Three Portrait Gems

Author(s): James D. Breckenridge

Source: Gesta, Vol. 18, No. 1, Papers Related to Objects in the Exhibition "Age of Spirituality",
The Metropolitan Museum of Art (November 1977-February 1978) (1979), pp. 7-18
Published by: University of Chicago Press on behalf of the International Center of Medieval Art

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/766785

Accessed: 12-02-2016 03:17 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/766785?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents

You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of Chicago Press and International Center of Medieval Art are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to Gesta.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 130.240.43.43 on Fri, 12 Feb 2016 03:17:24 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ThreePortraitGemst
JAMESD. BRECKENRIDGE
NorthwesternUniversity

01IGURl 2. Medallionwith busts of Dioclet-ianand (;alerius(obv. of

FIG. 3). Gold, struckat Trier,c. 293; AmericanNumismaticSociety,
New York.
The man on the left is portrayedfrontally, beardedand
mustached; the one on the right appears younger, without
facial hair, and is placed slightly lower and behind his col-
league. His right shoulder and arm are hidden by the latter's
left side where, curiously, the cloak is fastened by the fibula
T1lGURI 1. Cameo gem with busts of MaximianusHerculeusand
Maxentius. Chalcedony or sardonyx; Dumbarton Oaks Collection, normally found at the right shoulderof a right-handedperson
Washington. (since it secures the joining of the two edges of the cloak,
freeingthe right arm).
Three late antique portrait gems were included in the The gem's setting consists of a plain gold framewith two
exhibition Age of kSpirituality. 1 All three are remarkable grooved loops at the top for suspension,-and three beads
examples of the gem-cutter'sart at the close of the classical hanging from wires attached by rings at the bottom. At the
period. As a group, these gems mark the boundariesof late bottom front of the gem a horizontal strip ca. 5 mm. deep
antique glyptic art, from the moment of radical stylistic has been cut away for the insertionof a "plaque"of thin gold
transformationunder the Tetrarchy,to the acme of expressive with the roughly incised inscriptionDIOCLMAX AVG. The
elegance under the dynasty of Constantine,and thence to the gold of the plaque and frame are identical, and the edge of
ultimate gasp of the classical spirit, in art as in literature,in the cameo does not seem recently cut; the epigraphyis antique,
mid fifth-century Rome. Because of their particularorigins though ignorant. The frame and plaque, then, were probably
at specific times and places, finally, they offer fresh evidence added in ancient times, but not when the gem itself was cut.3
on the persistent question of the degree of concern with Despite the incorrect singular form of the inscription,
physical resemblance,or likeness to the model, in late antique which should read AVGG,4 the subjectshave generallybeen
art in general. accepted as the emperorsnamed on it, the senior Augusti of
the First Tetrarchy, Diocletian and Maximian (co-rulers
286-305).5 Recently, however, not only the anomalousin-
In the case of the first gem, an accepted (and obvious) scriptionbut the lack of resemblanceto other imagesof these
identification of the subjectshas been challengedrecently by rulershave led to efforts to reidentify the subjects,and so to
several experts, on the valid ground that its portrait images redate the cameo. As Vagn Poulsen put it, these portraits
are at wide variancewith accepted portraitsof the same indi- "cannot serve as a reliable basis for judging the first two
viduals. This gem is the double portraitin sardonyx(or chal- 'Augusti' of the new system:"6 they simply do not corres-
cedony) cameo in the DumbartonOaks Collection, in which pond to other generally accepted images of these rulers, in-
two male busts projectin darkred stone from an opaquewhite cluding their coin types (Figs. 2 and 3).7 RaissaCalzahad al-
background(Fig. 1).2 ready suggestedidentification of the two rulers as Caracalla

GESTA XVIII/1 @ The InternationalCenter of Medieval Art 1979

This content downloaded from 130.240.43.43 on Fri, 12 Feb 2016 03:17:24 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 FIGURE 3. Medallion with busts of Maximianusand Constantius
(rev.of FIG. 2).

and Geta, which would date the cameo to their brief joint
reign in 211-212.8 As Poulsen stated, this dating, while per-
ceptive of the stylistic problemsinvolved, is too early for the
style of the gem; his suggestedalternativewas to identify the
subjects with ClaudiusII Gothicus and his brother Quintillus
(268-270).9 This seems closer to the mark, but it cannot be
corroboratedfrom the only other iconographicevidence, the
coin types.
There is, in our view, no good reason to reject the gem
as a product of the Tetrarchy,and severalto accept it. It has
the sense of exploiting the qualities of materialswhich char-
acterizes the best tetrarchalsculpture:the love for the glossy
sheen of highly polished hard colored stones and, at the same
time, the softer glow of marbles and the matte surfaces of
limestone. Once the authority of the gem's actual inscription
is rejected,and we are free to seek truly similarlikenesses,we
are able to establishidentificationswhich are iconographically
tenable, and comfortablywithin the tetrarchalperiodin time.
In the first place, we mightnote the characteristicpractice
of tetrarchaliconographyto portrayits rulersin seniorjunior
pairs, only very rarely showing couples of equal stature by
themselves.The most obvious example is of course the por-
phyry groupbuilt into the cornerof S. Marcoin Venice,1° but
the selectionis wide.11
The head of the older emperor on the cameo, the so-
called "Diocletian," does resemble a man portrayedoften in
tetrarchalart, most usefully in a togate statue found in the
Gymnasiumin Syracuse,12 identifiedby Niemeyeras Maximi-
anus Herculeus.13 The full, squareface rimmedby a relatively
heavy beard seems to appear in a more famous portrait,the
head of an elderly man wearing the corona civica, found at
Nicomedia, Diocletian's favored Eastern capital (Fig. 4).14
The find-site seems to have determined the identification of
this magnificent head, although some commentators have
noted the lack of any close resemblanceto other accepted
portraits of Diocletian, including those on his coins (Fig. 2).
It does not seem to have been consideredthat at any tetrarchal
capital, portraits of all members of the current tetrarchal
groupingwould have been on display, not just those of the
local regent. On the Arch of Galeriusin Thessalonike,for ex-
F1lIGURI4. Head of Maximianus Herculeus. Marble; Archaeological
Museum, Istanbul.
ample, groups of the four Tetrarchsalways give preeminence
to the senior members, with Galeriushimself taking a sub-
ordinate place in the reliefs where they appear.15 Whileit is
reasonable to assume that the local ruler's portrait predom-
inated statisticallywithin his own territories,such probabilities
are too weak to determine the identification of a single ran-
dom head.
If the Nicomediahead could be accepted as a portraitof
the second Tetrarch rather than the first, we might accept
without further dispute the very dissimilarhead in Copen-
hagen (Fig. 5) as the authentic likeness of Diocletian.16 Its
correspondencewith the most reliable numismatic portrait
types is evident, and its lack of similarity to the Nicomedia
head has been the chief obstacle to its full acceptanceas an
imageof Diocletian.
If the older man on the cameo can now be identified
as Maximian, then the younger is almost certainly his son
Maxentius, who invited his father to relinquishthe dubious
pleasuresof unwilling retirementand return to the throne in
306. Other images of Maxentius sharea face with extremely
broad cheekbones, unique among the Tetrarchs,17 perhaps
exaggeratedin the full-faced coin portraits introducedat his

