A rchaeology AND THE cities of asia Minor in late antiquity Edited by Ortwin Dally and Christopher Ratté Kelsey Museum Publication 6 Ann Arbor, Michigan 2011 2 Sculpture and the Rhetorical Imagination in Late Antique Constantinople Sarah Bassett visitor to Constantinople in the middle years of the ith century would have found a city rich in sculpture, ancient and modern. Amassed almost completely in the century since Byzantium’s re-foundation as New Rome in A.D. 324, this monumental urban display included antiquities of pre-fourth-century manufacture which had been gathered from the cities and sanctuaries of the Graeco-Roman world irst at the behest of Constantine and his cohort and then at the direction of heodosius I and the members of his dynasty, as well as works of contemporary manufacture: images of emperors, their wives, family members, and high ranking imperial oicials. his varied sculptured array presented the ith-century viewer with a range of images and with them a vast catalogue of subjects and styles; antiquities such as a fourth-century B.C. statue of Herakles by Lysippos shared the same urban stage as late fourth-century A.D. representations of Roman oicials, while mythological igures stood cheek by jowl with images of a more historical bent, works of such venerable antiquity as the Serpent Column of the Plataean Tripod, the great obelisk from the temple of Amon at hebes in Egypt, or more recent fabrications such as the obelisk’s own supporting base showing members of the heodosian house in attendance at the circus.1 his great panoply of sculpture was in many respects characteristic of all late Roman cities, centers such as Rome, Ephesus, and Alexandria that had built their sculptured collections up over time.2 hat this variety was replicated in Constantinople, a city brought to life as a new capital of the Roman world merely a century before, suggests, however, that something deliberate was afoot in the creation of an urban aesthetic that was itself part of a larger project of urban and, ultimately, imperial A 1 he following abbreviations of frequently cited sources are used: Bassett, Urban Image = S. Bassett, he Urban Image of Late Antique Constantinople (Cambridge 2004). Bauer, Stadt, Platz und Denkmal = F.A. Bauer, Stadt, Platz und Denkmal in der Spätantike (Mainz 1996). Fıratlı, Sculpture byzantine = N. Fıratlı, La sculpture byzantine igurée au Musée archéologique d’Istanbul (Paris 1990). Par. = A. Cameron and J. Herrin (eds.), Constantinople in the Early Eighth Century: he Parastaseis Syntomoi Chronikai (Leiden 1984). Rabe = H. Rabe (ed.), Hermogenes opera edidit, Rhetores Graeci 6 (Leipzig 1913). Stichel, Kaiserstatue = R.H.W. Stichel, Die römische Kaiserstatue am Ausgang der Antike (Rome 1982). Wooten = C.W. Wooten, Hermogenes on Types of Style (Chapel Hill 1967). Fıratlı, Sculpture byzantine, 1–13 documents the surviving examples of Constantinopolitan honorific statuary. See Stichel, Kaiserstatue, 76, 84–87, 90, 94–115 for late fourth- and ith-century examples. For general discussion of Constantinopolitan public spaces and their sculptured displays, see Bauer, Stadt, Platz und Denkmal, 143–86. On ancient statuary see Bassett, Urban Image. 2 On sculptured display in general, see G.M.A. Hanfmann, From Croesus to Constantine. he Cities of Western Asia Minor and their Arts in Greek and Roman Times (Ann Arbor 1975); C.C. Vermuele III, Greek Sculpture and Roman Taste (Ann Arbor 1977) 87–101; and, more recently, the collected essays in F.A. Bauer and C. Witschel (eds.), Statuen in der Spätantike (Wiesbaden 2007). On Rome and Ephesus in particular, see Bauer, Stadt, Platz und Denkmal, 3–141 (Rome) and 269–305 (Ephesus). For Alexandria see R.S. Bagnall, “Archaeological work on Hellenistic and Roman Egypt, 1995–2000,” AJA 105 (2001) 227–43, at 229–30; and J.-Y. Empereur, La gloire d’Alexandrie (Paris 1998). 