Images and Image. a Re-Examination of Tetrarchic Iconography

7/30/2019 Images and Image. a Re-Examination of Tetrarchic Iconography

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/images-and-image-a-re-examination-of-tetrarchic-iconography 1/21

Images and Image: A Re-Examination of Tetrarchic Iconography

Author(s): Roger ReesSource: Greece & Rome, Second Series, Vol. 40, No. 2 (Oct., 1993), pp. 181-200Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/643157 .

Accessed: 21/04/2013 15:25

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

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Cambridge University Press and The Classical Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve

and extend access to Greece &Rome.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 89.180.171.15 on Sun, 21 Apr 2013 15:25:21 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=classical

http://www.jstor.org/stable/643157?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp





http://www.jstor.org/stable/643157?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=classical

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup



Greece& Rome, Vol.xl, No. 2, October1993

IMAGES AND IMAGE:A RE-EXAMINATION OF TETRARCHIC

ICONOGRAPHY'

By ROGER REES

Considerationof Tetrarchicportraiturehas usually focused on the extant

porphyrysculptures(plates 2, 6, 7, 9, and 10).This was perhapsinevitable,since the arrestingeyes of the Cairobust or the stubbylegs of the Vatican

groups are certainlycurious.Few scholars have resisted the temptationto

pronouncetheir aesthetic judgement(andwhy not?),but none has been as

caustic as BernardBerenson who saw in them 'the meanest symptoms of

decay', an effect into which the sculptor had 'simply blundered and

stumbled'.2Berenson's book and many of the other academic workswhich

refer to the porphyrysculptures address the wider issue of style and, in

particular,stylistic change in Late Antiquity.They cite the same art, but

draw a range of conclusions:L'Orange proposes parallels between styleand the structureof society;Kitzingersuggests a conscious approximation

to a 'sub-antique'style; and Bandinelli sees the porphyrywork as excep-tional, specialized and short-lived.3Without neglecting the porphyrysculpture,the present essay aims to considerthe whole range of surviving

portraitsand to make sense of them within the relativelynarrow field ofTetrarchic ideology. This necessarily involves the question of style and,

therefore,has points of contact with the above ideas.However,the present

study is primarily'internal',drawing together images diversein form and

location.Patterns are soon apparent,but the Tetrarchyhad to establishits

ideological stability and credibility if the government were to endure. It

collapsedquickly(A.D.84-311), but in this respect,Tetrarchicportraitureoffers a good example of the power of art to manipulate its audience by

instillingbelief.

Despite the fact that many details from the Archof Galeriusin Salonicahave been eroded,more remains of the Arch than of any other Tetrarchic

monument.4The Archformedpartof the Emperor'spalacecomplexthere.On the east and south faces of the north pier, events from the victorious

campaign against the Persian king Narses in A.D. 97 by the Tetrarch

Galerius are recorded.On the east face, in descending order, the reliefsdepict the Roman cavalry charge, the captureof a Persian harem and the

pursuitof the Persians; he south face depictsthe finalbattle,the migration







182 IMAGES AND IMAGE

andsubmissionof the Persiansandthe adventusof the victoriousTetrarch.

Accordingto documentarymode of representation,therefore, the monu-

ment is a triumphal arch, specifically celebratingGalerius' victory. The

relief panels on the north pier do not narrate the campaign as compre-

hensively as, for example, Trajan's Column catalogues that emperor'sDacian expedition;however, details such as the inscription HOTAMOC

TIFPIC (on the panel of the pursuit of the Persians), and the peculiarbattledressof the opposing forces (in the scene of the final battle), would

have enabled the originalviewers to locate these reliefs in time and spaceandthus see them as illustrationsof the recentpast.Erosion,the paucityof

epigraphyand the lack of a literary history of the campaign combine to

prevent the modern viewer from relating the surviving relief panels tospecifichistorical events with such confidence.