This content downloaded from 130.240.43.43 on Fri, 12 Feb 2016 03:17:24 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

FIGURE 5. Head of Diocletian. Marble;Ny CarlsbergGlyptotek,
Copenhagen.
mints (Fig. 6).18 In view of the early assumptionof a beard
on these coins, it seems likely that the cameo dates from their
first declarationagainstDiocletian'sschemeof succession.The
reputed provenanceof the gem, Rennes in Britanny,l9 does
nothing to weaken its identificationwith Maximian,emperor
of the West.
The confusion about identification of the heads on the
gem seems, in part at least, the product of a rather casual
attitude among some scholars of the recent past toward the
degree of physical resemblanceto models to be found in the
art of the late antique period. The portraitsof the Tetrarchs,
in particular,have been treated as more or less interchange-
able.20 One of the sources of this prejudice was perhaps
the numismaticiconography,in which the use of clearly "in-
correct" portraits with any given imperial name may be
found in almost any mint series.2l Less attention has been
given to the furtheranalysisby the same scholarwho demon-
strated this phenomenon in the first place: he went on to
show that, where such mislabelledportraitsoccur, the image
itself is usually that of the emperor controlling the mint
wherethe coins were struck.22
Furtherinvestigationof the full-scaleportraituresupports
the same interpretation,that discrepanciesfollow established
This content downloaded from 130.240.43.43 on Fri, 12 Feb 2016 03:17:24 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
FIGURE6. Coin of Maxentius (obverse).Gold, struckat Ostia, 308-
3 12; The British Museum, London.
lines of power, and hence artisticconvention,as when a junior
emperor shares some traits with his senior, but not with any
member of the other imperial"family."Whileit can scarcely
be denied that tetrarchalportraitureis far less concernedwith
exact physical similitude than that of, for example, the later
Roman Republic, it is also evident that we cannot infer from
this fact an absoluteindifferenceto physicalresemblance.The
artistsand patronsof the Tetrarchyknew what were the estab-
lished portrait-types;they only violated them intentionally,
following a specific methodologywhen they did.23
II
More progresshas been made recently in sorting out the
images of the members of the Tetrarchythan in establishing
secure likenessesof the vast family of Constantinethe Great.
The effort of the late Vagn Poulsen to distinguishan earliest
portrait-type of Constantine,24 for example, which might
have preceded the "Trajanic"one of the Arch of Constan-
tine,25 is stimulating,but not wholly persuasive.The root of
the problem seems to lie in separatingpossible images of the
youthful Constantine from the iconography of his father
ConstantiusChlorus- himself the least distinguishableof the
first Tetrarchs.26
But if the earlieststagesof Constantinianiconographyare
obscure,the sequenceand absolutechronologyof the portraits
made during the same emperor's ascendancy are no better
established.2 7 On this chronology,nevertheless,must depend
any distinction attempted between the idealized later por-
traiture of Constantine himself- as displayed unmistakably
on his coin types from the vicennalia onward28- and the
equally idealized portraitsof his successors,in particularthose
of his longest-livedson, ConstantiusII (337-360 A.D.)29 It is
clear that the son deliberatelyaped his father's appearance,
doubtless improvingupon a genuine family resemblance.The
result confuses the iconography, with images only securely
identified when they are attachedto inscriptions.30
The large (ca. 31/2cm.) amethyst in Berlin is a case in
point (Fig. 7).31 Our own identificationwith ConstantiusII
agrees with Delbrueck and with Calza, but the most recent
9
 j _|
g _>
Our
|x\_v >w«
WS w
\_,_
ai
::
_dd02
N t;
iown
X_
of
E1universally
|ll|_iM
ifour
|ghis
4ai}2 iqference
i bronze,
view
_X
eWi_
;_ sculpture
son.
;The
as
portraits.
parts,
itural
stantius
types,
toAlfoldl's
is
Berlin
| To
between
identified
which I
theconditioned
take
the
approach
thus
makes
London
ge
She
exemplifies
fourth
havlng
one
insisting
the
n,also
this
with
gem;
on
detail,
between
II.4
Conservatori
located
inverted
the
being
particularly
Constantine
comparison
that
by
othethe
the
-r2both
the
the
the
fundamental
the
[, better-established
father's
marble
thls
Berlin
r marble
customary
of
belief
*I,evident.
the
and
* and
s-U.
gem
head
generation
another
profile
head
change
with
that
must
dating
asHence
(and
and
closer
the
portray
portralt
view
the
inof
heads
assorted
that
we
Basilica
andthat
sculp-
diadem
of
to
would
Con-
Con-
gem
the
in
of
cen

_ catalogueof the Berlin collections gives it to ConstantineI.32

_ Unfortunately, in making her case, its author has inverted
the identificationsmade by MariaAlfoldi, which it is true are
, not easy to pin down.33 (The case is slightly complicatedby

_ only the latter is actually in the British Museum.34) In any

=_ case, Alfoldi assertedthat the gems representfather and son,
j and that the one in London (Fig 8) resemblescoin portraits

t j ficat . aftehanbdidentification, of the gem tied to the identi-

_tg3 :_ ; Our pleces thus become part of an equation which has

_5 | | > fra ments), also colossal in scale, displayed in the Cortile of

_ E t i_; _ the Palazzo dei Conservatori(Fig. 10) 38 This head is almost

j_ |j _ of Maxentius which he completed after taking Rome-al-

0 _ _ 1 1 _ - though the actualdate of the sculptureis not undisputed.39
From this point of departure,we may identify the prin-
cipal "modern" theories for dating and attributingthe first
FIGURE 7. Gem with bust of ConstantiusII. Amethyst, Antiken- .
abteilung,Berlin. three pleces:
a) Delbrueck,who dates all three to about 360 A.D., the
end of the reignof ConstantiusII.4 °
b) MariaAlfoldi, followed by Calza,who links the bronze
with the gem in London, dating both to the 320's as portraits
of the mature Constantine I during and after his vicennalia.
The Berlin gem is identified as ConstantiusII, and dated to
_ the 350s.4 1
d c) Zwierlein-Diehl,who may have misreadAlfoldi and in
S i i l i any case reversed the usual identifications of the two gem

| _ l _ stantine I (along with the Conservatoribronze), while the

g _ 2 z q _ London gem must be later, and presumably portray Con-

i t_ i1| _ It is our own feeling that there is a real structuraldif-

_L !]lli- Constantinesuch as the Belgradebronze and the Conservatori

- marble never fail to show the angle of the jaw as a distinct
pivot located well below the earlobe.43 The other group,
which includes both of our gems as well as the Conservatori
FIGURE8. Gem with bust of ConstantineI rimpression).Amethyst; bronze, shows the jaw line curving evenly upward toward
TheBritishMuseum,London. the earlobe and disappearingbehind it, without the angular

