Giacobbe Giusti: Domenico Ghirlandaio, Cosimo Rosselli or Biagio d’Antonio, The Crossing of the Red Sea, Sistine Chapel, Vatican City

Giacobbe Giusti: Domenico Ghirlandaio, Cosimo Rosselli or Biagio d’Antonio, The Crossing of the Red Sea, Sistine Chapel, Vatican City

 

 

Giacobbe Giusti: Domenico Ghirlandaio, Cosimo Rosselli or Biagio d’Antonio, The Crossing of the Red Sea, Sistine Chapel, Vatican City

 

Giacobbe Giusti: Domenico Ghirlandaio, Cosimo Rosselli or Biagio d’Antonio, The Crossing of the Red Sea, Sistine Chapel, Vatican City

 

The Crossing of the Red Sea
Cosimo Rosselli Attraversamento del Mar Rosso.jpg
Artist Domenico Ghirlandaio, Cosimo Rosselli or Biagio d’Antonio
Year 1481–1482
Type Fresco
Dimensions 350 cm × 572 cm (140 in × 225 in)
Location Sistine Chapel, Vatican City

The Crossing of the Red Sea is a fresco executed in 1481–1482 and located in the Sistine ChapelVatican City. Of uncertain attribution, it has been assigned to one between Domenico GhirlandaioBiagio d’Antonio or Cosimo Rosselli.

History

On 27 October 1480 several Florentine painters left for Rome, where they had been called as part of the reconciliation project between Lorenzo de’ Medici, the de facto ruler of Florence, and Pope Sixtus IV. The Florentines started to work in the Sistine Chapel as early as the Spring of 1481, along with Pietro Perugino, who was already there.

Detail of the storm.

The theme of the decoration was a parallel between the Stories of Moses and those of Christ, as a sign of continuity between the Old and the New Testament. A continuity also between the divine law of the Tables and the message of Jesus, who, in turn, chose Peter (the first alleged bishop of Rome) as his successor: this would finally result in a legitimation of the latter’s successors, the popes of Rome.

Among the several fresco in the cycle, that of the Passage of the Red Sea was the one with the most problematic attribution. Although the name of Ghirlandaio was made by several authorities, the work’s style is more reminiscent of that of Cosimo Rosselli or Biagio d’Antonio.

Description

Detail.

The scene is part of the chapel’s Stories of Mosescycle, and, like other frescoes there, shows several scenes at the same time. The sequence begins from the right background, where Moses and Aaron are begging the pharaoh to free the Israelites. On the right are the Egyptian soldiers, shown in typical Italian Renaissance military garments, armor and weapons, who are drowning after the Red Sea waters, which had miraculously opened to allow the Israelites to cross them, close around them. The pharaoh is portrayed in a frantic scream, while other figures try to return to the Egyptian shore by swimming. Before the army is a column hovering over the waters: this is a representation of the fire pillar sent by Yahweh to scare the Egyptians.

In the upper central area is a hail storm, sent by God to punish the Egyptians. Also depicted are some sunrays and, more to the left, a rainbow, symbols of the upcoming liberation for the Israelite people. Similar representation of meteorological phenomena were not uncommon in the 15th-century Italian art: other examples are Fra Angelico‘s Martyrdom of St. Mark on the Tabernacle of the Linaioli, and several Paolo Uccello‘s St. George and the Drake.

On the left are the Israelites, led by a young Moses with the typical yellow garment and green cloak, and a command baton, after they have just crossed the sea. Their safeness is testified by the presence of recreational activities, such as the prophetess Miriam playing a chordophone in the foreground. They continue their trip in procession, disappearing on the left, in a naturalistic landscape. Details include a pet dog in the foreground, reminiscent of Benozzo Gozzoli‘s paintings in the Magi Chapel.

Sources

  • Blumenthal, Arthur R. (2001). Cosimo Rosselli Painter of the Sistine ChapelWinter Park: Cornell Fine Arts Museum.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crossing_of_the_Red_Sea_(Sistine_Chapel)

http://www.giacobbegiusti.com

Giacobbe Giusti, LEONARDO DA VINCI: A LIFE IN DRAWING at Sunderland Museum & Winter Gardens

Giacobbe Giusti, LEONARDO DA VINCI: A LIFE IN DRAWING at Sunderland Museum & Winter Gardens

 

912683 R.jpg

 

Giacobbe Giusti, LEONARDO DA VINCI: A LIFE IN DRAWING at Sunderland Museum & Winter Gardens

Recto: A masquerader in the guise of a prisoner. Verso: A nude male figure

 

Giacobbe Giusti, LEONARDO DA VINCI: A LIFE IN DRAWING at Sunderland Museum & Winter Gardens

Recto: A horse and rider, and studies for Leda. Verso: Mortars bombarding a fortress

 

Giacobbe Giusti, LEONARDO DA VINCI: A LIFE IN DRAWING at Sunderland Museum & Winter Gardens

 

Recto: Notes on optics etc. , with diagrams. Verso: Notes on optics etc. , with diagrams

 

Giacobbe Giusti, LEONARDO DA VINCI: A LIFE IN DRAWING at Sunderland Museum & Winter Gardens

 

The drapery of a kneeling figure

 

Giacobbe Giusti, LEONARDO DA VINCI: A LIFE IN DRAWING at Sunderland Museum & Winter Gardens

leo20

 

Giacobbe Giusti, LEONARDO DA VINCI: A LIFE IN DRAWING

 

leo19

 

Giacobbe Giusti, LEONARDO DA VINCI: A LIFE IN DRAWING

leo17

 

Giacobbe Giusti, LEONARDO DA VINCI: A LIFE IN DRAWING

leo16

 

Giacobbe Giusti, LEONARDO DA VINCI: A LIFE IN DRAWING

leo15

 

Giacobbe Giusti, LEONARDO DA VINCI: A LIFE IN DRAWING

 

leo14

 

Giacobbe Giusti, LEONARDO DA VINCI: A LIFE IN DRAWING

leo13

 

Giacobbe Giusti, LEONARDO DA VINCI: A LIFE IN DRAWING

leo12

 

Giacobbe Giusti, LEONARDO DA VINCI: A LIFE IN DRAWING

leo11

 

Giacobbe Giusti, LEONARDO DA VINCI: A LIFE IN DRAWING

leo10

 

Giacobbe Giusti, LEONARDO DA VINCI: A LIFE IN DRAWING

leo9

 

Giacobbe Giusti, LEONARDO DA VINCI: A LIFE IN DRAWING

leo8

 

Giacobbe Giusti, LEONARDO DA VINCI: A LIFE IN DRAWING

leo7

 

Giacobbe Giusti, LEONARDO DA VINCI: A LIFE IN DRAWING

leo5

 

Giacobbe Giusti, LEONARDO DA VINCI: A LIFE IN DRAWING

leo4

 

Giacobbe Giusti, LEONARDO DA VINCI: A LIFE IN DRAWING

leo3

 

Giacobbe Giusti, LEONARDO DA VINCI: A LIFE IN DRAWING

leo2

 

Giacobbe Giusti, LEONARDO DA VINCI: A LIFE IN DRAWING

 

leo1

 

Giacobbe Giusti, LEONARDO DA VINCI: A LIFE IN DRAWING

leo 18

 

Giacobbe Giusti, LEONARDO DA VINCI: A LIFE IN DRAWING

leo 6

 

Giacobbe Giusti, LEONARDO DA VINCI: A LIFE IN DRAWING

Leonardo da Vinci, Mortars firing into a fortress, c1503-4

Friday, February 1, 2019 to Monday, May 6, 2019

In February 2019, to mark the 500th anniversary of the death of Leonardo da Vinci, 144 of the Renaissance master’s greatest drawings in the Royal Collection will go on display in 12 simultaneous exhibitions across the UK.

Leonardo da Vinci: A Life in Drawing, a nationwide event, will give the widest ever UK audience the opportunity to see the work of this extraordinary artist. 12 drawings selected to reflect the full range of Leonardo’s interests – painting, sculpture, architecture, music, anatomy, engineering, cartography, geology and botany – will be shown at each venue in Belfast, Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff, Glasgow, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield, Southampton and Sunderland – meaning Sunderland Museum and Winter Gardens is the only opportunity to see this work between Leeds and Scotland!

Following these exhibitions, in May 2019 the drawings will then be brought together to form part of an exhibition of over 200 sheets at The Queen’s Gallery, Buckingham Palace, the largest exhibition of Leonardo’s work in over 65 years. A selection of 80 drawings will then travel to The Queen’s Gallery, Palace of Holyroodhouse in November 2019, the largest group of Leonardo’s works ever shown in Scotland.

Tickets to see Leonardo da Vinci: A Life in Drawing at Sunderland Museum and Winter Gardens are available in 1 hour time slots and can be purchased below or at the Visitor Services desk in the museum.

Please note you must purchase a ticket to view this exhibition, however there is no entry charge to the other exhibitions in the museum .

Prices
Adults: £2.50 admission
Under 16s: free entry
Carers (ID may be required): free entry

Giacobbe Giusti, LEONARDO DA VINCI: A LIFE IN DRAWING

leo21

 

To mark the 500th anniversary of the death of Leonardo da Vinci, 144 of the Renaissance master’s greatest drawings in the Royal Collection will go on display in 12 simultaneous exhibitions across the UK.

Leonardo da Vinci: A Life in Drawing, a nationwide event, will give the widest-ever UK audience the opportunity to see the work of this extraordinary artist. 12 drawings selected to reflect the full range of Leonardo’s interests – painting, sculpture, architecture, music, anatomy, engineering, cartography, geology and botany – will be shown at 12 venues across the country.

The drawings have been together as a group since the artist’s death, entering the Royal Collection during the reign of Charles II, and provide an unparalleled insight into Leonardo’s investigations and the workings of his mind. Leonardo firmly believed that visual evidence was more persuasive than academic argument, and that an image conveyed knowledge more accurately and concisely than any words.

The exhibitions will include examples of all the drawing materials employed by the artist, including pen and ink, red and black chalks, watercolour and metalpoint. They will also present new information about Leonardo’s working practices and creative process, gathered through scientific research using a range of non-invasive techniques, including ultraviolet imaging, infrared reflectography and X-ray fluorescence.

As well as Sunderland, exhibitions will be held in BelfastBirminghamBristolCardiff, Derby, GlasgowLeedsLiverpoolManchesterSheffield and Southampton. In the summer of 2019 all these drawings will be brought together in a single exhibition at The Queen’s Gallery in London, followed by a selection of these works at The Queen’s Gallery in Edinburgh in the winter of 2019-20.

https://www.seeitdoitsunderland.co.uk/leonardo-da-vinci-life-drawing

https://www.rct.uk/collection/themes/exhibitions/leonardo-da-vinci-a-life-in-drawing/sunderland-museum-winter-gardens-sunderland/the-drapery-of-a-kneeling-figure

https://www.artfund.org/whats-on/exhibitions/2019/02/01/leonardo-da-vinci-a-life-in-drawing-exhibition-sunderland

http://www.giacobbegiusti.com

 

Giacobbe Giusti, Romulus and Remus

 

Giacobbe Giusti, Romulus and Remus

 

 

Giacobbe Giusti, Romulus and Remus

 

 

Giacobbe Giusti, Romulus and Remus

 

Giacobbe Giusti, Romulus and Remus

 

Giacobbe Giusti, Romulus and Remus

 

Giacobbe Giusti, Romulus and Remus

 

Giacobbe Giusti, Romulus and Remus

La Lupa Capitolina “the Capitoline Wolf”. Traditional scholarship says the wolf-figure is Etruscan, 5th century BC. The figures of Romulus and Remus were added in the 15th century AD by Antonio Pollaiuolo. Recent studies suggest that the she-wolf may be a medieval sculpture dating from the 13th century AD.[1] The work’s attribution attests to the enduring nature of the myth.

Giacobbe Giusti, Romulus and Remus

Altar to Mars (divine father of Romulus and Remus) and Venus (their divine ancestress) depicting elements of their legend. Tiberinus, the Father of the Tiber and the infant twins being suckled by a she-wolf in the Lupercal are below. A vulture from the contest of augury and Palatine hill are to the left. (From Ostia, now at the Palazzo Massimo alle Terme).

 

Giacobbe Giusti, Romulus and Remus

 

The Shepherd Faustulus Bringing Romulus and Remus to His WifeNicolas Mignard (1654)

In Roman mythologyRomulus and Remus (/ˈrɒmjʊləs, –jəl- … ˈrməs/) are twin brothers, whose story tells the events that led to the founding of the city of Rome and the Roman Kingdom by RomulusThe killing of Remus by his brother, and other tales from their story, have inspired artists throughout the ages. Since ancient times, the image of the twins being suckled by a she-wolf has been a symbol of the city of Rome and the Roman people. Although the tale takes place before the founding of Rome around 750 BC, the earliest known written account of the myth is from the late 3rd century BC. Possible historical basis for the story, as well as whether the twins’ myth was an original part of Roman myth or a later development, is a subject of ongoing debate.

Overview

Romulus and Remus were born in Alba Longa, one of the ancient Latin cities near the future site of Rome. Their mother, Rhea Silvia was a vestal virgin and the daughter of the former king, Numitor, who had been displaced by his brother Amulius. In some sources, Rhea Silvia conceived them when their father, the god Mars, visited her in a sacred grove dedicated to him.[2] Through their mother, the twins were descended from Greek and Latin nobility.

Seeing them as a possible threat to his rule, King Amulius ordered them to be killed and they were abandoned on the bank of the river Tiber to die. They were saved by the god Tiberinus, Father of the River, and survived with the care of others, at the site of what would eventually become Rome. In the most well-known episode, the twins were suckled by a she-wolf, in a cave now known as the Lupercal.[3]Eventually, they were adopted by Faustulus, a shepherd. They grew up tending flocks, unaware of their true identities. Over time, they became natural leaders and attracted a company of supporters from the community.

When they were young adults, they became involved in a dispute between supporters of Numitor and Amulius. As a result, Remus was taken prisoner and brought to Alba Longa. Both his grandfather and the king suspected his true identity. Romulus, meanwhile, had organized an effort to free his brother and set out with help for the city. During this time they learned of their past and joined forces with their grandfather to restore him to the throne. Amulius was killed and Numitor was reinstated as king of Alba. The twins set out to build a city of their own.

After arriving back in the area of the seven hills, they disagreed about the hill upon which to build. Romulus preferred the Palatine Hill, above the Lupercal; Remus preferred the Aventine Hill. When they could not resolve the dispute, they agreed to seek the gods’ approval through a contest of augury. Remus first saw 6 auspicious birds but soon afterward, Romulus saw 12, and claimed to have won divine approval. The new dispute furthered the contention between them. In the aftermath, Remus was killed either by Romulus or by one of his supporters.[4] Romulus then went on to found the city of Rome, its institutions, government, military and religious traditions. He reigned for many years as its first king.

Primary sources

The origins of the different elements in Rome’s foundation myth are a subject of ongoing debate. They may have come from the Romans’ own indigenous origins, or from Hellenic influences that were included later. Definitively identifying those original elements has so far eluded the classical academic community.[5] Although the tale takes place before the founding of Rome around 750 BC, the earliest known written account of the myth is from the late 3rd century BC.[6] There is an ongoing debate about how and when the “complete” fable came together.[7]

Some elements are attested to earlier than others, and the storyline and the tone were variously influenced by the circumstances and tastes of the different sources as well as by contemporary Roman politics and concepts of propriety.[8] Whether the twins’ myth was an original part of Roman myth or a later development is the subject of an ongoing debate.[7] Sources often contradict one another. They include the histories of Livy, Plutarch, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and Tacitus as well as the work of Virgil and Ovid.[6][9][10] Quintus Fabius Pictor‘s work became authoritative to the early books of Livy’s Ab Urbe ConditaDionysius of Halicarnassus‘s Roman Antiquities, and Plutarch‘s Life of Romulus.[11]

These three works have been among the most widely read versions of the myth. In all three works, the tales of the lupercal and the fratricide are overshadowed by that of the twins’ lineage and connections to Aeneas and the deposing of Amulius. The latter receives the most attention in the accounts. Plutarch dedicates nearly half of his account to the overthrow of their uncle.

Roman Antiquities (Dionysius)

Dionysius cites, among others, the histories of PictorLucius Calpurnius PisoCato the ElderLucius Cincius Alimentus.

The first book of Dionysius’ twenty-volume history of Rome does not mention Remus until page 235 (chapter 71). After spending another 8 chapters discussing the background of their birth in Alba, he dedicates a total of 9 chapters to the tale (79–87). Most of that is spent discussing the conflict with Amulius.

He goes on to discuss the various accounts of the city’s founding by others, and the lineage and parentage of the twins for another 8 chapters until arriving at the tale of their abandonment by the Tiber. He spends the better part of the chapter 79 discussing the survival in the wild. then the end of 79 through 84 on the account of their struggle with Amulius. 84 with the non-fantastical account of their survival 294. Finally 295 is the augury 85–86, 87–88 the fratricide.303

Ab Urbe Condita (Livy)

Giacobbe Giusti, Romulus and Remus

Detail of Romulus and Remus on the allegory of Tiber

Livy discusses the myth in chapters 4, 5, and 6 of his work’s first book. p. 7 parentage 4 p. 8 survival. p. 8 the youth. 5 9–10 the struggle with Amulius. 6 p. 11 (the beginning only) the augury and fratricide.

Life of Romulus (Plutarch)

Plutarch relates the legend in chapters 2–10 of the Life of Romulus. He dedicates the most attention, nearly half the entire account, to conflict with Amulius.

Fasti (Ovid)

Fasti, the epic Latin poem by Ovid from the early 1st century contains a complete account of the twins’ tale. Notably, it relates a tale wherein the ghost of Remus appears to Faustulus and his wife, whom the poet calls “Acca”. In the story, Remus appears to them while in bed and expresses his anger at Celer for killing him and his own[clarification needed], as well as Romulus’ unquestioned fraternal love.

Roman History (Dio)

Roman History by Cassius Dio survives in fragment from various commentaries. They contain a more-or-less complete account. In them, he mentions an oracle that had predicted Amulius’ death by a son of Numitor as the reason the Alban king expelled the boys. There is also a mention of “another Romulus and Remus” and another Rome having been founded long before on the same site.[12]

Origo Gentis Romanae (Unknown)

This work contains a variety of versions of the story. In one, there is a reference to a woodpecker bringing the boys food during the time they were abandoned in the wild. In one account of the conflict with Amulius, the capture of Remus is not mentioned. Instead, Romulus, upon being told of his true identity and the crimes suffered by him and his family at the hands of the Alban king, simply decided to avenge them. He took his supporters directly to the city and killed Amulius, afterwards restoring his grandfather to the throne.[13]

Fragments and other sources

  • Annals by Ennius is lost, but fragments remain in later histories.
  • Roman History by Appian, in Book I “Concerning the Kings” is a fragment containing an account of the twins’ parentage and origins.
  • The City of God Against the Pagans by Saint Augustine, claims, in passing, that Remus was alive after the city’s founding. Both he and Romulus established the Roman Asylum after the traditional accounts claimed that he had died.[14]
  • Historical Library by Diodorus Siculus, is a universal history, which survives mostly intact in fragments and has a complete recounting of the twins’ origins, their youth in the shepherd community, and the contest of the augury and fratricide. In this version, Remus sees no birds at all and he is later killed by Celer, Romulus’ worker.
  • Origines by Cato the Elder, fragments of which survive in the work of later historians, is cited by Dionysius.

Lost sources

  • Quintus Fabius Pictor wrote in the 3rd century BC. His History, written in Greek, is the earliest-known history of Rome. He is cited by all three canonical works.
  • Diocles of Peparethus wrote a history of Rome that is cited by Plutarch.
  • Lucius Calpurnius Piso wrote a history cited by Dionysius.
  • Quintus Aelius Tubero wrote a history cited by Dionysius.
  • Marcus Octavius (otherwise unknown) wrote an account cited in the Origo Gentis.
  • Licinius Macer (died 66 BC) wrote an account cited in the Origo Gentis.
  • Vennonius wrote an account cited in the Origo Gentis.

Modern scholarship

Giacobbe Giusti, Romulus and Remus

Romulus and Remus. Silver didrachm (6.44 g). c. 269–266 BC

Modern scholarship approaches the various known stories of Romulus and Remus as cumulative elaborations and later interpretations of Roman foundation-myth. Particular versions and collations were presented by Roman historians as authoritative, an official history trimmed of contradictions and untidy variants to justify contemporary developments, genealogies and actions in relation to Roman morality. Other narratives appear to represent popular or folkloric tradition; some of these remain inscrutable in purpose and meaning. Wiseman sums the whole as the mythography of an unusually problematic foundation and early history.[15][16]

The three canonical accounts of Livy, Dionysius, and Plutarch provide the broad literary basis for studies of Rome’s founding mythography. They have much in common, but each is selective to its purpose. Livy’s is a dignified handbook, justifying the purpose and morality of Roman traditions of his own day. Dionysius and Plutarch approach the same subjects as interested outsiders, and include founder-traditions not mentioned by Livy, untraceable to a common source and probably specific to particular regions, social classes or oral traditions.[17][18] A Roman text of the late Imperial era, Origo gentis Romanae (The origin of the Roman people) is dedicated to the many “more or less bizarre”, often contradictory variants of Rome’s foundation myth, including versions in which Remus founds a city named Remuria, five miles from Rome, and outlives his brother Romulus.[19][20]

Roman historians and Roman traditions traced most Roman institutions to Romulus. He was credited with founding Rome’s armies, its system of rights and laws, its state religion and government, and the system of patronage that underpinned all social, political and military activity.[21] In reality, such developments would have been spread over a considerable span of time. Some were much older and others much more recent. To most Romans, the evidence for the veracity of the legend and its central characters seemed clear and concrete, an essential part of Rome’s sacred topography. One could visit the Lupercal, where the twins were suckled by the she-wolf, or offer worship to the deified Romulus-Quirinus at the “shepherd’s hut“, or see it acted out on stage, or simply read the Fasti.

The legend as a whole encapsulates Rome’s ideas of itself, its origins and moral values. For modern scholarship, it remains one of the most complex and problematic of all foundation myths, particularly in the manner of Remus’s death. Ancient historians had no doubt that Romulus gave his name to the city. Most modern historians believe his name a back-formation from the name Rome; the basis for Remus’s name and role remain subjects of ancient and modern speculation. The myth was fully developed into something like an “official”, chronological version in the Late Republican and early Imperial era; Roman historians dated the city’s foundation to between 758 and 728 BC, and Plutarch reckoned the twins’ birth year as 771 BC. A tradition that gave Romulus a distant ancestor in the semi-divine Trojan prince Aeneas was further embellished, and Romulus was made the direct ancestor of Rome’s first Imperial dynasty. Possible historical bases for the broad mythological narrative remain unclear and disputed.[22] The image of the she-wolf suckling the divinely fathered twins became an iconic representation of the city and its founding legend, making Romulus and Remus preeminent among the feral children of ancient mythography.

Historicity

A Roman relief from the Cathedral of Maria Saal showing Romulus and Remus with the she-wolf

Although a debate continues, current scholarship offers little evidence supporting the Roman foundation myth, including a historical Romulus or Remus.[23] Starting with Pictor, the written accounts must have reflected the commonly-held history of the city to some degree, as were not free to make things up.[24] Historical bases for the broad mythological narrative remain unclear and disputed. The archaeologist Andrea Carandini is one of the very few modern scholars who accept Romulus and Remus as historical figures, based on the 1988 discovery of an ancient wall on the north slope of the Palatine Hill in Rome. Carandini dates the structure to the mid-8th century BC and names it the Murus Romuli.[25] In 2007, archaeologists reported the discovery of the Lupercal beneath the home of Emperor Augustus, but a debate over the discovery continues.[26][27]

Iconography

Ancient pictures of the Roman twins usually follow certain symbolictraditions, depending on the legend they follow: they either show a shepherd, the she-wolf, the twins under a fig tree, and one or two birds (LivyPlutarch); or they depict two shepherds, the she-wolf, the twins in a cave, seldom a fig tree, and never any birds (Dionysius of Halicarnassus).

The twins and the she-wolf were featured on what might be the earliest silver coins ever minted in Rome.[28]

The Franks Casket, an Anglo-Saxon ivory box (early 7th century AD) shows Romulus and Remus in an unusual setting, two wolves instead of one, a grove instead of one tree or a cave, four kneeling warriors instead of one or two gesticulating shepherds. According to one interpretation, and as the runic inscription (“far from home”) indicates, the twins are cited here as the Dioscuri, helpers at voyages such as Castor and Polydeuces. Their descent from the Roman god of war predestines them as helpers on the way to war. The carver transferred them into the Germanic holy grove and has Woden‘s second wolf join them. Thus the picture served — along with five other ones — to influence “wyrd“, the fortune and fate of a warrior king.[29]

In popular culture

  • Romolo e Remo: a 1961 film starring Steve Reeves and Gordon Scott as the two brothers.
  • The Rape of the Sabine Women: a 1962 film starring Wolf Ruvinskis as Romulus.
  • In Star Trek, Romulus and Remus are neighbouring planets with Remus being tidally locked to the star. Romulus is the capital of the Romulan Star Empire, which is loosely based on the Roman Empire.
  • The novel Founding Fathers by Alfred Duggan describes the founding and first decades of Rome from the points of view of Marcus, one of Romulus’s Latin followers, Publius, a Sabine who settles in Rome as part of the peace agreement with Tatius, Perperna, an Etruscan fugitive who is accepted into the tribe of Luceres after his own city is destroyed, and Macro, a Greek seeking purification from blood-guilt who comes to the city in the last years of Romulus’s reign. Publiusa and Perpernia become senators. Romulus is portrayed as a gifted leader though a remarkably unpleasant person, chiefly distinguished by his luck; the story of his surreptitious murder by the senators is adopted, but although the story of his deification is fabricated, his murderers themselves think he may indeed have become a god. The novel begins with the founding of the city and the killing of Remus, and ends with the accession of Numa Pompilius.[citation needed]
  • In the game Undead Knights, the main characters are brothers named Romulus and Remus.
  • In Harry Potter, one of the characters is named after Remus—Remus John Lupin. And at one point uses the code name Romulus. Professor Lupin is a teacher of defence against the dark arts, and is in fact a werewolf. This reflects the Remus of Roman mythology, who was raised by a wolf. In fact, the name Lupin comes from the Latin word lupus, meaning wolf.
  • In Assassin’s Creed: Brotherhood Romulus is worshipped as a god by the Followers of Romulus cult. The main character, Ezio Auditore, comes into conflict with the cult on several occasions during his adventures in Rome while trying to locate the keys to the Armor of Brutus, wiping out the cult in the process.[30]
  • In the Death Grips song, “Black Quarterback” Romulus and Remus are mentioned. In characteristic Death Grips style, their lyric isn’t contextualised in any typical linear sense.
  • “Up the Wolves” by The Mountain Goats is a song that alludes to Romulus and Remus.
  • Ex Deo released an album in 2009 titled Romulus. Its title track concerns the myth of Romulus and Remus and the founding of Rome.
  • The music video for ‘God Is a Woman‘ by Ariana Grande pays homage to Romulus and Remus.[31]
  • Chapter 3 of the novel Roma by Steven Saylor is devoted to Remus and Romulus, depicted as two very wild youths who are originally united in perpetrating ever more daring and outrageous pranks on the inhabitants of early Rome (depicted as already existing several generations before them) and their increasingly fierce rivalry culminating in Romulus killing Remus.

Depictions in art

The myth has been an inspiration to artists throughout the ages. Particular focus has been paid to the rape of Ilia by Mars and the suckling of the twins by the she-wolf.