On the west face of the same north pier two relief panels appearwhich

have both been identified as scenes of clementiaAugusti.5The scenes are

almostidentical.If one scene representsGalerius,then that panelmay be a

furtherexampleof the narrativemode of representation.The secondscene,

therefore, may have greater symbolic significance. Perhaps the scene

features the senior Tetrarch Diocletian. If so, then this juxtaposition of

similar scenes illustrates the concurrencyof narrativeand symbolicmodes

in Roman art.The panels on the south pier feature this symbolic mode. On the west

face of the south pier, the panel reliefsdepict, in descendingorder, victoria

Orientis,virtusAugusti,pompa riumphalis,ndfinallyat the bottoma

badly damaged scene of Roma personified and winged Victoriae.These

scenes were inspiredby Galerius'victory,but are a celebrationratherthan

a record.The lack of representationof historical fact and the multiple use

of personificationgive the west face a totally symbolicfunction.

On the east face of the south pier a panel depicts a sacrifice (Plate 1).The ceremonyis conductedby two centralfigures, identifiedby Rothman

as Galeriusand Diocletian.6Diocletian as AugustusJovius had nominated

Galerius as his Caesar in A.D. 93 and thus there was a bond between the

two. This link is confirmed here by virtue of Galerius' victory and

Diocletian's superiority.The fact that the two of them are celebrated

together makes their group identity as importantas their individualcon-

tribution.

Group identity, in fact, provides the key to much Tetrarchic art.

Examples of such art are heavily symbolic, because,in

reality,the four

Tetrarchs rarely saw each other. The most famous example of this con-

cordia mperatorums the porphyrygroupfrom Constantinople,now in the







IMAGES AND IMAGE 183

Plate 1. Sceneof sacrificerom heArchof Galerius.ReproducedromPondRothman,

AJA 81 (1977), fig. 20. By permissionof the Syndicsof CambridgeUniversityLibrary.

DucalPalace,Venice(Plate2).7In the group,concordias established y

homogeneity. ndividualityhas been suppressedand insteadthe four

figureshavesimilarpostures:he dress s military;heir eft handsare on

the handlesof their swords,their right armsaround heirneighbour'sshoulder ndtheir eetequally paced.Thepose shighly tylized, reatingan effect of regimentation. he overridingmessageof the groupis thattheirstrengthiesin theirunityandsolidarity.

The frescoes n the Cult Room at Luxordepictedall four emperors,althoughEgyptwaspartof Diocletian's llottedprovince.8 ecker's econ-

structionncludes,on thesouthwall,highabove hefriezeof theRomansandto left of the recess,a scene in whichtwo emperorsare enthroned

(plate3).Beneath the

emperorsis a

jewel-encrustedoot-rest.The

emperors redressedn ceremonial obes,notmilitaryuniforms.The fact

thatthe emperoron the left is noticeablybiggerhelpsto identifyhim as

Diocletian, or, as Augustus oviusandTetrarch n chargeof Egypt,healone wouldhavebeenaccorded his honour. dentification f the otherTetrarch is more difficult.The obvious candidatesare Maximian,as

AugustusHerculius,andGalerius,as Diocletian'schosen Caesar.How-

ever,this problemof identificationmaybe solvedby the hypothesishatthecorrespondinglace o therightof therecessoriginally ad aduplicate

sceneof two emperors nthroned.t is unlikelyhatthe spacewouldhavebeen eftblank, o althoughhere s no evidenceo putanythinghereon a

reconstruction,hehypothesiss attractive.Notonlywouldaduplicationf








Plate2. Porphyry group, Venice. Photo: Ian McAuslan.







Plate 3. Reconstructionof the LuxorCult Room byJ. G. Decker,JDAI 94 (1








this scene enable all four Tetrarchs to be depictedenthroned,and therebyemphasizehomogeneityand concordia,but also the symmetryachievedbysuch a duplication would focus the viewer's attention on the central

recess.9

The importanceof this recessis establishedby its centralpositionon thesouth wall by the columns with Corinthian capitals which frame anddecorate the scene.The frescoin the recesswas of fouremperors,obviouslythe entire Tetrarchy.The figures are all full-length and larger than the

other figures on the lower panels in the room. No overlapping of the

emperorsoccurs and their frontalityis arresting.Equaldimensionsamongthe four figurescouldsuggestequalstatus,but the sidefiguresareapproxi-

mately ten centimetressmaller than the centralpair.In addition,by theirposition beside the framing architecture, the outer figures are further

optically underemphasized. Therefore, the middle figures are more

important.All the Tetrarchs arenimbate and wear the imperialpurple.The

two central figures, by their greater size and more prestigious position,

representDiocletian and Maximian,the Augusti.Unlike the two Caesars,Galerius and Constantius, the Augusti carry orbs. Furthermore, one