28 Sarah Bassett Fig. 1. Plan of Constantinople (Bauer, Stadt, Plaz und Denkmal in der Spätantıke [Mainz 1996] ig. 47). gloriication. It is this aesthetic that I would like to examine by sketching, irst, a picture of the city and its sculptured displays, and ofering, second, a proposal for their appreciation derived from an understanding of the late antique “period eye,” that package of ideas and assumptions that help determine ways of seeing at an individual point in history, based on late Roman conceptions of rhetorical style.3 3 For the deinition of “period eye,” see M. Baxandall, Painting and Experience in Fiteenth-Century Italy, A Primer in the Social History of Pictorial Style (Oxford 1972). On the relationship between visual and verbal styles in late antiquity, see M. Roberts, he Jeweled Style. Poetry and Poetics in Late Antiquity (Ithaca 1989) 66–121; and S. Bassett, “Style and meaning in the imperial panels in San Vitale, Ravenna,” Artibus et Historiae 57 (2008) 49–57. For consideration of the question in earlier periods of Roman sculpture, see T. Hölscher, Römische Bildsprache als semantisches System (Heidelberg 1987); and A. Leibundgut-Maye, “Gleichzeitigkeit des Ungleichzeitigen. Die Stilebenen der trajanischen Kunst und ihre Botschat,” Antrittsvorlesungen 5 (Mainz 1989) 15–28. For a diferent perspective, see F. Fless, Opferdiener und Kultmusiker auf stadtrömischen historischens Reliefs (Mainz 1995), who rejects such a formulation. I thank Ortwin Dally for these references. Sculpture and the Rhetorical Imagination in Late Antique Constantinople 29 By the middle of the ith century Constantinople was replete with venues for the display of public sculpture (ig. 1). he city’s monumental core, which had been elaborated according to a Constantinian mandate between A.D. 324 and 330, was built around an armature of streets and public spaces constructed during the reign of Septimius Severus (A.D. 193–211) at the western edge of the old Greek town of Byzantium. At the heart of this armature stood the forum known as the Augusteion, a large, rectangular space of uncertain dimensions. Nearby, the Milion, a quadriform arch marking the conluence of three colonnaded avenues—the major east-west axis of the Mese; its extension, the Regia, which ran along the south lank of the forum; and an avenue that led north to the Golden Horn—ofered a second venue. Two further areas—the basilica, a peristyle housing a library and temple; and the military parade ground, or Strategeion—stood northwest of the Augusteion. he hippodrome and the Baths of Zeuxippos rose to the south. To the west, in areas claimed for development under Constantine, three major fora, those of Constantine, heodosius, and Arcadius, opened out along the Mese. he Mese itself forked halfway between the forum of heodosius and that of Arcadius. A Capitolium preceded by a space known as the Philadelphion marked this division.4 On display in each of these spaces was a range of sculpture, ancient and modern. Archaeological remains together with graphic and literary sources suggest a population somewhere in the area of 250 pieces by the middle of the ith century.5 Of the monuments documented approximately two-thirds were ancient imports, the remaining third, contemporary and purpose made. It is this mix of old and new that I wish to consider, examining irst the antiquities and then the city’s purpose-made sculpture. Only a handful of the city’s antiquities survive. he Serpent Column of the Plataean Tripod from the sanctuary of Apollo at Delphi and an obelisk from the temple of Amon at hebes in Egypt still stand together on the site of the late antique city’s hippodrome, while the column of Constantine, itself of unknown provenance, rises a few blocks away on the site of the emperor’s eponymous forum. A statue base dedicated to heophanes of Mytilene, formerly in the hippodrome, is preserved in the Istanbul Archaeological Museum. Overseas, in Venice, the four bronze horses on the façade of the basilica of St. Mark and the porphyry tetrarchs now built into the southwest corner of the church’s exterior 4 On Constantinopolitan topography, see P. Gilles, De topographia Constantinopoleos et de illius antiquitatibus libri quattuor (Lyon 1561); C. Mango, he Brazen House (Copenhagen 1954); R. Janin, Constantinople byzantine (Paris 1964); R. Guilland, Études de topographie de Constantinople byzantine (Berlin and Amsterdam 1969); G. Dagron, Naissance d’une capitale. Constantinople et ses institutions de 330 (Paris 1974); W. Müller-Wiener, Bildlexikon zur Topographie Istanbuls (Tübingen 1977); R. Krautheimer, hree Christian Capitals (Berkeley 1983) 41–67; C. Mango, Le développement urbain de Constantinople (IVe–VIIe siècles) (Paris 1984); Bauer, Stadt, Platz und Denkmal; and, most recently Bassett, Urban Image, 17–36. 