Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-5lx2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-01T21:18:32.340Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Roma and Constantinopolis in Late-Antique Art From 312 to 365

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

J. M. C. Toynbee
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Little more than a decade after Constantine's conversion to Christianity the ancient gods and goddesses of the Graeco-Roman pantheon ceased to appear upon the official coinage and public monuments of the Empire. The personifications—Victoria, Virtus, Pax, Libertas, Securitas, etc., and the ‘geographical’ figures of Res Publica, Roma, Tellus, cities, countries, and tribes—remained. Yet some of these had, up to that very time, received, like the Olympians, their shrines and altars and other honours associated with pagan cultus; and we ask ourselves how it was that a Christian State, while rejecting the one, could retain and ‘baptize’ the other. The answer to this question, which involves the whole complex problem of the nature of pagan religious belief under the later Empire, can only be tentatively suggested here. The pantheon had eventually to go because its denizens had possessed, for the great majority of pagans, a real, objective, and independent existence.

Type
Papers Presented to N. H. Baynes
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 37 , Issue 1-2 , November 1947 , pp. 135 - 144
Copyright
Copyright © J. M. C. Toynbee 1947. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The Hadrianic ‘tondi’ on the Arch of Constantine, erected between October, 312, and September, 315, with the imperial heads recut as portraits of Constantine and Licinius (H. P. L'Orange and A. von Gerkan, Der spätantike Bildschmuck der Konstantinsbogen, 1939), would seem to be our last extant example of reigning Emperors shown as sacrificing to pagan deities on a public monument. After the fall of Licinius even Sol Invictus, possibly portrayed as a symbol of the Sun of Righteousness between 312 and 323 (N. H. Baynes, Constantine the Great and the Christian Church, 1931 95 ff.), vanished from Constantine's coinage. Yet on a bronze medallion of Roman mintage Constantine himself appears in the guise of Juppiter (see Alföldi, above, p. 15, pl. 1, 7; Gnecchi, F., I medaglioni romani, 1912, II, pl. 130, no. 2Google Scholar).

2 e.g. the two converging files of city-‘goddesses’ in the lowest zone of reliefs on the south side of the base of Arcadius' Column at Constantinople (Archaeologia LXXVII, 1921–1922, pl. 17)Google Scholar.

3 For ‘daimon’, see Nock, above, p. 109 ff.

4 Of imperial ‘virtues’ in the Panegyrists, in whose work he traces the influence of neo-Platonic ideas, Maurice, J. wrote (Numismatique constantirdenne II, 1911, cxivGoogle Scholar): ‘Les panégyristes donnent à ces vertus une existence personelle; ils en parlent comme si elles étaient des êtres indépendants, des esprits qui s'imposent à l'empereur et peuvent parfois se trouver en lutte entre eux.’ But these ‘virtues’, if in a sense, distinct from the Emperor (e.g. Paneg. II, 5, Maximian: ‘tu enim divinae providentiae, imperator, consilio,’ etc.), did not operate independently of him; they were his attributes, part of his moral and mental endowment as a man (a divinized man, in the case just quoted), and, as such, they could quite conceivably come into conflict with one another. We may recall in this connection the divergent fates of Fortuna and Victoria in the fourth century. Both had been worshipped in Rome as divinities from early times (Wissowa, Religion und Kultus der Römer, 1912, 139 ff., 256 ff.; Toutain, , Les cultes païens I, 1907, 413 ffGoogle Scholar.). But while Fortuna, as an independent goddess, guiding the world's destiny for good or for ill, disappeared from the imperial coinage on the eve of Constantine's conversion (Maurice, op. cit., II, CXXIII), Victoria, as an achievement or attribute of men and States, stayed.

