Mujeres Imperiales, Mujeres Reales: Representaciones Públicas Y Representaciones Del Poder en la Antigüedad Tardía Y Bizancio 3506760378, 9783506760371

Citation preview

Mujeres imperiales, mujeres reales

Contexts of Ancient and Medieval Anthropology Editors Anna Usacheva, Jörg Ulrich, Siam Bhayro Advisory Board José Filipe Pereira da Silva, Barbara Crostini, Andrew Crislip, Samuel Fernandez, Annette Weissenrieder

Vol. 2

Cover illustration: La Dame de Carthage, Carthage National Museum (Tunisia) Source: https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archivo:Dame_Carthage(MNC).jpg

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data available online: http://dnb.d-nb.de All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. © 2021 by Brill Schöningh, Wollmarktstraße 115, 33098 Paderborn, Germany, an imprint of the Brill-Group (Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands; Brill USA Inc., Boston MA, USA; Brill Asia Pte Ltd, Singapore; Brill Deutschland GmbH, Paderborn, Germany; Brill Österreich GmbH, Vienna, Austria) Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Hotei, Brill Schöningh, Brill Fink, Brill mentis, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Böhlau, Verlag Antike and V&R unipress. www.schoeningh.de Cover design: Evelyn Ziegler, Munich Production: Brill Deutschland GmbH, Paderborn ISSN 2698-3079 ISBN 978-3-506-76037-1 (hardback) ISBN 978-3-657-76037-4 (e-book)

Joaquín Gómez-Pantoja Fernández-Salguero In memoriam ac amicitiam sempiterne quid erat ergo quod intus mihi graviter dolebat, nisi ex consuetudine simul vivendi, dulcissima et carissima, repente dirupta vulnus recens? (August., Confess., 9.12.30)

Índice Prefacio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi M. C. Chiriatti - R. Villegas Marín Prólogo  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii Julia Hillner

I Constantinianas, Teodosianas y Leónidas 1.

Princess Pipa as a Taste of a Literary Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Gabriel Estrada San Juan

2.

Mausoleos imperiales de mujeres cristianas en el Occidente tardorromano: Arqueología y poder postmortem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Jordina Sales Carbonell

3.

La representación literaria de la emperatriz Elia Flavia Flaccila en el βασιλικὸς λόγος de Gregorio de Nisa . . . . . 46 Mattia C. Chiriatti

4.

Aelia Eudoxia y Arcadio en Constantinopla: la piedad imperial concertada en la ciudad más cristiana del Imperio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 María Victoria Escribano Paño

5.

Κατὰ μίμησιν τῆς μακαρίας Πουλχερίας. Diffrazioni storiografiche per speculum haeresiae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Silvia Acerbi

6.

Poder y legitimación de las emperatrices teodosianas y su reflejo en la iconografía numismática . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 Carles Buenacasa Pérez

7.

Portraits of a Dynasty: Graphic Representations of the Families of the Empresses Verina and Ariadne (457–491) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 Margarita Vallejo Girvés

viii

Índice

II Teodora, emperatriz de Bizancio 8.

Teodora entre papas: de Agapito a Vigilio. El delicado equilibrio entre monofisismo y poder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 Juan Antonio Bueno Delgado

9.

Las mil caras de Teodora . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 Miguel Cortés Arrese

10. La imagen fílmica de la emperatriz Teodora a mediados del siglo XX  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 Francisco Salvador Ventura

III El Occidente postimperial 11.

The councils of Toledo and the Visigothic Queens, Liuwigotho and Cixilo: Some (Historical) Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209 Oriol Dinarès Cabrerizo

12. The Barbarian Queens and the Power of Peace against Violence  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232 Purificación Ubric Rabaneda 13. Dilectissimae filiae: emperatrices y reinas en el epistolario gregoriano  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249 Pere Maymó i Capdevila

IV Emperatrices bizantinas, de Martina a Irene 14. La famiglia di Eraclio, Martina e l’anno dei quattro imperatori . . . . 271 Salvatore Cosentino 15. La novela de Esther. Un modelo hagiográfico para emperatrices ortodoxas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294 Ernest Marcos Hierro

Índice

ix

16. Fleeting but Powerful: Portraits of Empresses of the Iconoclast Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311 Petros Tsagkaropoulos 17. Irene, Imperatore dei Romani? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325 Nicola Bergamo

V Emperatrices bizantinas, de Eudokia Ingerina a Irene Dukaina 18. Eudokia Ingerina and the “Macedonian Dynasty”: The Visible Woman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357 Shaun Tougher 19. Gender, Power, and Narrative in Eleventh-Century Byzantium: Batatzina’s Leadership of the Rebellion at Raidestos as Recounted by Michael Attaleiates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 373 Francisco López-Santos Kornberger 20. Irene Dukaina en la Alexiada de Ana Comnena: la basilissa ideal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395 Giorgio Vespignani

VI Apéndice 21. La porpora nel Sinassario di Costantinopoli. Imperatori ed imperatrici in odore di santità? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 409 Lorenzo M. Ciolfi Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 438

Prefacio El volumen Mujeres imperiales, mujeres reales. Representaciones públicas y representaciones del poder es fruto del workshop internacional homónimo celebrado en la Universidad de Alcalá entre el 27 y el 29 de noviembre de 2019. En esa ciudad, expertos de diferentes instituciones universitarias de ámbito español e internacional se dieron cita para debatir acerca del poder femenino y de la evolución de su expresión pública desde la era de Constantino hasta la Edad media, a través del análisis de las evidencias literarias y materiales (iconografía, numismática, arqueología, epigrafía). La presencia en este coloquio internacional de historiadores de la Antigüedad Tardía, de medievalistas, bizantinistas, historiadores del arte, arqueólogos y epigrafistas confirió al coloquio múltiples perspectivas de enfoque y diversos matices interdisciplinarios respecto al estudio de las mujeres en la Antigüedad Tardía y la Alta Edad Media. Parte de los resultados de aquel fecundo encuentro ven ahora la luz en esta obra colectiva sobre el empoderamiento femenino, que analiza, desde una perspectiva multi-angular, cómo las mujeres de esta época llegaron al poder y cómo, a través del establecimiento definitivo de su liderazgo dentro del gobierno imperial o real, no fueron únicamente meras consortes y madres de futuros gobernantes varones, sino que, en muchos casos, consiguieron erigirse también en figuras axiales de la política contemporánea. En su perspectiva más amplia, las fuentes históricas constituyen el soporte textual más importante para conocer este desarrollo, puesto que describen, en la Antigüedad Tardía y en el mundo bizantino, la evolución gradual de una figura política y religiosa como la de augusta, de simple esposa a monarca plenipotenciario. Desde los pioneros trabajos de Kenneth Holum a principios de la década de los 80 del siglo pasado, el interés hacia las mujeres de la corte teodosiana y, en un sentido más amplio, hacia el poder femenino en la Antigüedad Tardía y en la temprana Edad Media, ha ido creciendo hasta ocupar en la actualidad un espacio central en la historiografía sobre estos períodos. Fruto de la sinergia entre los programas de investigación ministeriales Juan de la Cierva Incorporación  (IJC2018-035176-I) y Ramón y Cajal (RyC-201723402), esta obra ha sido posible gracias al respaldo de la Universidad de Alcalá y del proyecto del MINECO PGC2018-093729-B-I00: “Augustae: Materializando a una Augusta: Historia, Historiografía e Historiología de las emperatrices Leónidas (457–518)” dirigido por la Prof.ra Margarita Vallejo Girvés, y ha contado asimismo con el apoyo de la Universidad de Barcelona.

