The Antiquities in the Hippodrome of Constantinople

Archaeological Institute of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Journal of Archaeology.

http://www.jstor.org

Historiae custos: Sculpture and Tradition in the Baths of Zeuxippos Author(s): Sarah Guberti Bassett Source: American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 100, No. 3 (Jul., 1996), pp. 491-506Published by: Archaeological Institute of AmericaStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/507026Accessed: 30-08-2015 23:35 UTC

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 [email protected].

This content downloaded from 140.182.176.13 on Sun, 30 Aug 2015 23:35:35 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aia

http://www.jstor.org/stable/507026

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp



Historiae custos: Sculpture and Tradition in the Baths of Zeuxippos

SARAH GUBERTI BASSETT

Abstract

To coincide with the dedication of Constantinople in A.D. 330, the emperor Constantine decorated the Baths of Zeuxippos, one of the city's oldest and grand- est thermal establishments, with a fine collection of sculpture. Three types of statuary were used: images of gods and demigods, figures of mythological heroes taken largely, though not exclusively, from the Trojan War cycle, and portraits of famous Greeks and Romans. These

categories were generally consistent with the established traditions of Roman thermal decor in which statues of gods and demigods referred to the healing and cultural activities associated with the baths, mythological figures served to delight and entertain, and portraiture honored local citizens and benefactors. At the same time, however, the use of portraiture at the Zeuxippos proved distinctive. Representations of local citizens, traditionally a prominent feature in the programs of important public baths, were eschewed in favor of the great literary, philosophical, and political figures of Graeco-Roman

antiquity. This singular choice reflected a desire to de- tach Constantinopolitan identity from the confining agenda of local history and link it with the universal cultural traditions of Greece and Rome. It was a vision that derived from contemporary ideas about education and the nature of power and that was, ultimately, appropriate to Constantinople's role as capital of the Roman Empire.*

INTRODUCTION

In preparation for the inauguration of Constan-

tinople in the spring of A.D. 330, the emperor Con- stantine (310-337) completed the public bath known

as the Zeuxippos by decorating it with rich marbles and an imposing collection of freestanding statuary. In so finely outfitting this complex, the emperor ac-

knowledged the importance of the bath as an insti-

tution and took shrewd advantage of its formidable role in Roman public life to mount a display of stat-

uary that shaped the image of his city and defined its role within the larger context of empire. In a col-

lection that numbered no less than 81 pieces, images of gods and demigods, mythological heroes, and a

panoply of statesmen, philosophers, and men of let-

ters, the culture heroes of the Graeco-Roman world, stood massed to proclaim Constantinople's legitimate right to unrivaled imperial status. It is the purpose of this article to describe how this claim was made.

Any consideration of the Zeuxippos must begin by taking into account Reinhard Stupperich's 1982

study of the collection, in which he argued that it

* This article derives from subject matter first presented in my dissertation, Paene Omnium Urbium Nuditate: The Reuse of Antiquities in Constantinople, Fourth through Sixth Centuries (Diss. Bryn Mawr 1985). Some of the ideas discussed here were presented at the 1988 Byzantine Studies Conference; see Abstracts of Papers (Houston 1988) 39. I would like to thank Susan Boyd, Engin Ozgen, and Ilknur Ozgen for their kind help in obtaining photographs. I am also grateful to the two anonymous AJA reviewers and to the AJA editors for their time, expertise, and valuable comments. All trans- lations are mine unless otherwise indicated.

The following abbreviations are used: Casson et al. S. Casson, D. Talbot Rice, and D.E

1928 Hudson, Preliminary Report upon the Excavations Carried Out in and near the Hippodrome of Constantinople in 1927 (London 1928).

Casson et al. S. Casson, D. Talbot Rice, and D.E 1929 Hudson, Second Report upon the Exca-

vations Carried Out in and near the Hippodrome of Constantinople in 1928 (London 1929).

Casson 1930 S. Casson, "Les fouilles de l'Hippo- drome de Constantinople," GBA 30

(1930) 213-42. Ekphrasis Christodoros of Thebes, ""EKcppact; tWiv

dyaX••Litdov t)^v 9iq t6 86t16otov yu4t- vdotov 20TU 7arKCLtOUtVOU ZE•U&itiou," The Greek Anthology I, trans. W.R. Paton (London 1916) 59-91.

Manderscheid H. Manderscheid, Die Skulpturenausstat- tung der kaiserzeitlichen Thermenanlagen (Berlin 1981).

Marvin M. Marvin, "Freestanding Sculpture from the Baths of Caracalla," AJA 87 (1983) 347-84.

Miiller-Wiener W Miiller-Wiener, Bildlexikon zur Topogra- phie Istanbuls (Tiibingen 1977).

Nielsen I. Nielsen, Thermae et Balnea: The Archi- tecture and Cultural History of Roman Public Baths (Aarhus 1990).

Stupperich R. Stupperich, "Das Statuenprogramm in der Zeuxippos-Thermen. Uberle- gungen zur Beschreibung der Chris- todorus von Koptos," IstMitt 32 (1982) 210-35.

Yegill EK. Yegiil, Baths and Bathing in Classical Antiquity (New York 1992).

491 American Journal of Archaeology 100 (1996) 491-506



492 SARAH GUBERTI BASSETT [AJA 100

i

I /

LII b

ARGI -- /

/" PITTAKIA

I/ /

"r

t

HO D

L.a.

2 no

..... I,, C` i• I...'

.... •IO~

Fig. 1. Plan of Constantinople showing the Baths of Zeuxippos and adjacent buildings. (From Miller-Wiener, fig. 263)

was assembled with the programmatic intent of de-

scribing Constantinople as the New Troy. Observa- tion of what Stupperich felt to be two anomalies in the collection's makeup, the presence of portraits of historical figures and an unusually large number of representations of mythological figures associated with the Trojan War, led him to this conclusion.' While Stupperich was right to question some aspects of the collection's makeup, I believe that there is ulti-

mately no basis for his final conclusion. Literary and

archaeological evidence simply do not warrant the

proposed Trojan interpretation. In the following

pages I reexamine the evidence for the collection, describe its contents, and analyze the unique icon-

ographical issues that the Zeuxippos poses. In conclusion I offer my own suggestions as to how this collection might best be understood.

BUILDING HISTORY AND TYPOLOGY

The Baths of Zeuxippos stood in the center of Con-

stantinople on a slice of land between the northeast- ern corner of the Hippodrome, the Great Palace of the Byzantine emperors, and the public forum known as the Augusteion (fig. 1). Sources record that, al-

I Stupperich.



1996] SCULPTURE AND TRADITION IN THE BATHS OF ZEUXIPPOS 493

N

000/

:: /

.. /

/ROM

';: .....-:.

" .,.

• ,,,," "". 7:

t•,•~ r"

iI . • . .

O

~~/ iO ~ 0 40 9 O

Fig. 2. Plan of the Baths of Zeuxippos. (After Miiller-Wiener, fig. 29)

though the pride of the Late Antique capital, the

complex was actually an inheritance from the pre- Constantinian era of the city's history. Founded and built by Septimius Severus in the last years of the second century,2 the Zeuxippos was taken over by Constantine who made it a showpiece by dowering it with freestanding sculptural decoration in bronze and marble. In his account of the rush of building activity leading up to the dedication of Constanti-

nople, the historian Malalas described this under-

taking as the capstone of many such enterprises: "Moreover, he [Constantine] completed the bath known as the Zeuxippos, decorating it with columns and different colored marbles and statues made of

bronze."3 Thus outfitted, the Zeuxippos functioned as the oldest and most centrally placed of the capital's imperial baths during the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries. Throughout this period it served not only the needs of public bathing, but also as a locus for all manner of public speaking and debate.4 Then, in

2 The attribution to Septimius Severus is traditional and is based on repeated references in Byzantine sources. See loannis Malalas chronographia (Bonn 1831) 321B; Chronicon Paschale (Bonn 1832) 494B; and T. Preger, Scriptores origi- num Constantinopolitanarum (Leipzig 1902/1907) 15-16, 132, 168.

