalog, Mainz am Rhein, 45-46. Scullard, H.H., The elephant in the Greek and Roman world, Ithaca, N.Y. Seeck, O. ed., Notitia Dignitatum, Berlin. Severin, H.-G., Zur Portraitplastik des 5. Jahrhunderts n.Chr., München. Shelton, K.J., ‘Imperial Tyches’, Gesta 18, 27-38. Shelton, K.J., ‘The diptych of the young office holder’, JAC 25, 132-171. Shelton, K.J., ‘The consular muse of Flavius Constantius’, ArtB 65, 7-23. Shelton, K.J., ‘The Esquiline treasure: the nature of the evidence’, AJA 89, 147-155. Shelton, K.J., ‘Roman aristocrats, Christian commissioners: the Carrand diptych’, in Tradition and innovation in late antiquity, eds. F.M. Clover & R.S. Humphreys, Madison & London, 105-127. Sittl, C., Die Gebärden der Griechen und Römer, Leipzig. Smith, E. B., Early Christian iconography and a school of ivory carvers in Provence, Princeton. Smith, E.B., Architectural symbolism of imperial Rome and the Middle Ages, New Jersey. Spätantike und frühes Christentum. Ausstellungskatalog, Liebighaus Museum alter Plastik, Frankfurt am Main. Speyer, W., ‘Das wahrere Porträt’, in Frühes Christentum im antiken Strahlungsfeld: ausgewählte Aufsätze, Tübingen, 13-52. Spier, J., ‘A lost consular diptych of Anicius Auchenius Bassus (A.D. 408) on the mould for an ARS plaque’, JRA 16:1, 350-354. Staccioli, R.A., Modelli di edifici etrusco-italici. I modelli votivi, Firenze. St.Clair, A., ‘The Apotheosis diptych’, ArtB 46, 2, 205-211. Stella, C., Guida del Museo Romano di Brescia, Brescia. Stella, C., ‘Valva del dittico dei Lampadii’, in Milano. Capitale dell’impero, 339-340. Stern, H., Le calendrier de 354. Étude sur son texte et sur ses illustrations, (BAHBeyrouth 55), Paris. Stone, S., ‘The toga: from national to ceremonial costume’, in The world of Roman costume, eds. J.L. Sebesta & L. Bonfante, London & Madison, Wisc., 13-14.

231

Storch 1968 Strong 1915 Stuveras 1969 Szidat 1997 Söderlind 1998 Tassi Scandone 2001 Threadgold 1997 Tomlin 1976 Torelli 1963/64 Torp 1996 Toynbee 1944 Toynbee 1947 Toynbee 1948 Toynbee 1953 Toynbee 1971 Toynbee & Painter 1986 Treitinger 1938 Vermeule 1959 Versnel 1970 Vickers 1986 Ville 1960 Vogel 1973 Volbach 1954 Volbach 1962

Volbach 1976 Volbach 1977 Volbach 1978 Wanscher 1980 Ward-Perkins 1984 Wegner 1994