Palazzo Magnani

Remus and the Cattle Thieves (attributed to one or more of the Carraccis)

In the late 16th century, the wealthy Magnani family from Bologna commissioned a series of artworks based on the Roman foundation myth. The artists contributing works included a sculpture of Hercules with the infant twins by Gabriele Fiorini, featuring the patron’s own face. The most important works were an elaborate series of frescoes collectively known as Histories of the Foundation of Rome by the Brothers Carracci: LudovicoAnnibale, and Agostino Carracci.

Fresco of Palazzo Trinci

 

The birth of Romulus and Remus

The Loggia di Romolo e Remo is an unfinished, 15th century fresco by Gentile da Fabriano depicting episodes from the legend in the Palazzo Trinci.

Further reading

Primary sources

Secondary sources

Notes

  1. ^ Adriano La Regina, “La lupa del Campidoglio è medievale la prova è nel test al carbonio”La Repubblica. 9 July 2008
  2. ^ Other sources express doubt as to the divine nature of their parentage. One claims the boys were fathered by Amulius himself, who raped his niece while wearing his armour to conceal his identity.
  3. ^ For other depictions, see Livy and Dionysius
  4. ^ Dionysius lays out several of the different accounts of his death, along with his murder by Romulus.
  5. ^ Tennant, p. 81
  6. Jump up to:a b Dionysius, vol 1 p. 72
  7. Jump up to:a b Tennant
  8. ^ Wiseman, Remus
  9. ^ Dionysius, vol. II p. 76
  10. ^ Plutarch, Lives
  11. ^ von Albrecht, Michael (1997). A History of Roman Literature: From Livius Andronicus to BoethiusI. Leiden: BRILL. p. 374. ISBN 90-04-10709-6. Retrieved 20 November 2016.
  12. ^ Dio Casssius. “Roman History I p.12-18”doi:10.4159/DLCL.dio_cassius-roman_history.1914. Retrieved 24 November 2016.  – via digital Loeb Classical Library (subscription required)
  13. ^ Origo Gentis Romanae XXI
  14. ^ Saint Augustine. “The City of God Against the Pagans v.I p.137”doi:10.4159/DLCL.augustine-city_god_pagans.1957. Retrieved 24 November 2016.  – via digital Loeb Classical Library (subscription required)
  15. ^ Wiseman Remus.
  16. ^ Momigliano, Arnoldo (2007). “An interim report on the origins of Rome”. Terzo contributo alla storia degli studi classici e del mondo antico1. Rome: Edizioni di storia e letteratura. pp. 545–98.. A critical, chronological review of historiography related to Rome’s origins.
  17. ^ Momigliano, Arnoldo (1990). The classical foundations of modern historiography. University Presses of California, Columbia and Princeton. p. 101.. Modern historiographic perspectives on this source material.
  18. ^ Dillery (2009). Feldherr, Andrew, ed. The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Historians. Cambridge University Press. pp. 78–81 ff..
  19. ^ Cornell, pp. 57–8.
  20. ^ Banchich (2004). Origo Gentis Romanae (PDF). trans. by Haniszewski, et al. Cansius College.. Translation and commentaries.
  21. ^ Rodriguez Mayorgas p.93
  22. ^ The archaeologist Andrea Carandini is one of very few modern scholars who accept Romulus and Remus as historical figures, based on the 1988 discovery of an ancient wall on the north slope of the Palatine Hill in Rome. Carandini dates the structure to the mid-8th century BC and names it the Murus Romuli. See Carandini, La nascita di Roma. Dèi, lari, eroi e uomini all’alba di una civiltà (Torino: Einaudi, 1997) and Carandini. Remo e Romolo. Dai rioni dei Quiriti alla città dei Romani (775/750 – 700/675 a. C. circa) (Torino: Einaudi, 2006)
  23. ^ Rodriguez Mayorgas p.91
  24. ^ Rodriguez Mayorgas p.90
  25. ^ See Carandini, La nascita di Roma. Dèi, lari, eroi e uomini all’alba di una civiltà (Torino: Einaudi, 1997) and Carandini. Remo e Romolo. Dai rioni dei Quiriti alla città dei Romani (775/750 – 700/675 a. C. circa)(Torino: Einaudi, 2006)
  26. ^ Valsecchi, Maria Cristina (26 January 2007). “Sacred Cave of Rome’s Founders Discovered, Archaeologists Say”National Geographic NewsNational Geographic. Retrieved 10 November 2016.
  27. ^ Schulz, Matthia. “Is Italy’s Spectacular Find Authentic?” Spiegel Online, 10 November 2016.
  28. ^ Crawford, p.31
  29. ^ “Archived copy”. Archived from the original on 2013-03-08. Retrieved 2012-12-20.; see also “The Travelling Twins: Romulus and Remus in Anglo-Saxon England
  30. ^ Assassin’s Creed: Brotherhood
  31. ^ Stiernberg, Bonnie. “Ariana Grande’s ‘God Is a Woman’ Video Is an Incredible Manifesto for Empowering Female Sexuality”Glamour. Retrieved 2018-10-23.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romulus_and_Remus

http://www.giacobbegiusti.com

Giacobbe Giusti, Herculaneum: House of the Neptune Mosaic

Giacobbe Giusti, Herculaneum: House of the Neptune Mosaic

 

Giacobbe Giusti, Herculaneum: House of the Neptune Mosaic

 

Giacobbe Giusti, Herculaneum: House of the Neptune Mosaic

 

Giacobbe Giusti, Herculaneum: House of the Neptune Mosaic

 

Giacobbe Giusti, Herculaneum: House of the Neptune Mosaic

 

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Casa_di_Nettuno_e_Anfitrite_(Herculaneum)?uselang=it

http://www.giacobbegiusti.com

Giacobbe Giusti, Lascaux

 

Giacobbe Giusti, Lascaux

 

Giacobbe Giusti, Lascaux

 

Giacobbe Giusti, Lascaux

 

Giacobbe Giusti, Lascaux

 

 
UNESCO World Heritage Site

Giacobbe Giusti, Lascaux

 

Lascaux painting.jpg

Depiction of aurochs, horses and deer
Location near MontignacFrance
Part of Prehistoric Sites and Decorated Caves of the Vézère Valley
Criteria Cultural: i, iii
Reference 85-011
Inscription 1979 (3rd Session)
Area 34.34 ha (0.1326 sq mi)
Coordinates 45°03′13″N 1°10′12″ECoordinates45°03′13″N 1°10′12″E
Lascaux is located in Dordogne

Lascaux
Location in the Dordogne

Show map of DordogneShow map of FranceShow all

Lascaux (FrenchGrotte de Lascaux, “Lascaux Cave”; English: /læsˈk/,[1]French: [lasko][2]) is the setting of a complex of caves near the village of Montignac, in the department of Dordognein southwestern France. Over 600 parietal wall paintings cover the interior walls and ceilings of the cave. The paintings represent primarily large animals, typical local and contemporary fauna that correspond with the fossil record of the Upper Paleolithic time. The drawings are the combined effort of many generations, and with continued debate, the age of the paintings is estimated at around 17,000 years (early Magdalenian).[3][4][5]Lascaux was inducted into the UNESCO World Heritage Sites list in 1979, as element of the Prehistoric Sites and Decorated Caves of the Vézère Valley.[6]

History since rediscovery

Giacobbe Giusti, Lascaux

Modern entrance to the Lascaux cave

On September 12, 1940, the entrance to the Lascaux Cave was discovered by 18-year-old Marcel Ravidat. Ravidat (died in 1995) returned to the scene with three friends, Jacques Marsal, Georges Agnel, and Simon Coencas. They entered the cave through a 15 metres (49 ft) deep shaft to rescue their dog which had fallen into the hole. [7][8][9]The teenagers discovered that the cave walls were covered with depictions of animals.[10][11]Galleries that suggest continuity, context or simply represent a cavern were given names. Those include the Hall of the Bulls, the Passageway, the Shaft, the Nave, the Apse, and the Chamber of Felines. The cave complex was opened to the public on July 14, 1948.[12] By 1955, carbon dioxide, heat, humidity, and other contaminants produced by 1,200 visitors per day had visibly damaged the paintings. As air condition deteriorated, fungi and lichen increasingly infested the walls. Consequently, the cave was closed to the public in 1963, the paintings were restored to their original state and a monitoring system on a daily basis was introduced.

Lascaux II, an exact copy of the Great Hall of the Bulls and the Painted Gallery opened in 1983 in the cave’s vicinity (about 200 m. away from the original cave), a compromise and attempt to present an impression of the paintings’ scale and composition for the public without harming the originals.[11][7] A full range of Lascaux’s parietal art is presented a few kilometres from the site at the Centre of Prehistoric Art, Le Parc du Thot, where there are also live animals representing ice-age fauna.[13] The paintings for this site were duplicated with the same type of materials as iron oxidecharcoal and ochre which were believed to be used 19 thousand years ago.[14][15][16][17]

Ochroconis lascauxensis

In May 2018 Ochroconis lascauxensis, a species of fungus of the Ascomycota phylum, was officially described and named after the place of its first emergence and isolation, the Lascaux cave. This followed on from the discovery of another closely related species Ochroconis anomala, first observed inside the cave in 2000. The following year black spots began to appear among the cave paintings. No official announcement on the effect and/or progress of attempted treatments has ever been made.[18]

As of 2008, the cave contained black mold. In January 2008, authorities closed the cave for three months, even to scientists and preservationists. A single individual was allowed to enter the cave for 20 minutes once a week to monitor climatic conditions. Now only a few scientific experts are allowed to work inside the cave and just for a few days a month but the efforts to remove the mold have taken a toll, leaving dark patches and damaging the pigments on the walls.[19] In 2009 it was announced: Mold problem “stable” (where?). In 2011 the fungus seemed to be in retreat after the introduction of an additional, even stricter conservation program.[20]

Geographic setting

reproduction of Lascaux artwork in Lascaux II

In its sedimentary composition, the Vézère drainage basin covers one fourth of the département of the Dordogne, the northernmost region of the Black Périgord. Before joining the Dordogne River near Limeuil, the Vézère flows in a south-westerly direction. At its centre point, the river’s course is marked by a series of meanders flanked by high limestone cliffs that determine the landscape. Upstream from this steep-sloped relief, near Montignac and in the vicinity of Lascaux, the contours of the land soften considerably; the valley floor widens, and the banks of the river lose their steepness.

The Lascaux valley is located some distance from the major concentrations of decorated caves and inhabited sites, most of which were discovered further downstream. In the environs of the village of Eyzies-de-Tayac Sireuil, there are no fewer than 37 decorated caves and shelters, as well as an even greater number of habitation sites from the Upper Paleolithic, located in the open, beneath a sheltering overhang, or at the entrance to one of the area’s karst cavities. This is the highest concentration in western Europe.

Images

Giacobbe Giusti, Lascaux

Megaloceros with line of dots

The cave contains nearly 6,000 figures, which can be grouped into three main categories: animals, human figures, and abstract signs. The paintings contain no images of the surrounding landscape or the vegetation of the time.[21] Most of the major images have been painted onto the walls using red, yellow, and black colours from a complex multiplicity of mineral pigments[22]:110[23] including iron compounds such as iron oxide (ochre),[24]:204 hematite, and goethite,[23][25] as well as manganese-containing pigments.[23][24]:208 Charcoal may also have been used[24]:199 but seemingly to a sparing extent.[22] On some of the cave walls, the colour may have been applied as a suspension of pigment in either animal fat or calcium-rich cave groundwater or clay, making paint,[22] that was swabbed or blotted on, rather than applied by brush.[25] In other areas, the colour was applied by spraying the pigments by blowing the mixture through a tube.[25] Where the rock surface is softer, some designs have been incised into the stone. Many images are too faint to discern, and others have deteriorated entirely.

Over 900 can be identified as animals, and 605 of these have been precisely identified. Out of these images, there are 364 paintings of equines as well as 90 paintings of stags. Also represented are cattle and bison, each representing 4 to 5% of the images. A smattering of other images include seven felines, a bird, a bear, a rhinoceros, and a human. There are no images of reindeer, even though that was the principal source of food for the artists.[26] Geometric images have also been found on the walls.

The most famous section of the cave is The Hall of the Bulls where bulls, equines, and stags are depicted. The four black bulls, or aurochs, are the dominant figures among the 36 animals represented here. One of the bulls is 5.2 metres (17 ft) long, the largest animal discovered so far in cave art. Additionally, the bulls appear to be in motion.[26]

A painting referred to as “The Crossed Bison”, found in the chamber called the Nave, is often submitted as an example of the skill of the Paleolithic cave painters. The crossed hind legs create the illusion that one bison is closer to the viewer than the other. This visual depth in the scene demonstrates a primitive form of perspective which was particularly advanced for the time.

Interpretation

Some anthropologists and art historians theorize that the paintings could be an account of past hunting success, or could represent a mystical ritual in order to improve future hunting endeavors. The latter theory is supported by the overlapping images of one group of animals in the same cave location as another group of animals, suggesting that one area of the cave was more successful for predicting a plentiful hunting excursion.[27]

Applying the iconographic method of analysis to the Lascaux paintings (studying position, direction and size of the figures; organization of the composition; painting technique; distribution of the color planes; research of the image center), Thérèse Guiot-Houdart attempted to comprehend the symbolic function of the animals, to identify the theme of each image and finally to reconstitute the canvas of the myth illustrated on the rock walls.[28][further explanation needed]

Cave painting of a dun horse (equine) at Lascaux

Julien d’Huy and Jean-Loïc Le Quellec showed that certain angular or barbed signs of Lascaux may be analysed as “weapon” or “wounds”. These signs affect dangerous animals—big cats, aurochs and bison—more than others and may be explained by a fear of the animation of the image.[29] Another finding supports the hypothesis of half-alive images. At Lascaux, bison, aurochs and ibex are not represented side by side. Conversely, one can note a bison-horses-lions system and an aurochs-horses-deer-bears system, these animals being frequently associated.[30] Such a distribution may show the relationship between the species pictured and their environmental conditions. Aurochs and bison fight one against the other, and horses and deer are very social with other animals. Bison and lions live in open plains areas; aurochs, deer and bears are associated with forests and marshes; ibex habitat is rocky areas, and horses are highly adaptive for all these areas. The Lascaux paintings’ disposition may be explained by a belief in the real life of the pictured species, wherein the artists tried to respect their real environmental conditions.[31]

Less known is the image area called the Abside (Apse), a roundish, semi-spherical chamber similar to an apse in a Romanesque basilica. It is approximately 4.5 metres in diameter (about 5 yards) and covered on every wall surface (including the ceiling) with thousands of entangled, overlapping, engraved drawings.[32] The ceiling of the Apse, which ranges from 1.6 to 2.7 metres high (about 5.2 to 8.9 feet) as measured from the original floor height, is so completely decorated with such engravings that it indicates that the prehistoric people who executed them first constructed a scaffold to do so.[21][33]

The famous shaft scene of Lascaux: a man with a bird head and a bison.

According to David Lewis-Williams and Jean Clotteswho both studied presumably similar art of the San peopleof Southern Africa, this type of art is spiritual in nature relating to visions experienced during ritualistic trance-dancing. These trance visions are a function of the human brain and so are independent of geographical location.[34]Nigel Spivey, a professor of classical art and archeology at the University of Cambridge, has further postulated in his series, How Art Made the World, that dot and lattice patterns overlapping the representational images of animals are very similar to hallucinations provoked by sensory-deprivation. He further postulates that the connections between culturally important animals and these hallucinations led to the invention of image-making, or the art of drawing.[35]

Threats

The conservation room at Lascaux

The opening of Lascaux Cave after World War II changed the cave environment. The exhalations of 1,200 visitors per day, presence of light, and changes in air circulation have created a number of problems. Lichens and crystals began to appear on the walls in the late 1950s, leading to closure of the caves in 1963. This led to restriction of access to the real caves to a few visitors every week, and the creation of a replica cave for visitors to Lascaux. In 2001, the authorities in charge of Lascaux changed the air conditioning system which resulted in regulation of the temperature and humidity. When the system had been established, an infestation of Fusarium solani, a white mold, began spreading rapidly across the cave ceiling and walls.[36] The mold is considered to have been present in the cave soil and exposed by the work of tradesmen, leading to the spread of the fungus which was treated with quicklime. In 2007, a new fungus, which has created grey and black blemishes, began spreading in the real cave.

Organized through the initiative of the French Ministry of Culture, an international symposium titled “Lascaux and Preservation Issues in Subterranean Environments” was held in Paris on February 26 and 27, 2009, under the chairmanship of Jean Clottes. It brought together nearly three hundred participants from seventeen countries with the goal of confronting research and interventions conducted in Lascaux Cave since 2001 with the experiences gained in other countries in the domain of preservation in subterranean environments.[37] The proceedings of this symposium were published in 2011. Seventy-four specialists in fields as varied as biology, biochemistry, botany, hydrology, climatology, geology, fluid mechanics, archaeology, anthropology, restoration and conservation, from numerous countries (France, United States, Portugal, Spain, Japan, and others) contributed to this publication.[38]

The problem is ongoing, as are efforts to control the microbial and fungal growths in the cave. The fungal infection crises have led to the establishment of an International Scientific Committee for Lascaux and to rethinking how, and how much, human access should be permitted in caves containing prehistoric art.[39]

References

  1. ^ “American English Dictionary: Definition of Lascaux”. Collins. Retrieved 18 August 2013.
  2. ^ “English Dictionary: Definition of Lascaux”. Collins. Retrieved 18 August 2013.
  3. ^ “Lascaux Cave Paintings: Layout, Meaning, Photographs – Dating – Chronological questions about the age of Lascaux’s cave paintings, over what period they were created, and the identity of the oldest art in the complex, are still being debated…” Visual arts cork com. Retrieved December 28, 2016.
  4. ^ “Ice Age star map discovered – thought to date back 16,500 years”. BBC. August 9, 2000. Retrieved December 27, 2016.
  5. ^ “Lascaux, France. These paintings are estimated to be around 17,300 years old”. Ancient-wisdom. Retrieved December 27, 2016.
  6. ^ “Prehistoric Sites and Decorated Caves of the Vézère Valley”. UNESCO World Heritage Center. Retrieved 30 December 2012.
  7. Jump up to:a b “Lascaux Cave”Ancient History Encyclopedia. Retrieved 2018-12-21.
  8. ^ “Discovery of the Lascaux Cave Paintings | History Today”http://www.historytoday.com. Retrieved 2018-12-21.
  9. ^ “Lascaux’s prehistoric cave of wonders discovered by a dog”http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au. 2015-09-10. Retrieved 2018-12-21.
  10. ^ Thomas Jr., Robert McG. (March 31, 1995). “Marcel Ravidat is Dead at 72; Found Lascaux Paintings”The New York Times. Retrieved 30 December 2012.
  11. Jump up to:a b Bahn, Paul G. (2007). Cave Art: A Guide to the Decorated Ice Age Caves of Europe. London: Frances Lincoln. pp. 81–85. ISBN 0711226555.
  12. ^ Littlewood, Ian (2005). Justin Wintle, ed. The timeline history of France. New York: Barnes & Noble. p. 296. ISBN 0760779759.
  13. ^ le retour des loups “préhistoriques” “Lascaux III,” another copy, has toured the world. In December 2016, “Lascaux IV,” a complete reproduction of the caves, opened along with various interactive features.
  14. ^ Quotations, K. Kris Hirst K. Kris Hirst is an archaeologist with 30 years of field experience She is the author of The Archaeologist’s Book of; Science, her work has appeared in; Archaeology. “The Beautiful and Famous Lascaux Cave”ThoughtCo. Retrieved 2018-12-21.
  15. ^ “Lascaux’s prehistoric cave of wonders discovered by a dog”http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au. 2015-09-10. Retrieved 2018-12-21.
  16. ^ “Lectures on the Ice-Age Painted Caves of Southwestern France”(PDF).
  17. ^ Ferrier, Catherine; Debard, Évelyne; Kervazo, Bertrand; Brodard, Aurélie; Guibert, Pierre; Baffier, Dominique; Feruglio, Valérie; Gély, Bernard; Geneste, Jean-Michel (2014-12-28). “Heated walls of the cave Chauvet-Pont d’Arc (Ardèche, France): characterization and chronology”PALEO. Revue d’archéologie préhistorique (25): 59–78. ISSN 1145-3370.
  18. ^ Martin-Sanchez, Pedro Maria; Nováková, Alena; Bastian, Fabiola; Alabouvette, Claude; Saiz-Jimenez, Cesareo (2012). “Two new species of the genus OchroconisO. lascauxensis and O. anomala isolated from black stains in Lascaux Cave, France”. Fungal BiologyElsevier116 (5): 574–89. doi:10.1016/j.funbio.2012.02.006PMID 22559918.
  19. ^ Moore, Molly (July 1, 2008). “Debate Over Moldy Cave Art Is a Tale of Human Missteps”The Washington Post. Retrieved 30 December2012.
  20. ^ “Lascaux’s 18,000 year-old cave art under threat”. Phys.org. Retrieved December 28, 2016.
  21. Jump up to:a b Nechvatal, Joseph (2011). Immersion Into Noise. Ann Arbor: Open Humanities Press. pp. 74–76. ISBN 978-1-60785-241-4. Retrieved 30 December 2012.
  22. Jump up to:a b c Dickson, D. Bruce (1992). The Dawn of Belief: Religion in the Upper Paleolithic of Southwestern EuropeISBN 9780816513369.
  23. Jump up to:a b c Chalmin E, Farges F, Vignaud C, et alDiscovery of Unusual Minerals in Paleolithic Black Pigments from Lascaux (France) and Ekain (Spain)[1]
  24. Jump up to:a b c Rapp, George R. (2013). ArchaeomineralogyISBN 9783662050057.
  25. Jump up to:a b c “Lascaux Cave Paintings: Layout, Meaning, Photographs”visual-arts-cork.com.
  26. Jump up to:a b Curtis, Gregory (2006). The Cave Painters: Probing the Mysteries of the World’s First Artists (1st ed.). New York: Alfred A. Knopf. pp. 96–97, 102. ISBN 1400043484.
  27. ^ “Lascaux cave: History”http://www.karstworlds.com. Retrieved 2018-11-26.
  28. ^ Guiot-Houdart, Thérèse (2004). Lascaux et les mythes (in French). Périgueux: Pilote 24. ISBN 2-912347-39-4.
  29. ^ Julien d’Huy et Jean-Loïc Le Quellec (2010). “Les animaux ‘fléchés’ à Lascaux: nouvelle proposition d’interprétation” Préhistoire du Sud-Ouest 18(2): 161-170
  30. ^ Denis Tauxe (2007).”L’organisation symbolique du dispositif pariétal de la grotte de Lascaux”, Préhistoire du Sud-Ouest, 15: 177-266
  31. ^ Julien d’Huy (2011). “La distribution des animaux à Lascaux reflèterait leur distribution naturelle“, Bulletin de la Société Historique et Archéologique du Périgord CXXXVIII, 493-502
  32. ^ Leroi-Gourhan, André. The Art of Prehistoric Man in Western Europe. London: Thames and Hudson. 1968. p. 315
  33. ^ Mario Ruspoli, The Cave of Lascaux: The Final Photographic Record(New York: Abrams, 1983) pp. 146-47
  34. ^ Harry Francis Mallgrave (26 June 2013). Architecture and Embodiment: The Implications of the New Sciences and Humanities for Design. Routledge. pp. 190–. ISBN 978-1-135-09424-9.
  35. ^ Gray, S. W. (2014). [ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5404&context=theses “The cartographic paradigm in contemporary Australian landscape painting”] Check |url= value (help).
  36. ^ Joëlle Dupont; Claire Jacquet; Bruno Dennetière; Sandrine Lacoste (2007). “Invasion of the French Paleolithic painted cave of Lascaux by members of the Fusarium solani species complex”Mycologia99(4): 526–533. doi:10.3852/mycologia.99.4.526PMID 18065003.
  37. ^ At the Takamatsuzuka Tomb in Japan, and Altamira in Spain, for example.
  38. ^ Coye, N. dir. (2011), Lascaux et la conservation en milieu souterrain: actes du symposium international (Paris, 26-27 fév. 2009) = Lascaux and Preservation Issues in Subterranean Environments: Proceedings of the International Symposium (Paris, February 26 and 27), Éditions de la Maison des sciences de l’homme, 360 p. In french and english. [2]
  39. ^ Simons, Marlise (9 December 2007). “Fungus Once Again Threatens French Cave Paintings”World:Europe. New York Times. Retrieved 15 October 2010.

Further reading

  • Dubowski, Mark (2010). Discovery in the Cave (Children’s early reader). New York, New York, USA: Random House. ISBN 0375858938
  • Curtis, Gregory (2006). The Cave Painters: Probing the Mysteries of the World’s First Artists. New York, New York, USA: Knopf. ISBN 1-4000-4348-4
  • Lewis-Williams, David (2004). The Mind in the Cave: Consciousness and the Origins of Art. Thames and Hudson. ISBN 0-500-28465-2
  • Bataille, Georges (2005). The Cradle of Humanity: Prehistoric Art and Culture. New York, New York: Zone Books. ISBN 1-890951-55-2
  • Joseph NechvatalImmersive Excess in the Apse of Lascaux, Technonoetic Arts 3, no3. 2005
  • B.et G. Delluc (dir.), Le Livre du Jubilé de Lascaux 1940-1990, Société historique et archéologique du Périgord, supplément au tome CXVII, 1990, 155 p., ill.
  • B. et G. Delluc, 2003 : Lascaux retrouvé. Les recherches de l’abbé André Glory, Pilote 24 édition, 368 p., ill.
  • B. et G. Delluc, 2006 : Discovering Lascaux, Sud Ouest, nouvelle édition entièrement revue et très augmentée, 80 p., ill. plans et coupe.
  • B. et G. Delluc, 2008 : Dictionnaire de Lascaux, Sud Ouest, Bordeaux. Plus de 600 entrées et illustrations. Bibliographie (450 références). ISBN 978-2-87901-877-5.
  • B. et G. Delluc, 2010 : Lascaux et la guerre. Une galerie de portraits, Bull. de la Soc. historique et arch. du Périgord, CXXXVI, 2e livraison, 40 p., ill., bibliographie.
  • A. Glory, 2008 : Les recherches à Lascaux (1952-1963). Documents recueillis et présentés par B. et G. Delluc, XXXIXe suppl. à Gallia-Préhistoire, CNRS, Paris.
  • Joseph Nechvatal, 2011: Immersion Into NoiseUniversity of Michigan Library’s Scholarly Publishing Office. Ann Arbor.
  • Rigaud, Jean-Philippe (October 1988). “Art Treasures from the Ice Age: Lascaux Cave”. National Geographic. Vol. 174 no. 4. pp. 482–499. ISSN 0027-9358OCLC 643483454.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lascaux

http://www.giacobbegiusti.com

Giacobbe Giusti, Chariot racing: Iranian, ancient Greek, Roman, and Byzantine sports

Giacobbe Giusti, Chariot racing: Iranian, ancient Greek, Roman, and Byzantine sports

 

Giacobbe Giusti, Chariot racing: Iranian, ancient Greek, Roman, and Byzantine sports

 

Giacobbe Giusti, Chariot racing: Iranian, ancient Greek, Roman, and Byzantine sports

 

Giacobbe Giusti, Chariot racing: Iranian, ancient Greek, Roman, and Byzantine sports

 

Giacobbe Giusti, Chariot racing: Iranian, ancient Greek, Roman, and Byzantine sports

 

Giacobbe Giusti, Chariot racing: Iranian, ancient Greek, Roman, and Byzantine sports

A modern recreation of chariot racing in Puy du Fou

Chariot racing (Greekἁρματοδρομίαtranslit. harmatodromiaLatinludi circenses) was one of the most popular Iranianancient GreekRoman, and ByzantinesportsChariot racing was dangerous to both drivers and horses as they often suffered serious injury and even death, but these dangers added to the excitement and interest for spectators. Chariot races could be watched by women, who were banned from watching many other sports. In the Roman form of chariot racing, teams represented different groups of financial backers and sometimes competed for the services of particularly skilled drivers. As in modern sports like football, spectators generally chose to support a single team, identifying themselves strongly with its fortunes, and violence sometimes broke out between rival factions. The rivalries were sometimes politicized, when teams became associated with competing social or religious ideas. This helps explain why Roman and later Byzantine emperorstook control of the teams and appointed many officials to oversee them.