xii

M. C. Chiriatti - R. Villegas Marín

Finalmente, no podemos obviar el generoso apoyo del Prof. Jörg Ulrich y de su equipo de investigadores (Franziska Grave, Hannah Mälck, Malina Teepe) de la Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, así como del Dr. Martin Illert, de la Dra. Martina Kayser y de Jehona Kicaj de la editorial Brill- Schoeningh por su gran profesionalidad y constante apoyo. De la misma manera, profundo es también el agradecimiento a los editores de esta recién nacida serie, Anna Usacheva, Siam Bhayro y Jörg Ulrich, a quienes deseamos los mayores éxitos en este nuevo proyecto. En Alcalá - Barcelona, 05.03.2021 M. C. Chiriatti - R. Villegas Marín

Prólogo While I am writing this, the British public is gripped by what the tabloid press have dubbed a ‘crisis’ of the British monarchy. A royal woman abruptly departed from the court she, a foreigner no less, had only recently joined through marriage. She left allegedly due to contrasting views about – among others – her son’s heritage and hereditary rights. If there is a ‘crisis’, it may lie in this woman and her princely husband’s decision to speak publicly about it. There are of course also contexts of race and class that are very specific to and concerning about this situation. Yet, the underlying issue is part and parcel of dynasties throughout history, especially those built around male succession, as succession to the British royal title has been until very recently as well.1 Due to their essential role as horizontal connectors between families, and therefore also between different cultures, identities and values, royal women have always been both a constituting element in dynastic stability, and a disruptive force to dynastic vertical structures. Accordingly, as in the British media today, categorizing royal women as conforming or non-conforming and measuring them against each other on these grounds have been discursive tropes throughout the ages. Whether born into royal families as rulers’ daughters, sisters or nieces, or as royal men’s consorts coming in from the outside, royal women’s existence has been a source of anxiety and fear in many historical contexts, producing diverse exogamic or endogamic marriage strategies.2 As this volume shows, late antiquity, the early medieval West and Byzantium are no exceptions. This is despite – or perhaps because – the hereditary dynastic principle not being as strong in these societies as it became in more recent times. At least during the earlier part of this period, imperial or royal kinship was only one factor in the establishment of legitimacy to rule, alongside personal charisma, military might, regional supremacy, aristocratic and popular consensus, the right form of piety and therefore divine approval. While this situation means that there was perhaps less attention to ‘pure’ blood lines, it increased both women’s image as royal ancestresses and their dynastic potential, the ability to pass legitimacy on to other, even outside 1 The principle of male primogeniture, where the title passes to the eldest male direct descendant, was changed only in 2013 through the Succession to the Crown Act. The British monarchy is in any case currently looking forward to three generations of male heirs to the throne, albeit by accident of birth. 2 J. Duindam, Dynasties. A Global History of Power, 1300–1800, Cambridge 2016, 87–155.

xiv

Julia Hillner

men.3 As Shaun Tougher reminds us in his contribution to this volume, it has long been argued that Byzantium had a tendency to ‘matriarchy’. His contribution illustrates that what was at stake were emperors’ attempts to create dynasties by emphasising their wives or mothers’ sometimes near-mythical credentials, in the absence of a more established hereditary principle. This was a technique that already Constantine, the first Christian emperor, applied to his own mother Helena, whose unusual mausoleum is here discussed by Jordina Sales-Carbonell. Dynastic potential was, in turn, especially true for women born into ruling families (‘porphyrogenitae’ in Byzantine parlance) or those who were the last remaining survivors of dynasties. In the absence of clearly designed heirs to the throne, contenders could or would often try to increase their chances by attaching themselves to female relatives of rivalling or previous rulers, or were suspected of doing so. Oriol Dinarés Cabrerizo and Margarita Vallejo Girvés show this in this volume with respect to dowager queens in both the fifth-century East and the Visigothic kingdoms in the West. Such fear of royal women giving their husbands or sons unwanted power was one of the reasons behind a very specific method to tame female dynastic potential: monastic confinement or even monastic consecration, practiced across the period studied in this volume, as, for example, the contributions by Silvia Acerbi on the fifth-century Augusta Pulcheria (d. 453) and Giorgio Vespignani’s on Irene Dukaina and Anna Komnena (d. 1153) illustrate. At the same time, daughters, sisters and nieces were also considered precious assets to strike alliances across borders in a fragmenting Mediterranean world. No earlier Roman emperor had used marriage prospects in diplomacy with other ruling families, as Gabriel Estrada San Juan explains in this volume, but it was enthusiastically practiced in the post-Roman kingdoms, as Purificación Ubric Rabaneda shows, and sometimes in the Byzantine empire too. A role as pawn in deal-making was also true for royal consorts chosen to consolidate ties with internal stakeholders, especially a ruler’s nobility, which, as many contributions to this volume show, was the usual practice for Byzantine emperors. Sometimes Byzantine royal consorts were also believed to have decidedly shady backgrounds, such as, above all, Theodora, the subject of an entire section in this volume due to her ‘rags-to-riches’ story’s timeless appeal. In all cases – whether originating from a different royal court, a noble family, or especially if of more common backgrounds – the foreignness of royal consorts, and correspondingly their ability ‘to fit in’, caused unease. In Byzantium, as 3 For the concept of dynastic potential see also A. Busch, Die Frauen der Theodosianischen Dynastie: Macht und Repräsentation kaiserlicher Frauen im 5. Jahrhundert, Stuttgart 2015, 214–217.

Prólogo

xv

Ernest Marcos Hierro reveals, this issue brought about the circulation of the famous ‘bride show’ stories, designed to explain emperors’ seemingly arbitrary exogamic decisions. The arrival of female newcomers to courts also generated continuous debates about the ideal expectations of royal women – as we witness today with the British family. Victoria Escribano Paño studies one such debate here, about the behaviour of the ‘semi-barbarian’ empress Eudoxia, wife of Arcadius (d. 404). She demonstrates that despite Eudoxia conforming to Theodosian expectations of imperial womanhood she was frequently misconstrued as non-conforming. Eudoxia’s case shows that debates about female royal behaviour were (and are) often proxy to larger clashes of social values. They were therefore debates royal women themselves could and perhaps cannot win. Where then is female power in all this? Here, it is helpful to think about power – the ability to control and organise the behaviour of others – as formal, informal or collective, and about the intersection between these categories.4 The first is located in institutional and legal privileges, such as titles, insignia, or even roles in government. As Mattia C. Chiriatti and Carles Buenacasa Pérez show, the Theodosian Dynasty (379–450) was instrumental in creating an official image of the late Roman and then Byzantine empress as a ‘partner in government’, often reproduced in material culture. In combination with procreative qualifications, evidenced through the motherhood of heirs, it could give at least some imperial women considerable agency, to the extent of one, Irene, ruling for a time all by herself (797–802), as Nicola Bergamo discusses here. We should note, however, that Irene did not set an example, and formal power quickly reverted to men afterwards, or, at most, female regents of child emperors, however much empresses continued to be portrayed as ‘partners’. Visibility in iconography was not necessarily the same as power. More common for royal women of this period was the second type, informal power, also sometimes called personal power. This accrued from women’s proximity to emperors and their corresponding ability to act as ‘gatekeepers’. Its extent can be measured by the degree of such closeness. As Liz James has long argued, and is here reconfirmed by Petros Tsagkaropoulos, such personal power was an accepted fact, at least in the Byzantine empire.5 Although often denigrated as a source of intrigue, everyone in reality used the routes of personal proximity in an empire where the emperor himself was very much presented as 4 As laid out in the volume edited by A. Kolb, Augustae. Machtbewusste Frauen am römischen Kaiserhof, Berlin 2010, especially by Thomas Späth, ‘Augustae zwischen modernen Konzepten und römischen Praktiken der Macht’, 293–308. 5 L. James, Empresses and Power in Early Byzantium, London 2001, 1–7.