: Malalas (supra n. 2) 321B. 4 See Socrates, Hist. Eccl. 2.9, which describes an en-

counter between the Prefect of Constantinople, Philip, and

the Patriarch Paul. In 344 Philip invited Paul to the baths on the pretext of conducting a public debate. The invitation proved nothing more than a ruse to entrap Paul and the meeting concluded not with any public exchange of ideas, but with Paul's arrest and deportation. Paul's will- ingness to accept the invitation demonstrates the extent to which this type of public debate in the bath setting was considered normal.




532, it met with disaster. Fires raging in the after- math of the anti-Justinianic NIKA rebellion swept through the complex destroying the building and its contents. Thereafter, the history of the Zeuxip- pos is murky. Although rebuilt byJustinian,5 it is not clear how much longer the complex continued to function. Sources indicate that the bath served as a setting for public meetings well into the seventh

century.6 The last mention of the building in any thermal capacity is by Theophanes, who states that the emperor Philippikos bathed there in 713.7 Sub-

sequent references are oblique and the use, if any, to which the complex was put remains conjecture.8

This history was given substance through exca-

vation, with the result that the Zeuxippos can be

imagined, at least in general form (fig. 2).9 Exca- vations sponsored by the British Academy in 1927 and 1928 revealed the foundations and lower walls of a vaulted brick and concrete structure, Building I. A large peristyle, Building II, flanked Building I on its east side. Provisions for a hydraulic system and the presence of vaulting identified Building I as the bath proper, while the large, open peristyle indicated that Building II was a gymnasium."'

The excavated remains suggest, without making possible any sense of detail, that the Zeuxippos was a bath-gymnasium. Common as a bath type in western Asia Minor from the second century A.D., its characteristic features included an integration of vaulted bathing chambers with open, rectangular exercise grounds." The Zeuxippos combination of vaulted halls with open peristyle is consistent with this typology.

So too is the building's initial date. The complex rose directly on the yellow clay of Constantinople and no traces of earlier construction came to light. Coin finds, construction techniques, and fragments of sculpted wall revetment at the lowest levels con- firmed a second-century date, and indicated that this complex was the Severan bath that had been

taken over and integrated into the Constantinian

city plan.12 Evidence of burning, complicated sequences of

brickwork, and superimposed pavement at levels im-

mediately above the second-century construction indicated destruction and reconstruction following the

building's original design.3" Analysis of the brickwork at these levels showed that this rebuilding could not have taken place before the sixth century, while evidence of coin finds, burn marks, and the reuse of materials from the pre-sixth-century bath as construction material indicated that the complex that

grew out of the walls of the second-century structure was that of the Justinianic restoration.14

The history of the restored Justinianic complex remains unclear. Minor additions here and there hint at later reuse without specifying chronology or purpose. That the building was abandoned before the

Palaiologan period (1261-1453) is clear from the fact that the site was used as a dump from the 12th

century.15

COLLECTION OF SCULPTURE

The second-century Severan building served as the framework for the lavish surface decoration and

sculptural adornment implemented by Constantine.

Writing from the vantage point of the 12th century, the historian Cedrenus described the complex for his contemporaries:

In the eighth year ofJustinian's rule, the Severan baths that went by the name of Zeuxippos were destroyed. In them were many painted marvels and well-made splendors of marble, stone, and mosaic, as well as bronze images that were the work of ancient men. Of these images there was not one without a soul.'6

What Cedrenus evoked was a building rich in the

trappings of Late Roman civilization. Excavation

finds, although few, support this image. Fragments of colored marble wall revetment were brought to

light in Buildings I and II.7 Materials included verde

5 Procop. Aed. 1.10.3 describes the destruction and rebuilding of the complex under Justinian.

6 In 680 the monk Polychronius is reputed to have made an unsuccessful attempt at raising the dead in the Zeuxippos peristyle. See J.D. Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio XI (Florence 1765) 609.

7 Chronicon (Hildesheim 1963) 383. 8 Various theories abound, among them that the Zeux-

ippos was used as a silk factory or a prison. See Milller- Wiener 51.

9 For excavation reports, see Casson et al. 1928, Casson et al. 1929, and Casson 1930. Milller-Wiener 51 provides a bibliography of secondary sources.

10 See Casson et al. 1929 for a discussion of the build-

ing remains. 11 On the bath-gymnasium, see Nielsen 105-108 and

Yegill 250-313. 12 Casson et al. 1929, 6 and 13. I• Casson et al. 1929, 12. 14 Casson et al. 1929, 15. 15 Casson et al. 1929, 9 and 14. 1" Historiarum Compendium (Bonn 1838) 647-48. T6TE 6

Eve~ipio0n Kai dT6 6Krdy0)vov Kdi T16 loktp6v T1o0 EPUipou

1T6 Xvy6t4Evov ZEt64nuoq, v ( TOOItKikl tIq 1Tv E8mCpia Kai

kaut4p6Trnq TF-Xvdv, T^v T Etap idpcov Kai icMov Kai WY(pi60o)V Kai siK6VC)V 6tia XaKo6 Ur.CiEotEuvo)v TCWv &rE' aid0voq &v6pc0v -pya, it6vov T c 4ti 7tapivat artai u i YUX&q Tc0v q o6iq ~Eyvovro.

17 Casson et al. 1929, 9-10.




antico and red and yellow African marbles.18 Pieces of a carved Proconnesian marble frieze showing ne- reids and dolphins framed by decorative floral mold-

ings were also found. These fragments were assigned a second-century date on stylistic grounds and a local provenance on the basis of material. Rough carv-

ing and traces of plaster on the relief surfaces of the frieze indicated that the panels would have been stuccoed and painted to opulent effect.19

These rich wall surfaces provided the backdrop for what was ultimately the most fascinating aspect of the Zeuxippos's decor, its freestanding statuary. In fact, as the Cedrenus commentary indicates, it was the collection of sculpture that seems to have

captured contemporary imagination and in so do-

ing secured the bath's subsequent fame. Although destroyed in the fire of 532, the overall shape and contents of the collection can be reconstructed from

literary and archaeological sources.

LITERARY SOURCES

The most complete evidence for the Zeuxippos collection is a description, or ekphrasis, written at the end of the fifth century by the Egyptian poet Christodoros of Koptos.20 Christodoros was an established poet in Constantinople where he worked in official circles. Two epigrams mourning the death of the official John of Epidauros survive from his

pen,21 and the 10th-century lexicon, the Souda, describes him as the author of various lost works, among them an epic commemoration of Anastasius I's war

against the Isaurians and urban descriptions of Con-

stantinople and Thessaloniki.22 Given this output, it is likely that the Zeuxippos description was written in some sort of official capacity.

The Ekphrasis survives incomplete as a 416-verse

poem recording freestanding statues or statue groups in three basic categories: gods and demigods, mythological figures, and portraits. That this description recorded actual pieces as opposed to some imagined gathering is clear from correspondences between named statues and archaeological finds. Statue bases inscribed with the names of Hecuba and Aischines (see below, figs. 4-5), two figures mentioned in the Ekphrasis, were found during excavation of the site."2 As a source of information the Ekphrasis is, there-

fore, invaluable: identification of all of the 81 statues or statue groups known to have stood in the baths

depends upon it. At the same time, however, there are distinct limits to the poem's usefulness, which derive, on the one hand, from the fact that it is only partially preserved, and, on the other hand, from the aims and aspirations of the author.

