The Emperor's New Images-How to Honour the Emperor in the Christian Roman Empire? The Sacred Emperor and his Images (original) (raw)
The Emperor’s New Images How to Honour the Emperor in the Christian Roman Empire?
Maijastina Kahlos
University of Helsinki
This article discusses the sacredness of Roman emperors during the late Roman Empire, in the fourth and fifth centuries C.E. as the Empire was gradually Christianized. I shall argue that the imperial ideology with the sacred emperor, which had developed in the preceding centuries, was adopted with a few modifications. The most important of the modifications was “tidying up” of emperor worship using animal sacrifices. Imperial images for the most part retained the associations and connotations they had earlier had with prestige, authority and divinity. In this article, I discuss the difficulties and ambiguities with the sacredness of emperors in the Christianizing Empire, focusing on imperial images.
The analysis of a few fourth- and fifth-century Christian writers (for example, Eusebius of Caesarea, Athanasius, John Chrysostom, the anonymous Consultationes Zacchaei et Apollonii, Philostorgius, Severianus of Gabala and Pseudo-Theophilus of Alexandria) reveals a varied and complex set of attitudes towards traditional emperor worship, depending on the socio-political context of the writings. All these views must be examined as part of the debates in which they participate, as in the case of John Chrysostom’s homilies in connection with the Riot of Statues in Antioch in 387, or Philostorgius’ statements as connected with the disputes between Homoian and Nicene Christians.
The Sacred Emperor and his Images
In an anonymous theological tractate Consultationes Zacchaei et Apollonii, dated between the late fourth and late fifth centuries, 1{ }^{1} the fictive discussants - a Christian Zacchaeus and a ‘pagan’ Apollonius - debate the worship of cult statues (simulacra) including those of emperors. The Christian Zacchaeus draws a clear distinction between the worship of the emperors as deities and the reverence paid to the emperors as mortals. Zacchaeus assures us that the reverence paid to Christian emperors had nothing to do with the errors of ‘pagans’.
- 1 For the dating and identification, see Claussen 1995, 589-614. ↩︎
The Consultationes Zacchaei et Apollonii belongs to a genre of question-answer literature in which fictive figures discussed several issues, one posed questions and the other answered those questions. Even though the discussions were most likely fictitious, the questions raised in these treatises were important for the writer’s community. Therefore, the writer of the Consultationes Zacchaei et Apollonii discusses many kinds of issues such as miracles, Christian and pagan alike, and the ascetic way of life. Among these other issues, the Christian Zacchaeus and the ‘pagan’ Apollonius dispute the worship of cult images including those of emperors. 2{ }^{2}
The ‘pagan’ Apollonius says, “we [that is, pagans] worship (adoramus) the images (simulacra vel imagines) of those whom we believe to be gods according to the true religion, or whom - as taught by the traditions of the ancient predecessors - we do not know not to have been gods.” 3{ }^{3} Then Apollonius asks why Christians (“you”), to whom that kind of thing is an abomination, venerate the images of humans, in the form of reverence paid to the rulers even as public adoration (sub regum reverentia etiam publica adoratione veneramini), and thus give to humans the honour that should be given to a god only, as Christians themselves announce. 4{ }^{4} Apollonius adds, “even though this is illicit and against the law, why do you do this, Christians? Or why do not your priests prohibit this …?” Why then this adoration? is the awkward question of Apollonius. One can infer that non-Christians may have challenged Christians (especially newly converted, uncertain Christians) with these kinds of problems and that is why this inquiry ended up in this question-answer treatise.
The writer of Consultationes Zacchaei et Apollonii offers a solution to the perplexed Christians: the Christian Zacchaeus replies that Christians draw a clear distinction between the worship of the emperors as deities and the reverence paid to the emperors as mortals. He states that it was not allowed for Christians to adore the elements, angels, or any power of heaven, earth or air. He assures his reader that the ceremonies that pagans reprimand Christians for do not constitute a cult to a divinity (non aliquem divinum deprehenditis cultum). 5{ }^{5} Zacchaeus explains that the person (that is, the emperor), whose image is greeted, is not called a god; the images are not adored with incense; there are no more altars left for worship; instead, these altars are erected in memory of the merits of the emperor (that is, as
[1]monuments). 7{ }^{7} Zacchaeus declares: “You can see that in this there is nothing similar to your errors.”
This passage in Consultationes Zacchaei et Apollonii illustrates the ambiguities connected with the sacredness of emperors in the Christianizing Roman Empire. It is these ambiguities that I examine in this article, looking at the ways in which the sacredness of the emperors was (re)interpreted in Late Antiquity - the fourth and fifth centuries.
Imperial images continued to be venerated in the Christian Empire even though it is often presupposed that the reverence paid to imperial images was reduced as the result of the Christianization process. How did the subjects of the Christian Empire deal with the tradition of emperor worship that had been one of the customary ways of showing loyalty to emperors? It was the expectations for imperial subjects to express their devotion to the ruler that had caused problems for Christians in the early imperial period. Another question is how the sacredness of the emperors was understood in Christian terms. For whom was the veneration of imperial images problematic and for whom was it not that problematic after all? In which cases did ecclesiastical leaders regard the reverence paid to imperial images as idolatry, and in which cases as allegiance due to a Christian ruler?
The imperial ideology with the revered emperor, developed in the preceding centuries, was adopted with a few modifications. One of the most important modifications was the “tidying up” of emperor worship using animal sacrifices. 8{ }^{8} Imperial images for the most part retained the associations and connotations they had earlier had with prestige, authority and divinity. The analysis of fourth- and fifth-century Christian writers, for example, Eusebius of Caesarea, Athanasius, John Chrysostom, Philostorgius, Severianus of Gabala and Paeudo-Theophilus of Alexandria, will reveal a varied and complex set of attitudes towards emperor worship.
As the famous maxim from religious studies states, myths may perish - rituals endure. 10{ }^{10} This investigation will show that this was also the case with the veneration of imperial images in Late Antiquity: the rituals connected with imperial images persisted even though the ideological framework was modified from the polytheistic Roman civic religion into the Christian Empire.
In order to provide a background for the sacredness associated with late antique emperors, I will start with the allegiance shown to imperial images. Second, I will analyse late antique views on imperial images, and their sacredness and functions will be connected to the ancient theories of images in general. The famous Riot of
- 2 Consultationes Zacchaei et Apollonii 1.28. Ed. Feiertag 1994.
3 Consultationes Zacchaei et Apollonii 1.28.2: Nos enim eorum simulacra vel imagines adoramus, quas vel vera religione deus credimus, vel antiquorum traditionibus docti deos non esse nescimus.
4 Consultationes Zacchaei et Apollonii 1.28.3: Vos vero, quibus istud abominatio est, cur imagines hominum, vel ceris pictas, vel metallis deficlas, sub regum reverentia etiam publica adoratione veneramini, et, ut ipsi praedicalis, deo tantum honorem etiam hominibus datis?
5 Consultationes Zacchaei et Apollonii 1.28.4: Quod si et illicitum legique contrarium est, cur hoc facitis, christiani, aut cur hoc veshri non prohibent sacerdotes, …?
6 Consultationes Zacchaei et Apollonii 1.28.5-9. Zacchaeus (1.28.6-8) speaks of imprudent reverence continued as a habit and admits that this is abhorred by the more strict Christians. ↩︎ - 7 Consultationes Zacchaei et Apollonii 1.28.8: non tamen deus dicitur, cuius effigies salutatur, nec adolentur ture imagines aut colendae aris superstant, sed memoriae pro meritis exponuntur. …
8 Consultationes Zacchaei et Apollonii 1.28.9: Vides ergo nihil vestris erroribus simile in hoc esse quod arguis.
9 For the continuity of the emperor worship in the fourth century, see Salzman 1990, 131-146.
10 Also used by Lund Warmind 1993, 211. ↩︎
Statues in 387 will be discussed from the perspective of the allegiance shown to imperial images. Then we will take a look at Christian writers’ various views on the veneration of imperial images, both critical and approving, and will set these views into their proper contexts. Finally, I will show what changes and continuities in the sacredness of the emperor can be seen in the attempts to regulate his veneration in late antique legislation.
