¹ Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Antikensammlung, Inv.No. I 932. Colossal marble head. H: 86 cm; H, chin to crown: 58 cm; W: 45.5 cm; D: 46 cm. Found: ‘Im Mittelgang der Bühne’, so the Austrian excavation daybook for 19 November 1897, quoted by Oberleitner (n. 17), 153. Some technical details. The lower neck is finished as a tenon for insertion in a statue. A rectangular dowel hole in the nape was for a wide clamp to fasten the head to its statue (Pl. II, 1). The metal dowel in the hair above the nape is modern. The surface is well preserved, and only the extremities are missing: chin, nose, outer helix of both ears. The crown of the head was originally added separately as a shallow disk of marble (see Pl. IV, 1). The back of the head is almost completely flat, without its proper volume in depth front to back. For publications and discussions of the portrait: see below nn. 6–23.

² Constantine: FZ I, no. 122 (Capitoline); L'Orange, Herrscherbild, pls 48–9 (Belgrade, Istanbul, New York). Later portraits: for example, head in Terme, below n. 8.

³ IR I, no. 27. Daltrop, G.et al., Die Flavier: Das römische Herrscherbild II. 1 (1966), 86, 100, pl. 15bGoogle Scholar.

⁴ Delbrueck, Kaiserporträts, 219–26, pls 116–20; Stichel, 61, pls 30–1.

⁵ Reconstruction of scaena: Heberdey, R., Niemann, G. and Wilberg, W., Forschungen in Ephesos II: Das Theater (1912), 53–94Google Scholar. The available restored heights of the central niche at first-storey level (max. 3 m) and of the main niches at stage level beside the central door (max. 4 m) suggest the statue might (like the colossal Constantine from the Basilica Nova: FZ I, no. 122) have been a seated figure. See Heberdey, 92, fig. 189; cf. Scherrer, P. (ed.), Ephesos: Der neue Führer (1995), 160–4, fig. 1.Google Scholar

⁶ L'Orange, Studien, 76–7, 144, no. 105, figs 199–200.

⁷ L'Orange, Studien, 76.

⁸ L'Orange, Studien, 144. Terme head: ibid., 142, no. 102, figs 194–5.

⁹ L'Orange, Studien, 76.

¹⁰ Kollwitz, J., Oströmische Plastik der theodosianischen Zeit (1941), 130–1, pl. 44.Google Scholar

¹¹ ibid., 130. ‘Honorius’ in Louvre: Delbrueck, , Kaiserporträts, 215–16, pl. 112Google Scholar; Stichel, 56–7, pl. 23b, 24b; de Kersauson, K., Musée du Louvre: Catalogue des portraits romains II (1996)Google Scholar, no. 257.

¹² Bandinell, R. Bianchi, Rome: The Late Empire (1971), 363Google Scholar, fig. 346: ‘This head … has evolved still further … dating … to the mid-fifth century’.

¹³ Agora Depot, Archaeological Museum, Izmir. Colossal marble head broken off through the top of the neck. H: 54 cm; W: 33 cm; D: 45.5 cm. Found in the 1920s(?) in the Turkish excavations in the Roman agora of Smyrna conducted by Selâhattin Kantar: Naumann, R. and Kantar, S., ‘Die Agora von Smyrna’, in Kleinasien und Byzanz: Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Altertumskunde und Kunstgeschichte (= Istanbuler Forschungen 17, 1950), 104Google Scholar, no. 29: ‘FO: Basilika Westende’. The authors do not state whether the head was found at the main, ground-floor level of the basilica or in the elaborate vaulted substructure basement beneath. Its surface is much abraded all over, and the ears and most of the features in the front plane of the face are destroyed. The full extent of the hair, however, is preserved, with most of the brow, cheeks, right eye and the (proper) right half of the mouth.

¹⁴ Naumann and Kantar, op. cit. (n. 13), 104: ‘Wegen der Zerstörung ist der Kopf schwer zu beurteilen. Er dürfte im fünften Jahrhundert n. Chr. gearbeitet sein; zu vergleichen etwa Kollwitz, Oströmische Plastik Taf.44 [= the Vienna head]’. They exaggerate somewhat the poor condition of the head: ‘Das Gesicht ist fast vollständig zerstört; erhalten sind nur Teile der Schläfen, die Stirn mit zwei Querfalten und das Haar’ (ibid.). More than this can be made out.

¹⁵ IR I, 119–20, no. 133 (Izmir) and 149–50, no. 191 (Vienna).

¹⁶ IR I, 119. Fittschen, K., GGA 225 (1973), 46–67Google Scholar, at 53 agreed with the fifth-century date.

¹⁷ Oberleitner, W., ‘Zwei spätantiken Kaiserköpfe aus Ephesos’, Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien 69 (1973), 127–65Google Scholar, at 153–65, figs 141–5.

¹⁸ Marcian's coins: Kent-Hirmer, nos 773–4.

¹⁹ Severin, H. G., Zur Porträtplastik des 5.Jhds.n.Chr. (1972), 93–4Google Scholar: ‘Eine bessere Datierung [than that of L'Orange and Kollwitz] … kann ich nicht geben…’.

²⁰ Bergmann, 162–3.

²¹ IR II, 37, n. 167.

²² Fittschen, K., GGA 236 (1984), 208–9, no. 309Google Scholar.

²³ Meischner, J., ‘Das Porträt der Valentinianischen Epoche’, JdI 107 (1992), 217–21Google Scholar. This date also suggested more briefly earlier: Meischner, J., ‘Fragen sur römischen Porträtgeschichte unter besonderer Berücksichtigung kleinasiatischen Beispiele’, Bonn. Jhb. 181 (1981), 143–67Google Scholar, at 158.

²⁴ Delbrueck, Kaiserporträts, 193–5, pls 90–1; Stichel, 49–50, pls 13–14.

²⁵ One thinks of corpulent images such as the following. (1) The coin portraits of the usurpers Magnentius and Decentius (A.D. 350s): Kent-Hirmer, nos 672–4; Age of Spirituality, no. 41 (W. E. Metcalf). (2) A diademed imperial bust in Vienne of the later fourth century: Delbrueck, Kaiserporträts, 175–7, pls 76–7; Stichel, 43, pl. 6; L'Orange, Herrscherbild, 90, 140, pl. 62. (3) One or two background figures on the Theodosian base in Constantinople (A.D. 390): G. Bruns, Der Obelisk und seine Basis auf dem Hippodrom zu Konstantinopel (1935), fig. 81. (4) The poet of the fifth-century Monza ivory diptych (‘Claudian’): Volbach, W. F., Elfenbeinarbeiten der Spätantike und frühe Mittelalters (3rd edn, 1976), no. 68.Google Scholar

²⁶ There is a highly developed methodology in this area with which great advances have been made in recent years. Among important and accessible studies are: Fittschen, K., ‘Zum angeblichen Bildnis des Lucius Verus im Thermen-Museum’, JdI 86 (1971), 214–52Google Scholar; Bergmann, M., Marc Aurel (1978)Google Scholar; Zanker, P., Studien zu den Augustus-Porträts I. Der Actium-Typus (1973)Google Scholar; Vierneisel, K. and Zanker, P., Die Bildnisse des Augustus (1979)Google Scholar. The significance of this work and the uses of the methodology are described by the present writer in ‘Typology and diversity in the portraits of Augustus’, JRA 9 (1996), 31–47Google Scholar.

²⁷ See Pl. II, 1–3 and above n. 1.

²⁸ Fuchs, M., Untersuchungen zur Austattung römischer Theater (1987), 79, 82–4, 170.Google ScholarBoschung, D., Die Bildnisse des Augustus: Das römische Herrscherbild I.2 (1993)Google Scholar, no. 174, pl. 139.

²⁹ FZ I, no. 122. For the find position: Buddensieg, T., ‘Die Konstantinbasilika in einer Zeichnung Franceso di Giorgio und der Marmorkoloss Konstantins des Grossen’, Münch.Jhb. 13 (1962), 37–48Google Scholar.