5 That the early Christian mind could distinguish between the divine and symbolic elements in these figures seems clear from the use made of them in primitive Christian art. A well-known fourth-century sarcophagus in the Lateran Museum (No. 174: P. Ducati, L'arte in Roma, 1938, pl. CCXXXIII, 1), and the sarcophagus of Junius Bassus (A.D. 359: in the crypt of St. Peter's, ibid. pl. CCXXXV), show Our Lord enthroned above the heavens, which are personified in the traditional manner as the sky-god Caelus; and the personifications of the Jordan as a river-god in the vault-mosaics of the Ravenna Baptisteries are another very familiar example of this purely symbolic interpretation of pagan types. On the famous bridal casket of Proiecta in the British Museum even Venus, a member of the pantheon, can appear, symbolically, above the aspiration ‘Secunde et Proiecta vivatis in Christo’ (O. M. Dalton, Catalogue of Early Christian Antiquities in the British Museum, 1901, no. 304, 61–4, pl. 15).

6 Eusebius, , VC 3, 48Google Scholar: τὴν αὐτοῦ πόλιν τῷ τῶν μαρτύρων καθιέρου θεῷ.

7 Ibid., 3, 48 and 54; Zosimus, , Hist. 2, 31Google Scholar; Maurice, op. cit., II, LXXVIII ff., 488 f.

8 Cf. Constantius II's admiration for the pagan monuments of Rome in 357 (Ammianus Marcellinus 16, 10, 13–17).

9 Zosimus, loc. cit.

10 Grisar, , Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie VI (1882), 587, 588Google Scholar, characterizes them as ‘Zierge-bäude für die als Kunstwerke darin aufgestellten Bilder‘, and as ‘Kunst- oder Schmuckbauten’.

11 Cf. the POP ROMANVS bronze coins, issued only in Constantinople, which show the traditional figure of the Genius Populi Romani portrayed as a youth with cornucopiae (Maurice, op. cit., II, 536–7. pl. 16, nos. 11, 12). Unlike the familiar Genius Populi Romani on folles of the Tetrarchies, or the Genius P R of Constantine's silver medallion (see Alföldi, above, p. 13, pl. 1, 4), the Constantinopolitan Genius wears no turreted crown or modius.

12 Upheld, in the attitude of an ‘orante’?

13 Mon. Germ. Hist. Chron. Min. I, 233. For the literary records of statues of Constantinopolis erected in the city, see J. Strzygowski, Die Tyche von Konstantinopel (Analecta Graeciensia, 1893, 144 f.). Of these statues one is described as wearing a modiolus (turreted crown ?), another as holding a cornucopiae, a third as setting her foot on a prow. The θυνία ἀναίμακτος held, according to the chronicler, by Constantine in 328, when the city-Tyche received the title of Anthousa, was doubtless a festival of some kind celebrated in her honour without sacrifices.

14 Representing from 5½ to 6½ siliquae pieces (14+ to 16+ grammes).

15 Gnecchi, op. cit., 1, pl. 28, nos. 11–13; J. M. C. Toynbee, Roman Medallions, 1944, pl. 37, no. 9.

16 For the prow as a rare symbol of Roma in republican, and early imperial art, see P. Lederer, ‘Die Roma mit Seesymbolen’, Schweizerische nundsmatische Rundschau (1942), 21 ff.

17 Contrast the contemporary helmeted Constantinopolis, with Christian sceptre, on the small bronze coins issued all over the Empire and on the large bronze medallions of Roman mintage (see pls. x, no. 4; XIII, no. 2, and Alföldi, above, pp. 10, 15). At Constantinople itself specific Christian symbolism was less necessary for emphasizing the Christian character of the city as contrasted with the paganism of old Rome. The close assimilation of the bronze Constantinopolis obverse busts to those of Roma may have been meant to suggest the idea that there could be a Christian Rome. The laurel wreath on Constantinopolis' helmet presumably alludes to the victory at Chrysopolis. The peak of her helmet is turned down; whereas that of Roma is turned up and has no wreath.