xvi

Julia Hillner

the head of a household. The popes writing to empresses discussed by Pere Maymó Capdevila knew this very well. Equally important, however, but less studied, was the power that came from royal women being part of collectives, or – to use a different term – networks that cut across government, court and household structures. Such networks could be varied and overlapping and the power they generated therefore of a diverse degree. They could originate from activities that royal women undertook as royal women, such as, in this period, the patronage of religious institutions. But we also need to remember that all royal women were or were feared to be connectors. They had birth families, and – especially where these differed from the courts they were part of – potentially resources, knowledge, and contacts independent from their court roles. Nonetheless, perhaps the most long-lasting power came from royal women being able to develop their own narratives. In this period this may have been only possible in distance from a royal court, as the example of Anna Komnena indicates. But if we consider our modern, British example, this is perhaps true today as well. Royal women matter. It is a privilege to learn and relearn this basic, but not self-evident fact from this volume’s beautiful comparative scope and multilingual perspective. I would like to congratulate the editors and publisher for having allowed their contributors to express their evidence, analysis, and concepts through the voice they feel most comfortable with, and in this way enrich this volume with an inspirational polychromy impossible to achieve in monoglot form. Julia Hillner

I Constantinianas, Teodosianas y Leónidas

chapter 1

Princess Pipa as a Taste of a Literary Model Gabriel Estrada San Juan Abstract Princess Pipa or Pipara, concubine or wife of Emperor Gallienus, is a character little known about and from only three sources, all of them heirs to the supposed Emmansche Kaisergeschichte. From these, we follow the trail to a literary model applied to certain empresses in imperial historiography, especially the empress Eudoxia, Arcadius’ wife. 1.1

Introduction

The representation of the Augusta in imperial historiography has always been marked by the degree of discretion with which she played the role of consort, and thus entered the usual dichotomy between good and bad characters. Paradoxically, discretion is sometimes the cause not of praise for the character, but their invisibility: we do not know the consorts of many of the 3rd century Soldatenkaiser, such as Probus or Carus, of whom the sources nevertheless testify descendants; and for other wives, like Ulpia Severina or Magnia Urbica, we barely know more than the name. More luck is had for Pipa, or Pipara, the Marcomannic princess who one tradition makes a concubine of Emperor Gallienus (Aur. Vict., caes. 33.6; SHA Gall. 21.3f.; trig. tyr. 3.4) and another his wife in some sort of polygamous relationship (Aur. Vict., epit. caes. 33.1).1 Her presence is limited to these four 1 Since it was not preceded by the death or divorce of the Augusta Salonina. For this question, M. Geiger, Gallienus, Frankfurt 2015, 333f.; A. Goltz / U. Hartmann, Valerianus und Gallienus, in: K.-P.  Johne (ed.), Die Zeit der Soldatenkaiser. Krise und Transformation des Römischen Reiches im 3. Jahrhundert n. Chr. (235–284), Berlin 2008, 223–295 (239); P.M. Speidel, Gallienus and the Marcomanni, in: K.-P. Johne / T. Gerhardt / U. Hartmann (eds.), Deleto paene imperio romano. Transformationsprozesse des römischen Reiches im 3. Jahrhundert und ihre Rezeption in der Neuzeit, Stuttgart 2006, 73–76 (76); J.J. Bray, Gallienus. A Study in Reformist and Sexual Politics, Kent Town 1995, 31.123; G.C. Brauer, The Age of the Soldier Emperors. Imperial Rome, A.D. 244–284, Park Ridge 1975, 124.

© Brill Schöningh 2021 | doi:10 30965/9783657760374 002

4

Gabriel Estrada San Juan

brief passages in Aurelius Victor, the Epitome de Caesaribus and the Historia Augusta (HA onwards),2 works that share the same common source, the supposed Emmansche Kaisergeschichte (EKG), a history allegedly written after Constantine’s death.3 However, the halo that surrounds this couple is pejorative. The relationship between the monarch and the princess, branded as a barbarian, appears to us as a consequence, and not a cause, of Gallienus’ ineffectiveness and sloth, a fact that will explain Postumus’ uprising in Gaul (Aur. Vict., caes. 33.6f.; SHA trig. tyr. 3.4). According to the three sources, love is present in this relationship as a driver of decisions, among which the Epitome specifies the transfer of part of Pannonia to the Marcomannic king, Attalus, father of Pipa (Aur. Vict., caes. 33.1).4 Although the news about the princess afforded by these three sources is very sparse and the historical value questionable, at least we can discover in it the patina of a typical character, evolved through centuries of imperial historiography and still present at the time of writing – see Eusebia or, particularly, Eudoxia, which will be discussed later. Our purpose will be therefore to demonstrate this topos in the characterisation of the Germanic princess and to transfer it to the times of the author.

2 Henceforth, we will assume a date for the HA between 395 and 409, with the fall of Eugenius in the West and the sack of Rome as termini ante and post quem, according to the majority consensus in recent times (e.g. A.R. Birley, The Historia Augusta and Pagan Historiography, in: G.  Marasco (ed.), Greek and Roman Historiography in Late Antiquity. Fourth to Sixth Century A.D., Leiden 2003, 127–149 (139); R. Syme, Historia Augusta Papers, Oxford 1983, 110; A. Chastagnol, Recherches sur l’Histoire Auguste. Avec un rapport sur les progrès de la Historia Augusta, BHAF 6, Bonn 1970, 4). 3 A.  Enmann, Eine verlorene Geschichte der römischen Kaiser und das Buch De viris illustribus urbis Romae, in: Ph.S 4 (1884), 335–501, with an original dating in shortly after 284. The date has been shifted to a period between 337 and 350, e.g. A. Chastagnol, 1970, 10; R. Syme, 1983, 151. 4 That is to say, the settlement of the Marcomannic people in the Danubian limes, within Roman territory, for which we witness a tribunus gentis Marcomannorum in the Notitia Dignitatum under the jurisdiction of the dux of Pannonia Prima (occ. 34.24), vid. D. van Berchem, Les Marcommans au service de l’Empire, in: E. Swoboda (ed.), Carnuntina. Ergebnisse der Forschung über die Grenzprovinzen des römischen Reiches. Vorträge beim Internationalen Kongreß der Altertumsforscher, Römische Forschungen in Niederöstereich 3, Cologne 1956, 15.

Princess Pipa as a Taste of a Literary Model

1.2

5

An Apathetic Emperor

The themes behind the original news about princess Pipa, which were written in the middle of the 4th century in the EKG, are the three that we have mentioned: the inactivity of the monarch, the barbarian condition of the woman and the love or attractiveness towards her with consequences in government policy. There are, therefore, three transgressions. First, the condition of a bad government, caused by the prince’s laziness, must occur so that his mother or consort takes leadership, a role that in a normal situation would not be hers. Gallienus fulfils this role perfectly, for not only is he continuously reviled by the successors of the EKG with indolence as a common thread of criticism,5 but his own relationship with the princess is included as part of his disastrous vices (Aur. Vict., caes. 33.6: on the same level as lenones ac vinarii; SHA trig. tyr. 3.4: at the level of luxuria et popinae). Some of these inoperative princes are evident: the so-called Kinderkaiser or child emperors, among whom, at the time of these authors, the sons of Valentinian and the sons of Theodosius are listed. These young emperors are the object of aversion by the author of the HA on many occasions throughout his literary devices, the most famous being the speech put of a fictitious Maecius Faltonius Nicomachus (PLRE 1, Nicomachus  2) in the Senate (Tac., ann. 6)6 on account of the election of Tacitus as the new emperor. In it, Tacitus is warned not to pass the State on to his young sons, to principes pueros et patres patriae dici impuberes. It is not difficult to see Arcadius and Honorius, the emperors reigning at the date of the work, in those – also unknown – sons of Tacitus.7

