Periodic Report Summary 1 - EMPEROR (The Emperor's New Clothes. Power Dressing in the Roman Empire from Augustus to Honorius.) Project: The Emperor’s New Clothes. Power Dressing in the Roman Empire from Augustus to Honorius.This project explored changes in the costume of the Roman emperor, his family and his court. The hypothesis was that we can track the development of an imperial wardrobe, which follows the gradual acceptance and consolidation of autocracy, from the plain woolen toga of the ideal first century CE princeps to the luxurious purple silks of the later imperial monarch. The aim was to highlight the continuities and breaks as well as the idiosyncrasies that occurred during this process by taking into account written as well as archaeological sources (like ancient textiles and visual material).In terms of status representation, the early Roman emperors walked a tight rope between conforming to the supposed frugality and uniformity of their ancestors and being the rulers of the Roman world. For historical reasons they had to avoid allusions to monarchy and behave as "first among equals" in their interaction with their senatorial peers. Changes in status display through clothes therefore mirror, it is argued, the changing perception of the position of the emperor within the social hierarchy.The project covered the time from the first princeps, Augustus, to the emperor Honorius (1st century BCE-5th century CE). In particular it focused on the representation of "good" vs. "bad" emperors as the discourses surrounding them are highly ideologically charged. One question was whether it is possible to define turning point(s) when the costume discourses changed and also “good” emperors were allowed to represent their status visually through precious clothing. Further: was this an indication that the position of the emperor at the top of the social hierarchy was now openly acknowledged and their corresponding status representation considered appropriate? Thus this study of imperial dress and representation has aimed at shedding new light on the political and institutional history of the Roman Empire.In the course of the project, written sources as well as (mainly sculptural) depictions of emperors have been analyzed. Two of the main results are: 1. The messages and statements vary greatly, depending on the kind of source, 2. The contents of the messages remain very consistent within one kind of source, even over centuries. For example: The highly moralizing literary texts written by the senatorial elite give the impression of an elite that is clinging to traditional clothing (like the large, semicircular piece of garment that men wrapped around their body, the so-called toga) until the 4th century CE. According to these texts, only the “bad emperors” are prone to display outlandish clothing, garments that are often simultaneously characterized as barbarian and effeminate. Such images should not be taken as straightforward descriptions of actual garments however, since these accusations are topoi that mirror Roman oppositional categories of thinking (male, traditional, Roman clothing vs. effeminate, “new”, foreign/barbarian dress). They are used as rhetorical weapons in order to discredit actual or potential political leaders, including emperors. They can, however, serve as indicators that new materials like silk, or garments that served to represent status in other cultures such as those influenced by the Hellenistic kingdoms, were “tried out” by emperors (or their near relations). Such emperors, beginning with “bad” ones like Caligula, Nero and Domitian, defied the unwritten laws of the early principate of being the “first among equals” and openly displayed their status. As has already been noted by others, even though innovations introduced by “bad emperors” might have been openly condemned, they were still often tacitly retained. This project has demonstrated that “bad emperors” were also trendsetters for novel ways of status representation through garments. This is corroborated by the sources that do not mirror the view of the senatorial elite, where another picture regarding luxurious garments emerges. These sources are, for example, texts of the court poets who praise or accept garments that the moralizing texts condemn. Another corrective source for the moralizing views (that are repeated by Christian authors) are legal rulings. They show that from the middle of the 4th century CE the emperors openly attempted to monopolize the use of certain materials and garments (silk, purple and gold, and also the use of some jewels, see publication on the emperor Honorius’ garments). The same is true for the women of the elite. Although moralizing authors often condemned their appearance as too luxurious and immoral, a close reading of the texts reveals that both they and their relations had another perspective on their garments. Rather than disgracing their families and particularly their male relations, they represented the family wealth (Thorstein Veblen’s model of vicarious consumption) and probably also showed off their physical beauty that reflected well on their husbands. The results from this section have been presented at talks in universities in Frankfurt, Hannover, Athens, Aarhus, Copenhagen, Buchara and Tampere and are currently being prepared for publication in the form of two articles. The Edict on