The Politics of Memory and Inheritance

CEU eTD Collection THE POLITICSMEMORY OF AND VISUAL POLITICS: COMPARING THE SELF-REPRESENTATION OF MA ThesisMA in Comparative History, with the specialization CONSTANTINE AND AUGUSTUS AND CONSTANTINE in Interdisciplinary Medieval Studies. Central European University Mariana Bodnaruk May 2012 Budapest CEU eTD Collection Central European University, in Budapest, partial fulfillment of the requirements of theof Master Arts of degree in History, Comparative with the specializationin THE POLITICSMEMORY OF AND VISUAL POLITICS: COMPARING THE SELF-REPRESENTATION OF Accepted in conformance with the standards of the CEU Thesis submittedto the Department Medievalof Studies, ______CONSTANTINE AND AUGUSTUS AND CONSTANTINE Interdisciplinary Studies. Interdisciplinary Medieval Chair, Examination Committee Mariana Bodnaruk Thesis Supervisor May 2012 Examiner Examiner (Ukraine) Budapest By ii . CEU eTD Collection Central European University, Budapest, in partial fulfillment of the requirements of theof Master Arts of degree in History, Comparative with the specializationin THE POLITICSMEMORY OF AND VISUAL POLITICS: COMPARING THE SELF-REPRESENTATION OF Accepted in conformance with the standards of the CEU. Thesis submittedto the Department Medievalof Studies, ______CONSTANTINE AND AUGUSTUS AND CONSTANTINE Interdisciplinary Studies Interdisciplinary Medieval Mariana Bodnaruk External Reader Budapest (Ukraine) May May 201 By iii 2 CEU eTD Collection Central European University, in Budapest, partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Master Arts of degree in History, theComparative with specializationin THE POLITICSMEMORY OF AND VISUAL POLITICS: COMPARING THE SELF-REPRESENTATION OF ______Accepted in conformance with the standards of theCEU of standards the with inconformance Accepted Thesis submittedto the Department Medievalof Studies, CONSTANTINE AND AUGUSTUS AND CONSTANTINE Interdisciplinary Studies. Interdisciplinary Medieval ______External Supervisor External Mariana Bodnaruk May 2012 May Budapest Supervisor (Ukraine) By iv CEU eTD Collection Budapest, 16 May 2012 in this form toany other institution higherof education for an academic degree. institution’s copyright. Ialsoperson’s ordeclare thatno part of the has been thesis submitted illegitimateinformation as properly usecredited innotes and bibliography.wasI declare thatno unidentified and madethe presentof the thesis workis exclusively History, specializationwith the inInterdisciplinary of Medieval declareStudies herewith that my others,own work, based on myand researchI, the undersigned,no andpart only such externalof the thesis infringes on any Mariana Bodnaruk , candidate for the MA degree in Comparative v Signature ______CEU eTD Collection would be the same without them. without same the be would my conquernot least, the to Nothing younger his brother to wish world. Eugene for constant in and, my English; me having toJudithmistakes her Rasson correct for for caring attitude; teachingfor me Byzantinehistory, for smiling and many Katalinso on to occasions; Szende although not being actually tomy supervisor; Niels Gaulfor hisadmirable intellectual taste, asking me am I serious generositymore than I deserve;in toAziz Althusser,Al-Azmeh for for being skeptical and writing about ‘consensus’,the topic, for imagining and the forAugustan wasting andrewarded) Constantinian during these twohis long years; empirestotime my second supervisor in on correspondence,poorly Matthias fear, (I patience heroic my indeed Riedlextreme, and kindness his fortextfor and inventingfind, to have and for written and being duly scandalized when it appeared, for finding books for me that he did not Thanksgo,above all, supervisor tomy Volker Menze liking for this thesis before it waseven ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS vi CEU eTD Collection APPENDIX CONCLUSION 3. 2. BIBLIOGRAPHY EXORDIUM 1. .. The end of civil wars: The self-referentiality of victory 3.3. 82 ...... A war of 78 images...... 3.2. The early image of Constantine 75 3.1...... 2.2. The affirmative politics of memory: an appropriation of 2.1. symbolic capital ...... 55 Figures ...... 92 Figures ...... Ceremonies as a dynamic topography of memory 1.2. 38 ...... Monuments as memory sites 20 ...... 1.1. Methodology and structure ...... 18 structureMethodology and ...... 15 Theoretical approach terminologyand ...... 10 scholarshipprevioustheguideto A ...... Justificationthe for topiccharacteristics and sources ofthe 5 ...... 1 Introduction ...... COINAGE AS A MEDIUM OFCOMMEMORATION ASAMEDIUM COINAGE SCULPTURE: MEMORY INMARBLE ANDBRONZE 1.2.3 43 circusa palaceand A 1.2.2...... 1.1.6. What does the Empire make of civil war?...... 1.1.6.35 What doesthe Empire make ofcivil war?...... 1.2.1. An embarrassing triumph: Augustus and Constantine as 1.1.5. The revenue ofremembering: The evocative power of 1.1.4.To remember andnot remember infounding Rome: A forgetting 29 ...... 26 Milviansites Bridge ofcivilwar as ...... 1.1.3. What to do with the political event which must not be commemorated? Actium and 1.1.2. Political theology and the theology of Augustus: Eusebius’ case 22 ...... 20 war at Empire1.1.1...... ACHITECTURE AND REMEMBERING AND ACHITECTURE Consecratio Damnatio memoriae ...... 92 ...... 1 ...... 87 ...... 99 ...... 50 ...... : A negativepolitico-memorialA : practice 66 ...... TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF vii ...... 20 ...... 75 ...... 55 ...... spolia triumphatores ...... 31 ...... 38 ...... CEU eTD Collection DOP CTh CQ CP CIL BZ AJA AÉ JWarb JThS JRS JRA JLA JHS JbAChr ILS EAA RRC RIC PG PBSR LTUR LCL Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes Journal Theologicalof Studies Journal of Roman Studies Journal of Roman Archaeology Journal Lateof Antiquity Hellenic Studies of Journal Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum 1892–1916. Dumbarton Oaks Papers 1905. Sirmondinis Constitutionibus Codex Theodosianus Quarterly Classical Classical Philology Berlin: Reimer, 1863–. Corpus inscriptionum Latinarum. Zeitschrift Byzantinische AmericanJournal ofArchaeology L’Année Épigraphique Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae 1965. Italiana, Enciclopedia della Istituto Rome: Bandinelli. Enciclopedia University Press, 1974. Roman Imperial Coinage Graeca Patrologia Papers of the British School at Rome 1993–2000. LexiconTopographicum Urbis Romae University Press, 1912–. Loeb Classical Library RomanRepublican Coinage London: Spink 1923–1994. deil'arte antica deil'arte . 161 vols. Ed. Jacques-Paul Migne. Paris, 1857–1866. Paris, Migne. Jacques-Paul Ed. vols. . 161 . Vol. 1, pars posterior. . 518vols.PageT. E. et Ed. al. Cambridge: Harvard LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS OF LIST . 10 vols. . Ed. Michael H. Crawford. Cambridge: Cambridge . Ed.Theodor Mommsen Pauland M. Meyer.Berlin, . . Classica e orientale Classica 3 vols. Ed. Hermann Dessau. Berlin: Weidmann 16 Ed. H. Mattingly, E. A. Sydenham, et alia. et Sydenham, A. E. H.Mattingly, Ed. . viii vols. Ed. Theodor Mommsen et alia. et Mommsen Theodor Ed. vols. 5 vols. Ed. E. M. Steinby. Rome: Quasar, Theodosiani Libri XVIcum . Vol. 6.Ed.R.Bianchi- CEU eTD Collection (2008),206–59. 3 216–17. 2004), Brill, (Leiden: Octavian, who chose to exercise the politics of the very aristocrats whohad supported Maxentius, retained their offices. exultation of victory, thetyrant time was ripe for andConstantinian hailed revenge, yet Constantine,the Roman senators, the unconquered ruler over the Western empire. In the 2 his memory was obliterated. Rome, his military forces – the disgracefully and his head was paraded in triumphal procession exhibited to the populace of theovercome army the usurper Maxentiusof andcaptured Rome. Maxentius died What Constantinian does art say imperialabout politics in the aftermath of the year 312CE? empire was constituted I start Battlewith politicalof the Milvian events. Bridge The onfirst 28 October question 312 isCE andthus howthe thefollowing: new political order of the 1 Noel Lenski, “Evoking the Pagan Past: Pagan the “Evoking Lenski, Noel Eric R. Varner, Eric Scriptores Historiae Augustae, Historiae Scriptores It all began with the Constantinian Arch in Rome (fig.1). Constantine had just had Constantine (fig.1). in Rome Arch Constantinian the with began all It I begin with the questions of political history. To understand what happened after the Introduction Mutilation and Transformation. Alexander Severus Alexander 2 Thesenatorial aristocracy denounced defeated Maxentius asa equites equites singulares Instinctu divinitatis EXORDIUM 10.4, ed. and tr. Magie 1924, II, 196–97. Damnatio Memoriae Damnatio 1 clementia and Praetorian Guard – were dissolved, and dissolved, were – Guard Praetorian and and Constantine’s Capture of Rome,” Capture Constantine’s and Alexander Severus (Scriptores Historiae Augustae, claim. form of adoption or by hereditary nameall succeed, we either by some founder of this Empire, and tohis wasthefirst The firstAugustus succedimus. hereditario iure omnes velut quadam adoptione aut auctor imperii, et in eius nomen Augustus primus primus est huius – Caesar’s special towardsvirtue – and Roman Imperial Portraiture 10.4) 3 Like young 1 JLA 1 CEU eTD Collection Antike antiken Rom (Hamburg: Kova (Hamburg: Untersuchungen zur Funktion und Nutzung der Forum Romanun und der Kaiserfora in der Kaiserzeit 7 (York: York Museums and Gallery Trust, 2006), 24. not a glorious foreign victory,not all,of its predecessors by its commemoration a civiltheof war between Roman citizens and only related monument to (fig.3).it is As Augustus’Diana Kleiner has Actianput it, “since archthe Arch (inof Constantine is set apart from most, if Constantine:An Exercise inPublicity,” in 6 (Bari: Edipuglia, 1996), 55–65. ‘ 5 in the Roman about Forum 29BCE, Constantine was often reminiscent), had previously received a triumphal arch from the senate hisideological father, thefounder of theOctavian, empire. Augustus future (of whom dedicatory inscription on theArch. on inscription dedicatory contrast, theConstantinian Maxentius,foe, wasstigmatizedas a it tyrant apparentas in the was therefore in put the thecontext of general imperial themefamous of victories. In conquest barbariansof as well warrecent civil events. Constantine’s hisdefeat of enemy military Roman of interpretation ideological explicit and victory of ideology an exemplified commemorative monument thefrom senate, the triumphal whoseArch re-carvedrelief panels 4 in the expressed Augustus traditionally granted by senate.the appeared toaglorious be winner overthe common enemy and assuch received thetriumph relations with the most influential good maintain to sought Constantine victory, Actian his after Antony Mark membersof supporters among the senatorial aristocrats. At that time he On the imperial development of the Forum Romanum, see Ingrun Köb, Ingrun see Romanum, Forum the of development imperial the On Res Res Gestae Divi Augusti See Mary See Beard, Mary Tyrannus CIL 6.1139 + 31245 = (Munich: Beck, 2002) on urban history. urban on 2002) Beck, (Munich: Having liberated Rome from the rule of a tyrant, in terms reminiscent of the claims of ’ in the Fourth Century,” in (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 2009). See also Frank Kolb, þ , 2000) and Klaus Stefan Freyberger, Stefan Klaus and , 2000) The Roman Triumph 1.1, ed. and tr. Brunt and Moore 1967, 18–9. Averil Cameron, “Constantius and ILS 694. Timothy D. Barnes, “Oppressor, Persecutor, Usurper: The Meaning of Meaning The Usurper: Persecutor, “Oppressor, Barnes, D. Timothy 694. Res Gestae Res (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007). Historiae Augustae Colloquium Barcionense 4 5 What ismore, around CE 315 Constantine also received a Constantine the Great: York’s Roman Emperor Roman York’s Great: the Constantine 7 after the naval victory over Mark Antony and Cleopatra and Antony Mark over victory naval the after threea andhalf centuries earlier, 2 Das Forum Romanum: Spiegel der Stadtgeschichte des Rom: die Geschichte der Stadt in der in Stadt der Geschichte die Rom: Rom – EinStadtzentrum im Wandel. , ed. Giorgio Bonamente 6 Constantine evoked Constantine , ed., E. Hartley et al. CEU eTD Collection L’Orange, Peter Hans suggestive see highly art, on tetrarchic 2004); Gruyter, de Walter (Berlin: al. et Demandt Alexander Christensen, Tetrarchie Kolb, Frank see project, On tetrarchic 2000). Press, University Cornell (Ithaca, Digeser, DePalma E. and 1980) Press, Tusculanum 9 1998). Actium and Augustus: The Politics and Emotions of Civil War victory played in thepolitical formationof the principate and its public ideology, seeRobertAlan Gurval, forms ofreflecting self-descriptionon the acomplex system:of tautological and conflict. Age the ofConstantine: empire itself atpeace with wason the forgetting founded civil of Antony was– calling for unity.The tetrarchic project failedutterly. The Age ofAugustus,the by supported Roman armies Constantine contra Licinius similarly – Octavian contraMark to empire expressed in the timeof Constantine. the oftheuniverse. therefore order One clearly recognizesforunified aChristian request a against crime metaphysical isthus a thetetrarchy of establishment by ruled Diocletian’s one. 8 tetrarchs. theology not toreminds one forget Lactantius’ complaint the about empiredivided the of createAugustus a had to completely Constantinenew order; one. Yetpolitical restored even though period of itcivil war before Augustus and the shorter period ofturmoilis before Constantine, equallycharacterized by dynastic succession. There is certainly a huge difference between long the called ‘civilConstantine, which marked abreak with tetrarchy the and resulted in anew state order war’ and not for a lacka triumph.” wasgranted Octavian young the which of anotherthe Forum Romanum), which celebrated his term.monumentous victory over Mark Antony for Indeed, Lactantius, Diana Kleiner, Diana I will continue with the questions of ideology. Niklas Luhmann discerns two opposite stateThe between dividedRoman ultimate two Roman citizens, rivals, both both The Roman revolution of Augustus is parallelledin the Roman revolution of (Berlin: WalterGruyter, de 1987) and The Roman Empire: Art Forms and Civic Life 9 The empire, for him, should be governed by one ruler for the whole universe is Lactantius the Historian: An Analysis of the De Mortibus Persecutorum De Mortibus Persecutorum De Mortibus Roman Sculpture (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992), 447. On the rôle that the Actian the that rôle the On 447. 1992), Press, University Yale (New Haven: 7.1–2, ed. and tr. Creed 1984, 10–3. On Lactantius, see Arne Søby Diokletian und die Tetrarchie: Aspekte einer Zeitenwende The Making of a Christian Empire.Lactantius and Rome 3 (New York: Rizzoli, 1965). Rizzoli, York: (New 8 (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, Diokletian und die erste (Copenhagen: Museum (Copenhagen: , ed. CEU eTD Collection the only problem is that he claimed the throne later: his desired position was already emperor is a usurper.’In fact, alate antique usurper pursuedno other aims than the emperor; ‘a usurper is the is usurper’ a tautology thatto translated can be in aparadox ‘the Roman Eusebius, 12 11 1 (1988), 21–37. tautologies arenot such in themselves, they are rather special cases ofparadoxes. but refers to something unattainable, towhat is in the tyrant more than a tyrant. Thus, thatthe ‘tyrant’ in‘because he is atyrant’ does connotenot aseries of effective properties, sexual engagedappetite, insacrilegious activities. Ade-tautologization works soastoshow tautological because ‘tyrant’– means precisely Maxentius islike that he because is a tyrant. Thisinversion seems at first sight purely yetnot is isideology.by an thatinversion relations, It istosay,of the achieved that e.g.,– detestable characteristics ascribedtoMaxentius by Lactantius andEusebius first, the ‘tyrant’ appears as a signifier connoting a cluster of supposedly ‘effective’ properties ‘tyrant’the and factuallogic one. inversion of Thean bemadeclear could example: by at experience of reality itself. observations. blocks ultimately tautology the and one ideological oppositions theand posited duality and asserts anidentity.such identity Yet an an became observation schema: something is whatit is. Thetautological statement, however, negates tautology example,states, for that is the ‘a tyranton a Itisalways tyrant.’ dual based what they distinguish really makes a difference. Thus, an ideological description in a form of 10 paradoxical. Lactantius, Žižek, Slavoj Niklas Luhmann, “Tautology and Paradox in the Self-Descriptions of Modern Society,” Indeed, tautologies turn out to be paradoxes to be out turn tautologies Indeed, Ideology indeed works only when it succeeds in determining the mode of everyday Vita Vita Constantini De Mortibus Persecutorum De Mortibus 10 The Sublime Object of Ideology Tautologiesnot They aredistinctions distinguish.do that explicitly negate that 1.33-36, ed. Winkelmann1975, 32-4; Cameron tr. and Hall 1999, 82-3; JanWillem 11 There istherefore agapbetween the ideological figure of a 18.9–11; 26-27; 43–44.1–9,ed. and tr. Creed 1984, 28–9; 40-3;62–5; (Lonon: Verso, 1989), 49. 1989), Verso, (Lonon: 4 a savageandcruel murderer with unrestrained while the reversetrue. isnot Sociological Theory For example, 12 – butthis CEU eTD Collection that changed in time. changed that representations ideological the multiple under revealed be can opinion author’s in the that andthat ofthe first emperor, Augustus, at the intersection of art, politics,and ideology. history deals therefore with a comparison between Constantinian visual self-representation remarkable degreeof agreement it. with My thesis topic qualifiedwithin genrethe of cultural visual andnarrative sources; andsearch for the symbolical shifts, ideology, or is founded on a forgetting inherently the natureconflictual of politics. Empire must be unified, therefore it is basedonthe forgetting civilof war,moreor, precisely, is not. Imperial ideology was to be expressed in a formulathat the former was successful, if or, one prefers, self-referential in his victory. ‘must be, and thereforethan whoMaxentius,was later stigmatized asatyrant; theonly difference between them was is’: the but see David H. Wright, “The True Face of Constantine the Great,” the ofConstantine Face True “The Wright, H. see David but 14 Flaig, in der Spätantike (337-476 n. Chr.) Szidat, Joachim 1997); Verlag, Steiner Franz (Stuttgart: Szidat Great portraiture and coinage. The first is David Wright’s comparison between Augustus and Constantine in various media such as sculptural 13 Constantinople Drijvers, “Eusebius’ Vita Constantini and the Construction of Imagethe of Maxentius,” in it. to to conform it intended is true: ratheropposite the occupied. Moreover,the by usurpation no means wasmeantto change theimperial system, I know of no essay treating comparison between the self-representation of Constantine and Augustus directly, Augustus and Constantine of self-representation the between comparison treating essay of no I know Onusurpation inLate Antiquity, see Den Kaiser herausfordern: Die Usurpation in römischen Reich römischen in Usurpation Die herausfordern: Kaiser Den , 14 Thus, arthistory corroborates the political approach basedon aconcordancebeing of Correspondingly, one might say the very Empire is itwhat is alternatively, or, it what Only Only importanttwoin articles the field of art history deal with a direct iconographical Justification the for topic and characteristics of the sources whichisconcerned with fora search arealphysical appearance ( , ed. H. Amirav and B. ter Haar Romeny (Leuven: Peeters Publishers, 2007), 11–27. (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 2010). On usurpers in the principate,see Egon Usurpationen inder Spätantike 5 Usurpator tanti nominis: Kaiser undUsurpator 13 The True Face of Constantine the DOP (Frankfurt: Campus-Verlag, 1992). Constantine was no less a usurper was noless Constantine 41(1987), 493–507. , ed. François Paschoud and Joachim and Paschoud François ed. , sic !) of Constantine of !) From Rome to CEU eTD Collection University Press, 2002), 4. 16 Century,” 15 Constantine launchedan enormous, urban building program and began producing imperial place. in Augustus’ reign, according to a standard reckoning, Constantine ruled as a Christian, the first ever to sit created the imperial system three centuries earlier.For twenty-three ofthethirty years of his reigned longer then any of the emperors since forty-fiveyearsthe whoof hadAugustus, realities of the system created by the first emperor, Augustus. Next, I turn to Constantine.He they are both subjects of this imagery. imperial Roman in thesis. embodied continuity ideological an is most I must begin withemergedwithin the ideological fieldand what pins this themeaning down. What interests the me Empire itselfcontexts conveying differentin meanings ways.different is tosay,how their That meaning and the political both but andspecificform meaning,how the Roman i.e., in workedimages their cultural culture of their times, Iwill not address a question of style (as post-Rieglian tradition does), a only inspirations for comparisonbookish were scatteredmentions in literature. secondary Besidesasfollow. these my astarting to thatserved inclinedthesis, for attempts the point representation of Constantine thatto of Augustus self- argumentconclusionswhile elaborating an comparing Wright’sthe article of imperial ideology behind contrasting images of the tetrarchs. The author relies on the particular late antique sculptural portrait, investigating for this purpose the corresponding Sculpture andImperial Ideology inthe Early FourthCentury Harold A. Drake, A. Harold R. R. Smith, “The Public Image of Licinius I: Portrait Sculpture and ImperialIdeology the in Early Fourth For the most Irely part visualon sources. Resembling the first Roman emperor, The imperial self-representation the without understood therefore, be cannot Empire; inthevisual Augustus and Constantine of self-representation imperial the Comparing The second, written by written by The second, R.Smith, R. JRS 87(1997),170–202. Constantine and the Bishops: The Politics of Intolerance 16 6 The Public Image of Licinius I: Portrait Licinius I: of PublicImage The in a suggestive interpretation that Iam , 15 aims to re-identify one (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins CEU eTD Collection (Berkley: University of California Press, 1994). 20 (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 2006), 256. or the long-term effect on the same level as the Augustan imperial imagery. Constantine in the period between 307 and 321 CE); their language is coined in the coined is language their CE); and 321 307 between period in the Constantine images by several factors: the orations are contemporary (five twelve of arededicatedto 19 R. R. R. Smith, “Typology and Diversity thein Portraits of Augustus,” reign. Latini specific difficulties in the case ofConstantinian textual evidence. studies usually– profiting from a comparison with contemporary written sources – raise evidence,a combination of the archaeological theand literary issources crucial. Yetportrait interpretations over them is even more copious. Although my point of departure is material anddetailed –especially in contrast to other periods of Roman history yet– the layer of 18 Kaiser- und Prinzenbildnisse I: römischenPortraits in den Capitolinischen Museen und den anderen kommunalen Sammlungen der Stadt Rom, hundredtwo preserved portraits of Augustus fifty approximately sculptural ofConstantineportraits inmoresurviving – contrast to then of only interpretation Dealing challenges Constantinian state art. with an imperial portraits weak evidentiary base as well as problems with the identification and dating of disputable connectedwith therelativethe of problem paucity of evidence preservedfrom thisA period. difficulties that art historians have faced in approaching Constantinian visual politics are of A number affiliations. Christian specifically from apart imagery, imperial earlier an comparative Constantinianin artcanonalargescaleits relationperspective, to be assessed 17 images Ja An estimate made in Dietrich Boschung, For the most comprehensive catalog of imperial portraits, see Klaus Fittschen and Paul Zanker, and Paul Fittschen Klaus see portraits, of imperial catalog mostcomprehensive Forthe In Praise of Later Roman Emperors.The Ğ Elsner, “Perspectives in Art,” in Art,” in “Perspectives Elsner, 20 the– Latin panegyrics are– invaluable sources for the beginning of the Constantinian 17 As the earliest, most detailed, and directly rhetorical the As theearliest,most relevant material, The narrative sources for both the Augustan and Constantinian periods are abundant are periods Constantinian and Augustan the both for sources narrative The R. R. R. Smith defines their applicability to the comparisons with imperial portrait imperial with comparisons the to applicability their defines Smith R. R. R. all over the empire using a traditional visual language and vocabulary. Evoking a (Mainz: Philipp vonZabern, 1985). The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Constantine Die Bildnisse des Augustus Panegyrici Latini, ed. C. E. V. Nixon and Barbara S. Rodgers 18 7 – one can –one nottrace their empire-wide impact JRA (Berlin: Gebruder Mann Verlag, 1993); 9(1996),30–47. 19 , ed. Noel Lenski Panegyrici Katalog der CEU eTD Collection of thegreatest value. Asparallel reading to orations in praise the theof emperor, laudatory historical ‘events’ Eusebius witnessed, although no morereliable than Latin panegyrics, are Constantine Akademie, 1975); Eusebius of Caesarea, Eusebius 1975); Akademie, 27 TricennialOrations Drake, A. Harold 259; Oxford University Press, 1999). 26 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1926–1932). Tricennial Orations 25 Constantine and Eusebius 24 Institutes Constantine are then Eusebius’ (ca. 260339 – CE) of Milan’ but before the break with Licinius,i.e., 313–314CE. The most pertinent for sources provides indispensable but tendentious details on Constantine for the periodafter the ‘Edict 23 Persecutors founder of the empire. whether Late the Roman emperor intentionally initiated his ideological affiliation to the panegyrics, Constantine resembles Augustus in so many ways that oneindeed wonders images of different rulers the imperial competing scilent are about that descriptions they one-size-fits-all provide in the early fourth century CE. Nevertheless, as can be traced in 22 21 the presence emperor. of the attached to the Emperor Constantine;phraseology thepraising qualities emperor’s and accomplishments, particularly those and, not least, they wereaffirmative terms required by composedthe traditional format of a to be delivered in Eusebius, “De Laudibus Constantini,” in Eusebius, Barnes dates the birth of Eusebius somepointto in the fiveyears between 260 and 265: Timothy D. Barnes, Lactantius, Barbara S. Rodgers, “The Metamorphosis of Constantine,” of Metamorphosis “The Rodgers, S. Barbara Smith, “The Public Image of Licinius I,” 195. Eusebius Werke I.1: Über das Leben des Kaisers Konstantin Certainly, Lactantius’– ca.320CE)essential (ca.240 , tr. Anthony Bowen and Peter Garnsey (New York: Liverpool University Press, 2003). Press, University Liverpool York: (New Garnsey Peter and Bowen Anthony , tr. Historia Ecclesiastica Historia De Mortibus Persecutorum De Mortibus . 27 ( De Mortibus Persecutorum The latter contains the fullest account Constantine’s of accomplishments; the (Berkeley: University of California Press,1976), 83–102, 103–27. ( In PraiseIn ofConstantine: A Historical Study and New Translation of Eusebius’ (Cambridge:Harvard University Press, 1981), 277. In Praise Constantineof 22 21 Yet, since panegyrics depict theidealemperor of the tetrarchy, , 2 vols, ed. K. Lake., tr. K. Lake, J. E. L. Oulton and H. J. Lawlor Life of Constantine , tr. J.L., tr. Creed(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984);idem, Eusebius Werke I Eusebius ), 23 apolitical Christian pamphleton tetrarchy,the 8 and , tr.Averil Cameron and StuartG. Hall (New York: CQ , ed. I. A. Heikel (Leipzig:Hinrichs, 1902), 195– OnChrist’s Sepulchre 39 (1989), 233–46. , ed. Friedhelm Winkelmann,2nd ed. (Berlin: basilikos logos 24 the Ecclesiastical History Ecclesiastical On theDeaths of the ; they ; they official preserve ), 26 and the Life of Life , 25 Divine the CEU eTD Collection imperial self-representation Constantine’s own religious themes inpolytheist although sources, their biasesless areno firm. Last,for ofrule a Constantine’s –written in the laterperiod neglectlatercentury – contrast to of histories of Socrates, of histories Constantine from an anti-Christian and anti-Constantinian source. image of Constantine. Zosimus, not a Christian author, compressed secular political and military histories of the period, portraying the favorable 92; 2003), 1–62. the Cross; The EdictofConstantine to Pope Silvester 37 36 35 34 Zosimus, ( 33 Banchich (Buffalo: Canisius College,2009). Epitome de Caesaribus. A 32 2001). College, Canisius Meka (Buffalo: Constantini The epitomesof uncertain omits date, thereferences religious emperor’s to policies andcultural matters. of Aurelius Victor ( Press, 1967); 30 tr. H.W. Bird (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1994). 29 39–62. 1996), Routledge, (London: Monserrat Dominic and Lieu 31 W. Bird (Liverpool: LiverpoolUniversity Press,1993). Historische Forshungen, 1987); “The Origin of Constantine:The 28 the anonymous practice. apologia by reflectsEusebius Constantine’s physical appearance andself-representationin Breviarium “Konstantins Rede an die heilige Versammlung,” in Versammlung,” heilige die an Rede “Konstantins Theodoret, Sozomenus, Sokrates Zosimus, Pseudo-Aurélius Victor, Sexti Aurelii Victoris Liber DeCaesaribus Liber Victoris Aurelii Sexti The Breviarium of Festus. ACriticalEdition with Historical Commentary Eutropii Breviarum UrbeAb Condita Origo Constantini: Anonymus Valesianus Constantine and Christendom The fullest ‘secular’ life of Constantine with the focus political on military and events, New History , Kirchengeschichte , ),” tr. J. Stevenson, in Histoire Nouvelle Kirchengeschichte Festus ), Historia Ecclesiastica 31 and the anonymous author of the The Origin ofConstantine . Breviarium , R.tr. Ridley (Sydney: University of Sydney,2004). 34 Booklet Sozomen, Abrégé des Césars Abrégé , 3 vols, ed. and tr. François Paschoud (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1971–2000); Lettres, Les Belles (Paris: Paschoud François and tr. ed. 3 vols, , , ed. G.C. Hansen (Berlin: Akademie,1995). , ed.L. Parmentier, rev. ed. (Berlin: Akademie,1998). : of the From Constantine to Julian: Pagan and Byzantine Views The Oration to the Saints; The Greek and Latin Accounts of the Discovery of about the Style of Life and the Manners of the Imperatores , ed. Jacques-Paul Migne (Paris, 1864). (Paris, Migne Jacques-Paul , ed. , ed. C. Santini (Leipzig:Teubner, 1979); Eutropius, Accomplishments 35 andTheodoret , ed. F. Pichlmayr(Munich, 1892); Aurelius Victor, , part 1: Text und Kommentar, ed. Ingemar König (Trier: Trierer (Trier: König Ingemar ed. Kommentar, und Text 1: , part De Caesaribus , ed. and tr. Michel Festy (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1999); Lettres, Les Belles (Paris: Festy tr. Michel and ed. , ( Origo Constantini , tr. Mark Edwards (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, University Liverpool (Liverpool: Edwards Mark tr. , Eusebius Werke I Werke Eusebius 9 Oration tothe Saints of the of 36 ), Epitome de Caesaribus Roman People 29 describe the theological disputes of Eutropius ( Anonymus Valesianus pars prior , ed. I. A. Heikel (Leipzig, 1902), 149– 1902), (Leipzig, Heikel A. I. ed. ), draws a hostile depiction of 28 , ed. J.W. Eadie (London: Athlone a heavily interpolated work , tr , 37 is essential. is . Breviarium T. M. Banchich and J. A. 33 The ecclesiastical , ed. Samuel N. C. Breviarium 32 , tr. Thomas M De Caesaribus also offer also ), 30 Festus ( , tr. H. Origo . , CEU eTD Collection the Bishops period, e.g., Antiquites Harvard University Press, 1926–1958). 1928); Josephus Flavius,The Jewish Antiquities, 9 vols,tr. St. J. Thackerey and R.Marcus (Cambridge: Pliny the Elder’s 52 1962). 51 50 Augustus Tacitus’ 49 Woodman (Indianapolis: Hackett, 2004). 48 University Press, 1983). considerable for my topic Vitruvius’ my topic for considerable Paterculus, 47 46 45 Metamorphoses 44 Carmen Saeculare 43 1916). Press, University Harvard (Cambridge.: 42 (Livy, 41 Lives of the Caesars 40 Augustan Settlement(Roman History 53 in Latin, 39 Oxford University Press, 1967). 38 Divi Augusti sake ofspace Iarticulate themin a series equivalences:of his own account Josephus, Pliny, Appian, Tacitus, Velleius Paterculus, Velleius Vitruvius, Propertius, Vergilius, Livy, Suetonius, Dio Dio Cassius, Res Gestae Divi Augusti. The Achievements of the Divine Augustus Divine the of Achievements The Augusti. Divi Gestae Res Q. Horati Flacci Opera Flacci Horati Q. Historici Grœci Minores P. Ovidi Nasonis Metamorphoses 41 History of Rome History A curious observation inappears recentthe by book HaroldDrake Natural History Since it is not feasible to enumerate here the abundant sources on Augustus, for the A guide to the previous scholarshiptheA guideto previous , tr.C. M. Hall (Bristol: KessingerPublishing, 2010). Virgil, 40 The Annals Roman history Roman Annales , The Caesarian and Augustan Narrative (2.41-93) and the literature of the the and Augustanextols Agetheof literature apositive imagethat of emperor The Jewish War 52 De Architectura The Twelve Caesars Aeneis Elegiae and Fasti Consulares , , which specifically addressesissue theof the academic discussion on Roman History 38 , tr. D. Raeburn (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 2004). Penguin, (Harmondsworth: Raeburn D. tr. , Dio Cassius’ Dio , tr. , Guy Lee (Leeds: Francis Cairns, 1999). 