DUCS Talk Summary: Monica Hellström “State on Display: Roman aristocrats honouring Diocletian and his co-emperors”
Diocletian’s relationship with the Senate, and more generally with Rome, has often been considered problematic. A proof of this is said to be found in the long absences of the emperor from Rome, which could have caused the Romans to feel neglected and humiliated. In her talk, Dr Hellström has not only challenged this view, but she also suggested and proved that Diocletian took a relevant number of beneficial measures for Rome, demonstrating even greater attention to the city than his predecessors.
The talk combined literature, architecture and ancient history, and stimulated the audience to think about a period, the Late Antique, which is often overlooked.
In order to underline Diocletian’s attention to Rome, Dr Hellström started her talk by recounting the grand celebration which took place in Rome on 20th November 303 AD to celebrate twenty years of Diocletian’s rule, as well as a multiple military triumphs. Papyri documentation show that reports of the celebration arrived as far as Egypt, and in honour of the event, a monument was erected.
A great celebration is not all that Diocletian did for Rome. Dr Hellström explained that the city was never as splendid as one imagines it to be: for instance, even in its golden age there always were buildings which needed renovation and their maintenance was not always promptly attended. For his part, Diocletian disposed of one of the biggest renovations which Rome had ever seen; during his emperorship, infrastructures, aqueducts, commercial buildings were renewed. However, the evidence for it is usually overlooked in scholarship, in part due to the fact that the old style of the building was kept, with the result that they do not have new of peculiar characteristics, but can be recognised by inscriptions framing Diocletian as responsible of the restorations.
This Academic Talk is from a part of one of Dr Hellström projects, Building for romanis suis, a monograph she is currently working on that focuses on the relation between state and subject under the emperor Diocletian, traced through the urban built environment of Rome.
A relevant example is the Basilica Julia, which was reconstructed by Diocletian following Caesarean aesthetic standards, with the result that the building seems more ancient than it really is.
In the context of architecture, it is necessary to mention also the Baths of Diocletian, the biggest building in Rome, which was dedicated to him after his retirement.
Therefore, if all these elements are taken into account, it is clear that Rome was not neglected by the emperor.
For what concerns his long absences from the capital city, it has to be considered that this conforms to a long-established practice by Diocletian’s time, so it is not evidence for neglect: Marcus Aurelius, more than a century earlier, was absent from the capital for seven continuous years and this did not cause dismay among Romans.
Dr Hellström also affirmed that it is anachronistic to say that other cities were emerging as capitals and that Rome’s importance was merely symbolical.
The sources adduced to prove the people’s disappointment towards Diocletian for his absence from Rome are neither Roman nor reliable.
The first passage which Dr Hellström discussed is a speech from 289 AD by an anonymous Gallic orator who wishes to see the emperor returning to Rome in triumph (Pan. Lat. 10.13.1–2).
The second one is by Lactantius, a Christian philosopher who writes about persecutors of Christians (On the Death of the Persecutors 17.1–3). He does not specify that Romans disapprove Diocletian, and the fact that the emperor chose to enter his consulship in Ravenna is not proof of a problematic relationship with Rome, since others had done so in the past.
Another source is an inscribed gaming board from the catacomb of SS Marco e Marcelliano, c. 296 AD (ILS 8626a, Mitt. Deutsch. Arch. Inst. (Roemisch) 19 1904 p 142). It promotes the idea that people commonly believed that the emperors should always be fighting on the peripheries and did not necessarily have to remain in Rome.
However, all these sources seem to describe stereotypical dynamics between emperor and population rather than pointing specifically at Diocletian in a critical way. We therefore need to question their reliability and validity in implying a Roman audience’s negative attitude towards Diocletian.
Roman sources imply a positive relation between Diocletian and many Romans, especially members of the senatorial elite. Dr Hellström used the example of L. Aelius Helvius Dionysius, who through inscriptions and monuments was permitted to showcase his contribution to some of the most glamorous building projects in the city such as the Theatre of Pompey and the city’s aqueducts. He raised a monument (CIL VI 773) in honour of Tiberinus (a reference to Rome through its river) to celebrate the restoration of aqueducts, executed by him on behalf of the emperors, and exalted in emotive language. A statue to Dionysius reveals him as former pontifex Solis, a priestly college that was reserved for the very highest Roman nobility. Other Roman senators also exploited positions in the imperial bureaucracy to get represented in Rome’s monumental fabric, in ways that had been denied them since the rise of Augustus. There is a great deal of evidence to show that the Roman senatorial elite was not in decline as often argued, nor at odds with Diocletian’s government.
One of Diocletian’s challenges was to resolve civil strife which had plagued Rome for a century. The desires of the senators were balanced against those of other groups, in a way that seems to have been successful.
Therefore, Dr Hellström argued that Diocletian clearly improves the situation in Rome rather than corroding it, and it is legitimate to talk about a compromise between locals and emperor, in a win-win situation: the formers get representation and can be closer to the emperor, while the imperial government and emperor can exhibit a reinstalled bureaucracy that proves to be attentive and efficient.
Do you have a suggestion for a future topic? Do you have an idea to share with your friends? Send us a message and follow the Durham University Classics Society on Twitter (@DUClassSoc) and Facebook (@DUClassics Society) to keep up with this blog and our other adventures!
