THE MOTIFS OF IMPERIAL AUTHORITY
IN THE PORTRAIT BUST OF ARCADIUS

Edward Watts
Brown University

The period of the Theodosian dynasty was a watershed epoch in the history of the Roman Empire. The religious policies of the Theodosian monarchs, especially Theodosius I, made the Christianization of the empire irreversible and also represented the first widespread governmental pressuring of heretics. Along with this political emphasis on religious issues came a focus on religious images in imperial art. Drawing upon Constantinian models, Theodosius, and especially his son Arcadius, looked for a set of images through which they could express their authority as Christian monarchs. The authority of Arcadius and other members of the Theodosian dynasty was portrayed as growing out of their closeness to God; in Theodosian propaganda[1] pietas had eclipsed viritus as the source of imperial power.

This ideological transformation began during the reign of Theodosius the Great. The imperial encomiums written in this early period of his rule, such as that of Pacatus, focused primarily upon his victorious military genius thus promoting his authority along the traditional lines. During the later part of his reign, however, a change of theme seems to have occurred. The later panegyrics, especially those celebrating his victory over Eugenius at the River Frigidus, commemorated not his military genius but his piety.[2] God had stood behind the emperor assuring his victory, and consequently it was the emperor's piety, the quality that drew God's attention, that was responsible for his triumph.

While Theodosian propaganda employed this idea of the connection between piety and authority, it was especially prominent in the commissioned art of Theodosius' young son Arcadius. Because Arcadius assumed official control of the government of the Eastern empire at the age of seventeen he could not have proven himself militarily. However, he was not too young to be pious and the encomiasts sought to emphasize this aspect of his character. In his funeral oration for Theodosius, Ambrose described an inheritance of divine favor that the dead emperor had left to his young son. Because Arcadius' father had won for him "Christ's favor and also the loyalty of the troops in whose eyes he was proof that God rewards piety and avenges perfidy"[3], Arcadius' continuation of his father's piety assured the success of his reign. Ambrose also urged the army to "Perform for the sons what you owe to their father...for the sons of an emperor who was holy, compassionate, and faithful."[4] By Ambrose's account Arcadius' position was secured both by his piety and his family connection to his father.[5]

While prominent in literary sources, these attributes of the young emperor are equally emphasized in imperial sculpture and portraiture. The most well known portrait of Arcadius, found in 1949 in Istanbul and currently in the Istanbul Archaeological Museum, will serve to demonstrate the importance of piety and dynastic identification in official Arcadian portraiture.

This portrait was found in the Forum of the Bull, and judging by its find spot, was part of some officially commissioned statue. The head, carved from Pentelic marble and approximately one foot in height, depicts a young man in his mid-twenties with his head and eyes turned slightly upward. A headdress made up of two parallel bands of pearls stretches across his forehead. A square jewel has been set in the center of this headdress. The almond shaped eyes are opened widely with the pupils drilled and turned upwards. The skin texture of the face is smooth, and the absence of facial lines lends an almost ethereal quality to the representation.[6]

This portrait contains two elements essential to understanding its place in Arcadian official propaganda: the upturned head and drilled eyes are used to illustrate the emperor's attention to God, and the facial style and headdress associate the subject with the Theodosian dynasty and Theodosius I himself. I will treat the elements referring to the emperor's piety first. While not specifically identifiable with Christian piety, the drilling of the pupils of the eyes was a Late Antique device that was supposed to give the viewer of the piece an eye into the soul of the subject and identify him or her as a person concerned with spiritual matters. The position of the head and eyes also indicates that this bust was created to present the emperor's piety is the position of the head and eyes. Both head and eyes are upturned, appearing to gaze into the heavens. This explicit sculptural expression of Christian piety, an image with roots in the age of Constantine, occurs often in late Roman art and coins. This image has its roots in the age of Constantine. A representation of Constantine with his head and eyes turned upwards towards God was placed on a Solidus minted in Constantinople in 326 (now found in the Dumbarton Oaks collection).[7] Eusebius of Caesarea showed the meaning of this image in the Constantinian propaganda program. In his Tricennial oration "On Praise of Constantine", Eusebius describes Constantine as "armed against his enemies with standards from Him above" and uniquely honored among rulers because he has dedicated "his own royal soul" to God.[8] As a result of his piety Constantine, "friend of the All-Ruling God, ought be proclaimed our sole sovereign...the only one who is truly free."[9] The Solidus portrait was intended as an artistic portrayal of the ideal pious ruler that Eusebius describes in his oration; it is a visual representation of the emperor's dedication to God.