As preserved, the Ekphrasis begins with a description of a statue of the Trojan warrior Deiphobos and ends with a discussion of a portrait of Virgil. In between, in no consistent thematic order, 79 other statues are named and described. There is no introduction or conclusion, and, apart from the lemma that states that the poem describes the statuary in the baths, no reference to location or setting. This abrupt opening and closing is at odds with the formal, often florid qualities of Late Antique verse, and it is therefore likely that the complete original included both a preface and a conclusion in which circumstances and setting were elaborated. It is also possible that other statues or statue groups were mentioned.

While these lacunae are not sufficient to prevent reconstruction of the collection in a general sense, they do circumscribe the way in which the gathering can be interpreted. Given the lack of information

regarding setting and the distinct possibility that some descriptions are missing, any attempt at estab-

lishing sequences and interrelations must proceed with caution.

Also problematic is the nature of the observations.

Although the poem purports to describe the individual statues, the notion of what constitutes description is governed less by the desire to record physical appearance than by the need to document the perceived sensations of emotion and intellect experi- enced by the individual figures displayed. The result is that individual passages are often long on

interpretation and short on documentation. Con- sider, for example, the description of the orator Demosthenes:

And the trumpet speaker of the Paenians stood there conspicuous, the sage father of well-sounding eloquence who erst in Athens set alight the wise torch of entrancing Persuasion. He did not seem to be rest- ing, but his mind was often in action and he seemed to be revolving some subtle plan, even as when he

'I Casson et al. 1929, 42. '1 Casson et al. 1928, 27-28, fig. 36, and Casson et al.

1929, 42. 20 See Ekphrasis for text and translation. On Christo-

doros himself, see P. Baumgarten, De Christodoro poeta The- bano (Bonn 1881); RE 3, pt. 2 (1899) 2450-52, s.v. Christo- doros (Baumgarten); T. Viljamaa, Studies in Greek Encomiastic

Poetry of the Early Byzantine Period (Helsinki 1963) 29-31, 56-57, 100; and Stupperich 213-14. Christodoros was once referred to as Christodoros of Thebes. Current usage pre- fers the designation Koptos.

21 The Greek Anthology VII (London 1914) nos. 697, 698. 22 Suidae Lexicon IV (Stuttgart 1971) 827. 23 Casson 1929, 18-21.




sharpened his wit against the warlike Macedonians. Fain would he have let escape in his anger the tor- rent of his speech, endowing his dumb state with voice, but Art kept him fettered under the seat of her brazen silence.24

In the florid language admired by the age, Christo- doros identifies and describes his subject with only passing reference to physical appearance. The opening verse describes the figure as standing and the last suggests in its reference to "brazen silence" that the statue was bronze. Mention of the fact that the

figure seems about to speak indicates lifelike appearance. The details of that appearance remain unclear. There is no reference to anything that might char- acterize or define individual physical appearance. Instead, the verse concentrates on re-creating the orator's mental state by alluding to past historical

events. This technique allows Christodoros to infer a mental state from which the orator's thoughts are

duly extrapolated. Far more interpretive than factual, this verse is conceived less as an exercise in physical documentation than as the stirring evocation of a moment. Indeed, the real subject of Christodoros's

poetry is not so much observed physical reality as the ephemera of thought and feeling.

This type of description characterizes most of the

Ekphrasis and is perfectly consistent with the aims of the genre as it was practiced in Late Antiquity.25 Ekphrasis was considered an aspect of rhetoric. Its

stated purpose was to describe, among other things, people, places, monuments, and works of art. A de-

scription could be written as poetry or prose, could be real or imagined, and could stand alone as an

independent work or be incorporated into larger compositions. Whatever its form, it was important that the ekphrasis be convincing. Indeed, the whole

point of the exercise was to make the designated sub-

ject, whether fictional or real, so vivid that it would seem to materialize before the reader's eyes.

Descriptions of works of art employed their own set of conventions to achieve this end.26 Foremost

among them was an insistence upon naturalism. Ex-

amples abound of paintings or statues so lifelike that

they seem about to move or speak. In the Ekphrasis itself most of the statues, the Demosthenes included, are attributed this quality.

The insistence upon convincing naturalistic rep- resentation as an aspect of a statue's worth was, how-

ever, but one element in the conception of naturalism. Equally important was the work of art's ability to convey a sense of emotional depth. Authors were, therefore, at pains to describe the formal character- istics of a work of art that revealed the inner work-

ings of the soul. The descriptive result is often less a discussion of physical appearance than an identification and interpretation of subject matter based on the selective allusion to form. This habit was the

guiding principle behind Christodoros's own com-

position, where physical description, if it exists at

all, serves as a springboard for the interpretation of a statue's mental and emotional state. If nothing else, the poet was determined to convey that quality that Cedrenus defined as soul.

Although Christodoros's own interests lie less with the details of accurate physical description and more with the identification and interpretation of

subject matter, the Ekphrasis can, nevertheless, be useful as a source of information about the collection's material aspect. There is, for example, sporadic reference to medium. Of the 81 statues observed, 16 are explicitly said to be of bronze, while metaphor in other verses suggests that a further six statues should be added to this list.27 No mention is made of other media.

In a few instances the poem also indicates sculptural typology. Lines 297-302 record a statue of

Hermes, specifying that the figure stood with his torso bent over his raised right leg, his right hand

pulling at his laces, his head upturned. This account describes what can only be a replica of the Late Clas- sical Sandalbinder.28

The detailed aspect of the Hermes description is the exception, but although less precise, other

verses'allow generalized visualizations in terms of known sculptural types. Lines 292-96 record a statue of Achilles as a nude, beardless youth with a spear

24Ekphrasis, lines 23-31. 25 For ekphrasis, see G. Downey, Reallexikonfiir byzantin-

isches Kunst II (Stuttgart 1971) 32-77; and H. Hunger, Die

hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner 1 (Munich 1978) 178-88.

26 See H. Maguire, "Truth and Convention in Byzantine Descriptions of Works of Art," DOP 28 (1974) 111-40; Maguire, Art and Eloquence in Byzantium (Princeton 1981); and K. Lehmann-Hartleben, "The Imagines of the Elder Phil-

ostratus," ArtB 23 (1941) 16-44. 27 For direct reference to bronze, see Ekphrasis, lines 12,

18, 31, 39, 47, 73, 78, 83, 122, 152, 178, 198, 256, and 314. For indirect references, see the use of cvrpdairtn (flash), Xdrtino (shine), and nagpativw (shine brightly) in lines 13, 92, 99-100, 357, and 388.

28The equation between the Sandalbinder and the Hermes is mentioned by W.R. Paton. See Ekphrasis 83 n. 1. The statue is known from four major replicas in Copen- hagen, Paris, Munich, and Perge. See LIMC V.1, 368-69, s.v. Hermes (G. Siebert) for discussion and bibliography and LIMC V.2, pls. 279-80 for illustrations.




in his right hand, a shield in his left. As described, the figure's pose suggests a broad similarity to the

Doryphoros, a statue that itself has been associated

with Achilles.29 An Aphrodite statue also invites comparison to

known sculptural types. Lines 78-81 describe a

bronze statue of the goddess in a form reminiscent

of any one of a number of half-draped Aphrodite

types. The poem specifies that the figure stood naked

from the waist up, her hair tied back, a swath of drap-

ery around her hips and legs. Although no direct

association is possible, works such as the Aphrodite of Arles, the Venus Townley, or the Venus de Milo

suggest the statue's general look.30

Where the Ekphrasis is silent is on the subject of

scale. Christodoros never states or even so much as

hints at the size of the figures. This information must

be deduced from archaeological evidence. Pertinent

materials include statue bases and the fragment of

a colossal head.