The Imperial Image Honoured
For an ordinary inhabitant of the Empire, the emperor’s image, bust or statue was the only thing that she or he ever saw of the ruler. Imperial images were still ubiquitous in late Roman daily life: they were present in prominent public places such as market places. The imperial image was an essential component in law courts, and the governors of provinces invoked imperial images when they needed to appeal to imperial authority. At formal public ceremonies, in which loyalty was shown to the reigning emperor, his image was displayed in his stead. 11{ }^{11}
In legislation, honorary inscriptions, coins and panegyrics, the imperial image was connected with the sacred and the divine, but what did this mean? Sabine MacCormack has written that “in some way the imperial images partook of the nature of the sacred” and Luke Lavan speaks of “a religious aura” of imperial statues in Late Antiquity. 12{ }^{12} I think it is expedient to approach the question with examples of the regulations concerning imperial images and the use of imperial images.
Stoning an imperial image was a grave transgression and could result in imprisonment. Even the accusation of a false accusation of insulting an imperial image was severe enough, as the allegation against Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296-373) hurled by his ecclesiastical opponents in the council of Tyre in 335 shows. Athanasius’ adversaries accused him of making false accusations against a presbyter who allegedly had thrown stones at imperial statues ( βασιλαα0ςιασισςς\beta \alpha \sigma \iota \lambda \alpha \alpha_{0} \varsigma \iota \alpha \sigma \iota \sigma \varsigma \varsigma ) 13{ }^{13}
Disrespect shown to imperial images and to the images of the reigning emperor in particular - whether this disrespect was real or alleged - could also be used as a weapon against ecclesiastical opponents in the fifth and sixth centuries as some cases in connection with the church councils of Chalcedon 451 and Constantinople 553 respectively indicate. The Patriarch Dioscorus of Alexandria was claimed to have shown disrespect to imperial images, and the monophysite monk Isaac the Persian was purported to have destroyed an image of Emperor
[1]Justinian. An ecclesiastical opponent who really or allegedly showed disrespect to or even damaged imperial images could thus be argued to be disloyal to the reigning emperor. 14{ }^{14}
Furthermore, overthrowing a reigning emperor’s statues was a sign of rebellion. For instance, in connection with an unsuccessful military coup in 354 against Gallus, Emperor Constantius’ erstwhile co-ruler, and thereby against the emperor himself, it was presumed that the rebels would first overthrow Constantius’ statues (post statuas Constantii deiectas) and then proceed with other actions. 15{ }^{15} All kinds of alterations or unauthorized copies of imperial images were severely forbidden. In a law of 381, copying “the sacred imperial features and thus assailing the divine countenance” and thus “sacrilegiously imitating their venerable images” (qui sacri oris imitator et divinorum vultuum adpetitor venerabiles formas sacrilegio eruditus inpressit) is listed in the same line with such crimes as parricide, incest and poisoning. 16{ }^{16}
Allegiance was shown through images; for instance, military oaths of allegiance were taken in front of the emperor or the emperor’s image. This had been a longstanding practice to confirm the allegiance of the subjects, civilian and military alike but was primarily military. Correspondingly, defacing images of an emperor was a symbolic act of rebellion. Pulling down and destroying the image of the ruling emperor was a sign of revolt, 17{ }^{17} as it had already been during the early Empire, when the soldiers of the legions of Germania inferior - instead of taking the oath of allegiance in the New Year to the emperor’s image in 69 - had thrown stones at Galba’s images (saxa in Galbae imagines iecerint) and the legions of Germania superior has smashed his images (dirumpunt imagines Galbae). 18{ }^{18}
Imperial decrees represented the emperor in a similar way and could encounter similar signs of respect and violation respectively. Any damage done to the physical item of the emperor’s declarations was considered treason. 19{ }^{19} When imperial decrees were read aloud publicly, the people were expected to listen to them with solemn awe. John Chrysostom (c. 350-407) compares the awe when listening to imperial laws with the fear one should feel when listening to the word of God, which should be feared even more:
A profound silence reigns when those letters are read. There is not the slightest noise; everyone listens most attentively to the orders contained in them. Whoever makes the
- 11 For the ubiquity and different functions of imperial images, see Lavan 2011b, 457; Ellingsen 2003, 34-35; Ando 2000, 212, 232-233; Kolb 2001, 46-49; Pekáry 1985; and Bowersock 1982, 173.
12 MacCormack 1981, 67-68 and Lavan 2011b, 459. Lavan explains this religious aura as a consequence of centuries of the imperial cult: the statues of living reigning emperors were increasingly considered to have powers similar to the cult images of deceased delfied emperors. See also Niemeyer 1968, esp. 18-27.
13 Sozomen, Historia ecclesiastica 2.25 ↩︎ - 14 See Browning 1952, 20, with examples: Council of Chalcedon: Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum II, 1, col. 220; Council of Constantinople: Mansi 8, 898A-C.
15 Ammianus Marcellinus, Res gestae 14.7.12.
16 Codex Theodosianus 9.38.6 (in 381).
17 Ellingsen 2003, 32-33; MacCormack 1981, 67-68; Browning 1952, 20; Kruse 1934, 12-18, 57-60 with several examples.
18 Tacitus, Historiae 1.55. Browning 1952, 20; Ando 2000, 240-241.
19 For imperial law as divine, see Matthews 2000, 181-182 and Lavan 2011b, 462. For examples, see e.g., Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum 13.2-3 and Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica 8.5. ↩︎
slightest noise, thereby interrupting the reading, runs the greatest danger. All the more should one stand with fear and trepidation … in order to understand what is read. 20{ }^{20}
The imperial image could make a solemn arrival, adventus, into towns and cities instead of the emperor in person, and the same ceremonies were applied to the image as to the emperor. For example, the arrival of the images of the western emperor Anthemius (r. 467-472) in Constantinople replaced the arrival of the emperor himself. 21{ }^{21} Provincials received the adventus of the imperial image as if they were welcoming the emperor in person. Furthermore, petitions could be made to the statue of a reigning emperor. 22{ }^{22} Fugitives could claim asylum at imperial statues, and in a law of 386 by Theodosius I, for example, the right of asylum at imperial statues (ad imperatoria simulacra) was confirmed. 23{ }^{23}
Images and Prototypes
The emperor’s presence was reproduced in his image. As I mentioned above, the imperial image could be treated as if it were the emperor himself, with ceremonies, pomp and adoration. 24{ }^{24} Correspondingly, violations against the imperial image were taken as offences against the emperor himself. Basil of Caesarea (c. 330-379), for instance, remarks that a person who treats an imperial image ( βασλασγν\beta \alpha \sigma \lambda \alpha \sigma \gamma \nu ó ParseError: KaTeX parse error: Expected 'EOF', got '́' at position 15: \kappa \omega ̲́ \sigma \alpha … shamefully ( κoθωβρα˙σς\kappa o \theta \omega \beta \rho \dot{\alpha} \sigma \varsigma ) is condemned as if this person offends the emperor himself. 25{ }^{25} Ambrose of Milan (c. 340-397), probably echoing Basil, states that whoever treats an imperial statue (statuam … imperatoris) shamefully is regarded as having committed an offence against the emperor. 26{ }^{26}
This notion is linked with ancient ideas about the connection between the image and the prototype, the object that the image depicted. In Greco-Roman Antiquity, there prevailed many divergent views and theories concerning the connection
[1]between an image and its prototype. Greco-Roman writers thought that cult images were animated by a positive divine presence; similarly, the image of an emperor contained his presence on some level. 27{ }^{27}
Intellectuals debated for centuries whether images were to be regarded as gods themselves. Some had defended the cult of images, arguing that people did not venerate mere objects themselves but revered the divinities that these images represented. For example, the second-century Platonist Celsus, who reproached Christians for not believing in images, argued that everyone knew that images were not gods but only images representing gods. In the late third century, Porphyry, when discussing the statues of gods, stated that images were visible symbols of the invisible. 28{ }^{28} Plotinus writes that ancient sages wanted to secure the presence of divine being by making shrines and images ( α˙γα˙λματα)\left.\dot{\alpha} \gamma \dot{\alpha} \lambda \mu \alpha \tau \alpha\right). Accordingly, even though the images were not divine as such, they carried something of the identity and power of the divine that they stood for. 29{ }^{29}
Emperor Julian’s (r. 361-363) discussion on the image of Magna Mater is part of this long debate. He asserts that the image is “no human thing, but really divine, not lifeless clay but something having life ( ξμττωνν\xi \mu \tau \tau \omega \nu \nu ) and divinity”. 30{ }^{30} Julian, on the other hand, insists that the images of the gods are by no means the gods themselves in the same manner as the images of the emperor are not the emperor. Images nevertheless are not just material, stone or wood. Julian explains that “he therefore who loves the emperor delights to see the emperor’s statue”. This is compared with seeing the son’s statue: he who loves his son delights to see his son’s statue. And he “who loves the gods delights to gaze on the images ( α˙γα˙λματα)\left.\dot{\alpha} \gamma \dot{\alpha} \lambda \mu \alpha \tau \alpha\right) of the gods, and their likenesses ( α˙κασας)\left.\dot{\alpha} \kappa \alpha \sigma \alpha \varsigma\right), and he feels reverence”. 31{ }^{31} Thus, images were usually, to some extent at least, thought to contain something of the divine nature of its prototype, a god or a godlike emperor.