Augustus carries a staff. It is this extra symbol of authoritythat identifiesthe left central emperor as Diocletian. Thus the south wall of the Cult

Room at Luxor is highlysymbolic.This hegemonyis a rich and unified ruleof four. However,within the Tetrarchy,there is a definite hierarchy,with

the AugustusJovius,Diocletian, at the top.On the north face of the south pier of the Arch of Galerius, a relief of

enthroned emperors appears (Plate 4).10 All four emperors are depicted,two of them enthroned and flankedby the others.This correspondsto the

established hierarchy of the Augusti and the Caesars:Diocletian and

Maximian are seated, flanked by Galerius and Constantius.By his more

pronouncedfrontalityand the

gestureof his left hand - it is

majesticallyraised to the skies - Diocletian can be differentiated from Maximian.

Despite his readiness to see historicalnarrative in most of the reliefs, the

Danish archaeologist Kinch did recognize.the symbolic import of this

panel:

For it is sufficientlyclear that the Arch was dedicated not to Galeriusalone,but to the four

emperors n general;we knowthat, accordingto the hierarchical ystemof government,the

honour of the victory,althoughit was achievedby one emperoralone,was thoughtto reflect

on the whole group of emperorsand particularlyon the two Augusti."1

This presentation of the unified yet rigidly hierarchicalTetrarchy is in

exact accordwith the Luxorfrescoes,despitethe distancein milesbetween








Plate 4. Scene of emperorsenthronedfromthe Arch of Galerius.Reproduced rom Pond

Rothman AJA 81 (1977), fig. 24. By permissionof the Syndicsof CambridgeUniversity

Library.

the monuments.The repetitionof the figures in a hierarchicalprogramme

exemplifies a key aspect of Tetrarchicrule.

The internalhierarchy

of the Tetrarchscorresponds closely

to the

gradationaccordingto rank upon which militaryunits are organized.On

the Arch of Galerius, martial victory is a recurrent theme. For example,there is the scene of the cavalrychargeon the east face of the northpieror

the symbolic scene of combat between Galerius and Narses on the north

face of the south pier.In the Luxor frescoes, the emperorsthemselves are

not in militarydress,but a processionwith warhorsesdoes extend over the

east wall.The soldierswear no helmets or armour,but arerecognizablebytheir roundshields,spearsand shortswords.It has been suggestedthat the

scene representsa type of adventus,celebratingvictoryin a bellum ivile.12The regimentationby similitudoof the porphyrygroup in Venice has

been noted, but has been claimed as a common feature of Tetrarchic








coinage too.13At the beginningof his reign,Diocletianinitiatedno changein the establishedcoin types.However, sometime in the 280s or early290s,a variety of changes in the style of aurei were introduced. Heads in very

high relief and abbreviated egends could be seen.Portraitsvaried,especi-ally from mint to mint, but similarities between the two emperors,Diocletian andMaximian,featuredin manyissues.These changesarehard

to interpret.Webb understood them to be anticipatingDiocletian's mint

reforms.14At the very least, the uniformity of change in the aurei issues

bespoke the concordiaof the dyarchy.The exact date of Diocletian's mint reforms has been variously con-

tested, with suggestions ranging from A.D.92 tO A.D.96. Sutherland's

claim forA.D.

294 isattractive,

notonly

because itoccupies

the sensible

middle ground within the debate, but also because it was concludedfrom

the most thorough survey of the surviving coinage ever made." The

significanceof mint distribution or soldierswas that they neededcurrencyif their loyalty were to be maintained.As the garrisons were regularlystationedin distantparts,mints had to be establishedthere too.Therefore,from c.A.D.94, two new mints were built, at AquileiaandNicomedia,and

a third was built at Salonica c.A.D.98. One aspect of Tetrarchic rule

reflectedin coins, therefore,was its diffusion.This, of course,was a neces-

sary prerequisiteto the militaryand fiscal reformswhich formed a majorpart of Tetrarchicpolicy.