5 Literary sources include a range of late Roman and Byzantine texts, the following prime among them: the ithcentury Christodoros of hebes, Ekphrasis on the Sculpture in the Baths of Zeuxippos, translated by W.R. Paton, he Greek Anthology, vol. 1, Loeb Classical Library (London and New York 1916) 58–91; the early sixth-century Zosimus, Historia Nova, in L. Mendelssohn (ed.), Zosimi Historia Nova (Leipzig 1887); the seventh-century Chronicon Paschale, in L. Dindorf (ed.), Chronicon paschale (Bonn 1832); the eighth-century Parastaseis syntomoi chronikai in Par. and its 10th-century derivative Patria Konstantinopoleos in T. Preger (ed.), Scriptores originum Constantinopolitanarum (Leipzig 1903–1907); and Niketas Choniates’s 13th-century lament for the fall of Constantinople to the army of the Fourth Crusade, De Signis Constantinopoleos in J.L. van Dieten (ed.), Niketas Choniates Historia (Berlin 1975) 647–55. For archaeological documentation see especially S. Casson et al., Preliminary Report upon the Excavations carried out in and near the Hippodrome of Constantinople in 1927 (London 1928); Second Report upon the Excavations carried out in and near the Hippodrome of Constantinople in 1928 (London 1929); and “Les fouilles de l’hippodrome de Constantinople,” GBA 30.1 (1930) 215–42. Most important among the graphic documentation is the Freshield Album, a sketchbook made by a German traveler to Constantinople in the 16th century. See E.H. Freshield, “Notes on a vellum album containing some original sketches of public buildings and monuments drawn by a German artist who visited Constantinople in 1574,”Archaeologia 72 (1922) 87–104. 30 Sarah Bassett wall stand as testament to the plunder of the city’s antiquities in A.D. 1204 by the army of the Fourth Crusade. Finally, at the British Museum, there is a bronze goose from the area of the hippodrome.6 Literary sources describe a broader range of igured sculpture than the surviving monuments suggest; images of gods and goddesses, mythic heroes, statesmen, and men-of-letters among them. By the middle of the ith century these igures, which came from such cities and sanctuaries as Athens, Mytilene, and Rome, probably numbered somewhere between 150 and 200.7 Preferred display venues included the hippodrome, the Baths of Zeuxippos, and the forum of Constantine.8 Although there is no overt visual commentary on or criticism of these statues in any of the sources, descriptive details indicate monumental scale, media of bronze, porphyry, and marble, and a preference for works of art from the periods that modern art historians would identify as late classical and Hellenistic. hus, for example, Christodoros of hebes’s descriptions of a series of statues of the goddess Aphrodite in the Baths of Zeuxippos indicate not only that the goddess was depicted in marble, but also that she was half-draped, an iconography that indicates post-fourth-century B.C. manufacture.9 Sculpture of contemporary manufacture also contributed to the luster of the Constantinopolitan environment; however, as with the antiquities, physical evidence is limited. Remains of two statues, the fragments of a marble cuirass igure and a porphyry toga statue, provide evidence for the fourth century A.D.10 Given the lack of early fourth-century monuments, heodosian sculptured documentation from the later fourth and the ith centuries seems rich by comparison. he obelisk base in the hippodrome and fragments from the column of heodosius are the most well-known examples.11 Less familiar is the evidence for the city’s free-standing honoriic sculpture. In Istanbul itself, there are at least eleven statue fragments of emperors or high magistrates from Constantinopolitan venues in the Istanbul Archaeological Museum, prime among them the Beyazit Head identiied both as Arcadius (reigned A.D. 395–408) and heodosius II (reigned A.D. 405–450) (ig. 2).12 he remaining fragments 6 For documentation see Bassett, Urban Image, 192–204 (Column of Constantine), 216 (Goose), 219–22 (Obelisk), 224–27 (Serpent Column), 222–23 (Horses of San Marco), 232 (heophanes of Mytilene), 242 (Tetrarchs). 7 On the provenance of Constantinopolitan antiquities see especially Eusebius of Caesarea, Vita Constantini III, 54, who names Delphi, the sanctuary of the Muses at Mt. Helikon, and the temple of Apollo Smintheus at Chryse in the Troad; Jerome, Chronicon, 324, who describes a picture of empirewide origins; and Patria Konstantinopoleos (supra n. 5), II, 73, which speciies 22 cities in addition to Rome from which antiquities were brought. 8 For discussion of these venues and documentation of their contents, see Bassett, Urban Image, 50–78; ead., “he antiquities in the hippodrome of Constantinople,” DOP 45 (1991) 87–96; ead., “Historiae custos: Sculpture and tradition in the Baths of Zeuxippos,” AJA 100 (1996) 491–506. 