STATUE BASES

Excavated during the 1928 season, the statue bases

number three and are circular with molded flanges at top and bottom.31 Two of the bases, A and B, are

now in the Istanbul Archaeological Museum (figs. 3-4). They are identical in size and shape. Each mea-

sures 1.40 x 1.08 m. The two are distinguishable from

one another by their surface features. Base A is carved

with the inscribed image of a vase, while base B car-

ries the inscription EKABE, a reference to the statue

it once supported.32 The third base, C (fig. 5), is

slightly smaller, measuring 1.35 x 0.67 m. Like base

B it is inscribed, in this instance with AICXHNHC, the misspelled name of the orator Aischines."3 As

noted above, both the Aischines and the Hecuba in-

scriptions correspond to figures mentioned in the

Ekphrasis.34 Unprepossessing though they be, the bases reveal

a good deal about the collection both with regard

Fig. 3. Base A. Istanbul Archaeological Museum. (Photo courtesy Museum)

to the individual monuments and to the gathering as a whole. First, their scale indicates that the figures they carried were life-size or larger. Second, cuttings in the flat supporting surface above the inscriptions show that the statues themselves were bronze.35 This information squares with that of Christodoros, who states that the Hecuba statue was bronze and sug-

29 Identification of the Doryphoros with Achilles is based on Pliny's (HN 34.18) description of statues of nude, spearbearing youths as "Achillean" or "Achilles-like." See T. Lorenz, Polyklet: Doryphoros (Stuttgart 1966) 10-13; and Lorenz, Polyklet (Wiesbaden 1972) 4-17. Over 50 copies of the Doryphoros exist. The best known is the statue from the Palaestra at Pompeii now in the National Archaeolog- ical Museum, Naples (inv. no. 6146). For discussion and illustration, see A. Stewart, Greek Sculpture (New Haven 1990) 160-62, pl. 378.

30 The Aphrodite from the Roman theater at Arles is now in the Louvre (MA 439). See LIMC II.1, 63, s.v. Aph- rodite (A. Delivorrias, G. Berger-Doer, and A. Kossatz- Deissmann) for discussion and LIMC 11.2, pl. 51 no. 526 for illustration. The Aphrodite found in Ostia and known

as the Venus Townley is now in the British Museum (inv. no. 1574). See LIMC II.1, 65, s.v. Aphrodite (A. Delivorrias, G. Berger-Doer, and A. Kossatz-Deissmann) for discussion and LIMC 11.2, pl. 63 no. 643 for illustration. For discussion and illustration of the Venus de Milo at the Louvre (MA 399) see LIMC II.1, 73, s.v. Aphrodite (A. Delivorrias, G. Berger-Doer, and A. Kossatz-Deissmann) and LIMC 11.2, pl. 63 no. 643.

31 See Casson et al. 1929, 18-19 and Casson 1930, 235. 32 Bases A and B are currently displayed in the garden

of the Istanbul Archaeological Museum. Inventory num- bers are unavailable.

33 The location of base C is currently unknown. 34 Ekphrasis, lines 13-18 and 175-88. 35 Casson et al. 1929, 18-19.




Fig. 4. Base B, the Hecuba base (inverted). Istanbul Archae-

ological Museum. (Photo courtesy Museum)

gests as much for the Aischines in the use of the verb

6ropdarcM. The bases also give a sense of the collection's over-

all aspect and planning. Cuttings in the bottom of

A and B indicate that the two were originally used

elsewhere. By contrast, base C shows no evident signs of reuse. The consistent scale and circular form of

the bases indicate that a concerted effort was made to provide a homogeneous display. Presumably all

of the bases in the collection were round. The fact

that the three finds were random, widely separated discoveries in the course of a relatively limited and

incomplete excavation confirms this idea. At the same

time, the evident differences in profile and propor- tion between the pair A/B and the single base C sug-

gest reuse from varying provenances, with A and B

Fig. 5. Base C, the Aischines base. (From Casson et al. 1929, fig. 11)

having one source and C another. The sources them-

selves are unknown; however, while it is clear that A and B were used previously for the display of stat-

uary, lack of evident signs of reuse on base C sug-

gests three possibilities: that the base was kept to-

gether with its original statue, that it was taken

pristine from a long period of storage, or that it was made specifically for the baths.36

COLOSSAL HEAD

In addition to the statue bases, the Zeuxippos ex-

cavation yielded a fragment of a colossal female head

(fig. 6)."7 The current location of this piece is un-

36 Marvin 381 suggests that there may have been stock-

piling of sculpture. If so, this practice would have been

equally valid for bases that were often made to order and included in the price of a statue. See also R. Duncan-Jones, The Economy of the Roman Empire (Cambridge 1982) 78.

37 Casson et al. 1929, 41-42, figs. 48-49. Casson 1930, 236. The fragment measured 19.5 x 17.5 cm, and Casson

posited that the undamaged head would have been between 27 and 30 cm in height. Identification with Athena, Urania, Aphrodite, Nemesis, and Hera was suggested.




Fig. 6. Fragment of a colossal female head excavated at the Zeuxippos. (From Casson et al. 1929, fig. 48)

known, but examination of the fragment at the time of its excavation revealed it to be of fifth-century B.C. Attic manufacture and of Pentelic marble. The statue is important because it shows that marble figures were used together with bronze. As well, its provenance and date demonstrate that, as in the case of the bases, sculpture was reused.

Although the head does not correspond in any obvious way to Christodoros's surviving description, the fragment works as an interesting complement to the text. Inability to associate the head with any of the described deities supports the idea of missing. descriptions. Apart from this issue, however, the head serves as a useful indicator of taste. From the list of subject matter it is clear that there was a wide

chronological range in the works displayed. Statu-

ary of fourth- and third-century B.C. Greek conception stood together with such uniquely Roman creations asJulius Caesar and Virgil. As the Sandal- binder and the two Aphrodite statues indicate, many of the works of Greek and Roman invention were

copies of or variations on standard sculptural types

that could have been produced at any time during the Hellenistic or Roman period. The fifth-century fragment demonstrates that works of more ancient manufacture were also displayed. It is clear, there-

fore, that contemporary taste admitted and doubtless appreciated a wide range of style.

USE OF COPIES

Impossible to assess from the available information is the extent to which the monuments displayed were originals or copies. The issue is, perhaps, moot. The use of copies was a standard and expected element in ancient public works projects where a repertoire of several dozen favorite works by the great artists of classical antiquity was displayed against such formidable backdrops as nymphaea, city gates, the-

aters, and baths. As the examples of the Sandalbinder and other probable copies indicate, the Zeuxippos was no exception. Far from carrying the stigma of bad taste that such a display would today, the public exposition of these works was embraced as a way to evoke the glory of the Hellenic past and celebrate




its vitality in the Graeco-Roman present.38 In the

specific case of the Zeuxippos, therefore, the extensive use of copies was not only likely, but also probable and desirable.

REUSE OF STATUARY

Taken together the literary and archaeological sources describe the collection as an aesthetically diverse melange of bronze and marble statuary of various dates and provenance. That this statuary was of high quality is demonstrated by the example of the Greek head. Such a profile is consistent with the kinds of collections found in other Roman baths.

Statuary of first- and second-century A.D. manufacture stood together with contemporary pieces in the Baths of Caracalla.39 Similarly, statues found in the Large West Baths at Caesarea clearly predate the third-century A.D. structure they adorned,40 and

inscriptions from the West Baths at Cherchel attest to the removal and reuse of statuary.4'

This reuse of sculptural material in public baths

probably had its roots in economic necessity. No public building was more expensive than the bath, and

fully half of the expenditure for such a complex would have been occasioned by the purchase of

sculpture.42 It was, therefore, only prudent and sometimes necessary that statuary be reused. In the case of the Zeuxippos, this general urge to savings makes it likely that the copies themselves would have been reused.43

DISPLAY

The question remains as to how the collection was

displayed. As noted, the lemma to the Ekphrasis in- troduces the poem as a description of statuary in the public gymnasium of the Zeuxippos. It is not clear whether this reference indicates the building as a whole or the specific area of the peristyle tradition-

ally associated with the gymnasium. It is likely, how-

ever, that Christodoros intended the whole, as the terms "gymnasium" and "bath" were often used inter-

changeably to describe the same building, with gym-

nasium being the preferred choice when referring to bath-gymnasia.44

Assuming then that Christodoros was indeed de-

scribing the complex in its entirety, it is most probable that the statuary would have been concentrated in the frigidarium, the showpiece of any Imperial establishment. Popular secondary display areas included changing rooms, entrance halls, and peri- styles. As with other baths adorned with sculpture, it is doubtless the case that statuary displayed in these areas stood highlighted in niches and aediculae

against walls, or were freestanding around pools, but neither the literary nor the archaeological evidence is sufficient to permit elaboration of this point for the Zeuxippos.