42 , vol. 1,ed. and tr.J. Jackson (London: Heinemann, 1979); Tacitus, , ed. O. Ribbeck (Leipzig: Teubner, 1895), 211–835; Virgil, 211–835; 1895), Teubner, (Leipzig: Ribbeck O. ed. , , ed. C. Edwards (Oxford: Oxford University Press,2000), 43–97. Horace, The Embassy to Gaius , ed.and tr.H. E.Butler (London: Heinemann, 1912). The Historiarum Libri Duo , , tr. , tr. B. O. Forster, 14vols (London: Heinemann,1967). , vol. 10, ed. H. Rackham and W. H. S. Jones, tr. D. E. Eichholz (London: Heinemann, 48 , vols. 3–4, ed. H.White (Cambridge: Harvard University Press,1913). , ed. D. R. Shackleton Bailey, 3rd ed. (Stuttgart: Teubner, 1995); Horace, 1995); Teubner, (Stuttgart: ed. 3rd Bailey, Shackleton R. D. ed. , Nicolaus of Damascus’ , vol. 1,ed.L. Dindorf (Leipzig, 1870), 1–153; Nicolaus of Damascus, Natural History Natural , 2 vols, ed. and tr. F. Granger (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1945–1970). Press, University Harvard (Cambridge: Granger F. tr. and ed. , 2vols, , 2 vols, ed. and tr. St. J. Thacjeray (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1927– Press, University Harvard (Cambridge: Thacjeray J. St. tr. and ed. vols, , 2 , 9 , vols, ed.and tr. E. Cary (London: Heinemann, 1914–1927); 43 , 2 vols.,, 2 ed. and tr. J.C.Rolfe. (London:Heinemann, 1913–1914); Ovid, The and , ed. R. J. Tarrant (Oxford: Oxford. University Tarrant Ovid, R. J. University 2004); ed. (Oxford:Press, Oxford. , Roman History, Roman – Fasti Juliani 55.9) 44 Propertius, On , ed., J.Rich (Warminster: Aris and Phillips, 1990). , ed. William S. Watt,2nd ed. (Stuttgart: Saur, 1978);Velleius by Philo of Alexandria. of Philo by , 51 Architecture Flavius Josephus’ Flavius 10 , holdvaluable information. The 45 in Greek, andTibullus) as well narrativesas less Life of Augustus Life of , tr. A. J. Woodman (Cambridge: Cambridge (Cambridge: Woodman J. A. tr. , , 46 Velleius Paterculus’ Velleius , ed., P.A.Brunt and J.M.Moore (Oxford: 39 Svetonius’ The Jewish War 53 Also the inscriptions of the , 49 Aeneid Appian’s The , tr. H. R. Fairclough The Annals Life of Augustus, Constantine and The The Histories Cassius Dio: The Civil Wars and Res Gestae Res Suetonius. Odes and , tr. A. J. Jewish Life of , , 50 47 CEU eTD Collection principle theological supplementConstantine – sincerely was butmadetacticalconverted concessions emperor’s conversion. AlthoughChurch Christian in Barnes’ thesis, a twist on Norman Baynes’magisterial Lecture Raleigh of1929, Burckhardt’s argument in found statement the with together Constantine with about conclusions Burckhardt’s a comprehend in the Constantine. time of his approach to the political – even though religion and politics could not be easily separatedin error here Burckhardt’s lies – religious political faith isnot but of thesincerity of question separate but alsomutually exclusive and essentially contradictory. Fundamentally, the but he did it on the anachronistic premisesincerity of Constantine’s conversion,that an issue that had been in play since the Reformation, the political and spiritual realms are not only easily be persuaded that from his first political appearance political first his from that persuaded be easily but history bas had ample opportunity to surrendering himself wholly without to rule any party.his and himself It istrue that the of maintaining picture end one of the to powers such an egoist spiritual is notand very edifyingresources either,physical available his character would disappear, and we should have insteada calculating politician who shrewdly employedall ambition without surcease, and cynical rationalism. Great 54 53 participants one single question: Was their approach really political? position at stake. Drake reconstructs the debate on Constantinian politics asking the Baynes debate replaced another issue in kind ofmetaphoricala substitution, a different debate masks another probably and far-reachingmore question. It seems that theBurckhardt- of intellectual scholarshipBurckhardt-Baynes the sceneuntil the Constantinian of today, Constantine. It is indeed in curious the sense that the great debate occupying the foreground Burckhardt, Philonis Alexandrini opera quae supersunt ), Jacob Burckhardt ascribed toConstantine an engrossing lust for power, a political Considering it to be a theoretically productive reading, Drake commends to In 1853, in his brilliant his in 1853, In which energetic ambition, as long as the world has has endured, world asthe as long ambition, energetic which The Age of Constantine the Great , which remains to be the best starting point for studying the question of the Die Zeit Konstantins Grossen des Konstantins Die Zeit grow accustomed tohislike.Moreover, latitude with a little , vol. ed. 6, L. Cohn and S. Reiter (Berlin: Reimer, 1915), 155-223. , 261–62: “Then at least the odious hypocrisy which disfigures 11 Constantine consistently acted 54 Indeed, Burckhardt questioned the has called ‘necessity’.” called has Constantine the Great andthe ( The Age of Constantine the according to the to according we can we CEU eTD Collection between the Republic and the Empire… .” Empire… the and Republic the between link binding as the history, political theme of dominant as the emerges therefore government of oligarchy upon the personality and acts of Augustus, but upon his adherents and partisans. The composition of the notable one concerns thesincerity Constantine’s commitmentChristianity.of to Burckhardt perspectives ofSyme’s directinfluence that are apparent inanalyses ofConstantine,themost followed the lead of Augustus’ most powerful modern interpreter. predictable thatmodern scholarship on late Roman emperors andaristocrats has often Dam, since Augustus was still a significant presence during the fourth century, it might be 56 proclaim as the imperial will.” in spirit, only a change of method. change no What entailed Constantinepolicy in wouldalteration have this recommendedis that to realize in323fact he later important “The felt 19: free 1930), Academy,to British the alliances over emperor’s the ambitions,institutional and frameworks. emperor’s power, emphasizing the networks ofpersonal relationships, obligations,and career andreign has been a distinctive interpretation political of the basis of the first example a work ofthe of classicalhistorian. art Syme’s narrative compelling Augustus’ of Roman history,Ronald Syme’s the empire. Raymond Van Dam goesto from the republic thetransition analyzing monographs in major century twentieth thetwo into reading probably the most on debate Constantine; itwasconspicuously thatsomething theof sameorder hasresultedin significant book about approach tothe Constantinian question. from this point ofview. The subsequent effect ofboth works has been to supersede a political emperor’s belief thatand everything on the subjectof the imperial politics canbeexplained that explanation the of the politics Constantinianof the age liesinthesincerity of the Despite their dramatically opposite conclusions, the fundamental principle they shared was Constantine camea resultBurckhardt’s. written author to since, strikingly the similar to 55 required by by required political circumstances Ronald Syme, Ronald Norman H. Baynes, Norman More recent debate in modern Augustan historiography elucidates the issue of the The Roman Revolution Constantine the Great and the Christian Church (Oxford, Claredon Press, 1939), vii: “Emphasis is laid, however, not however, laid, is “Emphasis vii: 1939), Press, Claredon (Oxford, The Roman Revolution 55 –has pervaded virtually every noteworthy work on 12 , together with and through an through and with , together (London: Oxford for University Press 57 56 Among the different the Among In the words of Van CEU eTD Collection Wiley-Blackwell, 2011), 74–80 with literature. see Timothy Barnes, D. Timothy see Press, 2003), 128.For a debate initiated by Peter Weiss,“The Vision of Constantine,” 60 II Regierungsstil des römischen Kaisers. Eine Antwort auf Fergus Millar (1982) approach, see Keith Hopkins, “Rules of Evidence,” 59 Constantine Versus Christ: The Triumph ofIdeology Kee, Alistair see earth, on adumbrates he heaven in status kingly whose God, of favorite the of Constantine which being used as an instrument of the imperial policy was depraved theimage of Christ and overlaid by that 58 5. Power of Images in the Age of Augustus or the depth of his faith… .” thesincerity about and speculating emperor Christian first the of conscience the scrutinizing we havestop set, to ofthismind out break imperial “To ideology: study Byzantine of concealed religious belief andintentions. supposed As Gilbert Dagron summarizes inhis debate, with its decisive attemptto break with the vain search for the yetemperors’ true overestimated the rational outcomes of the imperial politics, which can bee seen in the 57 came fromthe‘history practices’:of “the emperor ‘was’ whatthe emperor did.” Millar in his study Millar monumental in Augustus. viewcynical Constantine of is principally equal to Syme’s interpretation skeptical of Therefore,since each pronouncement canbereadily dismissed asdisingenuous,Burckhardts’ thesincerity about thehavepolitical the question Augustus’ Republic.” to restored claim of “the the question of sincerity Constantine’sof commitment religious is hence an of analogue have Christian used policies toadvance in order a political AsVanagenda. Dame concludes, to seems healso Christianity, but toward inhisattitudes inconsistent sometimes Constantine thus triumphantly returns – with the help of Augustus (or rather Syme) – not only was Gilbert Dagron, Gilbert Fergus Millar, Fergus Van Dam, Raymond Van Dam, Van Raymond (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1998), 843–75. 1998), Steiner, Franz (Stuttgart: Symptomatically, Paul Zanker’s great work In an effort to shift the discussion beyond the Burckhardt-Baynes debate, Fergus The Roman Revolution ofConstantine The Emperor in the RomanWorld Emperor and Priest: The Imperial Office in Byzantium The Roman Revolution of Constantine Constantine: Dynasty,Religion and Power in the Later Roman Empire 60 The Emperor in the Roman World ) appeared in asa 1989 yetcomplement atthe same (London: SCM Press, 1982). (London: Duckworth, 2001), 6. For a critique ofMiller’s critique a For 6. 2001), Duckworth, (London: , 6. On a reconstruction of Constantine’s ‘Christianity’, 13 JRS (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), Press, University Cambridge (Cambridge: 68(1978): 178–86; JochenBleicken, “ Augustus und Machtdie der Bilder (Cambridge: Cambridge University Cambridge (Cambridge: ,” in idem, in ,” advanced an idea that idea an advanced JRA Gesammelte Schriften Gesammelte 16 (2003), 237–59, 59 (Chichester: This book ( Zum The 58 CEU eTD Collection Christian, 312-394 has attackedthe conceptideology. of Our WorldBecame Christian pain et le cirque an issue for a further debate with the notion of ideologyon him more or less spontaneously. at stake. In two topicalfromthe interplay of theimage that himself theemperor projected andthe honors bestowed works, 63 machine began to be uncovered everywhere, though no one could actually put his finger on the source.” Ronald Syme and Andreas Alföldi, have dominated the field. Evidence for the workings of a secretpropaganda 62 era.” in thenew faith their shake could nothing and reality, the than powerful more was image “an themselves Romans of the consciousness the in that argues 238 thing.” tempted us to see ini.e., as an anachronism inadequately thus Romanappliedto culture: this“Recent experience has a propagandathat hasformer the decisively thedismissednotion machinepropagandaof as a cold-war projection, at work, but in Rome there wasperspective. no such scholarship either as a manipulative hypocrite or calculating self-advertiser, depending on the 61 reveal the emperor. imperial rule – Zanker has assumed that the public display of favorable imagery was used to the emperor usedart and literatureto conceal his thepower, true underlying reality of Republican emperor accepted by his subjects. Questioning Syme’s perspective on Augustus – representation in various artistic media facilitated Augustus in inventing himself as a time an Syme’sanswer to approach. Its premise can summarizedbe as following: self- Paul Veyne, Paul Ibid., vi; 3: “Since the late 1960s, studies of Augustanart as political propaganda,building on the work of Paul Zanker, Paul 62 Yet exactly Yet exactly “honorsthese bestowed lesshim on moreor spontaneously” havebecome It may be noted, moreover, that to read Zanker as a remedy for Syme is to recognize The author argues that what in appears retrospect as a subtle program resultedin fact The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus Bread and Circuses and Bread (Cambridge:Polity, 2010). ( Bread and Circuses and Bread 61 In asimilar Constantine way, tobe presented appears in modern ) – one on Augustus and the other on Constantine – Paul Veyne (London: The Penguin Press, 1990); idem, 1990); Press, Penguin The (London: 63 ) and ) “The notion of ideology is misleading … it is too Quand notre monde est devenu chrétien 14 (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1990), When Our World Became World WhenOur ( When Le CEU eTD Collection Arch ofConstantine: Propaganda andIdeology “The Late in Peirce, Roman Art,” see Phillip material, Roman antique late and Classical to the applied approach Althusserian the 68 terms replay ‘yes’: replay terms 67 the Augustan culturalof program.”foundations ideological the from divorced be fully … cannot refinements aesthetic purely Even it. with went that of excitement sense the and situation newpolitical the to waslinked revival architectural the closely how 66 imperial context. Inother words, not to bemisled, if someone renounces very the notion of isnot limited toan itself machinery alleged deliberately of propagandalaunchedin the therefore must have been an ideology that did so. inscriptions to the emperors’ genius and to bestow honors upon Augustus and Constantine. It which they can imprint obedience to the master and to the commands and prohibitions of the group.” the of 65 prohibitions and commands the to and master the to obedience imprint can they which upon wax, virgin upon projected are beliefs of inculcating means the general, in and, preaching education, Christian individual.” population, becoming inextricably bound upwith the personal values and concerns of the imperial mythology, this cultural ideology echoes through all spheres of life and all levels of rejecting propaganda,Zanker has never questioned the issue of ideology: “As much as the 64 appropriate style,” that is say,to one faces “the ideology Augustus’s of regime.” successors, andin such a way Baynes makes a victorious return. rational.” Louis Althusser, “Marxism andHumanism,” in idem, Veyne, clear have made will considered just wehave that cult imperial the for activity building 324: “The 337; Ibid., Zanker, On propaganda and ideology, seeVeyne, This thesisis infinitely richer than the one that itchallenges and shows thatideology To anyone who doubts: “Was there an ideology?” Zanker has an “ideology,in accordance with which Augustus’s architects created an cultural objects. impose on thevast majority of men. They are perceived-accepted-suffered images and occasionally concepts, butit is all above asstructures that they usually are they with ‘consciousness’: do to nothing have representations … asasystemrepresentations,of in where the majority of casesthese Theoretical approach and terminology , 126;130: “The conceptof ideology is mistaken inanother respect too, for itsuggests religion,that When Our World Became Christian The Power of Images in the of Age Augustus 64 Veyneexpresses sincerefaith again Constantinethe almost his of and all 66 Certainly, itnot was propaganda thatforcedcities to dedicate monuments and 68 , 123–37. , Bread and Circuses 15 , 69; 155. 69; , For Marx (London:The Penguin Press, 1969), 223. For , 377–80, idem, 67 one should in strictly Althusserian Art History Art 12 (1989): 387–418; and When Our World Became 65 To sure, be CEU eTD Collection Nicole Loraux, Marcel Detienne, and Pierre Vidal-Naquet. Pierre and Detienne, Marcel Loraux, Nicole 71 50. 70 draw attention to the political from the point of view of the ritual expressed in public Revisited,” Torp’s for criticism of Brown’s treatment of images in Peter Brown, et al., “The World of Late Antiquity inspiration of Vernant’s school, Vernant’s of inspiration which is political, positionpolitical broadly, that a particular than, more activity designatesor less political or, in a sense, theimaginary’ political or ‘symbolic form representation’ order’. –as ofsynonymical in conjunction withsocial otherexpressions such as ‘politicalOn the otherlife hand,in general. ‘the political’ Following is a age. its conceptualof ideology an term that contextual) locates firmly artisticin politicalimaginary change tobe the precise,or, inthe intriguing alignment of meaning with form (iconographic and iconological, social and representation, apparently which in from the early form differs imperial imageThis types. requirement of formal (aesthetic) criteria. Thus,antique late imagery newis the type of define art exclusively its by social content, there is forwarda needto put the fundamental reading of theiconographic and social function of imagery.In contrast, against those who 69 California Press, 2000). Clifford Ando, Clifford scholarship,exclude the fromconflict representation, inherentstatic visual sources, characterwhich, of treated often uncritically in related the visual representation as historical evidence. a step to as‘illustrations’ images a step disdain ideology, then psychoanalysis also appears utterly dubious to him/her, and from here itis just The ‘Paris School’ of cultural criticism in Greek studies was originally composed of Jean-Pierre Vernant, Jean-Pierre of composed originally was studies Greek in criticism of cultural School’ ‘Paris The Nicole Loraux, Nicole Peter Brown, Peter On the one hand, I use the notion of ‘ideology’ – yet not the ‘collective In answer to those then who criticize iconography or reading of images for the for images of reading or iconography criticize who then those to answer In Symbolae Osloenses The World ofLate Antiquity, AD150-750 Imperial Ideology and ProvincialLoyalty in the Roman Empire The Divided City:Forgetting in the Memory of Athens 72 (1997):59–65. 71 which which has approachesrenewed the to study antiquity,of I 69 and to an arrogant refusal of the importance of 16 (London:Thames and Hudson 70 one should seek for the political (New York: Zone Books, 2002), 48– (Berkeley: University of University (Berkeley: , 1971). See Hjaimar 1971). CEU eTD Collection concept in itself. concept on the topic, shows that the process now known as known now process the that shows topic, on the Untersuchungen zur ‘Damnatio Memoriae’ CE and rejects the concept of concept the rejects and CE century second the to up practice Roman of this development of the overview chronological first the provides Disgrace and Oblivion in Roman Political Culture dishonored theperson’s memory,paradoxically, they did not destroy it; Harriet Flower, Memory in Late Antiquity Hedrick, Charles however; concept, modern heuristic observances andmourning. inscriptions and monuments, making it illegal tospeak of him, and prohibiting funeral politics of memory, for instance, removing the person’s name and image from publicdifferent included which practice traditional and formal a was opponents political of memory 75 Oration the in Classical City remembering (e.g., the affirmative visual politics imperial of self-representation and anegative type of legacy and discontinuity in the Roman Empire andas applied toits art it comprises two sides: 74 University of Chicago Press, 1989), 6–8, 129, 131, 136. 73 which art andritual have integralan part along with apolitical dimension. ‘condition’, ‘space’, andmore generally theto dominant ‘world’, ‘order’, and‘system’, in politics on principle. They refer tothe politico-religious ‘thought’, ‘intent’, ‘function’, the aconcept that appealsthose‘politico-religious’, not who contentsecularize to are to the 72 the separate. political regime between the political events andreligion because modernof concern of keeping religion and an event, the time of religion and thelong work of myth are eliminated asfurther links architecture andsculpture. ceremonies and processions, which are a dynamic complement forthe static media of Basic bibliography on bibliography Basic On the ‘politics of forgetting’, see Loraux, see forgetting’, of ‘politics the On Loraux, The Cuisine of Sacrifice among the Greeks the among Sacrifice of The Cuisine Further, the the concept of “politics of memory” Political history excludes from the political everything in the life of cities that is not is that cities of life the in everything political the from excludes history Political The Divided City damnatiomemoriae damnatio memoriae (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2000) argues that while Roman memory practices memory Roman while that argues 2000) Press, Texas of University (Austin: , 19. (New York: Zone Books, 2006). damnatio memoriae 75 72 In contrast to the politics of memory, visual politics is not a Instead, Jean-Pierre Vernant Marceland Detienne arguefor (Berlin: Junkerund Dünnhaupt, 1936), the first andclassical work : Friedrich Vittinghoff, The Divided City ). , ed. Marcel Detienne and Jean-Pierre Vernant (Chicago: Vernant Jean-Pierre and Detienne Marcel ed. , , arguing instead for ‘sanctions against memory.’ For arecent For memory.’ against ‘sanctions for instead arguing , Damnatio memoriae (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2006) 17 History and Silence: The Purge and Rehabilitation of damnatio memoriae ; eadem, ; Der Staatfeind in der Römischen Kaiserzeit. 74 is anelucidation theissuesof of The Invention of Athens:The Funeral as a process of eradicating the is not itself a Roman term yet a 73 The Art of Forgetting: CEU eTD Collection elements of the Constantinian building program both in Rome and Constantinople compared Constantinople and inRome both program building Constantinian the of elements of architecture, sculpture, and coinage dominate arrangement. the In chapter one I analyze the exploration in visual sources and a conceptualization in corresponding terms. his political theology, justifying the empire as a prelude to Christ’s rule, requires an worldly dominion, on the basis whichof Eusebius juxtaposes Constantine and Augustus in sought legitimation of their rule. The rule. their of legitimation sought pacifying wars, established both civil emperors discontinuity andwith predecessors their previous bothpolitical the order, republic andthe activetetrarchy. Being participants in topoi Fallstudie zu Publius Septimius Geta (198-211 n. Chr.) contribution, see Florian Krüpe, see Florian contribution, from the Constantinian assimilation to Apollo/Sol and his andApollo/Sol the to assimilation from Constantinian Augustus shared in the observe common in order tocomprise atopicalanalysis imperial the of self-representation is thesis that I to. this arrive devoted at how the reference to Augustuswill examine how images arein involvedits orbit. emerged the dream ideology, of Imperial a art. unifiedimperial of principles empire,constitutive the of one is which isformulations, such insofar as it produces thethe confusion between the factual and the ideal inherent‘empire’ in imaginary representations and as an ideal, and I the through Iwill visual media. imperialwithin theimagery as show Constantinian conflict Augustus, as a starting point for exploring the issue of how the imperial ideology worked Constantinian images will tobe compared the representation theof paradigmaticemperor, for the comparison are those that refer to the memory politics towards the legacy of the I structure my study according to the visual sources that I intend to explore: explore: media the to thatIintend visual thesources my to study I according structure Second, a broader comparative analysis will be my chief methodological tool andwill First, art-historical iconographic methodology will assist my The analysis. will assist my iconographicmethodology First, art-historical Methodology and structure and Methodology topoi taken from the Hellenistic repertoire of images that Constantine and Die Damnatio memoriae topos ofan establishing of a stable and prosperous 18 (Gutenberg: Computus, 2011). . Über die Vernichtung von Erinnerung. Eine imitatio Alexandri imitatio . 76 The other CEU eTD Collection point out my contributions tothe topic, and draw conclusions. functions of Augustan references.as eminently diverse, yet my argument inthis thesis focuses on structural similarities and Lastly, I finish with the summary of conductedfroma broader perspective asit involvedaltering images ofimperial self-representation. research, rivaling images of the civil war adversaries.comparable features in coin the portraiture of both in emperors strugglea context ofa of Further on I will evaluate the work of ideology material after his defeat of Maxentius is an emulation of that Augustus.of shaven type of portrait of the Emperor Constantinedirectly from the vocabulary.Augustan young, argue the pictorial I will that eternally clean- in sculpture and on coins whichestablish Constantinianiconographic specificcharacteristics representation borrowed that appears ceremonial from thetime ofthe empire’s foundation. Constantinian ceremonial originated profoundly or had structural parallels in Augustan ageconstitutes an of essential its ofmemory,part politics negative. whether or positive 76 evocative power of architectural of evocativepower a Augustus, capital Maxentian reused(together with inevitably sculpted images)the referencesadds to sculpture. The Constantinian appropriation of Maxentius’ major building projects within the processions, which are dynamicthe complements to static architecture media of and and that ceremoniesexpressedin public as Augustus asritualizedpolitics to of well See Evelyn B. Harrison, “The Constantinian Portrait,” Constantinian “The Harrison, B. Evelyn See Clearly, Constantine’s politics and therefore his self-representation should be viewed be should self-representation his therefore and politics Constantine’s Clearly, In the third chapter I investigate imperial representation on the basis of numismatic In chapter two I examine various possible sources – visual as well as literary – to 77 andprovide aniconographic account supported by literary evidence totrace pater urbis pater and the founder of the empire, to Constantine’s representation. The spolia and re-carved sculpted portraits in the Constantinian in the portraits sculpted re-carved and 19 DOP 21(1967), 79–96. CEU eTD Collection Wasmuth,1968), who provides the most convincing reconstruction plan of the Forum; Martin Spannagel, 82 81 support. to devoted was it in turn, which, to empire, Roman the of artifact a cultural and document apolitical as encyclopedia ofPliny’s a reading for argues 2004) Murphy, Princeton University Press, 1993), This 12. triumphalism fundamental is toPliny’s 80 Augustus and consummated with his figure. program of his Forum orchestrateda procession of the heroes of Roman history closed by existing state of affairs for eternity. for affairs of state existing in ratherconquest, but asan that order effectively history suspends and thereby fixes the 79 world’. ruling the earth and seas worldwide, terrarum encompasses the spatial totality or that rules over the entire ‘civilized’ world (the AntonioNegri Michaeland Hardt, 78 337 77 internal internal conflict in ideology the of Empire establishes alink thesebetween two periods. both historically ideologically.and Last, Iconsider thehypothesis that theforgetting the of contemporary itto political theology a constitute crucial reference tothe figureofAugustus politics,to that of Augustus by meanswhere of architecture. Further, theI situate it in the representationcontext of memory of the political events of Constantinian time and On the Forum Augustum, see Paul Zanker, see Paul Forum Augustum, On the Hardt and Negri, and Hardt Garth Fowden, Compare Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, and Antonio Hardt Michael Bruun, Patrick see catalog, numismatic a comprehensive For (London: Spink, 1966). 80 Conceived as a 1.1.1. Empire at war In this chapterI examine self-representationthe oftheemperor Constantine compared 1.1. Pliny the Elder’s Natural History: The Empire in the Encyclopedia Second, the concept of Empire presents itself not as a historical regime originating or Res Gestae Divi Augusti oikoumene Monuments as memory sites memory as Monuments Empire Empire to Commonwealth. Consequences ofMonotheism in Late Antiquity 1. , xiv. , ). On a relief fromthe Istanbul Museum, Augustus is represented ACHITECTURE AND REMEMBERING concept 3,ed. and tr.Brunt and Moore 1967, 18–9. Empire , Empire(thecapital is as letter by intentional), defined 81 Thus, Augustus stands at the history: of end the statuary 78 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000), xiv. 79 first and foremost posits a regime that effectively that aregime posits foremost and first for the Roman Empire claimed to control ‘the whole Forum Augustum: das Bildprogramm 20 82 After all, although the practices ofEmpire RIC.Vol. 7. Constantine and Licinius A.D. 313 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, (Oxford:Oxford University (Tubingen: Verlag Ernst Natural History (Princeton: : Trevor orbis – CEU eTD Collection 70. of Constantine,” Days Last “The Fowden, Garth see campaign, Persian On Constantine’s other. each recognizing time same the at while sovereignty universal of claims securing in asrivals acted rulers Iran 85 no. 3. tribu des Suburbures Pflaum, H.-G. (Berlin 1899),403 no. 117;‘ E. Hübner,E. de l'Afrique romaine au Bas-Empire,2, t. Notices d’histoire municipale factors as of a singlepart strategic view, Augustus had already to detected theneed and to the South Yemen and Similarly Ethiopia. Constantine,to whocametosee all these dominated by immense blocks mountains,of the to North the Caucasus and Transcaucasia the extreme restrict its reign. Contemplating the strategicpicture, Constantinenorthern realizedthat theareas of and southern points of contact between Rome and Iran were both 84 Dame: of University Notre Dame Press, 1973). Empire’s rule has no limits – given as a 83 118–69. While the order. 97; and imperiale. IlForo di Augusto. Il Foro di Trajano II between the Empires, e.g.,Rome andIran, “the two world’s eyes,” comparative theoretical approach, which wouldrequire demonstration of theresemblances enemies, the defender ofpublic peace, andthe author of perpetual security freedom.and the restorer his of (literally, world ‘restorer hisof the orb of earth’),the victorover all inscriptions, similarly to Augustus, Constantine as appears the great and unconqueredruler, Juni see catalogs, Kockel, “Forum Augustum,” LTURin 2, ed.Eva Margareta Steinby (Rome:Quasar, 1995), 289–95. Augustum Forum For the the in Statues the of A Study Fame. Geiger, Joseph by contribution recent also and statues; Forum’s the of list comprehensive Augustusforum principis. Exemplaria dedicated topeace –a perpetual and universal peace outside history. of encompass enormous powers of oppression and destruction, the concept of Empire is always See Matthew P. Canepa, P. See Matthew ‘ Hardt and Negri, magnus et invictus princeps (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2009), who analyses how Sasanian Persian and Late Roman and Persian Sasanian how who analyses 2009), Press, of California University (Berkeley: – 14. August 1988 The Museumthe of Imperial Forums inTrajan’s Market Conversely, taken rather as a Additamenta nova adCorporis volumen II,Ephemeris Epigraphica Kaiser Augustus und dieverlorene Republik: eine Ausstellung imMartin-Gropius-Bau,Berlin, 7. Inscriptions latines de l'Algérie.2, Inscriptions de la confédération cirtéenne, de Cuiculet de la Empire concept (Paris, 1957), no. 584; Lepelley, 584; no. 1957), (Paris, , ed. M. Hofter et al. Catalog (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1988); , xv; Gerardo Zampaglione, Gerardo , xv; The Two Eyes ofthe Earth: Artand Ritual of Kingship between Rome and Sasanian of Empire is characterized fundamentally by a lack of boundaries – defensor quietis publicae ’, ‘ ’, restitutor orbis sui terrarum sui orbis restitutor (Heidelberg:Verlag Archäologie und Geschichte, 1999) establishes a metaphor metaphor , ed. L.Ungaro and M. Milella. Catalog (Rome, 1995), 19– (Leiden: Brill, 2008).For the LTUR entry,see Valentin 21 Les cités de l'Afrique romaine au Bas-Empire, 2 t. ’, The Idea ofPeace in Antiquity CIL , the notion of Empire calls primarily for a , Empirerecognizes that territorial borders 3.17; ‘ ’, AE , ed. Lucrezia Ungaro (Rome: Electa, 2007), Electa, (Rome: Ungaro Lucrezia ed. , (Paris, 1974), no C. Lepelley,693; perpetuae securitatis ac libertatis auctor (Paris,1981), n.73,3;‘ 85 in their pursuit of world CIL Supplementum , tr. Richard Dunn (Notre 83 I loughi del consenso JRS In honorific the The FirstHall of 83 (1993): 146– victor hostium Les cités , vol. 8 84 , 389, ’, ’, CEU eTD Collection xxiv. Jan Assman has coined the term cosmotheism ( cosmotheism term the coined has Assman Jan xxiv. Peterson,Erik ed. J. H. Burns (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 25–6; 1988), MichaelHollerich, J. “Introduction,” in Christians and whom Origen chose as his adversary in his devastating his in adversary as his chose whom Origen and Christians against polemized who CE, century second late the in by Celsus expressed was RomanEmpire the and polytheism Roman between relation the with concern serious time first for the late; relatively appeared world divine of the structure the to Empire Roman of the structure the relate to attempt an is, that theology, political “Greek and Roman Political Theory,” in Theory,” Political Roman and “Greek State,” fora Universal of Monotheism Disadvantages Paton 1923,III, 274-5; Dio Chrysostom, 89 concepts.” these of consideration asociological for necessary is of which recognition the structure, systematic of their because also –but lawgiver omnipotent the became God omnipotent the example, for whereby, state, of the theory concepts not only because theological of their historical secularized are developmentstate ofthe theory – in whichmodern the theyof concepts were transferredsignificant from “…All 36: theology 1985), to the [1922] 88 History 87 the same purpose as had previous polytheisttheories on kingship: In Christianthe version subsequent tothe conversion of Constantine, this construct, served religious belief system: one God(or thehighest in power heaven) andone emperor on earth. define explicitly)of an consisted that ideological correlation and structure political of Erik Peterson has confronted an ancient version of political theology (a term he does not the domain of politicsfollowing – the original Schmittian construct of political theology mythological past. and historical of history, tyingtogether outside in sense andthis spatial) (nor boundaries not as a transitory moment in the movement of history, but as a regime with neither temporal Republican periodof expansionist wars,the succeeding Augustan Empire presentedits rule gesture of equating it to the whole world. Although,in the past it expanded during the 86 is thus totally aware of the historical geography, Empire as a ArabiaEthiopia and on the other,where he military sent expeditions. strengthen Rome’s position simultaneously in Transcaucasia on the onehandand in southern Diotogenes, Carl Schmitt, On the Roman conception of time, see Denis Feeney, see Denis time, of conception Roman On the Fowden, (Berkeley: ofUniversity California Press, 2007). First, focusing on structural correspondence between the realm of divine andEmpire, 1.1.2.Political theology and the theology ofAugustus: Eusebius’case Empire to Commonwealth TheologicalTractates On Kingship Political Theology: Four Chapters onthe Concept of Sovereignty 87 The Constantinian Empire fully inherited such an Augustan legacy. anAugustan such inherited fully Empire TheConstantinian , ed. Thesleff 1965, tr.Goodenough 1928; Polybius, , , 102–3. , ed. and tr. M. J. Hollerich (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2011), Press, University Stanford (Stanford: Hollerich J. M. tr. and ed. The Cambridge History Cambridge The Discourses 1 Discourses 22 , ed., and tr. Colhoon 1932. Arnaldo Momigliano, “The Caesar’s Calendar: Ancient Time and the Beginnings of CP Kosmotheismus 81 no. 4(1986): 285–97 shows that the polytheist of MedievalPolitical Thought, c.350 Contra Celsum ) to signify a form of cosmological of form a signify ) to concept (Cambridge: The MIT The Press, (Cambridge: Historiae 86 Empire as a is constituted by the ; see also John Procope, ; seealso 89 it legitimated a itlegitimated 6.4.2, ed. Page, tr. metaphor – c.1450 88 – , CEU eTD Collection see Peterson, “Monotheism as a Political Problem,” 91. See also Ilona Opelt, “Augustustheologie und “Augustustheologie Ilona Opelt, See also 91. Problem,” a Political as “Monotheism see Peterson, Danielem 93 ʌȠȜȜȠ ǹ Peterson,“Monotheism as a Problem,”Political idem, in old apologetic theme, but not an actual politico-theological reflection, which came only with Origen. with came only which 92 reflection, politico-theological actual an not but theme, apologetic old that the religion,which blossomed under Augustus, was intrinsically linked with the Empire’s prosperity wasan 91 Constantine as Bishop.” on of Caesarea Eusebius Making: the in Ideology “Imperial Rapp, Claudia universe: the over rule Christ’s but as the one who partakes of the divine Eusebius, over history,itself an expression of political theology, but rather recognition of God’s providential rule wasin gospel for disseminating not hadused theclaimas an the instrument Empire that God although favoring the Roman Empire with a special providence. With 259; tr. Drake 1976, 83-102; Francis Dvornik, Empire, the theology.In this work, however, Eusebius portrays Constantine not merely as the divinely appolited ruler of the (Washington: Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzantine Studies, 1966), 614–17. 90 Hanser, 2000), 17. establishmentof the Augustan 94 World NewTestament in the theology Jan Assman, Augustustypologie,” such asmonotheism term laden a heavily for constraints, political and ideological from researcher modern the liberates cosmotheism of concept the and that unity in incorporated are divinities different where monotheism ofnon-political system monotheism, which isgrounded the in idea of the unity of the universe. He has argued that cosmotheism is a ǹīȅȃǿȈȉǿȀȅȈ subordination to God the Father. affinity theologiesfor that emphasized the secondary character the of Logos (Word) andhis single divinepower is the ultimate source of political rule. It demonstrated aparticular a that belief the sanctioning and roots cosmological its showing by government monarchical CE) theological model of the emperor, state, and Church. With Melito of Sardis (died ca. 180 theoretical positions, and atthesametime two different views on the Eusebian politico- The first linkage of Augustus with the gospel found is around 204 CE inHippolytus, Origen, Eusebius, See Eusebius, For Constantine’s rôle compared to that of Christ, see Eusebius, ۺ ȖȠȪıIJȠȣȕĮıȚȜİȓĮȞ 91 ܠ and Origen (184/185 – 253/254 CE), ȢIJ What inthefar-reaching wasatstake Peterson-Schmitt were twodifferent debate 4.9, ed. and tr. Lefèvre 1947, 280–5. For Hippolytus mistrust of an Empire that claims universality, ޒ Contra Celsum 94 Ȟ Historia Ecclesiastica soter who historicized andpoliticized Origen’s ideas, oneencounters firstly a ۂ ʌ ܜ : Ȗ or the Laudatio Constantini Hippolytys’ Commentary on Daniel,” in Daniel,” on Commentary Hippolytys’ ݨ Ȣ . On Origen, see Peterson, “Monotheism as a Political Problem,” 87–93. Problem,” asaPolitical “Monotheism see Peterson, Origen, On . has ۯ Herrschaftund Heil: Politische Theologie in Altägypten, Israelund Europa JbAChr JThS nomos empsychos ۦ strong 2.30,ed. Marcovich 2001, 107;tr. Chadwick 1953, 92: ȘıȠ , ed. Lukas Bormann etal. (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 527–50. 49 (1998): 685–95. (1998): 49 ޅ 4(1961): 44–5; Metropolitan DemetriosTrakatellis, “ ȖİȖȑȞȞȘIJĮȚ Ȣ connotations with Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. See his book on political on book his See Islam. and Christianity, Judaism, with connotations 4.26.7–8, ed. and tr.Lake1926, I, 388-91, tr.Williamson 1989, 133-5. Erik Pax Romana 90 , ed. Heikel 1902,193-259; tr.Drake 1976, 83-102 for Arian political logos of Hellenistic philosophy or the sacral king of the Jewish tradition, Jewish ofthe king sacral orthe philosophy Hellenistic of , IJȠ and communicates it to the Empire, in a process which parallels which process a in Empire, the to it and communicates ޅ , Early Christian and Byzantine Political Philosophy ۣ Ȟ and the birth of Christ became a ’ 23 Ƞ ۿ Theological TractatesTheological IJȦȢ Religious Propaganda and Missionary Competition 92 a link the non-coincidental between ۮ ȞȠȝȐıȦ Laudatio Constantini , ۯ ĮȓĮIJȢ įȚ ȝĮȜȓıĮȞIJȠȢ , 91–2. Melito’s pronouncements ȀĮ ܜ ıĮijȑȢȖİ  , ed.Heikel 1902,193- ܖ ȝȚ  ݙ Commentarium in topos ȢȕĮıȚȜİȓĮȢIJȠ ۳ IJȚțĮIJ . 