Comparisons to imperial images in late antique literature, especially in theological considerations, pagan and Christian alike, tell us something about the prevailing conceptions about imperial images. The explanatory power of imperial images can be seen in the deliberations of Christian writers such as Athanasius of Alexandria, Severianus of Gabala and a Coptic writer (Pseudo-Theophilus of
- 20 John Chrysostom, Homilia in Genesim, Patrologia Graeca 53, col. 112. Translation by Matthews 2000, 188.
21 The protocol was recorded in the Book of Ceremonies by Constantinus Porphynogentius (De Cerimonis 1.87). For a discussion, see MacCormack 1981, 67-69; for the text, see Kruse 1934, 29.
22 A description of such an adventus is found in the panegyric by Procopius of Gaza (Panegyricus, 1). MacCormack 1981, 68-69 and Lavan 2011b, 461, with further examples.
23 Codex Theodosianus 9.44.1 (in 386): Eos, qui ad statuas vel evitandi metus vel creandae invidiae causa confuperint, ante diem decimum neque auferri ab aliquo neque discedere sponte perpetimur; ita tamen, ut, si certas habuerint causas, quibus confugere ad imperatoria simulacra debuerint, sire ac legibus vindicentur; sin vero proditi fuerint artibus suis invidiam inimicis creare voluisse, ultrix in eos sententia proferatur. Browning 1952, 20; Kitzinger 1954, 123; Lavan 2011b, 461; Niemeyer 1968, 23-24.
24 Ellingsen 2003, 30; Lavan 2011b, 459.
25 Basil of Caesarea, In Isaiam 13.267 (Patrologia Graeca 30, col. 589A-B). Browning 1952, 20.
26 Ambrose, Expositio in psalmum CXVIII, 10.25 (Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticum Latinorum 62, 219): et qui statuam contempserit imperatoris, imperatori utique cuius statuam conspulaverit fecisse videtur insuriam. ↩︎ - 27 MacCormack 1981, 67-68; Kitzinger 1954, 123; Lavan 2011b, 459-460.
28 Celsus in Origen, Contra Celsium 7.62. Porphyry in Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica 3.7.1-3. Kahlos 2007, 170-171, with further discussion and references.
29 Plotinus, Enneades 4.3.11. For an analysis of images in Late Antiquity, see Francis 2009, 296 and Francis 2012, 146-147, who stresses the cultural and intellectual continuity of the conceptions of images and imaging common to pagan and Christian thinkers alike. Both pagans and Christians understood images of gods as possessing power and life; for pagans it was divine and for Christians it was demonic. See also Saradi-Mendelovici 1990, 57-58.
30 Julian, Cratio 5.161a Hertlein = p. 448 Wright. The term ξμττωvν\xi \mu \tau \tau \omega v \nu can also be translated as having soul. Francis 2009, 295; Francis 2012, 146-147.
31 Julian, Epistula ad sacerdotem 294c-d Hertlein = p. 310 Wright. Francis 2009, 295; Francis 2012, 146-147. ↩︎
Alexandria). 32{ }^{32} These writers used imperial images as points of comparison in which imperial images, a phenomenon familiar to the audience, are meant to make the subtle theological argumentation more understandable.
For instance, around 360 in the middle of the Christian doctrinal disputes, Athanasius in his treatise against the Arians (that is, Homoians whom he called Arians) explained his views of the relationship between the Father and the Son of the Trinity and used the relationship between the emperor and his image as a point of comparison. To elucidate how the Son is the image of the Father, he explains the imperial image:
In the image ( ε\varepsilon xúv) [of the emperor] there is the character ( ε\varepsilon ßo ε\varepsilon ) and the form ( μoρϕη\mu o \rho \phi \eta ) of the emperor … For the emperor’s likeness (óuoó πης\pi \eta \varsigma ) is exact in the image, so that the one gazing at the image sees the emperor in it, and again the one gazing at the emperor recognizes that he is the one in the image.
Then Athanasius explains that the image could say:
“I and the emperor are one; I am in him and he is in me. That which you see in me you behold in him, and what you look upon in him, you behold in me.” Therefore whoever adores the image ( ParseError: KaTeX parse error: Expected 'EOF', got '́' at position 39: …\kappa \nu v u ̲́ v) also adores ( πρωσκuvεi\pi \rho \omega \sigma \kappa u v \varepsilon i ) the emperor in it, for the image is his form ( μoρϕη\mu o \rho \phi \eta ) and character ( εδδ∘ς\varepsilon \delta \delta \circ \varsigma ). 33{ }^{33}
This passage shows that this comparison was comprehensible for Athanasius’ audience - or at least, Athanasius in interaction with his listeners assumed so. In the process of successful communication, a speaker needed to use arguments and scenarios that sounded plausible to an audience. Therefore, we may presume that Athanasius’ listeners took it for granted that the emperor and the imperial image were ‘one’ and that the imperial image was adored as if it was the emperor who was adored. The imperial image carries the power of the emperor as well as sharing the nature and character of the emperor. In other words, the imperial image was understood as a direct substitute for the emperor’s person, carrying all his authority - the authority connected with his position. 34{ }^{34}
The early fifth-century bishop of Gabala, Severianus, who made a comparison with the ubiquity of imperial images and the ubiquity of the Christian god, also had the same understanding. Because the emperor could not be present everywhere in his empire, it was necessary to have the emperor’s portraits ( τδvχρρατεερα\tau \delta v \chi \rho \rho \alpha \tau \varepsilon \varepsilon \rho \alpha
[1]roù βασiλεις\beta \alpha \sigma i \lambda \varepsilon \iota \varsigma ) in public places: at tribunals, in marketplaces, at meetings and in theatres. His image must be present in all places where his magistrates act, “so that he might sanction whatever transpires”. Then the invisibility of the Christian god is explained with this analogy to the Roman emperor: "For the emperor, being a man, cannot be everywhere; God, being God, simply cannot be seen by men."35
In a Coptic text, often attributed to Theophilus of Alexandria, but unfortunately not exactly datable, the imperial image is also used as a point of comparison as the writer explains the power and sacredness that the image of the Theotokos, the Virgin Mary, has:
For if the image of the emperor of this world, when painted and set up in the midst of the market-place, becoming a protection to the whole city, and if violence is committed against any one, and he goes and takes hold of the image of the emperor: then no man will be able to oppose him, even though the emperor is naught but a mortal man; and he is taken to a court of law. Let us, therefore, my beloved, honour the image of our Lady the veritable Queen, the holy Theotokos Mary, the mother of our God. 36{ }^{36}
The Coptic writer assumes that his audience takes the power and sacred nature of the imperial image - for instance, he refers to its protective function (“a protection to the whole city”) and its function as an asylum (“he goes and takes hold of the image of the emperor, then no man will be able to oppose him”). 37{ }^{37}
The Imperial Image Violated
The issue of imperial images was by no means just a topic among philosophers and theologians but a life-and-death question for people living ordinary lives. The aftermath of the so-called Riot of Statues in Antioch in 387 shows how drastic measures the government could take in dealing with the violators of imperial images. This infamous incident is reported by John Chrysostom in his homilies and by Libanius (c. 314-392/393) in his speeches. 38{ }^{38}
During the reign of Emperor Theodosius I (r. 379-395), the riot began as a reaction to the imperial edict that announced a new tax that would bring a considerable increase in taxation. The Antiochian people attacked the palace
- 32 Ando 2000, 238 with further examples. Ando 2000, 238 connects the explanatory power of imperial images with the fact that emperors were the most common and least controversial figures in Late Antiquity.