Diocletian's rationalization of the mints and the creation of the

Tetrarchy were possibly coincidental, but certainly the adaptations in

numismatic art clearly celebrated them both. Through the new but

uniformiconographybetween C.A.D.94 and c. A.D. 05, the economycould

be seen as stable,and the rulingbody as united.The new portraitstyle was

bold but not primitive.The emperorsare generallyshown as hardyrulers

with short hair, bearded, withstrong, square jaws,and eyes which stare straight ahead. The neck is

unnaturally thick, the lips tight and the eyebrows

sternlyfurrowed(plate 5).This commonimageis not

military, but it does establish a sense of efficiency,

severity, and duty - all necessary attributes of

militaryrule.

There has been considerabledifferenceof opinionas to the extent of this uniformity.Sutherlanddenied

that there was a deliberateportrayalof one emperorwith the legendof another,but didacknowledge hat,

occasionally, any one mint was naturally prone to

Plate 5. Coin of

Diocletian,minted

after currencyreforms.Ashmolean

Museum, Oxford.








assimilate the features of the emperors.'6What is clear, however, is that

iconographic uniformity was not restricted to the imperial image; the

reverse types and legends on bronze and silver coinage at the time of the

first Tetrarchy are universal." The Western mints showed topical and

regional variety at times, but basically, there is evidence of effective

centralized control of the mints by the rationalis until C.A.D.05. The

bronze issues normally celebrate Romanitas with the legend genio populiRomani, or to coincidewith the MaximalEdict on Prices in c.A.D.300, the

legend sacra Moneta. The silver regularly depicts the four emperors at

sacrificewith an accompanying egend stressingthe harmonyof the army,such as concordiamilitum or virtus militum. Gold issues show greater

variety, but generally tend to celebrate the emperorsin traditional,cere-monial types. Through such similarity in iconography, the concordia

imperatorumwas vigorouslypresented.

Many of the extant busts of the Tetrarchs are also in the harsh,angular

style which so dominated the coinage.'"A portrait of Licinius (?) at the

Egyptian Museum, Cairo, has highly stylized, short-cropped hair and

beard,pronounced,lineareyebrowsandwrinkles,and eyes with a piercingstare (plate 6). Another porphyrybust, this time of Diocletian (?), at theWorcesterArt Museum, Massachusetts, has similar features, though the

emperoris older and the bust has greaterplasticity (plate 7). More plasticstill is the bust at the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, Copenhagen, againidentified as Diocletian (?) (plate 8). The original location and context ofthese busts are unknown.However, the two porphyrybusts, in Cairo and

Massachusetts,have much in commonwith the porphyrygroupsculptures.Porphyry was only found in natural resources in Egypt, and it has been

suggested that Egypt provided the sculptors to create these works too,

bringingwith them their own artisticheritageand inclinations.This hypo-thesis is, of course,

possible,even

probable,but it does not account for the

similitudo.between porphyrybusts and the marble works, such as that in

Copenhagen. Of these three works, the Cairo bust is clearly the least

organic, with its hair and beard appearingoverlaid and the symmetryofthe eyebrows,wrinkles, and eyes appearingabsolute.The eyes stand out,

aggressive and threatening.The hair on the MassachusettsDiocletian is

scantily incised. It is receding over the forehead which is massivelyexaggerated in size. This feature and the wrinkles on the forehead andunder and beside the eyes, give a sense of age and wisdom. The Copen-

hagen bust lacks this inorganic form, but has the impressionisticincisedhair and beard and the direct gaze which matches the dignity of the two

porphyryworks. It is the similitudoof these busts which makes identifica-








Plate 6. Licinius(?), EgyptianMuseum,Cairo.








Plate 7. Diocletian (?),WorcesterArtMuseum, Worcester,Massachusetts.