The sport faded in importance in the West after the fall of Rome. It survived for a time in the Byzantine Empire, where the traditional Roman factions continued to play a prominent role for several centuries, gaining influence in political matters. Their rivalry culminated in the Nika riots, which marked the gradual decline of the sport.

Early chariot racing

It is unknown exactly when chariot racing began, but It may have been as old as chariots themselves. It is known from artistic evidence on pottery that the sport existed in the Mycenaean world,[a] but the first literary reference to a chariot race is one described by Homer, at the funeral games of Patroclus.[1] The participants in this race were DiomedesEumelusAntilochusMenelaus, and Meriones. The race, which was one lap around the stump of a tree, was won by Diomedes, who received a slave woman and a cauldron as his prize. A chariot race also was said to be the event that founded the Olympic Games; according to one legend, mentioned by Pindar, King Oenomauschallenged suitors for his daughter Hippodamia to a race, but was defeated by Pelops, who founded the Games in honour of his victory.[2][3]

Olympic Games

Giacobbe Giusti, Chariot racing: Iranian, ancient Greek, Roman, and Byzantine sports

Chariot racing on a black-figurehydria from Attica, ca. 510 BC

In the ancient Olympic Games, as well as the other Panhellenic Games, there were both four-horse (tethrippon, Greek: τέθριππον) and two-horse (synoris, Greek: συνωρὶς) chariot races, which were essentially the same aside from the number of horses. [b]The chariot racing event was first added to the Olympics in 680 BC with the games expanding from a one-day to a two-day event to accommodate the new event (but was not, in reality, the founding event).[4][5] The chariot race was not so prestigious as the foot race of 195 meters (stadion, Greek: στάδιον), but it was more important than other equestrian events such as racing on horseback, which were dropped from the Olympic Games very early on.[6]

The races themselves were held in the hippodrome, which held both chariot races and riding races. The single horse race was known as the “keles” (keles, Greek: κέλης).[c] The hippodrome was situated at the south-east corner of the sanctuary of Olympia, on the large flat area south of the stadium and ran almost parallel to the latter. Until recently, its exact location was unknown, since it is buried by several meters of sedimentary material from the Alfeios River. In 2008, however, Annie Muller and staff of the German Archeological Institute used radar to locate a large, rectangular structure similar to Pausanias’s description. Pausanias, who visited Olympia in the second century AD, describes the monument as a large, elongated, flat space, approximately 780 meters long and 320 meters wide (four stadia long and one stadefour plethra wide). The elongated racecourse was divided longitudinally into two tracks by a stone or wooden barrier, the embolon. All the horses or chariots ran on one track toward the east, then turned around the embolon and headed back west. Distances varied according to the event. The racecourse was surrounded by natural (to the north) and artificial (to the south and east) banks for the spectators; a special place was reserved for the judges on the west side of the north bank.[7][8]

Giacobbe Giusti, Chariot racing: Iranian, ancient Greek, Roman, and Byzantine sports

The Charioteer of Delphi, one of the most famous statues surviving from Ancient Greece

The race was begun by a procession into the hippodrome, while a herald announced the names of the drivers and owners. The tethrippon consisted of twelve laps around the hippodrome,[9] with sharp turns around the posts at either end. Various mechanical devices were used, including the starting gates (hyspleges, Greek: ὕσπληγγες; singular: hysplex, Greek: ὕσπληγξ) which were lowered to start the race.[10] According to Pausanias, these were invented by the architect Cleoitas, and staggered so that the chariots on the outside began the race earlier than those on the inside. The race did not begin properly until the final gate was opened, at which point each chariot would be more or less lined up alongside each other, although the ones that had started on the outside would have been traveling faster than the ones in the middle. Other mechanical devices known as the “eagle” and the “dolphin” were raised to signify that the race had begun, and were lowered as the race went on to signify the number of laps remaining. These were probably bronze carvings of those animals, set up on posts at the starting line.[11]

In most cases, the owner and the driver of the chariot were different persons. In 416 BC, the Athenian general Alcibiades had seven chariots in the race, and came in first, second, and fourth; obviously, he could not have been racing all seven chariots himself.[12] Philip II of Macedon also won an Olympic chariot race in an attempt to prove he was not a barbarian, although if he had driven the chariot himself he would likely have been considered even lower than a barbarian. The poet Pindar did praise the courage of Herodotes of Thebes, however, for driving his own chariot.[13] This rule also meant that women could win the race through ownership, despite the fact that women were not allowed to participate in or even watch the Games.[4] This happened rarely, but a notable example is the Spartan Cynisca, daughter of Archidamus II, who won the chariot race twice.[14] Chariot racing was a way for Greeks to demonstrate their prosperity at the games. The case of Alcibiades indicates also that chariot racing was an alternative route to public exposure and fame for the wealthy.[15]

The charioteer was usually either a family member of the owner of the chariot or, in most cases, a slave or a hired professional.[5] Driving a racing chariot required unusual strength, skill, and courage. Yet, we know the names of very few charioteers,[16] and victory songs and statues regularly contrive to leave them out of account.[17] Unlike the other Olympic events, charioteers did not perform in the nude, probably for safety reasons because of the dust kicked up by the horses and chariots, and the likelihood of bloody crashes. Racers wore a sleeved garment called a xystis. It fell to the ankles and was fastened high at the waist with a plain belt. Two straps that crossed high at the upper back prevented the xystis from “ballooning” during the race.[18]

The chariots themselves were modified war chariots, essentially wooden carts with two wheels and an open back,[19] although chariots were by this time no longer used in battle. The charioteer’s feet were held in place, but the cart rested on the axle, so the ride was bumpy. The most exciting part of the chariot race, at least for the spectators, was the turns at the ends of the hippodrome. These turns were very dangerous and often deadly. If a chariot had not already been knocked over by an opponent before the turn, it might be overturned or crushed (along with the horses and driver) by the other chariots as they went around the post. Deliberately running into an opponent to cause him to crash was technically illegal, but nothing could be done about it (at Patroclus’ funeral games, Antilochus in fact causes Menelaus to crash in this way,[20]) and crashes were likely to happen by accident anyway.

Other festivals

As a result of the rise of the Greek cities of the classic period, other great festivals emerged in Asia MinorMagna Graecia, and the mainland providing the opportunity for athletes to gain fame and riches. Apart from the Olympics, the best respected were the Isthmian Games in Corinth, the Nemean Games, the Pythian Games in Delphi, and the Panathenaic Games in Athens, where the winner of the four-horse chariot race was given 140 amphorae of olive oil (much sought after and precious in ancient times). Prizes at other competitions included corn in Eleusis, bronze shields in Argos, and silver vessels in Marathon.[d] Another form of chariot racing at the Panathenaic Games was known as the apobatai, in which the contestant wore armor and periodically leapt off a moving chariot and ran alongside it before leaping back on again.[21] In these races, there was a second charioteer (a “rein-holder”) while the apobates jumped out; in the catalogues with the winners both the names of the apobates and of the rein-holder are mentioned.[22] Images of this contest show warriors, armed with helmets and shields, perched on the back of their racing chariots.[23] Some scholars believe that the event preserved traditions of Homeric warfare.[24]

Roman era

The plan of the Circus Maximus

The Romans probably borrowed chariot racing from the Etruscans as well as the racing tracks, who themselves borrowed it from the Greeks, but the Romans were also influenced directly by the Greeks.[25][26][e] According to Roman legend, chariot racing was used by Romulus just after he founded Rome in 753 BC as a way of distracting the Sabinemen. Romulus sent out invitations to the neighbouring towns to celebrate the festival of the Consualia, which included both horse races and chariot races. Whilst the Sabines were enjoying the spectacle, Romulus and his men seized and carried off the Sabine women, who became wives of the Romans.[27][28] Chariot races were a part of several Roman religious festivals, and on these occasions were preceded by a parade (pompa circensis) that featured the charioteers, music, costumed dancers, and images of the gods. While the entertainment value of chariot races tended to overshadow any sacred purpose, in late antiquity the Church Fathers still saw them as a traditional “pagan” practice, and advised Christians not to participate.[29

Giacobbe Giusti, Chariot racing: Iranian, ancient Greek, Roman, and Byzantine sports

Bas-relief of a quadriga race in the Circus Maximus (2nd-3rd century)

Depiction of a chariot race in the Roman era

In ancient Rome, chariot races commonly took place in a circus.[30] The main centre of chariot racing was the Circus Maximus in the valley between Palatine Hill and Aventine Hill,[f] which could seat 250,000 people.[27] It was the earliest circus in the city of Rome.[30] The Circus supposedly dated to the city’s earliest times,[g] but Julius Caesar rebuilt it around 50 BC to a length and width of about 650 metres (2,130 ft) and 125 metres (410 ft), respectively.[31] One end of the track was more open than the other, as this was where the chariots lined up to begin the race. The Romans used a series of gates known as carceres, equivalent to the Greek hysplex. These were staggered like the hysplex, but in a slightly different manner since the center of Roman racing tracks also included medians (the spinae).[32] The carceres took up the angled end of the track,[33] where — before a race — the chariots were loaded behind spring-loaded gates. Typically, when the chariots were ready the emperor (or whoever was hosting the races, if outside of Rome) dropped a cloth known as a mappa, signalling the beginning of the race.[34] The gates would spring open at the same time, allowing a fair start for all participants.

Giacobbe Giusti, Chariot racing: Iranian, ancient Greek, Roman, and Byzantine sports

Chariot race of Cupids; ancient Roman sarcophagus in the Museo Archeologico (Naples)Brooklyn Museum Archives, Goodyear Archival Collection

Once the race had begun, the chariots could move in front of each other in an attempt to cause their opponents to crash into the spinae (singular spina). On the top of the spinae stood small tables or frames supported on pillars, and also small pieces of marble in the shape of eggs or dolphins.[33][35] The spinaeventually became very elaborate, with statues and obelisks and other forms of art, but the addition of these multiple adornments had one unfortunate result: they obstructed the view of spectators on lower seats.[36] At either end of the spina was a meta, or turning point, consisting of large gilded columns.[37] [35] Spectacular crashes in which the chariot was destroyed and the charioteer and horses incapacitated were called naufragia, a Latin word that also means “shipwreck”.[38]

Giacobbe Giusti, Chariot racing: Iranian, ancient Greek, Roman, and Byzantine sports

A white charioteer; part of a mosaicof the third century AD, showing four leading charioteers from the different colors, all in their distinctive gear

The race itself was much like its Greek counterpart, although there were usually 24 races every day that, during the fourth century, took place on 66 days each year.[39] However, a race consisted of only 7 laps (and later 5 laps, so that there could be even more races per day), instead of the 12 laps of the Greek race.[33] The Roman style was also more money-oriented; racers were professionals and there was widespread betting among spectators.[40][41][42] There were four-horse chariots (quadrigae) and two-horse chariots (bigae), but the four-horse races were more important.[33] In rare cases, if a driver wanted to show off his skill, he could use up to 10 horses, although this was extremely impractical.

The technique and clothing of Roman charioteers differed significantly from those used by the Greeks. Roman drivers wrapped the reins round their waist, while the Greeks held the reins in their hands.[h]Because of this, the Romans could not let go of the reins in a crash, so they would be dragged around the circus until they were killed or they freed themselves. In order to cut the reins and keep from being dragged in case of accident, they carried a falx, a curved knife. They also wore helmets and other protective gear.[43][35] In any given race, there might be a number of teams put up by each faction, who would cooperate to maximize their chances of victory by ganging up on opponents, forcing them out of the preferred inside track or making them lose concentration and expose themselves to accident and injury.[43][35] Spectators could also play a part as there is evidence they threw lead “curse” amulets studded with nails at teams opposing their favourite.[44]

Giacobbe Giusti, Chariot racing: Iranian, ancient Greek, Roman, and Byzantine sports

A winner of a Roman chariot race, from the Red team

Another important difference was that the charioteers themselves, the aurigae, were considered to be the winners, although they were usually also slaves (as in the Greek world). They received a wreath of laurel leaves, and probably some money; if they won enough races they could buy their freedom.[17] Drivers could become celebrities throughout the Empire simply by surviving, as the life expectancy of a charioteer was not very high. One such celebrity driver was Scorpus, who won over 2000 races[3]before being killed in a collision at the meta when he was about 27 years old. The most famous of all was Gaius Appuleius Diocles who won 1,462 out of 4,257 races. When Diocles retired at the age of 42 after a 24-year career his winnings reportedly totalled 35,863,120 sesterces ($US 15 billion), making him the highest paid sports star in history.[45] The horses, too, could become celebrities, but their life expectancy was also low. The Romans kept detailed statistics of the names, breeds, and pedigrees of famous horses.

Seats in the Circus were free for the poor, who by the time of the Empire had little else to do, as they were no longer involved in political or military affairs as they had been in the Republic. The wealthy could pay for shaded seats where they had a better view, and they probably also spent much of their times betting on the races. The circus was the only place where the emperor showed himself before a populace assembled in vast numbers, and where the latter could manifest their affection or anger. The imperial box, called the pulvinar in the Circus Maximus, was directly connected to the imperial palace.[46]

Giacobbe Giusti, Chariot racing: Iranian, ancient Greek, Roman, and Byzantine sports

Mosaic from Lyon illustrating a chariot race with the four factions: Blue, Green, Red and White

Giacobbe Giusti, Chariot racing: Iranian, ancient Greek, Roman, and Byzantine sports

Chariot races in the Roman era

The driver’s clothing was color-coded in accordance with his faction, which would help distant spectators to keep track of the race’s progress.[47] According to Tertullian, there were originally just two factions, White and Red, sacred to winter and summer respectively.[48] As fully developed, there were four factions, the Red, White, Green, and Blue.[49] Each team could have up to three chariots each in a race. Members of the same team often collaborated with each other against the other teams, for example to force them to crash into the spina (a legal and encouraged tactic).[33] Drivers could switch teams, much like athletes can be traded to different teams today.

A rivalry between the Reds and Whites had developed by 77 BC, when during a funeral for a Red driver a supporter of the Reds threw himself on the driver’s funeral pyre. No writer of that time, however, referred to these factions as official organizations, as they were to be described in later years.[33] Writing near the beginning of the third century, a commentator wrote that the Reds were dedicated to Mars, the Whites to the Zephyrs, the Greens to Mother Earth or spring, and the Blues to the sky and sea or autumn.[48] During his reign of 81-96 AD, the emperor Domitian created two new factions, the Purples and Golds, but these disappeared soon after he died.[33] The Blues and the Greens gradually became the most prestigious factions, supported by emperors and the populace alike. Records indicate that on numerous occasions, Blue against Green clashes would break out during the races. The surviving literature rarely mentions the Reds and Whites, although their continued activity is documented in inscriptions and in curse tablets.[50]

Byzantine era

Giacobbe Giusti, Chariot racing: Iranian, ancient Greek, Roman, and Byzantine sports

The Hippodrome today, with the Walled Obelisk in the foreground and Thutmose‘s Obelisk on the right

Like many other aspects of the Roman world, chariot racing continued in the Byzantine Empire, although the Byzantines did not keep as many records and statistics as the Romans did. In place of the detailed inscriptions of Roman racing statistics, several short epigrams in verse were composed celebrating some of the more famous Byzantine Charioteers.[51] The six charioteers about whom these laudatory verses were written were Anastasius, Julianus of Tyre, Faustinus, his son, Constantinus, Uranius, and Porphyrius.[52] Although Anastasius’s single epigram reveals almost nothing about him, Porphyrius is much better known, having thirty-four known poems dedicated to him.[53]

Constantine I (r. 306–337) preferred chariot racing to gladiatorialcombat, which he considered a vestige of paganism.[54] However, the end of gladiatorial games in the Empire may have been more the result of the difficulty and expense that came with procuring gladiators to fight in the games, than the influence of Christianity in Byzantium.[55] The Olympic Games were eventually ended by Emperor Theodosius I (r. 379–395) in 393, perhaps in a move to suppress paganism and promote Christianity, but chariot racing remained popular. The fact that chariot racing became linked to the imperial majesty meant that the Church did not prevent it, although gradually prominent Christian writers, such as Tertullian, began attacking the sport.[56] Despite the influence of Christianity in the Byzantine Empire, venationes, bloody wild-beast hunts, continued as a form of popular entertainment during the early days of the Empire as part of the extra entertainment that went along with chariot racing. Eventually, Emperor Leo (r. 457–474) banned public entertainments on Sundays in 469, showing that the hunts did not have imperial support, and the venationes were banned completely by Emperor Anastasius (r. 491–518) in 498. Anastasius was praised for this action by some sources, but their concern seems to be more for the danger the hunts could put humans in rather than for objections to the brutality or moral objections.[55] There continued to be burnings and mutilations of humans who committed crimes or were enemies of the state in the hippodrome throughout the Byzantine Empire, as well as victory celebrations and imperial coronations.[57]

The chariot races were important in the Byzantine Empire, as in the Roman Empire, as a way to reinforce social class and political power, including the might of the Byzantine emperor, and were often put on for political or religious reasons.[58] In addition, chariot races were sometimes held in celebration of an emperor’s birthday.[59] An explicit parallel was drawn between the victorious charioteers and the victorious emperor. The factions addressed their victors by chanting “Rejoice … your Lords have conquered” while the charioteer took a victory lap, further indicating the parallel between the charioteer’s victory and the emperor’s victory.[60] Indeed, reliefs of Porphyrius, the famous Byzantine charioteer, show him in a victor’s pose being acclaimed by partisans, which is clearly modeled on the images on the base of Emperor Theodosius‘s obelisk.[61] The races could also be used to symbolically make religious statements, such as when a charioteer, whose mother was named Mary, fell off his chariot and got back on and the crowd described it as “The son of Mary has fallen and risen again and is victorious.”[62]

The Hippodrome of Constantinople (really a Roman circus, not the open space that the original Greek hippodromes were) was connected to the emperor’s palace and the Church of Hagia Sophia, allowing spectators to view the emperor as they had in Rome.[i] Citizens used their proximity to the emperor in the circuses and theatres to express public opinion, like their dissatisfaction with the Emperor’s errant policy.[63] It has been argued that the people became so powerful that the emperors had no choice but to grant them more legal rights. However, contrary to this traditional view, it appears, based on more recent historical research, that the Byzantine emperors treated the protests and petitions of their citizens in the circuses with greater contempt and were more dismissive of them than their Roman predecessors. Justinian I (r. 527–565), for instance, seems to have been dismissive of the Greens’ petitions and to have never negotiated with them at all.[64]

There is not much evidence that the chariot races were subject to bribes or other forms of cheating in the Roman Empire. In the Byzantine Empire, there seems to have been more cheating; Justinian I’s reformed legal code prohibits drivers from placing curses on their opponents, but otherwise there does not seem to have been any mechanical tampering or bribery. Wearing the colours of one’s team became an important aspect of Byzantine dress.

Giacobbe Giusti, Chariot racing: Iranian, ancient Greek, Roman, and Byzantine sports

The Triumphal Quadriga is a set of Roman or Greek bronze statues of four horses, originally part of a monument depicting a quadriga. They date from late Classical Antiquity and were long displayed at the Hippodrome of Constantinople. In 1204 AD, DogeEnrico Dandolo sent them to Venice as part of the loot sacked from Constantinople in the Fourth Crusade.

Chariot racing in the Byzantine Empire also included the Roman racing clubs, which continued to play a prominent role in these public exhibitions. By this time, the Blues (Vénetoi) and the Greens (Prásinoi) had come to overshadow the other two factions of the Whites (Leukoí) and Reds (Roúsioi), while still maintaining the paired alliances, although these were now fixed as Blue and White vs. Green and Red.[j] These circus factions were no longer the private businesses they were during the Roman Empire. Instead, the races began to be given regular, public funding, putting them under imperial control.[65] Running the chariot races at public expense was probably a cost-cutting and labor-reducing measure, making it easier to channel the proper funds into the racing organizations.[66] The Emperor himself belonged to one of the four factions, and supported the interests of either the Blues or the Greens.[67][68]

Adopting the color of their favorite charioteers was a way fans showed their loyalty to that particular racer or faction.[69] Many of the young men in the fan clubs, or factions, adopted extravagant clothing and hairstyles, such as billowing sleeves, “Hunnic” hair-styles, and “Persian” facial hair.[70][71] There is evidence that these young men were the faction members most prone to violence and extreme factional rivalry.[72] Some scholars have tried to argue that the factional rivalry and violence was a result of opposing religious or political views, but more likely the young men simply identified strongly with their faction for group solidarity. The factional violence was probably engaged in similarly to the violence of modern football or soccer fans.[73] The games themselves were the usual focus of the factional violence, even when it was taken to the streets.[74] Although fans who went to the hippodrome cheered on their favorite charioteers, their loyalty appears to be to the color for which the charioteer drove more than for the individual driver. Charioteers could change faction allegiance and race for different colors during their careers, but the fans did not change their allegiance to their color.[75]

The Blues and the Greens were now more than simply sports teams. They gained influence in military, political,[k] and theological matters, although the hypothesis that the Greens tended towards Monophysitism and the Blues represented Orthodoxy is disputed. It is now widely believed that neither of the factions had any consistent religious bias or allegiance, in spite of the fact that they operated in an environment fraught with religious controversy.[76][77] According to some scholars, the Blue-Green rivalry contributed to the conditions that underlay the rise of Islam, while factional enmities were exploited by the Sassanid Empire in its conflicts with the Byzantines during the century preceding Islam’s advent.[l]

The Blue-Green rivalry often erupted into gang warfare, and street violence had been on the rise in the reign of Justin I (r. 518–527), who took measures to restore order, when the gangs murdered a citizen in the Hagia Sophia.[76] Riots culminated in the Nika riots of 532 AD during the reign of Justinian, which began when the two main factions united and attempted unsuccessfully to overthrow the emperor.[78]

Chariot racing seems to have declined in the course of the seventh century, with the losses the Empire suffered at the hands of the Arabsand the decline of the population and economy.[79] The Blues and Greens, deprived of any political power, were relegated to a purely ceremonial role. After the Nika riots, the factions grew less violent as their importance in imperial ceremony increased.[80] In particular, the iconoclast emperor Constantine V (r. 741–775) courted the factions for their support in his campaigns against the monks. They aided the emperor in executing his prisoners and by putting on shows in which monks and nuns held hands while the crowd hissed at them. Constantine V seems to have given the factions a political role in addition to their traditionally ceremonial role.[81] The two factions continued their activity until the imperial court was moved to Blachernae during the 12th century.[82]

The Hippodrome in Constantinople remained in use for races, games, and public ceremonies up to the sack of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade in 1204. In the 12th century, Emperor Manuel I Komnenos (r. 1143–1180) even staged Western-style jousting matches in the Hippodrome. During the sack of 1204, the Crusaders looted the city and, among other things, removed the copper quadriga that stood above the carceres; it is now displayed at St. Mark’s Cathedral in Venice.[83] Thereafter, the Hippodrome was neglected, although still occasionally used for spectacles. A print of the Hippodrome from the fifteenth century shows a derelict site, a few walls still standing, and the spina, the central reservation, robbed of its splendor. Today, only the obelisks and the Serpent Column stand where for centuries the spectators gathered.[3] In the West, the games had ended much sooner; by the end of the fourth century public entertainments in Italy had come to an end in all but a few towns.[84] The last recorded chariot race in Rome itself took place in the Circus Maximus in 549 AD.[85]

 Media related to Chariot racing at Wikimedia Commons

Footnotes

  1. ^ A number of fragments of pottery from show two or more chariots, obviously in the middle of a race. Bennett asserts that this is a clear indication that chariot racing existed as a sport from as early as the thirteenth century BC. Chariot races are also depicted on late Geometric vases (Bennett 1997, pp. 41–48).
  2. ^ Synoris succeeded tethrippon in 384 BC. Tethrippon was reintroduced in 268 BC (Valettas & Ioannis 1955, p. 613).
  3. ^ Little is known of the construction of hippodromes before the Roman period (Adkins & Adkins 1998a, pp. 218–219)
  4. ^ Τhe returning athletes also gained various benefits in their native towns, like tax exemptions, free clothing and meals, and even prize money (Bennett 1997, pp. 41–48).
  5. ^ In Rome, chariot racing constituted one of the two types of public games, the ludi circenses. The other type, ludi scaenici, consisted chiefly of theatrical performances (Balsdon 1974, p. 248; Mus 2001–2011).
  6. ^ There were many other circuses throughout the Roman Empire. Circus of Maxentius, another major circus, was built at the beginning of the fourth century BC outside Rome, near the Via Appia. There were major circuses at Alexandria and Antioch, and Herod the Great built four circuses in Judaea. Archaeologists working on a housing development in Essex have unearthed what they believe to be the first Roman chariot-racing arena to be found in Britain (Prudames 2005).
  7. ^ According to the tradition, the Circus probably dated back to the time of the Etruscans (Adkins & Adkins 1998b, pp. 141–142; Boatwright, Gargola & Talbert 2004, p. 383).
  8. ^ Roman drivers steered using their body weight; with the reins tied around their torsos, charioteers could lean from one side to the other to direct the horse’s movement, keeping the hands free for the whip and such (Futrell 2006, pp. 191–192; Köhne, Ewigleben & Jackson 2000, p. 92).
  9. ^ The Hippodrome was situated immediately to the west of the imperial palace, and there was a private passage from the palace to the emperor’s box, the kathisma, where the emperor showed himself to his subjects. One of Justinian’s first acts on becoming emperor was to rebuild the kathisma, making it loftier and more impressive (Evans 2005, p. 16).
  10. ^ One of the most famous charioteers, Porphyrius, was a member of both the Blues and the Greens at various times in the 5th century (Futrell 2006, p. 200).
  11. ^ At the root of the political power eventually gained by the factions was the fact that from the mid-fifth century the making of an emperor required that he should be acclaimed by the people (Liebeschuetz 2003, p. 211).
  12. ^ Khosrau I (r. 531–579) erected an hippodrome near Ctesiphon, and supported the Greens in deliberate contrast to his enemy, Justinian, who favored the Blues (Hathaway 2003, p. 31).