Storch, R.H., ‘The “absolutist” theology of victory: its place in the late empire’, ClMed 29, 197-206. Strong, E., Apotheosis and afterlife. Three lectures on certain phases of art and religion in the Roman empire, London. Stuveras, R., Le putto dans l’art romain, (CollLatomus 99), Bruxelles. Szidat, S.G., Teile eines historischen Frieses in der Casa de Pilatos in Sevilla mit einem Exkurs zur Tensa, München. Söderlind, S., ‘The concept of likeness’, Valör. Konstvetenskapliga studier 2/3, 5-19. Tassi Scandone, E., Verghe, scuri e fasci littori. Contributo allo studio degli insignia imperii, (Biblioteca di Studi Etruschi 36), Pisa & Roma. Threadgold, W., A history of the Byzantine state and society, Stanford, CA. Tomlin, R.S.D., ‘Notitia dignitatum omnium, tam civilium quam militarium’, in Aspects of the Notitia Dignitatum, eds. R. Goodburn & P. Bartholomew, (BAR Suppl. 15), Oxford, 189-209. Torelli, M., ‘Il monumento teatino di C. Lusius Storax al Museo di Chieti. Il frontone’, StMisc 10, 72-84. Torp, H., ‘Tradition and innovation in iconography. From imperial glorification to Christian dogma’, in Rome and the north, eds. A. Ellegård & G. Åkerström-Hougen, (SIMA 135), Jonsered, 73-94. Toynbee, J.M.C., Roman medallions, New York. Toynbee, J.M.C., ‘Roma and Constantinopolis in late-antique art’, JRS 37, 135-144. Toynbee, J.M.C., ‘Beasts and their names in the Roman empire’, BSR 16, 24-37. Toynbee, J.M.C., ‘Roma and Constantinopolis in late-antique art from 365 to Justin’, in Studies presented to David Moore Robinson on his seventieth birthday 2, Saint Louis, 261277. Toynbee, J.M.C., Death and burial in the Roman world, London. Toynbee, J.M.C. & K.S. Painter, ‘Silver picture plates of late antiquity A.D. 300-700’, Archaeologia 108, 15-65. Treitinger, O., Die oströmische Kaiser- und Reichsidee nach ihrer Gestaltung im höfischen Zeremoniell, Iena. Vermeule, C.C., The goddess Roma in the art of the Roman empire, Cambridge, Mass. Versnel, H.S., Triumphus. An inquiry into the origin, development and meaning of the Roman triumph, Leyden. Vickers, M., ‘Constantinopolis’, in LIMC 3, 301-304. Ville, G., ‘Les jeux de gladiateurs dans l’empire chrétien’, MÉFRA 72, 273-335. Vogel, L., The column of Antoninus Pius, Cambridge, Mass. Volbach, W.F., ‘Frühmittelalterliche Elfenbeinarbeiten in der Schweiz’, in Akten zum III. internationalen Kongress für Frühmittelalterforschung. Frühmittelalterliche Kunst in den Alpenländern, Olten & Lausanne, 99-106. Volbach, W.F., ‘Silber- und Elfenbeinarbeiten vom Ende des 4. bis zum Anfang des 7. Jahrhunderts’, in Beiträge zur Kunstgeschichte und Archäologie des Frühmittelalters. Akten zum VII. internationalen Kongreß für Frühmittelalterforschung, 21.-28. September 1958, H. Fillitz ed., Graz & Köln, 21-36. Volbach, W.F., Elfenbeinarbeiten der Spätantike und des frühen Mittelalters3, Mainz. Volbach, W.F., Avori di scuola ravennate nel V e VI secolo, Ravenna. Volbach, W.F., ‘Avori delle capitali tardoantiche’, Corsi di cultura sull’arte ravennate e bizantina 25, 265-289. Wanscher, O., Sella curulis. The folding stool, an ancient symbol of dignity, Roskilde & København. Ward-Perkins, B., From classical antiquity to the Middle Ages: urban public building in northern and central Italy AD 300-850, Oxford. Wegner, M., ‘Rechts oder Links’, Boreas 17, 277.

232

Wehrli 1948 Weidemann 1980 Weigand 1937 Weinstock 1957 Weitzmann 1966 Weitzmann 1972 Weitzmann 1979 Wessel 1948/49 Wessel 1952/53 Wessel 1953 Wessel 1964 Wessel 1978 Westwood 1876 Whitby 1991 G.C. Williamson 1938 P. Williamson 1986 Winkes 1969 Wistrand 1987 Wittkower 1977 Wood 1997 Woodall 1997 Wrede 1987 Wrede 2001 Wright 1977 Wright 1998 Zadoks-Josephus Jitta 1932 Zanker 1988:1 Zanker 1988:2 Zwierlein-Diehl 1997