Nonetheless, because references to sequence throughout the poem indicate that Christodoros described figures in the order in which he saw them,

Stupperich has posited a series of display arrange- ments based on a complicated array of rigidly or-

chestrated, diagonally perceived relationships across and between hypothetically constructed spaces.45 According to his reckoning, the poem indicates five statue groups. Groups I (lines 1-60), II (lines 61-143), and V (lines 311-416) are described as conglomer- ate gatherings of historical, mythological, and divine

figures, while groups III (lines 143-221) and IV (lines 222-310) are dominated by characters from the Tro-

jan War. Within each group, diagonal correspon- dence and pendant placement are seen to enhance

meaning. Apart from the difficulty in interpreting the evi-

dence with this degree of specificity, several weak- nesses plague Stupperich's reconstructions. First, al-

though it is clear that Christodoros implies a viewing order, it is by no means certain that the progression described is a mandatory one. Indeed, in the context of the bath where there was no fixed program of use and the visitor was free to circulate at will, a pre- scribed sequence seems unlikely, as any installation

relying so heavily on systematic balance and spatial progression would have made little sense and had

38 On the public display of statuary, see G.M.A. Hanf- mann, From Croesus to Constantine: The Cities of Western Asia Minor and Their Arts in Greek and Roman Times (Ann Arbor

1975) 57-74. '1 Marvin 369. "4 Nielsen 87. 41 Marvin 369, n. 312. 42 Marvin 380-81.

4 The reuse of sculpture in public settings was a common aspect of Constantine's development of Constanti- nople. Economic and iconographic motives contributed to this practice. In the case of the Zeuxippos, economy seems to have been the initial motivation. On the larger

Constantinopolitan tradition of reuse, see G.C. Heyne, "Pris- cae artis operae quae Constantinopoli extisse memoran- tur," Commentationes scientiarum Gottingensis 2 (1790-1791) 3-38; R.M. Dawkins, "Ancient Statues in Medieval Constan- tinople," Folklore 35 (1924) 209-48; and C. Mango, "Antique Statuary and the Byzantine Beholder," DOP 17 (1963) 55-75. S. Guberti Bassett, "Antiquities in the Hippodrome of Con- stantinople," DOP 45 (1991) 87-96 demonstrates how some statuary was understood as spolia and derived significance from the very fact of its antiquity.

44 Yegfil 312, 490. 45 Stupperich 217-27.




even less impact. Instead, the designers of these thermal collections preferred a loose placement and

juxtapositioning of images that allowed for various viewing possibilities on both a grand and an inti- mate scale.46 Christodoros's description suggests just this kind of ensemble. The overall picture to emerge is one of a collection in which statues of gods and

demigods mingled indiscriminately with representations of heroes and historical figures. On occasion, this seemingly random display was punctuated by smaller, thematic gatherings such as those observed for groups II and IV, but the overall effect was generally one of casual, flexible viewing.47

Related to the issue of viewing order is the prob- lem of spatial setting. In organizing the statuary, Stup- perich assumed that all of the figures stood at ground level on the periphery of their individual spaces. It is, of course, possible that this was the case, but it is also true that some of the statues may have been

placed on bases in open spaces or in niches and aediculae that were part of vertical wall installations. This type of wall display was a common solution in

public settings, especially in Asia Minor.48 Given the

Constantinopolitan dependence upon design solu- tions and construction techniques from this part of the Roman world,49 there is no reason to exclude such a possibility here.

ICONOGRAPHY

Just as the material aspects of the Zeuxippos collection were consistent with the traditions of bath decor, so too was its iconography. As noted, Chris- todoros observed statuary in three categories: gods and demigods, mythological figures, and portraits. Large thermal establishments in Rome and the provincial centers of North Africa and Asia Minor show a more or less similar sculptural repertoire.50 As at the Zeuxippos, statues of gods associated with the four elements, healing, or pleasure were displayed

side by side with mythological figures and portraits. These categories were generally observed in the Con- stantinopolitan bath, although there were some variations within individual categories.

Gods and Demigods The most popular deities in the sculpted Roman

baths were Asklepios and Hygeia, Dionysos and his attendants, Aphrodite, Herakles, and Apollo with the Muses. All were associated with the bath and its activities through their connections with the element of water, the idea of health or pleasurable social activity. Asklepios and Hygeia were the two most popular divinities, no doubt because of their asso- ciations with health. Dionysos and the sea-born Aph- rodite were linked with water, as was Herakles, whose physical prowess also made him a logical denizen of the bath. In the case of Apollo, statues of the god in the company of the Muses acknowledged the intellectual and social stimulation expected as an ideal part of any thermal visit, while solitary representations of the deity referred to the god's own healing powers.51

In the particular case of the Zeuxippos, the gods and demigods numbered 11. There were three statues each of Apollo and Aphrodite, a single figure of Hermaphroditos and two groups, one of Hera- kles with Auge and a second showing Poseidon with Amymone. Most of these figures appear in other baths. Herakles is ubiquitous as a paragon of physical fitness.52 Less obvious is the inclusion of Her- maphroditos, a figure also included at the Baths of Caracalla and in the West Baths at Cherchel,53 and Artemis, who is known from the baths at Italica, Cales, Sufetula, and Cherchel.54 The explanation for their presence is that Hermaphroditos was associated with Aphrodite and Artemis with nature and, through nature, water. It was this same connection that allowed the inclusion of the Poseidon group.55

46 On the display of thermal statuary in general, see Manderscheid.

47 The appearance of isolated pockets of iconographi- cally consistent displays within the larger context of the whole is not unheard of in bath complexes. See, e.g., E Yegill, "A Study in Architectural Iconography: Kaisersaal and the Imperial Cult," ArtB 64 (1982) 7-31, esp. 26-27 on the use of Dionysiac sculptural themes in the Caracallan Marble Court of the Imperial baths at Sardis. A similar thematic concentration showing the Labors of Herakles was found in room B of the Lambaesis baths. See Manderscheid, nos. 489-96. Representations of Marcus Aurelius and Faustina Minor were displayed together with the Muses at the Baths of Faustina, Miletos. See Manderscheid, nos. 214-22.

48 See, e.g., C. Vermeule, Greek Sculpture and Roman Taste (Ann Arbor 1977) 91-93, fig. 77.

4" The bath-gymnasium itself is a design characteristic

of Asia Minor. See Yegiil and Nielsen (supra n. 11). For the relationship between Constantinople and Asia Minor, see R. Krautheimer, Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture (Harmondsworth 1975) 112.

50 See Manderscheid 28-46 for thermal iconography. 51 Manderscheid 30-34. 52 Manderscheid nos. 16, 17(?), 51-53, 76, 141, 178(?), 179,

347, 360, 407, 465, 489-97, 530, and 531. 53 Manderscheid nos. 47, 520, 521. 54 Manderscheid nos. 35, 114, 439, 535. 55 See Lehmann-Hartleben (supra n. 26), esp. 36-39.

The tale of Poseidon and the Argive princess Amymone, for whom the god brought spring water to the drought- stricken Argolid, recalled the relationship between sea and spring, symbolizing as it did so water's continuous capacity for renewal.




