Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T13:41:59.462Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Maxentius, the Dioscuri, and the Legitimisation of Imperial Power

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 November 2018

Gwynaeth McIntyre
Gwynaeth McIntyre*
Affiliation:
University of [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Mythological twin brothers played key roles in the establishment and preservation of the city of Rome. This article examines the use of one particular set of brothers, Castor and Pollux, by rival forms of government in the early fourth century ce. In his work on the representations of the Dioscuri on Roman coinage, Gricourt argues that the Dioscuri symbolise the same ideas on Maxentius’ coins as on other such imperial coinage, namely their role in maintaining the eternal order of the universe and their roles as protectors of soldiers.1 More recently, however, Marlowe and Hekster have successfully argued that Maxentius’ ideology was a counterclaim to that presented by the Tetrarchy.2 Developing this notion further with respect to Maxentius’ coinage, this article argues that, for the Tetrarchs, Castor and Pollux served as the ideal figures to symbolise the importance of concordia in the collective rule of like-minded individuals. Maxentius, however, used Castor and Pollux in connection with other symbols of the city of Rome (such as Romulus, Remus, and the she-wolf) on his coins to promote his restoration of the city of Rome (in conjunction with titles such as princeps and conservator urbis suae). The examination of this ideological conflict between Maxentius and the Tetrarchy, through their use of Castor and Pollux on their coinage, sheds light on the mutability of myth and its role in the promotion of particular aspects of mythological narratives and figures to support an individual’s own claims to power.

Type
Research Article
Information
Antichthon , Volume 52 , 2018 , pp. 161 - 180
Copyright
© The Australasian Society for Classical Studies 2018 

Access options

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

Footnotes

Abbreviations for coin references: Gnecchi=F. Gnecchi (1912), I medaglioni romani. 3 vols. Milan; RIC=The Roman Imperial Coinage. 13 vols. London; RRC=M. Crawford (1974), Roman Republican Coinage. Cambridge; Sydenham=E. A. Sydenham (1952), The Coinage of the Roman Republic. London.