9 Christodoros of hebes, Ekphrasis (supra n. 5), 78–81 and 99–101. 10 For material in the Istanbul Archaeological Museum see Fıratlı, Sculpture byzantine, 5 (marble cuirassed igure from Yedikule, inv. no. 1094); 8 (porphyry toga statue from the vicinity of Hagia Sophia, inv. no. 5795). 11 On the obelisk and its base: G. Bruns, Die Obelisk und seine Basis auf dem Hippodrom zu Konstantinopel (Istanbul 1935); B. Kiilerich, he Obelisk Base in Constantinople: Court Art and Imperial Ideology (Rome 1998) with extensive bibliography; and, most recently, A. Efenberger, “Nochmals zur Aufstellung des heodosius—Obelisken in Hippodrome von Konstantinopel,” Gymnasium 114 (2007) 587–89. On heodosian sculpture in general: J. Kollwitz, Oströmische Plastik der theodosianischen Zeit (Berlin 1941); and B. Kiilerich, Late Fourth-Century Classicism in the Plastic Arts. Studies in the So-Called heodosian Renaissance (Odense 1993) with extensive bibliography. On the columns of heodosius and Arcadius: Kollwitz, Oströmische Plastik der theodosianischen Zeit (supra this note), 3–76; G. Becatti, La colonna coclide istoriata (Rome 1960) 83–288; G. Giglioli, La colonna di Arcadio a Costantinopoli (Naples 1952); and Kiilerich, Late Fourth-Century Classicism (supra this note), 50–55 (heodosius) and 55–64 (Arcadius) with further recent bibliography. 12 Fıratlı, Sculpture byzantine, 7 (inv. no. 5028) and the majority of scholars identify the portrait as Arcadius. H.-G. Severin, Zur Porträtplastik des 5 Jahrhunderts n. Chr. (Munich 1972) 17–20 is less sanguine about speciicity, opining that the portrait may represent either Arcadius, Honorius, or heodosius II. Stichel, Kaiserstatue, 51–52 prefers identiication with heodosius II and a date around 414. R. Özgan and D. Stutzinger, “Untersuchungen zu Porträtplastik des 5 Jhs. n. Chr. anhand zweier neugefundener Porträts aus Sculpture and the Rhetorical Imagination in Late Antique Constantinople 31 Fig. 2. Head of an Emperor, Istanbul Archaeological Museum no. 5028 (R. Ousterhout). Fig. 3. Magistrate, Istanbul Archaeological Museum no. 769 (R. Ousterhout). include the lone piece of an unidentiied imperial bust in porphyry,13 ive draped torsos (ig. 3),14 a single cuirass statue,15 and four male heads in various states of preservation.16 Two further pieces supplement the Constantinopolitan record: a colossal bronze cuirass statue now in Barletta,17 and a marble head described as that of heodosius II now in the Louvre.18 In addition to the igured remains in the Istanbul Archaeological Museum, statue bases in varying states of preservation document the existence of lost statues, among them representations Stratonikeia,” IstMitt 35 (1985) 237–74, at 256–61 second identiication with heodosius II, but date the portrait to the second decade of the ith century. 13 Inv. no. 73.27: Fıratlı, Sculpture byzantine, 8, pl. 4, ig. 8. 14 Inv. no. 5077: ibid., 8–9, pl. 4, ig. 9a–c; inv. no. 5158A and 5158B: ibid., 9, pl. 5, ig. 10a–b; inv. no. 4417: ibid., 12, pl. 8, ig. 14; inv. no. 769: ibid., 12, pl. 8, ig. 15; inv. no. 4051: ibid., 13, pl. 8, ig. 16a–b. 15 Inv. no. 5673: ibid, 9–10, pl. 5, ig. 11a–c. 16 Inv. no. 5278: ibid., 14, pl. 10, ig. 19a–c; inv. no. 6287: ibid., 14, pl. 10, ig. 20a–c; inv. no. 73.26: ibid., 15, pl. 11, ig. 22; inv. no. 4719: ibid., 15, pl. 11, ig. 23. 17 F.P. Johnson, “he Colossus of Barletta,” AJA 25 (1929) 20–25; R. Delbreuck, Spätantike Kaiserporträts (Berlin 1933) 219–26; Kollwitz, Oströmische Plastik der heodosianischen Zeit (supra n. 11), 109–10; S. Sande, “Zur Porträtplastik des sechsten nachchristlichen Jahrhunderts,” ActaAArtHist 6 (1975) 65–106, at 75–76; Severin, Zur Porträtplastik (supra n. 12), 106–15; J. Breckenridge, in K. Weitzmann (ed.), Age of Spirituality. Late Antique and Early Christian Art, hird to Seventh Century (New York 1979) 29–30; Stichel, Kaiserstatue, 10, 12, 61–62, pl. 30. 18 Paris, Musée du Louvre, Départment des Antiquités Grecques et Romaines, MA1036. he head is part of the ancien fonds of the Louvre and may have been in the collection from the 17th century. See Weitzmann, Age of Spirituality (supra n. 17), 28–29, and Delbrueck, Spätantike Kaiserporträts (supra n. 17), 217–19. 