5 Apathetic: Aur. Vict., caes. 33.3; Eutr. 9.8; 11; Jer., chron. 304i; SHA Gall. 4.3; 5.7; 6.3–7; idle and gluttonous: Aur. Vict., caes. 33.15; SHA Gall. 3.6f.; 9.3; 16.1–3; 17.4–6; trig. tyr. 29.1; womanizer: Aur. Vict., caes. 33.6; SHA Gall. 17.7–9; 21.3; trig. tyr. 3.4; 9.1; 29.1; tavern buff: Aur. Vict., caes. 33.6; Amm. Marc. 14.1,9; SHA Gall. 21.6; trig. tyr. 3.4; 9.1; 23.1; 29.1. 6 Note that the name is a patchwork of onomastic elements from some of the great senatorial clans in the author’s time, easily recognisable: the family of Furius Maecius Gracchus, urban prefect of Rome in 376–377 (PLRE 1, Gracchus  1 and 3); that of Faltonius Probus Alypius, with the same position in 391 (PLRE 1, Alypius 13), and that of Virius Nicomachus Flavianus, consul in 394, translator of Philostratus’ Life of Apollonius of Tyana and a champion of the pagan reaction (PLRE 1, Flavianus 15), also alluded to in the translator Nicomachus (PLRE 1, Nicomachus 1; SHA Aurel. 27.6). 7 Thus in T. Honoré, Virius Nicomachus Flavianus, Xenia 23, Constance 1989, 15–17, who suggests taking the document as authentic – replacing the pertinent names – by putting the speech in the mouth of Nicomachus Flavianus.

6

Gabriel Estrada San Juan

Nicomachus’ speech also introduces another constant in the ideological scheme of the biographer and, by extension, the senatorial clique to which he undoubtedly subscribed. It is the phenomenon of the princeps clausus, the emperor locked in the palace, ignorant of the outside world and at the mercy of his ministers (e.g. SHA Alex. Sev. 66.3; SHA Aurel. 43.1–4) or his wife or nurse. Coeval characters such as Stilicho, Rufinus, Eutropius or the eunuchs whom Constantius II surrounded himself fulfil the role of the former, and Augustae such as Justina or Eudoxia, that of the latter. However, the transposition of the portrait of the roi fainéant in Gallienus is not easy, thus giving rise to contradictions in the historical accounts that are adverse to him. Justifying statements, practically telltale, arise from this clash between the characterisation of Pipa’s husband and the historical events, such as the following (SHA trig. tyr. 9.3): Sed Gallienus, ut erat nequam et perditus, ita etiam, ubi necessitas coegisset, velox, fortis, vehemens, crudelis, denique Ingenuum conflictu habito vicit eoque occiso in omnes Moesiacos tam milites quam cives asperrime saevit. “But Gallienus, still worthless and ruined, nevertheless, when necessity urged, was quick, brave, eager and cruel, and finally, when Ingenuus was engaged in battle, he defeated and killed him, and then vented his anger harshly on all the Moesians, soldiers as well as civilians.”

Or, after the defeats of Ingenuus and Regalianus (Aur. Vict., caes. 33.3): His prospere ac supra vota cedentibus more hominum secundis solutior rem Romanam quasi naufragio dedit […] “Since these successes were fortunate and they happened to be beyond his expectations, he became carefree like men who are lucky and almost brought the Roman state to shipwreck …”

In any case, the historical discourse emanating from the EKG is not frustrated by these contradictions and the caricature of Gallienus concludes gracefully. 1.3

A Barbarian Empress

The absence of authority in the figure of the monarch allows the presence of a woman as the de facto power in court. It is generally understood that the topos of the intervention of the Augusta – mother or consort – in politics is usually covered by a misogynistic discourse. An example is the traditional negative characterisation of the Julio-Claudian empresses, either in Tacitus

Princess Pipa as a Taste of a Literary Model

7

or Suetonius: from Livia to the two Agrippines, passing through Poppaea or Messalina, all of them built with common features defined by ambition and dishonest means, as well as the weak personality of the male.8 Of course, the excessive influence of the Augusta is not at odds with the ascendancy of the eunuchs and councillors when it comes to developing the theme of the princeps clausus. In the biography of Gordian III in the HA, it is the young prince’ mother, Maecia Faustina, who incurs, as regent, this habit of bad government. In the story, it is Gordianus himself who, in an apocryphal letter, acknowledges his mistake in leaving the appointment of positions in his mother’s hands, among which a Felicio and a Serapammon – eunuchs perhaps – are mentioned respectively as a praetorian prefect and commanding a legion (SHA Gord. 25.2). The invective is not only directed against Maecia Faustina but also against her advisors, namely Gaudianus, Reverendus and Montanus (SHA Gord. 25.3), all of them having a clear Christian connotation9. The passage is also the last appearance of Maecia Faustina, unknown outside the HA. Therefore, if we take her for a historical character, given her absence in inscriptions and on coins, we could safely venture that she was not alive at the beginning of her son’s reign in 238.10 However, it is interesting to point out the parallelism between these Christian-named ministers, sponsored by the mother of a young, inactive prince, with the patronage of Eudoxia, Arcadius’ wife and contemporary to the biographer, on characters widely known as Porphyry of Gaza.11 Especially when it is also reported that Eudoxia, imbued 8

9 10

11

Claudius being the perfect example, who also lends himself to the role of prince in the hands of his freedmen (His [scil. The freedmen], ut dixi, uxoribusque addictus, non principem, sed ministrum egit, Suet., Claud. 29.1), just like Constantius II in the hands of his eunuchs, vid. T.D. Barnes, Ammianus Marcellinus and Representation of Historical Reality, CSCP 56, London 1998, 126f. R. Syme, Ammianus and the Historia Augusta, Oxford 1968, 173f. However, a praeclarissimus general Gaudiosus appears later (Prob. 22.3). R.  Syme, Emperors and Biography. Studies in the Historia Augusta, Oxford 1971, 170. Regarding the character’s historicity, the name of Maecia Faustina, as well as her grandfather’s Maecius Marullus (SHA Gord. 2.2, also without attesting in other sources), rather suggest a fabrication by the biographer. First, Maecius is a very frequent nomen for fictional characters in the HA (ibid., 4f.; Syme, 1983, 121f.). Second, it perfectly adapts to the Antonine genealogical claim that the author builds around the Gordians and their alleged descendants, the clan of the Maecii Gracchi, contemporary to the author, supra n. 6. However, we have epigraphic evidence for a στρατηγός named Μαίκιος Φαυστεῖνος (Syme, 1968, 475, in Corinth), and also for a Maecius Marullus (Syme, 1971, 62, next to the Villa Gordiani in Zagarolo); vid. J.H. Oliver, The Ancestry of Gordian I, in: AJP 89 (1968), 345–347. The possible anti-Christian character of the HA, frequently brandished, has been repeatedly considered from very different points of view: from downplaying the author’s