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Albertson, F. C. (1985), ‘Maxentian Hoards and the Mint at Ostia’, ANSMN 30, 119-141.Google Scholar
Bannon, C. J. (1997), The Brothers of Romulus: Fraternal Pietas in Roman Law, Literature, and Society. Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
Barnes, T. D. (1982), The New Empire of Diocletian and Constantine. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Belloni, G. G. (1976), ‘Monete romane e propaganda: Impostazione di una problematica complessa’, in M. Sordi (ed.), I canali della propaganda nel mondo antico. 131-159. Milano.Google Scholar
Béranger, J. (1953), Recherches sur l’aspect idéologique du principat. Basel.Google Scholar
Casey, P. J. (1994), Carausius and Allectus: The British Usurpers. London.Google Scholar
Champlin, E. (2011), ‘Tiberius and the Heavenly Twins’, JRS 101, 73-99.Google Scholar
Coarelli, F. (1986), ‘L’urbs e il suburbio’, in A. Giardina (ed.), Società romana e impero tardoantico, vol. 2: Roma: Politica, Economia, Paesaggio Urbano . 1-58. Rome.Google Scholar
Coarelli, F. (1999), ‘L’edilizia publica a Roma in età tetrarchica’, in W. V. Harris (ed.), The Transformation of urbs Roma in Late Antiquity. 23-33. Portsmouth, RI.Google Scholar
Corcoran, S. (1996), The Empire of the Tetrarchs: Imperial Pronouncements and Government, ad 284-324. Oxford.Google Scholar
Cullhed, M. (1989), ‘Maxentius as Princeps’, ORom 17, 9-19.Google Scholar
Cullhed, M. (1994), Conservator urbis suae: Studies in the Politics and Propaganda of the Emperor Maxentius. Stockholm.Google Scholar
Curran, J. R. (2000), Pagan City and Christian Capital. Oxford.Google Scholar
de Decker, D. (1968), ‘La politique religieuse de Maxence’, Byzantion 38, 472-562.Google Scholar
Drijvers, J. W. (2007), ‘Eusebius’ Vita Constantini and the Construction of the Image of Maxentius’, in H. Amirav and B. ter Haar Romeny (eds.), From Rome to Constantinople: Studies in Honour of Averil Cameron. 11-27. Leuven.Google Scholar
Drost, V. (2013), Le monnayage de Maxence (306-321 après J.-C.). Zurich.Google Scholar
Dumser, E. A. (2005), The Architecture of Maxentius: A Study in Architectural Design and Urban Planning in Early Fourth-Century Rome. Diss. University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Dumser, E. A. (2006), ‘The AETERNAE MEMORIAE Coinage of Maxentius: An Issue of Symbolic Intent’, in L. Haselberger and J. Humphrey (eds.), Imaging Ancient Rome: Documentation, Visualization, Imagination. 106-118. Portsmouth, RI.Google Scholar
Ellingsen, G. (2003), ‘Some Functions of Imperial Images in Tetrarchic Politics’, SO 78, 30-44.Google Scholar
Fishwick, D. (1984), ‘Coins as Evidence: Some Phantom Temples’, EMC 28, new ser. 3, 263-270.Google Scholar
Gnilka, C. (1994), ‘Prudentius über das Templum Romae und seine Statuen (Prud. c. Symm. 1,215/237)’, in M. Jordan-Ruwe and U. Real (eds.), Bild- und Formensprache der spätantiken Kunst: Hugo Brandenburg zum 65. Geburtstag. 65-88. Münster.Google Scholar
Gricourt, D. (1994), ‘Les Dioscures sur les monnaies romaines impériales’, DHA 20, 189-224.Google Scholar
Hekster, O. (1999), ‘The City of Rome in Late Imperial Ideology: The Tetrarchs, Maxentius, and Constantine’, MediterrAnt 2, 717-748.Google Scholar
Kalas, G. (2015), The Restoration of the Roman Forum in Late Antiquity: Transforming Public Space. Austin, TX.Google Scholar
Kerr, L. A. (2001), ‘A Topography of Death: The Buildings of the Emperor Maxentius on the Via Appia, Rome’, in M. Carruthers et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the 11th Annual Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference. 24-33. Oxford.Google Scholar
King, C. E. (1959), ‘The Maxentian Mints’, NC 19, 47-78.Google Scholar
Leadbetter, B. (2004), ‘Best of Brothers: Fraternal Imagery in Panegyrics on Maximian Herculius’, CPh 99, 257-266.Google Scholar
Leppin, H. and Ziemssen, H. (2007), Maxentius: Der letzte Kaiser in Rom. Mainz.Google Scholar
Manders, E. (2012), Coining Images of Power: Patterns in the Representation of Roman Emperors on Imperial Coinage, a.d. 193-284. Leiden.Google Scholar
Marlowe, E. (2010), ‘ Liberator urbis suae: Constantine and the Ghost of Maxentius’, in C. B. Ewald and C. F. Noreña (eds.), The Emperor and Rome: Space, Representation, and Ritual. 199-1219. New Haven, CT.Google Scholar
Oenbrink, W. (2006), ‘Maxentius als “conservator urbis suae”: Ein antitetrarchisches Herrschaftskonzept tetrarchischer Zeit’, in D. von Boschung and W. Eck (eds.), Die Tetrarchie: Ein neues Regierungssystem und seine mediale Präsentation. 169-204. Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
Overbeck, B. (2000), ‘Ein neuer Nummustyp des Maxentius: Versuch einer historischen Einordnung’, JNG 50, 73-80.Google Scholar
Pond Rothman, M. S. (1975), ‘The Panel of the Emperors Enthroned on the Arch of Galerius’, ByzSt 2.1, 19-40.Google Scholar
Pond Rothman, M. S. (1977), ‘The Thematic Organization of the Panel Reliefs on the Arch of Galerius’, JRA 81, 427-454.Google Scholar
Poulsen, B. (1991), ‘The Dioscuri and Ruler Ideology’, SO 66, 119-146.Google Scholar
Rees, R. (1993), ‘Images and Image: A Re-Examination of Tetrarchic Iconography’, G&R 40, 181-200.Google Scholar
Rees, R. (2004), Diocletian and the Tetrarchy . Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Smith, R. R. R. (1997), ‘The Public Image of Licinius I: Portrait Sculpture and Imperial Ideology in the Early Fourth Century’, JRS 87, 170-202.Google Scholar
Sumi, G. (2009), ‘Monuments and Memory: The Aedes Castoris in the Formation of Augustan Ideology’, CQ 59, 167-186.Google Scholar
Sutherland, C. H. V. (1963), ‘Some Political Notions in Coin Types between 294-313’, JRS 53, 14-20.Google Scholar
Varner, E. R. (2014), ‘Maxentius, Constantine, and Hadrian: Images and the Expropriation of Imperial Identity’, in S. Birk, T. M. Kristensen, and B. Poulsen (eds.), Using Images in Late Antiquity. 48-77. Oxford.Google Scholar
Wardman, A. E. (1984), ‘Usurpers and Internal Conflicts in the 4th Century A.D. ’, Historia 33, 220-237.Google Scholar
Ziemssen, H. (2006), ‘Maxentius and the City of Rome: Imperial Building Policy in an Urban Context’, in C.C. Mattusch, A. A. Donohue, and A. Brauer (eds.), Common Ground: Archaeology, Art, Science, and Humanities: Proceedings of the XVIth International Congress of Classical Archaeology. Boston, Aug. 23-25, 2003. 400-4. Oxford.Google Scholar
Ziemssen, H. (2012), ‘Die Kaiserresidenz Rom in der Zeit der Tetrarchie’, in T. Fuhrer (ed.), Rom und Mailand in der Spätantike: Repräsentationen städtischer Räume in Literatur, Architektur und Kunst. 87-110. Berlin.Google Scholar