Wehrli, R. ed., Kunstschätze der Lombardei, 500 vor Christus-1800 nach Christus. Ausstellung, Kunsthaus Zürich, November 1948-März 1949, Zürich. Weidemann, K., ‘Kunst und Kunsthantwerk. Meisterwerke der Spätantike in Gallien’, in Gallien in der Spätantike. Von Kaiser Constantin zu Frankenkönig Childerich. Ausstellungskatalog, Mainz am Rhein, 40. Weigand, E., ‘Ein bisher verkanntes Diptychon Symmachorum’, JdI 52, 123-138. Weinstock, S., ‘Victor and invictus’, HTR 50, 211-247. Weitzmann, K., ‘The classical in Byzantine art as a mode of individual expression’, in Byzantine art, a European art. Lectures, Athens, 149-177. Weitzmann, K., Catalogue of the Byzantine and early medieval antiquities in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection. 3: Ivories and steatites, Washington D.C. Weitzmann, K. ed., Age of spirituality. Late antique and early Christian, third to seventh century, New York. Wessel, K., ‘Eine Gruppe oberitalischer Elfenbeinarbeiten’, JdI 63/64, 111-160. Wessel, K., ‘Studien zur oströmischen Elfenbeinskulptur’, Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Universität Greifswald 2, 63-94. Wessel, K., ‘Die Liverpooler Venatio-Tafel’, in Wandlungen christlicher Kunst im Mittelalter, eds. J. Hempel & J. Baum, (Forschungen zur Kunstgeschichte und christlichen Archäologie 2), Baden-Baden, 59-73. Wessel, K., ‘Wer ist der Konsul auf der florentiner Kaiserinnen-Tafel?’, ByzZeit 57, 374-379. Wessel, K., ‘Insignien’, in Reallexikon zur byzantinischen Kunst 3, 369-498. Westwood, J.O., Descriptive catalogue of the fictile ivories in the South Kensington Museum, London. Whitby, M., ‘John of Ephesus and the pagans: pagan survivals in the sixth century’, in Paganism in the later Roman empire and in Byzantium, ed. M. Salamon, (Byzantina et Slavica Cracoviensia 1), Cracow, 111-131. Williamson, G.C., The book of ivory, London. Williamson, P. ed., The Mediaeval Treasury. The art of the Middle Ages in the Victoria and Albert Museum, London. Winkes, R., Clipeata imago. Studien zu einer römischen Bildnisform (diss.), Bonn. Wistrand, E., Felicitas imperatoria, (Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis; Studia Graeca et Latina Gothoburgensia 48), Göteborg. Wittkower, R., Allegory and the migration of symbols, London. Wood, I., ‘The transmission of ideas’, in The transformation of the Roman world A.D. 400900, eds. L. Webster & M. Brown, London, 111-127. Woodall, J. ed., Portraiture. Facing the subject, Manchester & New York. Wrede, H., ‘Die spätantike Herme’, JAC 30, 118-148. Wrede, H., Senatorische Sarkophage Roms. Der Beitrag des Senatorenstandes zur römischen Kunst der hohen und späten Kaiserzeit, (Monumenta Artis Romanae 29), Mainz. Wright, D.H., ‘Ivories for the emperor’, in The 3rd Annual Byzantine Studies Conference. Abstracts of papers, 6-9. Wright, D.H., ‘The persistence of pagan art patronage in fifth-century Rome’, in Aetos. Studies in honour of Cyril Mango, eds. I. Sevçenko & I. Hutter, Stuttgart & Leipzig, 354369. Zadoks-Josephus Jitta, A.N., Ancestral portraiture in Rome and the art of the last century of the republic, (Archaeologisch-historische Bijdragen 1), Amsterdam. Zanker, P., The power of images in the age of Augustus, (transl. A. Shapiro), Ann Arbor. Zanker, P., ‘Herrscherbild und Beamtenporträt’, in Ritratto ufficiale e ritratto privato. Atti della II conferenza internazionale sul ritratto romano, Roma 26-30 settembre 1984, Roma, 105-109. Zwierlien-Diehl, E., ‘Constantinopolis et Roma. Intailles des IVe et Ve siècles après J.-C.’, in La glyptique des mondes classiques. Mélanges en hommage à Marie-Louise Vollenweider, ed. M. Avisseau Broustet, Paris, 83-96.

233

Zwirn 1998

Zwirn, S.R. ‘The late antique style and context of the Roma and Constantinopolis ivory diptych in Vienna’, in The 9th Annual Byzantine Studies Conference. Abstracts of papers, 35-36.