32 Sarah Bassett of Eudoxia, the wife of heodosius I, and statues of heodosius II.19 In the city itself the base and column of a statue dedicated to Marcian remain, possibly the original support for the colossal igure now in Barletta.20 As with the city’s antiquities, graphic records and literary sources expand the picture.21 In addition to the two historiated columns dedicated to heodosius I and Arcadius, sources report approximately 20 statues of Constantine and other members of his family,22 a handful of statues representing members of the dynasty of Valentinian I (A.D. 364–375),23 and around 40 statues of heodosius the Great (A.D. 379–395) or members of his house.24 hroughout the city imperial statues predominate; however, there is evidence for other public sculpture, including igures of magistrates and other highranking oicials, men such as the city prefects, Proclus and Aurelianus, and the senator, hemistius.25 Taken together, the physical and literary evidence reveal a combination of historiated columns and honoriic statues among the works of contemporary manufacture. With respect to the latter, the medium covers the gamut from marble, alabaster, and porphyry to bronze, silver, and gold.26 Display venues included the Augusteion, the Milion, the hippodrome, the entrance to the great palace, the Chalke Gate, and the Regia in the city’s monumental core. Of these the most popular space for sculptured display was the Augusteion. Approximately 20 statues dedicated to members of each of the city’s ruling dynasties, the Constantinian, the Valentinian, and the heodosian, stood here. he next most populous venue was the Chalke Gate and the Regia leading up to it with approximately eleven statues representing members of the Constantinian and heodosian houses, followed by the Milion with about six statues, again of members of the Constantinian and heodosian dynasties.27 In the western territories the most prominent display areas were the 19 Stichel, Kaiserstatue, 96 no. 91 (Eudoxia), 98–99 nos. 99–100 (heodosius). 20 Stichel, Kaiserstatue, 100 no. 109; Müller-Wiener, Bildlexikon zur Topographie Istanbuls (supra n. 4), 54; Janin, Constantinople byzantine (supra n. 4), 84–85; Kollwitz, Oströmische Plastik der theodosianischen Zeit (supra n. 11), 69–76. 21 he literary and graphic sources are essentially the same as those documenting the presence of ancient monuments (supra n. 5). 22 he numbers are approximate and must remain so given that the overlapping nature of some of the sources precludes an exact count. For Constantinian documentation see John Malalas, Chronographia, in L. Dindorf (ed.), Ioannis Malalae Chronographia (Bonn 1831) 321; Chronicon Paschale (supra n. 5), 528–29; John Lydus, Liber de mensibus, in R. Wuensch (ed.), Liber de mensibus (Stuttgart 1967) 4.138; George Cedrenus, Compendium historiarum, in I. Bekker (ed.), Georgius Cedrenus [et] Ioannis Scylitzae (Bonn 1838–39) 1.564; and the various references in Par.: 7, 11, 16, 34, 36, 44a, 49, 57, 58, 68. In addition, Mango, Brazen House (supra n. 4), 46, 48; Janin, Constantinople byzantine (supra n. 4), 59–62, 73, 62–64; and Bauer, Stadt, Platz und Denkmal, 148, 162, 166, 173, 227. 23 Par., 11 reports a statue of Valentinian in the Augusteion without specifying which of the three emperors bearing that name is intended. Likewise, Par., 12 places a statue of an unspeciied Valentinian at the modion, or granary. Cameron and Herron in Par., 188, together with Stichel in Kaiserstatue, 76 no. 7, suggest identiication with Valentin- ian I, the emperor who established the modion, against Janin in Constantinople byzantine (supra n. 4), 66, 69, who favors identiication as Valentinian III. Par., 19 documents equestrian statues of Gratian and Valentinian I or II at the peripatos, or colonnade, an unidentiied location associated either with the hippodrome or the palace. See Par., 194–95, and Stichel, Kaiserstatue, 83 no. 47. 24 Stichel, Kaiserstatue, catalogue entries nos. 52, 54–57, 72, 89–91, 95–101, 106–12. 25 See Bauer, Stadt, Platz und Denkmal, 327 on the granting of non-imperial statues and their documentation. 26 Statue fragments in the Istanbul Archaeological Museum document the range of stone media. See Fıratlı, Sculpture byzantine, 8, inv. no. 5797, pl. 4, ig. 7 (porphyry); 8–9, inv. no. 5077, pl. 4, ig. 9a–c (alabaster); 9–10, inv. no. 5673, pl. 5, ig. 11a–c (marble); 12, inv. no. 4417, pl. 8, ig. 14 (marble); 13, inv. no. 4051, pl. 8, ig. 15 (marble). For sculpture in bronze and precious metals, see documentation in Stichel, Kaiserstatue, 76 no. 7 (silver); 85 no. 55 (silver), no. 57 (probably bronze); 95 no. 91 (silver); 97 no. 96 (gold). hose statues described as silver or gold are likely to have been silvered or gilded bronze. 