8

Gabriel Estrada San Juan

with her “arrogance” (αὐθαδίζεσθαι), entrusted the government to the greed of the eunuchs as well as other women to the ruin of the people (Zos. 5.24,2).12 This will not be the last correspondence between Arcadius’ consort and the HA. On the other hand, Maecia Faustina is not described as a barbarian. Towards the end of the 4th century, the audacity in these women, which is explicitly stated contrary to their natural condition, is sometimes justified by their barbarian roots. The introduction of this attribute in the late imperial historiography had the opportunity of coming from the hand of the Syrian empresses. Elagabalus’ eccentric orientalism, as well as his and his successor Severus Alexander’s youth, make up the perfect setting to draw some Augustae who hold the real power of the Empire, namely Julia Maesa, Julia Soaemias and Julia Mamaea. Indeed, all of them receive a somewhat negative assessment in 3rd century Greek historiography, an assessment that was developed and exaggerated by the HA more than two centuries later,13 but not by the other religious position (Syme, 1983, 126: “Christianity, it is clear, was not among the main preoccupations of the HA”) to raising it as the protagonist of the work (J. Straub, La leggi di Severo Alessandro in materia di usura, in: J. Straub (ed.), Atti del colloquio Patavino sulla Historia Augusta, Rome 1963, 11–20 (20): “La Historia Augusta è una Historia adversus christianos”). In any case, we will not go further in this matter. 12 Compare, for example, with the version of the government of Julia Mamaea given by Cassius Dio, who dramatises the princeps clausus Severus Alexander in the hands of the advisors appointed by his mother, but describes these advisors as σοφοὺς ἄνδρας (80.5 fr., also Hdn. 5.7,5; 6.1,5 and repeated by SHA Alex. Sev. 66.1, favourable to Alexander in particular); Dio had not lived through the Kinderkaiser reigns that shaped the ideological scheme of the authors of the late 4th and early 5th centuries. 13 Maesa and Soaemias, grandmother and mother of Elagabalus respectively, who really hold power (Dio Cass. 80.6,2; SHA Heliogab. 2.1), with a caricature of Soaemias as libidinous (SHA Heliogab.  2.1f.; 18.2), evidently developed after the propaganda that made Elagabalus and Alexander illegitimate children of Caracalla. As for Alexander’s mother, Mamaea, again who sways the sceptre (Hdn. 6.1,9f.; 5.8; SHA Alex. Sev. 14.7; 60.2), is caricatured as a stingy ruler (Hdn.  6.1,8; 9.4; 9.8; epit. caes. 24.4; SHA Alex. Sev.  14.7; 59.8) and the cause of the unpopularity and fall of her son (Hdn.  6.8,3; 9.4f.; 9.8; Aur. Vict., epit. caes. 24.5; SHA Alex. Sev. 59.8). The culmination of the female political interference comes with the creation of a Senaculum or matronarum senate chaired by Julia Soaemias, mocked by the biographer (SHA Heliogab. 4, probably inspired by Dio Cass. 80.18,2); for this little senate as one more literary allusion, vid. D. Rohrbacher, The Play of Allusion in the Historia Augusta, Winsconsin 2016, 115f.; A. Chastagnol, 1970, 15; J. Straub, Senaculum, id est mulierum senatus, in: A. Alföldi (ed.), BHAC 1964–1965, Bonn 1966, 221–240. On the foreign or barbarian (Hdn.  5.5,5: ἀλλοδαπὸν ἢ παντάπασι βάρβαρον) nature of these attitudes, one passage draws attention: that in which Severus Alexander, who receives a disproportionately favourable treatment in the HA, tries to detach himself from his Syrian roots, in a scene comprising a stupendous parody of the forging of genealogical claims (SHA Alex. Sev. 44.3, with echoes at 64.3).

Princess Pipa as a Taste of a Literary Model

9

successors of the EKG.14 This divergence between the HA and the EKG’s other followers must be sought in the fact that the former is the most recent in time and the events contemporary to each author: we refer to the increasing presence of marriages with foreign, or barbarian, princesses within the imperial family. In fact, the closest that Victor and Eutropius came to witnessing an imperial union with a barbarian was the marriage of Magnentius, a descendant of laeti (Zos., hist. nov. 2.46,3; 54.1), with Justina, of Constantinian stock,15 followed by that of Olympia, Constans’ former fiancée, with King Arsaces III of Armenia (Amm. Marc. 20.11,3) in 354.16 To these we could add that of Princess Serena with the half-vandal Stilicho in c. 384,17 whose Romanity was never questioned. Conversely, and undoubtedly more impressive, must have been the union at the end of the 4th century – and therefore contemporary with the writing of the HA – between Emperor Arcadius and the Frankish Aelia Eudoxia. Indeed, Arcadius’ consort is reported by Philostorgius as being a barbarian, a condition inherited from her father (Philost., h.e. 11.6: βάρβαρος; τοῦ βαρβαρικοῦ), the count Bauto, whom Ambrosius of Milan, prior to the marriage of his daughter, makes come from the other side of the Rhine (Ambr., ep. 24.8: Transrhenanus).18 The adjective is not just another qualifying – or disqualifying – word, but rather a piece that gives coherence to the historical discourse by justifying the role of the Augusta. The epitome of Philostorgius summarises (Philost., h.e. 11.6):

14 15 16 17 18

The EKG only uses the euphemism that Alexander was pious towards his mother (Eutr. 8.23; Aur. Vict., caes. 24.5; Jer., chron. 299i); on the other hand, the HA separates from this source and clearly follows Hdn. Infra n. 20. N.H. Baynes, Rome and Armenia in the Fourth Century, in: EHR 25 (1910), 625–643 (631f.). Claud. cons. Stil. 1.69–83; PLRE 1, Serena. The mere mention of her father by Philostorgius has led to recklessly assume the semibarbaric nature of Eudoxia, who would have been born to a Roman mother, such as Stilicho,  K.G.  Holum, Theodosian Empresses. Women and Imperial Dominion in Late Antiquity, The Transformation of the Classical Heritage  3, Berkeley 1982, 52; J.B.  Bury, History of the Later Roman Empire from the Death of Theodosius I to the Death of Justinian, Oxford 1923, 108f.: “Her mother had doubtless been a Roman.” On Stilicho, although Philostorgius’ position is clearly negative – coming to accept without doubt the accusation that he conspired to enthrone his son Eucherius (11.3), or even being responsible for Honorius remaining childless (12.2), among other invectives (χαὶ ἐν ἄλλοις πολλοῖς Στελίχωνος κατατρέχων, 12.1) –, his condition of barbarian or semi-barbarian is not present behind them, beyond the βάρβαροι in his entourage (12.3). However, the gap presented by the epitome at the beginning of Book 11, where the character was allegedly introduced, leaves this comparison lacking.

10

Gabriel Estrada San Juan τὸ δὲ γύναιον ού κατὰ τὴν τοῦ ἀνδρὸς διέκειτο νωθείαν, ἀλλ’ ἐνῆν αὐτῇ τοῦ βαρβαρικοῦ θράσους οὐκ ὀλίγον. “The woman was the opposite of her husband’s dullness inasmuch as she had in her no little boldness, that of the barbarians.”