18 Professor Alföldi believes that on the PIETAS AVGVSTI N and PIETAS AVGVSTI NOSTRI solidi and gold medallions struck at Treveri and Nicomedia and probably issued for Constantius II's elevation to the rank of Caesar on 13th November, 324 (NC 1940, 18 ff.), the kneeling, turreted figure of a woman is not Byzantium-Constantinopolis, but just a generalized symbol of any city of the Empire (see Alföldi, above p. 12, n. 16 and pl. X, nos. 2, 3). Yet it would seem more natural to suppose that, in types commemorating the victory which led directly to the transformation of Byzantium into Constantinople, the city represented is the ancient Byzantium, now restored as Constantinopolis. On the solidi and large medallions Roma presents the kneeling city to the Emperor, in other words, the senior capital of the Empire is sponsoring the eastern capital-to-be as her protégée, not as her rival. The fact that this type was struck at Treveri and Nicomedia would seem to be no argument against recognizing Byzantium-Constantinopolis in the kneeling city, since types of Roma and Constantinopolis frequently appear on coins and medallions minted in these and other provincial cities. This turreted figure would thus be the precursor of the Constantinopolis of the silver medallions. For an imitation of this type on a large gold medallion of Libius Severus (if genuine), see NC 1940, 17 ff., pl. 4, no. 3; Toynbee, op. cit., pl. 30, no. 3; Cesano, S. L., ‘Un medaglione aureo di Libio Severo e l'ultima moneta di Roma imperiale’, Studi di Numismatica I (1940), 83–98Google Scholar, figs. 1, 3. Turreted figures of Res Publica, without other attributes, occur on the SECVRITAS REI PVBLICAE 2-solidi medallion of Constantine I, struck at Treveri (Toynbee, op. cit., pl. 34, no. 9), on the SALVS ET SPES REI PVBLICAE 3-solidi medallion of Constantine I, struck at Heraclea in Thrace and at Constantinople, possibly for the Vicennalia of 326, with Res Publica ( = Constantinopolis here?) presenting the Emperor with a Victory-on-globe (Gnecchi, op. cit., 1, pl. 7, no. 16; Toynbee, op. cit., pl. 34, no. 11), on the Constantinian RESTITVTOR REI P bronze medallion with Constantinopolis on the obverse and Res Publica ( = Byzantium-Constantinopolis here?) being ‘restored’ by the Emperor (Gnecchi, op. cit., II, pl. 131, no. 7; pl. X, no. 4), and on bronze coins of Gratian, Valentinian II, Theodosius I, and Magnus Maximus, with the legends REPARATIO REI p and REPARATIO TEMPORVM and the type of the Emperor ‘restoring’ Res Publica (Cohen, , Médailles impériales 2, VIII, 130Google Scholar, nos. 30–2; 142, nos. 26—8; 157, no. 27; 167, no. 3; NC 1935, pl. 12, nos. 14–16). A similar turreted figure of Res Publica, this time with cornucopiae, genuflects before Magnentius, who advances towards her on horseback (LIBERATOR REI PVBLICAE: Toynbee, op. cit., pl. 34, no. 12), and before Valens, Gratian, Valentinian II, and Theodosius I, who stand and raise her from her knees (RESTITVTOR REI PVBLICAE: Gnecchi, op. cit., 1, pls. 15, no. 2; 19, nos. 8, 12; Toynbee, op. cit., pls. 29, no. 9; 35, nos. 1.2; 36)

19 G. Körte, Arch. Zeit. 1885 (1886), 23–31, pl. 4; Wilpert, J., Die römischen Mosaiken und Malereien der kirchlichen Bauten vom iv bis xiii Jahrhundert I, 127–148Google Scholar; IV, pl. 125 (in colour); Calza, G., ‘La figurazione di Roma nell'arte antica’, Dedalo VII (1927), 677Google Scholar; P. Ducati, L'arte in Roma 1938, pl. 237. Wilpert unhesitatingly assigns the painting to the fourth century on the ground of ‘die verzeichneten Arme und die Gedrungheit der Gestalt’.

20 Strong, E., Art in Ancient Rome II, 1929, 206Google Scholar; Ducati, op. cit., 342; A. Ruesch, Guida del Museo Nazionale di Napoli 1911, 58, nos. 185, 187.