10

This content downloaded from 130.240.43.43 on Fri, 12 Feb 2016 03:17:24 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 change of direction seen in the first group.44 There is a
fundamentalchange of interest in underlyingbone structure
in evidence, not merely a developmentalchange in the por-
trayal of a single person (in the direction of what L'Orange
calls "pneumaticization").4 5

This identification was not the primary reason for in-

cuding this gem in the present essay. But if confusion has
existed over the identificationof its subject,even more trouble
has arisen over its identification as a material object. Such
confusion would seem easily avoidable-by comparisonwith
the first kind-but it has resulted from a simple series of
blunders, if these notes are offered in correction, they are
not intended as criticism but merely in the hope that some-
one else may be saved the distractionof pursuinga futile line
of investigation.
The confusion regardingthe Berlin gem arose in Calza's
comprehensivesurvey of late antique imperialportraiture.46
Although the book was published in 1972, it is clear that it
had been substantially completed some years earlier;this is
probably why it fails to include referenceto the 1969 Berlin
catalogue of Zwierlein-Diehl.The basis of Calza's entries,
then, was usually Delbrueck'swork of 1933 on late imperial
iconography.In her discussionof the Berlin gem, Calzanoted
that althoughDelbrueckhad stated that this piece enteredthe
Berlin Antiquariumin 1924,47 an outstandinggem of Con-
stantine (or ConstantiusII) had been recordedthere by Ber-
noulli in 1894.48 She implied that perhaps the provenance
givenby Delbrueckwas erroneous.
t1tIGURF9. Head of Constantius II. Bronze; Museum of the Palazzo
The gem listed by Bernoulli was one with a remarkable dei Conservatori, Rom e.
history, having been first published by Winckelmannin his
catalogue of the famous collection of Philipp Baron von
Stosch (1691-1757), a collection which entered the pos-
session of the Prussianstate when purchaseden bloc in 1764
by Frederickthe Great for the then enormous sum of 30,000
ducats-plus an annuity!49 The purchase,while easily jus-
tified by the reputation of the collection, might have been
stimulated further by recollection of the services rendered
Frederickby the Baron: he evidently used his activities as an
antiquarianas a "cover" for spying on the Stuart Pretender
in his Italian exile.50 Beyond that, it later was discoveredthat
the Baron also ran a cottage industry of forgery, employing
some of the greatest in an age of great forgers, like Flavio
Sirletti.51
The Stosch Collection as purchased posthumously by
FrederickII contained 3,444 gems, of which 887 have since
been proven modern, and 400 more casts or direct copies.52
The gem in question, attributed by Winckelmannto Con-
stantine, and by his nineteenth-century redactors to Con-
stantius II, was one of the suspect 1287. It was in fact de-
nounced by Furtwangler,only a few years after Bernoulli's
publication; he explained its obvious similarity to another
gem in Leipzig-which has an older and untaintedpedigree-
as that of copy to model.53 l-'IC,URE'10. Head of ConstantineI. Marble;Cortileof the Palazzo
The Berlin amethyst, then, is properly identified in the Rome.
dei Conserratori,

1:1

This content downloaded from 130.240.43.43 on Fri, 12 Feb 2016 03:17:24 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