93 (Munich: Yet to ȁȅīȅȈ , vol. 2 ܖ IJ ܚ ܠ Ȟ Ȣ CEU eTD Collection typology of Augustus, see Opelt, “Augustustheologie und Augustustypologie,” 54–7. Augustustypologie,” und “Augustustheologie Opelt, see of Augustus, typology Christianity together,most impressively by linking of Augustus and Christ: on Ambrose, Orosius and a reincarnated in the in reincarnated victory total ofAugustan to adeclaration It amounted wars. more no were there it after of Actium; battle the up to wars civil the of an enumeration follows There wars. civil by torn often were themselves Romans the but another, one on war make cities various the of kings the did only not founded was Empire Roman 97 DOP Ankara,” Byzantine and Antique “Late Foss, Clive control: Christian under represented it power the placing and purposes for Christian object the sealing decidedly andAugustus, Roma of temple of the walls onthe carved inscribedonpagan buildings everywhere, to ward appeared off the daimones crosses CE lurked thatcentury in stones, thefifth asin at Ankara,Likewise, where crosses93–112. were 1993), (Stockholm, Rosenqvist O. Sphragis Christiana: Livia – Christianus “Augustus Hjort, Øystein 25; 1995), Press, University Cambridge (Cambridge: 431 CE: Peter Brown, throughout the whole period of Late Antiquity,gazing down on empere’s Christian successors of the Council of sign of the cross neatly carved the on their with foreheadsand Livia continuedof Augustus statues to Thevery stand94. outside Problem,” the Prytaneion as aPolitical of Ephesus“Monotheism Peterson, 163–64; 2; with the rhetorical-political idea that Augustus was a foreshadowing Constantine.of monotheism, monotheismpotentially was already because existed Augustus, linked thenwith not polytheism lose from its when Roman did to Empire character it metaphysical shifted war, and Constantine fulfilled only whatAugustus had begun. Thepoliticalidea that the triumphing over the polyarchy, the cause endlessof wars and allthe suffering that goes with 96 95 Monarchy was secured. Licinius,defeated Augustan wasreestablished politicalat thesametimedivine order and Augustus, but had become reality in the present under Constantine. When Constantine with began – Empire Roman the of corollary metaphysical the – monotheism principle, ethnic particularisms, Roman in contrast,Empire,the peace. connoted emperor, Constantine.While and othercivil typeswars of wars were tiedin with polytheistic which both Augustus and Christthe moment foundation through of imperial itsquotation), with accomplishment ultimate were finally manifested in thetypological parallelperson connecting Augustus with Constantine (not really ofconveyable by the first Christian Ibid., 97–8. In his Augustus’ theology – in the manner of Eusebius – Ambrose proclaims that before the before that proclaims –Ambrose Eusebius of manner the – in theology Augustus’ In his 97–8. Ibid., Eusebius, 93. Problem,” asa Political “Monotheism Peterson, 31(1977): 65. and Roman Portrait Sculpture,” in Vita Constantini Vita Pax Constantiniana Authority and the Sacred. Aspects of theChristianization of the Roman World 2.19; 4.29, ed. Winkelmann 1975, 55–6; 130–31; tr. Cameron andHall 1999, 101– 96 Eusebius asserts that Augustus inaugurated monotheism by . In turn, Orosius even more closely binds the Roman Empire and Empire Roman the binds closely more even Orosius In. turn, Aspects of Late Antiquity and Early Byzantium 24 95 For Eusebius, in , ed. L. Ryden and J. 97 CEU eTD Collection theology becomes abuse of the Christian gospel for justification of a political situation, and portrayed Eusebius portrayed and situation, a political of for justification gospel Christian the of abuse becomes theology political where point crucial isthe where has asked Schmitt theologian.” apolitical pure, the appears as hand, appears heretic the heresy: and twentieth century as the prototype of political theology,there seems to exist aconceptual link between politics Press, [1970] 2008), 84: “When a bishop from the fourth century suspected of heresy is introduced into 100 102 101 Consciousness Kemp, see Anthony Constantine, 99 a Political Problem,” 94–7. 98 threatened. what had begun in principle with Augustus, and so the unity of the Empire itself was Roman Empire untenable, and Constantine could not longer berecognizedas the fulfiller of Eusebius had formulated it, was theologically untenable, thensotoowasthe continuity the of struggle was that, if monotheism, the conceptEusebius’ voice was that of a political of propagandist. the divine Monarchy in the sensepermissible, in and, conversely, which apologetics which primarily served the Empire were not, blessing for its own sake. God’s intentions thatit would appear to be less an instrument and more the object of divine Eusebius Trinitarian ortodoxy. Trinitarian politician, andpointed out further an existence of numerous the historical concreteness of the Council of Nicaea, the stagetrue forEusebius,the Church theology. In his response, Schmitt has accused Peterson of isolating his Eusebian model (and– the universal statehegoverned)from and andGod, thereby any Christian of political ideological correlation between the emperor – and for Eusebius that can only Constantinebe Trinity as three co-eternalco-equal, divine vitiatedpersons the theological possibility of an On later Christian writers, see Francis Dvornik, see Francis writers, Christian On later as “Monotheism Peterson, essay: ofPeterson’s centerpiece asthe considered generally are onEusebius Pages The tenth book of the CarlSchmitt, 102–3. Problem,” asaPolitical “Monotheism Peterson, Peterson has emphasized the ‘exegetical tact’ – a ‘striking lack’ of which he found in Peterson has further argued that the ultimate triumph of the orthodox dogma of the of dogma orthodox the of triumph ultimate the that argued further has Peterson 98 – that kept all other ecclesiastical writers from binding the Empire so closely to 101 (New York:Oxford University Press, 1991), 3–18. Political Theology II.The Myth of the Closure of Any PoliticalTheology 102 Historia Ecclesiastic eo ipso 99 The Estrangementof the Past:Study A in the Origins of Modern Historical If apologetics previous Christianity whichdefended were as the one who is political, while the one who is orthodox, on the other a is wholly taken up by an extraordinary messianisation of messianisation extraordinary an by up taken wholly a is Early Christian and Byzantine Political Philosophy 25 100 At stake in this openly Atstake in openly political this staseis within the very the within (Cambridge: Polity , 585; 725. CEU eTD Collection complete eradication of memory. of eradication complete Hedrick, 108 Writing, Remembrance,and Political Imagination (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2006), 81–100, and idem, idem, in Belong,” to Order in “Remembering Jan Assmann, “Collective Memory and Cultural Identity,” andCultural Memory “Collective Assmann, Jan Mémoire,” de Lieux Les History: and Memory “Between Nora, Pierre 1992); traditional Roman practice of Roman traditional practice Joachim Hölkeskamp (Munich: Beck, 2006). On collective and cultural memory, see theoretical contribution by Halbwachs, contribution Maurice theoretical see memory, cultural and On collective 2006). Beck, (Munich: Hölkeskamp Joachim (Goettingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht,2000); 105 26. it, as the swift negationit, the asmightof use suggest. in ofthecourse the first civilwar. sacrifice on the Capitol of Rome has been to refusal explained Constantine’s ishow This other. each against fought after citizens Roman of armies two his defeat of Maxentius in 312 CE the of of nature inherently conflictual politics. 107 106 104 Terry Eagleton, see, of ideology concept Althusser’s seeks to implement a heretical deviation from the doctrine opposed to an apolitical Trinitarian theology. Trinitarian 103 anapolitical to opposed doctrine the from deviation a heretical he toimplement when seeks theologian, political the to theologian pure from demoted who theology, political of prototype as a conflict, even more fundamental, perhaps, imperial ideology, of vital principles and even constitutive although it is a corollary misrecognitionof of thethe ideal for the factual firstinherent in imaginary formulations is one of the – is the forgetting mustof be – andRoman political imaginary: anideology of Empire is,in the other words, the idea that Empire so, by definition, is – one and at peace with itself. Therefore, if the See the pioneering work on the topic Vittinghoff, topic the on work pioneering the See See Carl Schmitt, SeeCarl On the architecture, memory, and oblivion in Rome, see Rome, in oblivion and memory, architecture, Onthe Lenski,“Evoking the Pagan Past,” 206–59. Loraux, Nicole Louis Althusser, “Marxism and Humanism,” inidem, One could refuse tocelebrateOne refuse the could wasvictory it a when warinwhich civil matter of a sites Bridge civil andMilvian as warActium of 1.1.3. Whatto do with the political event which must not be commemorated? Eusebius’ political theology of 104 History and Silence thatis civil war,an expression very with Roman connotations,more or, precisely, The Mourning Voice: EssayAn on Greek Tragedy The Concept of the Political the of The Concept On Collective Memory On Collective , 89–130 argues that damnatio memoriae 106 Yet the solution does not consist of losing all memory of , tr. and ed. Lewis A. Coser (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, Chicago of University (Chicago: Coser A. Lewis ed. and , tr. Pax Constaniniana Pax Religion and CulturalMemory: Ten Studies (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1996). (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011). Press, University Cambridge (Cambridge: Erinnerungsorte der Antike: Die römische Welt römische Die der Antike: Erinnerungsorte Ideology. An Introduction An Ideology. damnatio memoriae 26 105 For Marx Der Staatfeind in der Römischen Kaiserzeit 107 applied to crushed political opponents Indeed, negation – with the help of the of help the with – negation Indeed, Architektur und Erinnerung New German Critique (London:The Penguin Press, 1969), 223. On Cultural Memory and Early Civilization: (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2002), is in essence a counterpart to the 103 another of these principles – intended damnation rather then a Representations (London: Verso,1991), 18–20. 65 (1995): 125–33, idem, , ed. Wolfram Martini , tr. R. Livingstone 26(1989):7–25; , ed. Karl- ed. , , 9–105. 108 – CEU eTD Collection (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1994), 11–33. 1994), Ashgate, (Aldershot: Hence, the only relevant monument that tobe equalappears toit is Octavian’s between Roman armies, radically differed from most,if not all, itsof precursors (fig.1). Maxentius, the Arch of Constantine, glorifying not a splendid foreign victory, but a civil war not. by equaling both those who were on their institutionally,sidethat there weretwoparties and the winners themselvesthe solicited forgetting and those – no longer dangerous – who by the very proclamation ofclemency wereand amnesty they strove to forget, officially and andforgot their previous support of now-defeated Antony and Maxentius,respectively. For aristocracy senatorial the among opponents political their forgave Constantine and Octavian in New in 112 111 110 109 andhe soon decided a reinstatement.on Exercising ancestors. senate hadthe ordered not only erasure of Antony’s alsoof the name but names all his of his memory soon after his suicide in Egypt; before victorious Octavian returned toRome, the Constantine. for fromevoking the Augustan victory over Antony Mark thatconstituted animperial precedent first and paradigmatic one of an actual series in the imperialinteresting. context; nothing refrained monumentsone in the context of a negative commemoration is morecomplex and infinitely more converted into anideological figure. was immediately was against Maxentius, thus who turned asatyrantstigmatized and Peter Heather, “New Men for New Constantines? Creating an Imperial Elite in the Eastern Mediterranean,” Eastern the in Elite Imperial an Creating Constantines? for New Men “New Heather, Peter Ibid.,63. in Epigraphy,” and Memoriae “Damnatio Flower, L. Harriet Varner, Constantines: The Rhythm of Imperial Renewal inByzantium,4th Ordered by Ordered by senate, ofa the born negative sentimentof repentance after thedefeat of Constantine’s commemoration of the victory over his political rival referred to the Mutilation and Transformation and Mutilation 111 Curiously, this severe action did not meet with Octavian’s approval, however, approval, Octavian’s with meet not did action severe this Curiously, 110 Like Maxentius, Mark Antony first suffered extensive sanctions against , 286–88. 109 However, the appearance of the honorific victory 27 From clementia Caesarisclementia Caligula to Constantine – 13th Centuries , ed. Paul Magdalino Paul ed. , , 112 , 59. both young CEU eTD Collection Romanum,” Forum the in Arch the and Ultor of Mars Temple the Honours, Parthian “Augustus’ Rich, W. John also See ibid. See himself. emperor living by the but goddess god and by a held not were case, this In group. chariot a four-horse of – consisted father real his toward pietas his publicly proclaim to security the him gave Actium at victory his that demonstrated and thus father Octavian’s honored – that Octavius Gaius of Arch Palatine the 115 82. 114 113 because such sanctions werenot often whetherused or they were soskillfully appliedthat the against memory yet Augustus, under has it been not definitely whetherestablished this is could emphasize thenegation as such.Symptomatically, thereis little forevidence sanctions exploiting a procedure for commemorating his own glorious military achievements. Yet he neverevoking anepisode that beerased – must enemy and must beforgotten an and that or – not between hesitant he is words, other the In himself. triumpher the is on emphasis does not requireasevere ofmemory measure eradication towardsthe defeatedenemy; the concerns negation, which also the positive of memory a militarycontent in relation to victory, (Antony) and a foreign queenthe (Cleopatra),same time, theas wellconquest through momentous asvictories both cemented, first anda foremost, theirtyrantruler’s positions, and at was (Maxentius).presented toThis the versionpopulace of of Romebetween the Temple ofDivus Julius andthe Temple as of Concord. one over a despot single-bay arch, decorated with Victories spandrels,in the also ofabout BCE,29 located 29-27 BCE, has been associated with the foundations and part theof superstructure of a Another monument, the Actian archthe prows and warshiprams Antony’sof fleet –was erected near thevery site battle.the of in the Roman Forum, recordedin onNikopolis the coin with reverses a celebratory of inscriptionof the monuments honoring Actium, dedicatedand by Octavian in ornamentationBCE29 toNeptune and Mars in the form of spoils of war – Romanum that mirrored the Augustan politics of memory and forgetting (fig.3). commemorative series ofActian monuments, and, in particular,the Archin Forum the This association has been questioned. The numismatic representations record the attic statuary, which, like which, statuary, attic the record representations numismatic The questioned. been has association This ibid., of statuary: remains no surviving are and there sculpture, relief with enhanced not was The monument Kleiner, What unites early Augustan and Constantinian monuments is the idea ofinception: Roman Sculpture PBSR 66 (1998) 71–128. , 447. 28 115 113 Thus, one 114 CEU eTD Collection characterizes Constantine’s callingaccomplishments by him andsaved the city. of to thethe Augustan founder Alluding theinscription Peace, quietis Augustus’ power to the senate and the Roman people. way that linked Augustus’ accomplishments: ending civil wars, restoring peace, and returning Constantine thankedthe for having emperor saved thestate from a tyrant andhis faction ina evoking the evoking Thus, the panegyrist praised Constantine by referring Virgil’sto Fourth Eclogue, for the divided Empire since it denies the very possibility of thinking about factual divisions. peace and the restorer ofthestate’,who inaugurates the Golden This Age. becomes ideology Roman imaginary a successfulemerges emperor as an a-temporal figure, ‘the founder of decree. the of victims first the of one was Maxentius century, fourth the early the ‘sanctions against memory’,and, similarly, with the striking resurrection theof practice in Mark Antony immediately afterhis defeat31 BCEhas in been citedas thefirst example of 120 119 118 Constantine,” 233–46. 117 The Art of Forgetting 116 from his favor. Averil Cameron, “Constantius and Constantine: An Exercise in Publicity,” in Publicity,” in An Exercise Constantine: and “Constantius Cameron, Averil Tacitus, in commentary critical the Cameron andHall 1999, 86. Compare first Compare similar language in Greek in Eusebius, in Greek in language similar Compare see Flower, memory’, against of ‘sanctions notion the For 65. Epigraphy,” and Memoriae “Damnatio Flower, CIL Augusti Divi Gestae Res Panegyrici Latini princeps 6.1139 + 31245 = + 31245 6.1139 . 120 An interest in the conflict1.1.4.To remember andnot remember inRome: A foundingforgetting requires neutralization of the ideology of victory: in the As nofor surprise, Christian Lactantius eulogizes Constantinehis for unification of Res Gestae was in a position to successfully eliminate the memory hadfallen who memory of those successfully the wasina eliminate to position Pax Augusta 116 6.21.6, ed.and tr.Nixon and Rodgers 1994,250, 583; Rodgers,“The Metamorphosisof Negation inresults an official decree offorgetting: traditionally, thecase of . ILS 119 13; 34, ed. and tr. Brunt and Moore 1967, 24–5; 34–7. 694. – claims to have taken revenge over the tyrant, stopped a faction, . Almost equally, the laudatory inscription on the Arch of Ann Res Gestae DiviAugusti Gestae Res ales 1.9-10, ed. and tr. Jackson 1979,258–65; tr. Woodman 2004,7–8. 118 29 The Constantinianinscription – reminiscent of Vita Constantini 1, ed. and tr. Brunt and Moore 1967, 18-9 with 18-9 1967, Moore and Brunt tr. and ed. 1, 1.41.2, ed. Winkelmann 1975,37; tr. liberator urbis liberator Constantine the Great damnatio memoriae and 117 , 24. implicitly fundator CEU eTD Collection scattered throughout east and west former glory as the capital the –afterof Empire the tetrarchs hadfounded subsidiary capitals propositions were never meant tobe taken seriously. form ideology of thefor ruling ideology was nevermeantbe taken to literally and ideological perishedin them, among whom was Cicero. also men outstanding host of a and many, against wars civil waged himself Augustus peace that hadserved to promote dubious political theology appeared questionable, for even zu den staatsdenkmälern des dezentralisiert Reiches von Diocletian bis zu Theodosius II 123 136. n. 226, Problem,” aPolitical as “Monotheism Peterson, one family. become had Roman Empire the in everyone that inEusebius idea the e.g., onRome, encomia rhetorical by the shaped was Empire Roman onthe idea the of formulation Eusebius’ Probably, nor, perhaps, were all contemporaries of Constantine, Constantine. seem be sufficient: to basicallyEusebius makes clear aparallel between and Augustus the explanation that the orations delivered in Rome at that time have not survived does not conscious antithesis to the defenders of 125 Cameron, “Constantius and Constantine,” 30, n. 73. 124 Walter de Gruyter, 1933), 15. which, on the contrary,is wholly visible in representational art. asinglegrowingConstantine toAugustus, tothebut of literary parallel resemblance explicit appear– as a accident’‘curious entirely in a HolmesianSherlock sense of the term there– is 126 “Monotheism as a Problem,”Political 103–4. 122 ideas that stemmed from the rhetoric were fully taken over by Eusebius. 121 be against God’s will.against God’s be to isconsidered tetrarchy of period the during which of division ‘illegitimate’ the Empire, the Richard Delbrück, Richard Augustine, Barnes, D. Timothy On tetrarchic capitals as capitals tetrarchic On Eusebius, Lactantius, In turn, Maxentius’ massive architectural aimedprogram torestore Rome to her Certainly, neither contemporaries and of Augustus were all in taken by this language, Vita Constantini De Mortibus Persecutorum De Civitate Dei De Civitate Spätantike Kaiserporträts von Constantin Magnus bis zum Ende Westreichsdes Constantine and Eusebius 121 sedes imperii sedes It comeslater that language thetraditional the theof andpanegyrists 1.39–40, ed.Winkelmann 1975, 36–7; tr. Cameron andHall 1999, 85–6. 3.30, ed.Dombart and Kalb,Combes tr. 1959, 516–19. On Augustine’s , see Emanuel Mayer, see Emanuel , 7.1-2, Pax Romana 126 ed. and tr. Creed 1984, 10–11. 1984, Creed tr. and ed. – andhave appearsto – been appropriated by (Cambridge:Harvard University Press, 1981), 308, n.24; 125 30 However, critical (ironical) distance isitself a like Eusebius, Ambrose or Orosius, see Peterson, Orosius, or Ambrose Eusebius, like Rom ist dort, wo der Kaiser ist: Untersuchungen 124 andsoon for Augustine the Augustan 123 It is indeed curious, since 122 Symptomatically (Mainz: Verlag des Verlag (Mainz: topoi (Berlin: in the CEU eTD Collection City, reappeared asa new Augustus, the Quirinal. the body the– Basilica (fig.4), the circus complex on the Via Appia (fig.5), the imperial Baths on carved portraits his defeatedof enemy), which were ultimately extensionan theof emperor’s major building projects (appropriated by Constantine together with the disfigured and re- unreservedexpropriation it.of A quick walk through Maxentian Rome would include his hadbeen saved andreborn – was ideologically significant enough to warrant Constantine’s Brick’: Visual Rhetoric in Roman Rhetorical Theory and Practice,” and Theory Rhetorical Roman in Rhetoric Visual Brick’: Dodge (Oxford: Oxford University Schoolof Archaeology,2000), 61–75; and Kathleen S. Lamp, “‘A City of Augustus and the City of Rome,” in of Augustan Rome war werequickly elapsed,anderased, metaphorically substituted. Ideologically reading, 171–93. of Rome,” 2007). On Augustus and the making of a City Founder, see Diane Favro, “‘ also Hartmut Leppin, and Hauke Ziemssen, Suae 129 128 Romulus-Quirinus. thus deliberately publicized his affiliation to the ‘founder of the city’, Augustus, new or rebuilding one of them constituted a visible act of alignmentemperor became emblematichad ofthe he Golden andAge inaugurated, the caserestoring of with his memory: Maxentius of the buildings of his ill-fated predecessor. After Augustus’ demise, the buildings of the first Roman Architecture,” in Architecture,” Roman 127 Papoutsakis (Farnham: Ashgate,2009, 37–50). in East,” Near Late Antique the in Rome New and “Old Bowersock, Warren Glen CE: 380s early then early not are dated Rome New a as of Constantinople mentions recorded first that shown has Glen Bowersock others. many among residences tetrarchic of the one as Constantinople treat who 2002), Zentralmuseums, Römisch-Germanischen Constantine, On Maxentius’ reference to Augustus inhis building program Rome,in see Mats Cullhed,Conservator Urbis Ibid.,42 argues for theabsence of Penelope J. E. Davies, “‘What Worse Than Nero, What Better Than His Baths?’: ‘ Baths?’: His Than Better What Nero, Than Worse “‘What Davies, E. J. Penelope . Studies. inthe Politics and Propaganda ofthe Emperor Maxentius Once again, forgetting was founding for the for founding forgetting Oncewas again, 1.1.5. The revenue of remembering:The evocative power of Transformations of Late Antiquity. Essays for PeterBrown for Essays Late Antiquity. of Transformations Journal ofthe Society of Architectural Historians 127 130 whoin fact not did launch an architectural In effect, in an intricate play of metaphors, Constantine, the expander of the (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997); Susan Walker, “The Moral Museum: Moral “The Walker, Susan 1997); Press, University Cambridge (Cambridge: 129 From The resonant message of Maxentius’ building campaign – that Rome Caligula to Constantine Ancient Rome: The Archaeology of the Eternal City damnatio memoriae Maxentius: Der letzte Kaiser in Rom Kaiserin letzte Der Maxentius: pater urbis 31 , 34. in architecture for the Constantinian period. Constantinian for the architecture in 51 no. 1 (1992): 61–84; eadem, 61–84; 1 (1992): no. 51 Pax Constantiniana of Rome.of Philosophy and Rhetoric damnatiomemoriae (Stockholm: PaulAström, 1994); and , ed.Philip Rousseau and Manolis Pater urbis (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, spolia : traces internal of the ’: Augustus as CityFather Damnatio Memoriae , ed. J. Coulston and H. and Coulston J. ed. , The Urban Image , 44 no. 2 (2011): no. 44 128 destruction ’ and CEU eTD Collection parallel between the aesthetic of spoliation, Constantine’se.g., Arch, the and cult of Christian Constantine andthe Genesis of LateForms,” Antique Ja thefor Empire. Indeed, a mode of existence it exemplifies belongs to ideology: behind it lies a dream of unity imperial firstorder, established by Augustus, which itconcealed both and reproduced. Constantine to the paradigmatic emperors of the high Empire once again legitimated an generated through artistic the medium inthiseconomy of thevisual assimilation of essentially radical difference between them. domestic conflict with the prestigiousrepresentations of great victories over barbarians,metaphorically equated abominable foreign campaigns ofimperial the Roman army andart erased that an monumentdid – the only representation of not censor the political – included in a single narrative together with reliefs as second century expanders ofthe– appropriating Empire – Trajanic,Hadrianic Aurelianicand alignments and juxtapositions he associated himself with the victorious emperors of the 132 153. 131 Bridge Milvian the at Constantine Dam, Remembering Van by Raymond contribution recent see Republic, ofthe traditions and institutions the revived 130 symbolic capital of its the possessorswith himself throughbound Constantine affinity, or opposition in Whether glories. imperial memory also to appears have been revivalist, thatis, proclaiming the renovation of past thus reminders of the thus reminders of conflict), defeatedrival triumphantwas in character (andassuch related tothe spoils of victory and while the re-use of the sculpture and architectural elements, formerly belonging to the Peirce, “The Arch of Constantine,” 387–418. ArchofConstantine,” “The Peirce, Paul Stephenson, have to claimed who Augustus, to an heir as himself represented Maxentius reign his of beginning the From In his article “From the Culture of Spolia to the Cult of Relics: The Arch of The Relics: Arch Cult totheof Spolia of theCulture “From In his article spolia for his Arch. Constantine:Unconquered Emperor,Christian Victor 131 132 the treatment of Moreover, the civil panels Constantinianwar the of (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2011), 224–52. stasis spolia 133 32 One might suppose symbolic thatcapital Onemight suppose the inside the citizens’ body of the Empire in . For it was not by chance that in a series of spolia Ğ Elsner has suggested astructural in the of politics Constantinian (London: Faber and Faber, 2009), CEU eTD Collection 138 Spätantike 137 Constantine. 2005), 68, no. 114 creates a catalog of the Constantinian collection of statues transported to Constantinople. to transported of statues collection Constantinian ofthe a catalog creates 114 68, no. 2005), Relics,” of Translation the and Mausoleum “Constantine’s Mango, Cyril Constantine; to Apostles Holy of the church whole the ascribes Krautheimer, (1951): 51–80 rightly defends that the basilicaof the Holy Apostles was constructed by Constantius II; Richard at Constantinople. A Contribution to the Criticism of the Dagron, Augustus’ mausoleum. Compare the round mausolea on the Via Flaminia and the Via Nomentana in Rome.136 in Nomentana Via the and Flaminia Via onthe mausolea round the Compare mausoleum. Augustus’ Marcus Aurelius 135 rescued by rescued by Aeneas andlaterRome: to the was the taken embrace of the power apotropaic of Constantine from Rome. destiny,is reportedto have stood beneath the porphyry column saidto have brought by Pallas Athena that was associated first with Troy and its fortunes and later with Rome and its Late Antique Forms,” city (fig.9). One of the famous Constantinople, becoming a magical guarantee, an apotropaic symbol of the survival of the acquired legendary status far above that ofany other non-Christian monument in 134 Constantinian statue and its pedestal in and Constantini, in the Constantinian statue its pedestal Forum thatpolytheist of later, trophiesChristian and, relicslike – those in kept the celebrated the Arch of Constantine – structurally paralleled (if indeedwere not genealogically related to) mausoleum. imperial atypical as form architectural its placed his tomb in its center, surrounded by their relics; the building itself was conceived in 133 precedent. agelike ofthe tetrarchy, Maxentius,Diocletian of themselvesthose or Augustan referring to mausoleum rotunda, as Cyril Mangohas noted, bears a resemblance tomausoleums of the relics exemplified inhisin mausoleum Constantinople. Sarah Bassett, Sarah Bauer, Alto Franz see Constantinople, in ofConstantine Forum Onthe Eusebius, Penelope J.E. Davies, J.E. Penelope Ja Compare Ğ Elsner, “From the Culture of Spolia the to Cult of Relics:The Arch of Constantine and the Genesis of Emperor and Priest Thus, the late antique practice of using (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1996), 167–86. Res Gestae Res Divi Augusti 135 Vita Constantini Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture Although Constantine consecrated the building to the building Although to consecrated twelveapostles the and Constantine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000) suggests 2000) Press, University Cambridge (Cambridge: The Urban Image of Late Antique Constantinople PBSR Death and the Emperor: Roman Imperial FuneraryMonuments from Augustus to 68 (2000): 149–84. , 138–39;, Glanville Downey,“The ofBuilder the Original Church of the Apostles BZ 138 , 4.58–60,, ed. Winkelmann 1975, 144–5; tr. Cameron and Hall 1999, 176–77. 83 (1990): 51–62 establishes that thecircular mausoleum is the work of Linked irrevocably the with destiny Troy, of the Palladion was 3, ed. and tr. Brunt and Moore 1967, 18–9. Moore 1967, and Brunt tr. and ed. 3, spolia , the, Palladion, an ancient statue of guardian the armed 33 spolia (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1986), 69–70 incorrectly Vita Constantini – like those, for example, known from 136 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, University Cambridge (Cambridge: 134 imitatio Alexandriimitatio Built by the BuiltConstantine, by Attributed to Eusebius,” Stadt, Platz, und Denkmal in der in Denkmal und Platz, Stadt, 137 the that latermonument in the form of the of form the in DOP 6 CEU eTD Collection 142 “Bureaucracy and Government,” in Government,” and “Bureaucracy ǺȣȗȐȞIJȚȠȞ (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 2006), 192–93. ۆ țĮIJĮıțİȣ țĮIJĮıIJȒıĮıșĮȚ ʌȐȞIJȦȞ 141 140 139 foundation of a new city called reenactedIlium on the alleged site of Troy,chosen Ilion canbelittlethere surprisedoubt or thatthe have Empire would eventually factual itsand mythic at theprimary Augustan the Constantinian era. model. Thethereafter integrated intovisual the repertoire ofthe Empire’s cities andstill hadcurrency in firstAugustan period. ThisRoman vision of Roman origins articulated by Virgil in the the from Empire Augustan theRoman of cities in the spread age intensively was myth ofthe emperor favor in historicity wasdestruction of Troy to the foundation of Rome, one witnesses Constantine’s denial of known for his Empire. examples, were displayed together with other mythological themes in baths throughout the commentaries onthe foundation written Zosimos by city. Homeric of mythological scenesyet withtheir evocative with almost all power, the connected fall of Zeuxippos, were linked theTrojan to epic –large enough to suggest the particular sequence statuary appropriated for Constantinople, around three dozen in all, placed inthe Baths of largest mythologicalorigin. glorious insteadin a figures’collection the of mythical Thus, itself anchors historicity its denies that Empire the For history. imperial the eventually, Palladion was, in effect, anassimilation Trojan of and Roman legendary history, and, İIJIJȠ ȞİıIJȚ Sozomen, Zosimus, Bassett, Ibid.,53. By creating a sense of timeless permanence and unbroken continuity from the from continuity unbroken and permanence timeless asense of By creating If, looking for the possible location of his new city, as is clear from fifth-century ܇ ݶ ܚ Ȣ ܸ Ȟ Ȣİ The Urban Image of Late Antique Constantinople ۂ İȚ ۂ Historia Nova Historia ʌ Historia Ecclesiastica . ʌȚIJȒįİȚȠȞ ܜ ۞ IJ ʌİ · ȖİȞȩȝİȞȠȢį ܞ 139 ݶ Ȟ ȕĮijȝĮʌȩȜȚȞ ȕȜĮıijȘȝȓĮȢ Ȟ Characters thefrom Trojan themselvesepic, related to other numerous ۉ ȜıȠIJȞ ʌȜȑȠȣıȚȞ ȜȜȒıʌȠȞIJȠȞ , șİȝİȜȓȠȣȢIJİ 140 2.30.1, ed. Paschoud 2000, 101–2; tr. Ridley 1982,37: ܘ ȉȡ  ސ 2.3.2,ed. Migne 1864,936–37; tr.Hartranft 1890,259.Christopher Kelley, ȐįȠȢȝİIJĮȟ The Cambridge Companion to the Age ofConstantine ۂ ʌȒȟĮIJȠțĮ ڲ IJȡȠȠIJ ȞIJȓȡȡȠʌȠȞ · ۂ ܠ Ȝș < ܢ ܜ IJİȓȤȠȣȢIJȚȝȑȡȠȢİ ȈȚȖİȓȠȣ Ȟį ܘ 34 İ ݨ ۞ > ȢȝİIJȐȝİȜȠȞțĮ Ȣ țĮ , 54. ދ ܜ ȫȝȘȢ IJ ݨ 141 Ȣ ڲ andSozomen ۞ ȡȤĮȓĮȢ Ȣ ۂ ȗȒIJİȚ ۿ ȥȠȢ ܜ ڲ , ۦ IJİȜ ڲ ȜȓȠȣțĮ țĮș ȞȑıIJȘıİȞ ܘ ȢIJ ’ ܞ ۑ ȅ ܜ ȞĮ IJȩʌȠȞİ ۺ ۆ 142 ț ȖȞ țĮIJĮȜȚʌ ȡȖȠȞ , ۳ ۂ , Constantine had Constantine , ۺ ʌİȡ ȞİȖț IJ ܞ , ed. Noel Lenski Ȟ ۻ ڶ ܢ ȡ ȤȡȚIJȠ ۆ ܢ Ȟį İȕĮıȓȜİȚĮ įİȚ Ȟİ ܘ ܢ IJ ۞ ޅ ȢʌȩȜİȦȢ Ȟ ܖ įİ ȢʌĮȡ ۂ ʌ ۯ ܜ ȡ IJ ݙ ܖ ܞ Ȟ CEU eTD Collection of Empire over the other, outside the of calledtotality the Empire; civil war waslike the confrontation of two equallylegitimate Roman andemperors the eventual victory one part of one, in the hadEmpire adistinct preference ina procedure of a metaphorical substitution.The first a process of transference, toits ultimately the prototype, by thealluding Alexandergoal contemplated Great. the principate, realized Augustan thus Constantine Establishing world. government, a single Constantinetetrarchic dismissed pluralisticsovereignty secure in theto peace allthe of parts placedof rulership one pronouncements, In politico-theological world. whole the embraced civilpeace ofAugustus, whose arrival hadvanquished multiple authorities,whose and peace war outside of the intrinsic bloody Constantinian ideology deliberately obscured that he fought two wars against Licinius separated by aninterval by separated Licinius against wars two fought he that obscured deliberately ideology Constantinian theinaugurated link to enemy erasedwas through everything possible to transform it into nothing: in other words, the memory of the defeated 143 make nothing makenothing civilof the second war againstfought Licinius, Empire. the of thecitizens of thinking the in oppositions and structural oppositionsthe to real and factual,but a circular trajectory of making connections is rather the very ‘production of imaginary’structure not does correlate directly with the reflection historicalof reality: it of reality, This eternity. andanchoring its itself in vicissitudes divisions and Empire was smoothing out since ‘imaginary’been grounded in the reality of its mythical origin. By fostering its timeless history, the itself is notsame time. Therefore, Constantine’ssome foundation, itself an appeal to Augustus, would have fixed system of Barnes, Although ongoing, the operation of denial is not easy: yet there were two for which The Constantinian Empire in its effort to forget internal strife, would have liked to liked have would forget to internal strife, inits Empire effort The Constantinian 1.1.6. Whatdoes the Empire make of civil war? Constantine: Dynasty, Religion and Power in the Later Roman Empire Pax Constatiniana damnatio memoriae . The. harmony it created isparalleled thegreatest 35 to hadany conflictdeny that (illegitimate) the 143 which meant doing , 146 shows that CEU eTD Collection 144 Keeper from Nikopolis and ofthe statue Ass bronze Constantine brought civilization, a Greco-Roman the history of to Constantinople with a whole collectionas ofmonuments dedicated tothecelebration definingof moments in a monument to Octavian’sConstantine’s building program was as masterly creativeand asthat of Augustus. victory at Actium,decades, paralleled only ofthethat exploitation Augustan of imagery; itis clear quite that foundation, viewedfrom perspective ofaconcertedand developing visual strategy over three commemoration of his victory Theover Licinius. great the Constantinian of project city’s of the Roman command post. Similarly,in 324 CE Constantine foundedConstantinople in the city of Nikopolis in Epiros, beautified with an Actian triumphal arch raisedwaged againstexternal enemies. on the place trophies, notwithout victory, but imitates which anddegrades the legitimate more battles extinguished and annihilated.the Therefore, tyrant, a violent battle savage, waged a beast in whothewith was a midstsenseultimately of uncanny.of the Civiloutside Empire war thus of settled humanity,is insidewithout the who sinceEmpire, by recognizing the civil as having war wastaken place inside the Empire it threatened it whichto be raised the figure of Against Licinius,” Against War First of Constantine’s Date for the Evidence “Monumental Ehrhard, Christopher also See years. of six disturbances within intricately were connected. hence the two main functionsConstantinewho, through– asimilar procedure were construedas an ideological figure; of the late Romandisorder – reminiscent in a suggestive juxtaposition armyof the historical reliefs of the Arch of to exclude invadersthathadcome from outside. Usurpers were thus toequaledthe barbarians as of tokens and to regulateEmpire waited forthe moment itwhen fully would recover its integrity after defeating an evil dreadful consequences ofa defensive external war.Foreign wars were glorified, and the Alan E. Wardman,“Usurpers and Internal Conflicts inthe 4th century AD,” After the battle of 31 BCE, Octavian’s naval victory was commemorated by founding Ancient World 23 (1992) 87–96. (1992) 23 36 144 The second operation was less comfortable Historia 33(1984): 232. 