The husband’s dullness and the wife’s boldness are paired as a necessary condition for this narrative device to work. In the same vein, Cedrenus, on the occasion of the news of her marriage with Arcadius, directly qualifies the empress as a barbarian and therefore, as if it was something inherent, as bold or audacious (334a: βάρβαρος οὖσα γυνὴ καὶ θρασυκάρδιος; also Zonaras, epit. hist. 13.20b: ἡ δὲ ἦν γύναιον ἰταμὸν καὶ χρημάτων ἡττώμενον ἔρατος, κἀντεῦθεν καὶ ἀδικώτατον), in contrast again with the ineffectiveness, for laziness or cowardice, of her husband (Cedr. ibid.: πολλῶν κακῶν αὐτῷ πρόξενος ἐγεγόνει; Zonar. ibid.: νωθὴς δὲ ὢν καὶ τὴν γνώμην πέρα τοῦ δέοντος μαλθακός). Likewise Zosimus, due to the lack of control of Arcadius’ government, recounted extensively, and his being “totally short-sighted” (Zos., hist. nov. 5.24,2: τοῦ γὰρ βασιλεύοντος ἐσχάτως ἀνοηταίνοντος), depicts Eudoxia taking the reins with “an arrogance improper from her sex” (ibid.: πέρα τῆς φύσεως αὐθαδιζομένη), although without linking it to her Frankish blood, of which he makes no mention. An example after Eudoxia is provided by the consort of Emperor Justin, Lupicina Euphemia, originally a servant of barbarian extraction (Procop., anecd. 6.17; 9.48). As empress, she controlled an emperor portrayed by Procopius at all times as weak, in this case because of his advanced age (6.11). The “barbarian” origin of Lupicina and therefore her “rustic” nature is made explicit (9.48: πονηρίας μὲν γὰρ ἡ γυνὴ ἀπωτάτω οὖσα ἐτύγχανεν, ἄγροικος δὲ ἦν κομιδῆ καὶ βάρβαρος γένος, ὥσπερ μοι εἴρηται), which she had to disguise by adopting the name of Euphemia (9.49), to which a second conditioner is added, that of her slave origin (6.17: δούλη τε καὶ βάρβαρος οὖσα). Of course, all this leads to her inability to participate in State affairs due to the nature of her origin (9.49: ἀντιλαβέσθαι τε ἀρετῆς οὐδαμῆ ἴσχυσεν). At the same time, however, Procopius shows her authority at court, clearly above her consort, at the expense of his inactivity. This is illustrated by Euphemia’s opposition to Justinian’s marriage to Theodora (9.47), a marriage that only took place at the death of the empress, completely ignoring the possible opinion of Emperor Justin (9.49–51), as it had been until then. Previously, as a slave, Lupicina had played the role of concubine to her owner (6.7), as well as Theodora did the role of courtesan (9.11). To explain the rise of such female characters, out of place in the established narrative framework, these authors draw on the third of these tropes.

Princess Pipa as a Taste of a Literary Model

1.4

11

An Emperor in Love

Physical attractiveness is the third and final feature that completes the literary topic, an aspect that the three sources report on Pipa. Indeed, in imperial historiography, if a woman reached a position of power that did not correspond to her status, it could only be through allurement. From the incestuous relationship between Agrippina the Younger and her son Nero (Suet., Ner.  28.2; Tac., ann. 14.2; Dio Cass. 61.11,3f.),19 Cassius Dio tells of the incest between Julia Soaemias and Elagabalus (80.6,2), later replicated by the EKG for Julia Domna and Caracalla (Aur. Vict., caes. 21.3; Eutr. 8.20; Jer., chron. 297f.; Aur. Vict., epit. caes. 21.5; SHA M. Ant. 10.1–4). Far from the incestuous connotation, a contemporary parallel to the heirs of the EKG can be found in the Empress Justina, who stars in a scene similar to that of the former in the account of Socrates Scholasticus. According to the version offered by this author – and which differs from the rest –, Justina was introduced to Valentinian by his first wife, Marina Severa. The emperor fell in love with her physical beauty, long praised by Severa (Socr., h.e. 4.31: Ὡς οὖν ἴδεν αὐτὴν λουομένην τὴν Ἰουστίναν ἡ Σευήρα, ἠράσθη τοῦ κάλλους τῆς παρθένου˙ καὶ πρὸς τὸν βασιλέα διεξῄει περὶ αὐτῆς, ὡς οὕτως εἴη θαυμαστὸν ἔχουσα κάλλος ἡ παρθένος ἡ τοῦ Ἰούστου θυγάτηρ, ὡς καὶ αὐτὴν, καίτοι γυναῖκα οὖσαν, ἐρασθῆναι τῆς εὐμορφίας αὐτῆς), who practically convinced him to marry her (Ὁ δὲ βασιλεὺς ταμιευσάμενος τὸν τῆς γυναικὸς λόγον, ἀγαγέσθαι τὴν Ἰουστίναν ἐβουλεύσατο, μὴ ἐκβαλὼν τὴν Σευήραν, ἀφ’ ἧς αὐτῷ Γρατιανὸς ἐγεγόνει, ὃν μικρὸν ἔμπροσθεν ἀνηγορεύκει βασιλέα; also Jord., rom. 310; Theoph. 5860 after him). In the news, of course, at no time are the advantages that marriage would bring – and did bring – told, which are those of Justina’s dynastic ties – widow of Magnentius and heir to the Constantinian saga,20 a condition that she passed on to her children Valentinian II and Galla –; instead, Socrates merely presents her as the daughter of Justus, ἔπαρχος of Picenum. The only focus of the news 19

20

Here, a new stereotype comes into play, alien to our work, which is the stigma of incest. Although Suetonius has fun in the most frivolous way with the anecdote, in the same passage he reports the existence of a female slave with a physical resemblance to Agrippina who would really be the object of sin (Suet., Ner. 28.2; also Dio Cass. 61.11,4). This way of showing the mother-son incest, which we can also find for Faustina the Younger and Commodus (SHA Comm. 5.8), does not necessarily enter into a justification of female authority but rather into a simple degradation of the person of the prince. One proposal for genealogical reconstruction in F.  Chausson, Stemmata Aurea, Rome 2007, 160–166 and Ch. Settipani, Continuité gentilice et continuité familiale dans les familles sénatoriales romains. Mythe et réalité, Prosopographica et genealogica 2, Oxford 2000, 330–332.

12

Gabriel Estrada San Juan

is the seduction of the emperor by the two women and the tirade on him by not wanting to give up either of them. The political issue is therefore presented as simply domestic, which serves to explain an unconserved law that would have allegedly allowed a bigamous marriage.21 The reduction of a dynastic marriage to a fun, domestic anecdote, far from being a rarity, can also be found with Eusebia, second wife of Constantius II. In a passage by Ammianus Marcellinus, a certain Assyria (PLRE 1, Assyria) fears that her husband, the magister militum Barbatio (PLRE 1, Barbatio), will abandon her for the empress should he reach the throne; again not because of the legitimistic logic that such a marriage would bring – logic that is not even mentioned – but because of Eusebia’s beauty (18.3,22). Of course, all of these tropes also converge on the barbarian empress Eudoxia. Indeed, Arcadius’ Augusta is also portrayed as a woman of great beauty (Zos., hist. nov. 5.3,2f.). On this occasion, the role of Marina Severa is played by the eunuch Eutropius, who is the one who presents the girl to Arcadius as part of the political game between him and the praetorian prefect Rufinus. Given that the preserved epitome of Philostorgius does not offer the reason for Arcadius’ link with a woman so reviled by the author, it can be thought that this motive, the physical enticement of the empress, was a superficial detail for the epitomator, Photius, and was thus suppressed. In any case, desire is, in all the news, an inherent element in the relationship of dependency of the emperor towards the bold Augusta, and it leads to some historical events being naively and frivolously explained, as is usual in most imperial historiography. 1.5

An Exceptional Empress

Ultimately, the goal of these female archetypes as a literary invective is not so much to undermine the empress herself as to the reigning emperor. Thus Gallienus, in evident parallel with the coeval Arcadius, becomes an object of mockery for the HA’s biographer through his love affair with the Marcomannic 21

Widely discussed (e.g. W. Ensslin, RE 14,2 (1930), 1757: “eine rührende Geschichte”; A. Nagl, RE 7 A,2 (1948), 2187; O. Seeck, RE 10,2 (1919), col. 1337f.) and finally cleared by T. Barnes, 1998, 123–126, for whom the centre of the historical question that motivated the law was really being able to contract a second marriage, after divorce, being the first wife still alive; this law could be the one referred to by Augustine of Hippo in De nuptiis et concupiscentia (nupt.) 1.10,11 in 419/420. Socrates’ account is quite different from that of other authors, who explicitly speak of a repudiation of the first wife, bogged down in an alleged court scandal (Mal. 13.31; chron. pasch. 369; Ioann. Nik., chron. 82.10).