FIGURE 11. Portraitseal of a Gothic King timpressionJ.Amethyst;
PrivateCollection.
Zwierlein-Diehl catalogue of 1969 as a twentieth-century
acquisition. Consultation of either this catalogue, or of
Furtwangler'scorpus, would have obviated Calza'smisleading
query. According to Zwierlein-Diehl,the gem was acquired
from the private collection of a Dr. Ph. Ledererof Berlin-
could this have been the then-eminentsculpturof neoclassical
monuments? Delbrueck only stated that the gem had been
purchased in the art market, a statement not difficult to
reconcilewith the other information.54
In this connection, it may be helpful to note yet another
anomaly in Calza's catalogue. While she has a correct entry
for the London gem describedabove (Fig. 8), much the same
information is repeated in a later entry for a different gem7
her Cat. No. 216, which she also creditsto the CarlisleCollec-
tion in the BritishMuseum.55This is not the case, and it has
not been possible to identify the actual identity of the gem
illustratedon Calza'sPlate CVI, 389.
III
The thirdof our portraitgemshas also enduredmore than
its share of scholarlyvicissitudessince coming to the attention
of the experts early in the presentcentury. Its provenanceun-
known, it was part of the Guilhou Collection which was put
up for sale in Paris in 1912.56 Babelon, who published it
several years later,57 mistakenly reported that it had been
purchasedby J.P. Morgan,so that when it failed to appearin
the materialfrom the MorganCollection which passed to the
MetropolitanMuseum in 1926, it was assumed that it had
been alienated in the meantime, and had disappeared.In
actuality, it never belonged to Morgan,but after 1912 was in
12
This content downloaded from 130.240.43.43 on Fri, 12 Feb 2016 03:17:24 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
the hands of a Paris dealer until sold to a Swiss collector,
whence it passedto its presentowner.58
The intaglio-cut amethyst was made for a seal-ring
(Fig. 11): its size, about 2 cm. high (3/4 inches), is right for
this, and its monogramis carved in mirror-reverse,as would
be appropriatefor sealing. The subject appearsfrontally, his
eyes very large, his mouth broad; he has a mustachebut no
beard-although Delbrueck misread a slight flaw in the
stone for an "imperial" on the ching59 His hair is parted
centrally,and falls in heavy massesover both ears.
Such a coiffure was restrictedto barbariansin late antiqu-
ity. No Roman would have worn a mustache with no beard,
nor is he likely to have sported the earrings that seem to
emerge from under the coiffure at the sides of the head. The
costume is, however, Roman: tunic with round neck, and
toga over the left shoulder. This makes it probable that the
subject was in close contact with the Romans at the time
the gem was made-if the gem was not in fact made within
the Empireby an imperialartisan.
The fact that amethysts were apparently reserved for
royal use in the ancient world suggestsa narrowlist of candi-
dates for identificationof the subject.The diffilcultmonogram
can be used to indicate a probabletime-spanwithin which the
gem was made, and it offers the hope of actualidentification.
Monogramswere rampanton Hellenistic coinages, but never
popular on the Roman ones until the first half of the fifth
century, when they suddenly became fashionable at the
mint of ltome, remaining so until the middle of the sixth
century. They appear not only on official and semi-official
issues in Italy, but also on coins issued by various Gothic
and Burgundianchieftains of the same period. In the East,
they were in use from this time forward on imperial coins,
and extremelypopularon seals.
While no extant monogramexactly reproducesthe one
on this seal, Berges determined that the combination of
letters used could only correspondto the name "Theodoric";
Delbrueckhad tried to make a case for the name of a Gothic
count named "Teia".60 The brief but extremely useful study
by Bergesis embeddedin the largerstudy by Schrammwhich
presents all the relevant evidence on the gem. Only the con-
clusion reached by Schramm, in our view, is incorrect.
Schramm gives, we feel, too little considerationto the pos-
sibility that some other of the various rulers named "Theo-
doric" could be represented;he proceedsimmediatelyto the
conclusion that it is the one named "The Great," who was
King of the Ostrogothsfrom 474, and of Italy from 493 until
his death in 526 A.D.61
The difficulty arises from the fact that we do have an
alternateportraitof this Theodoric, and its total dissimilarity
with the image on the seal raises again the whole question
of similitude in late antique portraiture-or its absence.
While the equestrian statue of Theodoric at ltavenna was
melted down,62 and his mosaic image on the wall of S. Apol-
linare Nuovo converted into an improbable Justinian,63
there remainsa distinctiveimageon the uniquegold medallion
found some eighty years ago at Senigaglia on the Adriatic
coast, now in the Museo Nazionale in Rome (Fig. 12).64 Its
obverse shows the frontal bust of Theodoric(inscribedREX
THEODERICV/ S PIVS PRINCIS),armored,holdinga globus
surmountedby a Victory in his left hand while his right is
raised in a gesture of speech. His face is fleshy and full, with
round eyes and puffy features, under a cap-like coiffure
falling in all directions from the crown of the head, with
the hair curling slightly at the ends. The reverse shows a
familiar Roman Victory figure, with the mark of the mint
of Rome. The medallion is assumed to have been struck at
Rome on the occasion of Theodoric's triumphalvisit there
in 500 A.D. - although in quality it is far above the run of
production at that mint.65 It seems instead a distant reflec-
tion, and a remarkableone, of the revivalof quality of the
imperialcoinage initiated a few yearsearlierat Constantinople
by the emperorAnastasius,the miser who saved the imperial
Treasuryfrom extinction.66
The portrait image on this medallion follows the general
characterof style usuallydiscernedin work datableto the turn
of the sixth century. Sphericalforms are emphasized,round
FIGURE 12. Medallion of Theodoric I robverse). Gold, struck at Rome
and smoothly generalized facial features, hemisphericaleye-
500; Museo Nazionale Romano Rome.
balls with drilled pupils, contrasted with rich ornamented
costumes sharing the same slick surfaces. These traits are
shared,albeit at a far more sophisticatedlevel, by the remark-
able number of portraits associated with Ariadne, empress
in her own right of inheritance and, de jure, hereditary
sovereign of the Western Empire after the resignation of
RomulusAugustulus(Fig. 13) 6 7
If these works belong to a common stylistic family, the
amethyst we have been examining does not share the same
milieu. Schramm thought to account for this by dating the
gem earlierin Theodoric'scareerthan the Roman medallion,
but only seven years are available,since the Gothic chieftain
would not have merited an amethyst seal, only a king of
Italy would have done so; and Theodoric was only crowned
in 493. Schrammalso acknowledgedthe lack of resemblance
between the portraiton the gem and that on the coin.6 8 Their
only real point in common is the fact that both faces are
mustached-an almost universal adornment of barbarian
warriors-and these are themselves dissimilar. Everything
else, shape of nose (with wide-flaringnostrils on the gem,
straight ones on the coin), eyes and eyebrows, width of
mouth, conformation of chin (tapering,then squared,on the
gem but full and rounded to the point of jowliness on the
coin-and the mosaic), overall shape of head: all these are
contradictory and incapable of rationalizing as portraying
the same individualin any realisticsense. Schrammof course
fell back upon a different rationalization,that physical like-
ness was of no concernto either artistor patronin this period.
Wemay no longerfeel free to adopt this attitude.
Ever since its first publication, it has been recognized
that the gem of "Theodoric" belongs to a small group of FIGURE 13. Head of Ariadne (9J. Marble;Musee du Lourre,Paris.

13

This content downloaded from 130.240.43.43 on Fri, 12 Feb 2016 03:17:24 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