References

  1. ^ Homer. The Iliad23.257–23.652.
  2. ^ Pindar. “1.75”. Olympian Odes.
  3. Jump up to:abc Bennett 1997, pp. 41–48.
  4. Jump up to:ab Polidoro & Simri 1996, pp. 41–46.
  5. Jump up to:ab Valettas & Ioannis 1955, p. 613.
  6. ^ Adkins & Adkins 1998a, pp. 350, 420.
  7. ^ Pausanias. “6.20.10–6.20.19”. Description of Greece.
  8. ^ Vikatou 2007.
  9. ^ Adkins & Adkins 1998a, p. 420.
  10. ^ Golden 2004, p. 86.
  11. ^ Pausanias. “6.20.13”. Description of Greece.
  12. ^ ThucydidesHistory of the Peloponnesian War6.16.2.
  13. ^ Pindar. Isthmian Odes1.1.
  14. ^ Golden 2004, p. 46.
  15. ^ Kyle 2007, p. 172.
  16. ^ One of them is Carrhotus who is praised by Pindar for keeping his chariot unscathed (PindarPythian5.25-5.53). Unlike the majority of charioteers, Carrhotus was friend and brother-in-law of the man he drove for, Arcesilaus of Cyrene; so his success affirmed the success of the traditional aristocratic mode of organizing society (Dougherty & Kurke 2003, Nigel Nicholson, “Aristocratic Victory Memorials”, p. 116
  17. Jump up to:ab Golden 2004, p. 34.
  18. ^ Adkins & Adkins 1998a, p. 416.
  19. ^ Valettas & Ioannis 1955, p. 614.
  20. ^ Gagarin 1983, pp. 35–39.
  21. ^ Camp 1998, p. 40.
  22. ^ Apobates 1955.
  23. ^ Neils & Tracy 2003, p. 25.
  24. ^ Kyle 1993, p. 189.
  25. ^ Golden 2004, p. 35.
  26. ^ Harris 1972, p. 185.
  27. Jump up to:ab Boatwright, Gargola & Talbert 2004, p. 383.
  28. ^ Scullard 1981, pp. 177–178.
  29. ^ Beard, North & Price 1998, p. 262.
  30. Jump up to:ab Adkins & Adkins 1998b, pp. 141–142.
  31. ^ Kyle 2007, p. 305.
  32. ^ Kyle 2007, p. 306.
  33. Jump up to:abcdefg Balsdon 1974, pp. 314–319.
  34. ^ Harris 1972, p. 215.
  35. Jump up to:abcd Ramsay 1876, p. 348.
  36. ^ Harris 1972, p. 190.
  37. ^ Potter & Mattingly 1999, Hazel Dodge, “Amusing the Masses: Buildings for Entertainment and Leisure in the Roman World”, p. 237.
  38. ^ Futrell 2006, p. 191.
  39. ^ Kyle 2007, p. 304.
  40. ^ Harris 1972, pp. 224–225.
  41. ^ Laurence 1996, p. 71.
  42. ^ Potter 2006, p. 375.
  43. Jump up to:ab Futrell 2006, pp. 191–192.
  44. ^ Struck 2010.
  45. ^ Waldrop 2010.
  46. ^ Lançon 2000, p. 144.
  47. ^ Futrell 2006, p. 192.
  48. Jump up to:ab TertullianDe Spectaculis9.
  49. ^ Adkins & Adkins 1998b, p. 347.
  50. ^ Futrell 2006, p. 209.
  51. ^ Harris 1972, p. 240.
  52. ^ Harris 1972, pp. 240–241.
  53. ^ Harris 1972, p. 241.
  54. ^ Treadgold 1997, p. 41.
  55. Jump up to:ab Cameron 1973, p. 228.
  56. ^ Tertullian (De Spectaculis16) and Cassiodorus called chariot racing an instrument of the Devil. Salvian criticized those who rushed into the circus in order to “feast their impure, adulterous gaze on shameful obscenities” (Olivová 1989, p. 86). Public spectacles were also attacked by John Chrysostom (Liebeschuetz 2003, pp. 217–218).
  57. ^ Cameron 1976, p. 172.
  58. ^ Kyle 2007, p. 253.
  59. ^ Theophanes & Turtledove 1982, p. 79.
  60. ^ Cameron 1973, p. 249.
  61. ^ Cameron 1973, pp. 250–251.
  62. ^ Harris 1972, pp. 242–243.
  63. ^ Cameron 1976, p. 161.
  64. ^ Cameron 1976, p. 169.
  65. ^ Humphrey 1986, p. 539.
  66. ^ Humphrey 1986, p. 441.
  67. ^ Evans 2005, p. 16.
  68. ^ Hathaway 2003, p. 31.
  69. ^ Gregory 2010, p. 131.
  70. ^ Cameron 1976, p. 76.
  71. ^ Prokopios & Kaldellis 2010, pp. 32–33.
  72. ^ Cameron 1976, pp. 76–77.
  73. ^ Gregory 2010, p. 133.
  74. ^ Cameron 1976, p. 273.
  75. ^ Cameron 1976, pp. 202–203.
  76. Jump up to:ab Evans 2005, p. 17.
  77. ^ Liebeschuetz 2003, p. 215.
  78. ^ McComb 2004, p. 25.
  79. ^ Liebeschuetz 2003, p. 219.
  80. ^ Cameron 1976, p. 299.
  81. ^ Cameron 1976, pp. 302–304.
  82. ^ Cameron 1976, p. 308.
  83. ^ Freeman 2004, p. 39.
  84. ^ Liebeschuetz 2003, pp. 219–220.
  85. ^ Balsdon 1974, p. 252.

Primary sources

Secondary sources

Giacobbe Giusti, Dionysus, Palazzo Altemps, Rome

 

Giacobbe Giusti, Dionysus, Palazzo Altemps, Rome

 

Giacobbe Giusti, Dionysus, Palazzo Altemps, Rome

The Dionysus of the Palazzo Altemps, Rome

The over-lifesize marble Dionysus with Panther and Satyr in the Palazzo Altemps,[1] Rome, is a Roman work of the 2nd century CE, found in the 16th century[2] on the Quirinal Hill at the time foundations were being dug for Palazzo Mattei at Quattro Fontane.[3] The statue was purchased for the Ludovisi collection, where it was first displayed in front of the Palazzo Grande, the main structure of the Villa Ludovisi, and by 1641 in the gallery of sculptures in the Casino Capponi [4] erected for Cardinal Ludovico Ludovisi in the villa’s extensive grounds. By 1885, it had been removed to the new Palazzo del Principe di Piombino, nearby in via Veneto. With the rest of the Boncompagni-Ludovisi collection, which was open to the public on Sundays and covered in the guidebooks,[5] and where it had become famous,[6] it was purchased in 1901 for the City of Rome, as the Ludovisi collection was dispersed and the Villa’s ground built over at the end of the 19th century.

The formula, with somewhat exaggerated contrapposto, the god’s right hand resting on his head, is based on the Apollo Lyceus, which is variously attributed and dated. This ivy-crowned Dionysus is accompanied by the panther that signalises his numinous presence, and a satyr of reduced size, a member of his retinue. Long locks of his hair fall girlishly over his shoulders and in his left hand he holds a bunch of grapes, emblematic of his status as god of wine.

The original elements are the heads, torsos and thighs of Dionysus and the satyr. The arms of the satyr and the lower legs and base are modern— that is, 16th-century— restorations.

Notes

  1. ^ Inventory number 8606.
  2. ^ It appeared in Giovan Battista Cavalieri, Antiquarum Statuarum Urbis Romae tertius et quartus liber, (Rome, 1594), plate 74.
  3. ^ According to the tradition recorded by the sculptor-dealer and diarist Flaminio VaccaMemorie di varie antichità trovate in diversi luoghi della citta di Roma, Rome, 1704, (memoria 37).
  4. ^ Gruppo colossale di Dionisio e satiro: description, history, conservation, bibliography
  5. ^ (Octavian BlewittHandbook for travellers in central Italy (Murray), Part II, 1853, s.v. “Rome §79 Villas” etc.
  6. ^ “The youthful, or so-called Theban Bacchus, was carried to ideal beauty by Praxiteles… The finest statue of this kind is in the villa Ludovisi” (William Smith, A New Classical Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography, Mythology and Geography, 1871, s.v. “Dionysus”); “…the eyes most intense and soft; the hair in curls, close to the head, brown with streaks of gold, strangely resembling the hair of some Greek statue — perhaps the Ludovisi Bacchus…” (William Francis BarryArden Massiter, 1900, p. 16.)

References

  • Venetucci, Beatrice Palma. Museo Nazionale Romano. Le Sculturevol. I.4, Antonio Giuliano ed., Rome, 1983:84-90

Giacobbe Giusti, Diocletian, Emperor of the Roman Empire

Giacobbe Giusti, Diocletian, Emperor of the Roman Empire

 

 

Giacobbe Giusti, Diocletian, Emperor of the Roman Empire

Venice – The Tetrarchs

The Portrait of the Four Tetrarchs is a porphyrysculpture group of four Roman emperors dating from around 300 AD.

Giacobbe Giusti, Diocletian, Emperor of the Roman Empire

Portrait of the Four Tetrarchs

Giacobbe Giusti, Diocletian, Emperor of the Roman Empire

Missing heel portion kept in the Istanbul Archaeology Museum

The Portrait of the Four Tetrarchs is a porphyrysculpture group of four Roman emperors dating from around 300 AD

 

Giacobbe Giusti, Diocletian, Emperor of the Roman Empire

 

Giacobbe Giusti, Diocletian, Emperor of the Roman Empire

Augustus of the Eastern Roman Empire

Giacobbe Giusti, Diocletian, Emperor of the Roman Empire

 

Istanbul - Museo archeol. - Diocleziano (284-305 d.C.) - Foto G. Dall'Orto 28-5-2006.jpg

Laureate head of Diocletian
Emperor of the Roman Empire
Reign 20 November 284 – 1 April 286 (in competition with Carinus until July 285)[1]
Predecessor Carinus
Reign 1 April 286 – 1 May 305 (as Senior Augustus, ruled in the east)[2]
Successor Constantius Chlorus and Galerius
Co-emperor Maximian (Western Emperor)
Born c. 22 December 244[3]
Salona (now SolinCroatia)
Died 3 December 311 (age 66)[4]
Aspalathos (now Split, Croatia)
Burial
Diocletian’s Palace in Aspalathos. His tomb was later turned into a Christian church, the Cathedral of St. Domnius, which is still standing within the palace at Split.
Spouse Prisca
Issue Valeria
Full name
Diocles
Regnal name
Imperator Caesar Gaius Aurelius Valerius Diocletianus Augustus[5]

Diocletian(/ˌd.əˈklʃən/LatinGaius Aurelius Valerius Diocletianus Augustus), born Diocles (22 December 244 – 3 December 311),[4][6] was a Roman emperor from 284 to 305. Born to a family of low status in Dalmatia, Diocletian rose through the ranks of the military to become Roman cavalrycommander to the Emperor Carus. After the deaths of Carus and his son Numerian on campaign in Persia, Diocletian was proclaimed emperor. The title was also claimed by Carus’ surviving son, Carinus, but Diocletian defeated him in the Battle of the Margus.

Diocletian’s reign stabilized the empire and marks the end of the Crisis of the Third Century. He appointed fellow officer Maximianas Augustus, co-emperor, in 286. Diocletian reigned in the Eastern Empire, and Maximian reigned in the Western Empire. Diocletian delegated further on 1 March 293, appointing Galerius and Constantius as Caesars, junior co-emperors, under himself and Maximian respectively. Under this ‘tetrarchy‘, or “rule of four”, each emperor would rule over a quarter-division of the empire. Diocletian secured the empire’s borders and purged it of all threats to his power. He defeated the Sarmatiansand Carpi during several campaigns between 285 and 299, the Alamanni in 288, and usurpers in Egypt between 297 and 298. Galerius, aided by Diocletian, campaigned successfully against Sassanid Persia, the empire’s traditional enemy. In 299 he sacked their capital, Ctesiphon. Diocletian led the subsequent negotiations and achieved a lasting and favourable peace.

Diocletian separated and enlarged the empire’s civil and military services and reorganized the empire’s provincial divisions, establishing the largest and most bureaucratic government in the history of the empire. He established new administrative centres in NicomediaMediolanumSirmium, and Trevorum, closer to the empire’s frontiers than the traditional capital at Rome. Building on third-century trends towards absolutism, he styled himself an autocrat, elevating himself above the empire’s masses with imposing forms of court ceremonies and architecture. Bureaucratic and military growth, constant campaigning, and construction projects increased the state’s expenditures and necessitated a comprehensive tax reform. From at least 297 on, imperial taxation was standardized, made more equitable, and levied at generally higher rates.

Not all of Diocletian’s plans were successful: the Edict on Maximum Prices (301), his attempt to curb inflation via price controls, was counterproductive and quickly ignored. Although effective while he ruled, Diocletian’s tetrarchic system collapsed after his abdication under the competing dynastic claims of Maxentius and Constantine, sons of Maximian and Constantius respectively. The Diocletianic Persecution (303–312), the empire’s last, largest, and bloodiest official persecution of Christianity, failed to eliminate Christianity in the empire; indeed, after 324, Christianity became the empire’s preferred religion under Constantine. Despite these failures and challenges, Diocletian’s reforms fundamentally changed the structure of Roman imperial government and helped stabilize the empire economically and militarily, enabling the empire to remain essentially intact for another 150 years despite being near the brink of collapse in Diocletian’s youth. Weakened by illness, Diocletian left the imperial office on 1 May 305, and became the first Roman emperor to abdicate the position voluntarily. He lived out his retirement in his palace on the Dalmatian coast, tending to his vegetable gardens. His palace eventually became the core of the modern-day city of Split in Croatia.

Early life

Giacobbe Giusti, Diocletian, Emperor of the Roman Empire

Panorama of amphitheatre in Salona

Diocletian was born near Salona in Dalmatia (Solin in modern Croatia), some time around 244.[3] His parents gave him the Greek name Diocles, or possibly Diocles Valerius.[7] The modern historian Timothy Barnes takes his official birthday, 22 December, as his actual birthdate. Other historians are not so certain.[8] His parents were of low status; Eutropius records “that he is said by most writers to have been the son of a scribe, but by some to have been a freedman of a senator called Anulinus.” The first forty years of his life are mostly obscure.[9] The Byzantine chronicler Joannes Zonaras states that he was DuxMoesiae,[10] a commander of forces on the lower Danube.[11]The often-unreliable Historia Augusta states that he served in Gaul, but this account is not corroborated by other sources and is ignored by modern historians of the period.[12] The first time Diocletian’s whereabouts are accurately established, in 282, the Emperor Carusmade him commander of the Protectores domestici, the elite cavalry force directly attached to the Imperial household – a post that earned him the honour of a consulship in 283.[13] As such, he took part in Carus’ subsequent Persian campaign.

Death of Numerian

Carus’s death, amid a successful war with Persia and in mysterious circumstances[14] – he was believed to have been struck by lightning or killed by Persian soldiers[15] – left his sons Numerian and Carinus as the new Augusti. Carinus quickly made his way to Rome from his post in Gaul as imperial commissioner and arrived there by January 284, becoming legitimate Emperor in the West. Numerian lingered in the East.[16] The Roman withdrawal from Persia was orderly and unopposed.[17] The Sassanid king Bahram II could not field an army against them as he was still struggling to establish his authority. By March 284, Numerian had only reached Emesa (Homs) in Syria; by November, only Asia Minor.[18] In Emesa he was apparently still alive and in good health: he issued the only extant rescript in his name there,[19][Note 1] but after he left the city, his staff, including the prefect (Numerian’s father-in-law, and as such the dominant influence in the Emperor’s entourage)[21] Aper, reported that he suffered from an inflammation of the eyes. He travelled in a closed coach from then on.[22] When the army reached Bithynia,[16] some of the soldiers smelled an odor emanating from the coach.[17] They opened its curtains and inside they found Numerian dead.[23] Both Eutropius and Aurelius Victor describe Numerian’s death as an assassination.[24]

Aper officially broke the news in Nicomedia (İzmit) in November.[25]Numerianus’ generals and tribunes called a council for the succession, and chose Diocles as Emperor,[26] in spite of Aper’s attempts to garner support.[25] On 20 November 284, the army of the east gathered on a hill 5 kilometres (3.1 mi) outside Nicomedia. The army unanimously saluted Diocles as their new Augustus, and he accepted the purple imperial vestments. He raised his sword to the light of the sun and swore an oath disclaiming responsibility for Numerian’s death. He asserted that Aper had killed Numerian and concealed it.[27] In full view of the army, Diocles drew his sword and killed Aper.[28] According to the Historia Augusta, he quoted from Virgil while doing so.[29] Soon after Aper’s death, Diocles changed his name to the more Latinate “Diocletianus”[30]–in full, Gaius Aurelius Valerius Diocletianus.[31]

Conflict with Carinus

Giacobbe Giusti, Diocletian, Emperor of the Roman Empire

Head of Carinus at the Centrale Montemartini

After his accession, Diocletian and Lucius Caesonius

Bassus[32] were named as consuls and assumed the fasces in place of Carinus and Numerianus.[33] Bassus was a member of a senatorial family from Campania, a former consul and proconsul of Africa, chosen by Probus for signal distinction.[34] He was skilled in areas of government where Diocletian presumably had no experience.[25] Diocletian’s elevation of Bassus as consul symbolized his rejection of Carinus’ government in Rome, his refusal to accept second-tier status to any other emperor,[34] and his willingness to continue the long-standing collaboration between the empire’s senatorial and military aristocracies.[25] It also tied his success to that of the Senate, whose support he would need in his advance on Rome.[34]

Diocletian was not the only challenger to Carinus’ rule; the usurper M. Aurelius Julianus, Carinus’ corrector Venetiae, took control of northern Italy and Pannonia after Diocletian’s accession.[35] Julianus minted coins from the mint at Siscia (Sisak, Croatia) declaring himself emperor and promising freedom. It was all good publicity for Diocletian, and it aided in his portrayal of Carinus as a cruel and oppressive tyrant.[36] Julianus’ forces were weak, however, and were handily dispersed when Carinus’ armies moved from Britain to northern Italy. As leader of the united East, Diocletian was clearly the greater threat.[37] Over the winter of 284–85, Diocletian advanced west across the Balkans. In the spring, some time before the end of May,[38]his armies met Carinus’ across the river Margus (Great Morava) in Moesia. In modern accounts, the site has been located between the Mons Aureus (Seone, west of Smederevo) and Viminacium,[34] near modern Belgrade, Serbia.[39]

Despite having the stronger, more powerful army, Carinus held the weaker position. His rule was unpopular, and it was later alleged that he had mistreated the Senate and seduced his officers’ wives.[40] It is possible that Flavius Constantius, the governor of Dalmatia and Diocletian’s associate in the household guard, had already defected to Diocletian in the early spring.[41] When the Battle of the Margus began, Carinus’ prefect Aristobulus also defected.[25] In the course of the battle, Carinus was killed by his own men. Following Diocletian’s victory, both the western and the eastern armies acclaimed him as Emperor.[42] Diocletian exacted an oath of allegiance from the defeated army and departed for Italy.[43]

Early rule

Giacobbe Giusti, Diocletian, Emperor of the Roman Empire

Antoninianus of Diocletian

Diocletian may have become involved in battles against the Quadi and Marcomanni immediately after the Battle of the Margus. He eventually made his way to northern Italy and made an imperial government, but it is not known whether he visited the city of Rome at this time.[44] There is a contemporary issue of coins suggestive of an imperial adventus(arrival) for the city,[45] but some modern historians state that Diocletian avoided the city, and that he did so on principle, as the city and its Senate were no longer politically relevant to the affairs of the empire and needed to be taught as much. Diocletian dated his reign from his elevation by the army, not the date of his ratification by the Senate,[46] following the practice established by Carus, who had declared the Senate’s ratification a useless formality.[47] However, Diocletian was to offer proof of his deference towards the Senate by retaining Aristobulus as ordinary consul and colleague for 285 (one of the few instances during the Late Empire in which an emperor admitted a privatus as his colleague)[48] and by creating senior senators Vettius Aquilinus and Junius Maximus ordinary consuls for the following year – for Maximus, it was his second consulship.[49]

Giacobbe Giusti, Diocletian, Emperor of the Roman Empire

Bust of Diocletian at the National Museum of Serbia

Nevertheless, if Diocletian ever did enter Rome shortly after his accession, he did not stay long;[50] he is attested back in the Balkans by 2 November 285, on campaign against the Sarmatians.[51]

Diocletian replaced the prefect of Rome with his consular colleague Bassus. Most officials who had served under Carinus, however, retained their offices under Diocletian.[52] In an act of clementia denoted by the epitomator Aurelius Victor as unusual,[53] Diocletian did not kill or depose Carinus’ traitorous praetorian prefect and consul Ti. Claudius Aurelius Aristobulus, but confirmed him in both roles.[54] He later gave him the proconsulate of Africa and the post of urban prefect for 295.[55] The other figures who retained their offices might have also betrayed Carinus.[56]

Maximian made co-emperor

Giacobbe Giusti, Diocletian, Emperor of the Roman Empire

Maximian’s consistent loyalty to Diocletian proved an important component of the tetrarchy’s early successes.[57]

The assassinations of Aurelian and Probus demonstrated that sole rulership was dangerous to the stability of the empire.[25]Conflict boiled in every province, from Gaul to Syria, Egypt to the lower Danube. It was too much for one person to control, and Diocletian needed a lieutenant.[58] At some time in 285 at Mediolanum (Milan),[Note 2]Diocletian raised his fellow-officer Maximian to the office of caesar, making him co-emperor.[61]

The concept of dual rulership was nothing new to the Roman Empire. Augustus, the first Emperor, had nominally shared power with his colleagues, and more formal offices of Co-Emperor had existed from Marcus Aurelius onward.[62] Most recently, Emperor Carus and his sons had ruled together, albeit unsuccessfully. Diocletian was in a less comfortable position than most of his predecessors, as he had a daughter, Valeria, but no sons. His co-ruler had to be from outside his family, raising the question of trust.[63] Some historians state that Diocletian adopted Maximian as his filius Augusti, his “Augustan son”, upon his appointment to the throne, following the precedent of some previous Emperors.[64] This argument has not been universally accepted.[65]

The relationship between Diocletian and Maximian was quickly couched in religious terms. Around 287 Diocletian assumed the title Iovius, and Maximian assumed the title Herculius.[66] The titles were probably meant to convey certain characteristics of their associated leaders. Diocletian, in Jovian style, would take on the dominating roles of planning and commanding; Maximian, in Herculian mode, would act as Jupiter’s heroic subordinate.[67] For all their religious connotations, the emperors were not “gods” in the tradition of the Imperial cult—although they may have been hailed as such in Imperial panegyrics. Instead, they were seen as the gods’ representatives, effecting their will on earth.[68] The shift from military acclamation to divine sanctification took the power to appoint emperors away from the army. Religious legitimization elevated Diocletian and Maximian above potential rivals in a way military power and dynastic claims could not.[69]

Conflict with Sarmatia and Persia

After his acclamation, Maximian was dispatched to fight the rebel Bagaudae, insurgent peasants of Gaul. Diocletian returned to the East, progressing slowly.[70] By 2 November, he had only reached Civitas Iovia (Botivo, near PtujSlovenia).[71] In the Balkans during the autumn of 285, he encountered a tribe of Sarmatians who demanded assistance. The Sarmatians requested that Diocletian either help them recover their lost lands or grant them pasturage rights within the empire. Diocletian refused and fought a battle with them, but was unable to secure a complete victory. The nomadic pressures of the European Plain remained and could not be solved by a single war; soon the Sarmatians would have to be fought again.[72]

Diocletian wintered in Nicomedia.[Note 3] There may have been a revolt in the eastern provinces at this time, as he brought settlers from Asiato populate emptied farmlands in Thrace.[74] He visited Syria Palaestina the following spring, [Note 4] His stay in the East saw diplomatic success in the conflict with Persia: in 287, Bahram IIgranted him precious gifts, declared open friendship with the Empire, and invited Diocletian to visit him.[77] Roman sources insist that the act was entirely voluntary.[78]

Around the same time, perhaps in 287,[79] Persia relinquished claims on Armenia and recognized Roman authority over territory to the west and south of the Tigris. The western portion of Armenia was incorporated into the empire and made a province. Tiridates IIIArsacid claimant to the Armenian throne and Roman client, had been disinherited and forced to take refuge in the empire after the Persian conquest of 252–53. In 287, he returned to lay claim to the eastern half of his ancestral domain and encountered no opposition.[80]Bahram II’s gifts were widely recognized as symbolic of a victory in the ongoing conflict with Persia, and Diocletian was hailed as the “founder of eternal peace”. The events might have represented a formal end to Carus’ eastern campaign, which probably ended without an acknowledged peace.[81] At the conclusion of discussions with the Persians, Diocletian re-organized the Mesopotamian frontier and fortified the city of Circesium (Buseire, Syria) on the Euphrates.[82]

Maximian made Augustus

Maximian’s campaigns were not proceeding as smoothly. The Bagaudae had been easily suppressed, but Carausius, the man he had put in charge of operations against Saxon and Frankish pirates on the Saxon Shore, had, according to literary sources, begun keeping the goods seized from the pirates for himself. Maximian issued a death warrant for his larcenous subordinate. Carausius fled the Continent, proclaimed himself Augustus, and agitated Britain and northwestern Gaul into open revolt against Maximian and Diocletian.[83]

Far more probable, according to the archaeological evidence available, is that Carausius probably had held some important military post in Britain[84] and had already a firm basis of power in both Britain and Northern Gaul (a coin hoard found in Rouen proves that he was in control of that mainland area at the beginning of his rebellion) and that he profited from the lack of legitimacy of the central government.[85]Carausius strove to have his legitimacy as a junior emperor acknowledged by Diocletian: in his coinage (of far better quality than the official one, especially his silver pieces) he extolled the “concord” between him and the central power (PAX AVGGG, “the Peace of the three Augusti”, read one bronze piece from 290, displaying, on the other side, Carausius together with Diocletian and Maximian, with the caption CARAVSIVS ET FRATRES SVI, “Carausius & his brothers” [1] ).[86] However, Diocletian could not allow elbow room to a breakaway regional usurper following in Postumus‘s footprints to enter, solely of his own accord, the imperial college.[87] So Carausius had to go.

Spurred by the crisis, on 1 April 286,[88][Note 5] Maximian took up the title of Augustus.[92] His appointment is unusual in that it was impossible for Diocletian to have been present to witness the event. It has even been suggested that Maximian usurped the title and was only later recognized by Diocletian in hopes of avoiding civil war.[93]This suggestion is unpopular, as it is clear that Diocletian meant for Maximian to act with a certain amount of independence.[94] It may be posited, however, that Diocletian felt the need to bind Maximian closer to him, by making him his empowered associate, in order to avoid the possibility of having him striking some sort of deal with Carausius.[95]

Giacobbe Giusti, Diocletian, Emperor of the Roman Empire

Carausius, rebel emperor of Roman Britain. Most of the evidence for Carausius’ reign comes from his coinage, which was of generally fine quality.[96]

Maximian realized that he could not immediately suppress the rogue commander, so in 287 he campaigned solely against tribes beyond the Rhineinstead.[97] As Carausius was allied to the Franks, Maximian’s campaigns could be seen as an effort to deny the separatist emperor in Britain a basis of support on the mainland.[98] The following spring, as Maximian prepared a fleet for an expedition against Carausius, Diocletian returned from the East to meet Maximian. The two emperors agreed on a joint campaign against the Alamanni. Diocletian invaded Germania through Raetia while Maximian progressed from Mainz. Each emperor burned crops and food supplies as he went, destroying the Germans’ means of sustenance.[99] The two men added territory to the empire and allowed Maximian to continue preparations against Carausius without further disturbance.[100] On his return to the East, Diocletian managed what was probably another rapid campaign against the resurgent Sarmatians. No details survive, but surviving inscriptions indicate that Diocletian took the title Sarmaticus Maximus after 289.[101]

In the East, Diocletian engaged in diplomacy with desert tribes in the regions between Rome and Persia. He might have been attempting to persuade them to ally themselves with Rome, thus reviving the old, Rome-friendly, Palmyrene sphere of influence,[102] or simply attempting to reduce the frequency of their incursions.[103] No details survive for these events.[104] Some of the princes of these states were Persian client kings, a disturbing fact in light of increasing tensions with the Sassanids.[105] In the West, Maximian lost the fleet built in 288 and 289, probably in the early spring of 290. The panegyrist who refers to the loss suggests that its cause was a storm,[106] but this might simply have been an attempt to conceal an embarrassing military defeat.[107] Diocletian broke off his tour of the Eastern provinces soon thereafter. He returned with haste to the West, reaching Emesa by 10 May 290,[108] and Sirmium on the Danube by 1 July 290.[109]

Diocletian met Maximian in Milan in the winter of 290–91, either in late December 290 or January 291.[110] The meeting was undertaken with a sense of solemn pageantry. The emperors spent most of their time in public appearances. It has been surmised that the ceremonies were arranged to demonstrate Diocletian’s continuing support for his faltering colleague.[102] A deputation from the Roman Senate met with the emperors, renewing its infrequent contact with the Imperial office.[111] The choice of Milan over Rome further snubbed the capital’s pride. But then it was already a long established practice that Rome itself was only a ceremonial capital, as the actual seat of the Imperial administration was determined by the needs of defense. Long before Diocletian, Gallienus (r. 253–68) had chosen Milan as the seat of his headquarters.[112] If the panegyric detailing the ceremony implied that the true center of the empire was not Rome, but where the emperor sat (“…the capital of the empire appeared to be there, where the two emperors met”),[113] it simply echoed what had already been stated by the historian Herodian in the early third century: “Rome is where the emperor is”.[112] During the meeting, decisions on matters of politics and war were probably made in secret.[114] The Augusti would not meet again until 303.[102]

Tetrarchy

Foundation of the Tetrarchy

Giacobbe Giusti, Diocletian, Emperor of the Roman Empire

Map of the Roman Empire under the tetrarchy, showing the diocesesand the four tetrarchs’ zones of influence post 299 after Diocletian and Galerius had exchanged their allocated provinces.