Noticeably absent from the Zeuxippos were statues of Asklepios and Hygeia and of Dionysos and his attendant nymphs and satyrs. It is possible that these figures, which were so lively a part of the bath scene elsewhere, were mentioned in the missing verses of the Ekphrasis.

Mythological Figures The collection of mythological figures at the Zeux-

ippos is also comparable to known bath collections where subjects from a wide range of classical myths and literature were displayed to the stimulation and

delight of the bath's patrons. In the Constantinopol- itan baths, figures were selected from at least two narrative sources: the great cycles of the Theban and

Trojan myths. Two figures from the Theban narratives were re-

corded at the baths, the seer Amphiaraos and his son Alkmaion. Given the paucity of the figures and the fact that the Ekphrasis is incomplete, this particular choice of characters is difficult to assess. It may well be that there was a larger, more complete group of figures depicting heroes from the Theban narratives. After the Trojan epic, these gruesome stories were the most popular of the ancient myths, and

groups of the heroes were known in antiquity."6 Stupperich makes no allowance for a Theban

group, preferring instead to associate the characters with other categories. Amphiaraos is included in the Trojan gathering, and Alkmaion, his identity changed to Alkman, takes his place among the poets. While there are reasonable grounds for confusion in considering these two figures, there is no reason to ignore, much less change, their basic identity.

In myth and literature, Amphiaraos was a seer and one of the seven who went against Thebes. At no point does his story intersect with the events at Troy. In spite of this fact, Stupperich included him with the Trojan group, arguing that, as a seer, he would make an ideal pendant for another prophet, Koiranos.57 Apart from the difficulties involved in reconciling the two independent narratives, Stupperich's pendant argument is tentative at best, the foremost obstacle being that there is no Koiranos in Christodoros's description. Stupperich's Koiranos is the statue that Christodoros identifies as Aglaos. The reidentification of the figure is argued on the basis of the statue's described genealogy.5" In verse

263, Christodoros describes Aglaos as the father of the seer Polyeidos; however, as Stupperich rightly notes, Koiranos, not Aglaos, was the seer's father. This

being the case, the proposed reidentification might seem reasonable save for the fact that the evidence of the text weighs against it. In describing the statue, Christodoros identifies Aglaos as a prophet, which he was not. In myth and literature Aglaos is known

variously as a son of Thyestes and Laodameia, a son of Hermione, and the poorest man in Arcadia.59 Christodoros makes it clear that the details of his own identification of this obscure figure are based on hearsay: "The prophet Aglaus stood there who

they say [my emphasis] was the father of the inspired seer Polyidus" (lines 263-65).

The befuddlement and general lack of conviction that Christodoros brings to bear on this discussion is reflected not only in the mistaken identification of the figure as a seer, but also in the character of his verse. In sharp contrast to other descriptions, where every effort is made to create a psychological interpretation, the Aglaos characterization is left

unexplored. This uncharacteristic omission reads like nothing so much as the fudging of an author unfamiliar with his subject. Indeed, so uncertain is the tone of Christodoros's writing that it is a wonder that the identification was made at all until one re- calls that the statues were labeled. It is clear, therefore, that Christodoros had the identity provided for him, but no recognizable context in which to make sense of it. One can imagine the poet reading the unfamiliar name, wondering to himself who Aglaos was, and asking around for advice, only to be mis- informed.

The inclusion of Alkmaion in the portrait group derives from a similar misunderstanding.6" In myth and literature, Alkmaion, the son of Amphiaraos, is one of the Epigonoi who avenges his father's death at the gates of Thebes. Christodoros makes no mention of these events, but refers to the figure in verses 393-95 as Alkmaion the prophet, acknowledging in this identification the gift of sight, which he inher- ited from his father. Convinced, however, that the statue cannot really represent Alkmaion because the figure is shown without the laurel crown of a seer, he promptly rejects this identification in favor of Alkman, the seventh-century B.C. poet. Picking up on Christodoros's own doubt, Stupperich favors

56 Paus. 10.10.4 describes a group of the Epigonoi at Del- phi and 2.20.5 mentions a monument at Argos.

57 Stupperich 223. 58 Stupperich 223. 59 See Schol. Eur. Or. 5 and Tzetz. Chil. 1.499 for identifica-

tion as the son of Thyestes and Laodameia. Schol. Eur. An- drom. 32 refers to Aglaos as the son of Hermione, and Pliny HN 7.151 describes him as the poorest man in Arcadia.

1o For discussion of Alkmaion, see Stupperich 225-26.




an identification as the poet, but there is no real reason to do so.

Christodoros's reidentification is the result of a troubled response to iconography. To his way of think-

ing, a laurel crown was the essential and defining attribute of any seer, and yet there is nothing in the

iconography of Alkmaion to warrant such doubt. Stat- ues of Alkmaion do not survive, but depictions of the hero in vase painting are consistent in their rep- resentation of the figure without laurel.61 Moreover, it is by no means a prerequisite that seers be shown with this attribute. No less a figure than Amphiaraos is portrayed without the laurel crown.62

As in the case of the Aglaos statue, it is clear that the identification was made on the basis of inscription. In verse 393 Christodoros states that the statue was labeled and the reidentification as Alkman, itself presented openly as conjecture, should be understood as one based on the need to suggest a name

reasonably similar to that of the inscribed Alkmaion. Awkward though their identification and catego-

rization may be, the figures associated with the The- ban cycle should not be ignored or explained away. Their thorny presence at the Constantinopolitan baths is perfectly in keeping with the inclusion of

mythological figures in thermal settings, and suggests further that the mythological component at the

Zeuxippos was much richer than the surviving de-

scription indicates. Moreover, the puzzled nature of Christodoros's own discussions is interesting in and of itself as an index of contemporary attitudes and

expectations and the kinds of awareness that Late

Antique viewers brought to bear on their experience of such a gathering.

By far the largest number of mythological statues described, 29 in all, were linked to the Trojan epic,63 and their number is large enough to suggest that, at least in the particular sequence described, the

specific moment of the Ilioupersis was meant to be evoked. Lines 143-221 record a series of famous

couples attendant at the fall. Christodoros first mentions Aeneas and Creusa. Creusa is described as weep- ing, which indicates that she is shown during or after the final battle. Statues of Helenos and Andromache follow, and, after them, in the act of reconciliation,

Menelaos and Helen. Several other pairs are noted: Odysseus with his concubine Hecuba; Cassandra and her rapist, the Locrian Ajax; Pyrrhus and Polyxena; and, finally, the reunited Oenone and Paris. Many of the figures documented as single statues also were connected with the city's fall. In fact, of the characters mentioned, only two, Sarpedon and Chryses, are without any connection to the sack.

Because the Ekphrasis survives incomplete, the significance of inclusion or omission is not clear. It may be that other characters from this and other stories were displayed. The presence of Sarpedon and Chry- ses together with characters from the Theban cycle certainly suggests as much, as does the mention of two stray figures, Amphytryon (lines 367-71) and a wrestler, which Christodoros identifies variously as Milo of Croton, Philo, or Philammon (lines 228-40). It may well be, therefore, that surviving references to the city's fall represent but one aspect of the decor's overall mythological content, in which case it would be unwise to set too much store by them.

Stupperich, however, is convinced of the primacy of the Trojan imagery and argues that it was designed to project the image of Constantinople as the New Troy. He uses the alleged placement of the Palladion under the Column of Constantine together with remarks by ancient and medieval historians to support this stance;64 none of this evidence, however, offers the support necessary to buttress the claim.