Plate 8. Diocletian(?), Ny CarlsbergGlyptotek.








tion difficult and tentative. Likewise, on some coin issues from the same

mints, portraitscan only be identifiedby the accompanying egend.These

coin and bust images do not so much identify the individual as they do the

individual'srole.In this way, groupidentify and the concordiamperatorumbecome paramount.

Confirmationof the Tetrarchs' desire to achieve groupidentity may be

found in diverse sculptural programmes.Rothman has conjectured that

effigies of the Tetrarchsappearedon the facadeabove the mainpiersof the

Arch of Galerius, citing other programmes as parallels.19Outside the

temple complexat Luxor,on the north-westside,fourlargecolumns,which

once supportedstatues,have been found.20Epigraphyshows dedicationsto

Diocletian, Galerius, Maximian,and Constantius(the firstTetrarchy).Onthe east side of the complex were four more, dedicated to Licinius,

Galerius, Constantine,and Maximin Daia (the adaptedand reconstituted

secondTetrarchy).These groupshave been datedto A.D.00 andA.D.08/9

respectively.A similargroup was erected in the Forum Romanum as partof the firstTetrarchy'sdecennaliacelebrations, n A.D.03/4.21 This regularinclination to representthe entire ruling body together is of fundamental

importanceto the political ideology of the Tetrarchy.A similar message is conveyed by the two group statues now in the

Vatican Library, Rome (plates 9 and 10). Both works are made ofporphyry. n dress, stance, andface all four emperorsarevery similar.One

group has been identified as Diocletian and Maximian, and the other as

Constantius and Galerius.22However, the Tetrarchic image often defies

modern attempts to identify individualemperors.It was the ruling body,not its constituent members, the office and not the man, which was of

primaryimportance.The legs of the emperorsare squat and compressed,

yet the arms of the two left-hand Tetrarchs are outsize in order to reach

acrossto the left shoulderof thecompanion

Tetrarchwithoutaffecting

the

groups' frontality or obscuringvision. All four emperorscan thus form a

iunctio, ymbolicof concordiamperatorum.These two works areclearlycomparable o the groupat Venice(plate 2).

However, instead of the oriental sword, the emperors in these smaller

sculptures have an orb in their left hands. The significance of the orb is

worldly dominion.In the fresco in the recess of the south wall in the Cult

Room at Luxor,the two Augusticarryan orbin their left hand.Power over

the entire orbis s in the handsof the Tetrarchy;andcertainlyin the groups

from Rome, the emperorsare calm amid such responsibility.In the time of the first Tetrarchy,Milan became a more regularseat for

the Augustus than Rome. The itinerant nature of the Tetrarchic seat of








Plate 9. Porphyrygroups,VaticanLibrary,Rome.








Plate10. Porphyryroups,VaticanLibrary,Rome.








power, dictated by the need for absolute military security, resulted in

neglect of the Senate and the urbsRomana in general.Diocletian didcom-mission buildingsat Rome, but he also spent money elsewhere,such as at

his palace at Spalato, to where he retired in A.D.05. Lactantius criticized

Diocletian'sbuilding programmeat his easternseat, Nicomedia: Suchwasthe perpetualfolly which he revealedin his zeal to make Nicomedia rival

Rome.' (de mort.pers.5.) In fact, Diocletian only visited Rome once, in

A.D.03/4. This visit coincidedwith the buildingof the statue group in the

Forum Romanum(see above)and of a triumphalarch.The arch celebrated

his vicennalia, the Tetrarchy'sdecennalia and the triumphover the East.

