S. Molitor - Diptych of the Consul Anastasius

Diptych of the Consul Anastasius, dated 517

Theme: The Imagery of the Diptych as Creating Imperial Power A line of inquiry that emerges while assessing this and other consular diptychs is whether these works emphasize individuality, or rather emphasize the more general, ceremonial, and symbolic aspects of the Imperial office. Speaking to the latter, this piece is typical of other diptychs (such as that of Boethius or Rufus) in its form and symbolism, indicating a highly standardized way in which the consular diptych announced power. It is divided into multiple registers, with the portraits of other important figureheads at the top, and with another scene (sometimes allegorical) at the base. It also includes typical imperial indicators of power like the mappa, which signals the emperor’s role in triumphal scenes or as the initiator of the games. Other images also flank the emperor, like personifications of Rome and Constantinople, as well as wreaths. But consider this diptych in comparison with diptychs portraying Empresses—for example, the leaf that McLanan dubs the Florence ivory, depicting either Sophia or Ariadne. It breaks distinctly from this traditional standard of how the diptych is arranged, and how it announces power. The third point (blue button) will go deeper into this comparison, but it’s worth noting how THIS diptych announces power in a relatively standardized way, in order to show how the Empress’ power is depicted in contrast.

Comparison with Diptych of Sophia/AriadneSo, do these diptychs emphasize individuality or simply imperial identity generally? And how does this image, through its differences to depictions of imperial women, provide insight into how to imagine a feminine imperial identity? Compare this piece with the diptychs that McLanan call A) the “Florence ivory,” and B) the ivory panel depicting the Enthroned Empress. Together, these panels both portray many traditional symbols of imperial power, which also appear in the pictured diptych of Anastasius among others: the throne, victory and the wreath, the eagle, the scepter and globus crucifer, etc. However, they lack several typical features. First, they don't include the typical three registers of Anastasius’ diptych. Also of note is the lack of portraits of other rulers/figures—with the exception of the consul portrayed on the tabilon of the empress in the Florence diptych. Notably, he is not encircled as an individual with his own idiosyncratic significance, as Ariadne is at the top of Anastasius’ diptych. Rather, he is relegated to a notably different position, one that seems inferior to the main image of the Empress.

Imperial Dual ImageryMcLanan’s writing provides some insight for how to understand the images at the top of the diptych. While the portrait on the left may either portray Pompeius or the incumbent co-consul (David Hendrix, The Byzantine Legacy), the portrait on the right depicts the empress Ariadne. The prominence of the Empress’ portrait speaks to a notion introduced by McLanan in “The Empress Sophia,” where she writes that the dual images of Sophia and Justin in coins bespeaks “political importance and not heir-producing abilities. […] These coins translated into a visual form for the citizens of the empire a more equal pairing…” (163). This notion can be translated to the portraits on Ananstasius’ consular diptych. Since the diptych would have played an important role in announcing imperial power, portraying Ariadne at the top of the diptych announces the empress’ significance on equal standing with other influential political actors.

Comparison with Diptych of Sophia/Ariadne (Pt.2)These features together imply a different mode of announcing power between the Emperor and Empress. While it has been argued that consular diptychs as a whole were mainly about announcing power and not individuality, Anastasius’ diptych seems to station him in a much more specific time and place, anchored by portraits of those who were known to be close to him and by a clearly temporal function as initiator of the games. On the other hand, the image of the Empress stands alone. She is announced by imperial symbolism, but her power does not need to be reinforced by other imperial portraits or figures, or her literal functions. She is much less temporally bound, which perhaps contributes to the confusion over the exact figure that is portrayed. This has an incredibly powerful implication—that the role of the Empress itself is more emblematic, more transcendent, and representative of the city as a whole rather than an individual. Admittedly it could be argued that her leaf does signify an individual function as empress: her role in ceremony and pageantry. Even still, this role in pageantry still feeds into the same transcendent image of the Empress as the symbol of the city, rather than an individual being. The image of the Empress itself announces a special kind of reverence, in a way that the image of the Emperor does not quite communicate entirely on its own. The Empress is the realpolitik: she more than just a person, she is the representation of the city itself, emulating those who came before her in the same symbolic role.

So what are the implications for whether the diptych portrays the individual vs. just the symbol of imperial power? I would argue this shows how the Empress could be used to anchor the Emperor within a specific moment, while the image of the Empress itself was enough to announce a sort of significance to the state all on its own. The image of the Emperor in the Florence diptych doesn’t quite play the same role that Ariadne’s portrait does here. It doesn’t situate the Empress in a specific time, but rather highlights the role of the Emperor in the broader city as a whole (represented by the Empress) as initiator of the games. So while Emperors announced their power by portraying themselves within a typical, traditional means of doing so (through the conventions of the diptych), the Empress’ image was more emblematic of the post of “Empress," emulating others before her and the city as a whole, all at once.

If we consider the diptychs of Ariadne/Sophia in comparison to this ivory, they seem to portray the station of “Empress” in a much more symbolic, less individualistic fashion than this portrayal of Anastasius. If this is the case, does it matter whether these ivories specifically portray Ariadne or Sophia? Or is the point that they emulate past Empresses in representing the city? How can the Empress carry significance as a political actor in her own right through the fact that her image can be used to legitimize the authority of the emperor? Is this role more than just as a mother/kingmaker? Is it possible or appropriate to understand the respective roles of Empress/Emperor through “negative space” (for lack of better words?) For example, deciphering the role of the Empress through what’s missing from the Diptych of Anastasius? How does this connect to the Kinloch reading regarding how women in Byzantine historiography were characterized in mere relation to their male counterparts?