³⁰ On the diadem: Delbrueck, Kaiserporträts, 56–66; Alföldi, 93–5; Bruun, RIC VII, 43–4; Ritter, W., Diadem und Königsherrschaft (1965)Google Scholar; Alfoldi, A., Die monarchische Repräsentation im römischen Kaiserreiche (1970), 263–8, and index s.v. ‘diadem’Google Scholar; Smith, R. R. R., Hellenistic Royal Portraits (1988), 34–8Google Scholar; Bastien, P., Le buste monétaire des empereurs romains, 3 vols (1992–1994), 143–67Google Scholar.

³¹ This coin: RIC VII Siscia 206; Kent-Hirmer, no. 655. Further details, n. 99.

³² Later the simpler ‘pearl diadem’ predominates — a plain band edged on both sides by ‘pearls’, with a central jewel over the forehead: Delbrueck, Kaiserporträts, 59–63.

³³ The sources are, however, clear on two points. (1) The diadem was part of Constantine's royal costume: Eusebius, V.Const. 4.66.2 (Constantine lying in state in 337 dressed in ‘the royal ornaments, the purple robe, and the diadem’); Eusebius, De laud.Const. 5.6 (diadem is part of royal costume at tricennalia of 336); ‘Aurelius Victor’, Epitome de Caesaribus 41.14 (‘habitum regium gemmis et caput exornans perpetuo diademate’). And (2) Constantine was the first emperor to wear the diadem: Cedrenus I, p. 517.7 (Bonn); Chronicon Paschale I, 529.18 (A.D. 331); Malalas, Chron. 13.321.17 (Bonn). Most of these texts are quoted by Delbrueck, Kaiserporträts, XI–XIX, some by Calza, 38–9, A 15–18.

³⁴ Delbrueck, Kaiserporträts, 56–8 (‘Diademe — Vorformen’) detected a diadem on some of Licinius' coins, where however the attribute is clearly rather a schematic- and metallic-looking laurel wreath: so Alföldi, 142–3; Bruun, RIC VII, 44, n. 1. Claims that Aurelian wore the diadem (‘Aurelius Victor’, Epitome de Caesaribus 35.5; Malalas, Chron. p. 299, 20C) are refuted by the numismatic evidence.

³⁵ For a long perspective and discussion of the emperor's role as basileus: Millar, F., The Emperor in the Roman World (1977), 612–15.Google Scholar

³⁶ Undiademed heads of Constantine: FZ I, 149–51, nos 1–13 (all, except no. 9, undiademed); L'Orange, Herrscherbild, 118–28, pls 32–41. Rare diademed sculptured head of Constantine, from Naissus: Delbrueck, Kaiserporträts, 119–21, pls 35–6; SuFC, no. 40; L'Orange, Herrscherbild, 120, pl. 48. Diademed heads later than Constantine: collected in Stichel.

³⁷ Rare examples. (1) ‘Ariadne’: FZ III, no. 39 (three versions). (2) ‘Valentinian I/Valens’: FZ I, no. 126 (three versions).

³⁸ For example, in large-scale sculpture, three heads in the Capitoline: FZ I, nos 124–5 (Constantinian princes) and 127 (Theodosian prince, ‘Honorius’).

³⁹ Kent-Hirmer, pls 166–99 offers a good conspectus of emperors, princes, and usurpers on coins in the period after 337.

⁴⁰ See, for example, the ‘Claudian’ diptych, above n. 25.

⁴¹ Delbrueck, R., Die Münzbildnisse von Maximinus bis Carinus: Das römische Herrscherbild III.2 (1940)Google Scholar; Bracker, J.et al., Gordianus III bis Carinus: Das römische Herrscherbild III.3 (1979)Google Scholar.

⁴² Stubble: Tacitus, Hist. 2.11 (and below n. 157). Smiling accessibility: sources collected in J. Hellegouarc'h, Le vocabulaire latin des relations et des partis politiques sous la republique (1963), 215–17, on comitas and facilitas; cf. Giuliani, L., Bildnis und Botschaft: Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zur Bildniskunst der römischen Republik (1986), 74–5, 98. Discussed further, Section VII.Google Scholar

⁴³ On which, Bergmann, 30–43, and SuFC, 41–9; Bracker, op. cit. (n. 41); Fittschen, in FZ I, nos 105, 110–11.

⁴⁴ Eutropius, Breviarium 9.9, 13, and 17 (on Victorinus, Aurelian, and Probus).

⁴⁵ On these emperors, their role, and priorities: Syme, R., Emperors and Biography: Studies in the Historia Augusta (1971), chs 11–13Google Scholar; Potter, D., Prophecy and History in the Crisis of the Roman Empire (1990), 3–64, esp. 12–16.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Duty to crush barbarians: for example, Pan.Lat. 7.14.1. Diocletian at the start of his Price Edict preamble ( refs, n. 62) puts it like this: ‘we have crushed the former seething ravages of barbarian nations by massacring them’ (‘aestuantes de praeterito rapinas gentium barbararum ipsarum nationum clade conpressimus’).

⁴⁷ This is perhaps worth emphasizing because it has occasionally been doubted that the short-cropped hairstyle was that of the camp: Bergmann, M., ‘Zeittypen im Kaiserporträt’, in Römisches Porträt: Wege zur Erforschung eines gesellschaftlichen Phänomenons (Wiss.Zeit.Berlin 31, 1982), 145–7Google Scholar and SuFC, 44.

⁴⁸ Bergmann, 32–3 (Maximus Junior), 35–8 (Philippus Junior). For illustrations: V. Poulsen, Les portraits romatns (1974) II, nos 165–6 (Maximus), 140–2 (Philippus, there misidentified as Alexander Severus); Bracker, op. cit. (n. 41), 42–50, pls 15–20 (Philippus).

⁴⁹ Best general discussion: Bergmann, 163–79 — the only detailed work on the portraits of this period based on methodologically consistent identifications and which recognizes that not all portraits of this period can be named. Other work is based on more or less arbitrary identifications. Most recent studies: J. Meischner, ‘Die Porträtkunst der ersten und zweiten Tetrarchie bis zur Alleinherrschaft Konstantins: 293 bis 324 n.Chr.’, AA (1986), 223–50; L'Orange, Herrscherbild, 3–36; Rees, R., ‘Images and image: a re-examination of tetrarchic iconography’, Greece and Rome 40 (1993), 181–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Baratte, F., ‘Observations sur le portrait romain à l'époque tétrarchique’, Antiquite Tardive 3 (1995), 65–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the relationship of Diocletian's coin reform of the 290s and tetrarchic coin style: H. A. Cahn, ‘Kunstgeschichtliche Bemerkungen zu Diokletians Münzreform’, Gestalte und Geschichte: Fest. K. Schefold (1967), 91–5.

⁵⁰ Antioch: L'Orange, Herrscherbild, 27, 106, pl. 18 c-d. Cairo: L'Orange, Herrscherbild, 27–8, 107, pl. 19; G. Grimm, Kunst der Ptolemäer- und Römerzeit im Ägyptischen Museum Kairo (1975), no. 29, pls 58–61 has the best published photographs.

⁵¹ Delbrueck, Porphyrwerke, 84–91 (Venice), 91–2 (Vatican), pls 31–7; L'Orange, Herrscherbild, 6–10, 99 (Vatican), 103 (Venice), pls 4–7.

⁵² Clearest in a later example from this period: coin images of Constantine minted at Nicomedia look more like Licinius: RIC VII Nicomedia 7 (pl. 20); see P. Bruun, ‘Notes on the transmission of imperial images in late antiquity’, Studia Romano in honorem P. Krarup (1976), 122–31. Intractable identifications: there are no agreed identifications of individual sculptured heads, for example, of Diocletian, Maximian, Severus, or Maximinus Daia. The difficulties are readily apparent in the arbitrary division of sculptures in the catalogues of Calza and L'Orange, Herrscherbild. In Calza, for example, the Cairo bust (here Pl. VIII, 4) is catalogued separately three times, as Galerius, Maximinus Daia, and Licinius (Calza, nos 55, 102, and 122)! Cf. Bergmann, SuFC, 49–50.