33 Athanasius, Oratio contra Arianos 3.5 (Patrologia Graeca 26, 329-332). Translation by Francis 2009, 296. See also Francis 2012, 148; Lund Warmind 1993, 216-217; and Ando 2000, 239.
34 Similar comparisons are made by Basil of Caesarea, De spiritu sancto 18.45 (Patrologia Graeca 32, 149), Ambrose, Expositio in psalmum CXVIII 10.25 (see n. 40) and Ambrose, In epistulam ad Colosses 2.16-17 (Patrologia Latina 17, 432), Francis 2009, 296; Lavan 2011b, 461; Stewart 1999, 169-170; Brubaker 1995, 4-5; Murray 1989, 298. ↩︎ - 35 Severianus of Gabala, De mundi creatione 6.5 (Patrologia Graeca 56, 489). Engemann 1988, 1039
36 Pseudo-Theophilus of Alexandria, “A homily on the Virgin by Theophilus, Archbishop of Alexandria” in Worrell 1923, 375. Translation by Worrell (here modified). MacCormack 1981, 67-68; Ando 2000, 236; Kitzinger 1954, 125.
37 The later development of Byzantine icons has often been connected with the veneration of imperial images, e.g., by Kitzinger 1954, 121-125. Now, more recently Mathews (2001, 163-177) has pointed out that the developing Christian cult of icons can be seen as a parallel with the private cult of images among the pagans at the same time.
38 John Chrysostom, 21 homiliae ad populum Antiochenum de statuis (Patrologia Graeca 49); Libanius, Orationes 19-23. ↩︎
of the provincial governor and showed their irritation by pulling down wooden panel pictures with the emperor’s portrait and casting down the bronze statues of the imperial family, that is, the emperor, his wife Eudoxia and his son Arcadius. The riot was eventually suppressed and the ringleaders arrested and punished. Emperor Theodosius threatened the people of Antioch with further, more extensive punishments: he wanted to strip the city of its several privileges, cut off the annona and close down the hippodrome, theatres and baths. Furthermore, many members of the city council were ordered to be imprisoned. People even feared that the emperor would order his soldiers to massacre the populace and sack the city. 39{ }^{39} These were threats of considerable punishments and reflect the importance of imperial images and their symbolic function. 40{ }^{40}
Both the Christian presbyter John Chrysostom and the pagan teacher of rhetoric Libanius defended their city-folk intensively. John Chrysostom delivered twenty-one homilies in which he defended the people in the aftermath of the riot. He describes the punishments inflicted on the Antiochians as completely out of proportion to the offence they committed against the imperial images and reminds his audience - the people, the imperial court and the emperor - that this is nothing compared to the insults that are directed against God every day. 41{ }^{41} In another sermon, John Chrysostom puts his criticism of excessive chastisement into the mouth of a monk: the statues that had been thrown down were again set up; thus the damage had been speedily rectified. This is then compared with the capital punishments that were impending upon the rioters. The monk declares:
… if you put to death the image of God, how will you be again able to revoke the deed! Or how can you reanimate those who are deprived of life, and restore their souls to their bodies?42
Accordingly, John Chrysostom argues that the insults to the imperial images are nothing compared to the impending punishments that are offences against the images of God - humans. I will return to John Chrysostom’s defence below.
For his part, Libanius delivered five speeches that discussed the riot. In his oration 19, addressed to the emperor, he asks the emperor to cease from his
[1]anger and revoke the punishments. 43{ }^{43} He attributes the riot to some supernatural (demonic) intervention, trying to discharge the people from responsibility in this way. 44{ }^{44} Libanius argues that in the past, sensible rulers have pardoned outbreaks of the people and that an emperor should be like a father who treats the recklessness of his sons gently. 45{ }^{45} In another oration, Libanius compares the violation of imperial images to the insults hurled against the gods and stones thrown at heaven. Yet the gods refrain from punishing people even though they have the power to punish them. Thus in his speech Libanius reminds the emperor of divine patience in the face of insults in a way similar to that of John Chrysostom. Libanius states that the emperor will show himself to be more of a peer to the gods ( θε∘iς\theta \varepsilon \circ i \varsigma i σ∘ς\sigma \circ \varsigma ) by not taking pleasure in punishing his subjects, even if the punishments are justified. 46{ }^{46}
As mentioned above, an attack against the image of the emperor could be taken as an attack against the person of the emperor and consequently be seen as treason. This is how John Chrysostom portrays the tearing down of imperial images: "And now this is the first and only instance of insurrection [of Antioch] against its rulers. 347{ }^{347} Besides an act of treason, the attack was also a sacrilege against the sacredness of the emperor. Libanius admits that those attacking imperial images were oi σvνασιβησαvτςς\sigma v \nu \alpha \sigma \iota \beta \eta \sigma \alpha v \tau \varsigma \varsigma, guilty of sacrilege, and insulting imperial images was βλασε˙εμiα.48\beta \lambda \alpha \sigma \dot{\varepsilon} \varepsilon \mu i \alpha .{ }^{48} Therefore, the response of the emperor had to be immediate and suitably austere. 49{ }^{49} Emperors, as Harold Drake describes their position, “sat on the horns of a dilemma: too much force turned them into rogue emperors, unfit to govern by the rules of civilitas; too little simply invited contempt”. 50{ }^{50} Thus, balancing between civilitas and sternness, the emperor had to punish, or at least severely threaten to punish those who had destroyed imperial images.
Destruction of a private person’s statues was an assault against an individual’s social persona. 51{ }^{51} In the case of the emperor much more was at stake, as we saw above. Loyalty was publicized by showing respect for imperial images, whereas seditious action was often channelled by violating them.
- 39 Libanius, Oratio 21.5-6; 22.7-8. For the riot and the evaluations of John Chrysostom’s and Libanius’ accounts, see Browning 1952, 15-16; Sandwell 2007, 129, 173-174. Leppin 1999, 103123. The ringleaders were claque leaders of the theatre factions. Apparently the riot was not a religious conflict (Leppin 1999, 121; Engemann 1988, 1044) even though the riot has also been seen in connection with the growing tension between different religious groups in Antioch (e.g., Mitchell 2007, 325).
