INTRODUCTION

The reign of Emperor Elagabalus (AD 218–22) is one of the most peculiar episodes in the history of the Roman Empire. Elagabalus, whose birth name was Varius Avitus Bassianus, was the third ruler of the Severan dynasty. Born in AD 203, he had been a priest of the sun-god El‘Gabal in his native city, Emesa of Syria, before becoming emperor. As a ruler, he was officially known as Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus; it appears that only after his death was he called Elagabalus. From a governmental point of view, his short reign has not been considered very significant, and it seems that he was personally not that interested in governing issues (Arrizabalaga y Prado 2010: 278–80; Halsberghe 1972: 71). Instead, he took a great interest in religion, promoting El‘Gabal to become the supreme god of Roman state religion and also taking a Vestal Virgin, Julia Aquilia Severa, as his wife. For many Romans in that time, these were probably acts of sacrilege, and in AD 222 his soldiers mutinied. Elagabalus was murdered and his cousin Alexianus, now known as Severus Alexander, was declared the new emperor (Potter 2004: 148–57).

Elagabalus is particularly famous for his controversial behaviours not only in religious matters, but also with respect to gender expression, gender identity and sexuality in particular. The intention of this chapter is to approach this specific aspect of his portrayal in two accounts of the early third century AD; Roman History by Cassius Dio (c. 155–235 AD) and History of the Empire from the Death of Marcus by Herodian (died probably in the 250s AD). Thus, the purpose of this chapter is not to trace actual, ‘real’ actions of historical Emperor Elagabalus as such. Indeed, tracing ‘real’ Elagabalus would require many more sources than just historical narratives. Ancient historiography was, by its nature, highly rhetorical and ideologically normative, often holding strong links to earlier literary traditions. Consequently it does not provide enough ‘factual’ information about a figure as controversial as Elagabalus (see Arrizabalaga y Prado 2010). Instead, I provide a literary analysis of the two historical accounts, focusing on the issues of gender identity and expression in the acts of Elagabalus as portrayed by Dio and Herodian, and comparing these two narratives from that point of view (see Kemezis 2016 for similar comparison in the context of political propaganda).