⁵³ Maximian: best in DOP, nos 9–19. Constantius: Kent-Hirmer, nos 583 and 585. Note also the Trier medallion with two double portraits showing all four emperors of the first tetrarchy: Age of Spirituality, no. 31 (with comments of W. E. Metcalf).

⁵⁴ L'Orange, Herrscherbild, 3–6. Accepted, for example, by Rees, op. cit. (n. 49), passim.

⁵⁵ Pan.Lat. 7.3.3; 7.14.5; 6.4.3; cf. 4.3.4–7.

⁵⁶ Pan.Lat. 10.9.5, so correctly translated by Nixon-Rodgers: ‘not any resemblance of features, but rather resemblance of character’. Nixon-Rodgers, 68, n. 34, appeal to the monuments to refute the claim of non vultuum similtudo, but complete assimilation was not imperial policy, merely a frequent result.

⁵⁷ The prevalence of re-working old portraits in this period is not in itself an explanation of the difficulties in identification: the style and form of an earlier portrait can intrude into a reworked portrait (cf. below n. 68), but not always or necessarily. Indeed, a thoroughly reworked head can be as typologically precise as one made from new stone. Most of Constantine's surviving portraits, for example, were made from recycled sculptures, but are readily identifiable by their use of a central type: below nn. 90–1, 93–4.

⁵⁸ Ammianus Marcellinus, 15.5.18; Eutropius, Breviarium 9.26; Aurelius Victor, De Caesaribus 39.1–4. Cf. Alföldi, op. cit. (n. 30), 6–9.

⁵⁹ On the old controversy, whether ‘the Orient or Rome’ was more influential in the make-up of late antique art, see Von Sydow, 12–16 and Bergmann, 163–4, both with full references to the works of chief protagonists, such as J. Strzygowski (for the Orient) and G. Rodenwalt (for the native plebeian/provincial Roman traditions).

⁶⁰ On ius vetus: Corcoran, 69–73.

⁶¹ For example, Pan.Lat. 6.17.1.

⁶² Edict on incestuous marriages: Riccobono, S.et al., Fontes Iuris Rotnani Anteiustiniani (2nd edn, 1940), II, 558–60Google Scholar. Imperial letter on the Manichees: Riccobono, ibid., II, 580–1. Prices Edict preamble: ILS 642 (abridged); Giacchero, M., Edictum Diocletiani et Collegarum de pretiis rerum venalium (1974) I, 134–7Google Scholar; Lauffer, S., Diokletians Preisedikt (1971), 90–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Roueché, C., Aphrodisias in Late Antiquity (1989), no. 231Google Scholar; full English translation by Graser, E. R. in Frank, T., An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome V (1940), 310–17Google Scholar. On the ‘intense moral fervour’ of imperial legislation and its rhetoric in this period: Barnes, 19–20; Corcoran, 207–13 (on Price Edict preamble). One can think of comparable symbolic legislation in modern societies — that is, legislation whose motivation is unrelated to its ostensible purpose.

⁶³ cf. Corcoran, 69 (with refs): Diocletian is fond of citing the Laws of the Twelve Tables.

⁶⁴ Riccobono, op. cit. (n. 62), II, 559.

⁶⁵ Porphyry sculptures: below n. 70. On the eastern mints: L'Orange, Studien, 24–6; Harrison, E., ‘The Constantinian portrait’, DOP 21 (1967), 81–4Google Scholar; Cahn, op. cit. (n. 49), sees the distinctive Diocletianic portrait style on the coinage as a development of the Eastern mints. Their style seems not, however, to represent a general ‘Eastern’ stylistic regional preference, merely the particular response of some mints to the tetrarchic portrait manner. This is shown later at the same mints by the style of their portraits of Constantine and Constantius II which have no such ‘Eastern’ handling of the central imperial style then prevailing (see, for example, DOP, nos 127–38). In other words, the style, for example, of the Antioch mint in the early fourth century is better viewed as ‘(radical) tetrarchic’ than as ‘Eastern’.

⁶⁶ For example, heads in Milan (Calza, 122, no. 30; here Pl. IX. 3), Florence (Bergmann, 153, pl. 45.5–6), Capitoline (Calza 92–3, no. 2; Bergmann, 140–1, pl. 40.1). Bergmann, 153, sees the Milan head as a forgery because it copies the Florence head. The two are related, but not as model and (modern) copy. The form of the forehead hair and its relation to the brow, for example, are in each case rather different, suggesting they draw loosely on a common model. Cf. Meischner, J., ‘Bemerkungen zu einigen Kaiserporträts des 3-Jhdts.n.Chr.’, AA (1995), 375–87Google Scholar, at 376, on the Milan head.

⁶⁷ IR II.no. 255, pl. 182.

⁶⁸ For example. (1) Portraits in Side: IR I, nos 63–5. (2) Head in Basel: M. Bergmann in H. Jucker and D. Willers, Gesichter: Griechische und römische Bildnisse aus Schweizer Besitz (1982), no. 92; H. A. Cahn, ‘Adlemase und Backenbart’, in Kanon: Fest. E. Berger (1988), 218–21; M. Bergmann in E. Berger (ed.), Antike Kunstwerke aus der Sammlung Ludwig III: Skulpturen (1990), 383–401, no. 254. (3) Head in Getty: L'Orange, Herrscherbild, 108, pl. 21c–d. (4) Head in Karlsruhe: K. Fittschen, in IR II, no. 343 (period of Probus); dated correctly in later tetrarchic period by J. Meischner, AA (1986), 230–1, fig. 8; Bergmann, Ludwig III, 386, n. 3 (there reported now to be in a private collection in Tübingen). Several (all?) of these portraits were recut from older heads, but each attempts to adjust them to a local understanding of tetrarchic style. Cf. Weber, M., ‘Einspätantikes Privatporträt aus Kleinasien’, Ist.Mitt. 45 (1995), 123–9Google Scholar.

Other imperial heads of this period little affected by the central tetrarchic style, were the result of less thoroughgoing re-workings of earlier, second-century portraits from which the classical reserve still comes through. Two examples. (1) Head wearing corona civica from Nicomedia (‘Diocletian’): IR I, no. 61; SuFC no. 23; Meischner, op. cit. (n. 66), 375–82, figs 1–2 — the handling of the eyes and brow are clearly tetrarchic, but the length and style of the hair at the back and of the thick beard are in my opinion those of an earlier (Antonine?) head. (2) Head wearing corona civica, Levy-White collection, New York: M. L. Anderson in D. von Bothmer (ed.), Glories of the Past: Ancient Art from the Shelby White and Leon Levy Collection (1990), no. 165 — re-worked, surely from a head of Trajan (the beard is engraved into the surface of a previously clean-shaven marble face).

⁶⁹ Venice and Vatican relief groups: above n. 51. Multiiugum imperium: Pan.Lat. 6.15.5. Concordia: esp. Pan.Lat. 10.11.1–3, ‘Your concord has this result … you rule the state with one mind … governing, so to speak, with right hands clasped’; cf. Nixon-Rodgers, 43.

⁷⁰ Cairo, Antioch: above n. 50. Fragment from Tekija, in Belgrade: Bergmann, 166, n. 683 (with earlier lit.), pl. 48.6 — it was clearly part of a fine head in the round closely related to the Cairo head. On the status of the porphyry sculptures within tetrarchic representation and ‘their centrally organized production’, see esp. Bergmann, 163–8 (phrase quoted from p. 167). Note also (1) a fragment of a porphyry togatus from Edirne (Istanbul: Mendel, 652), a copy of the same type as the enthroned porphyry togatus in Alexandria: Delbrueck, Porphyrwerke, 98, fig. 36; and (2) a marble fragment of a relief group in Istanbul of precisely the same type as the porphyry group in Venice: Strzygowski, J., ‘Orient oder Rom. Stichprobe: Die Porphyrgruppen von S.Marco in Venedig’, Klio 2 (1902), 105–24Google Scholar, at 119–20, fig. 8.