The same upward gaze seen on the Arcadius portrait and coins of Constantine appeared on another Theodosian monument, the Missorium celebrating the decennial of Theodosius I. The facial features and the style of this representation of Theodosius are similar to that chosen for the Arcadius portrait with the same smoothness of the features and elongated nose that characterized the later piece. Again like our Arcadius sculpture, his eyes are turned up towards the heavens. Of special significance, however, is the halo that surrounds his head. The halo in this period showed that the figure stood on a higher spiritual level than the average person.[10] Theodosius' upward gaze signified his concern for the divine and the addition of the halo confirmed his piety by expressing his spiritual position above the common believer.

The Constantinian Solidus and Missorium of Theodosius provide us with the models upon which this artistic expression of Arcadius piety was based. However, other Arcadian imperial art gives a fuller expression of the role piety played in shaping his imperial identity. The obverses of the earliest coins of Arcadius contained a representation of the right hand of God reaching down from above to crown the emperor with a wreath.[11] This iconography grew out of deep Jewish and Christian roots.[12] In the third century Jewish synagogue of Dura Europa a fresco shows the hand of God stretched above Moses indicating that he, the leader of the Jewish nation, was in close contact with God and received God's assistance in whatever he did. This image also appears on a medallion commemorating Constantine and dating from the reign of Constantius II. The medallion depicts Constantine being crowned by a hand reaching down from a cloud. The crowning of the emperor by God is consistent with the idea outlined by Eusebius that the friend of God is entitled to imperial power,[13] and is intended to show the closeness of the ruler to God. Using the hand of God image, the coinage of Arcadius evoked the same association of God and ruler that the Moses and Constantinian images did.

The other important element in the Arcadian program was a clear identification of Arcadius as an imperial figure of the Theodosian dynasty. As Ambrose's speech made clear a familial link to Theodosius was very important because along with it came divine favor.[14] While there was an obvious connection between Arcadius and his father, in our representation of Arcadius this connection was stressed by stylistic and compositional similarities to portraits of Theodosius. The ethereal quality of Arcadius' facial representation, indicating a certain incorporeality of subject and lending a sort of soulfulness to the representation, bore a strong stylistic resemblance to that of his father on the Missorium of Theodosius. This served as a representational link father and son. This representational style can be contrasted with the imperial portrait statue in Barletta, Spain (identified as either Valentinian I or Marcian). In contrast to the facial smoothness and gently carved features of the Missorium and Arcadian portraits, the Barletta statue is done in a rough style with heavy emphasis on facial lines and a gruff facial expression. Although roughly contemporary with the Theodosian examples the Barletta statue differs drastically in style. The elongated nose and facial smoothness of the Arcadius portrait and Missorium then can be seen as stylistic conventions characteristic of portraiture of the Theodosian dynasty.[15]

Arcadius and the other members of the dynasty were also identified as imperial by their headdresses. The same double banded pearl headband with a square jewel inlaid above the forehead that is represented on the portrait of Arcadius also appears on the portrait of Valentinian II found at Aphrodisias and on the Missorium of Theodosius. This had become a symbol of imperial power by the time of Theodosius so its employment in this context is expected. However, the similarity of the headdresses on each of these representations indicates that the headdress were a further indication that the person depicted was imperial and of the Theodosian family.[16]

Based upon its compositional similarities to other Theodosian monuments, the portrait bust of Arcadius was designed to give two messages to its beholder. It was supposed to stress the piety of the emperor through allusions to other imperial art that connected piety with divine protection. It also emphasized the emperor's position as a member of the Theodosian house. These statements were integral in establishing the legitimacy of Arcadius' authority. At age seventeen Arcadius took the throne amid very turbulent times. The real powers in the governments were the Gothic military leaders (Stilicho in the West, Gaïnas in the East). In addition, among the upper classes there was a good deal of disenchantment with the general idea of an adolescent emperor, and this emperor in particular.[17] The statements made by Arcadian portraiture answered this challenge to the authority of an unproven young monarch by playing up the Constantinian and later Theodosian idea of a link between the piety and authority of an emperor. The utilization of these artistic motifs throughout the entire Theodosian dynasty attests to success with which it responded to this challenge.