27 For the Augusteion: Par., 11, 31, 68. For the Regia and Chalke Gate: Par., 19, 32, 33, 44a, 77. For the Milion: Par., 34, 35, 35a; Patria Konstantinopoleos (supra n. 5), 2.37; Cedrenus (supra n. 22), 1.564; Suda, in A. Adler (ed.), Suidae Lexicon, pt. 2 (Leipzig 1928–1938) 694–95: s.v. heodosios, Basileus Romaion ho micros. Sculpture and the Rhetorical Imagination in Late Antique Constantinople 33 sequence of imperial spaces along the Mese. Approximately seven statues of Constantine and the members of his family stood at the Capitol-Philadelphion complex and six more in the forum of Constantine. In addition to the historiated columns in the two heodosian fora, there were at least 12 statues of members of the heodosian dynasty in the forum of heodosius and the forum of Arcadius.28 he peak of this new sculptured production appears to have been in the late fourth and early ith centuries, during the period of heodosian rule. At that time the number of imperial igures more than doubled with approximately 43 heodosian statues described in contrast to the 23 of the Constantinian dynasty.29 As in any late Roman city, this sculpture, ancient and modern, was an essential component of the Constantinopolitan civic environment. Its task here as elsewhere was two-fold: to contribute to the overall sense of urban beauty, or kallos, and to articulate a distinct vision of history through the selection of individual images and their placement. he sculptured displays of Constantinople achieved these ends in a variety of ways. With respect to the issue of kallos, both the presence and the sheer number of monuments on ofer contributed overwhelmingly to the sense of urban beauty, a sense enhanced by the rich array of sculptured media and the appreciation of the cratsmanship that went into the creation and display of individual images.30 Overall, the picture was one of variety, a value particularly appreciated in late antiquity and a point to which I shall return. Added to this lavish aesthetic appeal was the more sober stuf of history. Over the course of the fourth century this history was created in two overlapping phases using two diferent kinds of sculpture. he irst, based on the gathering and installation of antiquities, aimed to create a mythichistoric past for the city that would legitimate its claims to capital status, and was essentially the work of Constantine. he second, using contemporary sculpture, documented not the past, but the ongoing, living history of Constantinople and was substantially, though not exclusively, the work of the heodosians. he importation of some of the ancient world’s most evocative monuments to Constantinople was part of a project to create a distinct historical identity for the capital that would support its claims to urban preeminence among the already storied cities of the later Roman world by describing the city not only as the New Rome, the legitimate heir to both the rights and privileges of the old capital on the Tiber and the numinous authority of Rome’s own urban precursor, Troy, but also as the steward of the great artistic, literary, and philosophical traditions of the Graeco-Roman world. hus, the selection of individual antiquities and their organization into discrete gatherings around themes pertinent to the histories of Troy, Rome, and their traditions, in such spaces as the hippodrome, the Baths of Zeuxippos, and the forum of Constantine, described this history by means of subject matter. Displays organized around such stories as the Judgment of Paris in the forum of 28 Capitol-Philadelphion: Par., 58, 70. Forum of Constantine: Par., 16. Forum of heodosius: Par., 57, 66; Christodoros of hebes, Ekphrasis (supra n. 5), 16.65; Chronicon Paschale (supra n. 5), 565; Patria Konstantinopoleos (supra n. 5), 2.47; Constantine the Rhodian, Ekphrasis, in E. Legrand, “Description des oeuvres d’art et de l’église des Saints Apotres de Constantinople, poème en vers iambiques par Constantin le Rhodien,” RÉG 9 (1896) 32–65, at lines 219–40; Cedrenus (supra n. 22), 1.566; Niketas Choniates (supra n. 5), 643, 649. Forum of Arcadius: Par., 71. 29 Constantinian: Par., 11 (Constantine, Constantios, Constans, Julian, three statues of Helena); 16 (Constantine and Helena, sons of Constantine); 34 (Constantine, Helena); 36 (Constantine); 44a (Julian, Constantine and sons); 46, 49 (Julian); 58 (Constantine, Helena, three sons); 68 (Constantine, his three sons, Julian); 70 (sons of Constantine, Julian, Anastasia, sister of Constantine the Great, here described erroneously as Julian’s wife). heodosian: see documentation in Stichel, Kaiserstatue, nos. 47, 52–57, 72, 89–91, 95–101, 106–12. 