⁷¹ A fragment of console and foot that joins the Venice group was excavated in Istanbul: Naumann, R., Ist.Mitt. 16 (1966), 209–11Google Scholar, pl. 43.2. For hypothetical reconstruction of the context of the two groups: W. Müller-Wiener, Bildlexikon zur Topographie Istanbuls (1997), 267, fig. 302a. For the context of the Vatican groups, near the tops of two porphyry columns: Delbrueck, Porphyrwerke, 93, fig. 34. Fragment from Niš: Bergmann, 165, pl. 51.1–2; SuFC, 409–10, no. 28.

⁷² cf. Corcoran, 207–15, 229–33, 293–7. For a stimulating attempt to relate tetrarchic art, architecture, and government in a general way: H. P. L'Orange, Art Forms and Civic Life in the Later Roman Empire (1965).

⁷³ Bergman, , Ludwig III, op. cit. (n. 68), 390Google Scholar: ‘eine Art Stilchaos’; also Harrison, op. cit. (n. 65), 81: ‘The scene that we have to survey is a restless one’.

⁷⁴ Andreae, B., The Art of Rome (1977), 328Google Scholar: ‘the logical consequences (sc. of the tetrarchic style) were carried so far that the vital thread of the development finally snapped’.

⁷⁵ Galerius: DOP, nos 23–7, and below nn. 131–2. Maximinus: DOP, nos 28–33; Kent-Hirmer, nos 605–6 (generally beardless). Note also coin image of Severus (reigned 305–307): Kent-Hirmer, nos 602–4.

⁷⁶ Constantius' coin portraits: Kent-Hirmer, nos 583 and 585. Constantine's curved nose is explicitly noted in the Anonymous Byzantine Life of Constantine (BHG 364), Sect. 8 = S. N. C. Lieu and D. Montserrrat, From Constantine to Julian: Pagan and Byzantine Views. A Source History (1996), 115; Calza, 34. A2.

⁷⁷ Copenhagen: Poulsen, op. cit. (n. 48), 189, no. 179, pls 320–1. Berlin: C. Blümel, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin. Katalog der Sammlung antiken Skulpturen VI: Römische Bildnisse (1933), 50, R 121, pls 78–9. On the type: Bergmann, 144–7, pls 41.5–6, 42.4–5; L'Orange, Herrscherbild, 30, 110, pls 24–5.

⁷⁸ So still, for example, by Poulsen, op. cit. (n. 48). Other receptions of the extraordinary manner of Constantius I's image in imperial portraits include the following. (1) The two elder recut heads in the tondi of the Arch of Constantine in Rome (context shows this must be Divus Constantius, not Licinius) — they have the curved nose but not the long lean face: Calza, R., ‘Un problema di iconografia imperiale sull'arco di Constantino’, Rend.Pont.Accad. ser. 3, 32 (1959–1960), 133–61Google Scholar; L'Orange, Herrscherbild, 40–9, pls 28–9, defends his old identification as Licinius without success. (2) Head in Karlsruhe: IR II, no. 343 and above n. 68 — exaggerated lean face and slightly curved nose suggest perhaps a provincial version of Constantius' portrait. For examples of ‘private’ reception, in non-imperial portrait representation, see (1) portrait stele in Cyrene: E. Rosenbaum, A Catalogue of Cyrenaican Portrait Sculpture (1960), 122, no. 281, pl. 100.1; (2) the remarkable, expressionist portrait herm of one Asklepiades in the Capitoline: G. M. A. Richter, Portraits of the Greeks (1965), III, 288–9, fig. 2055.

⁷⁹ RIC VI Ostia 3; Alföldi, 53–6, pl. 2.36–9; Kent-Hirmer, no. 615.

⁸⁰ Coin profiles: Kent-Hirmer, nos 612–16, L'Orange, Herrscherbild, pl. 66f-g. Dresden and Stockholm heads: Bergmann, 142–3 (with full refs n. 564), pls 44.3, 45.1 (both); SuFC, no. 35 (Stockholm); L'Orange, Herrscherbild, 35, pl. 27a-d (both).

⁸¹ Outside dates: c. 272–283. T. D. Barnes, The New Empire of Diocletian and Constantine (1982), 39, for an early date of c. 272/3. Most recently for a later date: Nixon-Rodgers, 195, n. 10, with full lit.

⁸² RIC VI Rome 141, pl. 6; Kent-Hirmer, no. 611.

⁸³ Wright, D. H., ‘The true face of Constantine the Great’, DOP 41 (1987), 493–507Google Scholar, at 494–6, figs 6–7, for rare gold of Trier, 306. Rare silver of 306 from Trier has beginnings of a different hairstyle (brushed forward and longer): RIC VI Trier 636; Wright, ibid., fig. 8; L'Orange, Herrscherbild, pl. 67a.

⁸⁴ See above n. 48. Cf. Wright, op. cit. (n. 83), 494.

⁸⁵ Wright, op. cit. (n. 83), 496, figs 10, 12, 13; L'Orange, Herrscherbild, pl. 67 b, c, e.

⁸⁶ Frontal nimbate bust, 316 (here Pl. XI, 2): RIC VII Ticinum 41, pl. 9; Alföldi, figs 65–8. Medallion with Sol, 313 (here Pl. XI, 3): Kent-Hirmer, no. 629. Note also the helmeted frontal coin portrait with christogram, 315: RIC VII Ticinum 36; Kent-Hirmer, no. 648.

⁸⁷ Kent-Hirmer, no. 150.

⁸⁸ For example, Gemma Augustea and Blacas cameo: W.-R. Megow, Kameen von Augustus bis Alexander Severus (1987), 155, A 10 and 166, A 18, pls 5.6–7 and 8.6. Tiberian coins: n. 87 and Pl. XI, 4.

⁸⁹ MAXENTIUS PRINC INVICT: RIC VI, 695. Cullhed, M., Conservator Urbis Suae: Studies in the Politics and Propaganda of the Emperor Maxentius (1994), 32–44Google Scholar.

⁹⁰ Alföldi, 57–69, ‘Das trajanische Bild Constantins’, followed for example by P. Zanker (FZ I, no. 122), argued for a specific assimilation to Trajan, supported by literary texts. Earlier scholars, for example, Delbrueck, Kaiserporträts, 12 (cf. Von Sydow 45–9, with further references), had seen both Augustan and Trajanic elements. Wright, op. cit. (n. 83), based on the coins, rightly sees a more specific resonance of Augustus' portraits. Their images are closely connected in their handling of a tall, youthful, handsome profile. Trajan's portraits have the same hairstyle, brushed lank onto the brow, and are clean-shaven, but they have a markedly squat, short profile and emphatically lined features of mature age. The key elements shared by the images of Constantine and Augustus were youth and beauty, whose visual language in antiquity was that of classical form. ‘Constantinian classicism’ was thus less a period style than a visual means specific to the projection of a majestic youth by Constantine and his successors.

For a large head of Constantine, found recently at Bolsena, probably worked out of an earlier Augustus portrait: Giuliano, A., ‘Augustus-Constantinus’, Boll.d.Arte 76 (1991), nos 68–9, 3–10Google Scholar.

⁹¹ L'Orange, , Herrscherbild, 54–7Google Scholar; and esp. P. Zanker in FZ I, no. 122, with list of portraits.

⁹² Above n. 86.