234

LIST OF PLATES Plate 1. The Lampadiorum diptych panel; Brescia, Museo Romano, inv. 4; photo Civici Musei d’Arte e Storia di Brescia Plate 2. The Halberstadt diptych; Halberstadt, Domschatz, inv. 45; photo Domschatz zu Halberstadt Plate 3. Felix; Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MMA, inv. 3263; photo Bibliothèque nationale de France, Paris 3 a. Felix, right panel (engraving Mabillon); after Delbrueck 1929, Taf. 3 V(d) Plate 4. Astyrius; Darmstadt, Hessisches Landesmuseum, inv. Kg 54.207; photo © Hessisches Landesmuseum Darmstadt 4 a. Astyrius, right panel (engraving Wiltheim); after Delbrueck 1929, Taf. 4 V(d) Plate 5. The Bourges diptych; Bourges, Musée du Berry, inv. 1860.3.2; photo © F. Lauginie, Musées de la Ville de Bourges Plate 6. Boethius; Brescia, Museo Romano; photo Civici Musei d’Arte e storia di Brescia Plate 7. Orestes; London, Victoria and Albert Museum, inv. 139-1866; photo © V&A Images/Victoria and Albert Museum Plate 8. Basilius; (left panel) Florence, Museo Nazionale del Bargello, inv. 8; after Delbrueck 1929, Taf. 6 (R); (right panel) Milan, Civiche Raccolte d’Arte Applicata, Castello Sforzesco, inv. 10; photo Civiche Raccolte d’Arte Applicata-Castello Sforzesco-Milano Plate 9:1. Areobindus (A); Zürich, Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, inv. A-3564; photo Schweizerisches Landesmuseum Plate 9:2. Areobindus (B); Bésançon, Musée des Beaux-Arts et d’Archéologie, inv. A.185; photo Bésançon, Musée des BeauxArts et d’Archéologie Plate 9:3 a. Areobindus (C); Paris, Musée du Moyen-Âge—Cluny; photo © RMN Gérard Blot 9:3 b. Areobindus (D); St Petersburg, Ermitáz; after Delbrueck 1929, Taf. 12 Plate 10. Clementinus; Liverpool, National Museums Liverpool, inv. M 10036; photo © National Museums Liverpool (Liverpool Museum) Plate 11:1. Anastasius (A); Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MMA, inv. 55; photo Bibliothèque nationale de France, Paris Plate 11:2. Anastasius (B); (right panel) Berlin, former Antiquarium; after Delbrueck 1929, Taf. 20 (V); (left panel) London, Victoria and Albert Museum, inv. 368-1871; photo ” V&A Images/Victoria and Albert Museum Plate 11:3 a. Anastasius (C); Verona, Biblioteca Capitolare; photo Biblioteca Capitolare di Verona 11:3 b. Anastasius (D); St Petersburg, Ermitáz; after Delbrueck 1929, Taf. 18 Plate 12 a. Magnus (A); Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MMA, inv. 3267; photo Bibliothèque nationale de France, Paris 12 b. Magnus (B); Milan, Civiche Raccolte d’Arte Applicata, Castello Sforzesco, inv. 8; photo Civiche Raccolte d’Arte Applicata-Castello Sforzesco-Milano Plate 13 a. Magnus, mediaeval copy (?) in bone; St Petersburg, Ermitáz; after Delbrueck 1929, Taf. 24 13 b . Magnus, mediaeval copy (?) in bone; Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MMA, inv. 3265; photo Bibliothèque nationale de France, Paris Plate 14. Probus; Aosta, Tesoro della Cattedrale; photo Regione Autonoma Valle d’Aosta, Archivio Fotografico della Soprintendenza per i Beni e le Attività Culturali, © Foto Alpina, gennaio 1978 Plate 15. Anthemius (engraving Héron de Villefosse); after Delbrueck 1929, Taf. 17 Plate 16. Iustinus; Berlin, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preußischer Kulturbesitz, inv. 13.322; photo © Bildarchiv Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Berlin 2004, photo: Jürgen Liepe Plate 17. Consular diptych panel; formerly in Paris, Collection Marquis de Ganay; after Delbrueck 1929, Taf. 41

235

Plate 18. The ‘Liverpool venatio’ panel; Liverpool, National Museums Liverpool, inv. M 10042; photo © National Museums Liverpool (Liverpool Museum) Plate 19. The ‘Kaiserpriester’ diptych; Paris, Musée du Louvre, inv. OA9062; photo © RMN Jean-Gilles Berizzi Plate 20. The ‘Barberini’ ivory; Paris, Musée du Louvre, inv. OA9063; photo © RMN Les frères Chuzeville Plate 21 a. The ‘Consecratio’ panel; London, British Museum, inv. 1857, 10-13, 1; photo © The Trustees of the British Museum 21 b. The ‘Archangel’ panel; London, British Museum, inv. OA999; photo © The Trustees of the British Museum Plate 22. Silver missorium of Ardabur Aspar; Florence, Museo Archeologico, inv. 2588; photo Soprintendenza per i Beni Archeologici di Firenze Plate 23. Silver missorium of Theodosius; Madrid, Real Academia de la Historia; after Delbrueck 1929, Taf. 62 Plate 24. Codex-calendar of 354, the consul Constantius II; Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, inv. Romanus 1 MS, Barb.lat. 2145 fol. 13; photo © Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Plate 25. Notitia Dignitatum, frontispiece: ‘Divina providentia’; München, Staatsbibliothek; after Delbrueck 1929, 5 Abb. 2] Cover illustration: Diptych panel of Anthemius, engraving by Héron de Villefosse; after Delbrueck 1929, Taf. 17