30 On the idea of urban kallos and its development in the ancient world see H. Saradi, “he kallos of the Byzantine city: he development of a rhetorical topos and historical reality,” Gesta 34 (1995) 37–56. 34 Sarah Bassett Constantine and the Iliupersis in the Baths of Zeuxippos played up the image of the Trojan link, while images pertinent to the city of Rome and its traditions informed the gathering of monuments in the hippodrome. Elsewhere, in places such as the basilica and the Baths of Zeuxippos, the prominent display of portraits of the great culture heroes of the Graeco-Roman past hammered home the idea of Constantinopolitan cultural primacy.31 he physical history of the Constantinopolitan statuary also helped to support these assertions. Not only did the antiquity of the statuary brought to the capital provide the city with a patina of age and respectability that lent credence to the claims mooted in the sculptured displays, it also evoked the concept of spoliation and with it the experience of Rome itself. As spolia, the city’s reused monuments stood as tribute from the cities and sanctuaries of the Roman world, at once a physical manifestation of Constantinopolitan hegemony and with it an imitation of Rome, a city rich with its own population of sculptured spoils.32 In contrast to the ancient displays, modern sculpture in Constantinople spoke resolutely of contemporary history. he historiated columns dedicated to heodosius and Arcadius documented the imperial res gestae, while portrait images of emperors, members of their families, and the highranking imperial oicials associated with imperial endeavor honored their subjects by drawing them into the ever-unfolding pageant of Constantinopolitan history. Comparison of numbers and patterns of distribution between antiquities and contemporary sculpture reveals that Constantine and the members of his house threw their energies into the collection and display of antiquities. Approximately 110 or 115 ancient monuments were brought between A.D. 324 and 360 as opposed to the 21 statues of family members.33 here was, moreover, widespread distribution of ancient images throughout the city, as opposed to a comparatively limited display of contemporary statues in the Augusteion, the forum, and the Philadelphion. In the later fourth century the numbers reverse themselves. Although the heodosians revived the reuse of antiquities ater a period of hiatus at mid-century, they did so on a much restricted scale, installing only 17 antiquities as opposed to the approximately 43 new portraits.34 Further, the nature of their ancient installations suggests that many of them represented alterations to or the completion of Constantinian projects. his is the case, for example, with the heodosian interventions in the hippodrome. Here the erection of the obelisk and with it the nearby Built Obelisk during the reign of heodosius I brought to fruition projects initiated by Constantine and his planners. Likewise, the addition of a sculpture of Skylla under Arcadius picked up on themes irst articulated by the Constantinian installations in the circus.35 he heodosian interest instead was in contemporary sculpture. Its widespread distribution throughout the city put a heodosian stamp on virtually every public space to drive home an idea of continuity with Constantinian rule at the same time that it fostered the developing sense of Constantinople as a predominately heodosian city. he shiting balance between ancient and contemporary in fourth- and ith-century Constantinopolitan sculptured display invites examination not only of the historical and dynastic interests promoted by these two great ruling families by means of subject matter and distribution, but also of the ways in which the various kinds of sculptured displays were seen in terms of style and the extent 31 Bassett, “Antiquities in the hippodrome” (supra n. 8), 87–96; ead., “Historiae custos” (supra n. 8), 491–506. Bassett, Urban Image, 50–78. 32 For a topographical list of Greek statuary and other works of art on display in Rome, see J.J. Pollitt, “he impact of Greek art on Rome,” TAPA 108 (1978) 170–71; and B.S. Ridgway, Roman Copies of Greek Originals (Ann Arbor 1984) 109–11. 33 Bassett, Urban Image, 50–78. 34 Ibid., 79–97 documents heodosian use of antiquities. 