145 Together CEU eTD Collection 1907, II, 189; Bassett, 150 1907, II, 189; Bassett, 149 Constantinople 148 147 Constantinople Antique Golden Age and, by means of comparison, theidea of its resurgence in the present under the sound rulers from the peacefulaccomplished days of the Empire’s for thepolitics past of memory thatArch the evokedre-use of the reliefs of ofTrajan, Hadrian,at Constantine andonce Marcus the Aureliusthe hippodrome for to achieve hadintended the been have may presence their and tetrarchy, memoryand of ina Rome. In the Arch a sequence of images of Choniates, and tr. Cameron and Herrin 1984, 140-47; 146 Cambridge Companion to the Age of Constantine 145 Augustus, hippodrome was stocked with images of public figures. Images of Julius Caesar, apparatus of the principate, a mode ruleof defined by Augustus himself. represented the final rejection of the Tetrarchic system in favor of the more traditional Augustus, Constantine was repudiating a system of power sharing; his defeat of Licinius monument tovictory and consolidation of one emperor’s rule. Moreover, similarly to the walls of his new city on the Bosphoros. Like Nikopolis,Constantinople could seenbe as a last rival Licinius,emperor, in naval a nearbattle Chrysopolis and shortly thereafter raised Constantinople: like Octavian Constantineat Actium, his consolidated power defeating his of Empire.defeat of Mark Antony,thus and recalling one theof seminal moments in creationthe of It suggestedset up by Augustus, was itself only a small part of a larger program commemorating the final which memorialized events of far-reaching significance. an analogy between Augustus and Constantine, Nikopolis and Bassett, Suetonius, Ja Parastaseis Parastaseis Patria Ğ Elsner, “From the Culture of Spolia to the Cultof Relics,” 177–8, and idem, “Perspectives in Art,” In addition to In addition Konstantinoupoleos The Urban Image of Late Antique Constantinople Historia 149 Divus 60ed. and tr. Cameron and Herrin 1984,136–37; 76ed.and Cameron tr. and Herrin 1984,156-9; and Diocletian and , 64, 214, no. 126. no. 214, , 64, , ed. van Dieten 1975, 650; tr.Magoulias 1984,359; Bassett, Augustus The Urban Image of Late Antique Constantinople The Urban Image of Late Antique Constantinople , 44, 62, 65, 67, 213,no. 122. apotropaia 96,ed. and tr.Rolfe 1913,I, 272–75; tr.Edwards 2000,93; 2.81, ed. Preger 1907, II, 192; Bassett, 150 represented men whohad ruled Rome from republic to empire and victory monuments like the Ass and Keeper, the Keeper, and Ass the like monuments victory and Patria , 256. Konstantinoupoleos 37 , 66; Stephenson, Patria Patria 146 2.82, ed. Preger 1907, II, 192–93; Niketas , 214–5, no. 127. , 214, no. 124. TheAssKeeper, originally and Konstantinoupoleos Konstantinoupoleos The Urban Image of Late Antique Constantine The Urban Image ofLate 147 , 200. Parastaseis 2.73, ed.Preger 2.73, ed. Preger ed. 2.73, 64, ed. The 148 CEU eTD Collection the threat ofa common enemy essentially constitutes the state with the ruler’s topower wage transformation of their internal enemy what intothe political order would be. Both a Octavianforeign andConstantine succeededin a discursive one, for the real possibilitytherefore determined Theirtheir political physical)of the(violent, monopoly power power. of war and themselves as triumphalist by the exercise of military violence over those who challenged Empire. Constantine and Augustus as rulers, between but alsoonly between not the Principate andthe Constantinian similarity imply to time in back further even equation the pushing factual events. factual had victories, fundamentally won glorious the they Constantine claimedthat misrepresenting for the victor’s reordering of Roman society, culture, and ideology, for both Augustus and have crushedby been Mark Antony,and, second, both conflictsa providedfoundation myth result, forConstantine havecould been by thendefeated nomore Maxentius Octavian could Timothy Barneshas phrasedit, first, both battles started with an awareness of a foregone actual battle resembled the Battle ofActiumin BCE 31 in two fundamental respects. As triumph 29 Octoberon 312CE, one parallel with Augustan times seems indisputable. The modern counterpart. that would have operated by inviting comparison between the great ruler of the past andhis Emperor Augustus, an imperial portrait probably made during lifetime, importedfrom Rome 151 the catalyst renewal. for enlightened ofConstantine, rule whoappears both as inheritorthe ofimperial tradition and as Bassett, From the day after the Battle of Milvian Bridge and Constantine’s entry into Rome in into Rome entry BridgeandConstantine’s the theFrom Milvian Battle day of after 1.2.1.An embarrassing triumph: Augustus and Constantine as 1.2. The Urban Image of Late Antique Constantinople Ceremonies as a dynamic topography of memory 153 Astheconsequences Roman of civil warsvictors both reaffirmed 152 The would have imageAugustus to similar of functionedeffect, 151 Among these monuments of overtly imperial images was one of 38 , 64. triumphatores CEU eTD Collection prompted meaning to designate an illegitimate emperor. the Christians of Italy and Africa toleration shortly hecameafter power –anda tonewly reading a todenote the word of persecutor regardless– thefactof that Maxentius had granted the traditional meaning this noun as denotingan ruler,aspecificof Christian Latin oppressive cogently inobserved, discursivethis context thetransformation involved acombination of (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag,1990), 64–71; Barnes, “Oppressor, Persecutor, Usurper,” 55–65. Grünewald, Constantinus Maximus Augustus. 157 and Powerin the Later Roman Empire Gurval, corpus: Horatian the from absent conspicuously is however, Actium), and Naulochus, Perusia, Philippi, Mutina, at battles war (the civil Roman University Press,1939), 297, 335. Vergil’s 155 Agamben, Giorgio see emergency/exception, non-Marxist theory alike. For areconstruction of theBenjamin-Schmittdebate on the concept of 154 156 153 152 ultimately essentially foreign enemy and presented Maxentius asa defender ofthe Roman people Constantine advancedthe discourse of an internal yet legitimate the as self-representation his in Augustus, by tyrant an eastern of figure ideological Roman emperor. Roman she had conceived Maxentius in adultery with a Syrian, thusMaximian, ascribing a foreign and origin forced to the his own mother-in-law,he had overthrown, that denied his defeated ofthelegitimatewas the rival son tetrarch Maximian’s widow,Jupiter’ and‘barking Anubis’. to confess in public that presenting the conflict between Octavian hisand adversary as a match between Roman ‘our together with the Roman renegade,Actium Mark as Antony,a war waged reinforcing by a united of the campaign intentionally thus portrayed andthehimself Augustus poets Augustan Italyit with againstcultural an Egyptianopposition queen by war and in herits Orientalname and alliesthe right to order to their death the citizens in whose name he rules. Propertius 3.11.41, ed. and tr. Butler 1912, 214–15; Ronald Syme, and Marxist within generally recognized hasbeen violence and state the between connection The intimate Origo Constantini Barnes, Ibid.,63, 214. Panegyrici Latini Constantine: Dynasty, Religion and Power the in Later Roman Empire 156 12, ed. König 1987, 40; tr. Stevenson 1996, 45; Barnes, 12.19.1; 4.31.1, ed.and tr. Nixon and Rodgers 1994, 322, 604; 376, 623; Thomas Remarkably similar to a transformation of Mark Antony the a transformation Antony of Mark into similar to Remarkably 155 , 82-3. , Constantine, in turn, blaming the evils of the regime which Actium and Augustus Aeneid State of Exception State Herrschaftspropaganda in der zeitgenössischen Überlieferung exalts the battle at Actium in an epic setting; any record of record any setting; an epic in atActium battle the exalts 39 , 10–11, 19–85, 137–278. 19–85, 10–11, , (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005). 157 The Roman Revolution Constantine: Dynasty,Religion , 82. tyrannus . As Barnes has (Oxford: Oxford (Oxford: 154 CEU eTD Collection University of California Press, 1981), 33–89; See Michael McCormick, Michael See 33–89; 1981), Press, of California University characteristics of the Roman triumph, see Sabine McCormack, Sabine see triumph, Roman the of characteristics 160 159 Arch. from the reliefs andAurelianic Trajanic of warin superstructure ideological Rome: Between Military Practice, Public Memory, and Cultural Symbolism,” Cultural and Memory, Public Practice, Military Between Rome: 60–65 ( 158 as a ceremony honor thevictoriousto general, underwhose command a great victory had appropriation acollective achievement in of was legal allowed agreement with requirements andnot necessarily only in Rome. adventus arrival was performed and perceived as a ascended the Capitol in sacrificetriumph,toorder render and gratitudeto Jupiter Feretrius, even if transformed into a form of urban simultaneously foreign, his ultimately legitimating extralegal inpower political conquest. means of consolidating againstConstantine’s ownpower yet thethreat, domestic secured on territorial grounds. Reviving imaginary the of Octavian’s civil warwas therefore a the principle tetrarchic of succession as conducted by adoption and their exercise powerof as For Constantine, all otherrulers were athreat from the very beginning, he for challengedboth chronologically the first, usurping emperor,in One 306CE. the canput matter strongly. more imaginary was already placein with the acclamation Constantine, of yet another, and itspolitical CE.Nevertheless,in structuring logic of alliance the of theirshort-term 308 political events, the Constantinian civil war against the usurper didnot begin until the failure and the Battle of Milvian Bridge among its historical reliefs. historical its among Bridge Milvian of Battle the and war, identification further strengthened by including representations of the Siege of Verona have as appeared a monument to this civil war, even glorifying and commemorating civil indubitable. If the triumph of Constantine in 312 CE followedcivil war, the Arch would thus Within the Classical framework from the fourth century onwards Lactantius, Hans Peter L’Orange, HansPeter obsidio Veronae Although when Constantine entered Rome he neither celebrated a formal triumph nor triumph a formal celebrated neither he Rome entered Constantine when Although From the iconographic evidence of the Constantinian Arch,one paradox seems , one of the various imperial rituals that came to be expressed in a triumphal idiom, triumphal a in expressed be to came that rituals imperial various the of one , De Mortibus Persecutorum ) and 65–71 ( Der spätantike Bildschmuck des Konstantinsbogens proelium apud Tiberim 160 44.5, Form the times of republic, the triumph, an individual ed. and tr.Creed 1984, 62–3. 40 ); Tonio Hölscher, “Images of War in Greece and Greece Warin of “Images Hölscher, Tonio ); Art andCeremony in Late Antiquity Eternal Victory:Triumphal Rulership in adventus (Berlin: (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1939), 158 So far, according to the in action took on intrinsic JRS 93(2003): 6–7, 15 on (Berkeley: 159 his CEU eTD Collection victory, included as a part of his triple triumph, Constantine’s soldiers paraded only the head of the greatRoman While emperors. had Augustus misrepresentedcivil war a foreign as booty in to thestateover return for duerecognitionhis status,of placedin a canonical series triumphal processions ‘symboliccelebrated capital’ of the army commander as hehis handed imaginaries in the popular imagination. popular in the imaginaries striking on both sides was the degree to which within figure imaginary,on imaginary positionedthethat political Whatterrain. is, was art and ceremonies were used to foster these 163 discourse. For Constantine, assite earlier offor Augustus,power thewas ‘enemy’ simultaneous ( with the construction of the enemy within the imaginary somewhat more then only serious logistical and military then military logisticalsomewhat serious more and risks. only sacred and Urbs Roma, thusConstantine havemust been aware thatsiege bore a ofRome under arms into theCleopatra, and the conquest Egypt.of Although the Romans themselvesmarched hadforces city in timessuccessive days which officially commemorated his ofvictories overthe Dalmatae, the defeat of civil war, three on triumphs held Octavian BCE 29 August in war: in acivil theyfoes over triumphs had never been route. of the destination Capitolinus, thefinal forced to besiegeand throughthe the Forum Romanum up to the Capitoline Hill and the Temple of Jupiter 162 161 130; Beard, Late Antiquity, Byzantium, and the Early Medieval West ( in a processionbeen won, upon his return home. The ( pomerium Peirce, “The Arch of Constantine,” 410. ArchofConstantine,” “The Peirce, NoelLenski, “The Reign of Constantine,” in Egon Flaig, Egon While triumphal theimperial monuments virtues, comprised parade of The Roman Triumph ) from the Campus Martius through the Ritualisierte Politik pompa triumphalis . (Goettingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 2003), 32. vir vir triumphalis ) which crossed the sacred boundaries of the city The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Constantine 41 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 35– 1990), Press, University Cambridge (Cambridge: 161 Yet Roman neveremperors celebrated porta triumphalis and the triumphant army entered Rome 162 Hisas seizure ofRome a hostis to the Circus Maximus ) was an ideological , 59–90. 163 the CEU eTD Collection commissionedand dedicated by the senate on 30 January 9 BCE, were guided by the idea of Similarly, the processionalbattle friezes‘by the of theinstigation Ara Pacis in the Campusof the Martius, divine’ the monument ( Journal of Early Christian Studies divinitatis act of sacrifice ( 167 “Traditional Religions,” in Hall 1999, 110 that Constantine issued aprohibitionon sacrifice in the autumn 324 CE. See also,Lee, A.D. (1994),120–39 accepts Eusebius’ claim in 166 165 König 1987,39–40; tr. Stevenson 1996, 45. 164 the populace ( these forms by replacing their features with his own – hunting, dispensing justice, addressing onto Constantine the iconic doings of earlier distinguishedemperors. He was merged into project to its iconography Archand the inscription the on used Maxentius, supported had benefit of futurecooperation totheir mutual advantage.Thethe senators, very aristocrats who vengeancein an actof to recall they forgetting,agreed strife not factionalism andthe civil for themforget to what hadhappened in Romeand in Italy over the past six years.Renouncing of all helped which proclamation a opponent, former his of supporters the to himself bound senators into the imperial administration. He thus announced the amnesty through which he city. Carthage histo prove actual death to the African subjects. of Maxentius, displayed as the spoils, through the streets of Rome before it was sent to the emperor in senatorial dress in its civil scenes, surrounded by not bedoubted. The Constantinian frieze on the Arch, commissioned by the senate, portrayed For a philological argument, see Linda Jones Hall, “Cicero’s Hall, Linda Jones see argument, For aphilological Scott Bradbury,“Constantine and the Problem of Anti-PaganLegislation inthe Fourth Century,” 405. ArchofConstantine,” “The Peirce, Panegyrici Latini 165 Although Constantine invalidated all of Maxentius’ appointments,he reintegrated The sincerity of the thatwelcome Constantinereceived when he entered should Rome : The Evidence of the Archof Constantine for the Senatorial View of the Visionof Constantine,” adlocutio suovetaurilia 4.32.6-7, ed. and Nixontr. and Rodgers 1994, 377–78, 624; The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Constantine ), entering cities ( 6(1998):647–71. Cf.Lenski, “Evoking the Pagan Past,” 206–59. ) 166 – which ascribed a polytheistinterpretation of his success in Vita ConstantiniVita adventus instinctu divinitatis instinctu 42 ), distributing ), 2.44,ed. Winkelmann 1975,66;Camerontr. and instinctu divino 164 ) to the visionary emperor. largitio , 159–79. patres and Constantine’s Origo Constantini , even performing the even performing , , the fathers of the instinctu 12, ed. CP 89 167 CEU eTD Collection 172 171 Circus Factions.Blues and Greens at Rome and Byzantium detailed, confirmed on many points by Augustus’ own list in the of Augustus’ contributions and innovations inthe field ofpublic entertainments are particularly full and 170 169 catalog, see catalog, the Due to this elementary hierarchization, like Augustus, Caesar, used to watchgames from went back theinto days ofthe republic) well, sharing his fellow citizens’ excitementsee thatand favoring the a chosen emperor’s color (for all four colorsresponsibility was not only to attend the games, but enjoy them as Polysemy, and the and Polysemy, apologies ( apologies to attend thegames when be present and heunableit to considered necessary his to send 168 with correspondence while watching games. Romanum enactedpolitical unanimity socialand consent. Meeting eye-to-eye with the eliminatingconcord, conflictandimposing consensusthe instead, ritual games circusof elevated beyondthe historical occasion a timelessinto sphere. sculptural Augustae, inspiredClassical by stylecomposition, as and in reliefs appeared demeanor ofthe participants in the ceremonial procession: the scenes Araon the Pacis manner of Virgil’s Peace emphasized prosperity, Augustan the present aslinkedto the Roman past in the basic representing the concept of the Pax Augusta (fig.2). Augusta thePax of concept the representing Cameron, Suetonius, Suetonius, Zanker, Arnaldo Momigliano, “The Peace of the AraPacis,” of the Peace “The Momigliano, Arnaldo Ara Pacis Augustae Conversely, thechoice a seat of repeated the social structure theof everyday world. As much as the triumph through a ceremonial procession staged political harmony and 1.2.2.A circus and a palace The Power ofImages in the Age of Augustus Ara Pacis at the circus, Augustus himself was careful to avoid Caesar’s mistake of dealing Circus Factions petitia venia petitia Divus Augustus Divus Augustus Ara Pacis Augustae , ed., Orietta Rossini (Rome, Electa,2006). ,” Aeneid JRS ) and a substitute to avoid offence. , 59. 45.1, ed. and tr. Rolfe 1913, I,196–97; tr. Edwards 2000, 68. 45.1, ed. and tr. RolfeI, 1913, 196–97; tr. Edwards 2000, 68.Suetonius’ records 81(1991): 50–61 emphasizes the sacrificialfunction of the altar. For arecent , and, references topeacetranquility and as indicated by the ,” AJA 96(1992) 457–75;John Elsner, “Cult and Sculpture:Sacrifice in 172 in the ongoing competition of chariot races. 170 43 , 121., He firmly recognized it as an emperor’s duty (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976), 175. JWarb 168 The pictorial program of the Altar of 5(1942), 228–31;Karl Galinsky, “Venus, Res Gestae Divi Augusti Divi Gestae Res 171 169 Augustus was also the first to . Alan Cameron, Alan . populus CEU eTD Collection the obelisk at a later date (10–9 BCE). (10–9 date a later at obelisk adding the and site the of form monumental the a completion to bringing Caesar, Julius by begun ofwork finalizing the in epitomized enormous, was intervention of Augustus’ scale the Maximus, Circus the of fabric actual 177 le University Press, 2011), 152, 157 n. 11; Gilbert Dagron, “L’organisation et le déroulement des courses d'après before the public at the races, like a sunthe the onto stage ‘interior’ emperor the of from the east, in a box reminiscent of thehippodrome. In Constantinople this arrangementwas designedfor the ceremonial entrance of sharing the from away exchange with fellow spectators in the egalitarian manner of later emperors did not use the constructing shrine the as animperial box that hisequally allowed divine recognition.While after the annexation of Egypt following his victory at Actium (fig.6). the on installed their monumental nature, andif isone tobelieve Pliny the Elder,the earliest obelisk hadbeen the couch of the gods at the Circus Maximus at Rome. empire the 176 maximum Augustus. 175 factions four Rome, who, significantly,accordinga version to preserved in Malalas,withwas credited all Circus Maximus for images of the gods (including Romulus-Quirinus,for worshipping the traditional stategods during religious the festivals, deified awooden platform in the founder of same, see same, 174 Augusti 173 pulvinar Pliny, Jonathan Bardill, Malalas, Suetonius, Livre desCérémonies Res Gestae Divi Augusti 19, ed. and tr. Brunt and Moore 1967, 26–9; Cameron, The circuses’ The , demonstrating that this construction was important to Augustus personally. Augustus to was important construction this that demonstrating , Naturalis Variae , an open couch large enough to seat the wholeemperor’s family. 175 Chronicle kathisma Divus Augustus He built a proper temple from which he could also watch the races, in a way 174 3.51, ed. Mommsen 1894, 106, tr. Barnish 1992, 69. 1992, Barnish tr. 106, 1894, Mommsen ed. 3.51, ) still in place inCaesar’sday,) stillinplace the euripus Historia , 7.4, ed. Dindorf 1831, 175, tr. Jefreys al.et 1986, 92–3; Cassiodorus’ version implies the Constantine, Divine Emperor of the Christian Golden Age ,” , the imperial box where the emperor sat surrounded by his entourage far spina Travaux et Mémoires et Travaux east of the track of the MaximusCircus in Rome on Augustus’orders 19, ed. and Brunttr. and Moore 1967, 26–7 refer to the 36.70–71, ed. Rackham andJones, tr. Eichholz 1962, X,158–61. Regarding the 45,ed. and tr. Rolfe 1913,I, 196–99; tr. Edwards 2000, 68; cavea appeared to have been frequently adorned by obelisks, amplifying pulvinar , was the point of connection between the palace and , sometimes preferringshare to the publicseats the for 13(2000): 122–24. kathisma 44 Circus Factions , where he appeared in his full splendor pulvinar 176 was later monumentalized by civiles principes civiles , 176–77. , 177 (Cambridge: Cambridge (Cambridge: Constantine enlarged Constantine 173 puluinar ad circum ad puluinar Originally a site Res Gestae Divi Gestae Res , in the late pulvinar , CEU eTD Collection cristiana Architecture,” Church Constantinian in “Studies Alexander, Suzanne see Constantine, 180 alliance. of their failure the with failed project yet the suggestion that Constantine and Licinius had agreed toerect theobelisk inRome soon after Maxentius’ defeat, Light of Non-Literary Evidence,” Non-Literary of Light Constantinople.Steven E.Hijmans, to “The any Sun Whichreference of Did Notsuppression Rise in the East: The intentional his stresses Cult of yet Invictus Sol falsifying, in the wasdeliberately he that and inscription University Press, 2008), 224–30 allows both possibilities, that Ammianus was correcting an erroneous CQ on Constantinople,” Silences Marcellinus’ Ammianus Old: the and Rome New “The Kelly, Gavin cities. other of expense at the Constantinople supplied having for a reputation acquired had who father his criticizing tacitly his ownenhanced standing had in Romededication and implied that Constantius’ he that had returned priority suggests and to Egypt Rome from atobelisk thean of expense ofgift the Constantinople with by Rome honor Old Rome.” Van Dam, Van Rome.” Old of Establishment pagan the conciliate to desire “his particular, in and, subjects, pagan his with relations balanced finely his of context the in by Constantine conceived as project obelisk whole the understands and Rome Commonwealth transforming the peripheries of the city (at least). install in church-building againstthe the whichbalance imperially-funded program was have the would senatorial by seen the asobelisk been monumentto establishment apagan standing Constantinopleof Constantine was simultaneously resolving differences with Rome; anniversary visit which to Rome, fell in yearCE.the 326 Clearly,while promoting the obelisk would have been the most appropriate gift onthe occasion hisof twentieth his power, authority, and undisputed control of the western half of the empire, the Thebes adornment forConstantinople; Ammianus Marcelinus, which has been interpreted in so many different ways, obelisk, Lateran) (or the Theban remove to planned already had Constantine that unlikely Fowden, “Nicagoras of Athens and the Lateran Obelisk,” Lateran the and ofAthens “Nicagoras Fowden, diminish the significance of Constantius’ gift or to avoid making reference to Constantinople,” cf. Garth Constantius’ inscription misrepresented about the truth Constantine’s intentions and Ammianus that lied “to Constantine, Divine Emperor of the Christian Golden Age 310–11, who prefers Constantius’ versionof the story the to later literary account by Ammianus; Bardill, d'une capitale: ConstantinopleDagron, Gilbert et ses see institutions de 330 discussion, à a 451 For Rome. to obelisk the send to planned Constantine that asserts 179 2000), 24–6. Bertrand Lançon, 178 Constantinople, hevisitedRome for both his standing in Constantius’ times (fig.7). times Constantius’ in standing the circus eastwards and his son bestowed an obelisk on it to match that of Augustus still Fowden, Ammianus Marcelinus, 53 (2003): 604-6, and idem, CIL 6.1163 = 67 (1971), 281–330; still useful Richard Krautheimer, Richard useful still 281–330; (1971), 67 Empire to Commonwealth , 47, who argues that Ammianus is correct in stating that Constantine intended the obelisk for obelisk the intended Constantine that stating in correct is Ammianus that argues who 47, , Rome Latein Antiquity: Everyday Life and Urban Change, AD312 ILS 736, Constantius’ inscription claimsthat the obelisk was intended by his fatheras The Roman Revolution of Constantine Res Gestae Ammianus Marcellinus: The Allusive Historian Bulletin Antieke Beschaving Antieke Bulletin 16.10.17, ed. and tr. Rolfe 1935,I, 252–53 on Constantius’ donation; , 55. On the church building program as the self-representation of 178 Whereas Constantine celebrated his decennalia 45 Res Gestae 180 It would therefore have been an offering JHS , 137n.9 supports thatConstantine decided to (Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1974), France, de Presses universitaires (Paris: , 154–55 assumesis that it less likely that Early Christian andByzantine Architecture 179 71 (1996): 115–50 advances the diverting andhis 107 (1987): 54–7; and idem, before 324 CE asa demonstration of 17.4.13, ed. and tr. Rolfe 1935, I, 322–25 I, 1935, Rolfe tr. and ed. 17.4.13, vicennalia – (Cambridge: Cambridge (Cambridge: 609 Rivista diarcheologia . Although it is not it . Although (London: Routledge, tricennalia Empire to Empire Naissance , 4th at CEU eTD Collection that fashion on porphyry works initiated by Augustus was revived under Diocletian after the long break and continuedbreak to enjoy long the popularity after under Constantine; Diocletian under Raymond Janin,revived was by Augustus initiated works porphyry on fashion that 184 2000), 248–9; Bardill, Curran, Rom,” in und – Ägypten Welt’ ganzen der “’Tempel Cancik-Lindemaier, Hildegard and Cancik Hubert see obelisks, obelisk to the moon, Cassiodorus, moon, the to obelisk Augustan smaller the and sun the to dedicated was obelisk Constantius’ that adorned and asserts that mausoleum obelisks Augustus’ two mentions Cassiodorus century, sixth the in Later, 16. n. with 41–6 2003), Brill, on the obelisk Campus Martius Horologium’s all but quotesthe on the inscription the that who suggests 40, 1996), Press, University Cambridge Propaganda of Monuments in Augustan Rome,” in Augusti 183 182 181 West inthe Architecture Brandenburg, University Press, 2000); Rudolf Leeb, ed. (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1986) and idem, embarked upon in order to transport it from Egypt to Constantinople (fig.9). famous statue on topin a portrayed hadhimself Constantine likeness that Apollo-Helios in the of sun, anditwas of the porphyry Egyptiancolumn, obelisksanother withimmenseAugustus dedicated his obelisks in the Circus a Maximus and theCampus pyramidalMartius to Sol. task thattip coveredConstantine in gold hadhad been considered to glorify the beautified Rome with other obelisks, left it untouched for religious reasons: stand for the Empire’s unityobject, previously the focus of its own undersmall temple, andunusually, not one of a pair) could a single ruler. toAccording the capital from tothe Ammianus, newly re-conquered Augustus, East, for the uniquewho single obelisk (a major cult- world.” from one temple and consecrated it at Rome,thatis say,in to the thetemple of whole from Augustus, “rightly thoughtfounded Constantinople, as thatAmmianus continues, slightly surprisingly,he shifting hiswas focus committing no sacrilege if he took this marvel Richard Delbrück, Richard Ibid. Marcelinus, Ammianus CIL 6.701=702, ... 27.1, ed. and tr.Brunt and Moore 1967, 32–3 with Ja Pagan City and Christian Capital: Rome in the Fourth Century Yet Constantine, notorious for robbing holy placesthe the East embellishof to newly italoft like towered the summitthe of whole. in the sacredpart of his sumptuous temple, which mightnot be profaned, there It wasconsecratedas aspecial gift tothe God, Sun and because, being placed 182 Ägypten – Tempel der GesamtenWelt: Studies in Honour of Jan Assmann As Ammianus points out, it was a solar symbol, and inscriptions confirm that Ancient Churches of Rome from the Fourth to the Seventh Century: The DawnChristian of Antike Porphyrwerke Antike Constantine, Divine Emperor of the Christian Golden Age Aegupto inpotestatem populi romani redacta. Soli donum dedit (Turnhout: Brepols, 2005). Res Gestae Variae Res Gestae Augustae 17.4.12–14, ed. Goold and tr. Rolfe 1935, I, 322–25. Konstantin und Christus 3.51.8,ed. Mommsen 1894,106, tr. Barnish 1992, 69. See also John (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1932), 26; 140–45, pl. 68, 57–59 shows Rome:Profile of aCity 312 Art and Text inRoman Culture 46 ; on Egyptian cults in Rome and the transportationof 181 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1992), 71–82; Hugo Ğ Elsner, “Inventing Constantinople byzantin: développement (Oxford: Oxford University (Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press, , 154–55. – , ed. Sibylle Meyer (Leiden: Meyer Sibylle , ed. 1308 , ed. J. Elsner (Cambridge: J. Elsner ed. , Imperium (Princeton: Princeton ; cf. ; 184 Res Gestae Divi Gestae Res : Texts and the and Texts : Intending to Intending 183 CEU eTD Collection were very much part of the political scene, since Augustus dared not follow Caesar’s follow not dared Augustus since scene, political the of part much very were andearly Augustan Rome. During this period,when questions of divine status anddeification gods and hence a major focus for the categorization of the divine, particularly in Triumviral of the of form of diadem and presided over chariot races in the hippodrome. worldwide extent of Roman power; Basset, power; of Roman extent worldwide capitale a to point the opposite imperial box. hippodrome the of gates thestarting from onawagon was transported crown, radiate the with gilded statue, with a personification or Tyche of his new city in its right hand and, probably, 186 1984, 132–33, 242. CE. Dindorf 1832,I, 529–56, tr. Whitby and Whitby 1989, 17-8; ceremonial procession on the occasion ofthe 185 Mango, Fowden,“Constantine’s Porphyry Column:The Earliest Literary Allusion,” urbain et répertoire topographique Chronicle been used inBCE 45 to commemorate the founding of Rome. The wars. civil of a series after enunciated rule surpassed the height of the monolith Augustus had acquired, similarly aggrandizing his sole competingbe with firstthe emperor, launching a comparable monumental project that existing obelisk Augustan Maximusthe of inRome,Circus Constantine therefore appearedto the to it inproximity place to planning moved, not had Augustus which theobelisk move Malalas, 185 Parastaseis Recalling circus processionCaesar of his Hellenistic and predecessors,Constantine’s , 41, 44–5 argues that it could be a figure of Victory standing upon aglobe, thus representing the Studies on Constantinople ludi ludi circenses The Constantinople’s dedication ceremony resembled the kind of ofMalalas,the and Chronicle pompa circensis 56, ed. and tr. Cameron Herrinand 1984, 100–3 with 215–18; Dagron, , 13.8, ed. Dindorf 1831, 322, Jefreystr. et al. 1986,175; , was Rome’s most remarkable and elaborate display of images of the , the grand procession of deities which preceded the celebration (Aldershot: Variorum, 1993), 312–13. , 2nd, ed. (Paris: Institut Français d’Études Byzantines,1964), 83;Garth Parastaseis Syntomoi Chronikai The Urban Image of Late Antique Constantinople Antique Late of Image Urban The 186 After that,Constantine wearingappeared the jeweled 47 encaenia Parastaseis of Constantinople on 11 May 330 56, ed. and tr. Cameron and Herrin describe the hippodrome JRS Chronicon Paschale pompa circensis pompa 81(1991) 119–31; Cyril Chronicon Paschale , 240–41, no. 160. no. 240–41, , Naissance d'une Naissance thathad , the , , ed. CEU eTD Collection 191 temples and shrines in Asia Minor. Imperial Cult in Asia Minor (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996), 314, 316. See Simon Price, procession is explicitly mentioned, as related to the opening’s prediction of the future apotheosis of of Octavian. apotheosis 190 future the of prediction the opening’s to asrelated mentioned, explicitly is procession central to the thematic unity of the whole, conceived the prologue in terms of a (2011): 1–14 suggest that Virgil,whose cities, included an adjacent palace directly connected tothe imperial box by a stairway, one in all tetrarchic capitals andin general symptomatic ofthe elaboration ofRoman imperial 188 43.45.2; 44.6.3, ed. Goold, tr. Cary 1916, IV, 290-1; 316–17. praesentissimus hic deus ascribes the Constantine appellation to in the religious sphere, referring himto as the same view of the emperor as synonymous with being a god, present (here and now), when he 189 circensibus, ut correptus ualitudine lectica cubans tensas deduceret. whose narrative goes as follows: Nevertheless,emperors. keen Augustus’ interest in the almost ayear in a half and the eastern provinces. articulated by inRome time,Augustus’ Octavian,immediately when spent Actium, after may have seen a line being crossed. Yet between organizing the divine procession beingand a part itof many Roman spectators the divinity, claiming humano fastigio decerni sibi passus est 187 to be a god, a of pagan deities, may havealso suggested tomany Constantineobservers that claiming was precedent of displaying of his own statue in a chariot in the procession of deities, On Augustus as the Suetonius, Damien Nelis and Jocelyne Nelis-Clément, “Vergil, Georgics 1.1–42 and the and 1.1–42 Georgics “Vergil, Nelis-Clément, Jocelyne and Nelis Damien Suetonius, Panegyrici Latini The spatial context the of hippodrome in Constantinople,remarkably every similar to The parading statue theof departing Constantine,presumably accompanied by statues the procession sacred of chariots reclining in his litter. When he giving was votive games in Circusthe hehappened tofall ill ledand Divus Caesar Divus Augustus presens dues 6.1.5 and 22.1, ed.and tr.Nixon and Rodgers 1994, 219, 251, 573, 583. presens deus presens pompa circensis pompa 76.1,ed. and tr.Rolfe 1913,I, 98–9; tr. Edwards 2000,35 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984) 249–74 for a catalog of imperial of catalog a for 249–74 1984) Press, University Cambridge (Cambridge: , this manifestmost god. 43, ed. and Rolfetr. I,1913, 190–94; tr. Edwards 2000,66 , the conceptbehindthe cult ruler intheGreek hadbeen that East , see Karl Galinsky, Karl see , : ... : Georgics 189 tensam etferculum circensi pompa became a tribute todeified (and therefore deceased) is the text in which the issue of Octavian’s apotheosis is 48 191 190 Augustan Culture: An Interpretive Introduction The panegyrist of 310 CE reflects the pompa 188 is demonstrated by Suetonius, Rituals and Power: The Roman The Power: and Rituals ; Dio Cassius, ; pompa circensis, pompa circensis sed et ampliora etiam Roman History accidit uotiuis ” Dictynna , where a 187 thus 8 CEU eTD Collection Everyday Life and Urban Change 196 Appia,” Via Isis to adorn the adorn to Isis rôle. Remarkably, at the same time, Maxentius also relocatedMaxentius himself somemade the alterations theto Palatineobelisk complex in which he playeda public from the temple of the prototype of the Circusone in a combination theof the circus and associated palace, which derived ultimately from Maximus at the foot of the Domus Augustana on the Palatine. 195 (1999): 216–30. 194 Constantine.” even before capitals Tetrarchic of feature a standard become had but Rome, in maximus circus juxtaposition of imperialthe palace and the hippodromeof did, course,mirror the coupling of Palatine hilland History of Byzantium Dindorf 1832,I, 527–30, Whitbytr. Whitbyand 1989, 16.Cf.Cyril Mango,“Constantinople,” in ( situatedon the Via which Appia, the kept connection between villathe the imperialand box been funerary in character. AsforMaxentius, second the palace/circus complex inRome, games recorded at this circus were the inaugural ones, which are generally thought to have circus built at one of his villas in Rome, dedicated the of construction to his son’s memory (fig.5):twiceemphasizes theauthor that Constantinethe followed of Rome, pattern once inthe standard circus form, which stemmed ultimately from the Circus Maximus in Rome. Second, 193 192 kathisma on that inthatin the for Rome emperor towatch races, andalso built alarge palace, closely patterned Rome, Malalas that reports Constantinethe completed Severan near hippodrome and built a hippodrome,evidently in direct imitation theof Augustana/Circus Domus Maximus complex in Rome. with a staircase leading from the palace to the pulvinar Leppin and Ziemssen, On Excavations,” Trust Walker and the Emperors Byzantine the of Palace Great “The Bardill, Jonathan Malalas, Cameron, divus Romulus In 309 CE, following the death of his son, Romulus, Maxentius had a sanctuary and . ) of the circus through a covered portico, quoted – that is to say, imitated – the first 193 The Art BulletinThe Art Chronicle Circus Factions First, the itself,hippodrome inherited from the Severan era, followedthe spina , see , ed. Mango, C. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 65,who argues that “the , 13.7,, ed. Dindorf 1831,320, tr. Jefreys etal. 1986,173–74; kathisma CIL hisnewcircus. of Maxentius: Der letzte Kaiserin Rom 48 (1966): 382–83. , 180–81. 6.1138. Alfred Frazer, “The Iconography of the Emperor Maxentius’ Buildings in , 25. and in once linking it withthe palace. 