40 Browning 1952, 15 n. 40 compares imperial images to the flags and coats of arms of modern times.
41 John Chrysostom, Homilia de statuis 3.18 (Patrologia Graeca 49, col. 56-57).
42 John Chrysostom, Homilia de statuis 17.3 (Patrologia Graeca 49, col. 173). ↩︎ - 43 Libanius, Oratio esp. 19.38; 19.45. Even though Libanius (Oratio 19.2-4) speaks as if he were present in the imperial palace, we do not know whether he really gave the speech in front of the emperor. Mitchell 2007, 18
44 Libanius, Oratio 19.7: δαijovos; 19.29: δαijovn movtpuü; 19.31: n δαμóvovv; 19.34. John Chrysostom (Homilia de statuis 21.1-3) also shifts the responsibility to demons. In addition, by referring to people with recourse to their god, Libanius insinuates that the rioters were mainly Christians (Oratio 19.25; 20.3).
45 Libanius, Oratio 19.11; 19.18; 19.48-49; for examples from the past, see also Oratio 20.25-30.
46 Libanius, Oratio 20.11-13.
47 John Chrysostom, Homilia de statuis 3.3.
48 Libanius, Oratio 19.36; also 20.10; 21.5.
49 For the fears of the Antiochians, see Libanius, Oratio 23.12-14.
50 Drake 2011, 211.
51 Stewart 1999, 161. For the importance of destroying the face in particular, see Stewart 1999, 167. ↩︎
Magistrates expected the imperial images to be regarded as sacrosanct, revered and inviolate. Various acts such as ill-mannered gestures or alterating or defacing images could be interpreted as disrespect towards the emperor and regarded as acts of lèse majesté. Forging or defacing the image of the emperor on coins was also an act of high treason, a notion that was still valid in the Late Roman Empire as the law of 389 in the Theodosian Code shows. 51{ }^{51} In one of his homilies, John Chrysostom reproaches the makeup of women and compares the female face to an image of the emperor: he remarks that a person who would try to make changes to an image of the emperor after it was set up, would eventually incur extreme danger. 52{ }^{52}
The Veneration of Images - Blame and Approval
To return to the questions posed in Consultationes Zacchaei et Apollonii at the beginning of this article: How should Christians deal with the power and presence of the emperor in imperial images in a Christianizing Empire? What would be the appropriate way of showing loyalty to Christian emperors and the proper way to venerate imperial images: with or without incense and an altar, and with or without animal sacrifices?
During the early imperial period, this had been a sore point for Christian groups. On one hand, for many Christians the adoration given to the emperor as to a god compromised the Christian teaching that veneration was due to the Christian deity only. It is nonetheless worth remembering that the adoration shown to the emperor, or to the gods in general, was not an issue to all Christians, as many complaints by leaders of Christian groups reveal. 53{ }^{53}
A number of Christian apologists in the first to the third centuries condemned the reverence paid to the emperor and his images. In the late second century, Theophilus of Antioch, for instance, had shown an uncompromising attitude: “Why do the Christians not worship the emperor? Because he is not a god, but a man, appointed by God, not to receive homage, but to give judgment rightly.” 54{ }^{54} Tertullian explained in Apologeticum in 197 that it was because of the refusal of Christians to venerate the emperor that they were harassed by Roman authorities: "So that is why Christians are public enemies - because they will not give the emperors
52 Codex Theodosianus 9.21.9 (in 389): Falsae monetae rei, quos vulgo paracharactas vocant. maiestatis crimine tenentur obnoxii. Engemann 1988, 1040; MacCormack 1981, 67-68. For various cases during the early Empire, see Ando 2000, 236-239.
53 John Chrysostom, Homilia in Matthaeum 30.6 (Patrologia Graeca 57, col. 370).
54 As Ouli Lehtipuu also reminds us in her article in this volume.
55 Theophilus of Antioch, Ad Autolycum 1.11.
vain, false and rash honours. 35{ }^{35} On the other hand, to be able to cope with imperial authority Christians had to demonstrate their loyalty to the emperor in some way. Christian apologists were at pains to convince their audience that Christians were loyal subjects of the emperor and took part in social life just like any other Roman. Tertullian assured his listeners that Christians prayed for the welfare of the emperor (pro salute imperatoris). 57{ }^{57}
In the early Empire, sacrifice had been an essential part of the public Roman religion, emperor worship included. In their aim at religious unity and control of their subjects in the third century, emperors Decius and Valerian had ordered the whole population of the Empire to perform Roman rites as a mark of their loyalty to the Empire and the emperor. The crucial test was the performance of sacrifice, thus participating in the sacrificial system of the Roman society. Making sacrifices, especially animal sacrifices, became another sore point for many Christians and a defining line in Christian self-understanding. It was imperative for ecclesiastical leaders to convince others that Christians never made sacrifices - either now or in the past. 58{ }^{58}
Christian writers made their revulsion of animal sacrifices - blood, flesh and smoke - manifest. 59{ }^{59} The Christian disgust for blood sacrifices is reflected in the legislation of Christian emperors in the fourth and fifth centuries. In the imperial decrees that restricted the performance of many kinds of sacrifices, Christian emperors announced their resentment towards animal sacrifices. 60{ }^{60} Emperor Constantine, for instance, condemned blood sacrifices in his speeches and correspondence. 61{ }^{61} The imperial government nonetheless wanted to retain the oldstyle civic festivities and spectacles that were important to the people. A decree of 392, for instance, mentions the sorrow that would be produced if theatrical
- 56 Tertullian, Apologeticum 35.1: Propterea igitur publici hostes Christiani, quia imperatoribus neque vanos neque mentitentes neque temerarios honores dicant … . For the discussion on Tertullian and his stance on the worship of emperors, see Tobias Georges’ article in this volume.
57 Tertullian, Ad Scapulam 2.6-8; also Tertullian, Apologeticum 30.4. Similar assurances are found in Theophilus of Antioch, Ad Autolycum 1.11; Altheragoras of Athens, Legatio pro Christiania 37.2-3; Cyprian, Ad Demetrianum 20; Arnobius, Ad nationes 4.36.
58 For the issue of making sacrifices, see e.g. Harl 1990, 7-27; Bradbury 1994, 120-139; Belayche 2002, 101-126; Belayche 2005, 343-380; Kahlos 2007, 119-126 and Ullucci 2012, esp. 137-144.
59 E.g., Prudentius, Contra orationem Symmach 1.8 described the toges of the respectful pagan senators as tinted by blood and smoke. For Christian disgust about blood sacrifices, see Kahlos 2013, 159-171; Kahlos 2007, 120-123; Bradbury 1994, 129.
60 E.g., Codex Theodosianus 16.10.13 (in 393): abominanda sacrificia. It is important to remember that not all sacrificial rituals were forbidden once and for all, the main target was animal sacrifices. Emperors such as Constantine and Constantius II were primarily worried about private sacrifices and private divination. From Codex Theodosianus 16.10.10 (in 391) onwards, legislation against magical practices was gradually extended to cover pagan sacrifices, and the total abolition of pagan sacrifices was completed in the early fifth-century legislation of Arcadius and Honorius.