_k 024 K a
FIGURE 14. Portraftseal of Alaric rimpressionJ.Sapphire;Kunsthi
torischesMuseum,Vienna.
seal-ringsbearing portraits, not of distinguishedGreeks or
Romans, but of barbarians:the "kings" of the Germanic
tribes that overran the Empire in the fifth century and as-
sumed most of the power, though not the titles, of the em-
perorsthemselves.
One comparable example is another gem, a sapphire
(the other stone reservedfor royal use) inscribedALARICVS
REX GJOTHORVM, reportedlyfound in the Tyrol and now in
the KunsthistorischesMuseum in Vienna (Fig. 14).69 The
ruler portrayed must be the second Visigothic king of the
same name, the one who died in battle against Clovis and
the Franksin 506- an event which led to the end of Gothic
rule north of the Pyrenees.70 The gem differs radicallyin
appearance from that of Theodoric: its shapes are highly
schematized, circular in outline, spherical in form. Alaric's
hair falls like a cap in sharp vertical strokes of the graver;
his only visible costume is a cuirass, itself decorated with
circles and arcs. When comparednot with the gem in Bern
but with the medallion from Senigaglia,the stylistic resem-
blance becomes clear:the Viennagem of AlaricII is a barbaric
example of the "Style 500," sharing its circularand hemi-
sphericalshapes in a highly simplified version of the metro-
politan fashion.
There is one more royal seal, a carved gold ring, rather
than a gem, whose bezel displays a facing bust bearing the
14
This content downloaded from 130.240.43.43 on Fri, 12 Feb 2016 03:17:24 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
legend CHILDIRICIREGIS (Fig. l5).71 This is the seal ring
of Clovis?father, the first king of the united Frankishtribes,
who died in 481; the ringwas partof the treasurefound when
Childeric'spagangravein Tournaiwas opened in 1653. Stolen
in the great theft at the Cabinet des Medaillesin 1831, and
presumably melted down, the ring was reconstituted from
various survivingwax impressions,the best of which was in
the BodleianLibraryat Oxford.72
This head shares the "primitive" flavor of the Alaric
portrait,but in very different stylistic form: shapes are much
less precisely drawn, the visage is long not round, and the
coiffure totally different.73 Childericwears his hair parted,
like "Theodoric"on the amethyst, but from the crown of his
head it falls to "page-boy curls" at the shoulder. Schramm
made the interesting comparison with the coiffures of the
spear-bearing, presumably barbarian guards flanking the
emperor on the Missorium of Theodosius, of about 392,
as well as with coiffures on Lombardsculpturesat Cividale
from the eighth century-an indication of the enduring
popularity of this mode among the barbariantribesman.74
Childeric's eyes are not the circular bull's-eyes of Alaric,
but wedge-shapedin a cruderversion of the angularalmond-
shape of "Theoderic." His cuirass has a pattern of dotted
squares;under it he wears a tunic, and over it a cloak. A
spearis held in front of his rightshoulder.
Thus no two of these images, of a Frank, a Visigoth,
and an Ostrogoth (?), has anything more in common than
basic function or purpose. Other examples of such seals,
like another carvedgold one inscribedwith the unidentifiable
name Graifarius,are equally disparate:in this case, the profile
head seems derivedfrom a numismaticsource ratherthan the
direct portraiturepossiblein the truly royal examples.75
Despite their tiny scale, and the special circumstances
of their production, it seems possible to compare these seal
images with other works in larger scale, which provide us
with what we do have in the way of a stylistic sequence of
fifth- and sixth-century art in both halves of the Empire.
If these works belong to a common stylistic family located
in the late 400's, the amethyst in Bern, like the vanished
ring of Childeric, cannot share the same visual context. The
Childeric image must be earlier in date than that of Alaric,
and it would be extremely difficult to find the Bern gem in
the same period. If the analysis of the monogramis correct,
we are obliged to look into the possibility of an alternate
Theodoric to explain the difference in appearancebetween
this gem and the medallionof 500.
Schrammhas already indicated that a choice does exist,
since - including the Ostrogothicking of Italy-there are at
least six Germanicrulersof that name, three of whom deserve
more than passing consideration for our purpose.7 6 Aside
from Theodoric the Great, the invader of Italy, there was
another Ostrogothic chieftain who was his senior and rival:
Theodoric Strabo, "the Squinter," chief of the Triarian
Goths, c. 461-481, and for a time apparentlyConstantinople's
 choice as ruler of all the Goths in the Balkans.His bizarre
death eliminated him as a threat to the younger Theodoric,
called "the Amal," chief of the Ostrogoths from 47 1; it
seems unlikely that, even in view of Constantinople'sefforts
to back him, he ever achieved the stature to have merited
such a royal attributeas an amethystseal-ring.
Aside from these Doppelganger,there was the Theodoric
who was Frankish king of Austrasia after the death of his
father Clovis, from 511 to 534; if our stylistic chronology
has any sort of validity, he lived too late to have been the
model of our gem-portrait,and the same would be even more
true of Brunhild'sgrandson, Theodoric, King of Burgundy,
545-613. We must look at last to the first two recorded
barbariankings named Theodoric, father and son who ruled
the Visigothsfrom Toulousein the middle of the fifth century.
The elder, less probable for our purpose, was Theodoric I,
who allied himself with the Roman general Aetius and died
in the battle which turned back Attila and his Huns from
Gaul in 451.77 While the immediate successor was his elder
son Thorismund,-two years later a brother, Theodoric II,
succeededto the throne, which he held until his assassination
(by yet anotherbrother)in 466.78
It so happens that Theodoric II is the only one of all
these barbarianchiefs of whom we have a useful physical
description. This is from the verbose pen of Sidonius Apol-
linaris, who visited Toulouse early in Theodoric II's reign,
and described the ruler to his brother-in-lawAgricola (son I'aIGURE15. Portrait seal of Childeric. Galvaniccopy made from
of Avitus the contenderfor the imperialthrone): impression of the lost gold original;Ashmolean Museum, Oxford.

Seeing that report commends to the world the
graciousness of Theoderic, King of the Goths, you
have often asked me to describe to you in writing
the dimensions of his person and the character of his
life. I am delighted to do so, subject to the limits of a
letter, and I appreciate the honest spirit which prompts
so n1ce a cur1os1ty. . .
. . .
The unique characterof this description makes it risky
to base too much on what is, after all, not too precisely de-
fined a set of physical traits. Neverthelessit does not seem
to deal in topoi, formulas for complimentary description
easily transferablefrom one subject to another.The difficulty
rather lies in determiningthe degree to which many of the

features Sidonius mentions, such as the ears hidden by the

Take first his appearance. His figure is well-propor-
tioned, he is shorter than the very tall, taller and more
commanding than the average man. The top of his head
is round, and on it his curled hair retreats gently from
his even forehead. His neck is not squat and sinewless
but erect and sinewy. Each eye is encircled by a shaggy
arch of brow; when his eyelids droop, the extremities
of the lashes reach almost halfway down the cheeks.
The tips of his ears, according to national fashion, are
hidden by wisps of hair that are trained over them. His
nose is most gracefully curved; his lips are delicately
moulded and are not enlarged by any extension of the
corners of the mouth. Every day there is a clipping of
the bristles that sprout beneath the nostril-cavities. The
hair on his face grows heavily in the hollows of the
temples, but as it springs up upon the lowest part of the
face the barber constantly roots it out from the cheeks,
keeping them as though they were still in the earliest
stage of manly growth.
His chin, throa t and neck suggest not fat but full-
ness . . .79
hair, were national rather than personal traits. Still the em-
phasis on barberingsuggestspersonalidiosyncracywhich drew
attention to itself by its more than usual attention to such
matters;none of the description,interestingly,conflicts with
the visual appearance of the figure on the amethyst seal.
The most significant historical aspect of Theodoric II's
career is his pro-Romanstance, at a time when most of the
barbarian leaders found it more profitable to tear down
the crumblingedifice of Empire.Above all, TheodoricII was
the force behind the candidacy of Avitus, the Gallic leader,
for the emperorship,so that for a year in 455 and 456 there
were closer relations between Toulouse and Rome than at
any other time in history. (The puppet-likenature of Avitus'
position suggeststhat TheodoricII was neitherso naivenor so
selfless in his political stance as the chroniclesmakeit appear.)
Assuming that the quality of craftsmanshipof the amethyst
makes its manufacture in the capital city the most likely
possibility- a fact which would be confirmedif the apparent
majesculeletters at the rim of the gem, recently revealedby

