Roman imperial ideology in the mid -third century A.D.: Negotiation, usurpation, and crisis in the imperial center.

Abstract

The instability of the mid-third century AD included unique transformations in how the Roman emperor represented himself and his power. Understanding those transformations, however, is difficult due to the incomplete state of the historical record. A nuanced approach to ideology, focusing on the symbols, rituals, phrases, and images through which the power of the emperor was expressed in diverse media, allows us to examine in detail how imperial ideology changed in the third century. Although often considered dull and repetitive, the Roman coinage during the period from 217 to 275 reveals a complex process by which rules and conventions governing the use of symbols were broken, and parallels to this development are found in panegyric, patristic writings, and contemporary painting and sculpture. Indeed, ideology was as important as economic, political, or military factors in affecting the accession, assassination, and policies of mid-third century emperors (Chapter 1). The power of the empress and prince, particularly augmented during the Severan period (193--235), was alternately emphasized, suppressed, or usurped (Chapter 2). The emperor's persona expanded and became more abstract, effecting different aspects of imperial ideology (Chapter 3). For example, conventions which had kept representations of the emperor, Mars, and Virtus visually distinct were broken, so that the identity of these figures became ambiguous, implicating the emperor's person. Similarly, fertility symbolism was alternately emphasized or de-emphasized, until emperors became personally responsible for the abundance and prosperity of the world. Key ideas about the relationship between the emperor and the gods, such as <italic>conservatio </italic>, were abandoned and replaced by an emphasis on the sun-god Sol (Chapter 4). As they received the imperial message, Christians manipulated the emperor's image for specific purposes in their sculpture and catacomb painting, and both they and the imperial center diverged in their use of symbols (Chapter 5). These manipulations of imperial ideology compromised the emperor's ability to communicate his message effectively. More generally, this examination reveals that imperial ideology is transformed in small steps, more by means of subtle variations and novel combinations of individual images, symbols and attributes, than by abrupt, singular, and unique creations.