196 Second in size only to its progenitor, the Circus 49 , 59–66; Lançon, 194 Rome in Late Rome in Late Antiquity: Chronicon Paschale kathisma 195 the only the JRA Oxford like , ed. 192 12 CEU eTD Collection deceased emperorheaven to hisand divinization,initiated by the Caesar’scase of Byzantium in perpetuation enjoyed for Christian ideology and, as a result, short-lived compared to other Roman rituals that deceased emperors from Augustus in CE to14 Constantine in 337 CE the– most problematic that continued the traditionthat of the funeral noble continued in Rome, Constantinian endeavor was a strikingly Augustan imitation. Augustan strikingly a was endeavor Constantinian obelisk. Augustan the exceeding sparkling in the sunlight, in anticipation of the arrival of a proper adornment equaling or would have compensated for it with masonry substitute (fig.8), covered in bronze and of their valuables during the 320s CE, although never acquired a genuine Egyptian obelisk, Ruprecht, 1995), 115–48; and idem, Römischen Republik,” in 1996); cf. Egon Flaig, “Die Pompa Funebris. Adlige Konkurrenz und annalistische Erinnerung in der 199 quem post terminus provided the model for erecting two obelisks inConstantinople thus establishing the rule of Constantius II as le Cérémonies des d'après courses des déroulement le et “L’organisation Dagron, cf. obelisk; masonry the for responsible 198 Constantinople 197 masonry. Maximus by adorning the central barrier of a Constantinople’stradition hippodrome with of oneerecting built of obelisks rivaling Rome graced by the Augustan by Constantine in the aftermath of 312 CE. monolith in the Circus Maximus, the circus of Maxentius, together with his otherbuilding projects,was appropriated Harriet Flower, Harriet Bardill, On themasonry obelisk in Constantinople, probably of Constantinian date, see Mango, The imperial ceremony 1.2.3 of Given his devotion tothesolar deity,Constantinean aestheticperpetuated also 197 Constantine,Divine Emperor of the Christian Golden Age Constantine, who systematically plundered pagan temples throughout his empire Constantine, pagansystematically temples throughout whoplundered , art. X, 17–20; Basset, Consecratio ,” 106,who argues that that the presence of two obelisks in the Circus Maximus must have Ancestor Masks and Aristocratic Power Romanin Culture for the erection of the masonry obelisk. masonry of the erection forthe Memoria als Kultur Ritualisierte Politik The Urban Image of Late Antique Constantinople consecratio 198 – The entire Egyptian enterprise shows that the came to be a re-enactment of the elevation of the , ed. Otto Gerhard Oexle (Goettingen: Vandenhoeck und Vandenhoeck (Goettingen: Oexle Gerhard Otto , ed. 50 , that is, , 49–68. the ceremony of animperial funeral 199 , 154–57 suggests that Constantine was and the subsequent apotheosis of (Oxford: Oxford University Press, University Oxford (Oxford: , 86 with n. 20. n. with 86 , Studies on Studies Livre CEU eTD Collection įȚ ıț IJȠȚ ʌĮȡİ ۂ İ Ƞ 203 202 201 Augustus and the Greek World Res Gestae 200 provided by that of the first apotheosizedRoman emperor. Augustus and Constantine are remarkably parallel,the for latter partially followed amodel deification. andSeptimius Severus CE(recordedin 211 by Herodian). Moreprecisely, awaxeffigy was imperial funerals of Augustus in 14 CE, Pertinax in 193 CE (both described by Dio Cassius) reflected these preoccupations, yet the practices it adopted show someanalogies with the succession: emperor’ssonsthe Constantinople were all absentfrom and thefuneral ritual a conventional Roman practice. The political element waspresent inthe form of fear over The display of the body, or an image in place of the body in the case of belated funerals, was honors due toan emperor: catafalque in the most splendid room in the palace Constantinople, where the body, and crowned in imperial robes, was displayed a high on the ceremonial began with a military thatprocession carriedthe mortal remains in convoy to ۞ ij ۟ ȢIJ ıIJȡĮIJȚȦIJȚțȠ ’ Eusebius, Eusebius, Dio Cassius, Bardill, ݨ ’ ۏ ۂ ȞȠȢ ܚ ȝȑȡĮȢțĮ ݶ ۻ ȞĮ ȤȠȞ ȞȕĮıȚȜȑȦȢ ȥȘȜ , ۺ ȕĮıȚȜȚțȠ , Both Both emperors died outside of their residential capitals: after the death ofConstantine by a huge circle of people keeping vigil. keeping people of circle by a huge with imperial ornaments, with purple andcrown, wasguarded day and night palace itself,in centralthe imperial theEmperor’s remains,quarters, adorned under the light of the sun from thefirst creation theof world. Within the wonderful spectacle fora the provided they onlookersstands golden on round all of lights a kindkindling by and neverpedestal, seen on earth by anyone Emperor; then inwrapped this in theimperial purple, and bore itmost into the city named after the They superb coffin. golden in a them laid and the remains up took military The of the imperial halls they laid it on a high IJ ܞ Ƞ ޓ and Hellenistic Theoriesof Apotheosis,” ۥ țĮIJİIJȓșİȞIJȠ Ȟ Constantine,Divine Emperor of the Christian Golden Age ȠȞ ʌĮȜĮIJȓ Vita Constantini Vita Constantini 200 ܜ ȞȣțIJ ܜ ۂ IJ Roman History ʌ As rare examples of well attested imperial funerals, both the both funerals, imperial ofwellattested As rareexamples ܞ ݶ ’ ȢIJİțȩıȝȠȚȢʌȠȡijȪȡ ۂ ıț Ƞ ʌȫȞȣȝȠȞʌȩȜȚȞ ܞ ސ ۺ Ȣ țĮIJ ݨ įİȞ ۂ ȞȠȢȤȡȣı ijȡȠȪȡȠȣȞ ܞ ܖ , ȢʌȫʌȠIJ IJ ij ܞ ޒ 4.61–75, ed. Winkelmann 1975, 145-51; tr. Cameron and Hall 1999, 177–82. 4.66, ed. Winkelmann 1975, 147–48; tr. Cameron and Hall 1999, 179: ȝİıĮȓIJĮIJȠȞIJ (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965) Ȑ IJ IJȐ 56.34–46, ed.and tr. Cary 1924,VII, 74–107. ݩ . țĮIJİIJȓșİȞIJȠȜȐȡȞĮțȚ , ’ ’ ț ۻ ڶ ij ۂ ʌİȚIJĮ ݗ ȐĮIJȢ țȪțȜ ȟȐȥĮȞIJİȢ ’ IJİțĮ ۏ ȜȓȠȣĮ ޒ ۂ ȞȕĮıȚȜİȓȦȞ ȞĮ ܜ įȚĮįȒȝĮIJȚIJİIJȚȝȘȝȑȞȠȞ ۺ ۺ ȖĮ IJ ޓ ݶ Ȣ IJȠ . JRS 51 ސ , ۂ IJĮȪIJȘȞș țʌȡȫIJȘȢĮ ޅ 203 ۂ ʌĮȞIJ 89 (1999) 1–18. See also, Glen Warren Bowersock, Warren Glen also, See 1–18. (1999) 89 ۂ ʌ ij ܜ ıțİȣ  ’ ۻ 202 ܞ ȥȘȜ ȢʌȡȠijȑȡȠȞIJȚIJ ’ – which were in fact all the normal ڳ ޒ ޒ۞ ȜȠȣȡȖȓįȚȕĮıȚȜȚț ݨ Ȥȡȣı Ȟ ȢțİȓȝİȞȠȞȤȡȣı 201 , ȞȠȢıȣıIJȐıİȦȢ , 152–3;, Brian Bosworth, “Augustus, the ʌȜİ ݶ ıIJȠȚʌİȡȚıIJȠȚȤȚıȐȝİȞȠȚ ޒ șĮȣȝĮıIJ Ȟ ޒ ȞȕĮıȚȜİȓȦȞȠ ݩ ݨ ʌİȡȚȑȕĮȜȜȠȞ ۂ ȢȜȐȡȞĮțȠȢIJ ʌ ܜ ܞ Ȗ șĮĮ IJȠ șȑĮȝĮ Ȟ consecrationes ݨ Ȣ ܊ ijșȘ ۢ țȦȞ ۂ . ۂ ܞ ʌĮȖȡȪʌȞȦȢ ھ țȩȝȚȗȩȞIJ ȕĮıȚȜȑȦȢ ۆ ֩ ȡĮȞIJİȢį ݶ ȞįȠȞȖȐȡ Ȣ ȕȐșȡȠȞ ۯ ȡ ޒ of ıȚ ֪ ’ ’ CEU eTD Collection followed by the senate. Similarly, Constantine initiated the building of his mausoleum, Constantine. of apotheosis pagan to theto conservative nature of visual media. Classical image ofthe imperial receive him, on the reverse. GilbertDagron has stressedthat Christianization allowedthe same emperor driving a quadriga toup heaven, from which the hand of God emerges to Constantius II with a veiled effigy of thewhich portrayed him seated above theheavenly dead vault, anddescribes a coin type chosen by emperor on the obverse and the imageapotheosis, that telling the people andsenate ofRomededicatedan image Constantineofto the Eusebius, in turn, portrays scenes of lamentation, evoking the traditional iconographywhich, forof Augustus,the was said to have included almost all the population of Rome. ritualized deification ofthe emperor by engaging a decisively with imperialImperial the previous broke included tradition. funerals traditionally appropriateliving to a emperorand his actual funeral a tomb with burial inhumation,or he waslast the for emperor whom consecration coins were struck, elaborate ceremonial after the the funeral, but ceremonial wasfor transformed the burial of Constantine.Although the of ascension 205 University Press, 1992), 83. Royalty: Powerand Ceremonial in Traditional Societies 204 human mortality and corruptionemperor – for it was– convenientthen forthe public ceremonial to use an burnedimage untainted by at the time of thelaid on top of substitutedor for the body of thedeceased, treatedfor a while asaliving Dagron, in Emperors,” of Roman Consecration The Cult: Divine to Funerals Noble “From Price, Simon Augustus’ funeral was designed by the emperor himself, who left instructions to be As inthe case of Augustus, the official deification Constantineof came immediately Emperor andPriest Emperor divus imperator , 137. , consecratio in the form of an eagle opportunely released. 205 to be re-employed with a different meaning due Yetwhatwas behindEusebius’ rhetoric was the 52 , ed. D. Cannadine and S. Price (Cambridge: Cambridge (Cambridge: Price S. and Cannadine D. ed. , pompa funebris pompa consecratio , the funeral procession, , that is, of the , thatof is, Rituals of 204 CEU eTD Collection the first step in a set of experiments which ultimately resulted in the mausoleum of the Forum Romanum and also celebratedthe post 209 Constantine. Millenium Press, 2009), 118; Jam Willem Drijvers, “Helena Augusta,the Cross and the Myth: Some New Reflections,” 208 Taragona. in Centcelles and Nomentana Via the on Costanza Santa Labicana, Via on the Helena Rome, outside Appia Via onthe Maxentius Thessalonike, and Gamzigrad at Galerius Split, at Diocletian 207 with its abundant its with the cult of relics in his later years,constructed tocommemorate the twelve apostles, each of whomreceived inaugurated atomb, and that within the typologicalpersuasively scheme shown the thatRoman Constantine,Arch buried as the thirteenth apostle in a sacred shrine also made. originally whom itwas for Maxentius, Constantine’s mother,Helena, confiscated were placed was the from mausoleum of of remains the which in sarcophagus the that assumed also been has It ideologically. complex theVia on Appia as overwhelmingly funerary in characterspatially as as well referencesgenerated by re-articulated death Romulus’ the whole Maxentian building son, Romulus. The all-encompassing emphasis on death and apotheosis andthe memorial as were the mausolea built Galeriusby and Diocletian,yet it first receivedMaxentius’ deified Maxentius,the onthe mausoleum Via was Appia certainly intendedfor the emperor himself, 206 resembles tetrarchic imperial mausolea, for which many parallels can becited. benefit in the central niche, in the middle of from‘cenotaphs’ of the twelve apostles, so that his wouldsoul themausoleum to the Saviour’s apostles, he himself intendedprayersto be buried there, placing his tomb that would be offered in honor of them. described by Eusebius. Eusebius, Johnson, Joseph Mark Mango, “Constantine’s Mausoleum and the Translation of Relics,” 51–62. For instance, the mausolea of Eusebius, Although, as Eusebius explains, Constantine had consecrated the building of his 8 (2011): 144 argues againstthe suggestion thatHelena’s sarcophagus was initially designedfor Vita Constantini Vita Constantini spolia The Roman Imperial Mausolea inLate Antiquity , a commemorative monument which paralleledthe Augustan arch on 4.60, ed. Winkelmann 1975, 144–45; tr. Cameron and Hall 1999, 176–77. 4.58–60, ed.Winkelmann 1975, 144–45; tr. Cameronand Hall 1999, 176–77. 206 The mausoleum-rotunda, as Cyril Mango has discovered, 208 53 - Milvian Bridge Milvian (Cambridge: Cambridge University Cambridge (Cambridge: triumph of 312 CE,was 209 Ja Ğ Elsner has 207 As for CEU eTD Collection imperial line that succeededthe original line set up by Augustus. monument, yet not merely a Constantinian family foundation but the foundation of a new paralleled themessage ofAugustus of the mausoleum as primarily imperialan dynastic residential capital, palace, and burial place.The Constantinian mausoleum therefore after his last beganthe rivalwasdefeated, anew empire by establishing his ownnew of Constantine,did who, too so civilwar, in hisvictory the inaugurated with empire Augustus 211 210 commonalities in symbolic such themes, as tothe victory.references Actian isolation from other buildings which shared Augustus’ commemorative scheme and thus Horologium Augusti visibly united by their topographicalcomponent of complexa tripatrite the alsoconsistedArathat of Solariumor Pacisand proximity to one another and their Augustus on the Campus Martius, the ultimate prototype forlater imperial mausolea, was one Constantine later, and, the chuch theHoly of Apostles. Davies, Elsner, “From the Culture of Spolia to the Cult of Relics,” 157–58. Death and the Emperor , 13–9. , 54 210 Thecircular of mausoleum 211 Just as CEU eTD Collection From Caligula to Constantine in Landscape” Visual Roman of the Transformation and the “Tyranny Varner, R. Eric him: resembling portraits demonstrating the enduring legacy of the first emperor of Rome and the continued desirability of creating intended as a visual signal of Constantine’s been have form would likeness asre-fashioned idealized and features facial from youthful The representations Augustus. of under introduced Augustus, first portraiture Roman in traditions classicizing the to appealed have would physiognomy idealized youthful a of retention zur Geschichte des spätantiken Porträts L’Orange, Peter Hans portraiture: inConstantinian classicism of an Augustan speaks L’Orange Peter derivedfrom Polykletian works inSmith, “Typology and Diversity in the Portraits of Augustus,” 30–47. Hans and argues against the Augustus-Doryphoros theory, which claims that an Augustan classicistic formal language 213 Legend the religious foundations of Western Christendom.” See Antonina Harbus, His recognition of the civilliberties of his Christian subjects, and his own conversion to the Faith, established 212 rigid portraits of his predecessors and was intended to evoke the image of Augustus (fig.17), portraits from that– period onmoreclassicizing ruler of the the uncontestedConstantineCE, West in a his adopted radically 312 newfor style is rather the Constantinian iconography itself, which has came toshow that after becoming even incurious more this contemporary artistic yet manifestation than another appropriation site. local a with connection material a claiming by visually and publicly Constantine nevertheless expresses a desire to appropriate a Christian Roman imperial figure presence inYorkis supporteddecisively by gesture thissources, commemorating Constantine’s though even Notably, across. of shape the forms which sword, his broken upon manner inaconciliatory down looking throne imperial his on seated warrior hardened statue itself shows ConstantineafterBattle ofthethe Bridge, represented asabattle- Milvian Constantine was proclaimedsite of the headquarters of the Roman fort, the monumentemperor marks the probable spot where by the army to of nearis Minster,Situated thesouth whichthe inYork.York transept cathedral on the itself succeed his father, Constantius I. The R. R. R. Smith denounces the ‘Constantinian classicism’ in Smith, “The Public Image of Licinius I,” 202, I,” Licinius of Image Public “The Smith, in classicism’ ‘Constantinian the denounces Smith R. R. R. 306. in Emperor Roman was proclaimed Great the placeConstantine this “Near reads: side onthe Aplaque (Cambridge:Brewer, 2002), 8. A bronze statue of the Emperor Constantine, commissioned in stands 1998, in front of 2.1. 2. The affirmative politics of memory: an appropriation of symbolic capital symbolic of memory:appropriation an of politics The affirmative SCULPTURE: MEMORY IN MARBLE ANDBRONZE MARBLE IN MEMORY SCULPTURE: , 11. (Rome: Bretschneider,1965), 56–7, since Constantine’s portrait withits 55 213 –which differedboth from him the severe Helena of Britain in Medieval 212 However, what is Studien CEU eTD Collection evoke comparison with Augustus, the imperial model he imitated. he model imperial the Augustus, with comparison evoke to intended thus himself Constantine dialogues. and speeches also but histories, and poems only not recitations, ( time his of talents literary the encouraged Augustus that reports 88 querimonias provinciarum fuit: … nutrire artes bonas,praecipue studia litterarum, legere ipse scribere meditari audire legationes et thinking, and listening to the embassies, Constantine favored pursuits appropriate to a civilian emperor, see emperor, Epitome de civilian Caesaribusa to appropriate pursuits favored Constantine embassies, the to listening and thinking, Porfyrius inlate 312 CE.By nourishing of the liberal especially arts, literature as well as reading, writing, Optatianus Publius poet and Romansenator the and Constantine between exchange letter the for argues who in the mold of Augustus, see Barnes, 216 Licinius I,” 185–7. Image of Public “The Smith, see argument, iconographical the For of Augustus. beholder Roman the reminded rather short hair casually over his combing in his browBoth and in civilian. the shapea clean-shaven and bony as emperor character of the of idea the his youthfulreintroduces face and Constantine portraits tetrarchic 215 493. Great,” the ofConstantine Face True “The see Wright, details, the For Constantine. in perceives one idealism calm the of instead realism individualizing hard, with Caracalla, of tradition the in power, of ferocious a look often expression, anintense affected generally who and beard astubble and hair ofclose-cropped iconography military the adopted had who emperors of succession along after hair length Augustus- with clean-shaven himself show to emperor first the youthful, and ashandsome as well clean-shaven 214 first Roman emperor. clean-shaven and youthful with a cap of comma-shaped locks recalling the coiffure of the memory orConstantine’s portrait appeared henceforth to be a battleground fortheeven different politics of indeedalthough it result, lostits continuity with irreversibly,tetrarchicthe representation a civil war toagainst turnedout Maxentius and As beaffiliatedwith a an Augustan figure. reorganization ofthe imperial wasportraiture instituted in consequence ofthe endof the first basilica), acolossal marble head was found (fig.10). It has been identified as portraita of same time, of representing himself theadvantages of aware inwas apparently Constantine that Romeconfirms It iconography. at looking in the fashion of a princeps,I suggest this, of evidence For diversified. essentially was representation Constantinian a soldier, but a civilian at the For Constantine as an emperor with intellectual attainments, who presented himself as a patron of of literature a patron as himself presented who attainments, intellectual with emperor asan ForConstantine This is imagethe of an Apolline princeps that rejects aggressivethe paternalmilitarism of third-century and From Caligula to Constantine to From Caligula To continue with the image, I will show how a specifically continue with aspecifically how To theConstantinian image, Iwillshow In 1981, in the Christian basilica of Bolsena (Volsinii) (situated on the site of a pagan 216 andimages of Augustus servedas amodel for Constantinian portraits. 41.14, ed.Festy 1999, 33; tr. Blanchich 2009, 168: 214 . Suetonius,. , 171,210; Kleiner, lieux demémoire lieux Constantine: Dynasty, Religion and Power inthe LaterRoman Empire Divus Aug ustus 89.3, ed. and tr. Rolfe I,1913, 258–59; tr. Edwards 2000, 56 Roman Sculpture , unless one wishes to suggest that the ingenia saeculi sui , 406, 426,434, 438. Constantine was commodissimus tamen rebus multis ) and that helistened , 84, 215 CEU eTD Collection 220 his victory over Maxentius in 312 CE, his celebrates which in monument justifieshis simultaneously ofRome a appropriation therefore the Milvian Bridge on October28 312 CE. voted to erect the Arch while Constantine was in Rome in the celebratedweeks following inthe BattleRome of on 25 July 315 CE. It is reasonable, however, to assume that the senate 219 218 the Roman senate in honorof the emperor on the occasion of his figure in the Trajanic reliefs suggests adateforand the re-carving to itsdue similarity with the iconography the of emperor’s Hadrianic roundels on the Arch of Constantine erected by predecessors and it does so by simultaneously exploiting and transforming time-honored between Constantine, fourth-centurythe usurping andconqueror, his great second-century Jas Elsnerhas thesuggested, Arch searches for methodsof creating atypological relationship a strengthening and elevating of Constantine through literally putting him in their bodies. As elimination of the previous emperors (who in effect topped the list ofgood rulers), but rather Constantinian portrait. Volsinii into the head from similarly Augustus sculptor the of reworked same time, the Golden Age evoked in the images of ‘good’ emperors from the second century CE. Constantinus,” in idem, “Augustus- Giuliano, Antonio see Giulia), diVilla Museo (Rome, from Bolsena as Constantine Augustus of recarved portrait a For Volsinii. of basilica the in worshipped and kept was portrait marble Augustan to it in central and southernItaly, evidencing the official cult of ItAugustus. is indeed plausible that the 217 front. the from only visible determining of an original function: it is possible that the sculpture stood in a niche and it was Augustan hair,face the and backof head but the and necknot ere altered and thus allows Augustus re-utilized to represent Constantine. re-utilizedto represent Augustus Elsner, “From Culture the of Spolia to the Cult of Relics,” 152. Barnes, 172. “Augustus-Constantinus,” Giuliano, Initially,the sculpture from Volsinii, the ancient Etruscan city,was notsupposed to differfrom those similar The act of re-cutting inthe caseof the Arch of Constantine represents in notfact an Constantine: Dynasty, Religion and Power the in Later Roman Empire Scritti Minori 218 (Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 2001), 173–82, figs. 1-4. The iconography of Constantine-Augustus from Bolsena decennalia 57 219 217 Constantine, the conqueror of 312 CE, Recycling Constantinefor the affected of 315CE, and the new Constantinian , 18–9. , decennalia , which he 220 At the CEU eTD Collection CE shows: aurei, or an expression significance confirmed by capital punishment forthecrime of forging imperialthe solidi, new imperial power in the early fourth century, the emperor’s image had retained a sacred Suetonius: its concerning rigor matters oftheimage, emperor’s sacred asexpressedacutely by times with its prevalent practice of spoliation, the earlystatue by Granius imperialMarcellus, aproconsul of Bithynia.Indeed, period in comparison to Constantinian was distinguished by “Augustus’ head had been sliced off and Tiberius’ likeness imposed” enim qui maiore habitu faciei extenditur,maioris est pretii, aut qui angustiore expressione concluditur,minoris ac veneratio una est, uno pretio aestimandi sunt atque vendendi, quamquam diversa formae mensura sit. Nec 224 intulisse, dictum ullum factumue eius existimatione aliqua laesisse. simulacrum seruum cecidisse,uestimenta mutasse,nummo uelanulo effigiem impressam latrinae aut lupanari Damnato reo paulatim genus calumniae eo processit, ut haec quoque capitalia essent: circa Augusti caput dempserat, utalterius imponeret; acta res in senatu et, quiaambigebatur, per tormenta quaesita est. 223 capite Augusti effigiem Tiberii inditam. 222 221 patterns Romanof image-making. Suetonius, Tacitus, 174. Ibid., CTh . 9.22.1, ed.Mommsen and Meyer 1905, 891; tr. Pharr 1952,224: Although the Constantinian the Although punishment. or deliveredpunishedthe flames to some be fatal subjected otherto or weightis thesame. dootherwise,should Butifanyone heshall be capitally compressed withthe Emperor’s facenot is worth a greater price, normust one that is a smallerimage may vary.a solidus that For is with greaterextended imagea appearance of be supposedveneration must tobe valued be andofAll soldless at thethe samevalue, price,solidi although when the sizeon the of thewhich appear our face and which have the same degree of deeds. bearing his image into alavatory or a brothel; criticizing any hisof words or a statue of Augustus, or changing one’s clothes there; carrying a coin a or ring accusations followingkind aslavenear resulted incapital trials:beating the of examined under torture. The defendant was found guilty and in time malicious before the senate and, because there was some uncertainty, the witnesses were might replacethe head itwith someoneof This else. matterwasbrought A certain man had removedthe head from a statue of Augustus so that he Annales Tiberius 223 1.74.3–4, ed. and tr. Jackson 1979, 370–71; tr.Woodman 2004, 38: 58, ed.and tr.Rolfe I,1913, 372–74; tr.Edwards 2000, 125–26: 224 felicia temporafelicia 221 litura Thus, for instance, in 14-15 CE, according to Tacitus, taken by newthe emperor, as Constantine’s law of317 (erasure, reworking) became atypical thetrait of 58 Omnes solidi, in quibusnostri vultus 222 Statuae quidam Augusti alia instatuaamputato on an Augustan CEU eTD Collection Maximian in 310 CE, which clearlythat constituted is, soon the after political he contextreorganized and coincided of withhis the ideological base following the defeat and death of Constantine had decided to project at the official celebration of his of decided toprojectattheofficial hadcelebration Constantine may Constantiniantake portraiture torepresent accurately thehimself image of that asymmetry of dominance and obedience. Paul Veyne, “Foucault révolutionne l’histoire,” révolutionne “Foucault Veyne, Paul 226 177, figs.9–11. “Augustus-Constantinus,” Giuliano, see collection), private (London, Constantine as reworked Augustus 225 tradi,vel alia poena mortifera. valere credendus est, quum pondus idem exsistat. quod si quis aliter fecerit, aut capite puniri debet, aut flammis him. to ensure that justice is done in the state, and they expect generosity and philanthropy from and their well-being. their and and his flock. Thus, at the same time, the emperor, like andGod, felt the responsible divine for hisrealm subjects was mirroredrelationship loves theemperor and imitates This God. structural relation on between the emperor yet another level in the of relationthe elites that it must be recognized between that God chooses the theemperor and throughemperor this special statuary gave off. Once again,what definedRoman theologypolitical thewas essential view cities throughout the empire who werethe primary onlookers ofall the messages the imperial emperor and a supreme deity (or God) would not have been lost on the grand audience of which Constantine’s headwas re-carved. facehad inserted, been in partbecause theof praiseworthy sacred body Augustus of from figure whose face has been destroyed – now became a mark ofhead –for honorcenturies a sign of condemnationfor in contrastthe tothe sacredemperor imperial presence of the whose There are different ‘ideologies’ related to the types of emperor’s rule or the various practices, for which, see for which, practices, various the or rule of emperor’s types the to related ‘ideologies’ different are There The Bolsena portrait of Constantine’s recut from Augustus is not asingle isolated case; foranother portrait of 227 Ineffect, these are constantly recreated hierarchical relations a constitutiveof Since emperors were in a position to select andto promote their publicimage, one Therefore, in a similar way, theAugustan marble portrait from Volsinii, the re-cut 226 On their side of this equilibrium, his subjects must trust the emperor Information sur les Sciences Sociales Sciences les sur Information 225 59 the For messagecomparison of between the quinquennalia 25, no. 2 (1986): 401–19. in 311 CE, CEU eTD Collection Emperors “Constantine’s Pagan Vision,” Rodgers, S. Barbara see argument, philological a For Age. Golden the of return ofthe prophecy old whom the gods prophesied world rule, resembles rather Augustus: he is himself the new Augustus, fulfillingBarnes, an cf. of Apollo, likeness 231 Religion and Power intheLater Roman Empire Van Dam, Van Großen M. Girardet, 337 n.Chr.) 230 Römisch-GermanischenZantralmuseums, 1963), 60. constantinische Goldprägung: Untersuchungen zu ihrer Bedeutung far Kaiserpolitik und Hofkunst Constantine’s model has become as the ultimate prototype of Alexander, seeHarrison, “The Constantinian Portrait,” 94–5. The idea that Augustus was portraits. Forthe assumption the that Constantinian image was based on imitationthe of Augustus with the characteristic division of the locksover the attempts the forehead never he into recognizable although shapesreal resemblance, a that create is the skull the of hallmark breadth of as the Augustus’ as well locks flame-shaped 229 see On coins, classicism. over thebrow with aslender neck emphasizing youthfulness – were all considered the standards of Augustan mentioned in the comparison –the handsome usually are figure that with a smooth-shavencharacteristics particular facefor the and short panegyrics, hair combed contemporary in forward allusions asfrom aswell coins 228 imperial rule over the entire world ( world entire the over rule imperial the Constantinepanegyric directly alluded in Virgilianto Augustus the interpretation of especially in the military sphere. it Moreover, has been cogently argued that thelanguage of affiliation hadoutstanding to Apollo, the significance imperial subjects, for emperor’s Augustus’ echoing itself Invictus, Sol with association Constantine’s Sol-Apollo. with visionary miraculouslyemperor sawhe across, establisheda visual affirmation of his affinity whoappearedhadthe to emperor during his celebrated visitthe to templein BeforeGaul. the Apollo of vision the including maneuvers, ideological or memory of politics Constantine’s Apolloas the dynasty’s protector deity. the fictitious adoption of Claudius Gothicus as an imperial ancestor andthe adoption of Sol- inemperors a similarstylizedandgeometric format. 311 CE, wereconceived in the prevailing tetrarchic style, which represented allofthe 227 211–12. In general, see Robin Cormack, see Robin general, In 211–12. date when the new portrait type was defined. Barbara Rodgers hasargued against thetraditional interpretation of Constantine as recognizing himself in the On solar cult, see Stephan Berrens, Stephan see cult, Onsolar Kleiner, early on image the with experiments his from originated probably Augustus to of Constantine The likening Robin Cormack, Robin (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2010). For Constantine’s rescript toHispellum, , 250–51,, n. 93. See also, Rodgers,“The Metamorphosis of Constantine,” 233–46. The Roman Revolution of Constantine Roman Sculpture (Stuttgart:Franz Steiner, 2004). On Constantine’s religious policy,see recent contribution: Klaus Der Kaiser und sein Gott. Das Christentum im Denkenund inder Religionspolitik Konstantins des Writing in Gold: Byzantine Society and Its Icons infra , 171. The approximate length of the hair in the earlier portraits and the use of chapter 3.1. Byzantion Constantine and Eusebius Sonnenkult und Kaisertum von den Severern bis zu Constantin.I (193 Byzantine Art 50 (1980), 259–78; also Nixon and Rodgers, and Nixon also 259–78; 50(1980), totius mundi regna mundi totius comunis opinio 230 , 20–3, who ascribes the document to Constans. The famous Latin panegyric 310 CE of exemplifies , 23–34; cf. recent critique in Barnes, in critique recent cf. 23–34; , (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000). 228 60 Constantine’s first portraits, created ca. 306- , 36. Instead, she has proposed thatConstantine, to of iconographic research: Maria R. Alföldi, 229 ): The political reorganization involved reorganization political The 231 (Oxford: Oxford University Press,1985), CIL In Praise of Later Roman 11.5265 = 11.5265 Constantine: Dynasty, ILS 705; see 705; (Mainz: Die – CEU eTD Collection 234 233 carmina diuina cecinerunt. Et – immo quid dico ‘credo’? –uidisti teque in illius specie recognouisti, cuitotius mundi regna deberi uatum omen annorum. Hic estenim humanarum numerus aetatum quae tibi utique debenture ultra Pyliam senectutem. Constantine, Apollinem tuum comitante Victoria coronas tibi laureas offerentem, quae tricenum singulae ferunt panegyrist, yet only Constantine expressed them in the physiognomic style of his images. 232 many images were already available – to theConstantine certainly could andhadtochoose how torepresentRoman himself not least– sobecause people at the time of his marble portraits of Constantine,others onthe Arch,appears to the be key forexemplar any toattempt identify theand date since it is the Constantine ofremarkably besthigh artistic quality in the BoarHunt medallion,together with the preserved of his portraits315 CE,the occasion indicated by votive inscriptionthe on the Arch. Therefore, the headof on his Roman giver of regeneration,tranquility, lastand, not least, but peace, since theemperor is evoke many of the associations attestedas part theof contemporary political agenda: renewal, reference is clear in the visual resonancethis of theenigmatic new portrait imagepassage itself. orItpulcherrimus widelywould rightfully recognized, R. R. isseen Constantine to be Augustus, of thefirst princeps: similarly to R. Smith has argued that Augustus.the As R. R.Augustan R. Smith has phrased it, Constantine thus sees himself in the visible form Smith, “The Public Image of Licinius I,” 187. Panegyrici Latini Panegyrici Latini What is clearer rather than the familiaryet panegyrist’sopaque vocabulary is that The panegyrist deliberately Constantine’sechoes resemblanceVirgil’sruler, to world of the bards had prophesiedthat rule over the whole worldwas due. saw beyond the old ageFor of thisa Nestor. is the Andoffering you laurel wreath, each one of number which carries a – portent of thirty years.now why of do humanI For yousay saw, I believe, O Constantine,“I your Apollo, accompaniedagesbelieve”? by victory, which – youare owed to you without fail – lux perpetua , and recognized yourself in the likeness of him to whom the divine songs the divine to whom him of likeness inthe yourself recognized and , : youthful, joyful, bringer of health and very handsome. very and health of bringer joyful, : youthful, 6.21.6, ed. and tr. Nixon and Rodgers 1994, 251, 583. 6.21.4–6, ed. and tr. Nixon and Rodgers 1994, 248–50, 583: and For the common VOTA coin type, see type, coin VOTA common the For beata tranquillitas 61 . Such ideas were widespread, available the to RIC 6.174, Trier. iuvenis, laetus,salutifer, iuvenis, 233 Whether explicit in 232 fundator quietis fundator Vidisti enim,Vidisti credo, decennalia 234 in , a CEU eTD Collection est quam certa diuinitas. uident, admirantur etdiligent, sequuntur oculis, animo tenent,deo se obsequi putant, cuius tam pulchra forma contemporary contemporary narrative sources, emphasizes the handsome features of the young emperor: 238 237 236 recognized. 235 later versions of Augustus’ main type (fig.18g), best-know from late Augustan reinforcedandthe political Tiberianallusion without in fact quoting the founder of Augustan Peace. inside with the Arch which Constantinehis characterized accomplishments, liberator urbis heroic hunter and, by clear implication, theheroic victor, andwhose self-representation as andyouthful-looking portraits of Augustus. Yet one senses that it was appropriate for the youthful. The image,in form and certainly in meaning, was modeled onthe tall,lean-faced, the original historical reliefs representing civil war,namely, the Siegeof Verona. Arch, two of them from headsre-cut ofHadrian, heads from two of Trajan, andone in one of his on Constantine of portraits other the with of physiognomy detail surviving inevery agrees back theof jaw, giving a clear-cut articulation between jaw andneck. flanking the nose, mouth, and chin, and by jaw-bonea that expands outward slightly at the facea rectangular character. Thisis complemented by strongly modeled facial muscles youthful face, with a foreheadbroad and prominent cheekbones that give the upper part of his Arch. Ibid. Wright, “The True Face of Constantine the Great,” 493. be can lower quality generally but character expressive similar of of heads group basisaconsiderable Onthis Panegyrici Latini 235 R. that R.Smithhasargued the designersseem tohavelooked especially the to Intrinsically, Constantine’s face appeared both strong and muscular, handsome and handsome muscular, and strong both appeared face Constantine’s Intrinsically, David Wright has outlined the basic iconography of the Constantinian portrait: a portrait: theConstantinian of iconography the basic outlined has Wright David is certain. are submitting themselvesfollow toyou a god, with whose Andtheir form so iswheneyes; as beautifulyour you soldiersare as inhis theirdivinity see thoughts;you walking, they theyconsider admire thatand lovethey you; they Although re-cuta from head Hadrian, of itshowstrace no of the earlier face and is celebrated in one of the inscriptions inside the Arch. The inscription Arch.in inside theThe other the inscriptions is one of celebrated 238 6.17.4, ed. and tr. Nixon and Rodgers 1994, 243, 581: 243, 1994, Rodgers and Nixon tr. and ed. 6.17.4, 62 Itaque te cum ingredientem milites ingredientem cum te Itaque 237 Such an image, like fundator quietis fundator 236 , CEU eTD Collection sculptured portraits had so often been. portraits of the 310s CE, due to their plainness,coin frontal fine blandness, and the and medallions ideal large physiognomic the both portraits, formlessness, coin the to close are as Augustus’ images these I,” 186: Licinius 361 n.Chr. Hans Peter L’Orange etal., L’Orange Peter Hans marble head displayed in the PalazzoMattei in Rome.These diverse portrait statues theof in general in having a pronouncedCapitoline colossus physiognomic– which is highly unusual both for Constantine and for colossal portraits handling of thejaw. sculptural The other emperor’s portrait typical more of timeeven that the than main features – is a large preserved nose,it shows Constantine’s strongly projecting chin a squarely and articulated has the basic featuresyouthful ofthe face similar to Augustus’: apart from the complete medallion on the Arch; yet it is a face with a stronger and more heroic character. However, it Arch. The face Constantineof to appears look remarkably similar tothe one in the Boar Hunt era as the Arch, and its claim to authenticity almost equals the portraits on the Constantinian 1933); Hermann Dörries, Spätantike Kaiserporträts: ConstantinusVon Magnus bis zum Ende desWestreichs Forum Romanum (fig.11). statue of Constantine that once occupied the west apse of the Basilica of Maxentius on the receptions andvariations ofthenew clean-shaven image. day. Augustus andConstantine with a matureyouthfulness, youthful as faces werethe order the of Augustanfor art didnot wrinklesaccept –an ideal vocabularypictorial that represents both 241 13. 1995), Press, California romana imperiale da Carausio a Guiliano (267 240 239 designers. his Constantine for by air thatadapted were of agelessmajesty distanced skillfully cameos and coins, forthese images have a tall profile with a lightly curved nose and a On the Constantinian portrait in the context of late antique imperial images, see Raissa Calza, Ibid.; Paul Zanker, Paul Ibid.; Smith, “The Public Image of Licinius I,” 186. 