15

This content downloaded from 130.240.43.43 on Fri, 12 Feb 2016 03:17:24 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
microphotography,are indeed traces of a signature-on this
assumption, no more likely occasion for its bestowal could
have existed than the moment when Theodoric's protege
Avitus arrivedin Rome and assumed the purple,in the year
455 A.D.
As already noted, stylistic comparisons are difficult
between works of radically different scale; but it seems not
impossible to see in the variedportraitsof life size and larger,
which cluster aroundthe middle of the fifth century, certain
traits which have somethingin common with the bust on the
gem. This group of heads have in common the swellingmass
of hair above the temples, and may be exemplified by the
Barletta statue, which almost certainlyportraysthe Emperor
Marcian(450-457), whose chin tapers to a squarebase in very
much the sameway as on the gem.80
The Western counterpart of this stylistic confilguration
is anticipatedin such works as the consulardiptych of Felix,
dated to 428, while its terminal phase can be seen in the
portraits on the diptych of Basil of 480.81 Here the cap-
like coiffure of c. 500 is alreadyin evidence,but the general
conformation of the head, from rounded crown to tapering
chin, as well as the angulardelineation of the eyes, remains
close to what we discern as the style of mid-century.By the
time of Boethius'diptych of 487, the entire imagehas changed
its shape.82
All these details seem to add up, not to a decisive cer-
tainty in attribution, but to a strong probability that this
remarkablegem was created before, not during the reign of
Theodoric "the Great.y Such a shift in dating of half a cen-
tury seems to fit our newly-constructedschemeof the stylistic
evolution of artistic form in the fifth century.In addition,we
have established yet another case in which the artist of late
antiquity can be shown to have been concerned after all with
the problem of physical resemblanceof his portrait to its
model
NOTES
*We wish to take this opportunity to express our gratitude to the
staff of the Metropolitan Museum's Department of Medieval Art,
both regular and extraordinary, for tlle infinite pains they took to
aid us in preparing our part of the catalogue of AGE OF SPIRITU-
ALITY, and of course this supplementary article. Kurt Weitzmann,
Direetor of the Exhibition, gave five years of his life-and his who}e
lifetime's knowledge-to its success; Margaret Frazer, as Curator in
charge of the Exhibition, labored brilliantly and far beyond the call
of duty. To single out specifie merllbers of their staffs would be in-
vidious, since a great deal was done by ass;istants who may not have
even signed a mcmo. Our deepest thanks go to a11of them. Thanks
too to two friends and colleagues without whose help we might not
have been able to illustrate certain key pieces: Sign. Karin Finaudi in
Rome, and Michtel Vickers in Oxford.
1. Age of Spirituality, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, N.Y.*
1978, Nos. 4, 17 and 56.
16
This content downloaded from 130.240.43.43 on Fri, 12 Feb 2016 03:17:24 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
2. Dumbarton Oaks Collection, acc. no. 47.14: G.M.A. Richtcr,
Catalogueof Greek and Roman Antiquities in the Dumbarton
Oaks Collection, Cambridge, 195 6 , No . 11 , pp. 15 - 19 and
P1. VIf.
3. Idem, EngravedGems of the Romans: A Supplementto the
History of Roman Art (The Eingraved Gems of the Greeks
Etruscans and Romans, Part II), London, 1971, No. 504, pp. 120ft
A note in the Dumbarton Oaks files records an examination of
the inscription in 1967 by Prof. Ihor Sevcenko, whe stated that
while he would not dispute a date for it in the carly fourth cen-
tury, a later date would be even more acceptable: he noted tllat
the form of i'A" employed here is uncommon in thc fourth
century.
4. This is the basis for rejection of the identification by W. von
Sydow, Zur Kunstgeschichtedes spatantiken Portrats im 4.
Jahrhundertn. Chr.(Antiquitas, 3:8), Bonn, 1969, p. 145, n. 64;
the anomalous left-side fibula had already roused the suspicions
of H.G. Niemeyer, Studien zur statuarischenDarstellungder
romischen Kaiser (Monumenta Artis Romanac, VII), Berlin,
1968, p. 88, with the implication that he therefore would ques-
tion the authenticity of the cameo itself.
5. Eg. by W.F.Volbach, Early ChristianArt: The Late Romanand
Byzantine Empires from the Third to the Seventh Centuries,
N.Y., 196 1, p. 309.
6. V. Poulsen, Les portraitsromains, 2: de Vespasiena la Basse-
Antiquite (Publicationsde la Glyptotheque Ny-Carlsberg, No. 8),
Copenhagen, 19 74, p. 3 1.
7. Age of Spirituality,No. 31.
8. R Calza, IconografiaRomanaImperialeda Carausioa (uiliano
28 7-363 d.C.J (Quaderni e Guide di Archeologia 3), Rome,
1972,No. 24,p. 117;No. 38,pp. 128f.
9. Poulsen, Portraits,2: 32.
10. Calza, Iconografia,Nos. 7-8, pp. 98-104; cf. Poulsen Portraits,
2: 32-34.
11. E.g. the Vatican group, Calza, Iconografia, No. 9, pp. 104f. ;
reliefs on the arches of Constantine in Rome and of Galerius
in Thessalonike; pairings on coin types as in [tigs. 2 and 3; ctc.
12. Siraeusa, Museo, Inv. no. 698; Cal7a, Iconografia,No. 39, p. 129.
13. Niemeycr, Studiell, No. 21, pp. 86f.; previously publislled as
Hadrianic by N. Bonaca.sa, Ritratti greci e romastidella Sicilia,
Palermo, 1964, No. 108.
14. Istanbul, Archacological Museu1n, Inv. no. 4864: Calza, Icoelo-
grafia,No. 1, pp. 91f. The identification uith Diocletian as made
immediately upon the head's disvovery by It.K. Dorner, "}1in
neucr Portratkopf des Kaisers Diokletian," DivAntike 17 (1941):
139-1 46.
15. H.P. Laubscher, Der Reliefschmuckdes Galeriusbogenin Thes-
saloniki, BerliIl, 1975; cp. M.W. Pond Rothman, "The PaIlel of
the }1mperors Linthroned on the Arch of Galerius," Byzantinc)
Studies 2 ( 1975): 19-40* aIld idem, "The Tllemativ Organi%a-
tion of the Pancl Reliefs on the Arch of Galerius,^' AJA 81
(1977): 427-454.
NY Carlsberg Glyptotek, Cat. 110. 769a: i'ou}.Sen,
16. COPCI111agt\11,
Portraits,2: No. 195, 187f.;f.Ca1%a,Iconc)grafia,
No. 13,p. 107.
17. Ostia Musoulll, Inv. I10. 5 1: Calza, Iconografia,NO. 107, PP. 19 1f.
18. Ct. ibid., P1. LXIV, figs. 207-208.
19. Rich tc r, D. O. Catalogue, loc . cit.
20. Cf. thc brief but eogent discussion in Niemeyer Studien, p. 87,
citing examples ranging from J.J. Bernoulli to tilc l5rcifrau von
Heintze. Among thc sinners is the prcsent writer: J.D. Brecken-
 ridge, Likeness. A ConceptualHistory of Ancient Portraiture,
Evanston, 1969, pp. 241-244.
21. J. Maurice, Numismatiqueconstantinienne,I, Paris, 1908, 1-53,
discusses the distribution of portrait-types at the various tetrarchal
mints. Unfortunately, the only subsequent survey of the tetrarchal
coinage does not concern itself with such questions, and its body
of illustrations is inadequate for the purpose: C.H.V. Sutherland,
The Roman Imperial Coinage, VI: From Diocletian's reform
(A.D. 2942 to the death of Maximinus(A.D. 313}, London, 1967.
2 2. Maurice, Numismatique,loc. cit.
23. Scholars have begun to perceive portrait types of the members of
the tetrarchies and a sense of their stylistic evolution. Cf. the