61 Constantine in Eusebius, Vita Constantini 4.10 and Constantine, Oratio ad sanctos 11. Eusebius (Vita Constantini 2.45.1) claimed that Constantine banned all sacrifices, but this has raised a wide dispute among modern scholars. For a survey of the discussion, see Kahlos 2007, 122 n. 43. ↩︎
spectacles were forbidden. 62{ }^{62} As a compromise between the traditional needs of the people and the demands of sacrifice-loathing church leaders, the imperial legislators ended in tidying up civic celebrations of their cultic features, that is, sacrifices. A decree of 399 declares that amusements shall be performed for the people as before but without sacrifices and superstition. 63{ }^{63}
In the fourth century, Christian emperors in their legislation most likely and Christian bishops certainly supported the veneration of emperors without animal sacrifices. Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 260-339/340) in his Life of Constantine states that Emperor Constantine forbade the setting up of imperial images ( ε\varepsilon в ωσιας\omega \sigma \iota \alpha \varsigma oú τoı˙\tau o \dot{\imath} ) in temples of idols ( ε\varepsilon i δωλωαινε\delta \omega \lambda \omega \alpha \iota \nu \varepsilon vaoi ς\varsigma ) in order to avoid being “contaminated by the error of forbidden things even in replica” ( μεχρıσκαηραβσαςτη\mu \varepsilon \chi \rho \imath \sigma \kappa \alpha \eta \rho \alpha \beta \sigma \alpha \varsigma \tau \eta n λωνηηωεıνωνμ∘λνvoro\lambda \omega \nu \eta \eta \omega \varepsilon \imath \nu \omega \nu \mu \circ \lambda \nu v o r o ). Eusebius’ reference to forbidden things has usually been interpreted as a reference to animal sacrifice. Thus, at least for some Christians and Christian emperors, the combination of the reverence shown to imperial images and some traditional (‘idolatrous’) practices constituted a danger. 64{ }^{64} Let us have a look at what Gregory of Nazianzus says about this sort of combination.
In his invective against Emperor Julian, Gregory of Nazianzus (c. 330-390) lists the usual honours that a ruler receives - Gregory more or less tolerates these honours though he does not appreciate them very much. These are the royal customs among all peoples and also among the Romans: honouring rulers with public images ( ε′καα˙σδσμ∘σiας\varepsilon^{\prime} \kappa \alpha \dot{\alpha} \sigma \delta \sigma \mu \circ \sigma i \alpha \varsigma ), then also crowns and diadems, the dye of the purple robe, and so forth. In addition to these, “rulers require adoration ( πρωσκω˙vησις\pi \rho \omega \sigma \kappa \dot{\omega} v \eta \sigma \iota \varsigma ) in order to appear more august ( σεμνδıερω\sigma \varepsilon \mu \nu \delta \imath \varepsilon \rho \omega ) and not only that they are to be adored in person but also their statues and pictures ( ε\varepsilon v πλασμασiτε\pi \lambda \alpha \sigma \mu \alpha \sigma i \tau \varepsilon καiχμωμασιν\kappa \alpha i \chi \mu \omega \mu \alpha \sigma \iota \nu ) in order that the reverence ( σεξας\sigma \varepsilon \xi \alpha \varsigma ) is more insatiable and more complete”. 65{ }^{65}
These are understood as the customary honours of the emperor. What were the limits of customary or acceptable honours of the emperor? What kind of veneration or adoration or reverence for the emperor was appropriate? What is disturbing in Emperor Julian, in the eyes of Gregory, is the element of idolatry that Julian cunningly tries to sneak into these customary imperial honours. Gregory states that Julian machinates traps for weaker Christians by mixing, like poison into food, impiety ( τηνα˙σεξεαν\tau \eta \nu \dot{\alpha} \sigma \varepsilon \xi \varepsilon \alpha \nu ) with the customary honour of the emperors and by thus putting together the Roman laws and the worship of idols ( εδαααωνντωσκανησιν\varepsilon \delta \alpha \alpha \alpha \omega \nu \nu \tau \omega \sigma \kappa \alpha \nu \eta \sigma \iota \nu )
[1]and connecting his own images with those of demons ( ταiςεεκαα˙σσαμπαραφαραα˙μωv\tau \alpha i \varsigma \varepsilon \varepsilon \kappa \alpha \dot{\alpha} \sigma \sigma \alpha \mu \pi \alpha \rho \alpha \varphi \alpha \rho \alpha \dot{\alpha} \mu \omega v τoς˙ςδαμ∘vας\tau o \dot{\varsigma} \varsigma \delta \alpha \mu \circ v \alpha \varsigma ). Consequently, by paying honour to the emperor, people paid the same honour to the idols. If one shunned paying honour to the idol, one insulted the ruler because the worship of the two was combined. According to Gregory, only a few, more cautious and intelligent Christians could escape Julian’s trap; many, more ignorant and simple Christians were, however, caught. 66{ }^{66} Thus, the combination of the reverence shown to the imperial image and the worship of what Gregory calls idols is condemnable, not the veneration of imperial images as such.
In his church history, the Eunomian Christian writer Philostorgius (368-439) criticized the cult of the Nicene Christians in front of the image of the deceased Constantine. He mentions Christians "worshipping with sacrifices ( θωσiας\theta \omega \sigma i \alpha \varsigma ) the image of Constantine set up upon the porphyry column, paying homage to it with lamp-lighting ( λιχνσκαiας\lambda \iota \chi \nu \sigma \kappa \alpha i \alpha \varsigma ) and incense ( θωμαα˙μασ\theta \omega \mu \alpha \dot{\alpha} \mu \alpha \sigma ) or praying ( ParseError: KaTeX parse error: Expected 'EOF', got '́' at position 15: \varepsilon u ̲́ \chi \dot{\alp… ) to it, as to a god ( ω˙ςαα˙α˙\dot{\omega} \varsigma \alpha \dot{\alpha} \dot{\alpha} ) and making apotropaic offerings ( α˙πσαρσσασωιςεετερiας\dot{\alpha} \pi \sigma \alpha \rho \sigma \sigma \alpha \sigma \omega \iota \varsigma \varepsilon \varepsilon \tau \varepsilon \rho i \alpha \varsigma ). 67{ }^{67} Hence Philostorgius condemns practices connected with the reverence paid to the imperial image of the departed Constantine. It is worth noting that this criticism comes from the context in which the Eunomian Christian disapproves of the activities of his Christian rivals, the Nicene Christians. Practices such as sacrifices and prayers, addressed to the imperial image as if it were a god, were included in the disparagement and meant to embarrass the rival group.
Similarly, we need to put John Chrysostom’s discussion on the reverence paid to the imperial images into its proper context. He defends the Antiochian people after the Riot of Statues that we discussed above and represents the chastisement inflicted on the Antiochians as too severe in regard to the offence. As was noted above, he argued that the offence against the imperial family was nothing in comparison with the insults against God. The insults against imperial images were only insults against images, “not done to his face” ( σı˙κατδψνı\sigma \dot{\imath} \kappa \alpha \tau \delta \psi \nu \imath ), “nor while he was present to see or hear it” ( σδ˙εεεταρωνεαiδρων˙vκαiδασωων\sigma \dot{\delta} \varepsilon \varepsilon \varepsilon \tau \alpha \rho \omega \nu \varepsilon \alpha i \delta \rho \omega \dot{\nu} v \kappa \alpha i \delta \alpha \sigma \omega \omega \nu ), and nevertheless none of those who perpetrated these deeds obtained forgiveness from the emperor. Furthermore, he reminds his audience that humans were the image of God. He then remarks that the bronze statue of the emperor was not even of the same substance as the emperor. And yet people who had insulted it had to pay the penalty. 68I{ }^{68} \mathrm{I} am inclined to see John Chrysostom’s ideas about imperial images as part of his defence of the Antiochian people. The same applies to John Chrysostom’s other homily that was discussed above and in which he presents the
66 Gregory of Nazianzus, Oratio 4.81.
67 Philostorgius, Historia ecclesiastica 2.17. Ed. Bidez 28. For the cult adoration paid to Constantine’s image, see Amidon 2007, 35 n. 49; Bowersock 1982, 181; the imperial statue was celebrated annually with hymns, acclamations and a procession. Constantine’s image was also venerated annually in Constantinople and Rome: Lavan 2011b, 465; Lund Warmind 1993, 215.
68 John Chrysostom, Homilia de statuis 3.18 (Patrologia Graeca 49, col. 56-57). John Chrysostom reinforces his argument with references to biblical passages.
- 62 Codex Theodosianus 15.6 .1 (in 392).