When excavated, the Column of Constantine revealed no trace of the Palladion or any of the relics

alleged to have been immured with it. Although this lack of evidence is certainly not enough to deny out-

right that the relic may once have existed, recent

scholarship has argued convincingly that the legend of its placement postdates the sixth century.65

The literary sources offer equally flimsy support. Stupperich cites two Late Antique authors, Sozo- men and Zosimos, together with a third, Byzantine historian, Zonaras, in support of his argument. Ac- cording to him, all three authors state that Constan- tinople was founded on the site of Troy; careful reading of the texts, however, makes it clear that not one of these authors makes this claim. At the beginning of a long passage dedicated to a discussion of the

61 For discussion of Alkmaion and illustrations of his iconography, see LIMC 1.1, 546-52, s.v. Alkmaion (I. Kraus- kopf) and LIMC 1.2, pls. 410-12, figs. 3-18.

62 For Amphiaraos, see LIMC 1.1, 691-713, s.v. Amphi- araos (I. Krauskopf) and LIMC 1.2, pls. 555-69. See esp. pls. 564-65 for sculptural representations.

63 The full roster of Trojan characters included Achilles, the Locrian and Telemonian Ajaxes, Andromache, Calchas, Cassandra, Charidemos, Chryses, Clytios, Creusa, Dares,

Deiphobos, Entellos, Hecuba, Helen, Helenos, Lampon, Menelaos, Odysseus, Oenone, Paris, Polyxena, Pyrrhos (two statues), Sarpedon, and Thymoetes. Most of the figures are mentioned by Homer, but some, such as Dares and En- tellos, owe their Trojan origins to Virgil. 64 Stupperich 235.

65 See A. Cameron, "The Foundation of Constantino- ple: Myths Ancient and Modern," Byzantine Studies Con- ference, Abstracts of Papers (Durham 1983) 33.




foundation of Constantinople, Sozomen, who wrote at the end of the fifth century, states that Constan- tine founded a city on the Hellespont at the site of

Ajax's tomb. He then goes on to say that this city was abandoned by Constantine in favor of Byzantium as the result of a divine vision.66 Thus, although Soz- omen mentions Troy, he in no way conflates the city's identity with that of Constantinople. Sozomen's version of events is echoed by Zosimos, who wrote at the turn of the sixth century. Like his predecessor, Zosimos reports that there were two distinct foun-

dations, the first on the Hellespont, the second at

Byzantium. Of the former he observes that it was

established between Sigeion and Ilium.67 Troy, in his

version, is but one element of a two-headed geograph- ical marker. The third author, Zonaras, wrote in the

12th century. He states that Constantine considered several sites in the Troad before settling upon By- zantium. Troy does not even figure in the list of can-

didates.6a

Apart from the lack of supporting evidence, it is also the case that neither the subject matter nor the scale and consistency of the Zeuxippos imagery is

without precedent. Characters from the Trojan epic were displayed together with other mythological themes in the Baths of Caracalla69 and the Hadri- anic Baths at Aphrodisias.70 While only one or two

figures survive from each of these settings, it is

possible that there were more statues from the same theme in those complexes. Extensive iconographic cycles certainly existed, as a series of Herakles statues at Lambaesis indicates.71

In addition to the fact that episodes from the Tro-

jan epic are present in other baths, it is also worth

recalling the saga's immense popularity in Late An-

tiquity. The Zeuxippos collection was but one exam-

ple of the treatment of a theme that cropped up on

everything from household silver and toilet articles to shields.72 It is more likely, therefore, that the Tro-

jan images at the bath were expected to entertain and delight in much the same manner, with the differ-

ence that they would have done so on a monumental,

public scale.

Portraits The Zeuxippos collection also remained faithful

to the traditions of thermal decor in its inclusion of portraiture.73 Throughout the Roman world this element was standard in bath displays. Such collections commonly included statues of emperors and members of the imperial family, priests, magistrates, local benefactors, and grandees, contemporary figures linked, more often than not, to the particular history of the place. This was the case, for example, in the Hadrianic Baths at Aphrodisias.74 Of the 30

pieces of sculpture found, 15 were portraits. Of these,

possibly only one, a statue of Valentinian II, would have enjoyed empire-wide recognition. The remain-

ing 14, male and female, were representations of

important local citizens whose presence was at once honorific and descriptive. Through them Aphrodi- sias paid homage to its benefactors, and, by relying on a concept of the past that focused on the deeds of famous individuals, described the unique history of the place that allowed it, as a community, to take its place with pride among the cities of the empire.

Although the Zeuxippos collection included portraits, the gathering at the Zeuxippos was anomalous in that the characters shown had, for the most part, no particular connection with Constantinople. Chris- todoros mentions 34 portraits of which one, the fifth-

century general Fl. Pompeius, was a contemporary figure.75 The remaining 33 showed historical figures from pre-Homeric times through the second century A.D. Subjects included poets, philosophers, military figures, historians, and statesmen. Within this group the overwhelming emphasis was on the representa- tives of Classical Greek civilization: 16 of the portraits depicted fifth- or fourth-century B.C. Greeks.

As with the deities and mythological figures, the

lacunary nature of the Ekphrasis makes any judgment about the significance of inclusion or omission prob-

66 Sozomenus 2.3.1-3. 67 Zosimus 2.30.1. 6 Zonaras 13.3.1-3. 69 Manderscheid no. 64. The subject matter is identified

as Troilus with Hector or Achilles. Marvin 358-63 favors the identification as Achilles.

7" Manderscheid nos. 250-51. These are statues of Achilles and Penthesileia, and Menelaos and Patroklos.

71 Manderscheid nos. 489-97. 72 For examples, see K. Weitzmann ed., The Age of Spiri-

tuality (New York 1979) nos. 195-97, 200, 201.

7: Manderscheid 34-38 discusses the use of portraiture. The following portraits stood in the Zeuxippos: Aischines, Alcibiades, Anaximenes, Apuleius, Aristotle,Julius Caesar, Cratinus, Demokritos, Demosthenes, Erinna, Euripides,

Heraklitos, Herodotos, Hesiod, Homer, Homer of Byzan- tium, Isocrates, Menander, Melampos, Palaephatos, Peri- kles, Polyeidos, Pompeius, Pythagoras, Pherecydes, Plato, Sappho, Simonides, Stesichoros, Terpander, Thucydides, Virgil, and Xenophon.

74 Manderscheid nos. 229-58. See esp. 235-49 for the

portraits. 75 Fl. Pompeius was a nephew of Anastasius (449-518)

and consul in the East in 501. See A. Cameron and R. Bag- nall, Consuls of the Later Roman Empire (Atlanta 1987) 537.

Stupperich 225-26 reidentifies the figure as Pompey the Great, arguing that such an identification is more appropriate to his proposed display scheme. There is, however, no reason to doubt Christodoros's identification.




lematic. It is difficult to know just what to make of the overwhelming emphasis on historical characters. That Fl. Pompeius was the only contemporary figure to stand with the bath's historical portraits is unlikely. At the same time, however, its fifth-century date makes it obvious that the figure was a post-Constantinian addition, possibly one of several figures dedicated in the baths in 467.76 This late date suggests that the initial fourth-century gathering was set up with a core of historical figures to which it was expected that, as in other baths, contemporary figures would be added over time.

The use of historical figures at the core of the Zeux-

ippos portrait collection represented a shrewd ma- nipulation of established trends in thermal decor. Tradition dictated that the Zeuxippos should have been populated with characters representative of the

pre-Constantinian city's history. Instead it was home to the great heroes of Greek and Roman culture, men and women who from the dawn of recorded history had shaped and achieved status within the distinctive Graeco-Roman cultural canon. The choice, which could not possibly have been accidental, was understood by Stupperich as the description of a poetic dynasty that began with Homer and ended with Christodoros himself. This subject was for him the natural complement to the Trojan War theme, which knitted the various sculptural categories into a co- hesive whole.77 Apart from the difficulties associated with dealing with the Trojan War theme in the manner suggested by Stupperich, this interpretation is

unsatisfactory in that it ignores the fact that many of the historical figures are not poets. Statesmen, philosophers, military figures, and literati of various types occupied equal space with poets in the baths. In fact, of the 33 historical personages recorded, only 11 were poets.