236

INDEX acrobatic performance (scene), 125, 143, 145 adventus, 136, 137, 139, 175, 176, 185 aedicula, 117, 137, 153, 158, 159, 160, 164, 165, 166, 169, 170, 172, 173, 175, 192, 198, 199, 201 Amalasuntha, 32, 116, 209 Amazons/Victories, procession of, 125, 143, 144, 145, 146, 150, 187, 193 amphitheatre, 121, 125, 127, 160, 162, 181, 200, 201 Anastasius I, 44, 47, 48, 54, 55, 64, 65, 73, 75, 83, 97, 101, 110, 117, 133, 151, 177, 183, 187, 189, 209 ancestors, 117, 173, 176, 177, 186, 198, 204, 205 animals, in amphitheatre, 123, 125, 143, 145, 193, 194 Anthemius, consular diptych of, 5, 53, 55, 72, 75, 79, 82, 90, 114, 117, 120, 121, 123, 140, 142, 152, 154, 158, 160, 165, 167, 169, 170, 174, 186, 192, 193, 198, 201, 204 Anthemius, emperor, 73, 177 Apion, consular diptych of, 33 Arcadius, column base of (Constantinople), 23, 107, 135, 146, 156, 195 Archangel ivory panel, 60, 61, 83, 153 Ardabur Aspar, consular missorium of, 32, 75, 84, 99, 103, 108, 110, 119, 120, 121, 131, 132, 144, 179, 185, 188, 200, 209 Areobindus, medallion diptychs of, 38, 46, 64 Areobindus, ornamental diptych of, 3, 38, 151 Ariadne, empress, 47, 48, 116, 177, 187, 209 armarium, 172, 173, 176, 177, 199 Athalaric, 32, 209 Barberini ivory, 81, 107, 136, 137, 144, 146, 147, 149 Basilius’ diptych, attribution of, 37, 108, 112 Bühl, G., 12, 97, 102, 105 Cameron, A.D.E., 11, 37, 99, 100, 102, 105, 108, 115 Capps, E., 10 captives, barbarian, 119, 122, 146, 147, 186, 190, 194 chariot-race, 122, 123, 124, 125, 127, 142 children, with coin-sacks, 122, 128, 129, 135, 182, 200 chlamys, military, 114, 135 chlamys, patrician, 22, 68, 90, 112, 114, 205 Christ, representation of, 136, 147, 149, 151, 154, 168, 169, 184, 192, 193, 194, 195, 199, 201, 202 circus, 122, 124, 144, 159, 181, 190, 200 Circus Maximus (Rome), 124, 127, 159, 160, 162, 164, 168, 173 Claudianus, 9, 84 clipeus virtutis, 82, 91, 101, 110, 135, 188 Codex Theodosianus, 8 Codex-calendar of 354, 129, 130, 131, 132, 189 colour, 5, 6 comitiva, 94, 95, 96, 102, 105, 128, 129, 134, 205 commissioner (of consular diptychs), 2, 6, 62, 203, 205, 206 Connor, C.L., 5 Consecratio diptych panel, 139, 153, 155, 170, 171, 176