discussion in Poulsen, Portraits.
24. Ibid., 2: 189-191.
25. Cf. M.R. Alfoldi, Die constantinischeGoldpragung:Untersuch-
ungen zu ihrer Bedeutungfur Kaiserpolitik,Mainz, 1963, pp.
57-69.
26. Poulsen, Portraits, 2: 35f.; cf. Calza, Iconografia,pp. 152-167.
Perhaps more promising clues are developed by D.E.L. Haynes,
"A Late Antique Head in Porphyry," BurlingtonMagazine128
(1976): 350-357, a propos of a recent acquisition of the British
Museum included as No. 7 in the exhibition Age of Spirituality.
27. E.B. Harrison, "The Constantinian Portrait," Dumbarton Oaks
Papers 21 (1967): 79-96, has introduced several new ideas which
have made the iconography less rather than more clear.
28. P. Bruun, The Roman Imperial Coinage, 7: Constantineand
Licinius, A.D. 313-337, London, 1966, passim, with some con-
sideration of iconographic questions in the introductory sections.
Still fundamental for an understanding of Constantinian icono-
graphy is H.P. L'Orange, Apotheosis in Ancient Portraiture(In-
stituttet for Sammenlignende Kulturforskning, B :XLIV), Oslo,
1947, esp. pp. 90-94.
29. Calza, Iconografia,pp. 2 99-318 .
30.
E.g., the coins; but even their images cannot solve every conun-
drum: cf. note 35, below.
31. Berlin, Staatliche Museen Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Antiken-
abteilung, Inv. Misc. 30931. Age of Spirituality,No . 17.
32. R. Delbrueck, SpatantikeKaiserportrats von ConstantinusMagnus
bis zum Ende des Westreichs(Studien zur spatantiken Kunst-
geschichte, 8), Berlin, 1933, p. 153; Calza, Iconografia,No. 213,
pp. 306f. & P1. CIV, 378; E. Zwierlein-Diehl, Antike Gemmen
in deutschen Sammlungen,II: Staatliche Museen Preussischer
Kulturbesitz,Antikenabteilung,Berlin, Munich, 1969, No. 545,
194 and P1. 94.
33. M.R . Alfoldi, Die constantinischeGoldpragung,
pp. 129f.
34. Ibid, p. 230, s.v. Figs. 299 and 300. Cf. Calza, Iconografia,No.
144, pp. 233f. and P1. LXXX, 282 (as Constantine I); H.B.
Walters, Catalogueof the Engraved Gems and Cameos Greek
Etruscan and Roman in the British Museum, London, 1926,
No. 2032, p. 213 and P1. XXV (as Constantius II).
35. Alfoldi, Die constantinische Goldpragung,No. 141, P1. 18,
Fig. 230. We do not find the comparison persuasive, and it be-
comes absurd when the coin is in turn compared by Zwierlein-
Diehl with the profile on the Berlin gem.
36. Calza, Iconografia,No. 143, pp. 231-233 and P1. LXXX, 280-
281 and 283 (as Constantine I).
Alfoldi, Die constantinische Goldpragung,P1. 36, Fig. 301a.
37.Ageof Spirituality,No. 11.
39. Cf. Harrison, "The Constantinian Portrait," pp. 92-94.
40. Delbrueck, Spdtantike Kaiserportraits, pp. 139-142 and 153f.
This content downloaded from 130.240.43.43 on Fri, 12 Feb 2016 03:17:24 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
41 Alfoldi, Die constantinische Goldpragung pp. 122-138; Calza,
Iconografia, pp. 2 3 1-234 and 3 06 f.
4 2. Zwierlein-Diehl, An tike Gemmen, 2: 194.
Calza, Iconografia, Nos. 12 8 ,1 3 2 ,1 4 1,1 4 2.
43.
Ibid., Nos. 143, 144, 211, 213.
44.
L'Orange,Apotheosis, pp. 95-110.
45.
Calza, Iconografia, pp. 306f. The error eluded the present writer
46.
when he reviewed this book in AJA 7 7 ( 197 3): 24 9f.
47 Just to be sure of a place in this comedy of errors, even Miss
Richter contrived to misdate this acquisition to 1927: The En-
gravedGems,2: No. 606, 124.
48. J.J. Bernoulli, Die Bildnisse der romischen Kaiser und ihrer
Angehorigen,II: Von PertinaxbExTheodosius,Stuttgart, 1894,
237, d.
49. J.J. Winckelmann, Descriptiondes pierresgraveesdu feu Baron
de Stosch, dediee a son Eminencele CardinalAlbani, Florence,
1760, No. IV: 308, p. 448; Zwierlein-Dahl, Antike Gemmen,
2:9.
5 0. C. Justi, Winckelmann.Sein Leben, seine Werke und seine
Zeitgenossen,II & III, Leipzig, 1872, passim;summarized most
recently in A. Schulz, Winckelmannund seine Welt(Winckelmann-
Gesellschaft Stendal, Jahresgabe 1961), Berlin, 1962, pp. 73-6.
51. Ibid., pp. 73-6; cp. D. Osborne, EngravedGems,Signets,Talismans
and OrnamentalIntaglios, Ancient and Modern, N.Y., 1912,
pp.181-3&passim.
Zwierlein-Diehl, Antike Gemmen,2: 9.
52.
A. Furtwangler, Die Antike Cemmen. Geschich te der Stein-
53.
schneidekunstim klassischenAltertum, II, Leipzig, 1900, No. 37.
The Leipzig gem is his No. 35; Calza, Iconografia,No. 214, pp.
307f. and P1. CVI, 384.
54. Delbrueck, SpatantikeKaiserportraits,
p. 153.
55. Calza, Iconografia,No. 144, pp. 233f. and Pl. LXXX, 282 and
No. 216, pp. 308f and P1. CVI, 389. Another note of caution: a
similar gem in Boston, Calza's No. 215, is given incorrect dimen-
sions. Its actual height is 1.5 cm, not 1.65. Dimensions are correct
in the exhibition catalogue, Romans& Barbarians, Department of
Classical Art Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 1976, No. 120,
p. 113.
56. Catalogueof a Collectionof Ancient Rings formed by the late
E. Guilhou,Paris, 1912 , No . 8 60.
5 7. E. Babelon, "Le tombeau du roi Childeric et les origines de
l'orfevrerie cloisonnee," Memoires de la Societe nationale des
Antiquairesde France,76, 1923, 1-112, esp. 42f.
58. Age of Spirituality,No. 56. The mistaken location was corrected
by P.E. Schramm, in the chapter, "Brustbilder von Konigen auf
Siegelringen der Volkerwanderungszeit," in Herrschaftszeichen
und Staatssymbolik:Beitragezu ihrer Geschichtevom dritten bis
zum sechzehnten Jahrhundert(Schriften der Monumenta Ger-
maniae historica, 13/l), Stuttgart, 1954, 213-237 and Pl. 11-17.
59. R. Delbrueck, "Spatantike Germanenbildnisse," BonnerJahrbuch,
149, 1949, 68-72, esp. p. 68. The error was pointed out by
Schramm, Herrschaftszeichen,pp. 220f.
60. W. Berges, "Das Monogramm der Berner Gemme, in Schriften
der M.G.H., 13/1, Stuttgart, 1954, 222-226; Delbrueck, "Ger-
manenbildnisse," 68-72.
61. Cf. W. Ensslin, Theoderichder Grosse, 2. Aufl., Munich, 1959,
the standard biography.
62. Cf. SchramIn, Herrschaftszeichen,
pp. 226f., on recorded portraits
of Theodoric.
17
63. Fr. v. Lorentz, "Theoderich - nicht Justinian," Mitt. d. Arch.
Inst., Rom. Abt., 50, 1935: 109-1 19.
64. W. Wroth, Catalogueof the Coinsof the Vandals,Ostrogothsand
Lombardsand of the Empiresof Thessalonica,Nicaea and Tre-
bizondin the BritishMuseum,London, 1911, Frontispiece.
65. J.P.C. Kent, "The Coinage of Theodoric in the Names of Anas-
tasius and Justin I," in Mints,Dies and Currency:EssaysDedicat-
ed to the Memoryof AlbertBaldwin,ed. R.A.G Carson, London,
1971, pp. 67-74; the Senigaglia medallion is discussed on p. 70.
66. Cf. R.P. Blake, "The Monetary Reform of Anastasius I and its
Economic Implications," Studies in the History of Culture
Dedicatedto A. Leland,Menasha, 1942, pp. 84-97.
7 0. Cf. Schramm, Herrschaftszeichen,
p. 218.
71. Ibid., pp. 213-6; cp. Romans & Barbarians,No. 167, p. 138;
unfortunately both publications mistranscribe the inscription
CHILDERICI, without the fourth "I," contradicting their ow\n
illustrations.
72. J.J. Chifflet, Anastasis ChildericiFrancorumRegis, Antwerp,
1655; cf. Babelon, "Le tombeau du roi Childeric," pp. 29-43.
73. Babelon's remarks, p. 38, on the retouching of the Oxford cast
do not affect the stylistic characteristics relevant here.
74. Schramm, Herrschaftszeichen, p. 215 and Figs. 15a & 15b.
75. Ibid., pp. 2 34 -7 and Fig. 2 2.