The actualvictory had been won by Galeriusin A.D.97, but such was the

unity of the Tetrarchythat it was not inappropriate or some credit to beawardedto the senior Augustus. In Rome, therefore, the Tetrarchy was

celebrated.Where,we might ask,was Rome celebratedby the Tetrarchy?Since the fall of the Republic,the role of the Senate in Roman politics

had been constantly reduced. However, the body was not merelyornamental, although it is true that emperors were responsible for

diminishing its power throughout the first three centuries A.D.n the late

third century A.D., his disregard reached its peak.23 The historian

Eutropius,writingin the second half of the fourth century,said: The army

made Diocletian emperor, a man born and brought up in most obscurecircumstances in Dalmatia' (Brev.9,19). The Senate of earlier centuries

would never have permittedsuch an appointment,but in A.D.84 it was an

impotent body. The allocation of imperiumno longer depended upon the

vote of the Senate but on the powerof the army.This neglect of the Senate

continued throughoutthe years of the Tetrarchy,as can be deducedfrom

the fact that that bodynever features in decisionmaking- or monumental

art.24

On the lowestpanel

of the west face of the southpier

of the Arch of

Galerius, there is a personificationof Roma, seated with a globe and a

circle of the zodiac.25 n this highly symbolic relief, the urbs controls the

entire orbis.A panel on the east face of the south pier depictsthe reception

by Galeriusof a Persiandelegation.The kneelingbarbariansare flankedbythe emperoranda personificationof Roma.FourfiguresarebehindRoma,

identified as major cities of the empire.26 If this identification is correct,here we see a clear expressionof the diverse nature of Romanitas.Rome

itself had nothing to do with the victory won in A.D.97; that victory was

won by Galerius and his army.Nevertheless,the personificationof Romaandthe other cities on the panelrelief in which the Persiansare humbled is

an expressionof the superiorforce of the whole RomanEmpirein general.








The constitutioAntoniniana of A.D.12, which granted citizenship to all

inhabitants of the empire, had institutionalized a drastic change in the

concept of Romanitas. Without totally ignoring the ancient capital,

Tetrarchicart seems to have addedmomentum to the shift in Romanitasfromthe urbs o the orbis.27

There was a notable exception to the decentralization and diffusion of

power in these years.Lactantius writes:

And so, a few soldiers,who had been left in their camp at Rome, seized their opportunity.With the restlesspeople on their side, they killedcertainmen of the judiciaryand gave the

imperial purpleto Maxentius.(de mort.pers. 25,3)

In thevery capital,

the Senate waspowerless

to control anarmy

which was

loyal to its leader.28Coin issues from A.D.08 onwards, and his building

programme, particularly around the Colosseum, confirm Maxentius'

attemptsto relocate and centralizepower.He even calledhis son Romulus

as he furthered his own claims to Rome, and Rome's to honour. These

efforts finally ended in A.D.12, when Constantine defeated Maxentius at

the Battle of Milvian Bridge.However, Maxentius' claim to supremacyat

the capital city constituted an exception which provedthe general rule of

the decentralizationof powerfrom the city of Rome under Tetrarchicrule.

The surviving fragments of the novus arcus Diocletiani are now inFlorence. One fragmentshowsa personificationof acaptured provinceand

the inscription votisX et XX. This refers to the decennaliaand vicennalia

respectively. Two pedestals also survive from the arch. On each is one

Dioscurus and one Victoria,and on the right pedestalis a capturedDacian,on the left a German.The Dioscuri appearboth in Tetrarchiccoinage andon the panel of the enthroned emperors on the Arch of Galerius.29As

brothers who lived in perfect harmony, they were ideal for inclusion in

Tetrarchic art. In the panel, the four Tetrachs are flanked by other

characters.In a highly balancedarrangement,Tellus, Fortuna, Honos, the

Dioscuri, Serapis, Jupiter, Virtus, Isis and Oceanus appear.The person-ifications of Tellus and Oceanus, both reclining at the sides of the panel,seem to representthe Tetrarchy'sworldwide rule.Furthermore,the gods

Serapis andJupiter balance each other and stand next to the Tetrarchs.

Jupiter is a western divinity,representativeof Rome and the western halfof the empire;Serapis,no less importantby his position, is the equivalent

deity in the East. This would be particularly topical, since the Arch

nominallycelebrates Galerius'

victoryover

Narses, the Persian. TheTetrarchs,therefore, embracethe whole world in their rule, and have the

approvalof the supremedeities of East and West.








