This volume has its origins in an international workshop of the same name that was held at the University of Navarra, Pamplona, on 17 and 18 February 2017. The workshop was organised in the framework of the research project Romanitas Principum: Romanity and Interculturality in late antique self-representation: Constantine, Julian, Theodosius, funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness. The editors of the volume, García Ruiz and Quiroga Puertas, are specialists in the domain of imperial and late antique literature (Latin and Greek respectively). The work focuses on the representation of emperors and emperorship from Constantine to Theodosius in material culture and texts. The main contribution of this work is that the various forms of imperial propaganda are investigated in a variety of sources: literary texts, laws, inscriptions, coins, sculptures ‘as interconnected sources that engaged with and reacted to each other’ (p. 3). In this manner, the literary sources do not appear cut off from their context or marginalised, but are viewed within a wider network of communication, within which text and image function in parallel, occasionally employing the same symbols, having the ultimate aim to promote the emperor and disseminate the imperial message ‘from the emperor or elite groups to other social classes, from west to east across the empire, from pagan to Christian contexts, and vice versa’ (p. 3).
The volume starts with an introduction by the two editors, which offers an overview of twentieth-century studies and approaches relating to the representation of empire and emperors, sets out the aims of the volume and briefly presents each contribution. It is rounded off by a comprehensive bibliography, as is also the case with the nine studies that follow.
The work is divided into three parts, on the basis of the emperors discussed. Part 1, ‘Constantine’, includes three studies. The first is a contribution by I. Tantillo, ‘Emperors and Tyrants in the Fourth Century. Outlining a New Portrait of the Ruler and of His Role through Images and Words’, and it is by far the longest in the book, including as it does an appendix of sources (mainly epigraphic). Tantillo investigates the image of internal enemies in the surviving evidence of triumph and victory in imperial Rome from Constantine to Theodosius and beyond. He explores the usage of the word tyrannus as ‘usurper’ in epigraphic sources in parallel with other textual and visual elements and comes to useful conclusions concerning the ways of legitimatisation of imperial power in the fourth century. The second article, ‘Constantine's Arch: a Reassessment in the Light of Textual and Material Evidence’ by D. Burgersdijk, aims to prove that Constantine's Arch ‘mainly is a conventional monument in a traditional context with some peculiarities that may count as innovations to the tradition’. The Arch is shown to represent a ‘material counterpoint of spoken panegyric, which is an important element for a new approach to the arch as an architectural unity, combining art and text’ (p. 54).
In the last article of this part, ‘Purple and the Depiction of Constantine in Eusebius and Other Contemporaneous Panegyrical Works’, J.B. Torres takes a thorough look at purple as a literary motif in the depiction of Constantine in Eusebius’ Life of Constantine and follows the evolution of the motif in the narrative from the beginning to the end of the work. He also considers and compares references to this symbol in other panegyric works, such as the Panegyrici Latini, and sets the text of Eusebius and its reception in the cultural context of the Judeo-Christian Bible.
Part 2 comprises two chapters dealing with the emperor Julian. García Ruiz's study, ‘The Caesars: A Myth on Julian's Emperorship’, is a close reading of Julian's Symposium or Kronia, subtitled The Caesars. It focuses on the section dealing with the competition (316A–36C), which constitutes the core of the ‘myth’ in Julian's Neoplatonic sense and is discussed along with other autobiographical myths to be found in To the Cynic Heracleios by Julian. The competition between the emperors and their predecessors is approached in a twofold way: the emulation of gods and of men. Roman emperors who imitated one another, like Julian's uncle Constantine, are ridiculed, whereas those who emulated the gods are praised. Á. Sánchez-Ostiz's study, ‘Cosmic Warnings and Imperial Responses: Ammianus’ Astronomical Excursuses’, explores the interaction between authorial persona and the idea of emperorship in four excursuses of Ammianus’ Res Gestae that explain natural phaenomena (eclipses, rainbows, shooting star, comets). In these cosmic-astronomical digressions the reactions of the emperors Constantius II, Julian and Jovian to astronomical phenomena are mentioned, and Julian's centrality in Ammianus’ narrative becomes evident.
Part 3, ‘From the Valentinians to Theodosius’, includes four contributions. F. Guidetti, in ‘Between Expressionism and Classicism: Stylistic Choices as Means of Legitimisation in Late Fourth-Century Imperial Portraits’, analyses the representations of imperial portraits from the Valentinian dynasty to Theodosius. This study highlights the existence of stylistic features, based on previous stages in Roman portraiture, which are connected to the political messages that each emperor or dynasty wished to promote, as well as to each ruler's options of legitimisation. M.V. Escribano's article, ‘The Letter from Magnus Maximus to Valentinian II (CA 39): Two Imperial Images in Conflict’, explores and presents the content of Maximus’ Letter to Valentinian II and the religious context in which it was produced. It focuses especially on the contrast between the orthodox emperor (Maximus) as the defender of the divine law and the protector of Arians (the child emperor Valentinian II), presented as a persecuting tyrant. In a diplomatic way the roles of ‘usurper’ and the emperor are totally reversed.
Quiroga Puertas's contribution, ‘Toying with Theodosius: The Manipulation of the Imperial Image in the Sources of the Riot of the Statues’, centres on the attack on the emperor Theodosius that took place in Antioch in 387 ce (Riot of the Statues). It examines contemporary (Christian and pagan) sources (John Chrysostom, Ambrose of Milan, Libanius of Antioch) as well as later historians (Sozomen, Theodoret and Zosimus) in order to demonstrate that Theodosius’ emotional and political reactions that are described reflect the political and religious agendas of the authors. Special emphasis is laid on the manner in which these sources represent Theodosius’ anger both as a vehicle of a set of imperial virtues and as a central element of the figure of the emperor. The contribution by D. Slootjes, ‘Managing the Empire while Securing the Throne: Theodosius I and the Administrative Structures of His Empire’, analyses the engagement of emperor Theodosius with the functioning of the administrative structures (prefectures and dioceses), in order to ensure the political and religious unity of his citizens in times of adversity, and accords special importance to three changes to the administrative structure of dioceses implemented by Theodosius: Aegyptus was made independent of the diocese of Oriens, Moesia was divided into the dioceses of Dacia and Macedonia, and the dioceses of Galliae and Vienensis were merged into one diocese (Septem Provinciae).
The book concludes with an index of names and subjects and an index locorum. The volume offers very rich material, complemented by 30 figures. The contributions are carefully documented and argued, many of them provide innovative readings and interpretations, while the book itself is attractively produced. As mentioned above, the volume's strong point, and its main contribution, is that it manages to connect image and narrative, art and text, material culture and literature, in the representation of the emperor and the imperial ideal. However, this cannot be said for all contributions, as a few of them are limited to textual analysis. Furthermore, in a work treating such a topic one would have expected that one or more studies would have approached the sources from the viewpoint of reception, in order to investigate the impact of the imperial messages produced and promoted. Apart from narratology, employed as an approach in two contributions, no other modern literary theoretical and methodological tools are to be found in the volume, although their use would arguably have enriched the results.
The above suggestions for improvement cannot of course diminish the major importance of the volume for the study of the imperial image in the fourth century, which advances our understanding of the close connection between individual emperors and artistic or textual representations, and opens the way for new studies and approaches.