67. Cf. Age of Spirituality,Nos. 24 & 25. The same characteristics
are evident in two heads usually identified as portraits of
Ariadne's father, Leo I, in Copenhagen (Ny CarlsbergGlypototek,
Cat. No 775b), and Rome (B.M. Felletti Maj, MuseoNazionale
Romano: I Ritratti, Rome, 1953, No. 329, p. 165; now trans-
ferred to Museo dell'Alto Medioevo, Inv. Nr. 1). The most recent
discussion of this group as a coherent stylistic phase is by S.
Sande, "Zur Portratplastik des sechsten nachchristlichen Jahr-
hunderts," Acta ad archaeologicamet artium historiam per-
tinentia Instititum RomanumNorvegiae, VI, 1975, 65-81; not-
withstanding the excellence of this study, the subject is probably
far from exhausted, particularly as to differences among the
female portraits.
6 8. Schramm, Herrschaftszeichen,
pp. 2 2 8-2 3 1.
69. Ibid., pp. 217-9; cp. R. Noll, Vom Altertum zum Mittelalter:
Spatantike, altchristliche, volkerwanderungszeitliche
und frah-
mittelalterliche DenkmUler der Antikensammlung, Kunsthis-
torisches Museum, Vienna, 1974, Cat. No. C12.
76. The best survey of this material in English remains TheCambridge
Medieval History, I: The ChristianRoman Empire and the
Foundation of the Teutonic Kingdoms,Cambridge, 1924, and
II: The Rise of the Saracensand the Foundationof the Western
Empire,Cambridge, 1913.
77. E.A. Thompson, A Historyof Atilla and the Huns,Oxford, 1948,
pp. 125-143.
78. Cf. L. Schmidt, "The Visigoths in Gaul, 412-507," Cambridge
MedievalHistory,I, 277 292, esp 281f.
79. Sidonius, Poems and Letters, I, tr. W.B. Anderson, Cambridge,
1936, 334-337.
80. Age of Spirituality,No. 23.
81. Ibid., Nos. 45, 47.
82. W.F. Volbach, Elfenbeinarbeitender Spdtantikeund des frahen
Mittelalters (Romisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum zu Mainz,
Forschungsinstitut fur Vor- und Fruhgeschichte, Kataloge vor-
und fruhgeschichtlicher Altertumer, 7), 3. Aufl., Mainz, 1976,
No. 76, p. 32 & Pl. 3.

Photographcredits: FIG. 1 (The DumbartonOaks Collection);FIGS.

2, 3 (AmericnNumismaticSociety); FIGS.4, 9, 10 (HirmerFotoarchiv
Munchen);FIGS 6, 8 (courtesyof the Trusteesof the BritishMuseum);
FIG 12 (courtesyof the Fototeca Unione,Rome); FIG. 13 (Reunion
des museesnationaux).

18

This content downloaded from 130.240.43.43 on Fri, 12 Feb 2016 03:17:24 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Errata Corrige for Gesta XVIII/1
The list of membersof the AdvisoryCommitteeon the mastheadin
advertentlyexcluded the name of Donya Schimaslsky,Metropolitan
Museum of Art and the list of ContzibutingMembes should have
included the Institute Jor Medieval and Renaissance Studies (City
Collegeof City Universityof New Yok) and the Ohio State University
(Columbus).

Three Portrait Gems

JAMES D. BRECKENRIDGE

The illustrationon p. 15 belongswith the captionfor

Fig. 14 on p. 14, and the illustrationon p. 14 belongs
above the captionfor Fig. 15 on p. 15.

A Polygonal Ring with <

belongcIn tl text as a new paragraphafterline 33. a m

bU:Dup,5[niLe2t 2'in 433uIZ w

lnslght 1ntothe ramlficatlonspotentlallylnherentln such n| t i n W;0-wE

| l
objects. 3i

A Mount with Fisherman

JOSEPHA WEITZMANN-FIEDLER FIGURE 10. Bronze mouslt wlth a fisSlere71u
1t1,Metropolitatl M,-
.veumof Art, Ner York.
p. 56, n. 6, line 6: for Jahrbucherread Jahrbucher.
p. 56, n. 8, line 2: for neverread neuer.
p. 56, n. 10, line 1: for Douville read Douille.
p. 56, line 5: for Fig. 1 read Fig. 10, which is the
followingillustrationdeletedfrom the printedarticle:

This content downloaded from 130.240.43.43 on Fri, 12 Feb 2016 03:17:24 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions