The Developmentof Early Imperial Dress from the Tetrachs to The
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by University of Birmingham Research Archive, E-theses Repository University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. The Development of Early Imperial Dress from the Tetrarchs to the Herakleian Dynasty General Introduction The emperor, as head of state, was the most important and powerful individual in the land; his official portraits and to a lesser extent those of the empress were depicted throughout the realm. His image occurred most frequently on small items issued by government officials such as coins, market weights, seals, imperial standards, medallions displayed beside new consuls, and even on the inkwells of public officials. As a sign of their loyalty, his portrait sometimes appeared on the patches sown on his supporters’ garments, embossed on their shields and armour or even embellishing their jewelry. Among more expensive forms of art, the emperor’s portrait appeared in illuminated manuscripts, mosaics, and wall paintings such as murals and donor portraits. Several types of statues bore his likeness, including those worshiped as part of the imperial cult, examples erected by public 1 officials, and individual or family groupings placed in buildings, gardens and even harbours at the emperor’s personal expense. 1. For a more theoretical discussion of the emperor’s role as head of state: Cameron, 1987, 122-129; Belting, 1994, 102-107; Canepa, 2009, 100-106. 2 Despite the importance and ubiquitousness of the early emperor’s image, no thorough study of his costume and the messages which it conveyed has been undertaken to date. Yet no other form of early dress was so charged with meaning;2 and symbolism such as the purple colour of the emperor’s robes is still associated with royalty today. Throughout this time period the purple colour of his garments was primarily reserved for his use;3 for another individual to wear the colour might be interpreted as an open declaration that he was a usurper;4 today the term to be “born in the purple chamber” still signifies to us that the individual was a ruling emperor’s legitimate offspring.5 The types of clothing worn by the early emperor fall into three categories: military dress, which protected him during battle, consisting of a helmet, cuirass and tunic; civic dress, which he wore in the city, whose garments were the chlamys, divetesion and imperial brooch; and finally senatorial dress, which he wore on ceremonial occasions, consisting of a toga and under-tunic.6 Each type will be considered below. The empress, on the other hand, never wore military dress and only very occasionally a toga. Initially her dress was more conservative and continued earlier Roman types, but like the emperor’s dress, later consisted of a chlamys and divetesion. At the beginning of the time period covered in this thesis, the reign of Diocletian in 284, the empress, like all high born Roman women, also wore a special form of bridal dress, whose primary garments were a tunic woven on an early type of loom, a yellow coloured mantle, veil and a marriage belt. But by the slightly later Theodosian dynasty (379-453), imperial brides wore full court dress. 2. See especially Canepa’s discussion of imperial costume: Canepa, 2009, 190-192. 3. Justinian, Bk. IV 40.1; Scott, 1932, [unpaged]. ODB, 1991, 1759; for a general discussion of purple: Canepa, 2009, 201. 4. Canepa, 2009, 201. 5. Dagron, 2003, 23-24. 6. Philip Grierson is the first author to use these three categories. He also provides a discussion of why the terminology is...not wholly satisfactory”. Grierson, 1968, 70. 3 Although in a recent monograph Jennifer Ball has written a chapter on imperial dress during the period from 800 to 1200 and Timothy Dawson includes sections in his recent thesis on the forms of garments and headgear worn by emperors and empresses from 900 to 1200, no work has undertaken to analyze developments in dress during the earliest period from the 3rd to 8th centuries, when the most change occurred.7 It will be the object of this thesis to trace developments in imperial dress on a monument by monument basis from the beginning of Diocletian’s reign in 284 to the end of the Herakleian dynasty in 711. Earlier monuments will be drawn in where relevant. In a second section this thesis will trace developments in the empress’ dress during the same time period and using the same methodology, although the monuments may not always show the garments which the emperor actually wore. The analysis will not simply be descriptive. It will also delineate the significance of each form of dress and what it revealed about the ruler’s policies, beliefs and the mystique of rulership which, as we shall see, transcended individual regimes. 7. Ball, 2005, 11-35 and Dawson, 2002, 108-116, 154-165, 197-212, 214-217, and 223-240. 4 As my contribution to the subject, I plan to demonstrate that imperial dress was not simply, as Mary Harlow argues in a recent article, a form of elite male dress or, as Matthew Canepa believes, a product of the interaction between the Byzantine and the Sasanian courts. Instead it was a form of elite dress whose symbolism transcended individual reigns.8 The English essayist Carlyle first identified two types of symbols in dress: extrinsic ones, which were ephemeral, dictated by fashion and bound to an individual locale; and intrinsic symbols, which partake of the nature of what they represent, and endure for several generations and are not associated with a specific individual or region. According to Carlyle the Christian cross and royal sceptre are examples of intrinsic symbols. I believe that although few in number, the intrinsic symbols associated with the emperor’s costume, which first developed during this time period, gave the office much of its power and was essential to creating a new mystique of rulership. 8. Harlow, 2004, 44; Canepa, 2009, 1; Carlyle, 1970, 204-211. 5 Since many monuments and artefacts depicting emperors have survived from antiquity, the study of imperial dress needed a few principles to organize such a large body of material, It was decided to follow the approach used by Philip Grierson in his Catalogue of the Byzantine Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection, which organized by costume type and then by chronological arrangement within each type.9 Soldini’s recent article on the surviving monuments in Constantinople is also arranged chronologically. In a few cases, however, a strictly chronological organization hampered analysis. Since the Arch of Constantine, for example, demonstrated not only the earlier Greco-Roman style found in the Hadrianic tondos but also the tetrarchic and elements from several sub-antique styles, it seemed best to analyze it before the slightly earlier Arch of Galerius. Although several scenes on each monument depict either Constantine or Galerius, only those reliefs which best illustrate changes in dress were analyzed. In a few cases the dating of artefacts and the identification of either the emperor or empress was uncertain; examples include the Great Hunt Mosaic at Piazza Armerina, the statue of Marcian, and the Trier Ivory. In each case my analysis accepted the dating and identification most commonly found in current scholarship. Since this is the first full length study of costume, dress is treated both as an historical artefact and as a form of iconography.10 Each example is first placed in its historical context; the dress depicted is then described, noting any changes from earlier monuments. Finally an art historical analysis is provided. In some cases, such as Justinian’s equestrian statue or the small medallion portraits of Ariadne, it follows in main outline previous interpretations but focuses on dress. In other cases such as the consular medallions of Constantine and his sons, the analysis reinterprets the medallions in terms of their dress. Finally in several cases, either where previous analysis seemed inadequate (as with the statues of the four tetrarchs in Venice) or when the monument had not been previously analyzed (as with Helena’s seated statue) an entirely new analysis is provided. 9. Grierson, 1968, B. Imperial Types, 2. Imperial Costume, 68-80. 10. As mentioned above, since the emperor’s identity is disputed in several cases such as the Trier Ivory, Rothschilde Cameo and Ada Cameo, I have provided a list of other possibilities in a footnote with references to the article. 6 Future scholars can consult my thesis simply for the careful descriptions of the dress found on individual monuments, on small objects or on coins and as a source for such subjects as the types of togas emperors wore, their crowns, the evolution of the imperial brooch, the development of the akakia from the mappa, and the evolution of the empress’ dress from late Roman forms to a costume imitating her husband’s. I have also analyzed two new consular coins: the nomisma of Justin I and miliarense of Justin II for the first time. Of the seven early emperors who struck consular coins, these were the only two which had not been identified.