240 More than a dozen survivedversions ofthisbasic typeembody a diversity of (Berlin: G. Mann, 1984). For theintroduction of a new portrait type, Smith, “The Public Image of 239 They They achievevisual thesame contradiction in representing emperor’s age the – The Mask of Socrates: The Image of the Intellectual in Antiquity Das Selbstzeugnis Kaiser Konstantin Das spätantike Herrscherbild von Diokletian bis zu den Konstantin-Söhnen, 284 242 The dateis not documented,yet circumstances suggest thesame – 363) 63 (Rome: Bretschneider, 1972); Richard Delbrück, (Goettingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1954); 241 One example is a colossal marble (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, Walterde (Berlin: (Berkeley: University of Iconografia – CEU eTD Collection political iconography. of restrictions the of now freed portrait, fleshy early the to led had that taste same the personal of effectively choice, result the as seen be must too, it, therefore and – old grow to image his allow not did Augustus all, – after precedent direct no Ithad decade. for a rival a significant had not had he when throne, on the secure was Constantine when a time at years three of twoor period over a evolved which portrait, old-age his preferred 243 Sammlungen der Stadt Rom,I Zanker, and 242 rulerportraits, imageHellenistic the imperial of in itgrandiose tradition was a definitely Although the details of the iconography of the are statue uncertain (andwill remain disputed), in Constantinople. theForum on column porphyry his crowned once that Constantine Apolline-Augustan beauty and heroic nudity apparent in a colossal gilded bronze statue of the impression that they emit divine power, as Suetonius claimed about Augustus: Augustus’ consistent representation as eternally youthful and idealized,yet the eyes give also Appoline portraits suggest the ecstaticinspiration of divine inpower the same way as emphatically thethan in versions early Alexanderof the type.Constantine’s Augustan- context, dominating the expressive quality of the face and is lifted up to heaven even more and old-age style of portraiture (fig.13). generally recognizediconography. It changedcompletely only around 333 CE into a heavier majesty hadthatbeen developed on the basisofthe Augustan model,which was already a physiognomy remained essentially the idealized same,youthful an face with an auraof the although (fig.12), representation of type Alexandrian heavenly-gazing the and diadem conformity, i.e., they all agree with the basic typology Augustus’ iconography.of period express a variety of features, although on all major elements of detail they are in Wright, “The True Face of Constantine the Great,” 507, in a search for the real portrait of Constantine has ofConstantine portrait real for the asearch in 507, Great,” the Constantine of Face True “The Wright, L’Orange et al., et L’Orange This image spiritual of authority equals a deliberately visualizationidealized of When Constantine defeatedLicinius in 324CE and conqueredthe East he adoptedthe lowered theirgaze, as though from the sun’s force. godlike and power was pleased ifsomeone who regarded him closely then His eyes wereclear andbright; helikedit thought tobe that they revealeda Katalog der römischenPortraits inden Capitolinischen Museen und den anderen kommunalen Das spätantike Herrscherbild von Diokletian bis zu den Konstantin-Söhnen, , 147 – 50, no. 122, pls. 151-152 (with earlier literature). 243 The enormous eyes jump out oftheir eyes out organic jump enormous The 64 244 70 – 5; Fittschen CEU eTD Collection 246 Christian Golden Age 245 quasiad fulgorem solis vultum summitteret… . nitidos,quibus etiam existimari volebat inesse quiddam divinivigoris, gaudebatque,siqui sibi acrius contuenti 244 the right they superiority is only when itWhatundoubted isexcessive. as these bear monuments ideology is claim to exist,statues every imperial subject felt thatspace was occupied by a strong forpower, a the expressionwhose expressions the meaning convey:cannot by a simple actof seeing the emperor’s of power,marble that surpass ordinary affections perceptions. and They toappear produce apresence not leastexpressed, the vertiginousby definition, by their redundancy,glory ofcalled to produce affects of both bronze and inConstantinople. column the porphyry on Constantine of that Titus: the rays emerge at anglesActium. The monument is shownfrom with the crownadded on coins underminted Vespasian and Augustus’ head, and the nakeddecorated with ships’ prows and anchors, hadstatue been set toup commemorate the victory at thus prefigures the atanuncertainPalatine dateafterHisdeath. Augustus’ statue,which stood on acolumn evokes a radiate crown that was added to the statue of Octavian in the precinct of Apollo on thus replaces the with actual person the ideological figure the of emperor par excellence. version of Augustus’ portraitFlaviansthe to tetrarchy.late The imperial representation introduced by a Constantine,new style with the prominentprobably addition of a jewelled italthough was and his successors, styleAugustus Julio-Claudian of portrait idealizing perceived royal diadem, as ‘monarchical’, purposely rejected by all the emperors fromplausibly, associations with the godSol-Helios the through a displaying above-humanthe status ofthe (throughruler attributes such as the lance), and, R. R.Smith, “Roman Portraits. Honours,Empresses, and Late Emperors,” Suetonius, RIC II, 6,114 and Vespasian nos. 119–120, Titus nos. 4,10, 16;Bardill, The new Constantinianimage therefore appears as emphatically imperial, unlike the Thus, Constantine’s sculptural Divus Augustus , 47–8. , 79, ed. and tr. RolfeI, 1913, 244; tr. Edwards 2000, 84: collosi 65 , whose abundant presence and power are corona radiata 245 Constantine, Divine Emperor of the JRS 75 (1985): 202. (1985): 75 . Iconographically . Iconographically it Oculos habuit claros ac claros habuit Oculos 246 CEU eTD Collection reappearedas ghosts, specters, and spirits.I will thatshow although Maxentius was taken as a obsessive strugglewith tyrants, who, like the Freudian return of therepressed, once again 248 247 defeated political opponents. political defeated launched a seriesConstantine Licinius, and Maxentius usurpers, the of the demise announced that CE 325 of acts of the memorymore so in the context of the inaugurationpolitics of his sole rule over the whole civilized world after intendeddiscussion. to eradicate Thus, in thethe aftermath memory of ofthe theBattle of the Milvian Bridge in 312 CE and even felt themselves.on non-metaphorically imagery imperial the passing beholders Roman which gaze Constantine’s andaware viewed.they that were It thissense was there ideology: an itwasinterpellating themreally them occupy itfor designateddid astheirs empire. place in Itmade visible the the this aspect of imperial ideology sought to obtain from its subjects the recognition that they sculpture. The power ofimperial imagery individualsinterpellated as concrete subjects, since theinto nonetheless Constantinian portrait, implies anideological by catch of means imperial statuary or sculpted reliefs thatallows an astonishing reworking of previous images andoften also avery lovereal fear. or The visual, iconographical interchangeability the of behavior, socially inspire thatacceptable monuments omnipresent is obvious it existence. For impact senses on and bodies, they are important by mereactthe theof manifestation their of dimension in which cultural phenomenaand cultural events become tangibleand have an earth. the from rise them made that Constantine hadadduced previously, negativea politico-ritual practice of For the concept, see concept, the For See PaulVeyne, “Conduct Without Belief and Works of Art Without Viewers,” In addition to the Constantinian affirmative politics of memory evoking Augustus, I 2.2. Damnatio memoriae supra n. 58. n. 248 I therefore will undertake areading Constantine’sof : A negative politico-memorial practice 66 247 Within dimensionthe of‘presence,’ a damnatio menoriae Diogenes 143 (1988): 1–22. merits CEU eTD Collection each other.each thus Nazarius proclaims: would have been sentRome long to since, aswas usual between who emperors recognized Constantine provides the evidence that Maxentius destroyed images of Constantineimages which directed againstConstantine. The panegyric of 321 CE, an oration in honor of comparative study theof social andeconomic features of both periods. Constantinian Golden Age parallelsAugustan In thistime. sense,a reading symptomatic imaginaryof the political the of with that of the era, like the memoryreturn to the offigure Mark of Maxentius Antony, and whatone does not wish toperceivehis Constantine within thismemoryideological consensus, one should thehas to say about the ‘Constantinian’haunting Constantine as the ultimate defeated enemy of the lasttetrarchic civil Indeed,war. if ghost significant yetanother thus was Licinius consensus. newimperial a for basis the expelledspirit the from era of civil wars theand exemplary result of an exclusion that became Maxentius? This character, bothas a historical and as an ideological figure ( those whowere already as victimsdead ofpolitical violence andcivil Why wars. then Maxentius’ ghost in Rome, aimed to disjoin the livinglegacy of Maxentius was of paramount importance in Constantine’s politics of memory. present from the powerfulbut also, the politics of memory and inheritance. Consequently, Isuggestghosts that the Augustan of reaffirming one yet not the other. This being-with orevocation of specters was thus, not only of these deceasedemperors –to sift through the possible legacies hehadinherited, it became his responsibility or political consideration as an heir – since he was thus the heir 249 paradigmatic ideological tyrannical figure, Barnes, “Oppressor, Persecutor, Usurper,55–65. Maxentius, the usurping emperor in Rome, was, in effect, the first to initiate a war of Constantine’s hisespecially toexorcise memory, of rivals’ his attempt disavowal 249 other more than one ghost hauntedConstantine, and 67 who is not present but speaks about the Pax Augusta will be more prolific than tyrannus ), was an CEU eTD Collection Imperial Images,” Imperial Roman in Symbols and Political Accessories Divine Sun-god: the and “Nero Smith, R. R. see also statue; Kaiserzeit 255 statue. delivered his panegyric, following a long tradition of installing new imperial portraits on the Constantine,” 404; and Varner, 404; Constantine,” 254 no. 2(2006): 229. 253 252 together. depicted often were two the for of Maximian those with together down De Lactantius, damned: was memory whose orone illegitimate declared of a ruler images the destroy to usual also Persecutorum deceased son, Hadrian,under was transformed through a rededicationDivus Maxentius’ Romulus, to Colossus, the former notorious statue of Nero. only candidate for both the considering that it implausible that Maxentius would have erected such a statue in Rome, the the orator was thinking of the re-carving ofa distinguished portrait of Constantine, 251 suppetunt),venerandarum imaginum acerba deiectio et di vinivultus litura deformis. Constantine into portraits of Maxentius. of portraits transformation, thattheiris,from to or re-carving ofimagesbut the destruction changes formthe something of thefor worseand therefore interprets it asa reference notto 250 phrase the read has Giuliano himself during the period of their short-term alliance (307-308 CE). (307-308 alliance short-term their of period the during himself reign, toward statues of Constantine that the emperor in Romesuggests that ahostile indeeddemonstrated Maxentius and destructive lateattitude, inhis would have previously set up Despite theinterpretation passage,itispossible, cryptic as meaning of this common the Marianne Bergmann, Marianne Cullhed, Conservator Urbis Suae,61; Curran, Elizabeth Marlowe, “Framing the Sun: The Arch of Constantine and the Roman Cityscape,” 177. “Augustus-Constantinus,” Giuliano, Nixon and Rodgers, Panegyrici Latini Mortibus Persecutorum 255 venerable statuesthe and ugly oftheerasure divine visage. Behold, for sorrow! (words come with difficulty), theviolent overthrow of (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1994) establishes the chronology of the alterations of the features of the Yet anotherstatue ofConstantine, that onthe porphyry inConstantinople,column 44.10, ed. and tr. Creed 1984, 64–5 Constantine discovers statues of Maximinus Rome.in It was 254 JRA and would have been associated with Constantine by the time Nazarius 4.12.2–3, ed. and tr. Nixon and Rodgers 1994, 356, 614: 356, 1994, Rodgers and Nixon tr. and ed. 4.12.2–3, 13 (2000): 532–42; Marlowe, “Framing the Sun,” 228–29. Linda Safran, “What Der Koloss Neros: Die Domus Aurea und der Mentalitätswandelim Rom der frühen In Praise of Later Roman Emperors 42.1–2,ed. and tr. Creed 1984, 60–3 relates that Diocletian’s images were pulled Mutilation and Transformation litura litura deformis litura and analtered 252 Pagan City and Christian Capital In Elizabeth has suggestedturn, that if Marlowe 68 (ugly (ugly erasure) as meaning an alteration that 253 divini vultus divini The Colossus of Nero, consecrated to Sol , 66. , 356n.54;at Lactantius, (theis Solar visage) the divine Ecce enim,pro dolor! (verba vix 250 , 62; Peirce, “The Arch of Arch “The Peirce, 62; , 251 However, Antonio Art Bulletin De Mortibus 88, CEU eTD Collection Constantine Hallin and cf.Cameron refers; Eusebius which to statue be the may marble Constantine and Eusebius idem, and Constantine Saw. Reflections on the Capitolone Colossus,Visuality and Early Christian Studies,” 258 36; Bardill, 256 (2006): 43–73 argues that Constantine’s marble colossus could have been visually linked with Nero’s colossus. disappointment, statueisportrait to beare-used the consideredMaxentius, of whosuffered Maxentius, denounced by the senatorial aristocracy as Rome of a tyrant. Bornof political aggrandizing sculpture undoubtedly conveys some sense thegreatof antipathy thatgreeted headand the body of the Conservatori statue may never solved be conclusively, this cross-scepter described by Eusebius. certainly depicted seated in the traditional pose of Jupiter holding a scepter, possibly the verged on identification with the god. rule of the sun-god or his chosen representative, for the associationinterpreted of Octavian with as Apollo symbols be can which of both of thePalatine, on Octavian a of that newultimately and Colloseum the Golden Age of prosperity, security,Constantinian politics of memory recalling at thesame time theradiate statuebeside Nero of and freedom under the Rome, ‘Nero-like’.but thereforeIt should be viewed rather a part of the affirmative sense of its genealogyportraying and the chronology, emperor in the guise of asSol-Apollo, would didbe notin lookthe distinctly case of‘Neronian’ the Colossus in the of Sol in 257 project. ideological his or to resistance symbolism imperial of construction the in Apollo Phoebus of appropriation emperor’s the to responses 2009), who offers a synoptic study of ‘Augustan’ Apollo in Augustan poetry,analyzing the various poets’ Apollo,see recent JohnMiller, F. Romanum. Forum the on (fig.4) Maxentius of Basilica the Maxentius theon colossalfamous marble (fig.11)statue that once occupiedthe west apse of appropriation itself, was thus a sign of sign a thus was itself, appropriation Eusebius, Andrew Wallace-Hadrill,“The Golden Age and Sin in AugustanIdeology,” Varner, Constantine’s re-appropriation of the Colossus in Rome, previously a Maxentian Mutilation and Transformation and Mutilation Vita Constantini , 218 consider this identification improbable. Constantine, Divine Emperor of the Christian Golden Age Historia Ecclesiastica Historia , 46 and Cullhed, Conservator Urbis Suae, 51–2 suggest that the Conservatori colossal 1.40.2, ed. Winkelmann 1975, 36–7; tr. Cameron and Hall 1999, 85–6.Barnes, Apollo,Augustus, and the Poets 9.9.10–11, ed. Lake,Oulton,tr. II, 362–64,Williamson tr. 1989,291–96 , 217-8, no. 9.4, fig. 209a–d. 258 256 Although, the controversy over the dates for both the damnatio memoriae 69 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, University Cambridge (Cambridge: , 57. On Augustus’ special affiliation with similar to the re-carved image of 257 The emperor was almost Past andPresent Eusebius of Caesarea, Life of 95 (1982) 19– Millenium 3 CEU eTD Collection Constantinian. commissions to the east of the Forum allows it tomake the whole Maxentian project (fig.1). Pacis) Ara the (resembling his Arch as well as is hisevident from epithets such as Chr.,” Geschichte: Dersieg Konstantins des Grossen überMaxentius vorden Toren Roms am 28. October 312 n. 263 Constantine at the Milvian Bridge catalog, see Leppin, and Ziemssen, and see Leppin, catalog, 266 turn out. hewould way hoped they the him in constructs that program avisual with emperor new the presenting senate Cult of Relics,” 171265 n. 28, Press,arguing 1994), 13–66. thatTradition in Late Antiquethe Sculpture: Conservation, Modernization,ArchHannestad, Niels Productionsee Pacis, Ara of the restorations the On Pacis. Ara ofrepresents the a restoration possibly including not Constantine264 justifying himself, but rather the continued until the end of his rule to style him applied to emperors, primarily because it had been title the assumed by Augustus.The legends of his gold coins first man. Althoughprinceps wasnot typically parta of officialthe titulature of emperors, it was commonly 262 presenting himself as aprinceps. 261 260 259 Constantinian appropriation as a conscious adoption of Maxentius’ overthrow and posthumous disgrace. so transformedfrom celebratory monuments into graphic reminders of an emperor’s alternative tore-carving, in which images of‘bad emperors’ were disfiguredand defaced and practice, thepracticeintentional thatan ideologically mutilation of provided diverse portrait of Maxentius-Constantine suggestsnot merely a resurgence of the earlier political damntio memoriae Grünewald, Constantinus Maximus Augustus, 63–4; Wolfgang Kuhoff, “Ein Mythos in der römischen On Maxentian greatbuilding program in Rome,see Cullhed, Conservator Urbis Suae, 49–55; for a recent Peirce, “The Archof Constantine,” 388,391, 415; critiqued by Elsner, “From the Culture of Spolia to the structures, ofearlier and restoration building new extensive witnessed reign of Maxentius years Thesix The legends on Maxentius; coins styled him from the beginning of his reign as Drijvers, “Eusebius’ Drijvers, 14. Landscape,” Visual Roman ofthe Transformation and the “Tyranny Varner, Kleiner, Chiron 265 The Arch itself, however, appears as a highly traditional senatorial monument The placing oftheArchat the Maxentius’ endpoint of series major architecturalof Roman Sculpture 21 (1991): 171–72. 266 Hence, the Conservatori colossus, similarly to the Arch, an imagining of a of imagining an Arch, the to similarly colossus, Conservatori the Hence, , much later imbued with the new Christian later with , much new Christian iconography.the imbued fundator pacis Vita Constantini Vita , 438. 264 , 241. with the emperor as the recipient ofexternally bestowed honors Maxentius: Derletzte Kaiserin Rom 262 and the Construction of the Image of Maxentius,” 26. and Constantine’sself-representation liberatoras the of Rome liberator urbis restitutor libertatis restitutor 260 It also signaled the specific nature of the nature of specific thealso signaled It princeps imperii Romani 70 and fundator quietis fundator . 263 . . See Van Dam, romanitas (Aarhus: Aarhus University princeps invictus on the inscription on inscription the on 259 , 261 The colossal prominently Remembering , invincible CEU eTD Collection “The Iconography of the Emperor Maxentius’ Buildings in Via Appia,” 385–92. 272 Appia,” Via in Buildings Maxentius’ Emperor the of Iconography “The Constantinus,” 177, 180 n. 3, figs. 5–8. On the central place of Rome in the ideology of Maxentius, see Frazer, 271 218–19; no. 9.5. Roman Sculpture Das spätantike Herrscherbild von Diokletian bis zu den Konstantin-Söhnen, Herrscherbild von Diokletian bis zu den Konstantin-Söhnen, kommunalen Sammlungen der Stadt Rom,I 270 Kleiner, revered predecessor. Remarkably, after thedefeatMaxentius,of Constantine alsoa adopted forehead were designed to recall the hair style of Augustus and relatively well-executed imageslink of the usurping emperor in Rome. Maxentiusinto portraits were whose transformed Augustus, himself to already had affiliated similar way with this during his reign (306-312CE), Maxentius, pursuing his affirmative politics of memory, in a belongs, see L’Orange et al., et L’Orange see belongs, kommunalen Sammlungen der Stadt Rom, I foreheadare combined with military shortthe coiffure ofthe tetrarchs. the over locks comma-shaped which in coiffure distinctive a him with depicting emperor, the sites of expropriations of the emperor’s face and body Appia, andthe Imperial Bathsas on the Quirinal, re-carveda sculptedresult likenesses of Maxentius are of inLaterano. Giovanni 269 268 267 on the Quirinal, one of which isnow on the Campidoglio, Palazzodei Conservatori Constantine werere-carvedimagesfrom of Maxentius in Rome: narrative. visual new a grand launching through event symbolic newby an approved emperor initiative of thesenate, attemptto was a serious create a Varner in “Augustus- Giuliano, see collection), private (Rome, as Maxentius reworked of Augustus portrait Forthe Fittschen and Zanker, and Fittschen Fittschen and Zanker, and Fittschen Varner, 14. Landscape,” Visual Roman ofthe Transformation and the “Tyranny Varner, Roman Sculpture Roman Equal to Constantine’s appropriation of the Basilica, the circus complex on Via Marblecoin and portraits Maxentius of are consistentin theirportrayal the of Apart from the famous colossal marble from the Basilica Nova, three other portraits of Mutilation and Transformation and Mutilation FromCaligula toConstantine , 407 and fig. 374. fig. and 407 , , 436–37; Varner, 270 Katalog der römischen Portraits in den Capitolinischen Museen und den anderen Katalog der römischen Portraits in den Capitolinischen Museen und den anderen Das spätantike Herrscherbild von Diokletian bis zu den Konstantin-Söhnen 268 and two more cuirassed statues that originally stoodin more cuirassed that originally statues the andtwo bath , 218; no. 9.3, fig.210a–c. Mutilation and Transformation and Mutilation , 210. On the portrait typology of Maxentius, see L’Orange et al., et L’Orange see Maxentius, of typology portrait the On 210. , , 145–47, no. 121,pls. 149–150; L’Orange etal., , 144–45, no.120. On the dynastic group to which this statue 71 63–5;Varner, 269 and anotherin narthexthe of S. , 218;no. 9.2; fig.211. 34–6, 114–16, pls. 26-27; Kleiner, 271 Mutilation and Transformation 267 another portrait in the 272 damnatio The locks over the Das spätantike . However, , 58-67; , CEU eTD Collection tr. Oulton 1932, II, 476–77, tr. Williamson 1989, 332 on the pulling down of his images; see Smith, “The Public Image “The of LiciniusSmith, I,”see images; 188–89. his of down pulling the on 332 1989, Williamson tr. II, 476–77, 1932, Oulton tr. Konstantin-Söhnen 275 und den anderenkommunalen Sammlungen der Stadt Rom, I Transformation 274 Alexander Damandt and Josef Engemann. Catalog (Mainz: Philipp vonZabern, 2007), 64,no. I.7.5 and I.7.4. Chr. vigorous tetrarchism.more Foraged, both heads, isaless this see Bergmann, age, a younger at Maxentius of a representation and norm Diocletianic the between successfully negotiates that image formulated more carefully a present images sculptured these that suggests Guiliano Konstantin-Söhnen den zu bis Diokletian 52, 105, 129, no. 70, figs.137–138; 119, no. 40, fig.86; L’Orange et al., represent Maxentius (Dresden-Stockholm type), cf.L’Orange, von Diokletian bis zu den Konstantin-Söhnen romana imperiale da Carausio a Guiliano den Konstantin-Söhnen Habelt, 1977), 142–43, 148,153 pl. 45,1; L’Orange et al., 273 Porträt des 3. Jahrhunderts Chr.n. Guiliano comprise two supposedly reworked portraits of Licinius, on the northeast side, making an likeness of Maxentius (fig.16). image with an acknowledgedspiritual hieraticand quality, which was clearly a feature the of eyes. staring intense new by the distinguished both Two large andimpressive portraits sculpted inDresden (fig.15) and Stockholm are (fig.14) essentially retain their Maxentian characteristics,including the pouches beneath eyes.the Maxentius preserve their stylistic closeness: the arching wide, andbrows large eyes of images pre-existing from recycled portraits Constantinian Early references. Augustan associatedwith Augustus andthe Julio-Claudians, a coiffure, therefore,with conscious full head hair of with comma-shapedlocks arranged acrossthein foreheada manner of his statues would have been re-carvedor replaced. memoriae suffered CE, 325 in early executed and Thessalonica, to banished CE, 324 in Varner, “Tyranny and the Transformation of the Roman Visual Landscape,” 11; idem, 11; Landscape,” Visual Roman the of Transformation the and “Tyranny Varner, On colossal head of Maxentius now in Dresden, cf. Calza, CIL , 142–43, pls. 44.3, 45.1; L’Orange et al., 2.4105 with the name of Licinius deliberately erased;Eusebius, Similarly Similarly Maxentius,to Licinius defeatedConstantine by at the Battleof Chrysopolis , 257–58, no. 174, pl. 90, 318 identifies as Delmatius. Smith, “The Public Image of Licinius I,” 185 , 196, no. 114; Marianne Bergmann, : his name waserased from documents, his images were pulled down, and the heads , 217–18;, Fittschen and Zanker, , 35, pl. 27a–d; pl. , 35, , 114, pl. 27a–b; on the over life-size head from Stockholm, cf. Calza, cf. Stockholm, from head life-size over the on pl. 27a–b; 114, , , 114, 142–43, 163, pl. 44, 3; L’Orange et al., et L’Orange 3; 44, pl. 163, 142–43, 114, , 274 Imperator Caesar Flavius Constantinus. Konstantin der Grosse , 115, pl. 26; Calza, 26; pl. 115, , , 157,no. 69, pl.47, 140–41; Bergmann, Studien zum römischenPorträt des 3. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. , 115–16, pl. 27c–d. Ingeneral on portraits re-cut and re-used to Katalog der römischenPortraits denin Capitolinischen Museen Das spätantike Herrscherbild von Diokletian bis zu den 72 Studien zum römischenPorträt des 3. Jahrhunderts n. Das spätantike Herrscherbild von Diokletian zu bis vonDiokletian Herrscherbild spätantike Das , 151. 273 Studien zur Geschichte des spätantiken Porträts Iconografia romana imperiale da Carausio a The emphasis on the eyes endows the Iconografia romana imperiale da Carausio a 275 Constantine’s portraits on the Arch Historia Ecclesiastica Das spätantike Herrscherbild von Herrscherbild spätantike Das Das spätantike Herrscherbild Studien zum römischen 10.9.5, ed. Lake, Mutilation and Iconografia damnatio (Bonn: , ed. , , CEU eTD Collection The imposed condemnation of Fausta’s memory resulted in the removaland destruction of herportraits, literature); Kleiner, spätantike Herrscherbild von Diokletian bis zu den Konstantin-Söhnen den Konstantin-Söhnen da Carausio a Guiliano 281 280 Ticinum). a Guiliano Barnes, CE); Guiliano Imperator Caesar Flavius Constantinus Herrscherbild von Diokletian bis zu den Konstantin-Söhnen Tragic End,” “The Execution of Crispus,” 279 278 tr. Oulton 1932, II, 464–69, tr. Williamson 1989, 328–33. Smith, “The Public Image of Licinius I,” 189. Caesaribus cameos as well as commemoratedin marble with numerous public imagesherlikeness – wasdisseminatedon coins, medallions, and primarily celebrated as the mother of Constantine’s heirs, Fausta was undoubtedly honored 277 badly and her name was subsequently removed from public inscriptions. Constantinian of In aseries Constantine. overthrow shortly assupposedly killed twomay afterwards tohave involvedin been the a plot 276 portraits. potential heir, Crispus had previously been honored with numerous sculpted and numismatic condemnedand hisname erasedfrominscriptions. specters, namely, Crispus and Fausta. Executed in March age. of 326Constantinian CE, Crispus’ memory was pls. 28a–b, 29a–b; Varner, his insanity, tyrannical whose memory damned afterwas his Constantine, defeat by in isnoted sourcesseveral for offering to Apollo, and on the northwest side, making an offering to Hercules. David Woods, “On the Death of the Empress Fausta,” E.g., Aurelius Victor, Aurelius L’Orange et al., et L’Orange CIL CIL RIC 10.678 = 6.40770; Constantine: Dynasty, Religion and Power thein Later Roman Empire CIL Later Constaninian times were notoriously marked by the re-appearance of two more , 189–90, no.189, pl. 97.347; 2 75-76, no. 185,pls. 95.335, 96.341; L’Orange et al., VII Nicomedia 104 (solidus from 325 CE);see also Calza, 279 , pls. 95.336 (solidus from Nicomedia), 95.337 (solidus from Trier), 96.340 (gold medallion from medallion (gold 96.340 Trier), from (solidus 95.337 Nicomedia), from (solidus 95.336 pls. , 41.8, ed.Festy 1999,31; tr. Banchich 2009,167; Eusebius, 2. 4107; Implicated in the events surrounding Crispus’ downfall in 326 CE, Fausta was Historia ILS CIL Das spätantike Herrscherbild von Diokletian bis zuden Konstantin-Söhnen Roman Sculpture 710.On Fausta’s numismatic portrait typology,see:Calza, 6.40778b; CIL De Caesaribus 23 (1984): 79–106.On sculpture: Calza, , 152-5; Kleiner, , 249; Wegner in L’Orange et al., et L’Orange Wegnerin 249; , 3.7172; Mutilation and Transformation 277 Phoenix thus re-appearing as an ideological figure and a specter inthe a specter and figure ideological an as re-appearing thus CIL CIL 9.1116;Varner, 41.2–5, ed. Pichlmayr1892, 48; tr. Bird 1994, 49–50; , 441–42, fig. 403; 6.1155; 4(1966), 325–31; Hans A. Pohlsander, “Crispus: Brilliant Career and , no. I.8.9. On coins: Roman Sculpture CIL 8.2387; 281 Mutilation and Transformation 73 –yet none of the sculptures can be attributed Imperator CaesarFlavius Constantinus , 65 n. 165. , 65n. CIL Das spätantike Herrscherbild von Diokletian bis zu Greece and Rome and Greece RIC , 443. On the Ada Cameo: L’Orange etal., L’Orange AdaCameo: the On , 443. , 67, 129,, 67, 133; pl. 45b (with earlier literature), 10.517. damnationes VII Nicomedia 89 (silver VII Nicomedia Iconografia romana imperiale da Carausio a 278 Iconografia romana imperiale da Carausio As Constantine’s eldest son and , 127, 138, 147, 154, pl. 74a (with earlier (with 74a pl. 154, 147, 138, 127, , Historia Ecclesiastica , 144–50. , 45(1998): 70–86; critiquedby her memory also suffered Iconografia romana imperiale , 221–22; Patrick Guthrie, 280 Prior toher death, miliarensis 10.8–9, ed. Lake, , 43–5,, 116–17, Das spätantike 276 , no. III.19.1. Epitome de Licinius, from 325 Das CEU eTD Collection government and of its greaterintervention the in livesof subjects.” its of scope of the enlargement of the consequence “a merely was it that suggests position,” religious Constantine’s the great changes to that had happened“a response as since thesituation” days of social Augustus,” new the to and laws had “certainlyof Augustan nothing to adaptation do with the “concerned law the that argument Matthews, “The Roman Empire and the Proliferation of Elites,” of Proliferation the and Empire Roman “The Matthews, cf. John elites, imperial the consolidate and broaden to order in aristocracies municipal of members and applied, inthe Augustan legislation, tomembers of the Roman senatorial class and extend them to equestrians Meyer 1905, Pharrtr. 1952,244-5 againstrape; legislation: moral much of author was an thus Constantine grounds.” ideological on law Augustan to the who “objected Christians, satisfy to done was equally it that insisting asceticism, of adherents Christian then rather law, Augustan of the restrictions the hated always who ofRome, aristocracy Empire Barnes, celibacy. penalizing 217-8 against 1952, Papia Poppaea (the laws marriage Augustan the rescinded however, Constantine, morals. control to laws new giving Augustus,” of tradition the in Emperor an for “looked who contemporaries upper-class of his expectations with concordance in legislated Constantine petitioners, women attractive of charms the to immune staying for Nazarius polytheist by praised fulsomely that suggests 207 1988), Society: Men,Women, andSexual Renunciation in Early Christianity matribue eorum and divorce; on unilateral against seduction; Papia Poppaea Rechtsgeschiedenis Thomas McGinn, “The Social Policy of Emperor Constantine in relationships with slaves; Panegyrici Latini 282 operation. began mint the after shortly 326CE, late in killed Constantinople 12,yet coins of Fausta and Crispus from mintthe of Constantinople are rare, since both were memory memory (fig.2). the north frieze of the Ara Pacis remained a wraith-like reminderportraits, disinherited, denied burial in imperialthe dynastic mausoleum, andherimage on of the Augustan politics of Previously exiled from Rome, Augustus’ own daughter, Julia, was deprived ofpublic Kaiserporträts Delbrück, certainty: with beidentified cannot empress of the images sculptural therefore political theology and ultimately an ideology of the late empire. of level the on relation typological a in mirrored remarkably was sculpture of medium andrather Yet different. demonstrated iconographicalsimilarity through presentedthe notorious imperial adulteress, and razed her house to the ground in a gesture of condemnation were not unprecedented, for Augustus had exiled his grand-daughter Julia,a to her unquestionably. Allegations of Fausta’s sexual misconduct and the subsequent Suetonius, , 136–37 argues against the argument that this law was intended mainly to benefit the senatorial the benefit to mainly intended law was this that argument the against argues 136–37 , The ways I have discussed so far in which Constantine imitated Augustus are multiple Divus , 166, pl. 65;Varner, and denounced its deleterious effects, see effects, deleterious its and denounced of 9 CE), issuing an edict in 320 CE which both invalidated the main provisions of the , CTh 4.34;38, ed. and tr. Nixon and Rodgers 1994, 379–80, 383–85; Peter Brown, CTh 283 67 (1999): 57–73 argues thatthe effectof the Constantinian law ( Aug 4.6.3, ed. Mommsen and Meyer 1905, tr. Pharr 1952,86) was to take the restrictions first 9.9.1, ed. Mommsen and Meyer 1905, tr. Pharr 1952, 233 against women having sexual ustus 65.4, ed. and tr.Rolfe I,1913, 222–25; tr. Edwards 2000, 76–7. On Constantine, CTh CTh 3.16.1, ed. Mommsen and Meyer 1905, tr. Pharr 1952, 76–7 imposing restrictions imposing 76–7 1952, Pharr tr. 1905, Meyer and Mommsen ed. 3.16.1, 15.12.1, ed. Mommsen and Meyer 1905, tr.Pharr 1952, 436 against gladiators. Mutilation and Transformation CTh Constantine: Dynasty, Religion and Powerin the Later Roman 9.8.1, Mommsened. and Meyer 1905, Pharr tr. 1952,233 Lex de Iulia maritandis ordinibus 74 CTh 8.16.1, ed.Mommsen and Meyer 1905,tr.Pharr Codex Theodosianus Arethusa (New York: Columbia University Press, , 222–23, also n. 73. For coins, For 73. n. also 222–23, , 33(2000): 435 accepting the CTh 9.24.1,ed. Mommsen and 4, 6, 3,” of 18 BCE and the De naturalibus filiis et Tijdschrift voor damnatio The Body and Spätantike RIC . Lex Lex 282 7 CEU eTD Collection 285 2, 65. 284 Roman Art,” in Art,” Roman 283 wars were great turning points: they inaugurated anew-born imperial style in the case of parallelism, although historically distancedin hundredthree years, both victories in the civil Triumvirate (42-32 BCE) before the Battle of Actium (31 BCE). In another remarkable ConstantineCE) (324 as structurally comparable tothatof the decade of the Second war imagesof of thetetrarchs hadwagedalmost twenty years thebefore final victory of political reading of the Constantinian imagery, I therefore suggest taking into consideration a powertriedfor different out within portrait modes and tetrarchic beyond norms. should beseen as anone of intense experimentation with theimperial image, as contenders Similarly,of civil theperiod fought wars by andLicinius Maxentius Constantine against Republican civil war illuminate the highly political function of the public representation. ultimate this in participants chief the of images Rival power. sole for struggle their in Republican wars culminatedcivil inadecisive between conflict Mark Octavian andAntony primarily to give Their monuments imagery,and added consequently,financed by the spoils war,intendedof were visibility factions generalsmade victorious thatin the rivalingturn political into itself. the state powers to one or the to rise gave otherarmies private Large afew. of hands the in andproperty wealth of concentration rival faction in late Republican times spoilsRome.the withof war, together economic expansion, hadto a led these visual phenomena accidental? An answer thatto is,as one might expect, political. In the within it.Were principal conflict anda contradiction by constituted the was the late republic Smith, “The Public Image of Licinius I,” 176, 184. Paul Zanker, Paul Diana E. E. Kleiner, “Now You See Them, Now You Don’t: The Presence and Absence of Women in In a curious parallelism, the imagery of both the early Constantinian periodand that of 3.1. 3. From Caligula to Constantine The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus The early image of Constantine COINAGE AS A MEDIUM OF COMMEMORATION , 46, fig.1. 75 (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1990), 284 A series of 285 For a CEU eTD Collection Studien zum römischen Porträt des 3.Jahrhunderts n. Bergmann, Chr. Marianne see image, ‘family’ of the versions as ‘junior’ styled Arab Caesars, as the Philip and Thrax Daia as Caesar). See as Caesar). 5 (Maximinus Daia fig. 494, Great,” the Constantine of Face True “The Wright, cf. Caesars, boy of types portrait 289 formula) and 7.An aureus from 307 CE: of the character youthful ideal to the closer the face 6 (with fig. Great,” the of Constantine Face True “The 288 tetrarchic style, see Kleiner, see style, tetrarchic identifiable an in him depicting by underscored further is father his to resemblance physical whose youth the of likeness accurate be relatively to appear oncoins portraits earliest His and beard. hairstyle, military cropped 307 CE, an also See iconography. tetrarchic the of conventions the within still portrayal as the defined 287 Constantine and Augustusof were youthimages the by and shared beauty, elements key classicalThe forms iconography. inthe visualof Augustus’ language resonance antiquity.in specific more a out points argument on numismatic evidence, followed bases his who by R. 505, Great,” R. Smith the (“The ofConstantine PublicTrue Face “The Image ofWright, Licinius contrary, On the I,” texts. 