Maximum Prices, issued during the reign of Diocletian in 301 CE, lists maximum prices for services and goods, inter alia precious clothing and textile-related work (see also article on silk trade and production and the article by Hildebrandt – Flemestad – Harlow – Hildebrandt – Nosch on textile tools in the Edict). Among the highly precious materials and elaborate weaving techniques are purple-dyed and damask silks. These items continue to be condemned in literary texts, but were obviously widespread enough to merit an entry in an inscription that claimed to cover the whole empire. The epigraphic record thus confirms that at least under Diocletian (if not even earlier) a turning point in the use of precious garments had been reached that matched important political and institutional changes.Sculptural evidence can add yet another facet, once the cutting-edge research on surface-treatment and color on statues is taken into consideration. This project has shown that color research can enhance the written sources in completely new ways, and surface details can give information about the intended characteristics of the garments depicted. Even if statues seem to corroborate the predilection of the literary texts for traditional Roman clothing and particular recurring types of representation, such as the togatus, long into late antiquity, the color of the garment can add a completely new meaning. This is the case for a new color reconstruction of a statue of Caligula as togatus. Depending on the reconstruction carried out by archaeologists and conservators, the toga might have been fully red/purple, thus indicating a triumphal garment. This means that without the knowledge about the colors, Caligula was seemingly depicted in the traditional toga as a “first among equals” while in reality he used the purple toga that showed him as a triumphant general. Interestingly, moralizing authors complained that he wore the triumphal toga even without being a victorious general. The color reconstruction of the garment as a triumphal toga could thus be read as his attempt at taking a traditional garment out of its temporal context in order to convey his elevated status (see article on the emperor Honorius’ garments). The project could thus demonstrate that colors on statues could be used to play with identities and status.Another strong focus of research included the production and trade of the material that proved to be – next to purple – the most important for imperial representation: silk (see articles on silk trade and production and the edited volume on the exchange of silk along the Silk Roads). A further important result was to show how the epigraphical record can complement other kinds of written evidence. This was undertaken by research into an inscription regarding maximum prices of dress, textile material and tools that was issued under the reign of the emperor Diocletian in 301 CE and that highlights the clothing habits of its time (see article on silk trade and production; and the article by Flemestad – Harlow – Hildebrandt – Nosch on textile tools in Diocletian’s Price Edict).Practical textile courses as well as collaborations with the colleagues from the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek Copenhagen who work on color on statues (http://www.trackingcolour.com) have given the project a completely new dimension that adds to traditional views in both philological and archaeological research. The impact of the project lies in its relevance for archaeological, historical, philological, political and social sciences. Among the most important results are the following: relying on one particular kind of material will bias any historical interpretation. Senatorial ideology, court poetry and laws show many different levels of one and the same “reality”, as color on seemingly white statues does. Only a combined methodology gives a rich and varied picture into ideal and actual strategies of representation that seem much more varied than previously assumed: the visualization of power through dress needs a transdisciplinary approach. This led to the result that contrary to common belief, already under the very first emperors constant attempts at status distinction through dress were the norm rather than the exception. The texts have to be read against this background. Secondly, scientific research into colors on statues and dyestuffs as well as archaeological textiles in general open completely new aspects on status representation through elaborated clothing that was much more common than the literary discourses make us believe. The negotiation of status display through dress between emperors and subordinates, and particularly the political elite, was a constant process that caused considerable tension until ca. the 4th century CE. During the principate, it is argued, it mirrors struggles over political control within a peer-group. After that, it mirrors negotiations regarding the participation in monarchical power that was conveyed through outer signs like clothing. The attempts of the emperors at establishing monopolies for precious clothing items show that their status representation was not debated any more – the question was only whether they were allowed to do so exclusively. Project webpages: http://ctr.hum.ku.dk/economy/emperors_new_clothes/http://ctr.hum.ku.dk/people/staff-list/?pure=en/persons/404974