⁹³ Set on a statue that does not belong. H: 38 cm. Calza, no. 140; Carinci, F., Sculture di Palazzo Mattei, Stud.Misc. 20 (1972), 32Google Scholar, pl. 40a-c; idem in L. Guerrini (ed.), Palazzo Mattei di Giove: Le Antichità (1982), 147–8, no. 21, pl. 42; L'Orange, Herrscherbild, 55–6, 126–7, pl. 39a-b; Zanker, FZ I, 150, no. 6; Evers, C., ‘Remarques sur l'iconographie de Constantin’, MEFRA 103 (1991), 785–806CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 799.

⁹⁴ P. Zanker, FZ I, no. 122. The head has a huge hooked nose, jutting dimpled chin, and square jawline. The combination of physiognomical particularity and truly colossal scale (H: 2.97 m; H, chin to crown: 1.74 m) is most unusual and gives this monument its extraordinary and memorable effect. Zanker takes it as the best of the copies. The head probably re-uses an earlier colossal image (so Zanker, but surely not yet, in the early fourth century, that of a divinity). Evers, op. cit. (n. 93), 794–9, on the basis of the forward-curled locks over the temples, sees re-use from a head of Hadrian; but some early coins of Constantine (Wright, above n. 83 and here Pl. XI, 1) show such curls.

⁹⁵ Barnes, 35–7; Grünewald, T., Constantinus Maximus Augustus: Herrschaftspropaganda in der zeitgenossischen Überlieferung (1990), 46–61.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Detailed commentaries: Müller-Rettig, B., Der Panegyricus des Jahres 310 auf Konstantin den Grossen (1990)Google Scholar; Nixon-Rodgers, 211–17.

⁹⁷ Rodgers, B. S., ‘Constantine's pagan vision’, Byzantion 50 (1980), 259–78Google Scholar; cf. Müller-Rettig, op. cit. (n. 96), 280–6, 330–8; Grünewald, op. cit. (n. 95), 50–4. Useful commentary in Nixon-Rodgers, 248–51, nn. 91–3.

⁹⁸ ‘Fundator quietis, pacis’: ILS 694.3 (Arch of Constantine); RIC VII, 738. ‘Lux perpetua’: Pan.Lat. 8.4.3. ‘Beata tranquillitas’: RIC VII, 729.

⁹⁹ Delbrueck, Kaiserporträts, 74–5, pl. 2.21–4, pl. 3.25–33 (upward-staring, with various diadem forms); DOP, nos 54–6 (Nicomedia, 325–6, with plain diadem); Alföldi, 93–4, figs 164–76 (earliest upward-staring, 325, with plain diadem), figs 187–206 (326, varied diadem forms); Kent-Hirmer, no. 655 (327).

¹⁰⁰ Eusebius, V.Const. 4.15. On these coins, Alföldi, A., JRS 22 (1932), 17Google Scholar — ‘His whole being … flooded with religious enthusiasm’ (cited approvingly by L'Orange, Herrscherbild, 53) — hits the wrong note. One might better say the image is flooded with something like royal charisma. Cf. Delbrueck, Kaiserporträts, 59; W. E. Metcalf, Age of Spirituality, on no. 34.

¹⁰¹ Delbrueck, , Kaiserporträts, 76–7, pl. 4.41–7Google Scholar; Alföldi, figs 220–3, 230, 234; Kent-Hirmer, nos 653, 657; Age of Spirituality, nos 35, 37.

¹⁰² RIC VII Siscia 18, 20 (pl. 12), Serdica 3, Thessalonica 5 (pl. 15), Heraclea 4, 6, 9, 12, 13, 15 (pl. 17), Nicomedia 2, 10, 11, 18, 20 (pl. 20); L'Orange, Herrscherbild, pl. 68 d, e, f (Nicomedia, Serdica); Garbsch-Overbeck, 91, 93, M 87 (Nicomedia) and M 48–56 (bronzes).

¹⁰³ RIC VII Antioch 2, 3, 20 (pl. 23); Garbsch-Overbeck, 17, 97, M 113; Kent-Hirmer, no. 622.

¹⁰⁴ RIC VII Antioch 32 (pl. 23), Nicomedia 41 (no illus.); Kent-Hirmer, no. 622 (Nicomedia).

¹⁰⁵ Compare the caricatured smile on some of the coins of M. Antony in the 30s B.C.: Crawford, M. H., Roman Republican Coinage (1974), 541–5, pl. 64.9–15Google Scholar; Kent-Hirmer, nos 103, 110–11; M.-L. Vollenweider, Die Porträtgemmen der römischen Republik (1972), pls 134–9, illustrates a good range of dies.

¹⁰⁶ PRLE I, 509 Licinius 3; Barnes, 32–41, 62–77; Barnes, T. D., New Empire of Diocletian and Constantine (1982), 6–7, 43–4, 80–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kienast, D., Römische Kaisertabelle (1990), 290–3Google Scholar, with lit. ‘In bello strenuus laboribus et officiis acceptus’: Eutropius, , Breviarium 10.4.1Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁷ Andreotti, R., ‘Licinius (Valerius Licinianus)’, in Ruggiero, E. (ed.), Dizionario epigrafico di antichità romane IV (1959), 979–1041Google Scholar, at 1030, for erased inscriptions. Eusebius, , HE 10.9.5Google Scholar, on the throwing down of his images; cf. HE 9.11.2, in more detail on the throwing down and defacing of (Maximinus') portraits and statues.

¹⁰⁸ Especially, Victor, Aurelius, De Caesaribus 41.3–5Google Scholar; ‘Aurelius Victor’, Epitome de Caesaribus 41.8; Anonymus Valesianus 5.13; and the tirade in Eusebius, , HE 10.8–9Google Scholar. R. Andreotti, ‘L'imperatore Licinius nella tradizione storiografica latina’, Hommages à L. Herrmann (1960), 105–17.

¹⁰⁹ Grey hairs: Lactantius, De Mortibus Persecutorum (hereafter DMP, edited and translated by J. L. Creed, 1984), 32.2. He is ‘aged about sixty’ (in 325) in ‘Aurelius Victor’, Epitome de Caesaribus 41.8, and eschatogërös (‘vieillard decrépit’, trans. G. Bardy; ‘besotted old dotard’, trans. G. A. Williamson) in Eusebius, , HE 10.8.13Google Scholar.

¹¹⁰ ‘Infused new life’: Libanius, , Or. 30.6Google Scholar (trans. A. F. Norman, Loeb). Legislation: Corcoran, S. J. J., ‘Hidden from history: the legislation of Licinius’, in Harries, J. and Wood, I. (eds), The Theodosian Code: Studies in the Imperial Law of Late Antiquity (1993), 97–119Google Scholar (modified version in Corcoran, 274–92).

¹¹¹ Riccobono, op. cit. (n. 62), I, no. 93; Corcoran, 145–8, no. 53.

¹¹² Constantius, Galerius, Severus, Maximinus Daia, Maxentius, and Constantine: above Section IV. The replicated sculptured portrait types of Constantius (Berlin, Copenhagen: n. 77) and Maxentius (Dresden, Stockholm: n. 80) are identified by a typological connection to the variable coin images of these rulers that is very similar in kind and degree to that proposed between the Vienna-Izmir type and the coin images of Licinius.

¹¹³ Leiden Inv. I 1961/3. From the art market in Geneva. Supposedly found at Istanbul. H: 28 cm. Salomonson, J. W., ‘Ein Porträtkopf der Tetrarchenzeit in Leiden’, BABesch 39 (1964), 180–4Google Scholar, figs 1–4; Von Sydow, 114–19, pl. 17; Bergmann, 161–3; IR II, no. 309; F. Bastet and H. Brunsting, Corpus Signorum Classicorum: Catalogus van het klassieke Beeldhouwwerke in het Rijksmuseum van Oudheden te Leiden (1982), 214–15, no. 397, pl. 118.

¹¹⁴ Fittschen, K., GGA 225 (1973), 53Google Scholar, and GGA 236 (1984), 208–9Google Scholar, on no. 309.