186 n. 90),by literary kommunalen Sammlungen der Stadt Rom, I Zanker, and (Fittschen Die seeAlföldi, Trajan, and Augustus between Sculpture Kleiner, see characteristics, Trajanic and Augustan both acknowledging of arguments, line same spätantiken Porträts im 4. Jahrhundertn. Chr. Augustan andTrajanic elements in Constantinian portraiture, cf. Wilhelm von Sydow, 286 of 306 CE, was thus probably a variant and perfection of the formula of the youthful CE. for Constantine’s politicaltetrarchic emperors and defineda new self-image of a beardless young Caesar, expectations of accessionCE with the title (fig.18a), Caesar after his father’s death on 25 July 306 Constantine. Octavian and its rebirth, with a prominent evocation of Augustus, in the case of first gold coins, his gold first of iconography tetrarchic conventional of period short a after which, in representation, localized. DavidWrighthas cogently traced the development Constantine’s of self- examplesandis most dated, reliably although enormous, attributed, ofmaterialare range the necessary turn fromsculptureto yetto anothermedium, i.e., numismatic evidence, where itis Augustus, that of asdeliberately resembling portraiture Constantinian interpreting Smith, “The Public Image of Licinius I,” 179–80, 185, reveals its derivation from the standard third-century For a discussion among earlier scholars, see Delbrück, see scholars, earlier among For adiscussion RIC Aurei 290 VI Trier 620a (aureusfrom 305–306 CE), see Wright, “The True Face of Constantine the Great,” fig. 4, Furthermore, for Wright, the youthful Augustan model, first chosen for the silver coins from 306 CE: To pursue questions theof iconography further and to secure a broader basis for RIC , 5, 426,, 434 and Varner in VI Constantine141,Rome pl.6, with a typical‘default setting’ portrait: ageometricalshort-head, 286 287 RIC the early coin portraits of Constantine, those struck ass early as 306-307 RIC Katalog der römischenPortraits in den Capitolinischen Museen und den anderen VI Trier 630b. The most easily recognized portrait types of the sons of Maximinus sons of the types portrait recognized easily most The 630b. Trier VI VI Trier 633, Roman Sculpture From Caligula toConstantine RIC 288 , no. I22), who argues for a specific assimilation to Trajan, supported Trajan, to assimilation specific a for argues who I22), , no. RIC abandoned the military image the of third-century and VI Trier 755. , 9. VI Trier 615, and (Bonn: R. Habelt, 1969), 45–9. In recent scholarship, for the constantinische Goldprägung 76 , 32–3 (Maximus Junior),35–8 (Philippus Junior). Spätantike Kaiserporträts RIC , 171, 210. For the debate over the choice the over debate For the 210. 171, , VI Trier 627,for thelatter,see Wright, , 57–69, followed by Paul Zanker , 12, who identifies both identifies who , 12, Zur Kunstgeschichte des aureus 289 appropriate from 306– Roman CEU eTD Collection the Trier mint during the first months of Constantine’s reign, continued – with some calm, youthful calm, individualizing idealism insteadof hard, realism. contrast with theirs,century and tetrarchic emperors and defined entirely an new self-representation for himself in with his Augustus-length hair instead of a soldier’s crew-cut and his the Augustan coiffure. forward over the brow – slightly longer foundon the hissilver image coin on thanthat theof Augustus,gold – closely which resembles is confirmed by the fact that his hair different stylisticdirection of portraiture’s development. is combed equally silverrare particularly of high Trier quality artistic from suggests a significantly 294 293 on coins. seen character and iconography Augustan the recognized generally time Constantine’s in Romanpublic the that therefore, doubt, no is There iconography. Augustan of character youthful idealized the generally more and jaw, articulated clearly and cheekbones, prominent brow, astrong with head of the shape square the hairdo, Augustan of the recognizability the 9, accentuates fig. 496, Great,” the Constantine Faceof True “The Wright, also Augustus on the reverse of the rarer aureus of the Emperor Gallienus (from 260–268 CE), consecratio Public Image of Licinius I,” p1. XI, 4. Compare the iconography of deified Augustus on the obverse of the in honorof Divus Augustus with his head on the obverses, and bis zuden Konstantin-Söhnen al. et L’Orange, See nose. ofthe profile forthe only it modifying model; the die-cutterof Augustan the silver the coin turnedto on the specifically dependent Augustan formula as certainly used inthe as Triermint, die silver Constantinian best of the character heroic the emphasizing gold– hardly any 292 185. I,” ofLicinius Image Public “The Smith, by Constantine: control direct under 291 290 the in mint Trier. Augustan iconography, suggesting a deliberate choicethe of emperor whodirectly controlled Caesar/eventual successor type,modification whose under theoccurredinfluence of Smith, “The Public Image of Licinius I,” 221. Wright, “The True Face of Constantine the Great,” 496. The mint atTrier had been established as the principal mint of Constantius in 293–294 CE and later was Wright, “The True Face of Constantine the Great,” 494–95, 506. RIC VI Trier 636 (306 CE), with Wright, “The True Face of Constantine the Great,” 495–96, fig. 8, Wright has concluded thathasconcluded evenin first months Wright Constantine to his rule of chose the issue of argentei of the Emperor Decius (from ca. 251 CE), 251 ca. (from Decius Emperor of the of argentei issue 291 aurei After the small initial issue of Constantine as Caesar – extremely rare were struck at Trieruntil the 293 , pl. 67a. For the Augustan image on Tiberian coins, Tiberian on image Augustan the For 67a. , pl. Constantine rejected therefore the military image of the third- 77 quinquennalia RIC Das spätantike Herrscherbild von Diokletian von Herrscherbild spätantike Das 292 I 91–3 on the reverses; also Smith, “The RIC IV.3 Milan 77and 78, and Divus 294 of 310 CE, yet the almost This type, established in RIC I Rome 72, 74, 77, issues 77, 74, 72, I Rome RIC V.1 Rome 28, CEU eTD Collection 301 300 Wright, “The True Face of Constantine the Great,” fig. 12. 299 298 297 296 of Constantine the Great,” fig.10, the hairdo is now even more luxuriant than that of Augustus. individual image profilewith the rounded oval face of the frontal portrait (18d). in the manner of his father, Maximian, yet Maxentian regular profile issues defined a sharply in Maxentius his mid-twenties appears on coins portraits as mature-lookinga faithful, tetrarch Maxentius, with the simplifiedplanar modeling and generally charactersquare of the face. time, features which one canseeas having beeninherited the from tetrarchic typefor used in normal usewith only slight modifications nearlyfor three decades. 295 his prominent cheekbones, projecting chin, andclearly articulated jaw, vision. powerful youthful, handsome, Augustan, clean-shaven, civilian aspect without special emphasisofficial on portrait figure.vigor, energy, accessibility, ardor, and joviality,none of whichHis were infact represented inhis main portrait type to shown that Constantine spectrum of military of ascribed panegyrists thewhole virtues of the 310s CE had instead a plain, reserved, interruptions late in 307 CE when he assumed the title Augustus title the heassumed when CE in 307 late interruptions coins for Constantine. which, presumably,almost atonce,together with the mint atTicinum (Pavia),strike beganto Ostia, and Rome at the mints appropriated Constantine CE, 312 October 28 on Maxentius types thewith political circumstances oftheirappearance. With thedefeat death and of Alföldi, Die 505. Ibid., A versiontypical of the Constantinian portrait onthesefirstcoins in is that Wright, “The True Face of Constantine the Great,” 505. Smith, “The Public Image of Licinius I,” 200, pl. XI, 1-3. Ibid.,496, 505. RIC VI Trier 758(from 307 CE), Intriguingly, reading imagesthe alongside the contemporary haspanegyrics definitely To read the iconography politically requires re-connecting of the conflicting image conflicting the of re-connecting requires politically iconography the read To 3.2. constantinische Goldprägung A war of images 297 298 Theseissues retainedthe Constantinianhairstyle, noseandtypical RIC VI Trier 821 (from 310 CE),for the latter, see Wright, “The True Face , 53–6, pl. 2.36-9. 78 295 – as codified for repetition for as codified – RIC 296 VI Rome, n. on page 688; 299 and,at thesame 301 Both 300 CEU eTD Collection ideological father, Augustus, than to his natural father, Constantius Chlorus. Constantius father, his natural to than Augustus, father, ideological Rome, styled as youthfulness, deftly amember from theof transformed tetrarchy the of emperor to sole with a smooth face,an Augustan cap of hair, andan idealizedexpression that accentuatedhis nimbate imperial portrait.enormously For richthe in firstthe years time315-316 oneCE, introducedsees a nimbate a novelty in imperialtheir design of personthe frontal in a multi- 307 frontal coin portraits of 316 CE. medallion of CE,313 featuring the emperorin a double profile portrait with Sol (18c), and on decision to return the to specifically Augustan iconography assessedbest the on famous clean-shaven face, anda distinctive grownhairdo into slender long face that reflects a more carefully formulated image with a taller profile with handsome,a youthful, thinner, the early 310s CE onwards a definitive form, as R. R. R. Smith has phrased it, a revised and 306 there. residence in was Constantine of the best numismaticversions of this portrait type,a solidus struck at Trier thefirst in half of 315 CEwhile youth. the contemporary heads on the withArch the intrinsically heroic qualities of anidealized became the standard Augustan portrait of Constantine, corresponding theto representation of this and observation, naturalistic of impression the giving brow, and cheek of the modeling Augustan style. experimentedwith thin-faced frontal portrait heads on their coins resembling thelean-faced 305 304 303 302 Maxentius Ostiaat themintMaxentius of Smith Ibid., 188. Ibid., Ibid.,pl. XI,2. Smith RIC RIC VI Trier 620a; Kleiner, 620a; VITrier VII Trier 21; Wright, “The True Face of Constantine the Great,” 505, fig. 13 shows an example typical example an 13 shows fig. 505, Great,” the Constantine of Face True “The Wright, 21; Trier VII 305 Furthermore, a series of coins representing only a part of the Ticinese coinage, Ticinese the of part a only representing coins of a series Furthermore, , , “The Public Image of Licinius I,” 185–86. “The Public Image of Licinius I,” pl. X, 3-4. The portrait Constantine hadbriefly usedin 306-307 CE, re-assumed on coins from 304 liberator urbis The type was, however, quickly modified to introduce more subtleties in Roman Sculpture Roman and 302 306 and Constantine and atthe (fig.18e) mint of Ticinum After the conquest of Rome, Constantine thus appeared fundator quietis fundator , 9. , 79 , who was therefore more similar to his 307 303 had CEU eTD Collection 42–57. 315 circumdatuque icolor arcus, velutcoronam tanti mox viri capiti imponens,conspectus est. inmanis amicorum occurrit frequentia, et cum intrareturbem, solis orbis super caputeius curvatus aequaliter 314 313 312 See also a famous silver medallion silver afamous also See bust of Maxentius facing; Bruun, “Una permanenza Soldel Invictus di Costantino nell’arte cristiana,” fig. 14. commemorate the death of his sonRomulus on October28 310 CE shows bare-headed, drapedand cuirassed Christian Monogram,” Christian the with Constantine of Helmet “The Alföldi, Andreas emblem. aChi-Rho bearing a helmet with depicted 311 majesty. imperial of concept new a with yet Constantine, of theportraits artistsame created thathas supposed the possible,as MariaAlföldi therefore fig.13; Alföldi, Die 310 BCE: the occasion of the return of Octavian from Apollonia after the assassination of Caesar in 44 shown, 309 vol. 1,ed. G. Bonamente and F.Fusco (Macerata,1992–1993), 222–23. gods, orby both. by a nimbus (similar tohalo), by the crown of angled rays worn by Hellenistic kings and sun- mints of Rome new, but not without a precedent, for in the reign of Maxentius high quality coins from the dall’antichtà all’Umanesimo: Colloquio sul Christianesimo nel mondo antico, Macerata 18 disc of light appears aroundConstantine’s head, depicted 308 figured scene, principally distinguished by the weak contour lines of the nimbus. For a discussion on the radiate crown, see Bardill, see crown, radiate the on a discussion For Velleius Paterculus, Velleius 223–28. cristiana,” nell’arte Costantino di Invictus delSol permanenza “Una Bruun, Alföldi, Die An argenteus: Asolidus: Patrick Bruun, “Una permanenza del Sol Invictus di Costantino nell’arte cristiana,” in cristiana,” nell’arte Costantino di Invictus Sol del permanenza “Una Bruun, Patrick RIC VI Ostia 10, rare aureus struck as a donative to celebrate Maxentius’ celebrate to adonative as struck aureus rare 10, VI Ostia 313 The imperial portrait with a nimbus, originally a solar symbol, as Patrick Bruun has with originally asPatricknimbus, Bruun a solar portrait The imperial a symbol, Iconographic Iconographic intangibletradition dictatedthat light have solar been representedwould greatness. seeming thereby to place a crown upon thehead of one destined soon to head theout to meet him,and atthe moment ofhis entering the city, men orbsaw above his went friends his of crowd an enormous Rome ofapproached he [Octavian] As the sun with a circle about it, coloured like the rainbow, effectively derivedfrom the event narrated by Velleius Paterculus that occurred on RIC constantinische Goldprägung RIC VII Ticinum pl.41, 9; Alföldi, Die 310 constantinische Goldprägung 314 315 VI VI Rome 191; Bruun, “Una permanenzadel Sol Invictus di Costantino nell’arte cristiana,” and Ostia (18d) JRS The authors who recorded this occurrence are in unanimous agreement unanimous in are occurrence this recorded who authors The Historiae Romanae 22(1932): 9–23; from 315 CE: 311 Imperator Caesar Flavius Constantinus 2.59.6, ed. and tr. Shipley 1961, 178–79: 1961, Shipley tr. and ed. 2.59.6, , 42. showed the Roman usurper seen from the front. It is RIC , pls. 2, 39. Constantine,Divine Emperor of the Christian Golden Age constantinische Goldprägung VII Ticinum 36, where three-quarters facing Constantine facing three-quarters where 36, VIITicinum 80 312 en face . 309 This type of portrait was , figs. 65-8. , no.I.13.120. Cui adventanti Romam adventanti Cui Costantino Il Grande quinquennalia – 20 Dicembre 1990 308 The solid and to , , CEU eTD Collection political theology: Augustus. Orosius thus links Augustus to the birth of Christ in his Christian version of princeps himself was the Constantine at the Battle of Milvian Bridge with those ofHowever, Augustus it is indeed intriguing that the panegyrist at of 313 CE, comparingActium, the deeds of noted that the princeps, exploitedn laterby hisimperial successors and also applies to Constantine. solem solus mundumque totum et fecisset et regeret. et et fecisset totum mundumque solus solem potissimum in hoc mundo solumque clarissimum in orbe monstraret, cuius tempore uenturus esset, qui ipsum repente liquido ac puro sereno circulus ad speciem caelestis arcus orbem solis ambiit,quasi eum unum ac primum, C.Caesare auunculo suo interfecto, ex Apollonia rediens urbem ingrederetur, hora circiter tertia then the authors in the times of the principate, 320 Roman History 319 eum circumscripsit. solet, nubibus in arcus multitudine Romam intraret, sol puri acsereni caeli orbe modico inclusus extremae lineae circulo,qualis tendi 318 esse arcuin solet. Hunc Graeci halo uocant, nos dicere coronam aptissime possumus. quo die urbem diuus Augustus’ Apollonia reuersus intrauit, circa solem uisum coloris uariicirculum, qualis 317 arcus orbem solis ambiit, acsubinde Iuliae Caesaris filiae monimentum caelestis fulmine ictum speciem est. ad circulus sereno puro ac liquido repente urbem, eo ingrediente et Apollonia ab reverso 316 his with the celestial solaror character of the phenomenon, Orosius, This portent is also recorded by Livy, by recorded also is portent This Julius Obsequens, 68,ed. and Schlesinger tr. 1959, 308–9: Seneca, Suetonius, Natural Yet this factalsoconfirms the importance and prevalence the of life the firstof Interestingly, the writersinLate Antiquity Actium while he wonat was Augustus doing mountain; high a from battle naval something a observed Xerxes else. … These examples, you will say, made and rules over the sun and the whole world. glorious markman onhim the ascircle earth theof light likeone, a rainbowin Apollonia, surroundedwhosemightiest the aftersun in days a clear,histhe City, from he is The first [Octavian] thatentered when proof returning uncle,serene wouldskyman Gaiusas if to Caesar’sin comethis murder, He worldat aroundWho the bythirdand Himself hour, by a himself the most this a as is wont to be seencircle, such Apollonia, aparti-coloured his Rome from on entranceinto return in a rainbow, Historyappeared has put on record that, round on the day of the thelate Emperor sun. Augustus The Greeks call Naturales Quaest Historiae Adversus Paganos Questions Divus 45.4.4,ed. and tr.Cary 1916, IV, 414–15. Halo Augustus ; our most appropriate name it for is a Crown. ca. 65 CE: iones 1.2.1, ed. Mondadori 2010, 24; tr. Clarke 1910,12: ignavum exemplum 95, ed. and tr. Rolfe 1913, I, 272; tr. Edwards 2000, 93: 6.20.5,ed.Zangemeister 1882, 419; Feartr. 2010,309: Periochae 117, ed. and tr. Schlesinger 1959,146; and Dio Cassius, : 81 319 318 assigning a distinct flavor of divinity ofdivinity a to assigning distinct flavor werenoless concerned with this episode 316 Cumque hora diei tertia ingenti circumfusa 320 as, example, for Seneca explainsin 317 Memoriae proditum est, proditum Memoriae Post necem Caesaris Nam cum CEU eTD Collection 325 Victory. of symbol the nimbus, restorationof the text and interpretation of the statue and points out that Constantine was also portrayed witha 324 manuscripts insteadof the Maria R. Alföldi, “Signum Deae,” “Signum Alföldi, R. Maria following honor, Constantine’s in Curia the in Victory of statuette a consecrated senate the that assumes 16) supposes that Constantine was represented with Sol’s attributes; Barnes, attributes; Sol’s with represented was Constantine that supposes Alföldi, Emperors Roman of Later Praise 323 scutum et coronam, cuncta aurea later, during later, during his emphasis on Constantine,had who exceeded as Augustus a military yearscommander. Two laid he details, with concerned Not year. previous the from distance critical a keeping location in year oneGaul, speaking aftertheevents inItaly,had already reviewed them Constantinethe conquered East the and sole became master ofthe wholeRoman world. [Octaviani] curvatus front in a return to the Augustan model – the aforementioned on a globe, the Augustus: to granted honors 322 of wrong-doing. instance acommonplace became Republic, the 2000, 51–2; Plutarch, and Shipleytr. 1961, 228–31; Suetonius, their conscience. the liberator of Rome, Italy, and Africa, as the panegyrist said, to lessen partially the debt of tactics at Actium, Augustus was in fact involved in the battle, Velleius Paterculus, Velleius battle, the in involved fact in was Augustus atActium, tactics tuta, grauiorque metus est periculi tui quam laetitia uictoriae. Xerses nauale certamen; augustus aliud agens uicit apud Actium … Ignaua, inquies, sunt haec exempla – sed 321 dedicated “a statue of a god andItaly shortly before that a shieldand crown,all gold,” of Ibid., 224. Ibid., Alföldi’s accepts 224–25 cristiana,” nell’arte Costantino di Invictus Sol del permanenza “Una Bruun, Cf.Aurelius Victor, Panegyrici Latini Panegyrici Latini With the defeat of his last rival, Licinius, at Chrysopolis on 18 September 324 CE, Nevertheless, laterin the same oration the audience thatwas informed the senate had 3.3. victory. are ignoble – but safe, and fearyour for danger is weightier than joy for your The Conversion of Constantine and Pagan Rome 324 The civil end of wars: The self-referentiality of victory the 321 decennalia 12.10.1-2, ed. and tr. Nixon and Rodgers 1994,331, 607: … 323 12.10.1–2, ed. and tr.Nixon and Rodgers 1994, 312–13, 599: Antonius clupeus virtutis clupeus The parallel beignored:cannot these honors were but once again the De – as a visual manifestation of hisownsuccess. of as avisual manifestation – dei Caesaribus preferred by most editors. bymost preferred 66-67, ed. and tr. Perrin 1920, IX, 286–93 nevertheless Actium, the final war of … . , Constantine introduced his nimbate coin portrait seen from the , 331–32 n. 157 summarize a discussionon the identity of thegod: Andreas JNG 40.28, ed.Pichlmayr 1892, 47; tr. Bird 1994, 49; Nixon and Rodgers, simulacrum deae 11(1961): 19ff, restoring reading , and the , Divus Augustus corona civica 82 18, ed. and tr.Rolfe I,1913, 148–51; tr. Edwards is nothing but a statue of Victory astatue ofVictory is but standing nothing (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1948), 69,132 n. 23 Although Agrippa was responsible for the naval the for responsible was Agrippa Although . The panegyrist, in an unknown an in panegyrist, The . Constantine and Eusebius dee (i.e., 325 signum dei et paulo ante Italia super caput orbis solis caput orbis super Historiae Romanae deae Spectauit ex edito monte ex edito Spectauit ) as originally in the , 46 (and n. 2.85, ed. 2.85, 322 to In CEU eTD Collection 329 328 ( 327 pl. I (in sculpture), pl. V.1-6 (on coins). For Mark Antony’s coinage, see den Konstantin-Söhnen Nicomedia 10,2, 11, 18,20,41 (pl. 20); L’Orange, et al. 326 Constantine’s was which Nicomedia, in year that later struck coins of issues special for past Hellenistic the from kingship royal-divine of evocations strong with pose heaven-gazing Constantine adopted the diadem of Alexander – the first Roman emperor to do so – and his against the campaigner,old tyrant of the East, to whomhe had marriedhis sister. whereas the of the originator type the wasAlexander Great. prototype of younga ruler –he merely used the type, as didConstantine in hisimitation – the wasnot himself Augustus Nevertheless, also. hadbeen as Augustus ruler, young youth, the attractive: Apolline been have the BCEmay thirties in Octavian-Augustus of power to the rise with parallels the standpoint, Constantine’s From rival images invested withtheideological capital of their distinctive political preferences. of Constantine and Maxentius, those of Constantine and Licinius were two contemporary which would have served visually to linkConstantine decided on youthfulthe and himclassicizing features in found his coin portraits, with Augustus. Pompey, and smiling, comparable to Mark Antony’s smile on coins in the BCE,30s variation on thetetrarchic old fat-faced energetic style,military thatgoesbackto (18f), identifyingimperial persona each for tetrarch.While Licinius selected an expressive personal political self-representation inorder tocreate remarkably new imagespublic that defined an Constantine andLicinius hadmade a series ofchoices across from the inherited repertoire of Previously,in their portrait images, drawing selectively sameon the range ofideas,both ob diversos mores ob Harrison, “The Constantinian Portrait,” 95. Portrait,” Constantinian “The Harrison, Smith, “The Public Image of Licinius I,” 201 n. 175. Aurelius Victor, RIC VII Siscia 18, 20(pl. 12), Serdica Thessalonica3, 5 (pl. 15), Heraclea 4, 6,9, 12, 13, 15 (pl. 17), After hisfinalvictory Constantineover Licinius, remainedessentially asrepresented a ) of Constantine and Licinius. De Caesaribus , pl. 68d, e,f (Nicomedia, Serdica); Smith, “The Public Image ofLicinius I,” 188, 201, 41.2, ed.Pichlmayr 1892, 48;tr. Bird 1994, 49 highlights diverse characters 83 Das spätantike Herrscherbild vonDiokletian bis zu RRC 329 327 Furthermore, about 324 CE divi filius divi , 541-5, pl. 64.9-15. Similarly to the main types , ruler of the West, 328 326 CEU eTD Collection 7; Alföldi, 335 time. at this mints western and style eastern in between distinction general the considering modeling, naturalistic more with rendered was type special this Trier 334 1988), 34–8. 333 332 I,” Bardill, 5–6; XI, Licinius pl. of 177, Image Public “The Smith, forms); diadem varied CE, (326 187-206 figs. diadem), plain with CE, 1947), 90–94; Alföldi, L’Orange, Peter Hans diadems); various with staring, that of Hellenistic kings, see Delbrück, the asanexplicitdiadem imperial insignia. disappearance of imperial portrait replication in the fourth century CE with the assumption of (even those frommodel. Although most of the emperor’s sculptured portraits had not worn the thediademyet East datedyouthful physiognomy of Constantine that had been developed on the basis of the Augustan after 325attributes of divinely guided kingship, did not requireCE), any modifications in the idealized R. R. R. Smith has connected the swift 331 Great,” 506, fig.14; Bardill, recognizediconography, received and a richer treatment the of fringedhair anda more earlier: similar coins were struck in 324-325 CEat Thessalonica, Sirmium, and Ticinum. prominently retainedthe heroic Augustan type thathad been standardized a dozen years tranquillity constantinische Goldprägung imperial portrait manner two for or three centuries. eventually CE 330s ultimatelyin andprevailedthat the came theasto dominate basic 330 CE, transformed after a series experimentsof with formintothethe jewel inthediadem 330s CE (18i), from 325 all hiscoinportraits on appeared diadem that royal Hellenistic-style principal residence at the time. Smith, “The Public Image of Licinius I,” 187, p1. XI. 6;Delbrück, in later years two about and Ticinum in that notes 506 Great,” the ofConstantine Face True “The Wright, Smith, “The Public Image of Licinius I,” 178; idem, Eusebius, Cf. RIC RIC 331 VII Siscia 206. On Constantine’s diademed royal style and upturned energetic head, clearly modeled on modeled clearly head, energetic upturned and style royal diademed OnConstantine’s 206. VII Siscia VII Nicomedia 70. For the diadem, seeDelbrück, and the notably exaggerated upward-gazing portrait seen on some coin issues, However, fromcirca 326 CEanew typewaslaunched intoa circulation that Die 336 constantinische Goldprägung constantinische yet the kept diadem, taking advantage of the associative aspects of agenerally Vita Constantini Vita Die Constantine, Divine Emperor of the Christian Golden Age constantinische Goldprägung Constantine, Divine Emperor of the Christian Golden Age , 93-5; Patrick Bruun, 4.15, ed.Winkelmann 1975, 125–26; tr. Cameronand Hall 1999, 158–59. 330 Spätantike Kaiserporträts The iconography associatedwith Alexander ofa plain , figs. 220–223, 230, 234. RIC 84 Apotheosis in PortraitureAncient VII, 43–4; Wright, “The True Face of Constantine the Hellenistic RoyalHellenistic Portraits , 93–4, figs. 164–76 (the earliest upward-staring, 325 upward-staring, earliest (the 164–76 figs. , 93–4, 333 335 The Constantinian portrait therefore TheConstantinian portrait Spätantike Kaiserporträts This type absorbed a placidAugustan , 74–5, pl. 2.21–24, pl.3.25–33 (upward- Spätantike Kaiserporträts Spätantike , 19–24, fig. 13. fig. , 19–24, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, , 11–19, figs. 5-7. (Oslo: H. Aschehoug, H. (Oslo: , 56–66; Alföldi, Die Alföldi, 56–66; , , 76–7,pl. 4.41– 332 334 both CEU eTD Collection monnaies de l’empire Romaine, I. Auguste Giard, Jean-Baptiste BCE; 25 ca. struck reverse, the on wreath laurel within “AVGVSTVS” 340 15. fig. cristiana,” nell’arte Costantino di Invictus Sol del permanenza “Una Bruun, political reality in the fourth century CE. Another corroboration of Constantine’s deliberate RIC before. be found without difficulty in the coinage of Augustus more than three hundred years laurel wreath on the reverse; see also similar also see reverse; on the wreath laurel “CAESAR” on the reverse. medallions insilver bearing laconicthe legends “AVGVSTVS” on obversethe and 339 338 Face of Constantine the Great,” 506, figs. 15–16. (posthumous coin of Divus Constantinus struck shortly after his death on 22 May 337 CE); Wright, “The True hundredyears earlier (18h). “AVGVSTVS”“CAESAR” (18j) and indirect Augustan imitation of coins mintedthree silver medallions carryingmintedlate inConstantine’s reign CE) (336-337 the legend inscription are embedded with discursive power. represent symbols of authority,persuasive andvalue-laden, both the figural image and importance ofthe written text of the legends.coin Likewise, both obverse andreverse images youthful facesimilarAugustus’, the to Augustanparallel in fact to remainedexplicit the due which mutated in the aging fleshy-faced portrait deprived of the handsome features of the 337 626. 336 the jaw to the neck.the jaw the to gradually becoming heavier and the jowlshavingno direct precedent,coming for Augustus did not allow his image togrowto old – the jaw obscure the transition fromage portraitthe aroundback 333 CE, as isof particularly evident in coins of the highest artistic quality – imposing sense ofmajesty. TheConstanian appearance began to change, however,in the old- Bruun, “Una permanenza del Sol Invictus di Costantino nell’arte cristiana,” 225, figs. 15–16. figs. 225, cristiana,” nell’arte Costantino di Invictus delSol permanenza “Una Bruun, RIC Panegyrici Latini RIC RIC VII Constantinople 132, VII Siscia 259, rosette-diademed head of Constantine on theobverse and the legend “CAESAR” within VII Constantinople 101 (medallion of two solidi struck in 336–337 CE); I Ephesus? 486, bare headof Augustus with the legend “CAESAR” on theobverse and the legend 340 Lastly, that Augustus was a model Constantinefor is made explicit by a series of Thisideological gesture is clear evidencethe that legacy of Augustus was acurrent 6.4.4;4.5.4; 4.10.2;4.35.4, ed. and tr. Nixon and Rodgers 1994, 223, 574;354, 613; 381, 337 Yet, significantly, despite the dispensability of the figural image,figural the thedispensability of Yet,significantly, despite RIC 339 VII Nicomedia 197, andunlisted in 338 The model with the similar coin design and precise legends can At the peak of his power, Constantine issued a series of (Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale, 1976), pl. 37, 963, 964, 966. 964, 963, 37, pl. 1976), Nationale, Bibliothèque (Paris: RIC VII Lyons 283, 85 RIC VII Arles 410, RIC VII Trier issue minted in 336 CE; RIC RIC VIII Constantinople 1 VII Thessalonica 221, Catalogue des CEU eTD Collection portrayed as having kept the internal peace of the Empire during his reign as sole Augustus. assole hisreign during the Empire of peace the internal kept as having portrayed legitimacy of his rule andmade Constantine tostand for the territorial integrity theof Empire, of Constantine’s victory conveniently led into oblivion troublesome questions of the “Image and Authority the in Coinage of Augustus,” 341 is, an image that appeared to be an attributethe senateof the toimperial Augustus power. – in the numismaticfrom the senate toConstantine in a remarkably records analogous way similar tothat oncegranted by during the later decades of hisAugustan reference isthe overwhelmingly frequent occurrenceVictory rule, of a on aglobe – gift that emperors was founded, is the commonest of reverse themes at all imperial periods. imperial all at themes of reverse commonest the is founded, was emperors of the authority and power the on which success military signifying Victory, that notes therefore and image Bruun, “Una permanenza del Sol Invictus di Costantino nell’arte cristiana,” 225; Andrew Wallace-Hadrill, Andrew 225; cristiana,” nell’arte Costantino di Invictus Sol del permanenza “Una Bruun, JRS 86 76 (1986): 69 accentuates the importance of the reverse of the importance the 69 accentuates (1986): 76 341 Thisself-referentiality CEU eTD Collection Eerdmans Publishing, 1982), 4.On Lactantius’ figuralinterpretation, Erich Auerbach,“Figura,” in idem, Goppelt, 342 typological relationship with that of the founder of the empire. Lactantius, the reign Constantine,of figuratively wasinterpreted, placedexplicitly a in panegyrics, andChristian political theology, epitomized by contemporaries Eusebius and common. Notably,in both polytheist political theology, exemplified by coterminous imperial approached Constantine in of figural interpretation the they framework within shared narratives discern, the how eminently andChristian similarly first, polytheist both paradigm for all the succeeding Roman emperors. For ithas been indeed intriguing to maintaining the mooring the Constantinian empireon wasconstruedin remarkable resemblance with the Augustan one, the image of Augustus, emperors’who representations was heldaround nodal pointsto of thebe hypothesis: a the and prototype periods the ideologicalConstantinian and Augustan the between parallels discoursestructural explicated of and a the self-representation of ConstantineAugustus. and corroborative material textual surveyed, thefollowing conclusions drawn can comparing be the context of Constantine’sBased therefore on the memory politics. yetvisual also new, industriallya with discourse ideological its investing produced, state, Roman the of constitution the iconographytransformed of the triumphantempire or, if one prefers, imperialemperor political imaginary,had itself immense material that power that I have examined inrepresentations emperor.of the TheConstantinian ofaunited,dream in effect, oecumenical, and exploitingideological force of his engagement in both wagingthe tetrarchic civil powerwars to a victorious end of Augustan imagery as the central visual discourse in On typos First of First all,comparable chapters of each three has assembled of historical data and Constantine. the driving wasadream Itwas of empire a unified of The restoration Typos: The Typological Interpretation of the Old Testamentin the New as a term and an interpretative mode for prefiguring the future in prior history, see Leonhard see history, prior in future the prefiguring mode for an interpretative asaterm and CONCLUSION 87 342 Christian Christian authors believed (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Scenes CEU eTD Collection 1984), 34, 44–6. from the Drama of European Literature Constantinian likeness typologically that assumed the relation between Augustus and striking parallelism to the program of Augustan classicizing iconography, imagining a ina stood thus of Constantine visual politics new empire. Thea ultimately, of as an architect as Constantine was portrayedThe visual narratives, particularly, as addressed a newthe typological Augustus, functions of themedium: first, architecture andceremonies,emperor second, imperial sculpture, and, third, coinage.insofar as a founder of a have I have exploited, the restructured empirical city material theaccording ofthe to power and dynasty, andtheoretical presentation from studies of iconography.To address to organizing strategies I Eclogue proclaimedthe eternal transcendent order. as a return or interpretConstantinian rule figurally the panegyrics polytheist beborn, deliberately chose to indeed renewaldivine providence through a typological link with Augustus, under whoseof reign Christ the Goldenand the liberating first Constantineof emperor agent Christian history,the salvation making Age, referringWhile theChristian texts withare preoccupied reconciling the Roman emperorshipand to Virgilempire as or foreshadowedthose political that prefigured in events of time Constantine. who in theledConstantinian writerssee to events thatthe showed way Fourththeto Augustan foundation of the typological thought and the desire to interpret in this way that arose in the fourth century CE new creative actthat wasmeant tomake thefirst to pale by comparison. The impulse toward Roman state andinaugurating completing anew, initiated ina peace work the by Augustus in the erupted internal war that the discontent civil and anendto by predecessor putting figural event. Constantineappeared therefore tore-enact the actions hisof ultimate thus, Constantine fulfilledthe conceptualizedthe revealedasfigure, ofthe truth or was in a predetermined concordance between the history of salvation and the Roman monarchy, Next, to complement for I such Next, thea structure, have support empirical to assembled , tr. Ralph Manheim (Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press, 88 CEU eTD Collection of the Roman Empire the 344 324 CE, in althoughthe and,last Licinuis, of the defeat Constantinian amplified, rival, decisive after the typologicalheavenly to rule,mandate andthe emphasis on effective leadership military was retainedand with its reference Constantine, of focusimage Augustan-Apolline The CE. 312 in Bridge Milvian the at victory his to shifteda supremefor the iconography in association with which the Constantinian image was worked out after solar deitytheto narratives of imperial panegyrics andspecifically in becamea Eusebius, primary model Alexanderwho guaranteedin Constantine in to relation addressed Augustus, implicitly only In this respect, arrangement. his holder’sPax Constantinianathe Great,possessionwhereas Octavianhad established order and unity by putting an end tothe dying republic, the of ita did not replaced 343 a similarity in the conception authorityof held by the princeps. yetimagefrom adistant attractive Augustan implyingalthough, model, remarkably, without imperial power, Constantineyouthful thus adopted a handsomeand clean-shaven portrait initiatives. Knowing nodefinite rules of transmission for the iconographic enunciations of rather thentheheirthe to tetrarchicimperial whosystem would continue Diocletian’s recent marked interest in characterizing himself as the heir tothe legacy of the founder theof empire both for emperors possessedhigh degree a ofhistorical concreteness, Constantinea showed imminent. Since the figure ofAugustus hadas much historical reality as what it prophesied, Constantine equal the as relationto between figure anditsas a historical fulfillment, regarded strife within Romanthe state, which they managedsubdue. to empire of Augustus and thatConstantine of therefore were precededby devastating internal Republican period, was notorious for producing crises: the cohesion and integrity of the Providing a narrative of the triuviral period was problematic in Augustan time; there are famous silences in silences famous are there time; Augustan in problematic was period triuviral ofthe anarrative Providing On the concept of Res Gestae Res By a prominent correspondence, the pre-Constantinian tetrarchy, similarly to the late regarding Republican civil wars: Josiah Osgood, (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 2006). auctoritas was tothe constituted due final tetrarchic disintegration of aquarrelsome , see Galinsky, , Augustan Culture 89 , Caesar’s Legacy: Civil War and the Emergence 10–41. 