The Cult Room at Luxor is on the central axis in the sanctuary

complex.30 The very location of this imperial imagery, therefore, estab-

lishes a religiouscontext for the Tetrarchy.The enthronement scene is set

high above the other frescoes, giving the emperorsa sense of control and

superiority.Throughout the frescoes, the emperorsare central figures in

representationalscenes, just as they are in the strictlyhierarchicalsociety;the outstanding rank of emperor is manifested by arrangement of

characters and by luxurious cloth and jewels.31n the fresco in the recess,the two Augustiare separatedby a bust, presumablyofJupiter.Jupiterwas

includedin groupdepictionsof the Tetrarchyon monuments at Rome and

Nicomedia too, making the number of subjectsup to five. Using contem-

porarypanegyrics,L'Orangehas

arguedthat the Tetrarchic similitudois

based on a shared 'divine essence'. 'The emperors are... gods elevated

above the Empire they govern.'32However, the visual evidence does not

thoroughly support this claim: on some coins minted after A.D.03 at

Carthageand Trier, rulersand gods were interchanged.Jupiter,Hercules,

Mars, and Sol are all used to represent the emperors.However, all such

images have the accompanying legend conservatorAugg. et Caess., and

thus, the distinctionbetween man and god is maintained,securingicono-

graphic decorum.33Elsewhere, the distinction is more definite: the

'emperorsat sacrifice'is a common scene on silvercoinageandappearstooon the Arch of Galeriusand on the decennaliabase in Rome.Diocletian's

devotion to Jupiter can be seen in his adoption of the name 'Jovius';Maximian himself took the name 'Herculius'.Close cooperationbetween

the Tetrarchs and the gods was claimed on coins;Jupiter's commonest

epithet on coins was conservatorand Hercules was frequentlydescribedas

comesAugusti.Divine associationstrengthensTetrachicrule,but this veryfact of association presupposes a distinction, albeit hazy. The Tetrarchs

were seen to mirror divine rule and to receive the blessing of the gods in

their governmenton earth.Theirrelationshipwith the gods was adumbrated. t was in the natureof

Tetrarchic art that historically specific events, such as the victory of

A.D. 97 or the bellumcivile in Egypt in A.D. 96, would be used as starting

points from which ideological themes could be developed.The Tetrarchs'

relationshipwith mortals was definedby separation.In the group figures,the emperorsare mutually supportive,mutuallyreliant.Whilst emphasiz-

ing internal accord, Tetrarchic art abstractedthe emperorsfrom reality.Even an isolated Tetrarchic

imageis

representativeof this bizarre

hegemony. The rule of four was a new form of government, and any

reworkingof an old artistic style would carry with it unwanted associa-








tions.34Far from being a 'decline',Tetrarchicstyle and compositionwas a

bold and progressivestep in imperialiconography.

Fragmentationof the second Tetrarchywas caused by power struggles

between rival leaders andpretenders.As imagesof the emperorareillustra-tions and constituentpartsof imperial deology,portraitswere used by therival leaders of the second Tetrarchy to establish their own claims to

supremacy.Individualsupremacy,a phenomenon completely antithetical

to Tetrarchicideology, was claimed by introducing changes to the estab-

lished and expected models. Similarity in coinage ceased from about

A.D.06; the geniopopuli Romani type, thus far very common on bronze

issues,was replacedby dedicationsto the geniusof the issuingleader.Such

changesto the Tetrarchic model constituted a

challengeto the

govern-ment. That model had only lastedtwelve yearsor so, but it had advertised,in areadily egibleform,the concordiamperatorum. ut that concordiawasshort-lived.In his first adaptationsof the establishedmodel, the ultimate

successor to the Tetrarchywas modest, but even in his earlydealings,wecan see the politicalgenius of Constantine the Great.

NOTES

1. This article was originallywritten for a dissertation at CambridgeUniversity. I owe manythanks,especiallyto M.Beard,R. Cormack,P. Callaghan,N. von Groote,J.Kimber,J.H. W.Morwood,the BodleianLibrary,Oxfordand, above all, to J. Elsner.