¹¹⁵ Marble head broken off through neck: H: 22.9 cm. No reported provenance. Sotheby's Antiquities, 18 May 1987, no. 206, there described as follows: ‘A Roman marble head of a man, 3rd-4th century A.D., the face with heavy plump features, deep furrow lines on the high forehead’. Back of head missing, broken off or added separately. Nose, end of chin, outer part of ears broken off. Some abrasions to surface. Square cutting in proper right temple for attachment of back of head(?). The hair on the side of the head, brushed forward over the ears seems thicker than the portrait type requires and probably indicates that the present portrait was worked out of an earlier head with fuller hair. This might also account for its unusual scale — slightly underlifesize. I am grateful to Thorsten Opper for bringing this head to my attention, and to Dr Elizabeth Minchin of the Australian National University for permission to discuss and illustrate it here.

¹¹⁶ RIC VII Nicomedia 41–2 (pl. 20), Antioch 33 (pl. 23); Garbsch-Overbeck, 22, 91, M 89 (Nicomedia); Kent-Hirmer, no. 623 (Antioch). Note also the double frontal portrait of Licinius I and II together on a medallion in Paris (Beistegui, no. 232): Bastien, op. cit. (n. 30), pl. 162.6.

¹¹⁷ Overbeck, B., Argentum Romanum: Ein Schatzfund von spätrömischen Prunkgeschirr (1973)Google Scholar; Garbsch-Overbeck, 47–68. SuFC, 419–24, no. 37.

¹¹⁸ Overbeck, op. cit. (n. 117), 29, no. 3; Garbsch-Overbeck, 51, 55–6, Cat. S 3.

¹¹⁹ Overbeck, op. cit. (n. 117), 23, no. 2; Garbsch-Overbeck, 50–1, 55, Cat. S 2.

¹²⁰ Overbeck, op. cit. (n. 117), 23, no. 1; Garbsch-Overbeck, 48–9, 51, Cat. S 1.

¹²¹ Preserved in two parts, crushed head (Pl. VI.3) and bust wearing cuirass and paludamentum. Restored H: 18.3 cm; H, chin to crown: c. 10 cm. Garbsch-Overbeck, 58–64, Cat. S 10.

¹²² Kunzl, E., ‘Zwei silberne Tetrarchenporträts im RGZM und die römische Kaiserbildnisse aus Gold und Silber’, Jahrb.Röm.-Germ.ZentralMuseum 30 (1983), 381–402Google Scholar, pls 64–6, at 384, suggesting Licinius I and II (a connection to the frontal coin types is again perhaps easier to see in their unrestored, crushed state, pl. 66); M. Weber, in SuFC, no. 27; Garbsch-Overbeck, 69–70.

¹²³ Head broken off through top of neck, H: 30 cm. IR II. no. 79 (Licinius II); S. Trümpler in Jucker and Willers, op. cit. (n. 68), no. 39.

¹²⁴ Calza, 202–7, and L'Orange, Herrscherbild, 116–18, catalogue some fourteen further sculptured heads proposed by them or others as portraits of Licinius. None are sufficiently corpulent and none are connected by clearly repeated typological elements to the Licinius type seen in the coins and the Vienna head. Such provinical pieces as the Adana bronze (IR II, no. 255, above at n. 67, here Pl. IX, 2; cf. Meischner, AA (1986), 240–4, figs 12 and 23) and the bland reworked head of the cuirassed figure from the tetrarchic group found in Building M at Side: (IR I, no. 63, above at n. 68) could be read as diluted receptions of the type, but are not sufficiently detailed or precisely formulated. Another such portrait might be the fine (surely reworked and tetrarchic) head from Antioch: IR II, no. 76 (‘Trebonianus Gallus?’). For other possible pieces in this category, below n. 135. The other Licinius identifications proposed in Calza and L'Orange, Herrscherbild, are far from the type. The two reworked elder heads in the tondi of the Arch of Constantine are best taken as Constantius I (n. 78). And the powerful, near-colossal head from Ostia (H, chin to crown: 38 cm; L'Orange, Herrscherbild, pl. 31) is again more likely of Constantius I (it has a large curved nose): Bergmann, 145, pl. 41.3, 42.2.

¹²⁵ Licinius II: here Pls V, 5–6, VI, 4, and VII, 2–3. Constantine II: Kent-Hirmer, no. 636; and for two sculptured heads in this manner: FZ I, nos 124 and 125.

¹²⁶ Kent-Hirmer, nos 92–5 (Caesar), 210–14 (Galba).

¹²⁷ Balbinus: Kent-Hirmer, 440; Bergmann, SuFC, 47, fig. 21 (Vatican bronze bust); Niemeyer, H. G., Studien zur statuarischen Darstellung der römischen Kaiser (1968), 112, cat. 125, pl.46 (Piraeus statue). Valerian: Kent-Hirmer, 479–80Google Scholar; IR II, no. 77 (head in Copenhagen).

¹²⁸ Andreae, B., Art of Rome (1977), figs 587 (Borghese), 588 (Rospigliosi), 590 (Mattei II), 592 (Sciarra), 596 (‘Balbinus’ sarcophagus)Google Scholar; idem, Die römische Jagdsarkophagen, ASR I.2, (1980), cat. 41, 65, 128, 131.

¹²⁹ Pompey: Poulsen, V., Les portraits romains I (1973), no. 1.Google Scholar An uncertain Ahenobarbus: Kent-Hirmer, no. 100. Seneca: Blümel, op. cit. (n. 77), 44, R 106, pl. 71. Vitellius: Kent-Hirmer, 218–22; Poulsen, V., Les portraits romains II (1974)Google Scholar, no. 1. Republican gems: Vollenweider, op. cit. (n. 105), pl. 52.6–7 (Boston).

¹³⁰ Venice: Traversari, G., Museo Archeologico di Venezia: I ritratti (1968), 63–5Google Scholar, no. 43. Similar, one of Hadrian's Companions in the tondi of the Arch of Constantine: Bulle, H., ‘Ein Jagddenkmal des Kaisers Hadrian’, JdI 34(1919), 144–72Google Scholar, figs 3–4 (lower row). A heavy-jowled, corpulent personal style, common on sarcophagi in the third century (above n. 128), remained an option into the tetrarchic period and later. Some examples. (1) Coin images of Carausius (separatist emperor in Britain, 287–93): Kent-Hirmer, nos 566–70, 572–3. (2) Portrait medallion of deceased couple on sarcophagus from Aries, c. 320–350: Rouquette, J.-M., ‘Trois nouveaux sarcophages chrétiens de Trinquetaille (Arles)’, CRAI (1974), 254–73Google Scholar, at 268, fig. 5. (3) Relief from Aquileia, fourth century: F. Poulsen, Porträtstudien in norditalienischen Provinzmuseen (1928), 16–18, no. 15 — ‘ein alter, fetter Herr’. For examples later in fourth and fifth centuries, above, n. 25. The extraordinary thicknecked, broad-faced, bearded portrait head from Chiragan (in Toulouse, Espérandieu II, no. 892.8) is in my opinion unlikely to be tetrarchic: Le regard de Rome: portraits romains des musées de Mérida, Toulouse et Tarragona (1995), 235, no. 171 (there suggested by J. C. Balty to be of Maximian).

¹³¹ Over-life-size head broken off through middle of neck (H: 35 cm), found 1993, in the baths (not in situ) at Romuliana: D. Srejović, ‘The representations of tetrarchs in Romuliana’, Antiquité Tardive 2 (1994), 143–52, figs 10–13. The head wears a thick laurel wreath decorated with three oval gems alternating with four busts. The small left hand of another figure (Victory?), carved in one piece with the head, is preserved holding the wreath at the back: the emperor was in the act of being crowned. The perimeter line followed by the hair on the nape is very close to that of the Izmir and Vienna heads: Srejović, fig. 11. The coins of Galerius closest to the porphyry head are those of the mint of Antioch: they have the sharpest and fattest profiles, and they are also most like Licinius' coins issued later at the same mint: DOP, no. 27; Garbsch-Overbeck, 33, M 27.