343 344 All this suggests a parallel: CEU eTD Collection diverse ideological forms as in the times of the Republican civil wars. struggle between these adversaries became visible as a rivalry images,producingof the same power in 324 CE, and juxtaposed numismatic portraits of fighting tetrarchs so that the Constantine fromthemoment falling intoof itin to 312 CE the ofa peak new constellation of thelead artists from in the Constantinian representing period, the Augustan of dream representation. The third chapter, “Coinageideological capital, andsuggested the Augustan prototype for the Constantine’s self- as a Medium of Commemoration,” hasConstantine’s takenmemory politics, both affirmative its and negative, in terms of the appropriation of Bronze,” narratives Constantinianhas critically visual examined portraiture by of analyzing annihilation of political opponents. The second chapter,“Sculpture: Memory in andMarble forgettingpractice of internal thatconflict wasmanifestthe in war logicofthecivil mutual political ideology bothof the Augustan and Constantinian periods as embodying a consistent throw lightConstantine’s weavingemperorship, andpoliticaltogether cultural history in an toattempt on both. The first legitimacy, andpolitical imaginary, come together in chapter,a coherent configuration. memory, of politics the elements, these of all then ideology, imperial on concentrates “Architectureeverlasting peace thefor Roman state, overwhich hadtime no power.If therefore one and fromRemembering,” internalwas the if excluded andexternal cycle itperpetuated as of conflicts, and fantasy. It dared to imagine the Empire as if it was not subjecthas to physical boundaries, as if it seen the Constantine. by adopted first scheme tendency introduceto elements the from royal iconography theinto primary Augustan visual kingship. The mediaof andsculpture coinagehere examined clearly increasingshow an with of Hellenistic nowimbued attributes iconography the divine Constantine’s Augustan The introductory The introductory part of this thus thesis has focused on thehistorical context of For, once again, the dream of Constantine had the structural power of ideological 90 CEU eTD Collection concerns.The issue is therefore worthy furtherof pursuit. making, Augustan visual allusion, and historical reference to contemporaryimage- Roman politicalimperial connected intricately of combination ideological bewildering this of power emperor of the unified state.Every beholderConstantinian of imagery towas thus exposed Augustan coinsculpted and that portraiture similarly the all-mighty celebrated triumphant same time,the latter isichnographically represented in narratives visual closely modeled on the at while, Constantine, of forerunner a as functioned Augustus narratives, textual Christian therefore a dream form of Constantine’s empire. that Constantine in fact imitated Augustus thatin in his Constantine fact imitated ideological Augustus The dream. subsequent establishments of the sole rule of the victorious emperors, ultimately suggesting shifts in the early century fourth CE, stressing the commonalities of the civil war andperiods have discussed similarities structural inherent both in periods. Ihave interpretedsymbolic Constantinian inempire seen a comparative perspective oftheir historical development, I To summarize: within typologicalthe schemeinherent in both polytheist and Rather than stressing the unique policies of the Augustan principate and the 91 Pax Augusta was CEU eTD Collection Source 13 Rome, Augustae, Pacis Ara the of frieze north processional The 2. Fig. Source Fig. 1. The Arch of Constantine, Rome, 312 Rome, Constantine, of Arch The 1. Fig. Figures : The ArtArchive/ ArtResource, New York : The ArtArchive/ Alamy APPENDIX 92 – 315 CE.View from the south. – 9 BCE. 9 CEU eTD Collection Fig. 3. Source : After Italiana 1965), 838. 1965), Italiana Romanum, Rome. General plan of the RomanFora (with adjustments). The Forum Augustum and the Actian Arch of Augustus on the Forum the on Augustus of Actian Arch the and Augustum The Forum EAA , vol. 6, ed. R. Bianchi Bandinelli (Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia della Istituto (Rome: Bandinelli Bianchi R. ed. 6, vol. , 93 CEU eTD Collection Source: Fig.5. The Circus Maxentiusof along theVia Appia, Rome, ca. 306 Source: Fig. 4. The Basilica Maxentiusof in the Forum Romanum,Rome, 308 Google Earth Images. Accessed May 14, 2012. 14, May Accessed Images. Earth Google The Art Archive/ Alamy Archive/ Art The 94 – 312 CE. – 312 CE. 312 CEU eTD Collection Source: Fig. 9. The Porphyry Column of Constantine in the Forum Constantini. Istanbul, ca. Istanbul, Constantini. Forum inthe Constantine of Column Porphyry The 9. Fig. Fig. The Masonry8. Obelisk ofConstantine in the hippodrome in Istanbul, ca. CE.330 Fig. The 7. Egyptian Obelisk ofConstantius II from Circus Maximus,CE.357 Piazzadi Fig. 6. The Egyptian Obelisk of Augustus from Circus Maximus, 10 BCE. Piazza del 324 Rome Laterano, in Giovanni San Popolo, Rome. The Art Archive/ Alamy Archive/ Art The – 330 CE. 95 CEU eTD Collection Source: CE. Fig. 13. A colossal bronze head of Constantine. Capitoline Museums, Rome,ca. 336 Metropolitan Museum Art, of New York, ca. 324 Fig. 12. Amarble portrait head of Constantine with eyes raised heavenward. Fig. A colossal11. marble head ofConstantine. Capitoline Museums, Rome, ca. CE. 315 Source: CE, MuseoNazionale Etrusco di VillaGiulia, Rome. Fig. 10. Amarble portrait of Augustus re-carved Constantine as from Bolsena, ca. 315 The Art Archive/ Alamy Archive/ Art The Antonio Giuliano, Scritti Minori Scritti (Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 2001), 174, fig.1. 96 – 337 CE. – 37 CEU eTD Collection Source: Fig. 15. A marble portrait head Maxentius,of ca. 306–312, Dresden. Fig. 14. Amarble portrait head Maxentiusof ca. 306 CE,Stockholm. Source: Fig. A marble17. portrait head Augustus,of ca. BCE20 Vienna. CE,– 14 Source: Fig. 16. Amarble portrait head Maxentius,of ca. 306–312,Paris. I.7.5, I.7.4. I.7.5, nos 64, 2007), Zabern, von Philipp (Mainz: Catalog Engemann. Josef and Damandt Photograph by the author. York New Resource, Art Archive/ Art The Imperator Caesar Flavius Constantinus 97 . Konstantin der Grosse , ed. Alexander ed. , CEU eTD Collection Source: Fig. 18:a) Constantine, i g d a silver medallion, 336–337CE. RIC VII Nicomedia 112, solidus, 325–326 CE;j) Constantine, Augustus, h) CE; 40 aureus, Nicomedia 41, solidus, 321–322 CE; g) Divus Augustus (rev.), Constantine, Ticinum,Ticinum 40, solidus, 315 CE; c) Constantine313 and Sol comes, gold medallionCE; from d) Maxentius, Photographs in the public domain. public inthe Photographs RIC RIC VII Ticinum 36, silver medallion, 315 CE; f)Licinius, 315 silver VIITicinum 36, medallion, e j b h VI Trier 633,aureus, 306–307CE; b)Constantine, RIC IEphesus? 486, as, ca. 25 BCE; i) Constantine, RIC 98 VIIOstia 10,aureus, 310–312CE; e) f c RIC RIC VII Siscia 259, I Rome 23, RIC RIC VII VII CEU eTD Collection Codex Inscriptionum Latinarum ChroniconPaschale 284–628 A.D. Chronicon Paschale Aurelius Victor. Aurelius Marcellinus. Ammianus Sources Eusebius. Eusebius. “ Constantinople in the Early Eighth Century: The Parastaseis Syntomoi Chronikai Eusebius of EusebiusCaesarea. of Epitome de Caesaribus.Cassius. Dio A Booklet about the Style of Life and the Manners of the Eusebius. Eusebius Werke I.1: Über das Lebendes Kaisers Konstantin In Praise of Later Roman Emperors: The Panegyrici Latini In Praise of Constantine: A Historical Study and New Translation of Eusebius’ Tricennial Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae University Press, 2007. Press, University Heinemann, 1935. Heinemann, Hinrichs, 1902, 195–259. 1863–. Lawlor. LCL.Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1926–1932. Imperatores 1927. 1984. Brill, Leiden: Herrin. Judith and Cameron Averil Oxford University 1999. Press, University Oxford 1990. 102, 103–27. Orations 2nd ed. Berlin: Akademie, 1975. Akademie, Berlin: ed. 2nd Barbara Saylor Rodgers. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994. Historia Ecclesiastica The History of the Church of History The De Laudibus Constantini De Laudibus Roman History . Tr. Harold A. Drake. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976, 83– De Caesaribus . Tr. Thomas M. Banchich. Buffalo: Canisius College,2009. . Vol. 1. Ed. L. Dindorf. Bonn, 1832. Bonn, Dindorf. L. Ed. 1. Vol. . Life of Constantine Res Gestae Res . 9 vols. Ed. and tr. E. Cary. LCL London: Heinemann, 1914– Heinemann, London: LCL Cary. E. tr. and Ed. vols. . 9 . vols.3 Ed.Hermann Dessau. Berlin: Weidmann,1892–1916. . Tr. H. W. Bird. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press,1994. . 2 vols. Ed. K. Lake. Tr. K. Lake, J. E. L. Oulton and H. J. . 16 TheodorMommsen vols. Ed. et al. Berlin: Reimer, BIBLIOGRAPHY Tr. Michael and Mary Whitby. Liverpool: Liverpool .” In: . Tr. G.A. Williamson. New York: Penguin Classics, . Vol. 1. Ed. and tr. J. C. Rolfe. LCL. London: . Tr. Averil Cameron and Stuart G. Hall. Oxford: Eusebius WerkeEusebius I. 99 . Ed. and tr. C. E. V. Nixon and . Ed. Friedhelm Winkelmann. Friedhelm . Ed. Ed. I. A. Heikel. Leipzig: . Ed. andEd.tr.. CEU eTD Collection Lactantius. Ioannis Malalae Chronographia Livy. OrigoConstantini: Anonymus Valesianus Origenis Contra Celsum Libri VIII Origen. Nicetae Choniatae Historia Pliny. Suetonius. Res Gestae Divi Augusti Divi Gestae Res Pseudo-Aurélius Victor. Plutarch. Suetonius. Scriptores Originum Constantinopolitanarum Scriptores Historiae Augustae Roman Imperial Coinage Sozomenus. Sozomen. VictorisLiber De Caesaribus Sexti Aurelii History Romeof Natural History Natural Press, 1984. Press, Press, 1953. Press, 1959. Trier: Trierer Historische Forshungen, 1987. Lettres, 1999. Lettres, 1920. Press, University Eichholz. LCL. London: Heinemann, 1962. 1913–1914. 2000. University Press,1921–1932. 1967. Press, Fathers.2nd ser.Vol. 2.Oxford: Parker, 1890. 1901–1907. Contra Celsum The Parallel Lives The Parallel Lives of the Caesars Church History from A.D. 323-425. The TwelveThe Caesars De Mortibus Persecutorum Historia Ecclesiastica Historia . Vol. 10. Books 36–37. Ed. H. Rackham and W. H. S. Jones, tr. D. E. . Vol. 14. Ed. and tr. A. C. Schlesinger. LCL. London: Heinemann, London: LCL. Schlesinger. A. C. tr. and Ed. 14. Vol. . . Ed. and tr. Henry Chadwick. Cambridge: Cambridge University Cambridge Cambridge: Chadwick. Henry tr. and Ed. . . Ed. andtr. P. A.Brunt andJ. M.Moore. Oxford: OxfordUniversity . 10 vols. Ed. Harold Mattingly et al. London: Spink, 1923–1994. Spink, London: al. et Mattingly Harold Ed. vols. . 10 Abrégé des Césars des Abrégé . Ed. JanL. van Dieten.Berlin: Walter deGruyter, 1975. . Vol.Ed. 9. and tr.Bernadotte Perrin. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard . 3 vols. Ed. and tr. David Magie. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard . 2 vols. Ed. and tr. J. C. Rolfe. LCL. London: Heinemann, . Ed. L. Dindorf. Bonn, 1831. . Tr. Catharine Edwards. Oxford: Oxford University Press, . Ed. M. Marcovich. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Brill, Leiden: Marcovich. M. . Ed. . Ed. Jacques-Paul Migne. PG 67. Paris, 1864. . Ed. and tr. J. L. Creed. Oxford: Oxford University . Part 1: Text und Kommentar. Ed. Ingemar König. . Ed. F. Pichlmayr. Munich, 1892. Munich, F. Pichlmayr. . Ed. 100 . Ed. andtr. Michel Festy. Les Paris: Belles . 2 vols. Ed. Theodor Preger. Leipzig: Teubner, Tr. C. D. Hartranft. Nicene and Post-Nicene CEU eTD Collection Architektur Erinnerung.und The Chronicle of John Malalas Ara Pacis Ando, Clifford. Alföldi, Maria R. Monogram.” Christian the with Constantine of Helmet “The ______. Alexander, Suzanne. “Studies in Constantinian Church Architecture.” Literature “The Origin of Constantine.” Tr. J. Stevenson. In: Tacitus. Tacitus. Althusser, Louis. Althusser, Alföldi, Andreas. Zosimus. Zosimus. Velleius Paterculus. The Theodosian Code and Novels and the Sirmondian Constitutions. ATranslation with Theodosiani Libri XVI cum Constitutionibus Sirmondianis 2000. 2000. Press, California of University 1948. Association for Byzantine Studies,1986. Kaiserpolitik und Hofkunst Kaiserpolitik Commentary, Glossary, and Bibliography 1971–2000. Shipley. LCL. Cambridge: HarvardUniversity Press, 1961. 1952. Press, University Mommsen and Paul M. Meyer.Berlin, 1905. 39–62. 1996, Views.Byzantine cristiana The Annals Annales New History . Histoire Nouvelle Ed. Orietta Rossini. Rome, Electa, 2006. 67, 1971, 281–330. . Vol. 1. Ed. and tr. J. Jackson. LCL. London: Heinemann, 1979. Imperial Ideology and Provincial Loyalty in the Roman Empire For Marx The Conversion Constantineof Paganand Rome Die constantinische Goldprägung: Untersuchungenzu ihrer Bedeutungfar . Tr. A. J. Woodman. Indianapolis:Hackett, 2004. Compendium of RomanHistory . Tr. R. Ridley. Sydney:University of Sydney, 1982. Ed. Samuel Ed. N. C.Lieuand Dominic Monserrat. London: Routledge, . London: The Penguin Press, 1969, 219–49. 1969, Press, ThePenguin . London: . 3 vols. Ed. and tr. François Paschoud. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, Ed.Wolfram Martini. Goettingen: Vandenhoeck Ruprecht,und . Tr. E. and M. Jeffreys and R. Scott. Melbourne: Jeffreysandand R. Australian M. . Tr.E. . Mainz: Römisch-Germanischen Zantralmuseums, 1963. 101 . Tr. Clyde Pharr. Princeton: Princeton From Constantine to Julian: Pagan and . Vol. 2. Ed. and tr. Frederick W. Vol. 1, pars posterior. Ed. Theodor . Oxford: Clarendon Press, Clarendon Oxford: . Rivistadi archeologia JRS 22, 1932, 9–23. . Berkeley: . CEU eTD Collection Boschung, Dietrich. ______. Assmann, Jan. Auerbach, Erich. “Figura.”In: idem, Berrens, Stephan. Berrens, ______. Barnes, Timothy D. Bleicken, Jochen. “Zum Regierungsstil des römischen Kaisers. Eine Antwort auf Fergus auf Antwort Eine Kaisers. römischen des Regierungsstil “Zum Jochen. Bleicken, Marianne. Bergmann, ______. “Oppressor, Persecutor, Usurper: The Meaning of ‘ Excavations.” Trust Walker the and Emperors Byzantine the of Palace Great “The ______. Jonathan. Bardill, ______Mary. Beard, Baynes, Norman Bauer, Franz Alto. H. Bassett,Sarah. 843–75. Political Imagination Political Munich: Hanser, 2000. Millar (1982).” In: Idem, Millar (1982).” JRA Cambridge University 2011.Press, Ralph Manheim. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984, 11–76. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester: University Press for the British Academy, 1930. 1996. n. Chr.). Kaiserzeit frühen der Rom 2005. Press, University Bari: Edipuglia, 1996, 55–65. Century.” In: . Studien zum römischen Porträt des 3. Jahrhunderts n.Chr. Herrschaft und Heil: Politische Theologie in Altägypten, Israel und Europa 12, 1999, 216–30. 1999, 12, Constantine: Dynasty, Religion andPowerthe Later in Roman Empire The Roman Triumph Roman The The UrbanImage of Late Antique Constantinople Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 2004. Steiner, Franz Stuttgart: Cultural Memory andEarly Civilization: Writing, Remembrance, and Sonnenkult und Kaisertum von den Severern bis Constantin.zu I(193-337 Constantine, Divine Emperor theof Christian Golden Age Stadt, Platz, und Denkmal in der Spätantike Constantine and Eusebius Die Bildnisse des Augustus Die Bildnisse des Historiae Augustae Colloquium Barcionense Constantine the Great and the Christian Church Der Koloss Neros: Die Domus Aurea und derMentalitätswandel im . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Press, University Cambridge . Cambridge: . Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1994. Zabern, von Philipp Mainz: . . Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007. Gesammelte Schriften II Gesammelte Schriften Scenes from the DramaEuropean of Literature 102 . Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1981. Press, University Harvard Cambridge: . . Berlin: Gebruder Mann, 1993. . Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1998, . Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, . Ed. GiorgioBonamente. Tyrannus . Cambridge: Cambridge Bonn: Habelt, 1977. Habelt, Bonn: . London, Oxford London, . ’ in the Fourth . Cambridge: . Tr. . . . CEU eTD Collection Bosworth, Brian. the “Augustus, ResGestae andHellenistic Theories Apotheosis.”of Brandenburg,Hugo. ______. “Oldand NewRome in Near the Late Antique East.”In: Bowersock, Glen Warren. Brown, Peter. Cameron, Alan. Cameron, inthe Fourth Anti-Pagan Legislation of the Problem “Constantine and Bradbury, Scott. ______. Canepa, Matthew P. Raissa. Calza, Burckhardt, Jacob. ______. et al., “The World of Late Antiquity Revisited,” ______. ______. “Una permanenza del Sol Invictus di Costantino nell’arte cristiana,” in cristiana,” nell’arte Costantino di Invictus Sol del permanenza “Una ______. rostres.” aux “ConstantinIn Philippe. Bruggisser, : Bruun, Dawn of Dawn of Christian Architecture in West the 1–18. 1999, 89, Bretschneider, 1972. Century.” Farnham: Ashgate,2009, 37–50. PeterBrown for Essays Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1995. Clarendon Press, 1976. 1983. Press, Macerata, 1992–1993, 219–29. Christianity and Sasanian Iran antico. Macerata 18 Il Grande dall’antichtà all’Umanesimo: Colloquio sul Christianesimo nel mondo London: Spink and Son, 1966. 59–65. Perusinum Patrick. The World ofLate Antiquity 150-750 The Body and Society: Men,Women, and Sexual RenunciationEarly in Authority theand Sacred. Aspects ofthe Christianisatonof the Roman World Iconografia romana imperiale da Carausio aGuiliano (267-363) The Roman Imperial Coinage Circus Factions. Blues andGreens at Rome and Byzantium CP . Ed. G. Bonamente andF. Paschoud. Bari: Edipuglia,2002, 73–91. The Age ofConstantine the Great . New York: Columbia University Press, 1988. 89, 1994, 120–39. 1994, 89, Ancient Churches of Rome from the Fourthtothe Seventh Century: The The Two Eyes of the Earth: Art and Ritual of Kingship between Rome . Berkeley: University of California Press, 2009. Augustus theand Greek World – 20 Dicembre 1990 . Ed. Philip Rousseau and Manolis Papoutsakis. Manolis and Rousseau Ed. Philip . 103 . Vol. 7. Constantine and Licinius A.D. 313-337. . London: Thames and Hudson, 1971. Hudson, and Thames . London: . Vol. 1. Ed. G. Bonamente and F. Fusco. . Turnhout: Brepols,2005. . Berkeley: University of California of University Berkeley: . . Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965. Historiae Augustae Colloquium Symbolae Osloenses Transformations ofLate Transformations Costantino 72, 1997, 72, . Oxford: , Rome: , JRS . CEU eTD Collection Drake, HaroldA. Digeser, E.DePalma. Davies, Penelope J.E. ______. ______. Richard. Delbrück, ______. “L’organisation et le déroulement des courses d'après le Dagron, Gilbert. Constantine theGreat: York’s RomanEmperor Dörries, Hermann. Dörries, Diokletian Tetrarchie:und die Aspekteeiner Zeitenwende. Christensen, Arne Søby. Downey, Glanville. “The Builder of the Original Church of the Apostles at Constantinople. A Cormack, Robin. Curran, John. Curran, Cullhed, Mats. Conservator Urbis Suae. H. Michael Crawford, Hopkins University Press, 2002. 1951, 51–80. 1951, Presses universitaires deFrance, 1974. Westreichs. Cambridge University 2003.Press, Augustus to Marcus Aurelius Travaux etMémoires Persecutorum. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press,1980. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2004. 2000. Press, University Cornell Contribution to the Criticism ofthe Ruprecht, 1954. Ruprecht, Oxford Museums andGallery Trust, 2006. 1974. Emperor Maxentius 1985. Press, University Naissance d'une capitale: Constantinople et ses institutions de 330 à451. Spätantike Kaiserporträts: Von Constantinus Magnus zumbis Ende des University Press, 2000. Press, University Pagan Constantine and the Bishops:The Politics of Intolerance Emperor and Priest: The Imperial Office in Byzantium Berlin: Walter deGruyter, 1933. Writing inGold: Byzantine Society and Its Icons Antike Porphyrwerke Das Selbstzeugnis Kaiser Konstantins Roman Republican Coinage Death and theEmperor: RomanImperial Funerary Monuments from City and Christian Capital: Rome in the Fourth Century The Making ofaChristian Empire. Lactantius Romeand Lactantius the Historian: An Analysis of the . Stockholm: Paul Aström, 1994. 13, 2000, 1–200. . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Press, University Cambridge Cambridge: . . Berlin: Walter Gruyter, de 1932. Studies in the Politics Propagandaand of the Vita Constantini 104 . Catalog. Ed. E. Hartley et al. York: York . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, . Goettingen: Vandenhoeck und Vandenhoeck . Goettingen: attributed to Eusebius.” AlexanderEd. Demandt et al. Livre des CérémoniesLivre . Oxford: Oxford Oxford: . . Baltimore: Johns . Cambridge: De Mortibus . Oxford: . Ithaca, DOP Paris: 6, ,” CEU eTD Collection Erinnerungsorte derAntike:Dierömische Welt. ______. “Helena Augusta, the Cross and the Myth: Some New Reflections,” Fittschen,Paul Klaus and Zanker, Feeney,Denis. Caesar’s Calendar: Ancient Time andthe Beginnings History. of Berkeley: “Inventing ______. ______. “From the Culture of Spolia to the Cult of Relics: The Arch of Constantine and “Eusebius’ Jan Willem. Drijvers, ______. ______. “Cult and Sculpture: Sacrifice in the AraPacis Augustae.” Ja Elsner, Francis. Dvornik, Flaig, Egon. Flaig, Favro, Diane. “‘ ______. Ehrhard,Christopher. “Monumental Evidence forthe Date ofConstantine’s First War ______. “Die ______. University Press Archive, 1996. Archive, Press University 11–27. 2007, Publishers, Peeters Leuven: Romeny. University of California Press, 2007. Press, California of University the Genesis of Late Antique Forms.” 1997. Rome.” In:Rome.” Christianity 2011, 125–74. In: Maxentius’.” Beck, 2006. Beck, Prinzenbildnisse Museenund den anderen kommunalen Sammlungen der Stadt Rom, I: Kaiser- und Architectural Historians Vandenhoeck undRuprecht, 1995, 115–148. In: Republik.” Römischen Against Licinius.” Against Dumbarton Oaks Center Byzantinefor Studies, 1966. Campus-Verlag, 1992. Ğ . Ritualisierte Politik Ritualisierte The Urban Image of AugustanRome Art andthe Roman Viewer: Transformation The ofArt from the PaganWorld to Den Kaiser herausfordern: Die Usurpationinrömischen Reich Pater urbis’ Pater Pompa Funebris Early Christian and Byzantine Political Philosophy . Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1995. Art andText in Roman Culture Imperium . Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1985. From Rome to Constantinople Ancient World : Augustus as City Father of Rome.” . Goettingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 2003. Ruprecht, und Vandenhoeck . Goettingen: 51 no. 1, 1992, 61–84. 1992, 1, no. 51 : Texts and the Propaganda of Monuments in Augustan . Adlige Konkurrenz und annalistische Erinnerung in der Erinnerung annalistische und Konkurrenz Adlige . Memoria Kulturals Vita ConstantiniVita Katalog der römischen Portraits in den Capitolinischen 23, 1992, 87–96. PBSR 105 . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 68, 2000, 149–84. Ed. Karl-Joachim Hölkeskamp. Munich: . Ed. Ja and the ConstructionImage ofthe of . Ed. Otto Gerhard Oexle. Goettingen: Oexle. Gerhard Otto . Ed. . Ed. H. Amirav and B. ter Haar Ğ Elsner. Cambridge: Cambridge Journal ofthe Society of JRS . Vol. 2. Washington: 81,1991, 50–61. Millenium . Frankfurt: 8, CEU eTD Collection From Caligula to Constantine: Tyranny and Transformation in Roman Portraiture Girardet, Klaus M. Klaus Girardet, Giard, Jean-Baptiste. Geiger, Joseph. Galinsky,Karl. Freyberger, Klaus Stefan. ______. “Venus, Polysemy, and the Constantine.” of Days Last “The ______. ______. Grünewald, Thomas. Goppelt, Leonhard. Giuliano, Antonio. “Augustus-Constantinus.” In: Idem, Alfred.Frazer, “The Iconography of theEmperor Maxentius’ Buildings in Via Appia.” ______. “Nicagoras Athensof and the Lateran Obelisk.” Fowden, Garth. “Constantine’s Porphyry Column: The Earliest Literary Allusion.” ______. Flower, Harriet. Flower, Bibliothèque Nationale, 1976. Leiden: Brill, 2008. R. Varner.Catalog. Atlanta: Michael C. Carlos Museum, 2000. University Press, 1996. Press, University Rom 1991, 119–31. Bretschneider, 2001, 173–82. 2001, Bretschneider, Art Bulletin GrandRapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing,1982. Religionspolitik Konstantins des Großen Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993. Press, University Princeton Princeton: Hill: University of North 2006. Carolina Press, 1996. Press, University zeitgenössischen Überlieferung zeitgenössischen The Art Forgetting:of Disgrace and Oblivionin RomanPolitical Culture. . Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 2009. Zabern, von Philipp . Mainz: Empire to Commonwealth. Consequences of Monotheism in Late Antiquity The First Hall of Fame. A Study ofthe Statues in the Forum Augustum Ancestor Masks and Aristocratic PowerRoman in Culture Augustan Culture: An Interpretive Introduction Interpretive An Culture: Augustan 48, 1966, 385–92. Typos: The Typological Interpretation of the Old Testament in the New Der Kaiser und sein Gott. Das Christentum im Denken und in der Catalogue des monnaies l’empirede Romaine, I. Auguste Constantinus Maximus Augustus. Herrschaftspropagandain der Das Forum Romanum: Spiegel der Stadtgeschichte des antiken . Stuttgart:. Franz Steiner, 1990. Ara Pacis Augustae JRS 106 . Berlin: Walter deGruyter, 2010. 83, 1993, 146–70. 1993, 83, .” Scritti Minori Scritti JHS AJA 107, 1987, 51-7. 96, 1992, 457–75. 1992, 96, . Princeton: Princeton . Rome: L’Erma di , Oxford: Oxford Oxford: , . Ed. Eric JRS . Paris: Chapel The 81, . . CEU eTD Collection I loughi del consenso imperiale. Il Foro di Augusto. Il Foro di Trajano II. Johnson, Mark Joseph. Mark Johnson, Raymond. Janin, Imperator Caesar Flavius Constantinus Hopkins, Keith. “Rules Evidence.”of ______. Hölscher, Tonio. “Images of War in Greece andRome: Between Military Practice, Public Hedrick,Charles. Hijmans, Steven “TheE. SunWhichNot Rise Did inthe East: CultThe of Sol Invictus in the Heather, Peter.“New Men Newfor Constantines? Creating Imperialan Elite in the Eastern Niels. Hannestad, Harrison, Evelyn B. “The Constantinian Portrait,” Hall,Linda Jones. “Cicero’s Halbwachs, Maurice. Alan. Robert Gurval, Guthrie, Patrick. “The Execution of Crispus.” Humphries, Mark. “From Usurper to Emperor: The Politics of Legitimation in the Age of Josef Engemann.Catalog. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 2007. M. Milella.Catalog. Rome,1995, 19-97. Cambridge University 2009.Press, topographique 2004. Memory, and Cultural Symbolism.” 33. Byzantium, 4th-13th Centuries. Light ofNon-Literary Evidence.” Antiquity Mediterranean.”In: Constantine.” Evidence Arch of the of Constantine the for Senatorial View ofthe Vision of University of Chicago Press, 1992. Press, Chicago of University Production Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1998. Press, Michigan of University Arbor: Constantine.” The Language ofImages in RomanArt . Austin: University of Texas Press, 2000. Press, of Texas University . Austin: . Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1994. History andSilence: The Purge Rehabilitationand ofMemory in Late Tradition inLate Antique Sculpture: Conservation,Modernization, Journal of Early Christian Christian Studies ofEarly Journal JLA Actium and Augustus: The Politics and Emotions of Civil War Constantinople byzantin: développement urbainet répertoire . 2nd ed. Paris: Institut Français d'Études Byzantines, 1964, 77–80. 1964, Byzantines, d'Études Français Institut Paris: ed. . 2nd On Collective MemoryOn 1 no. 1, 2008, 82–100. 2008, 1, no. 1 The Roman Imperial Mausolea in Late Antiquity New Constantines instinctu divino JRS Ed. Paul. Magdalino. Aldershot: Ashgate, 1994, 11– . Konstantin der Grosse Bulletin Antieke Beschaving 68, 1978. 178–86. JRS 107 Phoenix and Constantine’s 93, 2003, 1–17. . Tr. and ed. Lewis A. Coser. Chicago: : DOP . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, The Rhythm of Imperial Renewal in ImperialRenewal Rhythm of The 4, 1966, 325–31. 1966, 4, 21,1967, 79–96. 6, 1998, 647–71. 1998, 6, . Ed. Alexander. Ed. Damandt and instinctu divinitatis instinctu 71, 1996, 115–50. Ed. L.Ungaro and L.Ungaro Ed. . Cambridge: . Ann : The CEU eTD Collection L’Orange,Hans Peter. Leppin, HartmutHauke and Ziemssen. Lenski, Noel. “Evoking the Pagan Past: Leeb, Rudolf. Bertrand. Lançon, Lamp, KathleenLamp, S. “‘ACity of Brick’: Visual Rhetoric inRoman Rhetorical Theory and Krautheimer, Richard. ______. Frank. Kolb, Kuhoff, Wolfgang. “Ein Mythos in der römischen Geschichte: Der sieg Konstantins des Ingrun. Köb, Kockel, Valentin. “ Kleiner, Diana. Alistair. Kee, Kaiser Augustus und dieverlorene Republik: eine Ausstellung imMartin-Gropius-Bau, ______. on Silences Marcellinus’ Ammianus the Old: and Rome “The New ______. Kelly,Gavin. von Zabern, 2007. Zabern, von London: Routledge, 2000. Rome.” Practice.” 1991, 127–74. Grossen über Maxentius vorden Toren Roms am 28. October n.312 Chr.” Berlin, 7.Juni-14. August 1988 Margareta Steinby. Rome: Quasar, 1995, 289–95. 1995, Quasar, Rome: Steinby. Margareta 1988. Zabern, der Forum Romanun und der Kaiserfora in Kaiserzeit.der Constantinople.” 2008. Press, University 1982. Penguin,1986. Rom: die Geschichte der Stadt in der Antike inder derStadt Geschichte Rom: die Rome: Profile of a City 312-1308 Diokletian und die ersteDiokletian und die Tetrarchie Rom – Ein Stadtzentrum im Wandel. Untersuchungenzur Funktion und Nutzung Konstantin und Christus Constantine Versus Christ: The Triumph ofIdeology JLA Roman Sculpture Ammianus Marcellinus: The Allusive Historian Philosophy and Rhetoric Rome inLate Antiquity: Everyday Life and Urban Change, AD312 Forum Augustum 1, 2008, 206–59. 2008, 1, Apotheosis in Ancient Portraiture Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture Byzantine and Christian Early CQ 53, 2003, 588–607. . New. Haven: Yale University Press, 1992. .” In: . Berlin:. Walter deGruyter, 1992. Maxentius: Der letzte Kaiser inRom Kaiser Der letzte Maxentius: . Ed. M. Hofter et al. Catalog. Mainz: Philipp von Instinctu divinitatis Instinctu 44no. 2, 2011, 171–93. Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae . Princeton: Princeton University University 2000. . Princeton: Princeton Press, 108 . Berlin: Walter Gruyter, de 1987. . Munich: C.H.Beck, 2002. . Oslo: H. Aschehoug, 1947. andConstantine’s Capture of Hamburg: Kova Hamburg: . Cambridge: Cambridge . 4th ed. Harmondsworth: . London: SCM Press, SCM London: . . Mainz: Philipp Mainz: . þ Chiron 2 , 2000. , . Ed. Eva – 609 21, . CEU eTD Collection Murphy,Trevor. Miller, John F. ______. “ThePeace the of Momigliano,Arnaldo, “The Disadvantages of Monotheism fora Universal State.” Millar, Fergus. Michael. McCormick, Matthews, John. “The Roman Empire and the Proliferation of Elites.” McGinn, Thomas, “The Social Policy of Emperor Constantine in McCormack, Sabine. McCormack, Mayer, Emanuel. ______. al. et ______. Marlowe, Elizabeth.“Framing the Sun: The Arch ofConstantine the and Roman Cityscape.” ______. Mango, Cyril. “Constantine’s Mausoleum and theLoraux, NicoleTranslation of Relics.” ______. ______. Oxford University 2004. Press, University Oxford 4, 1986, 285–97. 2009. 1981. Press, 3.” and the Early Medieval West Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, 2002. Zentralmuseums, Römisch-Germanischen II. zu Theodosius bis vonDiocletian Reiches dezentralisiert des 429–46. Art Bulletin Books, 2002. 284-361 n.Chr 62. 1939. Der spätantike Bildschmuck des Konstantinsbogens Tijdschrift voorTijdschrift Rechtsgeschiedenis Studies on Constantinople The Roman Empire: Art Forms and Civic Life Civic and Forms Art Empire: Roman The Studien zur Geschichte des spätantiken Porträts . The Divided City: Forgetting in the Memory of Athens The Emperor in the Roman World Apollo, Augustus, and thePoets Das spätantike Herrscherbild von Diokletian bis zu den Konstantin-Söhnen, Pliny the Elder’s Natural History: The Empire inthe Encyclopedia Rom ist dort, wo der Kaiser ist: Untersuchungen zuden staatsdenkmälern 88 no. 88 2, 2006, 223–42. Art andCeremony in Late Antiquity . Berlin: G. Mann,1984. Eternal Victory: Triumphal Rulership in Late Antiquity, Byzantium, Antiquity, inLate Rulership Victory:Triumphal Eternal Ara Pacis . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Press, University Cambridge Cambridge: . . Aldershot: Variorum, 1993. .” JWarb 109 67,1999, 57–73. 5, 1942, 228–31. . London: Duckworth, 2001. Duckworth, London: . . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, . New York: Rizzoli, 1965. . Berkeley: University of California . Roma: Bretschneider, 1965. . Berlin: Walter Gruyter, de Codex Codex Theodosianus Mainz: Verlag des Verlag Mainz: Arethusa . New York: Zone BZ 83, 1990, 51– 1990, 83, 33, 2000, 33, CP . Oxford: . 81 no. 81 4, 6, CEU eTD Collection ______. Carl. Schmitt, Safran, “What Linda. Constantine on Saw.Reflections the Capitolone Colossus, Visuality Rodgers, Barbara S. “The Metamorphosis of Constantine.” of Metamorphosis “The S. Barbara Rodgers, Riegl, Alois. Rich, John W. “Augustus’ ParthianHonours, the Temple of Mars Ultor andthe Arch in the ______. Price, Simon. “From Noble Funerals to Divine Cult: The Consecration of Roman Emperors.” Rapp, Claudia. “Imperial Ideology in the Making: Eusebius of Caesarea on Constantine as Pohlsander, Hans A. “Crispus: Brilliant Career andTragic End.” Peterson, Peirce, Phllip. “The Arch Constantine:of Propaganda and Ideology in Late Roman Art.” Josiah. Osgood, Panofsky, Erwin. Panofsky, Oxford History of Byzantium Opelt, Ilona.“Augustustheologie und Augustustypologie. ” Nora, Pierre. “Between Memory and History: Memory “Between Pierre. Nora, Nelis, Damien and Jocelyne Nelis-Clément, “Vergil, Georgics 1.1–42 andthe Jocelyne and Nelis, Damien “Vergil,Georgics 1.1–42 Nelis-Clément, Cambridge: Polity Press, [1970] 2008. andEarly Christian Studies.” The MIT Press, [1922] 1985. [1922] Press, MIT The Forum Romanum Cannadine and S. Price. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992, 56–105. 1992, Press, University Cambridge Cambridge: Price. and S. Cannadine In: Bishop.” Cambridge University 1984.Press, 2011. Press, University Christentum 1989, 7–25. History Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. circensis. Erik. Rituals of Royalty: Power and Ceremonial in Traditional Societies Traditional Ceremonial in Powerand Royalty: of Rituals Political Theology II. The Myth of the Closure of Any Political Theology of AnyPolitical Closure Myththe of II.The Theology Political Rituals andPower: TheRoman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor Late Roman Art Industry Political Theology: Four Chaptersthe on Concept of Sovereignty 12,1989, 387–418. Theological Tractates Caesar’s Legacy: Civil War and the Emergence ofthe Roman Empire. JThS ” Studies in Iconology Dictynna 4,1961, 44–57. 49, 1998, 685–95. .” PBSR 8, 2011, 1–14. 2011, 8, . Ed.Cyril Mango. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. 66, 1998, 71–128. 1998, 66, Millenium . Rome: G. Bretschneider, 1985. Bretschneider, G. Rome: . . New York: Harper and Row, 1972. . Ed. and tr. M. J. Hollerich. Stanford: Stanford 110 3, 2006, 43–73. 2006, 3, Les Lieux deMémoire Lieux Les CQ 39, 1989, 233–46. 1989, 39, Historia Jahrbuch für Antike und .” 23, 1984, 79–106. 1984, 23, Representations . Cambridge: . Cambridge: . Ed. D. pompa 26, Art . CEU eTD Collection Szidat, Joachim. Szidat, Syme, Ronald. The Cambridge Companion tothe Age of Constantine Spannagel, Martin.Exemplaria principis The Museum of the Imperial Forums in Trajan’s Market inTrajan’s Forums Imperial ofthe Museum The Sutherland, Stephenson, Paul. ______. “Roman Portraits.Honours, Empresses, andLate Emperors.” Usurpationenin der Spätantike The Oxford History of Byzantium. ______. “Typology andDiversity in the Portraits of Augustus.” ______. “The Public Image of Licinius I: Portrait Sculpture and Imperial Ideology in the Van Dam, Raymond. ______. “Nero and the Sun-god: Divine Accessories and Political Symbols in Roman ______. Smith, R. Simon, Erika. ______. n. Chr.) Cambridge University Press, Vitellius, 31BC AD – 69 Faber,2009. 1999. Geschichte, und Early Fourth Century.” 2007, 118–69. 21. Steiner Verlag, 1997. Imperial Images.” Cambridge University 2011.Press, 1986. 2007. The Concept of the PoliticalThe Concept ofthe The Roman Revolution Constantine of C. H. V.. . Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 2010. Augustus: Kunst und Lebenin Rom um die Zeitenwende The RomanRevolution Hellenistic Royal Portraits Royal Hellenistic Usurpator tanti nominis: Kaiser und Usurpator in der Spätantike (337-476 Constantine: UnconqueredEmperor, Christian Victor The Roman Imperial Coinage Remembering Constantine at the Milvian Bridge JRA 13, 2000, 532–42. JRS . Ed. François Paschoud and Joachim Szidat. Stuttgart: Franz . London: Spink and Son, 1984. Son, and Spink London: Ed. Cyril Mango. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 2002. 87,1997, 170–202. 2006. . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1939. Press, University Oxford . Oxford: . Chicago: The University of ChicagoPress, 1996. . Augustusforum . Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988. 111 . Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, . Vol. 1 Revised Edition: Augustus to . Ed.. Lucrezia Ungaro. Rome: Electa, . Heidelberg: Verlag Archäologie Verlag Heidelberg: . . Ed. Noel Lenski. Cambridge: JRA 9, 1996, 30–47. 1996, 9, . London: Faber and Faber . London: JRS . Munich: Hirmer, 75,1985, 209– . Cambridge: CEU eTD Collection Walker, Susan. “The Moral Museum: Augustus and the City of Rome.” In: ______. “Foucault révolutionne l’histoire,” ______. “Conduct Without Belief and Works of Art Without Viewers.” Veyne,Paul. Wallace-Hadrill, Andrew.“Image Authority and in the Coinage of Augustus.” Friedrich. Vittinghoff, ______. ______. “The Golden Age andSin in Augustan Ideology.” Varner, EricR. ______. Zanker, Paul. Wright, DavidH. “TheTrue Face of Constantine the Great.” ______. David.Woods, “On the Death the of Empress Fausta.” Wardman, Alan E. “Usurpers and Internal Conflicts in the 4th century AD.” Weiss, Peter. “The Vision ofConstantine.” University School of Archaeology, 2000, 61–75. The Archaeology theof Eternal City ‘ 1988, 1–22. (1986): 401–19. Portraiture 66–87. Press, 1990. Press, University of California Press, 1995. Press, California of University 36. 1984, 220–37. 1968. Damnatio Memoriae. When Our World Became Christian, 312-394 The Power ofImages in the Age of Augustus The Mask of Socrates: The Image of the Intellectual in Antiquity Intellectual the of The Image ofSocrates: Mask The Bread and Circuses and Bread Forum Augustum: Das Bildprogramm Mutilation and Transformation. . Leiden:. Brill, 2004. Der Staatfeind in der Römischen Kaiserzeit. Untersuchungen zur ’ Berlin: Junker undDünnhaupt, 1936. . London: The Penguin Press, 1990. JRA . Ed. J. Coulston and H. Dodge. Oxford: Oxford 112 Information sur les Sciences Sociales sur lesSciences Information 16, 2003,237–59. Damnatio Memoriae Damnatio Greece Rome and . Tubingen: Verlag Ernst Wasmuth, Ernst Verlag . Tubingen: . Ann Arbor: University of Michigan . Cambridge: Polity, 2010. DOP Past andPresent 41, 1987, 493–507. and Roman Imperial 45,1998, 70–86. Ancient Rome: Diogenes 95, 95, 1982, 19– JRS Historia . Berkeley: . 76, 1986, 25, no. 2 143, 33,