21 See Alföldi, above, p. 14.

22 Gnecchi, op. cit., 1, pl. 7, no. 8; Toynbee, op. cit., pl. 35, no. 3 (Constantine I).

23 Toynbee, op. cit., pl. 35, no. 5 (Constantine I); Gnecchi, op. cit., 1, pl. 11, no. 6 (Constantius II). Cf. the 1½-solidi pieces of Constantius II (British Museum: Gnecchi, op. cit., 1, 30. no. 15; pl. x, no.7), and of Constantine II (Gnecchi, op. cit., 24, no. 5).

24 Toynbe, op. cit., pl. 35, no. 4.

25 Above, p. 136.

26 See Alföldi, above, p. 10. For other reverse types of Roma on bronze coins of Constantine I (ROMAE AETERNAE: Roma seated to right, holding vota shield; GLORIA ROMANORVM: Roma seated to left, holding Victory-on-globe and spear), see Cohen, op. cit., VII, 259, nos. 263, 264; 283, nos. 469–473, and Alföldi, above, p. 12 and pl. iv, nos. 6–8.

27 P-W, S.V. Constantius II, col. 1052; ZN XXI (1898), 59–65Google Scholar.

28 Cohen, op. cit., VII, 456, nos. 108, 109.

29 Ibid., 415, no. 79.

30 Ibid., 457, 458, nos. 112–122; H. Mattingly, Roman Coins, 1928, pl. 54, no. 7. These solidi of Constantius II are among the commonest of later imperial gold coins.

31 Cohen, op. cit., VII, 458, nos. 123, 124; 459, nos. 125, 126, gives this type with VOT XXXX on the shield; 449, no. 72, gives a variant of this type with the legend FELICITAS ROMANORVM VOT XXXV MVLT XXXX.

32 Ibid., VIII, 34, nos. 22, 23.

33 Ibid., 34, 35, nos. 24–6. No. 27, struck at Constantinople, is described as showing the legend VOT V MVLT XX.

34 Ibid., 44, no. 8.

35 Ibid., 45, 46, nos. 22–4.

36 Ibid., 46, nos. 26–30.

37 Gnecchi, op. cit., 1, pl. 11, no. 5.

38 A. Alföldi, Die Kontorniaten, 1943, pl. 2, no. 9.

39 Gnecchi op. cit., II, pl. 134, no. 1.

40 Ibid., 144, no. 21.

41 Ibid., 149, no. 32.

42 For reissues, in the names of Constans and Constantius II as Augusti and of Constantius Gallus of the Roman bronze medallion types of Roma (VRBS ROMA, ROMA BEATA, VRBS ROMA BEATA) seated to the left on a high-backed or backless throne, wearing helmet, long or short tunic, and mantle, a shield at her side, a spear or sceptre in her left hand, and a Victory-on-globe on her extended right hand, see Gnecchi, op. cit., 11, pls. 135, nos. 1, 12; 136, no. 8; 138, nos. 2, 3; Toynbee, op. cit., pl. 35, no. 7; and pl. XI, no. 4.

43 FL IVL CONSTANS PERP AVG: FL IVL CONSTANTIVS PERP AVG. The formula PERP AVG is found on only one other medallion of Constans (see below, n. 58), and occurs but rarely on his coins (Cohen, op. cit., VII, 426, nos. 139–141).

44 Gnecchi, op. cit., 1, pl. 11, no. 7; Toynbee, op. cit., pl. 37, nos. 3, 4.

45 See below l. 26ff.

45 Gnecchi, loc. cit.

47 Constans: Gnecchi, op. cit., 1, pl. 9, no. 13; Constantius II: Ibid., pls. 11, nos. 8–10; 13, nos. 1, 2; Toynbee, op. cit., pl. 38, nos. 3, 4.

48 See Alföldi, above, p. 10.

49 Gnecchi, op. cit., 11, pl. 128, no. 9. This comparison was made by the present writer before she saw L. Laffranchi, ‘Appunti di critica numismatica, I: La data finale della personificazione di Constantinopoli ed i medaglioni aurei del tempo Teodosiano’, Numismatica (1941), 4.