63 Codex Theodosianus 16.10.17 (in 399).
64 Eusebius, Vita Constantini 4.16. Lavan 2011b, 460. The ambiguous wording of this passage as well as other similar Constantinian ambiguities, e.g., in the rescript of Hispellum, could have been interpreted both as forbidding sacrifices in general or prohibiting magical practices. Saltman 1987, 172-188; Kahlos 2009, 101; Garnsey - Humfress 2001, 163-164. See also the discussion on the rescript of Hispellum in the article by Van Andringa in this volume.
65 Gregory of Nazianzus, Oratio 4.80. Then follows a list of different representations of actions such as subduing and slaughtering barbarians, depicted in various forms. For discussions on this passage, see Ando 2000, 231; Elm 2012, 354-355; and Engemann 1988, 1043. ↩︎
reproach as the words of a monk. Imperial images that had been violated would be set up again anyway but the rioters put to death cannot be reanimated. 69{ }^{69}
The power of imperial images and public reverence paid to them were accepted by ecclesiastical writers without any particularly adverse remarks, for example, in the passage of Athanasius discussed above. In the Christianizing Empire, the emperor remained a more or less sacred person - the representative of God on earth. His images continued to retain sanctity and were still objects of reverence. As the passages of Gregory of Nazianzus imply, the reverence of imperial images was taken as a matter of fact to be dutifully carried out and was not widely questioned by Christians. Even as connected with the cult of the old gods, the veneration of imperial images was not always a problematic issue for many Christians.
Imperial Images in Legislation
It is understandable that the veneration of imperial images needed to be regulated and controlled by the emperors themselves. In a law of 425 Emperor Theodosius II wanted to control ceremonies connected to imperial images:
If at any time, whether on festal days, as is usual, or on ordinary days, statues or images of us are erected, let the magistrate be present without employing any vainglorious heights of adoration, but so that he may show that his presence has graced the day, the place, and our memory. 70{ }^{70}
What this “vainglorious heights of adoration” or “overzealous element of worship” (adorationis ambitiousum fastigium) ever meant was probably resolved by local administrators. The law continues:
Likewise, if our images are shown at public spectacles, they shall demonstrate that our divinity (numen) and praises live only in the hearts and secret places of the minds of those who attend. Worship in excess of human dignity (excedens cultura hominum dignitatem) shall be reserved for the supernal divinity (superno numini). 71{ }^{71}
This concerns veneration of imperial images subject to certain controls. Thus, the divinity, numen, of the emperor should be venerated within limits, but it is
[1]worth noting that the legislator still retains the term numen for the emperor. The emperor is numen but the highest honours, “worship in excess of human dignity”, should be reserved for the supernum numen only. As Glen Bowersock points out, this distinction follows the Roman tradition in which the emperors from Emperor Augustus onwards shunned excessive worship, thus keeping the separation between the divine emperor and the true deity. 72{ }^{72}
Along with these constraints from Theodosian legislation, it is clear at the same time that imperial images were an essential and vital part of societal life. 73{ }^{73} How effective this regulation by Theodosius II was is another question. 74{ }^{74} What is important here is the tidying-up process of emperor worship led by the Christian emperors. Most likely this process led to veneration without sacrifices, if only that could be controlled. But processions with imperial images continued; imperial images were ubiquitous and present in the cityscape. Imperial images for the most part retained the associations and connotations they had earlier had with prestige, authority and divinity. Occasions connected with loyalty and power relations remained largely the same. 75{ }^{75} Here we can return to the aphorism mentioned at the beginning of the article: myths may perish - rituals endure. Rituals connected with imperial images had become such an essential part of the life of Greco-Roman communities that they seem to have been more persistent than beliefs that were in the process of change in the Christianizing Empire.
Conclusion
In the Christianizing Empire, Christian rulers expected to be shown due allegiance and reverence as before. The imperial ideology with the divine emperor, established during the previous centuries, was modified by abolishing animal sacrifices. Imperial images nonetheless retained their position in public celebrations, maintaining their prestige, authority and divinity. The reverence paid to imperial images continued to be an expression of loyalty. The writings of fourth- and fifth-century Christian authors reveal that reverence paid to the emperors and their images led to ambiguity about the status of the emperor’s divinity. These notions were intensely discussed and debated among Christians themselves, and even with pagans as the anonymous Consultationes Zacchaei et Apollonii may indicate.
- 69 John Chrysostom, Homilia de statuis 17.3 (Patrologia Graeca 49, col. 173).
70 Codex Theodosianus 15.4.1 (in 425): Si quando nostrae statuae vel imagines eriguntur seu diabus, ut adsolet, festis sive communibus, adsit iudex sine adorationis ambitioso fastigio, ut ornamentum diei vel loco et nostrae recordationi sui probet accessisse praesentiam. Translation by Pharr 1952 (modified).
71 Codex Theodosianus 15.4.1 (in 425): Ludis quoque simulacra proposita tentum in animis concurrentum mentisque secretis nostrum numen et laudes vigere demonstrant; excedens cultura hominum dignitatem superno numini reservetur. As Ando (2000, 237) remarks, “addressing public veneration of their portraits alludes to this belief, even as it reveals its authors’ utter lack of reflection on the religious import of the traditional vocabulary of Roman legislation”; see also Lavan 2011b, 460; Browning 1952, 20, n. 84; Garnsey - Humfress 2001, 164. ↩︎ - 72 Bowersock 1982, 180
73 The importance is stressed by Bowersock 1982, 179-180.
74 A similar question can be posed about how the legislation of Theodosius II forbidding many ‘pagan’ practices was ever put into effect; see Millar 2006, 117-123; Kahlos 2009, 91-92, 108.
75 Lavan 2011b, 460-465 speaks of an imperially-led reform and writes that there “had been some concessions to Christianity, but this was a tidying-up of existing practice rather than a positive Christianisation”. For expurgated forms of the imperial cult, see also Barnes 1996, 174 and Galinsky 2011, 15. ↩︎
The Riot of Statues in Antioch in 387 shows that imperial images were still central symbols of allegiance in public life; the imperial government interpreted their destruction as a sacrilege and a rebellion, and the punishments could be severe. The imperial image represented the emperor and it was to be esteemed with appropriate ceremonies as if it were the emperor himself. These conceptions of the emperor and his image were intrinsically connected with the prevailing general ideas of the image and its prototype. The cult images of gods were believed to contain something of the divine nature of the gods, and accordingly, imperial images contained the presence of a godlike emperor. The explanatory power of imperial images was taken for granted in the theological argumentation by Athanasius of Alexandria, Severianus of Gabala and the Coptic writer, the so- called PseudoTheophilus of Alexandria. 76{ }^{76}
Late antique Christian writers take the veneration of imperial images as a selfevident part of public life. For example, the critical voices by John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nazianzus and Philostorgius must be pondered in their specific contexts. John Chrysostom’s criticism of imperial images is part of his defence of the Antiochian people in connection with the Riot of Statues: in order to diminish the transgression of the rioters he needed to minimize the importance of imperial statues.
For his part, Gregory of Nazianzus condemned the honours paid to imperial images when they were connected with the cult of the old gods during Julian’s reign. It was the combination of the reverence shown to the emperor’s images and the ‘idolatry’ that was condemnable for Gregory, not the veneration of imperial images as such. When the Eunomian church historian Philostorgius sneers at the Christian veneration of the deceased Constantine’s image, his criticism is to be understood as an attempt to embarrass Christian rivals, the Nicene Christians. In this disparagement, Philostorgius highlights such perplexing features as sacrifices and prayers addressed to the imperial image as to a god. In the imperial legislation, attempts were made to control the ways in which the emperor and his image were venerated. The highest honours were reserved for the supreme god, but it was made clear that the emperor was a numen as well. The show with imperial images went on in the public life of Late Antiquity.
References
Aalders, G. 1969. Nomos empsuchos. In P. Steinmetz (ed.) Politeia und Res publica. Beiträge zum Verständnis von Politik, Recht und Staat in der Antike, den Andenken Rudolf Starks gewidmet. Wiesbaden: Steiner. 315-329.