It is more likely that the selection of historical

figures was the product of Constantine's own aspirations for his city. Constantinople was founded as the capital of the Roman Empire, and, as such, it was required to serve the empire as a whole. Given these circumstances and the Zeuxippos's status as the new capital's premier bath, the collection's emphasis on Greek and, to a lesser extent, Roman historical figures at the expense of locals should come as no surprise. Of what interest could the petty and obscure details of Byzantium's relatively banal and at times inglorious past have been to the citizens of the greater Roman Empire? In staking its claims to capital status, Constantinople needed to transcend the specificity of time and place to create

a universal frame of reference. Only then could it stand unrivaled among the already distinguished cities of the Roman world.

It was given to the massed poets, philosophers, and statesmen to accomplish this task. By occupy- ing the positions traditionally allotted to local citizens, these figures created a new version of events. With them the petty, sometimes sordid details of local history were pushed aside and the monumental sweep of the Graeco-Roman past was embraced as the city's own. This shift in focus exchanged paro- chial vision and sentiment for one that was more universal in scope. Through it the capital's history became not only that of the Roman Empire, but also, and more portentously, the history of civilization itself. It was this sort of revisionist history that en- visioned Constantinople as nothing less than the heir to and guardian of the cultural and historical legacy of Greece and Rome.

CONCLUSIONS

What was it that inspired Constantine, a man otherwise unknown for his intellectual leanings, to set such store by cultural tradition in creating this image of

power? In part, the answer lies in the nature of the place. The choice of the Zeuxippos as a setting for

sculpture together with the categories of represen- tation was predetermined by the traditions of Ro- man thermal decor. The sheer weight of urban tradition made it unthinkable that the premier bath in the Roman Empire's capital city should continue to stand unadorned. What is less obvious is the rea-

soning behind the emphasis on the Graeco-Roman

past. On the one hand, the desire to claim continu-

ity with a rich cultural heritage seems straightfor- ward enough. In so doing the emperor established an indissoluble link with the past that lent dignity to his city by describing it as the steward of a noble tradition. On the other hand, it is less clear why such a position should have been necessary. What signifi- cant difference could the city's relationship to the intellectual patrimony of the Graeco-Roman world have made to the efficacy of its rule?

The image of power consolidated at the Zeuxip- pos derived from Late Antique assumptions about the nature of authority. In the later Roman Empire, access to power was, by tradition, a function of education and its accompanying cultural polish. In this scheme of things education meant but one thing: mastery of the literary and rhetorical traditions of the Greek paideia. Such mastery found its ideal ex- pression in the sophisticated control of language,

76 Chronicon Paschale (supra n. 2) 595B. 77 Stupperich 225, 231-33.



506 S. GUBERTI BASSETT, SCULPTURE AND TRADITION IN THE BATHS OF ZEUXIPPOS

gesture, and reference, which was itself emblematic of the decorous self-control that was so much the

property of the empire's ruling elite. Commanded

by a few, paideia was, paradoxically, a unifying force, as it created an empire-wide frame of reference that allowed members of the elite to recognize and inter- act with one another.7'

East and West, from the provincial level on up, it was on the basis of this high culture that claims to leadership and authority were pressed. The ad-

vantage in accepting them was clear: education in the paideia was understood as a guarantee of moral fiber. Only a man trained in this tradition could be relied upon to possess the combined merits of duty and vision necessary to the governing task.79'

It is in the light of this concept of authority that the Zeuxippos collection should be understood. The massed historical figures stood as the embodiment of paideia: these were the very men and women whose works and deeds had shaped the educational

canon, upheld its distinctive traditions, and given the Roman elite its universal mode of discourse. As such their presence in the bath had considerably more far-reaching implications than their revisionist historical function might at first suggest. In addition to rewriting the history of Constantinople, these figures linked the city and its eponymous em-

peror to the true and indisputable source of Late

Antique power, the moral authority vested in the

paideia. As the very existence of historical figures for reuse

at the Zeuxippos suggests, the visual appeal to the

paideia was a common theme throughout antiquity. From the Hellenistic age through the third century A.D., representations of literary and historical figures in the form of portrait busts, herms, and freestand-

ing full-length statues are known from public and

private settings as diverse as libraries, gardens, por- ticoes, and lararia.so

The theme was also taken up in mosaic and painting. An early third-century mosaic pavement from Trier shows portrait busts of Greek and Roman literati in a unifying geometrical frame,"' as does a

later third-century pavement from Cologne.82 In the East, at Baalbek, a similar pavement was found.•3 Like the Cologne and Trier mosaics with which it is contemporary, this pavement portrays revered philosophers in a geometric setting. Fifth-century fres- coes of Socrates and Chilon from the Slope Houses at Ephesos testify to the sustained, seemingly universal appeal of the theme.84

These examples suggest that the Zeuxippos collection differed in degree but not in kind from the decorative environments that well-placed citizens in the later Roman world constructed for themselves in an

attempt to link and so enrich their own lives with the values of the paideia. It was, in effect, the monumental realization of a widely cherished cultural ideal, a project that drew upon the collective image of self-definition propagated by the empire's ruling elite.

With the weight of paideia behind it, the Zeuxip- pos asserted Constantinople's unquestioned right to authority over the cities of the empire and in so

doing gave a new, but comfortably recognizable, twist to conventional bath iconography. To the traditional mix of images centered on concepts of health and

healing, mental delight, and local honor, the Zeuxip- pos added the more portentous imagery of empire. As part of the city's monumental imperial core it was well placed to do so. Nor was it the only building to undertake such a task. Next door in the hippodrome, sculpture was used to similar effect. In the

military and political terms appropriate to the circus and its activities, the city was described as New Rome, the legitimate heir to the rights and privileges of Old Rome itself.85 In asserting Constantinopol- itan primacy in the cultural terms appropriate to the bath, the Zeuxippos formed the perfect complement to the hippodrome and became its ideal pendant. Together bath and circus argued for and created an image of imperium unrivaled on any and all fronts.

840 MONTGOMERY AVENUE

APARTMENT 802

BRYN MAWR, PENNSYLVANIA 19010

78 See generally W.Jaeger, Paideia: The Ideals of Greek Cul- ture, trans. G. Highet (Oxford 1936); and H. Marrou, A His- tory of Education in Antiquity (London 1956) 95-100. On the role of the paideia in Late Antiquity, see R.A. Kaster, Guard- ians ofLanguage: The Grammarian and Society in Late Antiquity (Berkeley 1988); and P. Brown, Power and Persuasion in Late

Antiquity (Madison 1992), esp. 35-70. 79 Brown (supra n. 78) 38. 80 See T. Lorenz, Galerien von grieschischen Philosophen und

Dichterbildnissen bei den R6mern (Mainz 1965). 81 K. Parlasca, Die r6mischen Mosaiken in Deutschland (Ber-

lin 1959) 41-43, pls. 42-47.

12 Parlasca (supra n. 81) 80-82, pls. 80-82. ' . G.M.A. Richter, The Portraits of the Greeks 1 (London

1965) 81, fig. 314. 11 V.M. Strocka, Ephesos VIII.l: Die Wandmalerei der Hang-

hiuser in Ephesos (Vienna 1977) 114-18, pls. 263-65. An earlier first-century fresco of Socrates is also mentioned. See 93-98, pls. 194, 196. With respect to the Slope Houses and their decoration, Hanfmann (supra n. 38) remarks that their unique and important contribution is the extent to which they demonstrate a democratization of ideas.

8 See Guberti Bassett (supra n. 43).



The Antiquities in the Hippodrome of Constantinople

Documents

Transcript of The Antiquities in the Hippodrome of Constantinople