Giacobbe Giusti, Diocletian, Emperor of the Roman Empire

Triumphal arch of the tetrarchy, SbeitlaTunisia

Some time after his return, and before 293, Diocletian transferred command of the war against Carausius from Maximian to Flavius Constantius, a former Governor of Dalmatia and a man of military experience stretching back to Aurelian‘s campaigns against Zenobia(272–73). He was Maximian’s praetorian prefect in Gaul, and the husband to Maximian’s daughter, Theodora. On 1 March 293 at Milan, Maximian gave Constantius the office of caesar.[115] In the spring of 293, in either Philippopolis (PlovdivBulgaria) or Sirmium, Diocletian would do the same for Galerius, husband to Diocletian’s daughter Valeria, and perhaps Diocletian’s Praetorian Prefect.[Note 6] Constantius was assigned Gaul and Britain. Galerius was initially assigned Syria, Palestine, Egypt, and responsibility for the eastern borderlands.[117]

This arrangement is called the tetrarchy, from a Greek term meaning “rulership by four”.[118] The Tetrarchic Emperors were more or less sovereign in their own lands, and they travelled with their own imperial courts, administrators, secretaries, and armies.[119] They were joined by blood and marriage; Diocletian and Maximian now styled themselves as brothers. The senior Co-Emperors formally adopted Galerius and Constantius as sons in 293. These relationships implied a line of succession. Galerius and Constantius would become Augusti after the departure of Diocletian and Maximian. Maximian’s son Maxentius and Constantius’ son Constantine would then become Caesars. In preparation for their future roles, Constantine and Maxentius were taken to Diocletian’s court in Nicomedia.[120]

Demise of Carausius’ breakaway Roman Empire

Just before his creation as Caesar, Constantius proceeded to cut Carausius from his base of support in Gaul, recovering Boulogne after a hotly fought siege, a success that would result in Carausius being murdered and replaced by his aide Allectus, who would hold out in his Britain stronghold for a further three years[121] until a two-pronged naval invasion resulted in Allectus’ defeat and death at the hands of Constantius’ praetorian prefect Julius Asclepiodotus, during a land battle somewhere near Farnham. Constantius himself, after disembarking in the south east, delivered London from a looting party of Frankish deserters in Allectus’ pay, something that allowed him to assume the role of liberator of Britain. A famous commemorative medallion depicts a personification of London supplying the victorious Constantius on horseback in which he describes himself as redditor lucis aeternae, ‘restorer of the eternal light (viz., of Rome).’[122] The suppression of this threat to the Tetrarchs’ legitimacy allowed both Constantius and Maximian to concentrate on outside threats: by 297 Constantius was back on the Rhine and Maximian engaged in a full-scale African campaign against Frankish pirates and nomads, eventually making a triumphal entry into Carthage on 10 March 298.[123] However, Maximian’s failure to deal with Carausius and Allectus on his own had jeopardized the position of Maxentius as putative heir to his father’s post as Augustus of the West, with Constantius’ son Constantine appearing as a rival claimant.[124]

Conflict in the Balkans and Egypt

Giacobbe Giusti, Diocletian, Emperor of the Roman Empire

Trajanic temple on the island of Philae, the newly established border between the Nobatae and Blemmyesand Roman Egypt[125]

Diocletian spent the spring of 293 travelling with Galerius from Sirmium (Sremska MitrovicaSerbia) to Byzantium (IstanbulTurkey). Diocletian then returned to Sirmium, where he would remain for the following winter and spring. He campaigned against the Sarmatians again in 294, probably in the autumn,[126] and won a victory against them. The Sarmatians’ defeat kept them from the Danube provinces for a long time. Meanwhile, Diocletian built forts north of the Danube,[127] at Aquincum (BudapestHungary), Bononia (Vidin, Bulgaria), Ulcisia Vetera, Castra Florentium, Intercisa (Dunaújváros, Hungary), and Onagrinum (Begeč, Serbia). The new forts became part of a new defensive line called the Ripa Sarmatica.[128] In 295 and 296 Diocletian campaigned in the region again, and won a victory over the Carpi in the summer of 296.[129]Later during both 299 and 302, as Diocletian was then residing in the East, it was Galerius’ turn to campaign victoriously on the Danube.[130]By the end of his reign, Diocletian had secured the entire length of the Danube, provided it with forts, bridgeheads, highways, and walled towns, and sent fifteen or more legions to patrol the region; an inscription at Sexaginta Prista on the Lower Danube extolled restored tranquilitas to the region.[131] The defense came at a heavy cost, but was a significant achievement in an area difficult to defend.[132]

Galerius, meanwhile, was engaged during 291–293 in disputes in Upper Egypt, where he suppressed a regional uprising.[133] He would return to Syria in 295 to fight the revanchist Persian empire.[134]Diocletian’s attempts to bring the Egyptian tax system in line with Imperial standards stirred discontent, and a revolt swept the region after Galerius’ departure.[135] The usurper L. Domitius Domitianusdeclared himself Augustus in July or August 297. Much of Egypt, including Alexandria, recognized his rule.[134] Diocletian moved into Egypt to suppress him, first putting down rebels in the Thebaid in the autumn of 297,[126] then moving on to besiege Alexandria. Domitianus died in December 297,[136] by which time Diocletian had secured control of the Egyptian countryside. Alexandria, however, whose defense was organized under Domitianus’ former corrector Aurelius Achilleus, was to hold out until a later date, probably March 298.[137]

Bureaucratic affairs were completed during Diocletian’s stay:[138] a census took place, and Alexandria, in punishment for its rebellion, lost the ability to mint independently.[139] Diocletian’s reforms in the region, combined with those of Septimius Severus, brought Egyptian administrative practices much closer to Roman standards.[140]Diocletian travelled south along the Nile the following summer, where he visited Oxyrhynchus and Elephantine.[139] In Nubia, he made peace with the Nobatae and Blemmyes tribes. Under the terms of the peace treaty Rome’s borders moved north to Philae and the two tribes received an annual gold stipend. Diocletian left Africa quickly after the treaty, moving from Upper Egypt in September 298 to Syria in February 299. He met with Galerius in Mesopotamia.[125]

War with Persia

Invasion, counterinvasion

Giacobbe Giusti, Diocletian, Emperor of the Roman Empire

Military issue coin of Diocletian

In 294, Narseh, a son of Shapur who had been passed over for the Sassanid succession, came to power in Persia. Narseh eliminated Bahram III, a young man installed in the wake of Bahram II’s death in 293.[141]In early 294, Narseh sent Diocletian the customary package of gifts between the empires, and Diocletian responded with an exchange of ambassadors. Within Persia, however, Narseh was destroying every trace of his immediate predecessors from public monuments. He sought to identify himself with the warlike kings Ardashir (r. 226–41) and Shapur I (r. 241–72), who had defeated and imprisoned Emperor Valerian (r. 253–260) following his failed invasion of the Sasanian Empire.[142]

Narseh declared war on Rome in 295 or 296. He appears to have first invaded western Armenia, where he seized the lands delivered to Tiridates in the peace of 287.[143] Narseh moved south into Roman Mesopotamia in 297, where he inflicted a severe defeat on Galerius in the region between Carrhae (Harran, Turkey) and Callinicum (Raqqa, Syria)[144] (and thus, the historian Fergus Millar notes, probably somewhere on the Balikh River).[145] Diocletian may or may not have been present at the battle,[146] but he quickly divested himself of all responsibility. In a public ceremony at Antioch, the official version of events was clear: Galerius was responsible for the defeat; Diocletian was not. Diocletian publicly humiliated Galerius, forcing him to walk for a mile at the head of the Imperial caravan, still clad in the purple robes of the Emperor.[147][Note 7]

Giacobbe Giusti, Diocletian, Emperor of the Roman Empire

Detail of Galerius attacking Narsehon the Arch of Galerius at ThessalonikiGreece, the city where Galerius carried out most of his administrative actions[149]

Galerius was reinforced, probably in the spring of 298, by a new contingent collected from the empire’s Danubian holdings.[150] Narseh did not advance from Armenia and Mesopotamia, leaving Galerius to lead the offensive in 298 with an attack on northern Mesopotamia via Armenia.[151][Note 8] It is unclear if Diocletian was present to assist the campaign; he might have returned to Egypt or Syria.[Note 9] Narseh retreated to Armenia to fight Galerius’ force, to Narseh’s disadvantage; the rugged Armenian terrain was favorable to Roman infantry, but not to Sassanid cavalry. In two battles, Galerius won major victories over Narseh. During the second encounter, Roman forces seized Narseh’s camp, his treasury, his harem, and his wife.[155] Galerius continued moving down the Tigris, and took the Persian capital Ctesiphon before returning to Roman territory along the Euphrates.[156]

Peace negotiations

Narseh sent an ambassador to Galerius to plead for the return of his wives and children in the course of the war, but Galerius dismissed him.[157] Serious peace negotiations began in the spring of 299. The magister memoriae (secretary) of Diocletian and Galerius, Sicorius Probus, was sent to Narseh to present terms.[157] The conditions of the resulting Peace of Nisibis were heavy:[158] Armenia returned to Roman domination, with the fort of Ziatha as its border; Caucasian Iberia would pay allegiance to Rome under a Roman appointee; Nisibis, now under Roman rule, would become the sole conduit for trade between Persia and Rome; and Rome would exercise control over the five satrapies between the Tigris and Armenia: Ingilene, Sophanene (Sophene), Arzanene (Aghdznik), Corduene (Carduene), and Zabdicene (near modern Hakkâri, Turkey). These regions included the passage of the Tigris through the Anti-Taurus range; the Bitlis pass, the quickest southerly route into Persian Armenia; and access to the Tur Abdin plateau.[159]

A stretch of land containing the later strategic strongholds of Amida (Diyarbakır, Turkey) and Bezabde came under firm Roman military occupation.[160] With these territories, Rome would have an advance station north of Ctesiphon, and would be able to slow any future advance of Persian forces through the region.[158] Many cities east of the Tigris came under Roman control, including TigranokertSairdMartyropolisBalalesaMoxosDaudia, and Arzan – though under what status is unclear.[160] At the conclusion of the peace, Tiridates regained both his throne and the entirety of his ancestral claim.[157]Rome secured a wide zone of cultural influence, which led to a wide diffusion of Syriac Christianity from a center at Nisibis in later decades, and the eventual Christianization of Armenia.[158]

Religious persecutions

Early persecutions

At the conclusion of the Peace of Nisibis, Diocletian and Galerius returned to Syrian Antioch.[161] At some time in 299, the emperors took part in a ceremony of sacrifice and divination in an attempt to predict the future. The haruspices were unable to read the entrails of the sacrificed animals and blamed Christians in the Imperial household. The emperors ordered all members of the court to perform a sacrifice to purify the palace. The emperors sent letters to the military command, demanding the entire army perform the required sacrifices or face discharge.[162] Diocletian was conservative in matters of religion, a man faithful to the traditional Roman pantheon and understanding of demands for religious purification,[163] but EusebiusLactantius and Constantine state that it was Galerius, not Diocletian, who was the prime supporter of the purge, and its greatest beneficiary.[164] Galerius, even more devoted and passionate than Diocletian, saw political advantage in the politics of persecution. He was willing to break with a government policy of inaction on the issue.[165]

Antioch was Diocletian’s primary residence from 299 to 302, while Galerius swapped places with his Augustus on the Middle and Lower Danube.[166] Diocletian visited Egypt once, over the winter of 301–2, and issued a grain dole in Alexandria.[165] Following some public disputes with Manicheans, Diocletian ordered that the leading followers of Mani be burnt alive along with their scriptures. In a 31 March 302 rescript from Alexandria, he declared that low-status Manicheans must be executed by the blade, and high-status Manicheans must be sent to work in the quarries of Proconnesus (Marmara Island, Turkey) or the mines of Phaeno in southern Palestine. All Manichean property was to be seized and deposited in the imperial treasury.[167] Diocletian found much to be offended in Manichean religion: its novelty, its alien origins, the way it corrupted the morals of the Roman race, and its inherent opposition to long-standing religious traditions.[168] Manichaeanism was also supported by Persia at the time, compounding religious dissent with international politics.[169] Excepting Persian support, the reasons he disliked Manichaeanism were at least equally applicable to his next target, Christianity.[170]

Catacomb of Saints Marcellinus and Peter on the Via Labicana. Christ between Peter and Paul. To the sides are the martyrs Gorgonius, Peter, Marcellinus, Tiburtius

Great Persecution

Diocletian returned to Antioch in the autumn of 302. He ordered that the deaconRomanus of Caesarea have his tongue removed for defying the order of the courts and interrupting official sacrifices. Romanus was then sent to prison, where he was executed on 17 November 303. Diocletian believed that Romanus of Caesarea was arrogant, and he left the city for Nicomedia in the winter, accompanied by Galerius.[171] According to Lactantius, Diocletian and Galerius entered into an argument over imperial policy towards Christians while wintering at Nicomedia in 302. Diocletian argued that forbidding Christians from the bureaucracy and military would be sufficient to appease the gods, but Galerius pushed for extermination. The two men sought the advice of the oracle of Apollo at Didyma.[172]The oracle responded that the impious on Earth hindered Apollo’s ability to provide advice. Rhetorically Eusebius records the Oracle as saying “The just on Earth…”[173] These impious, Diocletian was informed by members of the court, could only refer to the Christians of the empire. At the behest of his court, Diocletian acceded to demands for universal persecution.[174][175]

On 23 February 303, Diocletian ordered that the newly built church at Nicomedia be razed. He demanded that its scriptures be burned, and seized its precious stores for the treasury.[176] The next day, Diocletian’s first “Edict against the Christians” was published.[177] The edict ordered the destruction of Christian scriptures and places of worship across the empire, and prohibited Christians from assembling for worship.[178] Before the end of February, a fire destroyed part of the Imperial palace.[179] Galerius convinced Diocletian that the culprits were Christians, conspirators who had plotted with the eunuchs of the palace. An investigation was commissioned, but no responsible party was found. Executions followed anyway, and the palace eunuchs Dorotheus and Gorgonius were executed. One individual, Peter Cubicularius, was stripped, raised high, and scourged. Salt and vinegar were poured in his wounds, and he was slowly boiled over an open flame. The executions continued until at least 24 April 303, when six individuals, including the bishop Anthimus, were decapitated.[180] A second fire occurred sixteen days after the first. Galerius left the city for Rome, declaring Nicomedia unsafe.[179] Diocletian would soon follow.[180]

Although further persecutionary edicts followed, compelling the arrest of the Christian clergy and universal acts of sacrifice,[181] the persecutionary edicts were ultimately unsuccessful; most Christians escaped punishment, and pagans too were generally unsympathetic to the persecution. The martyrs‘ sufferings strengthened the resolve of their fellow Christians.[182] Constantius and Maximian did not apply the later persecutionary edicts, and left the Christians of the West unharmed.[183] Galerius rescinded the edict in 311, announcing that the persecution had failed to bring Christians back to traditional religion.[184] The temporary apostasy of some Christians, and the surrendering of scriptures, during the persecution played a major role in the subsequent Donatist controversy.[185] Within twenty-five years of the persecution’s inauguration, the Christian Emperor Constantinewould rule the empire alone. He would reverse the consequences of the edicts, and return all confiscated property to Christians.[186] Under Constantine’s rule, Christianity would become the empire’s preferred religion.[187] Diocletian was demonized by his Christian successors: Lactantius intimated that Diocletian’s ascendancy heralded the apocalypse,[188] and in Serbian mythology, Diocletian is remembered as Dukljan, the adversary of God.[189]

Later life

Illness and abdication

Giacobbe Giusti, Diocletian, Emperor of the Roman Empire

Reconstruction of the Palace of the Roman Emperor Diocletian in its original appearance upon completion in 305, by Ernest Hébrard
Giacobbe Giusti, Diocletian, Emperor of the Roman Empire
Modern-day Diocletian’s Palace (2012), as the core of the city of Split.

Diocletian entered the city of Rome in the early winter of 303. On 20 November, he celebrated, with Maximian, the twentieth anniversary of his reign (vicennalia), the tenth anniversary of the tetrarchy (decennalia), and a triumph for the war with Persia. Diocletian soon grew impatient with the city, as the Romans acted towards him with what Edward Gibbon, following Lactantius, calls “licentious familiarity”.[190] The Roman people did not give enough deference to his supreme authority; it expected him to act the part of an aristocratic ruler, not a monarchic one. On 20 December 303,[191] Diocletian cut short his stay in Rome and left for the north. He did not even perform the ceremonies investing him with his ninth consulate; he did them in Ravenna on 1 January 304 instead.[192] There are suggestions in the Panegyrici Latini and Lactantius’ account that Diocletian arranged plans for his and Maximian’s future retirement of power in Rome. Maximian, according to these accounts, swore to uphold Diocletian’s plan in a ceremony in the Temple of Jupiter.[193]

From Ravenna, Diocletian left for the Danube. There, possibly in Galerius’ company, he took part in a campaign against the Carpi.[191]He contracted a minor illness while on campaign, but his condition quickly worsened and he chose to travel in a litter. In the late summer he left for Nicomedia. On 20 November 304, he appeared in public to dedicate the opening of the circus beside his palace. He collapsed soon after the ceremonies. Over the winter of 304–5 he kept within his palace at all times. Rumours alleging that Diocletian’s death was merely being kept secret until Galerius could come to assume power spread through the city. On 13 December, it appeared that he had finally died. The city was sent into a mourning from which it recovered after public declarations that Diocletian was still alive. When Diocletian reappeared in public on 1 March 305, he was emaciated and barely recognizable.[194]

Galerius arrived in the city later in March. According to Lactantius, he came armed with plans to reconstitute the tetrarchy, force Diocletian to step down, and fill the Imperial office with men compliant to his will. Through coercion and threats, he eventually convinced Diocletian to comply with his plan. Lactantius also claims that he had done the same to Maximian at Sirmium.[195] On 1 May 305, Diocletian called an assembly of his generals, traditional companion troops, and representatives from distant legions. They met at the same hill, 5 kilometres (3.1 mi) out of Nicomedia, where Diocletian had been proclaimed emperor. In front of a statue of Jupiter, his patron deity, Diocletian addressed the crowd. With tears in his eyes, he told them of his weakness, his need for rest, and his will to resign. He declared that he needed to pass the duty of empire on to someone stronger. He thus became the first Roman emperor to voluntarily abdicate his title.[196]

Most in the crowd believed they knew what would follow; Constantineand Maxentius, the only adult sons of reigning emperors, men who had long been preparing to succeed their fathers, would be granted the title of caesar. Constantine had travelled through Palestine at the right hand of Diocletian, and was present at the palace in Nicomedia in 303 and 305. It is likely that Maxentius received the same treatment.[197] In Lactantius’ account, when Diocletian announced that he was to resign, the entire crowd turned to face Constantine.[198] It was not to be: Severus and Maximinus were declared caesars. Maximinus appeared and took Diocletian’s robes. On the same day, Severus received his robes from Maximian in Milan. Constantius succeeded Maximian as augustus of the West, but Constantine and Maxentius were entirely ignored in the transition of power. This did not bode well for the future security of the tetrarchic system.[199]

Retirement and death

Giacobbe Giusti, Diocletian, Emperor of the Roman Empire

Modern depiction of Diocletian in retirement.

Diocletian retired to his homeland, Dalmatia. He moved into the expansive Diocletian’s Palace, a heavily fortified compound located by the small town of Spalatum on the shores of the Adriatic Sea, and near the large provincial administrative center of Salona. The palace is preserved in great part to this day and forms the historic core of Split, the second-largest city of modern Croatia.

Maximian retired to villas in Campania or Lucania.[200] Their homes were distant from political life, but Diocletian and Maximian were close enough to remain in regular contact with each other.[201] Galerius assumed the consular fasces in 308 with Diocletian as his colleague. In the autumn of 308, Galerius again conferred with Diocletian at Carnuntum (Petronell-CarnuntumAustria). Diocletian and Maximian were both present on 11 November 308, to see Galerius appoint Licinius to be Augustus in place of Severus, who had died at the hands of Maxentius. He ordered Maximian, who had attempted to return to power after his retirement, to step down permanently. At Carnuntum people begged Diocletian to return to the throne, to resolve the conflicts that had arisen through Constantine’s rise to power and Maxentius’ usurpation.[202] Diocletian’s reply: “If you could show the cabbage that I planted with my own hands to your emperor, he definitely wouldn’t dare suggest that I replace the peace and happiness of this place with the storms of a never-satisfied greed.”[203]

He lived on for four more years, spending his days in his palace gardens. He saw his tetrarchic system fail, torn by the selfish ambitions of his successors. He heard of Maximian’s third claim to the throne, his forced suicide, and his damnatio memoriae. In his own palace, statues and portraits of his former companion emperor were torn down and destroyed. Deep in despair and illness, Diocletian may have committed suicide. He died on 3 December 312.[4][204][Note 10]

Reforms

Tetrarchic and ideological

Giacobbe Giusti, Diocletian, Emperor of the Roman Empire

Modern view of the Peristyle in Diocletian’s Palace (SplitCroatia)

Diocletian saw his work as that of a restorer, a figure of authority whose duty it was to return the empire to peace, to recreate stability and justice where barbarian hordes had destroyed it.[205] He arrogated, regimented and centralized political authority on a massive scale. In his policies, he enforced an Imperial system of values on diverse and often unreceptive provincial audiences.[206] In the Imperial propaganda from the period, recent history was perverted and minimized in the service of the theme of the tetrarchs as “restorers”. Aurelian’s achievements were ignored, the revolt of Carausius was backdated to the reign of Gallienus, and it was implied that the tetrarchs engineered Aurelian’s defeat of the Palmyrenes; the period between Gallienus and Diocletian was effectively erased. The history of the empire before the tetrarchy was portrayed as a time of civil war, savage despotism, and imperial collapse.[207] In those inscriptions that bear their names, Diocletian and his companions are referred to as “restorers of the whole world”,[208] men who succeeded in “defeating the nations of the barbarians, and confirming the tranquility of their world”.[209] Diocletian was written up as the “founder of eternal peace”.[210] The theme of restoration was conjoined to an emphasis on the uniqueness and accomplishments of the tetrarchs themselves.[207]

The cities where emperors lived frequently in this period—MilanTrierArlesSirmiumSerdicaThessalonikiNicomedia and Antioch—were treated as alternate imperial seats, to the exclusion of Rome and its senatorial elite.[211] A new style of ceremony was developed, emphasizing the distinction of the emperor from all other persons. The quasi-republican ideals of Augustus’ primus inter pares were abandoned for all but the tetrarchs themselves. Diocletian took to wearing a gold crown and jewels, and forbade the use of purple clothto all but the emperors.[212] His subjects were required to prostrate themselves in his presence (adoratio); the most fortunate were allowed the privilege of kissing the hem of his robe (proskynesis, προσκύνησις).[213] Circuses and basilicas were designed to keep the face of the emperor perpetually in view, and always in a seat of authority. The emperor became a figure of transcendent authority, a man beyond the grip of the masses.[214] His every appearance was stage-managed.[215] This style of presentation was not new—many of its elements were first seen in the reigns of Aurelian and Severus—but it was only under the tetrarchs that it was refined into an explicit system.[216]

Administrative

In keeping with his move from an ideology of republicanism to one of autocracy, Diocletian’s council of advisers, his consilium, differed from those of earlier emperors. He destroyed the Augustan illusion of imperial government as a cooperative affair among emperor, army, and senate.[217] In its place he established an effectively autocratic structure, a shift later epitomized in the institution’s name: it would be called a consistorium, not a council.[218][Note 11] Diocletian regulated his court by distinguishing separate departments (scrinia) for different tasks.[220] From this structure came the offices of different magistri, like the magister officiorum (“Master of Offices”), and associated secretariats. These were men suited to dealing with petitions, requests, correspondence, legal affairs, and foreign embassies. Within his court Diocletian maintained a permanent body of legal advisers, men with significant influence on his re-ordering of juridical affairs. There were also two finance ministers, dealing with the separate bodies of the public treasury and the private domains of the emperor, and the praetorian prefect, the most significant person of the whole. Diocletian’s reduction of the Praetorian Guards to the level of a simple city garrison for Rome lessened the military powers of the prefect – although a prefect like Asclepiodotus was still a trained general[221] – but the office retained much civil authority. The prefect kept a staff of hundreds and managed affairs in all segments of government: in taxation, administration, jurisprudence, and minor military commands, the praetorian prefect was often second only to the emperor himself.[222]

Altogether, Diocletian effected a large increase in the number of bureaucrats at the government’s command; Lactantius was to claim that there were now more men using tax money than there were paying it.[223] The historian Warren Treadgold estimates that under Diocletian the number of men in the civil service doubled from 15,000 to 30,000.[224] The classicist Roger S. Bagnall estimated that there was one bureaucrat for every 5–10,000 people in Egypt based on 400 or 800 bureaucrats for 4 million inhabitants (no one knows the population of the province in 300 AD; Strabo 300 years earlier put it at 7.5 million, excluding Alexandria). (By comparison, the ratio in 12th-century Song dynasty China was one bureaucrat for every 15,000 people.) Jones estimated 30,000 bureaucrats for an empire of 50–65 million inhabitants, which works out to approximately 1,667 or 2,167 inhabitants per imperial official as averages empire-wide. The actual numbers of officials and ratios per inhabitant varied, of course, per diocese depending on the number of provinces and population within a diocese. Provincial and diocesan paid officials (there were unpaid supernumeraries) numbered about 13–15,000 based on their staff establishments as set by law. The other 50% were with the emperor(s) in his or their comitatus, with the praetorian prefects, or with the grain supply officials in the capital (later, the capitals, Rome and Constantinople), Alexandria, and Carthage and officials from the central offices located in the provinces.[225]

To avoid the possibility of local usurpations,[226] to facilitate a more efficient collection of taxes and supplies, and to ease the enforcement of the law, Diocletian doubled the number of provinces from fifty to almost one hundred.[227] The provinces were grouped into twelve dioceses, each governed by an appointed official called a vicarius, or “deputy of the praetorian prefects”.[228] Some of the provincial divisions required revision, and were modified either soon after 293 or early in the fourth century.[229] Rome herself (including her environs, as defined by a 100 miles (160 km)-radius perimeter around the city itself) was not under the authority of the praetorian prefect, as she was to be administered by a city prefect of senatorial rank – the sole prestigious post with actual power reserved exclusively for senators, except for some governors in Italy with the titles of corrector and the proconsuls of Asia and Africa.[230] The dissemination of imperial law to the provinces was facilitated under Diocletian’s reign, because Diocletian’s reform of the Empire’s provincial structure meant that there were now a greater number of governors (praesides) ruling over smaller regions and smaller populations.[231] Diocletian’s reforms shifted the governors’ main function to that of the presiding official in the lower courts:[232] whereas in the early Empire military and judicial functions were the function of the governor, and procurators had supervised taxation, under the new system vicarii and governors were responsible for justice and taxation, and a new class of duces(“dukes“), acting independently of the civil service, had military command.[233] These dukes sometimes administered two or three of the new provinces created by Diocletian, and had forces ranging from two thousand to more than twenty thousand men.[234] In addition to their roles as judges and tax collectors, governors were expected to maintain the postal service (cursus publicus) and ensure that town councils fulfilled their duties.[235]

This curtailment of governors’ powers as the Emperors’ representatives may have lessened the political dangers of an all-too-powerful class of Imperial delegates, but it also severely limited governors’ ability to oppose local landed elites, especially those of senatorial status, which, although with reduced opportunities for office holding, retained wealth, social prestige, and personal connections,[236] particularly in relatively peaceful regions without a great military presence.[237] On one occasion, Diocletian had to exhort a proconsul of Africa not to fear the consequences of treading on the toes of the local magnates of senatorial rank.[238] If a governor of senatorial rank himself felt these pressures, one can imagine the difficulties faced by a mere praeses.[239] That accounts for the strained relationship between the central power and local elites: sometime during 303, an attempted military sedition in Seleucia Pieria and Antioch made Diocletian to extract a bloody retribution on both cities by putting to death a number of their council members for failing their duties of keeping order in their jurisdiction.[240]

Legal

Giacobbe Giusti, Diocletian, Emperor of the Roman Empire

A 1581 reprint of the Digestorum from Justinian‘s Corpus Juris Civilis (527–534). The Corpus drew on the codices of Gregorius and Hermogenian, drafted and published under Diocletian’s reign.