2. B. Berenson, TheArchof Constantine London, 1952), p. 52.3. H. P. L'Orange,Art Forms and Civic Life (Princeton, 1965), passim;E. H. Kitzinger,Bucknell

Review 15 (1967), 1ff.;R. Bandinelli, n R. Breglia,RomanImperialCoins(London, 1968), pp. 24ff.4. M. S. Pond Rothman,AJA 81 (1977), 427ff.5. Ibid.,437.6. Ibid.,440.7. Secureidentificationof this groupas the Tetrarchyhas beendifficult.Withoutcontributingnew

evidenceto the debate,it is my hope thatmy

discussionrendersthat identificationat least reasonable.8. The frescoes,dated C.A.D.00, were destroyedlast century.However,sketchesmadeby SirJohn

GardnerWilkinsonsurvive and arenow in the BodleianLibrary,Oxford.I relyon these sketches andmodernamplificationof them, madebyJ. G. Decker,JDAI 94 (1979), 600-52, for a reconstructionofthe original.

9. I.Kalavrezou-Maxeinerarguescogentlythat the imperial hronewas stationedbefore the recess,DOP 29 (1975), 225ff.

10. M. S. Pond Rothman,ByzantineStudiesII,I (1975), 19ff.11. K. F. Kinch, L'arcde triomphe eSalonique(Paris, 1890), p. 11.12. Kalavrezou-Maxeiner,op. cit.13. For example,see R. Reece in M.Henig, A HandbookofRoman Art (Oxford, 1983), pp. 173ff.14. P. H. Webb,RomanImperialCoinagev.2 (London, 1933), pp. 208 ff15. C. H. V. Sutherland,RomanImperialCoinagevi (London, 1967), p. 1.

16. Ibid.,p. 108.17. See R. Reece, Roman Coins (London, 1970), pp. 140ff, where he says that coin reversesnow

receivedmore attention than obverses.








18. For a catalogue of the surviving sculpture of the period, see H. P. L'Orange, Studien zur

GeschichtedesspatantikePortrats Oslo, 1933).19. Pond Rothman(1977), p.429 and n. 9.20. Kalavrezou-Maxeiner,op. cit., p. 228.

21. H. P. L'Orange,Likenessand Icon(Odense, 1973), pp. 131ff.22. Berenson,op. cit.,plates 60 and 61.23. M. T. W. Arnheim, TheSenatorialAristocracy n the Later Roman Empire (Oxford, 1972),

Chapter2.24. L'Orange (1973), pp. 139ff., identifies a characteron the base of the decennaliacolumnin Rome

as the geniusSenatus.The parallelshe cites are not decisive,yet even if he is correct,this is the onlyexample of the Senate in Tetrarchicart. Perhaps it was consideredappropriate o acknowledgetheSenate in this Roman monument.

25. Pond Rothman(1977), pp.447ff26. Ibid.,p.440.

27. Only on coins actually minted at Rome do legends such as conservatoresurbis suae occur,

althougha few issues from varied mints are dedicated to Roma.

28. P. Peirce,ArtHistory 12(1989), 387ff.29. Sutherland,op. cit.,p. 310 and Pond Rothman(1975).30. Kalavrezou-Maxeiner,op. cit.

31. P. Springborg,Royal Persons.PatriarchalMonarchyand the FeministPrinciple(London, 1990),

p. 67, suggeststhat the figuresof the two Augustiat Luxor mightbe relatedto their divine status.

32. L'Orange(1965), p. 52.33. Sutherland,op. cit.,p.412.34. E. H. Kitzinger,ByzantineArt in theMaking (London, 1977), pp. 1ff.

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

BYRON HARRIES: lives, writes, and teaches Classics in the area

of his home town of Llanelli,Dyfed.LORNA HARDWICK: Senior Lecturer and Staff Tutor in Classical

Studies, The Open University.PAUL CARTLEDGE: Reader in Greek History and Fellow of

ClareCollege, Universityof Cambridge.ROGER REES: AssistantMaster,HarrowSchool.

WYNNE WILLIAMS:retired from teaching Ancient History in the

Department of Classics, University of Keele, in 1991 and is nowstudying the influence of the Classical heritage on Western

culture.

Documents

Images and Image. a Re-Examination of Tetrarchic Iconography