Further relevant finds at Gamzigrad are (1) a neck fragment, (2) a hand holding an orb, both from further porphyry figures in the round: Srejović, 143–5, figs 6–7; and (3) three pilasters of tuffaceous sandstone decorated with relief medallions of schematic frontal paired tetrarchs: Srejović, 145–6, figs 1–5, 8–9 — the well preserved Pilaster B is taken by Srejović, surely correctly, as representing the six overlapping rulers of the first and second tetrarchies.

¹³² Two further sculptured portraits, identified by context, almost certainly of Galerius, are both decidedly plump in the face. (1) Relief head (lost), formerly in Berlin, from the Arch of Galerius at Thessalonica, L'Orange, Herrscherbild, 27, 106, pl. 20a-b. (2) Frontal tondo portrait decorating the spandrel of the small arch discovered at Thessalonica in 1957: L'Orange, Herrscherbild, 8, 27, 109, pl. 21a, Beil. A 4; T. Stephanidou-Tiveriou, To mikro toxotou Galeriou stē Thessalonikē (1995).

¹³³ Similarly, the (rare) coins of Licinius' generals, Valens (A.D. 316) and Martinianus (A.D. 321–324) have loyal ‘Licinian’ heavy-faced portraits, especially the former: RIC VII Cyzicus 7 (pl. 22), Nicomedia 45 (pl. 20); Garbsch-Overbeck, 21, 41, M 62; Numismatic Fine Arts, Auction 25: Ancient Greek and Roman Coins (Nov. 1990), nos 487 and 488.

¹³⁴ Lactantius, DMP 33. So also Eusebius, HE 8.16.4: ‘for the whole of his hulking body, thanks to overeating, had been transformed even before his illness into a huge lump of flabby fat’ (trans. G. A. Williamson).

¹³⁵ Two large and fat-faced heads in Athens, both reworked in the tetrarchic period, perhaps belong here as provincial receptions/versions of Galerian-Licinian style: Datsoule-Stavridis, A., ‘Ein Porträt des Vitellius(?) im Nationalmuseum zu Athen’, RM 89 (1982), 457–8Google Scholar, pls 143–4; eadem, Romaïka portraitasto ethniko archaiologiko Mouseio tēs Athēnas (1985), 36–7 (inv. Th. 312), 86–7 (inv. E 582/735), pls 29–30 and 126–7.

The extraordinary corpulence of a head in Gubbio, dated because of its round staring eyes by L'Orange to c. A.D. 300 (Studien, 27, 114, cat. 22, figs 59–60 — ‘ein älterer Mann von krankhafter Körperfülle’) is specific, like its clean-shaven head, to its category of subject. L'Orange did not notice that the skull has the engraved cross-shaped scar above the right temple worn by priests of (probably) Isis on a series of Roman-period portraits. For a list of more than thirty examples: K. Fittschen, Katalog der antiken Skulpturen in Schloss Erbach (1977), 67–9, no. 22, n. 4 (not however including the Gubbio head).

¹³⁶ Republican: above n. 42. Imperial: Campbell, B., The Emperor and the Roman Army, 31 BC–AD 235 (1984), 32–59Google Scholar. For the ideology of the simple-man-nered, familiar, accessible emperor, at one with his peers and subjects, see, for example, Suet., Vesp. 12–13; Pliny, , Paneg. 13.1–3Google Scholar, 15.5, 19.3, 23.1–3. At Pliny, , Paneg. 4.6Google Scholar, the complementary virtues of traditional gravitas (authority) and severitas (seriousness) are the emperor's simplicitas (candour) and hilaritas (smiling good humour)

¹³⁷ Pompey in Copenhagen: n. 129. Caesar: n. 126. Antony: n. 105. Note also a smiling late Republican head in Copenhagen: Poulsen, op. cit. (n. 129), no. 26.

¹³⁸ Daltrop, op. cit. (n. 3), 72–84, pls 1–9; Bergmann, M. and Zanker, P., ‘Damnatio Memoriae: Umgearbeitete Nero- und Domitiansporträts. Zur Ikonographie der flavischen Kaiser und des Nerva’, JdI 96 (1981), 317–412Google Scholar, at 332–49.

¹³⁹ Suet., Vesp. 20; cf. Bergmann and Zanker, op. cit. (n. 138), 335.

¹⁴⁰ Imperial. (1) Caius, Carthage: Boschung, D., Die Bildnisse des Caligula. Das römische Herrscherbild I. 4 (1989), 38–40Google Scholar, 100, cat. 114, pl. 14. (2) Trajan(?), Ephesus: IR II, no. 39; Fittschen, , GGA 236 (1984), 204Google Scholar, on no. 39. Private. (1) Trajanic bust, Ostia: Calza, R., Scavi di Ostia V: I ritratti I (1964)Google Scholar, no. 78. (2) Early fourth-century head, Izmir: IR I, no. 188. (3) Fourth-century head from Sparta: L'Orange, Studien, 30, figs 67, 72. Constantius' portrait, in the Berlin-Copenhagen type (Pl. X, 1–2), is perhaps also intended to be smiling slightly — most apparent in the strange lip formation of the Copenhagen head (n. 77).

¹⁴¹ RIC VII, 738–9, 754.

¹⁴² All bracketed references in the text of this section are, unless otherwise indicated, to the Panegyrici Latini, following the traditional, i.e. manuscript, numbering of the orations, as in Nixon-Rodgers.

¹⁴³ Kleiner, D. E. E., Roman Sculpture (1992), 139.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁴ Kent-Hirmer, 48.

¹⁴⁵ Barnes, 301, n. 54. It does not affect the point at issue that the head here referred to (in the Canelloupoulos Museum in Athens: Dontas, P., ‘Collections Paul Canellopoulos IX; Portrait de Galerius’, BCH 99 (1975), 521–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar, figs 1–4) is a private portrait of the Trajanic period — so rightly, Massner, A. K., ‘Corona civica, Priesterkranz oder Magistratsinsigne? Bildnisse thasischer Theoroi’, AM 103 (1988), 239–50Google Scholar, at 245–6.

¹⁴⁶ Fittschen, K., ‘Das Bildprogramm des Trajansbogens zu Benevent’, AA (1972), 742–89.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁷ Caius' main type presents him simply as a son of Germanicus: Boschung, op. cit. (n. 140), 102–3. Nero's last portrait type, well defined on coins (Kent-Hirmer, nos 192–3, 196, 199, 202, 204–5) combines contemporary Roman fashions of hairstyle and light beard with a quasi-regal magnificence and grandeur. The élite and negative historiographical tradition on this emperor does not transmit the court ideas and language with which this image was concerned (elegantia combined with splendor and maiestas?). For a new gilded bronze portrait of this type, see Born, H. and Stemmer, K., Damnatio Memoriae: Das Berliner Nero-porträt (1996).Google Scholar

¹⁴⁸ Above at n. 134.

¹⁴⁹ For all aspects, see now the excellent introduction in Nixon-Rogers, 3–37.

¹⁵⁰ Thus in the useful collection of sources relating to the appearance of later Roman emperors in Calza, 13–81 (compiled by Marina Torelli), the texts are arranged by emperor in order to assist in the identification of the sculptures.

¹⁵¹ To Constantine: 7 (A.D. 307), 6 (A.D. 310), 5 (A.D. 311), 12 (A.D. 313), 4 (A.D. 321). The other addressees and subjects are as follows. To Maximian: 10 and 11 (both A.D. 291). To Constantius 8 (A.D. 297/8). On the restoration of the schools, 9 (late 290s). To Julian: 3 (A.D. 362). To Theodosius: 2 (A.D. 389). To Trajan: 1 (A.D. 100).