50 Ibid., I, pl. 13, no. 2.

51 Gnecchi, op. cit., 1, pls. 16, no. 2; 17, no. 2 (gold medallions of Valens). With this Constantian diademed Constantinopolis we might possibly connect the parallel obverse-types of Constantinopolis and Roma on small silver coins bearing K (the Greek initial for Constantinopolis), or P (the Greek initial for Roma), on their reverses. Here the bust of Constantinopolis is shown diademed and draped to right, that of Roma helmeted, with slipped tunic and balteus, also to right (Cohen, op. cit., VII, 337, no. 22; 401, no. 287; 327, no. 3).

52 P-W, s.v. Constantius II, col. 1053.

53 Gnecchi, op. cit., II, pl. 136, no. 4.

54 P-W, s.v. Constantius II, col. 1062. The legend itself first occurred on a silver VOTA XX type struck in both names in Rome (Cohen, op. cit., VII, 405, no. 8; 445, no. 30).

55 Gnecchi, op. cit., 11, pl. 131, no. 6.

56 Toynbee, op. cit., 143 f., 193 f.

57 Gnecchi, op. cit., 11, pl. 108, no. 9; 109, no. 6; Trans. Internat. Num. Congr., 1936, 179 ff.

58 A photograph of this piece was kindly supplied to the present writer by Dr. Gerassimov of the National Museum, Sofia. Obverse legend = FL IVL CONSTANS PERP AVG.

59 Gnecchi, op. cit., 1, 34, no. 1: formerly in Paris.

60 Ibid., pl. 14, no. 5.

61 Toynbee, op. cit., pl. 37, no. 5.

62 Cohen, op. cit., VIII, 2, no. 2.

63 Ibid., nos. 3, 4.

64 Ibid., 22, no. 86.

65 Ibid., 12, no. 27; 24, no. 8.

66 Toynbee, op. cit., pl. 6, no. 6 (Magnentius); Gnecchi, op. cit., 1, 34, no. 1 (Decentius).

67 Ensslin, P-W, s.v. Magnentius, col. 448.

68 Gnecchi, op. cit., 11, pl. 136, no. 7; 138.no. 4.

69 Sitzungsberichted. k. Akad. d. Wissensch. Wien XXVII, I (1858), 57–88Google Scholar, with plate. The present location of the casket is unknown to the present writer. It is not in Vienna, and inquiries from Zagreb have, so far, elicited no reply.

70 Ausonius, Ordo urbium nobilium, I.

71 Strzygowski, J., ‘Die Calenderbilder des Chronographen vom Jahre 354’, JDAI Ergänzungsheft I (1888), pl. 4–7Google Scholar; M. Schapiro, ‘The Carolingian Copy of the Calendar of 354’, Art Bulletin, 1940, 270–2. Nordenfalk, C. (Der Kalendar vom Jahre 354 und die lateinische Buchmalerei des iv Jahrhunderts, Göteborg, 1936Google Scholar) maintains that the Barberini copy was made, not from a Carolingian copy of the lost original, but from the MS. of 354 itself.

72 ‘Damasi s. pappae cultor atque amator Furius Dionysius Filocalus scribsit’ (W. Kroll, P-W, s.v. Philocalus, col. 2432).

73 Gnecchi, op. cit., II, pl. 140, no. 1; see Alföldi, above, p. 10.

74 Cohen, op. cit., VIII, 74, no. 3; 75, 76, nos 8–15.

75 K. Miller, Itineraria Romana: römische Reisewege an der Hand der Tabula Peutingeriana, 1916, XXX-XXXII.

76 Ibid., XVII.

77 The curious headgear affected by the nimbate Antiochia may be the medieval corruption of a turreted crown.

78 JHS, 1888, 77–8, pl. 5, nos. 1, 2; O. M. Dalton, Catalogue of Early Christian Antiquities in the British Museum, 1901, 74–5, pl. 20, nos. 332, 333.

79 It is hoped to follow out to its conclusion, in some future issue, the story of Roma and Constantinopolis on coins and medallions, and in paintings, mosaics, glass, cameos, silver-ware, and ivories, of the late-fourth, and of the fifth and sixth centuries.