Constans, Fl., 99, 115, 119 Constantius II, as consul (Codex-calendar of 354), 131, 153, 165, 169, 181 Constantius, Fl., 96, 99, 108, 115, 118, 119, 141, 142, 147, 148, 177, 185, 189, 190, 191, 195, 205 consular diptych, anonymous (ex-Ganay), 32, 33, 77, 142, 149, 150, 151, 152, 208, 211 consulate, imperial, 71, 79, 88, 117, 150, 184, 185, 189, 201 consulate, ordinary, 1, 2, 8, 20, 71, 84, 85, 117, 150, 171, 182, 184 consulate, suffect, 19, 20 cornucopia, 3, 81, 82, 97 corona civica, 113, 138, 142 corona triumphalis, 107, 109, 113, 134, 138, 139, 141, 142, 164, 176, 186, 187, 188, 197 crown, 80, 81, 97, 98, 100, 131, 132, 145 currus bigalis (chariot), 72, 74, 181 currus triumphalis (triumphal chariot), 74, 134, 171, 181 cursus honorum, 4, 87, 90, 92, 95, 153, 156, 205, 206 Cutler, A., 12 Delbrueck, R., 1, 10, 23, 112, 114, 115, 116, 119, 149 diptychon (codicillar diptych), 37, 87, 88, 95, 205 dynasty, imperial, 117, 134, 136, 137, 141, 142, 154, 177, 186, 187, 189, 191, 192, 193, 195, 199, 205 eagle, imperial attribute, 113, 187, 198 eagle, legionary, 111, 155, 156, 157, 198 eagle, symbol of apotheosis, 112, 155, 156, 157, 197, 201 effigy, imperial, 79, 85, 86, 94, 133, 134, 137, 183, 184, 187, 192, 194, 196, 200 emperor, military representation of, 75, 136, 146, 147, 168, 186, 187 Empress ivory panel (Florence), 101, 152, 155 Engemann, J., 12, 115, 118 family (gens), 18, 91, 96, 117, 133, 173, 186, 204, 210 fasces laureati, 107, 140, 186, 206 fasti consulares, 6 felicitas, 137, 142, 144, 146, 156, 173, 183, 185, 186, 187, 198, 199, 200, 202, 204, 206 fully figural type, 2, 189, 194 Galla Placidia, 97, 115, 118, 119, 141, 148, 177, 191, 195 gorgoneion, 55, 80, 81, 82, 137, 187 Graeven, H., 10, 37 Halberstadt diptych, attribution of, 23, 99, 100, 115, 118, 119, 177 Hippodrome (Constantinople), 124, 125, 127, 144, 150, 159, 160, 163, 176 Honorius, in the Halberstadt diptych, 23, 99, 100, 114, 116, 118, 119, 141, 142, 147, 191 Honorius, in the Probus diptych, 143, 168, 186 imago clipeata, 31, 36, 45, 48, 50, 52, 55, 72, 80, 82, 83, 90, 99, 100, 110, 111, 112, 114, 116, 117, 120, 133, 134, 136, 137, 149, 153, 158, 169, 172, 173, 176, 184, 186, 187, 192, 193, 197, 198, 205

237

insignia, imperial, 99, 100, 101, 104, 105, 106, 109, 114, 142, 188, 191 insignia, military, 98, 100, 101, 106, 109, 188, 191 Iustinus, consular diptych of, 3, 32, 47, 65, 81, 116, 121, 131, 135, 145, 149, 183, 192, 195, 199 ivory, 5 Justinian, consular diptychs of, 5, 151 Justinian, reconquest of Italy, 108, 188 Kaiserpriester diptych, 69, 123, 160, 163, 172 kathisma, 126, 163 large-figure type, 3 largitio, 102, 128, 131, 181, 182, 200 lictor, 93, 105, 180 Liverpool venatio diptych panel, 8, 69, 88, 123, 160, 162, 163 magister militum, 87, 94, 205 Magnus’ diptychs, authenticity of, 55, 60, 61, 83 Magnus’ diptychs, bone replicas of, 4, 32, 55, 57, 59, 128, 145 mappa circensis, as independent insignium, 89, 90, 181 musical performance (scene), 123, 125 Netzer, N., 11, 33 New Year (novus annus), 1, 7, 71, 81, 82, 121, 130, 140, 142, 146, 175, 176, 189, 197, 199, 200, 202 nimbus, 98, 154, 168, 193, 198, 199, 201 Notitia Dignitatum, 25, 81, 93, 94, 95, 128, 129, 134, 144, 172, 199 Novellae (of Justinian), 9, 183 orb (orbis caelestis), 111, 112, 113 orb (orbis terrarum), 74, 76, 77, 98, 99, 101, 103, 109, 111, 112, 113, 187, 197 Orestes’ diptych, reattribution of, 32, 33, 46 ornamental type, 3 Ostrogoths, 108, 116, 150, 183, 189, 204 palatium mosaic, S. Apollinare Nuovo (Ravenna), 139, 140, 141, 166, 177 palm-leaf, 124, 128, 131, 132, 143, 144, 145 panegyrics (consular), 9, 204 Panofsky, E., 14 patriciate, 4, 5, 22, 90, 91, 96, 190, 205 Patricius diptych (Novara), 33, 69, 86, 169 personification, on sella curulis, 54, 80, 81, 82, 137 Philoxenus, consular diptychs of, 5, 36 Piazza Armerina (Sicily), circus mosaic, 143 pompa circensis, 1, 71, 72, 74, 78, 83, 84, 128, 132, 171, 180, 181, 182, 184, 185 portrait, definition of, 62, 63 praeses ludorum, 69, 90, 92, 143, 161, 162, 172, 181 Probianus, official diptych of, 18, 69, 86, 169 Probus, consular diptych of, 2, 5, 8, 13, 24, 59, 133, 136, 143, 168, 186, 189, 203 processus consularis, 1, 71, 72, 78, 83, 84, 128, 132, 168, 171, 175, 176, 179, 180, 181, 182, 184, 185 processus triumphalis, 71, 139, 144, 185 Roma Aeterna, 197, 198, 199, 202