¹⁵² Lactantius, , DMP 9.1Google Scholar. Remarks about the (large, tall, powerful, broad-shouldered) body are frequently coupled with statements about facial appearance in the Panegyrics and imperial histories: Pan.Lat. 6.17.1, 6.18.5, 7.9.5, 12.4.3.

¹⁵³ Compare the similar idea in the Tabula Siarensis, I. 23–31: Germanicus' image is to be posted on arches sited in Syria and Germany, at the opposite ends of the Empire where the prince held imperium. Text: González, J., ZPE 55 (1984), 55–100Google Scholar. Translation: Sherk, R. K., The Roman Empire, Augustus to Hadrian (1988), no. 36CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Both now in Crawford, M. H. (ed.), Roman Statutes (1996)Google Scholar, I, no. 37. On the arches as markers of the limits of empire: Potter, D. S., ‘The Tabula Siarensis, Tiberius, the Senate, and the eastern boundary of the Roman Empire’, ZPE 69 (1987), 269–76Google Scholar, at 272–4. On the significance in this period of the sending out and receiving of the imagines laureatae of new emperors in different parts of the Empire, see Bruun, op. cit. (n. 52).

¹⁵⁴ Neck of Bravery: Pan.Lat. 3.5.4. ‘Bullneck’ (Trachala, Constantine): ‘Aurelius Victor’, Epitome de Caesaribus 41.16, and later in Byzantine writers: Cedrenus 1.472.23, quoted by Delbrueck, , Kaiserporträts, XIIGoogle Scholar and Calza, 34–5, A 2; cf. Lieu and Montserrat, op. cit. (n. 76), 5. Already in Ps.-Aristotle, Physiognomica, a man's neck should be strong (807a) and long but thick (809b).

¹⁵⁵ In the Price Edict preamble: Giacchero, op. cit. (n. 62), 134, 1. 20; Lauffer, op. cit. (n. 62), 90 (I, 2) Roueché, op. cit. (n. 62), no. 231, 1. 10; Graser, op. cit. (n. 62), 311, translates weakly as ‘won with great effort’.

¹⁵⁶ Thus, for example, the cuirassed Barletta statue (n. 4).

¹⁵⁷ Textual evidence, if it is necessary, makes explicit the connection between campaigning and not shaving: Tacitus, , Hist. 2.11Google Scholar — the emperor (Otho at Bedriacum) marches out for campaign, as he should, on foot, ‘stubbled and unkempt’, horridus, incomptus. Horridus (lit. ‘bristly, prickly’) refers to the beard, incomptus (‘unkempt’) to the hair. Permanent stubble-length beard was probably meant to represent the idea that on campaign an imperator had time only to clip his beard rather than shave it. For this distinction and practice in antiquity, see Suetonius, , Aug. 79.1Google Scholar: ‘modo tonderet modo raderet barbam’.

¹⁵⁸ Above n. 58

¹⁵⁹ Above, nn. 129, 136, 138, 140.

¹⁶⁰ Above n. 141

¹⁶¹ Mattingly, H., Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum III (1936), 615, 617Google Scholar (Nerva to Hadrian), and IV (1940), 920, 923 (Antoninus Pius to Commodus).

¹⁶² RIC VII, 736–9, with a full listing of the many Felicitas and Gaudium reverses. The connection of Felicitas and Gaudium is made clear in the shared reverse designs of playful garland-carrying puttogenii — figures that would bring a smile to the stoniest tetrarchic face. Emperors' edicts can enjoin their subjects to rejoice, for example, in Eusebius, , HE 9.7.11Google Scholar (an edict of Maximinus). ‘Good cheer’ (euphrosynē) remained an estimable official virtue well into late antiquity: Roueché, op. cit. (n. 62), 56, with refs.

¹⁶³ Appian, , BC 1.61Google Scholar — ‘the gleam and flash of fire darting from his eyes’ deters Marius' would-be assassin; Suetonius, , Aug. 79.2Google Scholar — Augustus has ‘oculos claros ac nitidos’ that have ‘the radiance of the sun’, ‘fulgorem solis’, forcing spectators (the emperor liked to think) to lower their gaze; Tacitus, , Hist. 2.9Google Scholar — the corpse of the false Nero in A.D. 68 was ‘remarkable for its eyes’; HA Claudius 13 — Claudius Gothicus has ‘oculi ardentes’.

¹⁶⁴ For classical physiognomists (Ps.-Aristotle, Physiognomica 809b), eyes should be bright, but not round or enlarged in size.

¹⁶⁵ Zanker, P., Provinzielle Kaiserporträts: Zur Rezeption der Selbstdarstellung des Princeps (1983), 18, 30, 34, pls 9 (Hadrian, from Leptis), 11 (Trajan, Sousse), 27.1 (Septimius, from Markouna).Google Scholar

¹⁶⁶ Compare also Diocletian's indefatigable ancestor, Jupiter, ‘ever watchful, he revolves this enormous mass (of the world) with tireless hand’ (‘hanc tantam molem infatigabili manu volvit… pervigil’, 11.3.4)Google Scholar.

¹⁶⁷ Above n. 97; cf. MacMullen, R., ‘Constantine and the miraculous’, GRBS 9 (1968), 81–96Google Scholar.

¹⁶⁸ See Nixon-Rodgers, 267, n. 9 (on 5.2.3), with lit. on imperial providentia.

¹⁶⁹ In a text from Caria, the emperor's ‘illuminating’ presence (epelampsēn) is enough to stop banditry: Şahin, M. Ç., Die Inschriften von Stratonikeia I: Panamara, IGSK 21 (1981), 170Google Scholar, no. 310; cf. Corcoran, 111, n. 137.

¹⁷⁰ For the special eyes, for example, of philosophers: Smith, R. R. R., ‘Late Roman philosopher portraits from Aphrodisias’, JRS 80 (1990), 127–55Google Scholar, at 146. For gods — for example, ‘all-seeing Helios’ (panepoptēs Hēlios): Mitchell, S., Anatolia: Land, Men, and Gods in Asia Minor (1993), II, 47.Google Scholar

¹⁷¹ The greatly enlarged eyes of the Capitoline head were due less to the type than to its colossal formulation: above n. 94

¹⁷² And already too in 307: ‘upon whose face Nature has stamped his father's heavenly features (caelestes vultus)’, 7.8.3.

¹⁷³ For Constantine's ‘nourishing of the liberal arts, especially literature’ and other pursuits appropriate to a civilian emperor, such as ‘reading, writing, thinking, and listening to embassies and complaints from the provinces’, see ‘Aurelius Victor’, Epitome de Caesaribus 41.14. In the panegyric of 321, the boy Constantine II, aged four, it is said, can already write (4.37.5).

¹⁷⁴ Note the solid disc of light around Constantine's head already in 313: Pl. XI, 2.

¹⁷⁵ From Constantine's point of view, the parallels with the rise to power of Octavian-Augustus in the thirties B.C. may have been attractive: the Apolline youth, divi filius, ruler of the West, versus the old campaigner, tyrant of the East to whom he had married his sister.

¹⁷⁶ Kitzinger, E., Byzantine Art in the Making (1977), 7–21Google Scholar; Wood, S., Roman Portrait Sculpture, 217–60 A.D. (1986)Google Scholar, reviewed by this writer, JRS 78 (1988), 257–8.

¹⁷⁷ Kitzinger, op. cit. (n. 176), 16, speaks of the ‘deeply troubled people’ represented in third-century portraits, of their ‘sense of anguish’ and ‘worried concern’, Bianchi Bandinelli, op. cit. (n. 12), 3, of their ‘agonized expressions’ and ‘moral agony’. Such intuitive interpretations, in which images repeat what history says, have wide currency. Most recently the Venice tetrarchs have been said to betray ‘late third-century anxiety about an empire threatened with dissolution’: Fernandez-Armesto, F., Millennium: A History of Our Last Thousand Years (1995), 64, fig. 2.8.Google Scholar