As with most emperors, much of Diocletian’s daily routine rotated around legal affairs—responding to appeals and petitions, and delivering decisions on disputed matters. Rescripts, authoritative interpretations issued by the emperor in response to demands from disputants in both public and private cases, were a common duty of second- and third-century emperors. Diocletian was awash in paperwork, and was nearly incapable of delegating his duties. It would have been seen as a dereliction of duty to ignore them. In the “nomadic” imperial courts of the later Empire, one can track the progress of the imperial retinue through the locations from whence particular rescripts were issued – the presence of the Emperor was what allowed the system to function.[241]Whenever the imperial court would settle in one of the capitals, there was a glut in petitions, as in late 294 in Nicomedia, where Diocletian kept winter quarters.[242]

Admittedly, Diocletian’s praetorian prefects—Afranius Hannibalianus, Julius Asclepiodotus, and Aurelius Hermogenianus—aided in regulating the flow and presentation of such paperwork, but the deep legalism of Roman culture kept the workload heavy.[243] Emperors in the forty years preceding Diocletian’s reign had not managed these duties so effectively, and their output in attested rescripts is low. Diocletian, by contrast, was prodigious in his affairs: there are around 1,200 rescripts in his name still surviving, and these probably represent only a small portion of the total issue.[244] The sharp increase in the number of edicts and rescripts produced under Diocletian’s rule has been read as evidence of an ongoing effort to realign the whole Empire on terms dictated by the imperial center.[245]

Under the governance of the jurists Gregorius, Aurelius Arcadius Charisius, and Hermogenianus, the imperial government began issuing official books of precedent, collecting and listing all the rescripts that had been issued from the reign of Hadrian (r. 117–38) to the reign of Diocletian.[246] The Codex Gregorianus includes rescripts up to 292, which the Codex Hermogenianus updated with a comprehensive collection of rescripts issued by Diocletian in 293 and 294.[229] Although the very act of codification was a radical innovation, given the precedent-based design of the Roman legal system,[247] the jurists were generally conservative, and constantly looked to past Roman practice and theory for guidance.[248] They were probably given more free rein over their codes than the later compilers of the Codex Theodosianus (438) and Codex Justinianus (529) would have. Gregorius and Hermogenianus’ codices lack the rigid structuring of later codes,[249] and were not published in the name of the emperor, but in the names of their compilers.[250] Their official character, however, was clear in that both collections were subsequently acknowledged by courts as authoritative records of imperial legislation up to the date of their publication and regularly updated.[251]

After Diocletian’s reform of the provinces, governors were called iudex, or judge. The governor became responsible for his decisions first to his immediate superiors, as well as to the more distant office of the emperor.[252] It was most likely at this time that judicial records became verbatim accounts of what was said in trial, making it easier to determine bias or improper conduct on the part of the governor. With these records and the Empire’s universal right of appeal, Imperial authorities probably had a great deal of power to enforce behavior standards for their judges.[253] In spite of Diocletian’s attempts at reform, the provincial restructuring was far from clear, especially when citizens appealed the decisions of their governors. Proconsuls, for example, were often both judges of first instance and appeal, and the governors of some provinces took appellant cases from their neighbors. It soon became impossible to avoid taking some cases to the emperor for arbitration and judgment.[254] Diocletian’s reign marks the end of the classical period of Roman law. Where Diocletian’s system of rescripts shows an adherence to classical tradition, Constantine’s law is full of Greek and eastern influences.[255]

Military

It is archaeologically difficult to distinguish Diocletian’s fortifications from those of his successors and predecessors. The Devil’s Dykes, for example, the Danubian earthworks traditionally attributed to Diocletian, cannot even be securely dated to a particular century. The most that can be said about built structures under Diocletian’s reign is that he rebuilt and strengthened forts at the Upper Rhine frontier (where he followed the works built under Probus along the Lake ConstanceBasel and the Rhine–Iller–Danube line),[256] on the Danube- where a new line of forts on the far side of the river, the Ripa Sarmatica, was added to older, rehabilitated fortresses[257] – in Egypt, and on the frontier with Persia. Beyond that, much discussion is speculative, and reliant on the broad generalizations of written sources. Diocletian and the tetrarchs had no consistent plan for frontier advancement, and records of raids and forts built across the frontier are likely to indicate only temporary claims. The Strata Diocletiana, built after the Persian Wars, which ran from the Euphrates North of Palmyra and South towards northeast Arabia in the general vicinity of Bostra, is the classic Diocletianic frontier system, consisting of an outer road followed by tightly spaced forts – defensible hard-points manned by small garrisons – followed by further fortifications in the rear.[258] In an attempt to resolve the difficulty and slowness of transmitting orders to the frontier, the new capitals of the tetrarchic era were all much closer to the empire’s frontiers than Rome had been:[259] Trier sat on the Moselle, a tributary of the Rhine, Sirmium and Serdica were close to the Danube, Thessaloniki was on the route leading eastward, and Nicomedia and Antioch were important points in dealings with Persia.[260]

Lactantius criticized Diocletian for an excessive increase in troop sizes, declaring that “each of the four [tetrarchs] strove to have a far larger number of troops than previous emperors had when they were governing the state alone”.[261] The fifth-century pagan Zosimus, by contrast, praised Diocletian for keeping troops on the borders, rather than keeping them in the cities, as Constantine was held to have done.[262] Both these views had some truth to them, despite the biases of their authors: Diocletian and the tetrarchs did greatly expand the army, and the growth was mostly in frontier regions, where the increased effectives of the new Diocletianic legions seem to have been mostly spread across a network of strongholds.[263]Nevertheless, it is difficult to establish the precise details of these shifts given the weakness of the sources.[264] The army expanded to about 580,000 men from a 285 strength of 390,000, of which 310,000 men were stationed in the East, most of whom manned the Persian frontier. The navy’s forces increased from approximately 45,000 men to approximately 65,000 men.[265][Note 12]

Diocletian’s expansion of the army and civil service meant that the empire’s tax burden grew. Since military upkeep took the largest portion of the imperial budget, any reforms here would be especially costly.[268] The proportion of the adult male population, excluding slaves, serving in the army increased from roughly 1 in 25 to 1 in 15, an increase judged excessive by some modern commentators. Official troop allowances were kept to low levels, and the mass of troops often resorted to extortion or the taking of civilian jobs.[269] Arrears became the norm for most troops. Many were even given payment in kind in place of their salaries.[270] Were he unable to pay for his enlarged army, there would likely be civil conflict, potentially open revolt. Diocletian was led to devise a new system of taxation.[269]

Economic

Taxation

In the early empire (30 BC – AD 235) the Roman government paid for what it needed in gold and silver. The coinage was stable. Requisition, forced purchase, was used to supply armies on the march. During the third century crisis (235–285), the government resorted to requisition rather than payment in debased coinage, since it could never be sure of the value of money. Requisition was nothing more or less than seizure. Diocletian made requisition into tax. He introduced an extensive new tax system based on heads (capita) and land (iugera) – with one iugerum equal to approximately .65 acres – and tied to a new, regular census of the empire’s population and wealth. Census officials traveled throughout the empire, assessed the value of labor and land for each landowner, and joined the landowners’ totals together to make citywide totals of capita and iuga.[271] The iugum was not a consistent measure of land, but varied according to the type of land and crop, and the amount of labor necessary for sustenance. The caput was not consistent either: women, for instance, were often valued at half a caput, and sometimes at other values.[270] Cities provided animals, money, and manpower in proportion to its capita, and grain in proportion to its iuga.[271][Note 13]

Most taxes were due on each year on 1 September, and levied from individual landowners by decuriones (decurions). These decurions, analogous to city councilors, were responsible for paying from their own pocket what they failed to collect.[273] Diocletian’s reforms also increased the number of financial officials in the provinces: more rationales and magistri privatae are attested under Diocletian’s reign than before. These officials represented the interests of the fisc, which collected taxes in gold, and the Imperial properties.[229] Fluctuations in the value of the currency made collection of taxes in kind the norm, although these could be converted into coin. Rates shifted to take inflation into account.[271] In 296, Diocletian issued an edict reforming census procedures. This edict introduced a general five-year census for the whole empire, replacing prior censuses that had operated at different speeds throughout the empire. The new censuses would keep up with changes in the values of capita and iuga.[274]

Italy, which had long been exempt from taxes, was included in the tax system from 290/291 as a diocesis.[275] The city of Rome itself, however, remained exempt; the “regions” (i.e., provinces) South of Rome (generally called “suburbicarian”, as opposed to the Northern, “annonaria” region) seem to have been relatively less taxed, in what probably was a sop offered to the great senatorial families and their landed properties.[276]

Diocletian’s edicts emphasized the common liability of all taxpayers. Public records of all taxes were made public.[277] The position of decurion, member of the city council, had been an honor sought by wealthy aristocrats and the middle classes who displayed their wealth by paying for city amenities and public works. Decurions were made liable for any shortfall in the amount of tax collected. Many tried to find ways to escape the obligation.[273]

Currency and inflation

Giacobbe Giusti, Diocletian, Emperor of the Roman Empire

A fragment of the Edict on Maximum Prices (301), on display in Berlin

Giacobbe Giusti, Diocletian, Emperor of the Roman Empire

Part of the prices edict in Greek in its original area built into a medieval church, Geraki, Greece

Aurelian’s attempt to reform the currency had failed; the denarius was dead.[278]Diocletian restored the three-metal coinage and issued better quality pieces.[279] The new system consisted of five coins: the aureus/solidus, a gold coin weighing, like its predecessors, one-sixtieth of a pound; the argenteus, a coin weighing one ninety-sixth of a pound and containing ninety-five percent pure silver; the follis, sometimes referred to as the laureatus A, which is a copper coin with added silver struck at the rate of thirty-two to the pound; the radiatus, a small copper coin struck at the rate of 108 to the pound, with no added silver; and a coin known today as the laureatus B, a smaller copper coin struck at the rate of 192 to the pound.[280][Note 14] Since the nominal values of these new issues were lower than their intrinsic worth as metals, the state was minting these coins at a loss. This practice could be sustained only by requisitioning precious metals from private citizens in exchange for state-minted coin (of a far lower value than the price of the precious metals requisitioned).[281]

By 301, however, the system was in trouble, strained by a new bout of inflation. Diocletian therefore issued his Edict on Coinage, an act re-tariffing all debts so that the nummus, the most common coin in circulation, would be worth half as much.[282] In the edict, preserved in an inscription from the city of Aphrodisias in Caria (near Geyre, Turkey), it was declared that all debts contracted before 1 September 301 must be repaid at the old standards, while all debts contracted after that date would be repaid at the new standards.[283] It appears that the edict was made in an attempt to preserve the current price of gold and to keep the Empire’s coinage on silver, Rome’s traditional metal currency.[284] This edict risked giving further momentum to inflationary trends, as had happened after Aurelian’s currency reforms. The government’s response was to issue a price freeze.[285]

The Edict on Maximum Prices (Edictum De Pretiis Rerum Venalium) was issued two to three months after the coinage edict,[278]somewhere between 20 November and 10 December 301.[283] The best-preserved Latin inscription surviving from the Greek East,[286] the edict survives in many versions, on materials as varied as wood, papyrus, and stone.[287] In the edict, Diocletian declared that the current pricing crisis resulted from the unchecked greed of merchants, and had resulted in turmoil for the mass of common citizens. The language of the edict calls on the people’s memory of their benevolent leaders, and exhorts them to enforce the provisions of the edict, and thereby restore perfection to the world. The edict goes on to list in detail over one thousand goods and accompanying retail prices not to be exceeded. Penalties are laid out for various pricing transgressions.[288]

In the most basic terms, the edict was ignorant of the law of supply and demand: it ignored the fact that prices might vary from region to region according to product availability, and it ignored the impact of transportation costs in the retail price of goods. In the judgment of the historian David Potter, the edict was “an act of economic lunacy”.[289]The fact that the edict began with a long rhetorical preamble betrays at the same time a moralizing stance as well as a weak grasp of economics – perhaps simply the wishful thinking that criminalizing a practice was enough to stop it.[290]

There is no consensus about how effectively the edict was enforced.[291] Supposedly, inflation, speculation, and monetary instability continued, and a black market arose to trade in goods forced out of official markets.[292] The edict’s penalties were applied unevenly across the empire (some scholars believe they were applied only in Diocletian’s domains),[293] widely resisted, and eventually dropped, perhaps within a year of the edict’s issue.[294] Lactantius has written of the perverse accompaniments to the edict; of goods withdrawn from the market, of brawls over minute variations in price, of the deaths that came when its provisions were enforced. His account may be true, but it seems to modern historians exaggerated and hyperbolic,[295] and the impact of the law is recorded in no other ancient source.[296]

Social and professional mobility

Partly in response to economic pressures and in order to protect the vital functions of the state, Diocletian restricted social and professional mobility. Peasants became tied to the land in a way that presaged later systems of land tenure and workers such as bakers, armourers, public entertainers and workers in the mint had their occupations made hereditary.[297] Soldiers’ children were also forcibly enrolled, something that followed spontaneous tendencies among the rank-and-file, but also expressed increasing difficulties in recruitment.[298]

Legacy

The historian A.H.M. Jones observed that “It is perhaps Diocletian’s greatest achievement that he reigned twenty-one years and then abdicated voluntarily, and spent the remaining years of his life in peaceful retirement.”[299] Diocletian was one of the few emperors of the third and fourth centuries to die naturally, and the first in the history of the empire to retire voluntarily.[300] Once he retired, however, his tetrarchic system collapsed. Without the guiding hand of Diocletian, the empire fell into civil wars. Stability emerged after the defeat of Licinius by Constantine in 324.[301] Under the Christian Constantine, Diocletian was maligned. Constantine’s rule, however, validated Diocletian’s achievements and the autocratic principle he represented:[302] the borders remained secure, in spite of Constantine’s large expenditure of forces during his civil wars; the bureaucratic transformation of Roman government was completed; and Constantine took Diocletian’s court ceremonies and made them even more extravagant.[303]

Constantine ignored those parts of Diocletian’s rule that did not suit him. Diocletian’s policy of preserving a stable silver coinage was abandoned, and the gold solidus became the empire’s primary currency instead.[304] Diocletian’s persecution of Christians was repudiated and changed to a policy of toleration and then favoritism. Christianity eventually became the official religion in 380. Constantine would claim to have the same close relationship with the Christian God as Diocletian claimed to have with Jupiter.[305] Most importantly, Diocletian’s tax system and administrative reforms lasted, with some modifications, until the advent of the Muslims in the 630s.[306] The combination of state autocracy and state religion was instilled in much of Europe, particularly in the lands which adopted Orthodox Christianity.[307]

In addition to his administrative and legal impact on history, the Emperor Diocletian is considered to be the founder of the city of Splitin modern-day Croatia. The city itself grew around the heavily fortified Diocletian’s Palace the emperor had built in anticipation of his retirement.

The Era of Martyrs (Latinanno martyrum or AM), also known as the Diocletian era (Latin: anno Diocletiani), is a method of numbering years used by the Church of Alexandria beginning in the 4th century anno Domini and by the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria from the 5th century to the present. In this system of counting, the beginning of Diocletian’s reign in 284 was used as the epoch, making Diocletian’s first year in power into the Year 1 of that calendar. Western Christians were aware of this count but did not use it; Dionysius Exiguus replaced the anno Diocletiani era with his anno Domini era because he did not wish to continue the memory of a tyrant who persecuted Christians.[308] The anno Domini era became dominant in the Latin West but was not used in the Greek East until modern times.

Notes

  1. ^ Coins are issued in his name in Cyzicus at some time before the end of 284, but it is impossible to know whether he was still in the public eye by that point.[20]
  2. ^ Barnes and Bowman argue for 21 July,[59] Potter for 25 July.[60]
  3. ^ He is placed there by a rescript dated 3 March 286.[73]
  4. ^ He is attested there in a rescript dated 31 May 287.[75] The Jewish Midrash suggests that Diocletian resided at Panias (present-day Banias) in the northern Golan Heights.[76]
  5. ^ The chronology of Maximian’s appointment as augustus is somewhat uncertain.[89] Some suggest that Maximian was appointed augustus from the beginning of his imperial career, without ever holding the office of caesar;[90] others date the assumption of the Augustan title to 1 March 286.[91] 1 April 286 is the most common date used in modern histories of the period.[88]
  6. ^ The suggested dates for Galerius’ appointment are 1 March and 21 May. There is no consensus on which is correct.[116]
  7. ^ It is possible that Galerius’ position at the head of the caravan was merely the conventional organization of an imperial progression, designed to show a caesar’s deference to his augustus, and not an attempt to humiliate him.[148]
  8. ^ Faustus of Byzantium‘s history refers to a battle that took place after Galerius set up base at Satala (Sadak, Turkey) in Armenia Minor, when Narseh advanced from his base at Oskha to attack him.[152] Other histories of the period do not note these events.
  9. ^ Lactantius criticizes Diocletian for his absence from the front,[153] but Southern, dating Diocletian’s African campaigns one year earlier than Barnes, places Diocletian on Galerius’ southern flank.[154]
  10. ^ The range of dates proposed for Diocletian’s death have stretched from 311 through to 318. Until recently, the date of 3 December 311 has been favoured; however, the absence of Diocletian on Maxentius’ “AETERNA MEMORIA” coins would indicate that he was alive through to Maxentius’ defeat in October 312. Given that Diocletian had died by the time of Maximin Daia’s death in July 313, it has been argued that the correct date of death was 3 December 312.[4]
  11. ^ The term consistorium was already in use for the room where council meetings took place.[219]
  12. ^ The Byzantine author John Lydus provides extraordinarily precise troop numbers: 389,704 in the army and 45,562 in the navy.[266] His precision has polarized modern historians. Some believe that Lydus found these figures in official documents, and that they are therefore broadly accurate; others believe that he fabricated them.[267]
  13. ^ The army recruitment tax was called the praebitio tironum, and conscripted a part of each landowner’s tenant farmers (coloni). When a capitulum extended across many farms, farmers provided the funds to compensate the neighbor who had supplied the recruit. Landowners of senatorial rank were able to commute the tax with a payment in gold (the aurum tironicum).[272]
  14. ^ The denarius was dropped from the Imperial mints,[278] but the values of new coins continued to be measured in reference to it.[279]

References

Citations

Chapters from The Cambridge Ancient History, Volume XII: The Crisis of Empire are marked with a “(CAH)”.