Roma-Constantinopolis diptych, 103 San Gregorio diptych, 13 sceptre, bust-, 71, 75, 76, 179, 187 sceptre, composite, 76, 77, 79, 187, 197 sceptre, cross-, 76, 77, 78, 149, 150, 151, 179 sceptre, imperial, 101, 103, 104 Schauer, D., 11, 37, 108 scipio cum aquila, 71, 76, 78, 79, 107, 110, 139, 150, 179, 188 securis (axe blade on fasces), 84, 86 sedia gestatoria, 72, 171, 172, 176, 180 segmentum (inset on costume), 20, 21, 22, 31, 35, 57, 72, 73, 90, 92, 114, 117, 182, 187, 190, 191 semi-figural type, 3 senatorial aristocracy, 9, 18, 91, 96, 113, 127, 171, 176, 183, 189, 196, 203 sepulchral art, 75, 81, 112, 117, 142, 153, 155, 157, 168, 169, 170, 171, 175, 197, 200 serial production, 6, 64, 126 signa (military), 77, 111, 156, 157, 187, 211 Stilicho, official diptych of, 69, 86 suggestus (platform), 170, 171, 172, 180 Symmachus, Q. Aurelianus, 9, 170, 171 tabula inscriptionis/ansata, 3, 4, 62, 75, 133, 151, 152, 158, 165, 167, 168, 169, 187, 197, 205 theatrical performance (scene), 123, 125 theca, 25, 26, 93, 181, 204 thekophoros, 94, 96, 181, 204 Theodora, in apse mosaic of S. Vitale (Ravenna), 152, 172 Theodosius I, missorium of, 19, 86, 120, 121, 130, 136, 137, 166, 167, 176, 177, 194 Theodosius I, obelisk base of (Constantinople), 23, 143, 163 Theodosius II, 23, 99, 114, 116, 141, 191 titles, official, 4, 19, 37, 87, 90, 91, 94, 96, 119, 133, 205 tribunal, 124, 140, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 181, 184 tribunal type, 3, 190 venatio/venator, 122, 123, 124, 127, 143, 145, 190, 193, 194 victoriola, imperial insignium, 82, 103, 111, 134, 136, 147, 186 victory, imperial (Victoria Augusta), 81, 133, 137, 141, 142, 148, 150, 156, 168, 186, 187, 189, 191, 195, 198, 199, 201, 205 victory, military, 119, 141, 187, 188, 191, 200, 205, 206 virtues, aristocratic, 91, 113, 172, 173, 183, 185, 203, 205, 206 Visigoths, 108, 118, 119, 147, 148, 186 Volbach, W.F., 6, 10, 11 wealth (material prosperity), 129, 130, 183, 200, 202, 204 Wessel, K., 11 workshops, 7, 8 youth, fruit-carrying (on sella curulis), 81, 82, 131, 197

238

PLATES

PLATE 1

PLATE 2

PLATE 3

a

PLATE 4

a

PLATE 5

PLATE 6

PLATE 7

PLATE 8

PLATE 9:1

PLATE 9:2

PLATE 9:3

PLATE 10

PLATE 11:1

PLATE 11:2

PLATE 11:3

a

b

PLATE 12

a

b

PLATE 13

a

b

PLATE 14

PLATE 15

PLATE 16

PLATE 17

PLATE 18

PLATE 19

PLATE 20

PLATE 21

a

b

PLATE 22

PLATE 23

PLATE 24

PLATE 25