[1] Since I am using the term "propaganda" to describe an ancient artistic and literary program I want to distinguish it from modern propaganda. In describing Theodosian and Constantinian propaganda I merely intend the term to mean a public attempt to create a set of readily identifiable ideas that defined an emperor and the main characteristics of his personality.
[2] Kenneth Holum, Theodosian Empresses, University of California Press, 1982, p. 50.
[3] Ambrose, De ob. Theodosius 2, 52 as quoted in Kenneth Holum, Theodosian Empresses, University of California Press, 1982 stressed that it was not the weapons of the soldiers that won the victory for Theodosius, but the "tears and prayers" of the emperor.
[4] Ambrose, De ob Theodosius taken from Sabina MacCormick, Art and Ceremony in Late Antiquity.
[5] Socrates, Ecclesiastical History, VI. 23 in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series (reprinted 1989) contains a description of how the piety of Arcadius saved a crowd of people from being crushed by a building collapse. Elsewhere in the account of his reign his link with Theodosius is stressed.
[6] Description based upon photographs in Nezih Firatli, "A Late Antique Imperial Portrait Recently Discovered in Istanbul," American Journal of Archaeology, 1950, pp. 67-71.
[7] Holum, p. 35, Figure 2.
[8] Eusebius of Caesarea, "In Praise of Constantine" II.4,5 in In Praise of Constantine: A Historical Study and New Translation of Eusebius' Tricennial Orations by H. A. Drake, University of California Press, 1976.
[9] In Praise of Constantine, V.4.
[10] See the ceiling representations from the Constantinian palace in Trier for a further example of the halo indicating position in religious hierarchy. (plate in Ernst Kitzinger, Byzantine Art in the Making, illustration 52).
[11] See J. D. MacIsaac, "The Hand of God: A Numismatic Study", Traditio 31 (1975), pp. 322-28 for description and plate.
[12] See MacIsaac for discussion of Jewish and Christian parallels to this imagery.
[13] In Praise of Constantine, V.4.
[14] De ob. Theodosius, 2, 52.
[15] The unidentified portrait statues of Augustae and the portrait of Valentinian II (connected with Theodosius through marriage and immediately incorporated into dynastic art) all show the same slight elongation of features and smooth facial texture that we see on the Missorium of Theodosius and the portrait of Arcadius.
[16] Perhaps this use of headdresses as a definition of status is a parallel to the Illyrian hat that was used to tentatively identify a tetrarch among the mosaics in the Piazza Armerina in Sicily.
[17] In his speech De regno Synesius of Cyrene assailed the leisurely life Arcadius: "You take pleasures only in corporeal enjoyments of the most sensual kind which touch and taste provide, living the life of a jellyfish...And because their access to the palace is less dangerous to you than that of generals and captains, you select men to share your existence and otherwise approach you who are to your liking, men of small heads and petty minds...who join you in wasting time and by their encouragement contribute to the evil - that foggy mind of yours which comes from unnatural living." Synesius of Cyrene, De regno, 14 taken from Holum, p. 50 and after translation of Terazaghi pp. 30-1

Baldwin, B., "Perses", Byzantion 31 (1976), pp 5-8.

Drake, H.A., In Praise of Constantine: A New Historical Study and New Translation of Eusebius' Tricennial Orations, University of California Press, Los Angeles, 1976.

Firatli, Nezih, "A Late Antique Imperial Portrait Recently Discovered at Istanbul", in American Journal of Archeology, 1950, pp. 67-71.

An Illustrated Guide to the Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Sculptural Collections in Archeological Museum of Istanbul, Istanbul, 1956.

Holum, Kenneth G., Theodosian Empresses: Women and Imperial Dominion in Late Antiquity, University of California Press, 1982.

Kitzinger, Ernst, Byzantine Art in the Making: Main Lines of Stylistic Development in Mediterranean Art 3rd-7th Century, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1995.

MacCormack, S., Art and Ceremony in Late Antiquity, Berkeley-Los Angeles-London, 1981.

MacIsaac, John D., "The Hand of God: A Numismatic Study", Traditio 31 (1975), pp 322-8.

Mendel, G., Musées Imperiaux Ottomans, Catalogue des Sculptures Grecques, Romains, et Byzantines, Constantinople, 1912.

Morey, Ch., Roman and Christian Sculpture, Part I, Publication of the American Society for the Excavation of Sardis, Princeton, 1924.

Pearce, J.W.E., "Gold Coinage in the Reign of Theodosius I," Numismatic Chronicle, Ser. 5, 18 (1938), 205-46.

Socrates, Ecclesiastical History, Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (ed. Philip Schaff et al), T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1989.