Princess Pipa as a Taste of a Literary Model

13

princess, but also through other women (tyrannas) who, as the author assures, came to rule better than the legitimate emperor (SHA trig. tyr. 30.1,10; 31.1).22 In this way, in an effort to highlight the contrast with Gallienus, the author is able to contradict his own discourse. The biographies for Victoria and Zenobia are a clear example of this.23 Trying to get away from the stereotype, the HA introduces the character of Vitruvia sive Victoria, mother of Emperor Victorinus and responsible for the enthronements of Marius and Tetricus in the Gallic Empire (trig. tyr. 5.3; 24.1; 31.2) as well as the appointments of the Caesars Victorinus the Younger and Tetricus the Younger (trig. tyr. 6.3; 7.1; 24.1; 25.1). The biographical account – with more fiction than reality – of this kingmaker would be nothing more than a carbon copy of her predecessors, the Syrian empresses, previously biographed, with an obvious sign of exaggeration and parody.24 Yet, the attitude of the anonymous author towards the empress tries to denote admiration instead of contempt. That is why she is entitled Augusta (trig. tyr. 5.3) and four times mater castrorum (trig. tyr. 5.3; 6.3; 25.1; 31.2) as if the ostentation of these two titles by an empress was not something common: the only other mention of the mother of the camps title is under Faustina the Younger, the first to hold it (Marc. 26.8). For further exaggeration – possibly with humorous overtones –, the author even notes the coinage with her effigy in the mint of Trier (31.3). However, beyond her titles – with little purpose other than to fill up text – and the appointment of princes – which is but an amplificatio through invention of the information provided by the EKG, also present in Aurelius Victor (caes. 33.14) –, the author does not offer more information on the character and rambles on empty rhetoric. He doesn’t even devise frivolities about her personal life or forge any document, since he is careful not to equate her to 22 23

24

In fact, the purpose of ridiculing Gallienus through them ends up being explicitly recognised at the end of the exposition of the lives of Zenobia and Victoria (trig. tyr. 31.7; Cl. 1.2). The HA magnifies Zenobia, unlike Victor, both sources being prosenatorial, J.P.  Callu, Aurélius Victor et l’Interrègne de 275. Problèmes historiques et textuels, in: G. Bonamente / M. Mayer (eds.), HAC Barcinonense 1996, Bari 1996, 133–145 (143f.), the latter keeping consistency with his discourse in case Callu is right interpreting the gap in Aur. Vict., caes. 34.7f. as referring to Zenobia’s last stand: “les mots-clefs sont remissa imperia, le ‘pouvoir moi’ de Zénobie”, 143. Aurelius Victor was not contemporary to Arcadius, and for this reason he had no need to ridicule Gallienus even more through a usurpress. In her, the Gallic Empire as a whole is incarnated (SHA Cl. 4.4). Needless to say, the general character of the so-called vitae minores in the HA is spurious, especially those that make up the book of the Tyranni Triginta. The only other source that mentions the character, the Caesares of Victor, places Victoria behind only Victorinus and Tetricus (33.14).

14

Gabriel Estrada San Juan

an Agrippina or a Julia Mamaea. On the contrary, he excuses her position by assuring that she shared the power with others, namely Victorinus, Marius and Tetricus, “to avoid such a great burden” (per se fugiens tanti ponderis molem) inappropriate to her sex. Undoubtedly, a juggling act to try to get around the ideological corset. Later, the anonymous biographer could not repeat the same trick with the famous Zenobia and was in need of finding a way to positively show the boldness of this, also foreign, queen. However, the mechanism he found is very simple: Zenobia is justified as a good ruler in shaping the character as “masculine” – virilis, or ultra femineum modum (SHA Gall. 13.3.5; trig. tyr. 16) – ,25 clearly distancing her from the model of Agrippina, Eudoxia or the future Euphemia, for which it is further explained that she did not use seduction with her husband (30.12), and instead brought herself closer to Victoria (30.23). This conversion of values also excuses her pride or audacity in spite of her being a foreigner – peregrina is the word used on this occasion (30.2). Although she succeeds in eclipsing her husband, Odaenathus (15.8), in any case the situation obeys any indolence but rather a talent for which she even attributes his military victories (30.6). Therefore, it is necessary to move her away from her natural condition – femineus sexus (30.2f.) – by providing a multitude of anecdotal details to at least keep the story’s coherence. Thus, these boasts of exceptionalism and self-justification only confirm the existence of a historical discourse for these queens, adapting in slow evolution to the novelty of each era. 1.6

Conclusion

To conclude, the reason we have tried to draw this comparison or parallel between Pipa and Eudoxia is not fickle. The HA is full of these parallels, some of which have already been cited.26 Only in the Vita Heliogabali can we read Serena desecrating the Temple of Magna Mater in 394 in the person of Elagabalus (SHA Heliogab. 6.8),27 and the extinction of the fire of Vesta in the same year (6.6), as well as Constantine 25 26 27

Compare this virilis Zenobia with Festus’, writing at the time of Valens: feminea dicione Orientis tenebat imperium (24); of course, she is not praised in this account. Also the weak government deplored by Aurelius Victor (caes. 34.7f.), supra n. 23. Maecius Faltonius Nicomachus’ speech and Julia Soaemias’ Senaculum, supra n. 6 and n. 13 respectively. Zos., hist. nov. 5.38,3; Chastagnol, 1970, 24.

Princess Pipa as a Taste of a Literary Model

15

refusing to ascend the Capitol at the instigation of Ossius of Cordova (15.7),28 among other more or less cryptic parallels; among the simplest, Elabagalus’ intention to abolish all cults in Rome except that of El-Gabal (6.7). In the same way, in the next biography, that of Severus Alexander, we discover that this emperor already observed Sunday (SHA Alex. Sev.  43.5), as Constantine would establish by law in 321,29 and that, in Antioch, a city despised throughout all of the work, he received the mockery and insults that Julian made the subject of his Misopogon (28.7), as well as the final triumph of the Christian faith over abandoned temples, in the form of a post eventum prophecy (43.6f.). The entire work, and especially the second half, is dotted with references to contemporary characters and events to the biographer or to the near past, from the battle of Adrianople (SHA Heliogab. 7.7) to the designation of Theodosius as emperor (SHA Aurel. 13–15.2). For this reason, we find that a similar relationship between Eudoxia and Pipa in the HA is not only possible but also the culmination of a whole legacy of imperial historiographical tradition, already consecrated in the lost EKG, as far as the representation of the empress is concerned.