Ando, C. 2000. Imperial Ideology and Provincial Loyalty in the Roman Empire. Berkeley: University of California Press.
76 It is noteworthy that arguments based on the worship of imperial images were later reused in the context of the Iconoclastic Controversy: see Kitzinger 1954, 124.
Barnes, T. D. 1996. Christians and the Theater. In W. J. Slater (ed.) Roman Theater and Society. Ann Arbor MI: University of Michigan Press. 161-180.
Belayche, N. 2002. Sacrifice and Theory of Sacrifice during the “Pagan Reaction”: Julian the Emperor. In A. I. Baumgarten (ed.) Sacrifice in Religious Experience. Leiden: Brill. 101126.
Belayche, N. 2005. Realia versus leges? Les sacrifices de la religion d’état au IVe siècle. In S. Georgoudi & R. Koch Piettre & F. Schmidt (eds.) La cuisine et l’autel. Les sacrifices en questions dans les sociétés de la Méditerranée ancienne. Brepols: Turnhout. 343-370.
Bowersock, G. W. 1982. The imperial cult: perceptions and persistence. In B. F. Meyer & E. P. Sanders (eds.) Jewish and Christian Self-Definition in the Greek and Roman World vol. 3. London: SCM Press. 171-182.
Bradbury, S. 1994. Constantine and the Problem of Anti-Pagan Legislation in the Fourth Century. Classical Philology 89, 120-139.
Browning, R. 1952. The Riot of AD 387 in Antioch. Journal of Roman Studies 42, 13-20.
Brubaker, L. 1995. Introduction: The Sacred Image. In R. Ousterhout & L. Brubaker (eds.) The Sacred Image. East and West. Urbana - Chicago: University of Illinois Press. 1-24.
Claussen, M.A. 2011. Pagan Rebellion and Christian Apologetics in Fourth-Century Rome: The Consultationes Zacchaei et Apolloni. Journal of Ecclesiastical History 46, 589-614.
Drake, H.A. 2011. Intolerance, Religious Violence, and Political Legitimacy in Late Antiquity. Journal of the American Academy of Religion 79.1, 193-235.
Ellingson, G. 2003. Functions of Imperial Images in Tetrarchic Politics. Symbolae Osloenses 78, 30-44.
Engemann, J. 1988. Herrscherbild. In E. Dassmann et al. (eds.). Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum 14. Stuttgart: Hiersemann. 966-1047.
Francis, J. A. 2009. Visual and Verbal Representation: Image, Text, Person, and Power. In P. Rousseau (ed.) A Companion to Late Antiquity. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 285-305.
Francis, J. A. 2012. Late Antique Visuality: Blurring the Boundaries between Word and Image, Pagan and Christian. In D. Brakke, D. Deliyannis & E. Watts (eds.) Shifting Cultural Frontiers in Late Antiquity. Farnham: Ashgate. 139-149.
Galinsky, K. 2011. The Cult of the Roman Emperor: Uniter or Divider? In Jeffrey Brodd & Jonathan L. Reed (eds.) Rome and Religion. A Cross-Disciplinary Dialogue on the Imperial Cult. Atlanta: SBL. 1-21.
Gamsey, P. & Humfress, C. 2001. The Evolution of the Late Antique World. Cambridge: Orchard Academic.
Gradel, I. 2002. Emperor Worship and Roman Religion. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Hart, K.W. 1990. Sacrifice and pagan belief in fifth- and sixth-century Byzantium. Past & Present 128, 7-27.
Kahlos, M. 2007. Debate and Dialogue: Christian and Pagan Cultures, c. 380-430. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Kahlos, M. 2009. Forbearance and Compulsion: Rhetoric of Tolerance and Intolerance in Late Antiquity. London: Duckworth.
Kahlos, M. 2013. Polluted by Sacrifices - Christian Repugnance at Sacrificial Rituals in Late Antiquity. In S. Katajala-Peltomas & V. Vuolanto (eds.) Ancient and Medieval Religion in Practice. Rome: Acta Institutı Romani Finlandiae. 159-171.
Kitzinger, E. 1954. The Cult of Images in the Age before Iconoclasm. Dumbarton Oaks Papers 8, 83-149 = reprinted in Kitzinger, E. 1976. The Art of Byzantium and the Medieval West, Selected Studies. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 90-156.
Kolb, F. 2001. Herrscherideologie in der Spätantike. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
Kruse, H. 1934. Studien zur offiziellen Geltung des Kaiserbildes im römischen Reiche. Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des Altertums 19.3. Paderborn: Schöningh.
Lavan, L. 2011. Political Talismans? Residual ‘Pagan’ Statures in Late Antique Public Space. In L. Lavan & M. Mulryan (eds.) The Archaeology of Late Antique ‘Paganism’. Leiden: Brill. 439-477.
Leppin, H. 1999. Steuern, Aufstand und Rhetoren: Der Antiochener Steueraufstand von 387 in christlicher und heidnischer Deutung. In H. Brandt (ed.) Gedeutete Realität. Krisen, Wirklichkeiten, Interpretationen (3.-6. Jh. n. Chr.). Stuttgart: Franz Steiner. 103-123.
Liebeschuetz, J. H. G. W. 1972. Antioch. City and Imperial Administration in the Later Roman Empire. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Lund Warmind, M. 1993. The cult of the Roman Emperor before and after Christianity. T. Ahlbäck (ed.) The Problem of Ritual. Scripta Instituti Donneriani Aboensis 15. Åbo: Åbo Akademi. 211-220.
MacCormack, S. 1981. Art and Ceremony in Late Antiquity. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Mathews, T. F. 2001. The Emperor and the Icon. In J. R. Brandt & O. Steen (eds.) Acta ad archaeologiam et artium historiam pertinentia 15 (n.s. 1). Rome: Institutum Romanum Norvegiae, Bardi Editore. 163-177.
Matthews, J. F. 2000. Laying Down the Law: A Study of the Theodosian Code. New Haven: Yale University Press.
McCormick, M. 1986. Eternal Victory: Triumphal Rulership in Late Antiquity, Byzantium and the Early Medieval West. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Millar, F. 2006. A Greek Roman Empire. Power and Belief under Theodosius II 408-450. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Mitchell, S. 2007. A History of the Later Roman Empire AD 284-641: The transformation of the ancient world. Oxford: Blackwell.
Murray, C. S. 1989. Artistic idiom and doctrinal development. In R. Williams (ed.) The Making of Orthodoxy. Essays in Honour of Henry Chadwick. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 288-307.
Niemeyer, H. G. 1968. Studien zur statuarischen Darstellung der römischen Kaiser. Berlin: Gebr. Mann.
Pekáry, T. 1985. Das römische Kaiserbildnis in Staat, Kult und Gesellschaft, dargestellt anhand der Schriftquellen. Berlin: Gebr. Mann.
Salzman, M. R. 1987. Superstitio in the Codex Theodosianus and the Persecution of Pagans. Vigiliae Christianae 41, 172-188.
Salzman, M.R. 1990. On Roman Time: The Codex Calendar of 354 and the Rhythms of Urban life in Late Antiquity. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Sandwell, I. 2007. Religious Identity in Late Antiquity. Greeks, Jews and Christians in Antioch. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Saradi-Mendelovici, H. 1990. Christian Attitudes towards Pagan Monuments in Late Antiquity and Their Legacy in Later Byzantine Centuries. Dombarton Oaks Papers 44, 47-61.
Smith, R. R. R. 1997. The Public Image of Licinius I: Portrait Sculpture and Imperial Ideology in the Early Fourth Century. Journal of Roman Studies 87, 170-202.
Stewart, P. 1999. The destruction of statues in Late Antiquity. In R. Miles (ed.) Constructing Identities in Late Antiquity. London: Routledge. 159-189.
Ullucci, D. 2012. The Christian Rejection of Animal Sacrifice. New York: Oxford University Press.