  1. ^ Barnes, New Empire, 4.
  2. ^ Barnes, New Empire, 4.
  3. Jump up to:ab Barnes, New Empire, 30, 46; Bowman, “Diocletian and the First Tetrarchy” (CAH), 68.
  4. Jump up to:abcd Nakamura, Byron J. (July 2003). “When Did Diocletian Die? New Evidence for an Old Problem”. Classical Philology98 (3): 283–289. JSTOR420722(Registration required (help)).
  5. ^ Barnes, New Empire, 4. For full imperial titulature, see: Barnes, New Empire, 17–29.
  6. ^ New Empire, 30, 46; Bowman, “Diocletian and the First Tetrarchy” (CAH), 68.
  7. ^ Aurelius Victor 39.1; Potter, 648.
  8. ^ Barnes, New Empire, 30; Williams, 237–38; cf. Rees, Diocletian and the Tetrarchy, 86: “We do not even know when he was born …”
  9. ^ Eutropius, Breviarium, 9.19; Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 4; Bowman, “Diocletian and the First Tetrarchy” (CAH), 68; Potter, 280; Williams, 22–23.
  10. ^ Zonaras, 12.31; Southern, 331; Williams, 26.
  11. ^ Mathisen, “Diocletian”; Williams, 26.
  12. ^ SHAVita Carini 14–15; Williams, 26.
  13. ^ Williams,33
  14. ^ Williams, 36.
  15. ^ Theodor Mommsen, A History of Rome Under the Emperors. London: Routledge, 1999, page 348. Mommsen offers a general remark on the political history of the Third Century Rome: “Those accounts we do possess stem from outsiders who in fact know nothing” – 346. A modern historian like Jill Harries, Imperial Rome AD 284 to 363: The New Empire, Edinburgh University Press, 2012, ISBN978-0-7486-2052-4, page 27, calls Carus’s death account, outrightly, a “story”.
  16. Jump up to:ab Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 4.
  17. Jump up to:ab Southern, 133.
  18. ^ Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 4; Leadbetter, “Numerianus.”
  19. ^ Codex Justinianus 5.52.2; Leadbetter, “Numerianus”; Potter, 279.
  20. ^ Roman Imperial Coinage 5.2 Numerian no. 462; Potter, 279–80.
  21. ^ Williams, 34
  22. ^ Leadbetter, “Numerianus.”
  23. ^ Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 4; Leadbetter, “Numerianus”; Odahl, 39; Williams, 35.
  24. ^ Eutropius, Breviarium, 9.19; Aurelius Victor, Book of the Caesars, 39.1.
  25. Jump up to:abcdef Potter, 280.
  26. ^ Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 4; Bowman, “Diocletian and the First Tetrarchy” (CAH), 68; Williams, 35–36.
  27. ^ Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 4–5; Odahl, 39–40; Williams, 36–37.
  28. ^ Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 4–5; Leadbetter, “Numerian”; Odahl, 39–40; Williams, 37.
  29. ^ SHAVita Cari 13, cited in Averil Cameron, The Later Roman Empire(Glasgow: Fontana, 1993), 31.
  30. ^ Corcoran, “Before Constantine”, 39.
  31. ^ Barnes, New Empire, 31; Bowman, “Diocletian and the First Tetrarchy” (CAH), 68–69; Potter, 280; Southern, 134; Williams, 37.
  32. ^ Fully, L. Caesonius Ovinius Manlius Rufinianus Bassus.
  33. ^ Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 5; Bowman, “Diocletian and the First Tetrarchy” (CAH), 69; Potter, 280; Southern, 134.
  34. Jump up to:abcd Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 5.
  35. ^ Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 5; Bowman, “Diocletian and the First Tetrarchy” (CAH), 69; Leadbetter, “Carinus”; Southern, 134–35; Williams, 38. See also Banchich.
  36. ^ Southern, 134–5; Williams, 38.
  37. ^ Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 5; Bowman, “Diocletian and the First Tetrarchy” (CAH), 69; Leadbetter, “Carinus.”
  38. ^ Bowman, “Diocletian and the First Tetrarchy” (CAH), 69; Potter, 280.
  39. ^ Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 5; Odahl, 40; Southern, 135.
  40. ^ Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 5; Williams, 37–38.
  41. ^ Potter, 280; Williams, 37.
  42. ^ Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 5; Bowman, “Diocletian and the First Tetrarchy” (CAH), 69; Odahl, 40; Williams, 38.
  43. ^ Southern, 135; Williams, 38.
  44. ^ Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 5; Bowman, “Diocletian and the First Tetrarchy” (CAH), 69.
  45. ^ Roman Imperial Coinage 5.2.241 no. 203–04; Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 5, 287; Barnes, New Empire, 50.
  46. ^ Williams, 41.
  47. ^ Aurelius Victor, De Cesaribus, 37.5, quoted in Carrié & Rousselle, L’Empire Romain, 654
  48. ^ Barnes, Ammianus Marcellinus and the Representation of Historical RealityCornell University Press, 1998, page 46
  49. ^ William Lewis Leadbetter, Galerius and the Will of Diocletian. Abingdon: 2011, n.p.g. (e-book)
  50. ^ Southern, 135, 331.
  51. ^ Potter, 281.
  52. ^ Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 5–6; Bowman, “Diocletian and the First Tetrarchy” (CAH), 69; Barnes, New Empire, 113; Williams, 41–42.
  53. ^ Aurelius Victor, 39.15, qtd. in Leadbetter, “Carinus.”
  54. ^ Barnes, “Two Senators,” 46; Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 5–6; Leadbetter, “Carinus”; Southern, 135; Williams, 41
  55. ^ Leadbetter, “Carinus.”
  56. ^ Barnes, “Two Senators,” 46; Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 5–6; Leadbetter, “Carinus.”
  57. ^ Corcoran, “Before Constantine”, 40.
  58. ^ Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 6; Southern, 136.
  59. ^ Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 6; New Empire, 4; Bowman, “Diocletian and the First Tetrarchy” (CAH), 69.
  60. ^ The Roman Empire at Bay, 280–81.
  61. ^ Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 6; Barnes, New Empire, 4; Bowman, “Diocletian and the First Tetrarchy” (CAH), 69; Bleckmann; Corcoran, “Before Constantine”, 40; Potter, 280–81; Williams, 43–45.
  62. ^ Corcoran, “Before Constantine”, 40. See also: Williams, 48–49.
  63. ^ Potter, 280; Southern, 136; Williams, 43.
  64. ^ Bowman, “Diocletian and the First Tetrarchy” (CAH), 69; Odahl, 42–43; Southern, 136; Williams, 45.
  65. ^ Bowman, “Diocletian and the First Tetrarchy” (CAH), 69; Southern, 136.
  66. ^ Bowman, “Diocletian and the First Tetrarchy” (CAH), 70–71; Corcoran, “Before Constantine”, 40; Liebeschuetz, 235–52, 240–43; Odahl, 43–44; Williams, 58–59.
  67. ^ Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 11–12; Bowman, “Diocletian and the First Tetrarchy” (CAH), 70–71; Corcoran, “Before Constantine”, 40; Odahl, 43; Southern, 136–37; Williams, 58.
  68. ^ Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 11; Cascio, “The New State of Diocletian and Constantine” (CAH), 172.
  69. ^ Williams, 58–59. See also: Cascio, “The New State of Diocletian and Constantine” (CAH), 171.
  70. ^ Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 6; Southern, 137.
  71. ^ Codex Justinianus 4.48.5; Fragmenta Vaticana 297; Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 6; Barnes, New Empire, 50; Potter, 281.
  72. ^ Southern, 143; Williams, 52.
  73. ^ Fragmenta Vaticana 275; Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 6; Potter, 281, 649.
  74. ^ Panegyrici Latini 8(5)21.1; Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 6.
  75. ^ Codex Justinianus 4.10.3; 1.51.1; 5.17.3; Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 6; Barnes, New Empire, 50–51; Potter, 281, 649.
  76. ^ Bereishis Rabbah, Ed. Vilna, Parashas Toledos 63:8.
  77. ^ Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 6; Millar, 177.
  78. ^ Southern, 242.
  79. ^ Barnes, New Empire, 51; Bowman, “Diocletian and the First Tetrarchy” (CAH), 73.
  80. ^ Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 6; Bowman, “Diocletian and the First Tetrarchy” (CAH), 73; Potter, 292, 651; Southern, 143; Williams, 52.
  81. ^ Southern, 242, 360–61.
  82. ^ Bowman, “Diocletian and the First Tetrarchy” (CAH), 73; Millar, 180–81; Southern, 143; Williams, 52.
  83. ^ Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 6–7; Bowman, “Diocletian and the First Tetrarchy” (CAH), 70–71; Potter, 283–84; Southern, 137–41; Williams, 45–47.
  84. ^ Southern, 138
  85. ^ Potter, 284
  86. ^ Southern, 138 & 140
  87. ^ Williams, 61/62
  88. Jump up to:ab Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 6–7; Bowman, “Diocletian and the First Tetrarchy” (CAH), 69; Potter, 282; Southern, 141–42; Williams, 47–48.
  89. ^ Corcoran, “Before Constantine”, 40; Southern, 142.
  90. ^ Potter, 281; Southern, 142; following De Caesaribus 39.17.
  91. ^ Bowman, “Diocletian and the First Tetrarchy” (CAH), 69; following BGU 4.1090.34.
  92. ^ Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 7; Bleckmann; Corcoran, “Before Constantine”, 40; Potter, 282; Southern, 141–42; Williams, 48.
  93. ^ Potter, 649.
  94. ^ Potter, 282; Williams, 49.
  95. ^ Southern, 141
  96. ^ Southern, 140.
  97. ^ Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 7; Bowman, “Diocletian and the First Tetrarchy” (CAH), 71; Corcoran, “Before Constantine”, 40.
  98. ^ Williams, 62.
  99. ^ Rees, Layers of Loyalty, 31; Southern, 142–43; Williams, 50.
  100. ^ Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 7; Corcoran, “Before Constantine”, 40; Southern, 143.
  101. ^ Barnes, New Empire, 255; Southern, 144.
  102. Jump up to:abc Potter, 285.
  103. ^ Williams, 63.
  104. ^ Southern, 144.
  105. ^ Williams, 78.
  106. ^ Panegyrici Latini 8(5)12.2; Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 7, 288; Potter, 284–85, 650; Southern, 143; Williams, 55.
  107. ^ Southern, 143; Williams, 55.
  108. ^ Codex Justinianus 9.41.9; Barnes, New Empire, 51; Potter, 285, 650.
  109. ^ Codex Justinianus 6.30.6; Barnes, New Empire, 52; Potter, 285, 650.
  110. ^ Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 8; Barnes, New Empire, 52; Potter, 285.
  111. ^ Panegyrici Latini 11(3)2.4, 8.1, 11.3–4, 12.2; Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 8, 288; Potter, 285, 650; Williams, 56.
  112. Jump up to:ab Elsner, Imperial Rome, 73.
  113. ^ Panegyrici Latini 11(3)12, qtd. in Williams, 57.
  114. ^ Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 8; Potter, 285, 288.
  115. ^ Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 8–9; Barnes, New Empire, 4, 36–37; Potter, 288; Southern, 146; Williams, 64–65.
  116. ^ Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 8–9; Barnes, New Empire, 4, 38; Potter, 288; Southern, 146; Williams, 64–65.
  117. ^ Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 8–9; Williams, 67.
  118. ^ Southern, 145.
  119. ^ Corcoran, “Before Constantine”, 45–46; Williams, 67.
  120. ^ Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 8–9.
  121. ^ Jill Harries, “Imperial Rome”
  122. ^ Williams, 74
  123. ^ Williams, 75
  124. ^ Jill Harris, “Imperial Rome”
  125. Jump up to:ab Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 17–18.
  126. Jump up to:ab Odahl, 59.
  127. ^ Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 17; Williams, 76–77.
  128. ^ Williams, 76.
  129. ^ Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 17; Odahl, 59; Southern, 149–50.
  130. ^ Carrie & Rousselle, L’Empire Romain, 163–164
  131. ^ Carrié & Rousselle, L’Empire Romain, 164
  132. ^ Williams, 77.
  133. ^ Carrié & Rousselle, L’Empire Romain, 163
  134. Jump up to:ab Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 17.
  135. ^ Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 17. See also Southern, 160, 338.
  136. ^ DiMaio, “Domitius”.
  137. ^ Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 17; DiMaio, “Domitius”.
  138. ^ Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 17–18; Southern, 150.
  139. Jump up to:ab Southern, 150.
  140. ^ Harries, 173.
  141. ^ Potter, 292; Williams, 69.
  142. ^ Williams, 69–70.
  143. ^ Ammianus Marcellinus 23.5.11; Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 17; Bowman, “Diocletian and the First Tetrarchy” (CAH), 81; ” Potter, 292; Southern, 149.
  144. ^ Eutropius 9.24–25; Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 17; Bowman, “Diocletian and the First Tetrarchy” (CAH), 81; Millar, 177–78.
  145. ^ Millar, 177–78.
  146. ^ Potter, 652.
  147. ^ Eutropius 9.24–25; Theophanes, anno 5793; Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 17; Bowman, “Diocletian and the First Tetrarchy” (CAH), 81; Potter, 292–93.
  148. ^ Rees, Diocletian and the Tetrarchy, 14.
  149. ^ Rees, Diocletian and the Tetrarchy, 14; Southern, 151.
  150. ^ Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 18; Bowman, “Diocletian and the First Tetrarchy” (CAH), 81; Millar, 178.
  151. ^ Millar, 178; Potter, Roman Empire at Bay, 293.
  152. ^ Bowman, “Diocletian and the First Tetrarchy” (CAH), 81.
  153. ^ Lactantius, De Mortibus Persecutorum 9.6.
  154. ^ Severus to Constantine, 151, 335–36.
  155. ^ Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 18; Potter, 293.
  156. ^ Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 18; Millar, 178.
  157. Jump up to:abc Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 18.
  158. Jump up to:abc Potter, 293.
  159. ^ Millar, 178–79; Potter, Roman Empire at Bay, 293.
  160. Jump up to:ab Millar, 178.
  161. ^ Southern, 151.
  162. ^ Lactantius, De Mortibus Persecutorum 10.1–5; Barnes, “Sossianus Hierocles”, 245; Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 18–19; Burgess, “Date of the Persecution”, 157–58; Helgeland, “Christians and the Roman Army”, 159; Liebeschuetz, 246–8; Odahl, 65.
  163. ^ Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 20; Corcoran, “Before Constantine”, 51; Odahl, 54–56, 62.
  164. ^ Lactantius, De Mortibus Persecutorum 10.6, 31.1; Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica 8, a1, 3; Constantine, Oratio ad Coetum Sanctum 22; Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 19, 294.
  165. Jump up to:ab Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 19.
  166. ^ Barnes, New Empire, 49; Carrié & Roussele, L’Empire Romain, 163–164.
  167. ^ Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae 660; Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 20.
  168. ^ Lactantius, De Mortibus Persecutorum 33.1; Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 20; Williams, 83–84.
  169. ^ Williams, 78–79, 83–84.
  170. ^ Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 20.
  171. ^ Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 20–21.
  172. ^ Lactantius, De Mortibus Persecutorum 10.6–11; Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 21; Odahl, 67.
  173. ^ Eusebius, Vita Constantini 2.50.
  174. ^ Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 21; Odahl, 67; Potter, 338.
  175. ^ Some sources translate the oracular proclamation as the just or righteous men. The Persecution of Diocletian: A Historical Essay by Arthur James Mason M.A.; Deighton Bell and Co publishers, Cambridge, 1876; page 63.
  176. ^ Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 22; Odahl, 67–69; Potter, 337; Southern, 168.
  177. ^ Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 22; Williams, 176.
  178. ^ Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 22; Liebeschuetz, 249–50.
  179. Jump up to:ab Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 24; Southern, 168.
  180. Jump up to:ab Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 24.
  181. ^ Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 23–24.
  182. ^ Treadgold, 25.
  183. ^ Southern, 168.
  184. ^ Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 39.
  185. ^ Tilley, xi.
  186. ^ Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 48–49, 208–213.
  187. ^ Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 208–213.
  188. ^ Lactantius, Divinae Institutiones 7.16–17; cf. Daniel 7:23–25; Digeser, 149–50.
  189. ^ Š. Kulišić, P. Ž. Petrović, and N. Pantelić, Српски митолошки речник (Belgrade: Nolit, 1970), 111–12.
  190. ^ Gibbon, Decline and Fall, I, 153 and 712, note 92.
  191. Jump up to:ab Potter, 341.
  192. ^ Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 24–25.
  193. ^ Panegyrici Latini 7(6)15.16; Lactantius, De Mortibus Persecutorum20.4; Southern, 152, 336.
  194. ^ Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 25; Southern, 152.
  195. ^ Lactantius, De Mortibus Persecutorum 18.1–7; Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 25; Southern, 152.
  196. ^ Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 25–27; Lenski, “Reign of Constantine,” 60; Odahl, 69–72; Potter, 341–42.
  197. ^ Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 25–26.
  198. ^ Lactantius, De Mortibus Persecutorum 19.2–6; Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 26; Potter, 342.
  199. ^ Lenski, “Reign of Constantine,” 60–61; Odahl, 72–74; Southern, 152–53.
  200. ^ Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 27; Southern, 152.
  201. ^ Southern, 152.
  202. ^ Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 31–32; Lenski, 65; Odahl, 90.
  203. ^ Aurelius Victor, Epitome de Caesaribus 39.6.
  204. ^ Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 41.
  205. ^ Potter, 294–95.
  206. ^ Potter, 298.
  207. Jump up to:ab Potter, 296–98.
  208. ^ Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae 617, qtd. in Potter, 296.
  209. ^ Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae 641, qtd. in Potter, 296.
  210. ^ Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae 618, qtd. in Potter, 296. See also Millar, 182, on tetrarchic triumphalism in the Near East.
  211. ^ Corcoran, “Before Constantine”, 44–45.
  212. ^ Corcoran, “Before Constantine”, 43; Potter, 290.
  213. ^ Cascio, “The New State of Diocletian and Constantine” (CAH), 171–72; Corcoran, “Before Constantine”, 43; Liebeschuetz, 235–52, 240–43.
  214. ^ Potter, 290.
  215. ^ Southern, 163.
  216. ^ Southern, 153–54, 163.
  217. ^ Southern, 162–63.
  218. ^ Cascio, “The New State of Diocletian and Constantine” (CAH), 171–72; Southern, 162–63; Williams, 110.
  219. ^ Cascio, “The New State of Diocletian and Constantine” (CAH), 172, citing the Codex Justinianus 9.47.12.
  220. ^ Southern, 162–63; Williams, 110.
  221. ^ Williams, 107/108.
  222. ^ Williams, 110.
  223. ^ Lactantius, De Mortibus Persecutorum 7.3, cited in Cascio, “The New State of Diocletian and Constantine” (CAH), 173.
  224. ^ Treadgold, A History of the Byzantine State and Society, 19.
  225. ^ Roger S. Bagnall, Egypt in Late Antiquity (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), 66, and A.H.M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire, 284–602: A Social, Economic and Administrative Survey(Oxford: Blackwell, 1964), 594, cited in Cascio, “The New State of Diocletian and Constantine” (CAH), 173.
  226. ^ Carrié & Rouselle, L’Empire Romain, 678
  227. ^ As taken from the Laterculus Veronensis or Verona List, reproduced in Barnes, New Empire, chs. 12–13 (with corrections in T.D. Barnes, “Emperors, panegyrics, prefects, provinces and palaces (284–317)”, Journal of Roman Archaeology 9 (1996): 539–42). See also: Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 9; Cascio, “The New State of Diocletian and Constantine” (CAH), 179; Rees, Diocletian and the Tetrarchy, 24–27.
  228. ^ Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 9; Rees, Diocletian and the Tetrarchy, 25–26.
  229. Jump up to:abc Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 10.
  230. ^ Carrié & Rousselle, L’Empire Romain, 655/666.
  231. ^ Potter, 296.
  232. ^ Harries, 53–54; Potter, 296.
  233. ^ Although there were still some governors – like Arpagius, the 298 governor of Britannia Secunda – who still busied themselves with military affairs in strained circumstances: Williams, 107
  234. ^ Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 9–10; Treadgold, 18–20.
  235. ^ Rees, Diocletian and the Tetrarchy, 25, citing Simon Corcoran, The Empire of the Tetrarchs: Imperial Pronouncements and Government A.D. 284–324 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 234–53.
  236. ^ Michele Renee Salzman,The Making of a Christian Aristocracy: Social and Religious Change in the Western Roman Empire. Harvard University Press, 2009, ISBN0-674-00641-0, page 31
  237. ^ Inge Mennen, Power and Status in the Roman Empire, AD 193–284. Leiden: Brill, 2011, ISBN978-90-04-20359-4, page 77
  238. ^ Codex Justinianus 2.13.1, qtd. by Carrié & Rousselle, l”Empire Romain, 678.
  239. ^ Carrié & Roussele, L’Empire Romain, 678
  240. ^ Leadbetter, Galerius and the Will of DiocletianPaul VeyneL’Empire Gréco-Romain, Paris: Seuil, 2005, ISBN2-02-057798-4, page 64, footnote 208.
  241. ^ Serena Connolly, Lives behind the Laws: The World of the Codex Hermogenianus. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2010, ISBN978-0-253-35401-3, page 61
  242. ^ Karen Radner, ed., State Correspondence in the Ancient World: From New Kingdom Egypt to the Roman Empire. Oxford University Press, 2014, ISBN978-0-19-935477-1, page 181
  243. ^ Williams, 53–54, 142–43.
  244. ^ Johnston, “Epiclassical Law” (CAH), 201; Williams, Diocletian. 143.
  245. ^ Potter, 296, 652.
  246. ^ Harries, 14–15; Potter, 295–96.
  247. ^ Potter, 295–96.
  248. ^ Harries, 21, 29–30; Potter, 295–96.
  249. ^ Harries, 21–22.
  250. ^ Harries, 63–64.
  251. ^ George Mousourakis, Fundamentals of Roman Private Law. Berlin: Springer, 2012, ISBN978-3-642-29310-8, page 64
  252. ^ Harries, 162.
  253. ^ Harries, 167.
  254. ^ Harries, 55.
  255. ^ Johnston, “Epiclassical Law” (CAH), 207.
  256. ^ Carrié & Rousselle, L’Empire Romain, 166
  257. ^ Edward Luttwak, The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire. Baltimore: JHU Press, 1979, ISBN0-8018-2158-4, page 176
  258. ^ Luttwak, 167; Campbell, “The Army” (CAH), 124–26; Southern, 154–55. See also: Rees, Diocletian and the Tetrarchy, 19–20; Williams, 91–101.
  259. ^ Cascio, “The New State of Diocletian and Constantine” (CAH), 171; Rees, Diocletian and the Tetrarchy, 27.
  260. ^ Rees, Diocletian and the Tetrarchy, 27.
  261. ^ Lactantius, De Mortibus Persecutorum 7.2, qtd. in Corcoran, “Before Constantine”, 46.
  262. ^ Zosimus, 2.34 qtd. in Corcoran, “Before Constantine”, 46.
  263. ^ Christol & Nony, “Rome et son empire” 241
  264. ^ Southern, 157; Treadgold, 19.
  265. ^ Treadgold, 19.
  266. ^ De Mensibus 1.27.
  267. ^ Rees, Diocletian and the Tetrarchy, 17.
  268. ^ Southern, 158; Treadgold, 112–13.
  269. Jump up to:ab Southern, 159; Treadgold, 112–13.
  270. Jump up to:ab Southern, 159.
  271. Jump up to:abc Treadgold, 20.
  272. ^ Cascio, “The New State of Diocletian and Constantine” (CAH), 173. See also: Rees, Diocletian and the Tetrarchy, 18.
  273. Jump up to:ab Southern, 160; Treadgold, 20.
  274. ^ Potter, 333.
  275. ^ Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 9, 288; Rees, Diocletian and the Tetrarchy, 28–29; Southern, 159.
  276. ^ Carrié & Rousselle, l”Empire Romain, 187–188.
  277. ^ Williams, 125.
  278. Jump up to:abc Southern, 160.
  279. Jump up to:ab Potter, 392.
  280. ^ Potter, 392–93.
  281. ^ Cascio, “The New State of Diocletian and Constantine” (CAH), 176.
  282. ^ Potter, 334, 393; Southern, 160.
  283. Jump up to:ab Potter, 334–35.
  284. ^ Potter, 393.
  285. ^ Cascio, “The New State of Diocletian and Constantine” (CAH), 176–77.
  286. ^ Potter, 336.
  287. ^ Southern, 160, 339.
  288. ^ Cascio, “The New State of Diocletian and Constantine” (CAH), 177–78; Potter, 335; Southern, 161.
  289. ^ Potter, 335.
  290. ^ Rees, “Diocletian and the Tetrarchy”, 42 and 44
  291. ^ Rees, “Diocletian and the Tetrarchy”,44
  292. ^ Cascio, “The New State of Diocletian and Constantine” (CAH), 178.
  293. ^ Cascio, “The New State of Diocletian and Constantine” (CAH), 177.
  294. ^ Potter, 336; Southern, 161.
  295. ^ Lactantius, De Mortibus Persecutorum 7.6–7, cited in Cascio, “The New State of Diocletian and Constantine” (CAH), 178, and Southern, 161.
  296. ^ Potter, 336; Williams, 131–32.
  297. ^ “Late Antinquity” by Richard Lim in The Edinburgh Companion to Ancient Greece and Rome. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2010, p. 115.
  298. ^ Christol & Nony, 241.
  299. ^ Jones, Later Roman Empire, 40.
  300. ^ Williams, 228–29.
  301. ^ Williams, 196–98.
  302. ^ Williams, 204.
  303. ^ Williams, 205–6.
  304. ^ Williams, 207–8.
  305. ^ Williams, 206.
  306. ^ Williams, 208.
  307. ^ Williams, 218–19.
  308. ^ Blackburn & Holford-Strevens 2003, 767.

Sources

Primary sources
Secondary sources
  • Banchich, Thomas M. “Iulianus (ca. 286–293 A.D.).” De Imperatoribus Romanis (1997). Accessed 8 March 2008.
  • Barnes, Timothy D. “Lactantius and Constantine.” The Journal of Roman Studies 63 (1973): 29–46.
  • Barnes, Timothy D. “Two Senators under Constantine.” The Journal of Roman Studies 65 (1975): 40–49.
  • Barnes, Timothy D. Constantine and Eusebius. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1981. ISBN 978-0-674-16531-1
  • Barnes, Timothy D. The New Empire of Diocletian and Constantine. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1982. ISBN 0-7837-2221-4
  • Bleckmann, Bruno. “Diocletianus.” In Brill’s New Pauly, Volume 4, edited by Hubert Cancik and Helmut Schneider, 429–38. Leiden: Brill, 2002. ISBN 90-04-12259-1
  • Bowman, Alan, Averil Cameron, and Peter Garnsey, eds. The Cambridge Ancient History, Volume XII: The Crisis of Empire. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005. ISBN 0-521-30199-8
  • Brown, PeterThe Rise of Western Christendom. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2003. ISBN 0-631-22138-7
  • Burgess, R.W. “The Date of the Persecution of Christians in the Army”. Journal of Theological Studies 47:1 (1996): 157–158.
  • Carrié, Jean-Michel & Rousselle, Aline. L’Empire Romain en mutation- des Sévères à Constantin, 192–337. Paris: Seuil, 1999. ISBN 2-02-025819-6
  • Corcoran, SimonThe Empire of the Tetrarchs, Imperial Pronouncements and Government AD 284–324. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996. ISBN 0-19-814984-0
  • Christol, Michel & Nony, Daniel.”Rome et son empire”.Paris: Hachette, 2003.ISBN 2-01-145542-1
  • Corcoran, Simon. “Before Constantine.” In The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Constantine, edited by Noel Lenski, 35–58. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Hardcover ISBN 0-521-81838-9Paperback ISBN 0-521-52157-2
  • Digeser, Elizabeth DePalma. Lactantius and Rome: The Making of a Christian Empire. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1999. ISBN 978-0-8014-3594-2
  • DiMaio, Jr., Michael. “L. Domitius Domitianus and Aurelius Achilleus (ca. 296/297–ca. 297/298).” De Imperatoribus Romanis (1996c). Accessed 8 March 2008.
  • Elliott, T. G. The Christianity of Constantine the Great. Scranton, PA: University of Scranton Press, 1996. ISBN 0-940866-59-5
  • Elsner, JasImperial Rome and Christian Triumph. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. ISBN 0-19-284201-3
  • Gibbon, Edward. Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Chicago, London & Toronto: Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 1952 (Great Books of the Western World coll.). In two volumes.
  • Harries, Jill. Law and Empire in Late Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Hardcover ISBN 0-521-41087-8 Paperback ISBN 0-521-42273-6
  • Helgeland, John. “Christians and the Roman Army A.D. 173–337.” Church History 43:2 (1974): 149–163, 200.
  • Jones, A.H.M. The Later Roman Empire, 284–602: A Social, Economic and Administrative Survey. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1964.
  • Leadbetter, William. “Carus (282–283 A.D.).” De Imperatoribus Romanis(2001a). Accessed 16 February 2008.
  • Leadbetter, William. “Numerianus (283–284 A.D.).” De Imperatoribus Romanis (2001b). Accessed 16 February 2008.
  • Leadbetter, William. “Carinus (283–285 A.D.).” De Imperatoribus Romanis (2001c). Accessed 16 February 2008.
  • Lewis, Naphtali, and Meyer Reinhold. Roman Civilization: Volume 2, The Roman Empire. New York: Columbia University Press, 1990. ISBN 0-231-07133-7
  • Liebeschuetz, J. H. W. G. Continuity and Change in Roman Religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979. ISBN 0-19-814822-4.
  • Mackay, Christopher S. “Lactantius and the Succession to Diocletian.” Classical Philology 94:2 (1999): 198–209.
  • Mathisen, Ralph W. “Diocletian (284–305 A.D.).” De Imperatoribus Romanis (1997). Accessed 16 February 2008.
  • Millar, Fergus. The Roman Near East, 31 B.C.–A.D. 337. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1993. Hardcover ISBN 0-674-77885-5 Paperback ISBN 0-674-77886-3
  • Nakamura, Byron J. “When Did Diocletian Die? New Evidence for an Old Problem.” Classical Philology 98:3 (2003): 283–289.
  • Odahl, Charles Matson. Constantine and the Christian Empire. New York: Routledge, 2004. Hardcover ISBN 0-415-17485-6 Paperback ISBN 0-415-38655-1
  • Potter, David S. The Roman Empire at Bay: AD 180–395. New York: Routledge, 2005. Hardcover ISBN 0-415-10057-7 Paperback ISBN 0-415-10058-5
  • Rees, Roger. Layers of Loyalty in Latin Panegyric: AD 289–307. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. ISBN 0-19-924918-0
  • Rees, Roger. Diocletian and the Tetrarchy. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2004. ISBN 0-7486-1661-6
  • Rostovtzeff, MichaelThe Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1966. ISBN 978-0-19-814231-7
  • Southern, Pat. The Roman Empire from Severus to Constantine. New York: Routledge, 2001. ISBN 0-415-23944-3
  • Tilley, Maureen A. Donatist Martyr Stories: The Church in Conflict in Roman North Africa. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1996.
  • Treadgold, Warren. A History of the Byzantine State and Society. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1997. ISBN 0-8047-2630-2
  • Williams, Stephen. Diocletian and the Roman Recovery. New York: Routledge, 1997. ISBN 0-415-91827-8

Further reading

  • Arnheim, M. T. W. (1972). The senatorial aristocracy in the later Roman empire. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ISBN978-0-19-814299-7.
  • Brauer, George C. (1975). The age of the soldier emperors : Imperial Rome, A.D. 244–284. Park Ridge, N.J.: Noyes Press. ISBN978-0-8155-5036-5.
  • Cameron, Averil (1993). The later Roman empire : AD 284–430. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. ISBN978-0-674-51193-4.
  • Sutherland, C. H. V. (1935). “The State of the Imperial Treasury at the Death of Diocletian”. Journal of Roman Studies25 (2): 150–162. doi:10.2307/296596JSTOR296596.
  • Sutherland, C. H. V. (1955). “Diocletian’s Reform of the Coinage”. Journal of Roman Studies45: 116–118. doi:10.2307/298751JSTOR298751.
  • Sutherland, C. H. V. (1961). “The Denarius and Sestertius in Diocletian’s Coinage Reform”. Journal of Roman Studies51: 94–97. doi:10.2307/298841JSTOR298841.

Regnal titles
Preceded by
Numerian and Carinus
Roman Emperor
284–305
Served alongside: Maximian
Succeeded by
Constantius Chlorus and Galerius
Political offices
Preceded by
Carinus,
Numerian
Consul of the Roman Empire
284–285
with Bassus,
Carinus,
Titus Claudius Aurelius Aristobulus
Succeeded by
Marcus Junius Maximus,
Vettius Aquilinus
Preceded by
Marcus Junius Maximus,
Vettius Aquilinus
Consul of the Roman Empire
287
with Maximian
Succeeded by
Maximian,
Pomponius Ianuarianus
Preceded by
Marcus Magrius Bassus,
Lucius Ragonius Quintianus
Consul of the Roman Empire
290
with Maximian
Succeeded by
Gaius Junius Tiberianus,
Cassius Dio
Preceded by
Afranius Hannibalianus,
Julius Asclepiodotus
Consul of the Roman Empire
293
with Maximian
Succeeded by
Constantius Chlorus,
Galerius
Preceded by
Nummius Tuscus,
Gaius Annius Anullinus
Consul of the Roman Empire
296
with Constantius Chlorus
Succeeded by
Maximian,
Galerius
Preceded by
Anicius Faustus Paulinus,
Virius Gallus
Consul of the Roman Empire
299
with Maximian
Succeeded by
Constantius Chlorus,
Galerius
Preceded by
Constantius Chlorus,
Galerius
Consul of the Roman Empire
303–304
with Maximian
Succeeded by
Constantius Chlorus,
Galerius
Preceded by
Maximian,
Constantine I,
Flavius Valerius Severus,
Maximinus Daia,
Galerius
Consul of the Roman Empire
308
with Galerius,
Maxentius,
Valerius Romulus
Succeeded by
Licinius,
Constantine I,
Maxentius,
Valerius Romulus

Giacobbe Giusti, Fibula (brooch)

 

Giacobbe Giusti, Fibula (brooch)

 

Giacobbe Giusti, Fibula (brooch)

 

Giacobbe Giusti, Fibula (brooch)

These eagle-shaped fibulae, dating from the 6th century were found at Tierra de Barros (Spain, then the Kingdom of the Visigoths) and are made of sheet gold over bronze.[1] The Walters Art Museum.

 

Giacobbe Giusti, Fibula (brooch)

 

Giacobbe Giusti, Fibula (brooch)

Germanic fibulæ, early 5th century, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna

Giacobbe Giusti, Fibula (brooch)
Giacobbe Giusti, Fibula (brooch)

These eagle-shaped fibulae, dating from the 6th century were found at Tierra de Barros (Spain, then the Kingdom of the Visigoths) and are made of sheet gold over bronze.[1] The Walters Art Museum.

Giacobbe Giusti, Fibula (brooch)

Lombardic gilded silver brooch from Tuscany, c.600 AD, one of the largest of its kind (British Museum)[2]

fibula (/ˈfɪbjʊlə/, plural fibulae /ˈfɪbjʊli/) is a brooch or pin for fastening garments. The fibula developed in a variety of shapes, but all were based on the safety-pinprinciple. Technically, the Latin term, fibulae, refers to Romanbrooches; however, the term is widely used to refer to brooches from the entire ancient and early medievalworld that continue Roman forms. Nevertheless, its use in English is more restricted than in other languages, and in particular post-Roman brooches from the British Islesare just called brooches (for example, the penannular brooches), where in German they would probably be fibulae.

