This relationship between the emperor and Christ had been a central theme of imperial depictions since the 4th century, 10 when, under Constantine, the emperor came to be no longer deemed a god in the pagan sense. Probably the most important criterion for performing the royal body was to demonstrate its benevolent connection to Christ. 9ġ Imperialization of Christ or Christianization of the Emperor? 8 Maria Cristina Carile has similarly demonstrated that, starting in late antiquity, the Byzantine imperial image was distinguished by a strong iconic character that facilitated the observer’s immediate recognition not only of the emperor but also of imperial authority.
In this way, imperial images were self-evident they displayed the sacral and secular authority of the basileus and, in doing so, magnified his power and that of the empire wherever his image was placed. 7 Frontal and haloed, Byzantine rulers were presented as sacred figures. 6 While the crown was naturally the most recognizable among the insignia, further unambiguous attributes were the sceptre and the labarum as well as the akakia and the orb. Moreover, the ceremonial vestments came to visually manifest the figure’s imperial status: the emperor is dressed in the chlamys or the loros, the garments worn during the most solemn moments of court ritual and prescribed in ceremonial handbooks. To ensure that the viewer recognized the figure as imperial, official images showed the emperor as static, idealized, iconic, haloed, and stereotyped – rather than emphasizing his individualized physiognomy. 5 It has long been accepted that imperial portraits were recognized as efficient symbols of the ruling institution. 4 The supernatural qualities of the sovereign, praised in panegyrics, were conveyed through highly diagrammatic and abstract images. What functions did the body of the emperor have, and how were these functions perceived? Given this set of questions, only ‘official’ images of the emperor will be examined here. Rather than focusing on the identification or contextualization of specific images, this essay will raise questions related to the visual conventions for staging the emperor and for representing his outward appearance.
2 Since the person of the emperor was inextricable from his cult, recent work has considered more closely the ceremonial aspects of portraiture. Studies of exegetical texts on the physiognomy of the emperors and the spatial settings for these images have filled many gaps in our understanding. 1 Initially, the primary concerns were the identification and interpretation of individual images on objects or in monumental art, among other more general questions concerning the significance and function of these images. Several generations of researchers have studied the subject of imperial portraiture in Byzantium from many different points of view.
0 kommentar(er)