28 29

Zos., hist. nov. 2.29,5; ibid., 25. Cod. Thds. 2.8,1; A. Chastagnol, Le septième jour dans l’Histoire Auguste, in: A. Alföldi (ed.), BHAC 1975/1976, Bonn 1978, 133–139; D. Rohrbacher, 2016, 99; M.A. Villacampa Rubio, El valor histórico de la Vita Alexandri Severi en los Scriptores Historiae Augustae, Zaragoza 1998, 281.

chapter 2

Mausoleos imperiales de mujeres cristianas en el Occidente tardorromano: Arqueología y poder postmortem Jordina Sales-Carbonell Abstract In this article, the available data on burial places in the West of Christian women from the Roman Imperial family are systematised and analysed. The final result, although drawing an apparently very fragmentary panorama, allows a glimpse of the post-mortem power that these women acquired, who could even be buried in magnificent individual mausoleums that not only further highlighted their relevance as imperial characters, but they also did it as Christian characters, generating new buildings of Christian worship in these same burial places. 2.1

Introducción

Las presentes líneas ofrecen, tomando como fuente de análisis la materialidad (arqueología, arquitectura, arte), un panorama general de la gran significancia que adquiría la figura imperial femenina tardorromana una vez acababa sus días terrenales, con el cristianismo como nuevo escenario de fondo. Evidentemente, no se debe perder de vista que se dispone también, y muy principalmente, de la literatura de la época para realizar una fotografía más precisa de esta realidad (panegíricos, oraciones fúnebres,1 etc.); pero en el presente estudio se va a ensayar un acercamiento exclusivamente acotado a la topografía y a los restos materiales generados con motivo de los decesos imperiales femeninos. 1 Véase el reciente estudio y traducción al castellano de algunas de estas coloridas oraciones fúnebres dedicadas a las mujeres purpuradas en: M.C. Chiriatti, Gregorio de Nisa. Discursos consolatorios y encomiásticos, Monografías de Derecho Romano y Cultura clásica, Madrid, 2021.

© Brill Schöningh 2021 | doi:10 30965/9783657760374 003

Mausoleos imperiales de mujeres cristianas en el Occidente

17

Para acometer este análisis, se dispone principalmente de los mausoleos como espectacular reflejo edilicio del poder que seguía emanando de las mujeres de la casa imperial una vez traspasadas. Ahora bien, ¿dónde estaban ubicados estos lugares de sepelio y por qué? ¿Cuántos quedan en pie? ¿Cuántos se pueden relacionar con seguridad con sus titulares? ¿Qué información está disponible y se puede aprovechar de los mausoleos ya desaparecidos, pero de los que queda constancia a través de otras fuentes? Muchas preguntas que, como se verá a continuación, solo tienen respuesta muy parcialmente, pero que permitirán elaborar una perspectiva global y esperemos que interesante a pesar de su inevitable fragmentariedad. A nivel cronológico, la atención se centrará en los mausoleos de las dinastías imperiales a partir de Constantino, esto es, básicamente mausoleos de féminas ya cristianas. Y a nivel geográfico, las coordenadas se focalizarán en Occidente, ya no solo por cuestiones de acotación del espacio, sino también por las limitaciones propias de quien suscribe estas líneas para abarcar un aspecto de la historiografía que ya de por sí resulta enorme. Adicionalmente cabe decir que el tema de los mausoleos imperiales cristianos resulta relativamente bien conocido y estudiado para Oriente, mientras que para Occidente parece que permanece por explorar en muchos de sus aspectos, cuanto menos en lo referente a los miembros femeninos del poder imperial.2 Por lo tanto, las palabras clave serán: MAUSOLEO; (de) MUJER; IMPERIAL; CRISTIANA; (en) OCCIDENTE. Y para lo que se refiere a “Occidente”, el criterio será que estos mausoleos se localicen físicamente en la pars occidental del Imperio, con independencia de que sus titulares sean mujeres pertenecientes a la corte oriental u occidental. Por último, a nivel metodológico cabe advertir que se hace necesaria la distinción entre los mausoleos de emperatrices propiamente dichas (o consortes del emperador de turno) y los mausoleos de otras féminas de la familia imperial (hermanas, madres, hijas del emperador). Todas las categorías se incluyen en este estudio.

2 La obra y el autor de referencia para los mausoleos imperiales tardorromanos son: M.J. Johnson, The Roman Imperial Mausoleum in Late Antiquity, Cambridge 2009, donde se sistematizan a modo de inventario los principales datos conocidos, buena parte de los cuales ya habían sido publicados en artículos anteriores por el mismo autor.

18 2.2

Jordina Sales-Carbonell

Estudio de casos y recorrido geográfico

Datos acerca de tumbas y mausoleos desaparecidos, no localizados o no atribuidos El primer bloque de esta investigación se centra en hacer una mención restitutiva de lo que ha desaparecido a lo largo del tiempo y de lo que aún no se ha encontrado y/o identificado, que, como resulta habitual por lo que a restos arqueológicos se refiere, es muchísimo. Pero para contextualizar tanto estos restos ya desaparecidos como también los conservados que se verán más adelante, se hace necesario un marco general: como punto de partida se puede afirmar que la familia imperial tardorromana cristiana en Occidente se inhumó principalmente –y como es lógico– en la vieja capital imperial, Roma. Y como resulta también lógico, el lugar preferido (aunque no exclusivo) fue la basílica de San Pedro del Vaticano, construida por el propio Constantino ya avanzado el siglo IV, aunque paradójicamente ningún miembro de su familia se enterró allí. Parece ser que no fue hasta momentos más avanzados que el Vaticano se empezó a utilizar como referencia para los sepelios imperiales, como se verá más adelante. Por otra parte, el traslado de la corte de Roma a Bizancio por parte del propio Constantino supuso oficialmente más de medio siglo de ausencia imperial en la Vrbs, aunque algunas mujeres de su dinastía –su madre Helena (a. 335) y su hija Constantina (a. 354)– se continuarían enterrando en Roma, y no en Constantinopla como hizo Constantino (a. 337).3 Cuando Teodosio volvió a dividir el Imperio en dos partes para sus hijos (a. 395), a Honorio le fue asignada la parte occidental y una de las consecuencias de este hecho fue la construcción de su mausoleo familiar en la basílica vaticana. (Fig. 2.1) Si se observan con detenimiento los antiguos planos y algunos grabados de la basílica constantiniana en el Vaticano –la cual se mantuvo en pie hasta su sustitución por la actual basílica barroca– se puede observar cómo, efectivamente, se conservaba en el Vaticano un lugar específico de sepelio para la familia imperial, hoy desaparecido. Por ejemplo, se pueden observar estas antiguas construcciones en el plano que alzó Tiberio Alfarano en 1590, justo antes de que se procediera a la demolición de la primitiva basílica paleocristiana. Se trata de un plano muy detallado, donde cada espacio lleva un numero o una letra con su nombre y descripción, y gracias a eso es conocido que en la parte meridional de la antigua basílica se emplazaba el mausoleo para la familia imperial. Se trata de una edificación de planta circular, anexa al extremo 2.2.1

3 Para el mausoleo de Constantino en Constantinopla (el famoso Apostoleion) véase Johnson, 2009, 119–129.

Mausoleos imperiales de mujeres cristianas en el Occidente

Fig. 2.1

19

La basílica constantiniana del Vaticano con el mausoleo imperial cristiano, según los planos de Tiberio Alfarano (a. 1590).

sur del transepto de la basílica constantiniana,4 y que ya en la Edad Media fue reconvertida en una capilla advocada a Santa Petronila, legendaria hija del apóstol Pedro. 4 Justo al lado de este mausoleo imperial existe otra rotonda que sería una construcción del siglo III, capilla bajo la advocación de san Andrés en la Edad Media y con toda probabilidad, originalmente, una modesta capilla relacionada con el culto en el lugar circense donde según la tradición fue ejecutado el apóstol Pedro: véase J. Sales-Carbonell, De mártir a promotor: el obispo y los edificios de espectáculos durante la Antigüedad, en: ARYS, Antigüedad, Religiones y Sociedades  15 [Deporte, espectáculo y religión en el mundo antiguo] (2017), 279–308 (288–291). Lanciani atribuye también a esta rotonda más primitiva una función de mausoleo imperial en base a la denominación “mausoleos” que según él aparece en la vida de Esteban II (a. 752): R. Lanciani, La distruzione dell’antica Roma. Lo scempio dei monumenti nel corso del secoli, Nápoles 2014, 54 (original de 1899); id. Pagan and Christian Rome, Boston 1893, 111s., extremo para el que parece no quererse pronunciar la inv