A cloak pin

Unlike most modern brooches, fibulae were not only decorative; they originally served a practical function: to fasten clothing, such as cloaks. Fibulae replaced straight pins that were used to fasten clothing in the Neolithicperiod and the Bronze Age. In turn, fibulae were replaced as clothing fasteners by buttonsin the Middle Ages. Their descendant, the modern safety pin, remains in use today. In ancient Rome and other places where Latin was used, the same word denoted both a brooch and the fibula bone because a popular form for brooches and the shape of the bone were thought to resemble one another.

There are hundreds of different types of fibulae. They are usually divided into families that are based upon historical periods, geography, and/or cultures. Fibulae are also divided into classes that are based upon their general forms.

Lost fibulae, usually fragments, are frequently dug up by amateur coin and relic hunters using metal detectors.

Construction

Most fibulae are made of bronze (more properly “copper alloy“) or iron, or both. Some fibulae are made of precious metals such as silver or gold. Most fibulae are made of only one or two pieces. Many fibulae are decorated with enamelsemi-precious stonesglasscoral or bone.

Components

Detail of the Elder Futhark runicinscription on the pinholder of the 3rd-century AD Værløse Fibula followed by a swastika.

Fibulae were composed of four components: The body, pin, spring, and hinge.

Body

The body of a fibula is known as either the bow or the plate, depending on the basic form. A bow is generally long and narrow, and often arched. A plate is flat and wide. Plates could be solid or openwork. The body was often decorated. The head is the end of the fibula with the spring or hinge. The foot is the end of the fibula where the pin closes. Depending on the type of fibula, and the culture in question, the head of the fibula could be worn facing up, down or sideways.

Pin

The pin that is used to fasten the clothing is either a continuation of the fibula’s body or a separate piece attached to the body. The fibula is closed by connecting the end of the pin to a catch plate, or pin rest.

Spring

The body and pin meet at either a spring or hinge. The earliest design is the spring which provides tension to the pin. The spring could be unilateral or bilateral. A unilateral spring winds around in one direction only. Unilateral springs are the earliest type, first appearing around the 14th century BC. Bilateral springs wind in one or more loops on one side of the pin and then cross over or under the bow and continue with more loops on the other side. They appeared around the 6th century BC. Bilateral springs can be very short, with only one or two revolutions per side, or up to 10 cm long. Most bilateral springs are made of one piece of metal and therefore have a spring cord, a piece of wire extending from one end of the spring to the other. The spring cord can pass in front of or behind the fibulae body. Bilateral springs wrap around a pin or axle. These are usually made of iron even if the rest of the fibula and spring is copper alloy. In the 1st century AD some fibulae had springs that were concealed under a metal cover that was an extension of the fibula body. These are known as covered springs, or hidden springs.

Hinge

In the late 1st century BC or early 1st century AD a new design appeared in some bow type fibulae. A separate pin was attached to the head-end of the bow with a small hinge. In the second half of the 1st century AD, hinges were introduced to plate type fibulae. One or two small plaques were cast on the back of the plate and a pin was attached to them by a small hinge. Previously, plate type fibulae had bilateral springs attached to the back. In the 3rd century AD, the hinge was placed in the centre of a long transverse bar creating the famous crossbow fibula design. A few fibulae from a much earlier date also had hinges, although this design feature was very rare and soon died out for nearly five centuries. For example, the Asia Minor Decorated Arc Fibula (Blinkenberg Type XII Variation 16) dating to the 5th century BC.

It is important to note that different types of fibula construction were used contemporaneously. Though the introduction of the hinge was later than the introduction of the spring, the spring remained in use long after the hinge was introduced. Therefore, a given fibula with hinge is not necessarily more recent than one with a spring.

Use

Fibulae were originally used to fasten clothing. They represent an improvement on the earlier straight pin which was less secure and could fall out. While the head of the earlier straight pin was often decorated, the bow or plate of the fibula provided a much increased scope for decoration. Among some cultures, different fibula designs had specific symbolic meanings. They could refer to a status or profession such as single woman, married woman, man, warrior, or chief. Some Roman-era fibulae may symbolize specific ranks or positions in the Roman legions or auxiliary. In some cultures, fibulae were worn in pairs and could be linked by a length of chain. The Romans also used fibulas to fasten the foreskin above the penis, thus hiding the glans, this was done both to show modesty and in the belief that it helped preserve the voice.

Historical development

Bronze Age fibulae

Early fibulae.
10th – 8th centuries BC

The first fibulae design, violin bow fibulae (drahtbugelin German), appeared in the late Bronze Age. This simple design, with a unilateral spring, looks remarkably like a modern safety pin. The violin bow fibula has a low flat arch; the body runs parallel to the pin so it resembles a violinbow. The bow could be round, square, or flat and ribbon-like in cross-section. Some had simple punched or incised decoration on the bow. Violin bow fibula, such as the Peschiera type and the Unter-Radl type, was introduced in the 14th century BC (Late Mycenean III era) by the Myceneans on the Greek Peloponnesus. The fibula soon spread to CreteCyprus and Mycenean trading posts in Sicily.

There were several variants of the violin bow fibula. The bow could bend, or zig-zag from side to side while still remaining flat and parallel to the pin. These variants, such as the Grunwald type and the Hanua type, were found in the 12th and 11th centuries BC. In another variant, the bow, while still flat, widened out into an oval or diamond shape (blattbugel in German). These variants, such as the Kreuznach type and Reisen type, were found in the 12th to 10th centuries BC.

Giacobbe Giusti, Fibula (brooch)

10th century BC

The second major design of fibulae has a high, rounded arch (bogen in German) instead of the low flat arch of the violin bow fibula. At first, the bow was thin. In later variants the bow was made of thicker metal or of two pieces of thin wire twisted together. These rounded bow fibulae were first found in the 12th century BC, but lasted in use in some places for more than five centuries.

Early bow fibulae.
8th – 6th centuries BC

The third Bronze Age design of fibula consisted of horizontal wire spirals. The spectacle fibula (brillen in German) consisted of two spirals joined together. It resembles a pair of spectacles or eye glasses. These fibulae, such as the Haslau type and the St. Lucija type, were found in the 9th to 7th centuries BC. Some spectacle fibula were very large with spirals up to 10 cm across. A variant that appeared in the 6th century BC had four small spirals with a square, or squarish, cover plate on the middle, the Vierpass type.

The Villanovan culture in Italy introduced a series of variations of the bow fibula in the 8th and 7th centuries BC. In these so-called Italianate fibulae, the bow begins, at the head, with a semi-circular form, but bends at its apex to angle straight down to the foot that was often lengthened and extended. The bow was often decorated with moulded knobs or spikes. The rear half of the bow was sometimes bent into a wavy, kinked shape. The latter variants were known as serpentinefibulae.

Meanwhile, the 8th and 7th centuries BC saw the introduction of the so-called Phrygian bow fibulae in Asia Minor. These fibulae had a near-perfect semi-circular arch sometimes decorated with knobs or round flanges. In the same period, the Hand or Arm fibula spread from Cyprus, where it appears to have originated, to SyriaAssyria and Persia. In this design the bow was bent 90 degrees at the apex giving the fibula a triangular shape when viewed from the side. The bow was usually decorated with a series of rings and dots. The catch plate usually had the form of a hand, making the entire fibula resemble an arm.

In the 7th and 6th centuries BC, a series of variations of the bow fibula appeared in the southern Balkans, known variously as GreekMacedonian, or Thracian bow fibulae. The high arched bow of these fibulae had large fins or knobs. The bow usually ended in a very large triangular or square catch plate. Some of the large square catch plates were decorated with complex incised geometric or figural designs. Some of the fibula had a flat back indicating that they were likely cast in simple, open moulds.

Iron Age fibulae

The Iron Age saw an expansion in the use of fibulae. The rounded bow fibula underwent several variations and were usually highly decorated with incised or moulded geometric designs. In one variation, the foot of the fibula that had previously terminated at the end of the arch with a simple catch plate, lengthened significantly. These extended foot fibulae, such as the Kahn type and the Pauken type, were found in the 7th to 5th centuries BC. The first long, bilateral springs appeared on some of these variants in the Hallstatt D2 era (5th century BC). These fibulae, such as the Doublezier type, looked similar to the Roman-era crossbow fibulae but were not the latter’s direct precursor.

More early fibulae.
7th – 5th centuries BC

Typical silver Dacian fibulae 1st century BC (Museum of Transylvania Cluj Romania)

In another variation of the rounded bow fibula, the bow became fat and swollen-looking. In many of these Leech Bow, or Sanguisaga, fibulae the catch plate became large and triangular. Another variant, the Certossa type, had a small square or ribbon cross-section bow and a short bilateral spring (possibly the first use of a bilateral spring). Certossa fibulae are almost always very small.

In the La Tene I, or La Tene A to B2, era (4th to 3rd centuries BC), fibula design became relatively standardised over a large geographic area, although minor stylistic variations and differences in decoration remained. The La Tene I fibula usually had a narrow bow. The spring that could be either unilateral or bilateral, was wound in a fairly large diameter circle. The foot was turned up and usually ended in a decorated knob or with an applied bead or stone. In some cases the raised foot was bent back towards the bow, although it did not touch the bow. The Thraco-Getic fibula is a variant found in the eastern Balkansand used by the Getae. The fibula’s foot is vertical and ends in a small knob, though later models had a sinuous, s-shaped profile.

La Tene era fibulae.
4th – 1st centuries BC

The La Tene I era also saw the introduction of the first animal, or zoomorphic, designs. These included birdsand horses and could either be flat, with a short bilateral spring on the back, or three-dimensional (“in the round”) with a long bilateral spring at the head.

In the La Tene II, or La Tene C era (2nd century BC), the foot of the fibula actually bent back to touch the bow and was wrapped around it. Many La Tene II fibulae had long bilateral springs. It is important to be aware that this type of construction was in use several centuries later in the tied-foot and returned-foot types of fibulae. These latter types are sometimes known as pseudo-La Tene fibulae.

In the La Tene III, or La Tene D era (1st century BC), the raised foot was no longer wrapped around the bow but was attached directly to it by casting or welding creating a loop above the foot. In one variant, the Nauheim type, the bow widened into a flat triangle or diamond. In another variant, the Schussel type, the ribbon-like bow widened at the head into a rounded arrowhead shape that covered the spring.

Roman-era fibulae

The 1st century AD

The rapid spread of the Roman Empire by the 1st century AD resulted in a tremendous growth in the number and design of fibulae throughout Europe and the Near East. The spread of technologically advanced workshops in the Roman Empire led to more complex fibula designs. Bows were cast in more complex forms, hinges appeared alongside bilateral springs and a wide variety of plate designs were introduced.

One of the first fibula designs of the Roman-era began in the La TeneIII era, in the late 1st century BC. The Straight Wire fibula, also known as the Soldier’s type or Legionnaire‘s type, is a very plain design. It resembles the violin bow fibula of over one thousand years earlier except that the bow has slightly more of an arch and the spring in (short) bilateral not unilateral. The Straight Wire fibula is found through the 1st century AD.

In the 1st century AD, for the first time, several fibula designs originated in Roman Britain. Perhaps the most distinctive British fibula design was the Dolphin. This was actually a series of designs including the Polden Hill type, the Langton Down type, the Colchester type and the T-Shaped type. Dolphin fibulae have a smooth arched bow that tapers from the head to end in a long point. The long bilateral spring is covered. From the top the Dolphin fibula looks like a T or the late-Roman crossbow fibula. From the side it resembles a leaping dolphin.

Roman era plate fibulae.
1st century AD

Another British design was the Hod Hill type. Usually quite small, Hod Hill fibulae have a shallow arched bow that appears to be made up of lumpy segments. Many Hod Hill fibulae have a pair of small side lugs.

The Fantail fibula, which have a short bow that flares into a flat, wide fan-shaped foot, were common in Britain and on the European continent. The Fantail design lasted into the 2nd century AD. A common and widespread design was the Augen (or Eye) fibula, which has a longer bow and a long, flat, wide foot. It has a short bilateral spring. Many Augen fibulae are decorated with a pair of ringed dots, or eyes, on the flat foot. Augen fibulae appear to have been introduced to the Roman Empireby Germanic peoples, notably Marcomanni, serving as Roman auxiliaries.

The Aucissa fibula was another widespread design. It has a high semi-circular arched bow that extended into a short foot. The bow is flat and wide and has a rounded central ridge. The bow ends, at the head, in a hinge. The Aucissa was one of the first fibulae to use a hinge instead of a spring. The foot ends in a rounded knob. Many Aucissa fibulae have the word “AVCISSA” moulded above the hinge. This is thought to be the name of a workshop.

The 1st century AD saw several other bow variations. The Wolf or Wolf’s Head fibula has a flat, ribbon-like bow that widens into a square section at the head. The common design of two circles and a chevronnear the rear of the bow is often interpreted as a wolf’s head. The Thracian Anchor type has a wide crescent at the head giving the fibula an anchor shape. The Thracian Anchor type is also called the Illyrian and is found in Pannonia (Hungary), Dacia (Romania) and Serbia.

The late 1st century AD saw the introduction of the Kraftig Profilierte group of fibula designs. Kraftig Profilierte fibulae have a wide fan-, or bell-shaped head and a long thin pointy foot. They have long bilateral hinges. There are three main variations of the Kraftig Profilierte fibula. The North Pannonian Double Knot type, found in Pannonia has two knobs, or knots, on the bow. The Single Knot type, found in the central Balkans, has a single knob. The Black Sea type, found in the steppesnorth of the Black Sea, has a thin body, with no flaring near the head, and two knots. Kraftig Profilierte fibulae were found in the late 1st to late 2nd centuries AD and are mostly associated with the Przeworskproto-Gothic culture.

The 1st century AD saw the widespread use of plate fibulae. Plate fibulae consist of a flat plate. Since there is little space between the fibula body and the pin (there is no arch to the body), plate fibulae could not be used to fasten much material and were therefore mainly decorative. Most plate fibulae have a hinge assembly on the back. Plate fibulae are generally associated with women’s graves. The most common forms of plate fibula in the 1st century AD were round (disc), diamond, oval and lunula (crescent– or moon-shaped).

The 2nd century AD

In Roman Britain the fibula designs common in the 1st century AD continued to some extent into the second, although usually in more complex variations. A new design, the Head Stud type, has a long bow with a stud, or occasionally a ring, at the head.

The Knee fibula, a common design in the 2nd century AD, originated in Roman Pannonia (modern Hungary). With its short, fat bow that incorporates a 90 degree bend, archeologists thought it resembled a knee and leg. Many Knee fibulae have small rectangular, or larger semi-circular head plates. Knee fibulae appear, like the Augen type, to have been introduced into the Roman Empire by Germanic allies. Despite their small size, their appearance in Roman military graves implies that the Knee fibula was the most popular fibula among Roman soldiers in the 2nd century AD. They are rarely found outside military sites or contexts.

The Pannonian Trumpet fibula has a wide flaring head like the bell of a trumpet. However, unlike a straight trumpet, the Pannonian Trumpet fibula is sharply bent near the head. This Germanic design was found in and around Pannonia but was exported as widely as Britain.

The P-Shaped type is another common 2nd-century AD fibula design that originated among the Germanic peoples. The P-Shaped fibula, or Almgren Type 162, has a semi-circular arch and a long foot that curves back under itself to return to the base of the arch. They have bilateral springs. The bows of P-Shaped fibulae are usually semi-circular in cross-section and are decorated with ribs. P-Shaped fibulae were found from the 2nd to the early 4th centuries.

There were other bow fibula variations of the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD. The Divided Bow type has an arched bow and a long foot. The arch was made up of two, or even three, separate, but parallel, arches. These arches are either wide and flat or narrow and tall. The Trident fibula has a rounded arch and long foot and a wide, flat head plate with three points. The entire fibula looks like a trident. Claims that this was the standard fibula of the Roman navy are unfounded.

The use of plate fibulae continued in the 2nd century CE. Simple flat shapes were replaced with enamelled versions or more complex shapes. These included animal (zoomorphic) shapes (birdshorsesrabbits, flies, etc.), letters or words, abstract symmetrical or asymmetrical designs (including the so-called Celtic Trumpet designs), and skeuomorphic designs (symbolic designs). Most designs continued in use throughout the 2nd and 3rd centuries. In one later variation during this time, the Tutulus type, the circular disc plate was extended upwards to form a cone.

The 3rd to 4th centuries AD

The use of enamelled inlay continued until the end of the 3rd century AD.

P-shaped fibulae.
3rd – 5th centuries AD

A variation of the P-shaped fibula, the tied foot fibula has a foot that returns to the bow but then wraps, or ties, around the bow. Many Tied Foot fibulae have long bilateral springs. The tied foot fibula was found in the 3rd and 4th centuries AD and is associated with the WielbarkGothic culture.

The classic fibula of the late-Roman era, and in fact the best known of all fibula types, is the crossbow type. The crossbow fibula consists of a highly arched semi-circular bow, usually of squarish cross-section, and a long flat foot. The fibula has a wide transverse bar (or arms) at the head containing the pin-hinge. Crossbow fibulae usually have three round or onion-shaped knobs: one at the head and one at each end of the transverse bar.

Crossbow fibulae.
3rd – 5th centuries AD

The first crossbow fibulae, from the early 3rd century AD, has short, thin arms, no knobs, a long bow and a short foot. The later crossbow fibulae have been divided into groups by several archeologists including Keller, Prottel and Soupault. Type I, dating to the 3rd and 4th centuries, has small, simple knobs and a foot that is shorter than the bow. Type II, dating to the 4th century, has larger knobs and a foot that is approximately the same length as the bow. Type III, also dating to the 4th century, has a foot that is longer than the bow. There are several variants of the Type III based on the decoration of the foot: dotted circles, chevrons, or curlicues. Another variant, dating to the 4th and 5th centuries, the Bugelkopf type, has no transverse bar, or arms at all but retains the round knob at the head.

Post-Roman fibulae

Post-Roman fibulae.
5th – 10th centuries AD

High status Frankish brooches in the British Museum, France 5th Century AD

There are numerous types of post-Roman fibulae. The so-called Gothic group of bow fibulae have a round or triangular flat head plate, often with 3, 5 or 7 knobs, a small arched bow and a long flat diamond shaped foot. They were widely used by the Germanic VisigothsOstrogoths, and Gepids, and the non-Germanic Slavs and Avars, and are found over a wide part of southern and western Europe in the 5th and 6th centuries AD. There are also a wide variety of Anglo-Saxon fibulae from the 5th to 7th century such as the equal-arm type and the small-long type. Most Viking fibulae are variations on the ring or annular design (see below).

Ring fibulae and penannular brooches

The pseudo-penannular Tara Brooch, the most ornate of Irish brooches, also decorated on the back (see article). Early 8th century.

The ring, or annular, fibula or brooch is extremely hard to date as the design for utilitarian pieces was almost unchanged from the 2nd to the 14th centuries AD. If there is decoration, this is likely to indicate whether a given ring fibula is Roman-era fibula or a medieval brooch.

The penannular brooch, with an incomplete ring and two terminals, originally a common utilitarian clothes fastening, normally of base metal, in Iron Age and Roman Britain developed in the post-Roman period into highly elaborate and decorative marks of status in Ireland and Scotland, made in precious metals and often decorated with gems, and worn by men and women, as well as the clergy as part of their vestments when conducting services. The finest period is from the 8th and 9th centuries, before the Vikings disrupted the societies. Ornate Irish examples in the period are usually “pseudo-penannular”; in fact closed rings, but imitating the penannular form. Examples like the Tara Brooch are among the most spectacular pieces of jewellery of the Early Medieval period. When the Vikings began to raid and settle the British Isles, they took to wearing these brooches, but now in plain silver. The thistle and bossed types were the most popular styles, both developing out of earlier Celtic styles. The post-Roman types are not called “fibulae” in English, though they are in other languages.

Medieval brooches

Brooch of gilded silver featuring Saint Olav in the center with an ax in his left hand. (National Museum of Denmark in Copenhagen)

There is a huge variety of medieval brooch types (the term fibula is rarely used for medieval items). The two most common are ring brooches, including square and lobed or flower designs as well as round ones, and flat plate brooches, or badges, in the form of people or animals, with specialized types such as pilgrim badgesor livery badges, which were often produced in large quantities in cheap metals such as lead, but also in very expensive forms such as the Dunstable Swan Jewel. However these are mostly purely decorative, or worn to denote something about the wearer, and were probably not much used for fastening.

References

Sources

  • Yarwood, Doreen (1986). The Encyclopedia of World Costume. Bonanza Books. ISBN 0-517-61943-1

Further reading

  • Beck, Heinrich, et al. Fibel und Fibeltracht. (Excerpt from the Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde.) Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, 2000.
  • Binding, Ulrike. Band 16: Studien zu den figürlichen Fibeln der Frühlatenzeit. Rudolf Habelt, Bonn, 1993.
  • Birmingham, J., “The Development of the Fibula in Cyprus and the Levant”, Palestine Exploration Quarterly 95, 1963, 80-112.
  • Blinkenberg, Chr. [Lindiaka V] Fibules grecques et orientales.Bianco Lunos Bogtrykkeri, Kobenhavn, 1926.
  • Bohme, Astrid. Die Fibeln der Kastelle Saalburg und Zugmantel in Saalburg Jahrbuch, XXIX, 1973.
  • Caner, E., “Fibeln in Anatolien 1”, Prähistorische Bronzefunde XIV 8. Beck, München 1983, ISBN 978-3406090158.
  • Dudley, Dorothy. Excavations on Nor’Nour in the Isles of Scilly, 1962-6 in The Archaeological Journal, CXXIV, 1967. (includes the description of over 250 Roman fibulae found at the site)
  • Fauduet, Isabelle. Fibules preromaines, romaines, et merovingiennes du musee du Louvre. Presses de l’ecole normale superieure, Paris, 1999.
  • Gaspar, Nicolas. Die keltischen und gallo-römischen Fibeln vom Titelberg – Les fibules gauloises et gallo-romaines du Titelberg – Dossiers d’Archeologie du Musee National d’Histoire et d’Art XI.NMHA, Luxembourg, 2007.
  • Gergova, Diana. Früh- und ältereisenzeitliche Fibeln in Bulgarien.C.H. Beck, Munchen, 1987.
  • Glogovic, Dunja. Fibeln im kroatischen Küstengebiet. Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart, 2003.
  • Hattatt, Richard. A Visual catalogue of Richard Hattatt’s Ancient Brooches. Oxbow Books, Oxford, 2000.
  • Jobst, Werner. Die römischen Fibeln aus Lauriacum. Wimmer, Linz, 1975.
  • MacGregor, Arthur. Ashmolean Museum Oxford: A Summary catalogue of the Continental Archaeological Collections. BAR 674, Oxford, 1997.
  • Mills, Nigel. Celtic and Roman Artefacts. Buxton Press, Derbyshire, 2000.
  • Pedde, Friedhelm, “Vorderasiatische Fibeln von der Levante bis Iran”, Saarbrücken, 2000, and the review of this volume by Judy Bjorkman in the Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 63 No. 2 (2004) pp 158–160.
  • Pedde, Friedhelm, “Development and Extension of Near Eastern Fibulae in the Iron Age”, in: R. Eichmann – H. Parzinger (ed.), Migration und Kulturtransfer. Der Wandel vorder- und zentralasiatischer Kulturen im Umbruch vom 2. zum 1. vorchristlichen Jahrtausend. Akten des Internationalen Kolloquiums 23.-26. November 1999 Berlin. Rudolf Habelt, Bonn 2001, 485-496, ISBN 3-7749-3068-6*
  • Riha, Emilie. Die römischen Fibeln aus Augst und Kaiseraugst. Forschungen in Augst 3. August, 1979.
  • Van der Roest, Juan. Die Römischen Fibeln von ‘De Horden’ – Fibeln aus einer Zivilsiedlung am niedergermanischen Limes in Berichten van de Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek – jaargang 38, 1988 / Proceedings of the State Service for Archaeological Investigations in the Netherlands (BROB 38).
  • Smith, R. A. British Museum Guide to Early Iron Age Antiquities: 1925. Anglia Publishing, Ipswich, 1994.
  • Sapouna-Sakellarakis, Efi, “Die Fibeln der griechischen Inseln”, Prähistorische Bronzefunde XIV 4. Beck, München 1978, ISBN 978-3406007736.
  • Soupault, Vanessa. Les elements metalliques du costume masculin dans les provinces romaines de la mer Noire. IIIe-IVe s. ap. J.-C. BAR 1167, Archaeopress, Oxford, 2003.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibula_(brooch)

http://www.giaacobbegiusti.com

Giacobbe Giusti, Palace of Theoderic, Ravenna

Giacobbe Giusti, Palace of Theoderic, Ravenna

 

 

Giacobbe Giusti, Palace of Theoderic, Ravenna

 

Giacobbe Giusti, Palace of Theoderic, Ravenna

Fragmente von Fußbodenmosaiken aus dem Palast des Theoderich

Giacobbe Giusti, Palace of Theoderic, Ravenna

Mosaic depiction of the front of Theoderic’s Palace on the upper part of the south wall of the nave of San Apollinare Nuovo in Ravenna.

Giacobbe Giusti, Palace of Theoderic, Ravenna

Another view of the mosaic in San Apollinare Nuovo in Ravenna.

The palace of Theoderic was a structure in RavennaItaly, that was the residence of the Ostrogothic ruler and king of Italy Theoderic the Great (d. 526), who was buried in the nearby Mausoleum of Theoderic.

Both the location of the former palace and a large part of the ground plan can be gathered from excavations of the remains of foundations and walls carried out by Corrado Ricci in the period between 1907 and 1911 in the garden of the Monghini family and in the adjacent area between the Viale Farini und Via Alberoni.[1] Ricci identified the building on the basis of lead sewer pipes on which the name of Theoderic was engraved. The palace lay behind San Apollinare Nuovo, Theoderic’s cathedral church, and the partial building which is now referred to as the “so-called Palace of Theoderic“, which was erroneously believed to be a remnant of the palace for a long time. The lead pipes revealed by the excavation, along with other finds, are kept in a dedicated room of the National Museum, Ravenna.

A large-scale mosaic depiction of the palace, located on the upper part of the southern interior wall of San Apollinare Nuovo and dating from the time of Theoderic, allows the palace to be reconstructed to a certain extent. From that, the palace seems not to have been very large. The relevant mosaic in San Apollinare Nuovo, which probably originally depicted Theoderic sitting on a horse in the centre and members of his court or his family in the two flanking colonnades, was altered after Theoderic’s death in 526. Because he was an Arian, the Roman Church considered him a heretic. After his death, therefore, all images that depicted him and other people were removed from the mosaic and covered with other images. Of the original figures, the hands still remain on the columns of the palace.

In the excavations, among other things, some remnants of the palace’s mosaic floor were discovered. The mosaics were brought to the “so-called Palace of Theoderic” in 1923, where they were set up in a display room. In the display room, on the upper level, a poster with a plan of the excavated foundations was displayed as well.

Building material was taken from the ruins of Theoderic’s palace by Charlemagne, including several columns that he reused in the construction of his Palatine Chapel in Aachen. The columns, which served mostly as decoration and had no structural role, were removed by Napoleon and displayed in the Louvre. Some of the columns were later returned to Aachen.

Notes

  1. ^ Wilhelm JäneckeDie drei Streitfragen am Grab Theoderichs. In: Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse, 1927/1928 (Winter), Heidelberg 1928 (24 pages).