35 Ibid., 85–89. Sculpture and the Rhetorical Imagination in Late Antique Constantinople 35 to which an awareness and understanding of such visual form may or may not have contributed to the overall meaning of the assemblage. Style is a thorny issue, not least because of a lack of a standard deinition in archaeological and art historical discussion. For purposes of this essay, I deine the term as the manner in which a work of art is executed with respect to such formal elements as line, mass, composition, and color. As such, I see it as distinct from subject matter and technique, although certainly related and in some instances determined by both.36 To modern eyes, the Constantinopolitan urban display was stylistically rich and varied. Among the representations of gods, mythological heroes, and historical personages that constituted the bulk of the city’s antique holdings there was a marked preference for sculpture that emphasized spatial composition, motion, and the subtle, planar modulation of surfaces, work that would be deined in modern historiography as late classical and Hellenistic. By contrast, the works of fourth- and ith-century manufacture favored the type of frontal composition, igural stasis, and preference for continuous surfaces with sharp breaks between planes and an interest in surface pattern that modern parlance characterizes as late antique. Coloristic variety, the result of the sculptures’ varied media, complemented this stylistic range. Evidence suggests that late antique viewers were sensitive to such variety and contrast. To begin with, an idea of art and with it style, concepts fundamental to aesthetic categorization and evaluation, certainly existed. Although no speciically late antique treatises on the visual arts survive, a variety of sources make it clear that these basic concepts did. For example, the heodosian Code (16.10.8) issued at Constantinople in A.D. 382 decrees the preservation of a temple building and its sculpture in the eastern city of Edessa, stating that its images should be “artis pretio quam divinitate metienda iugiter patere” (“measured by the value of their art rather than their divinity”).37 In other words, the Code assumes the existence of art as a category of visual representation into which temple images can be absorbed and by which their numinous powers might be neutralized. Using the more evocative language of poetry, Prudentius expressed a similar point of view in debate with Symmachus: deponas iam fest velim puerilia, ritus ridiculos tantoque indigna sacraria regno. marmora tabenti respergine tincta lavate, o procures: liceat statuas consistere puras, 36 he bibliography on theories of style is enormous and cannot be neatly circumscribed in a single footnote. For an overview of approaches, see J. Elkins, “Style,” in J.S. Turner (ed.), Dictionary of Art, vol. 29 (New York 1996) 876–83. See also the classic study by M. Schapiro, “On style,” in A. Kroeber (ed.), Anthropology Today: An Encyclopaedic Inventory (Chicago 1953) 287–312, reprinted in Schapiro’s collected essays: heory and Philosophy of Art: Style, Artist and Society (New York 1994) 51–102. For recent considerations of the problem and further bibliography, see B. Lang (ed.), he Concept of Style (Philadelphia 1979); W. Sauerlaender, “From stylus to style: Relections on the fate of a notion,” Art History 6.3 (1983) 253–70; M.W. Conkey and C.A. Hasdorf (eds.), he Uses of Style in Archaeology (Cambridge 1990); C. van Eck, J. McAllister, and R. van de Vall (eds.), he Question of Style in Philosophy and the Arts (Cambridge 1995). For theories of style in Roman art, see A. Riegl, Die Spätrömische Kunstindustrie (Vienna 1901); O. Brendel, Prolegomena to the Study of Roman Art (New Haven 1974); and, most recently, Hölscher, Römische Bildsprache (supra n. 3). 37 For original text: G. Haenel (ed.), Codex heodosianus (Bonn 1837–42) 2, cols. 1614–15. For translation: C. Pharr, he heodosian Code and Novels and the Sirmondian Constitutions (Princeton 1952) 473. On the late imperial attempt to preserve temples and with them the artistic patrimony of the Roman empire, see C. Lepelley, “Le musée des statues divines: la volonté de sauvegarde le patrimoine artistique paeien à l’époque théodosienne,” CahArch 42 (1994) 5–15. For more general attempts to legislate the preservation of buildings and in so doing maintain urban infrastructure, see J. Alchermes, “Spolia in Roman cities of the late empire: Legislative rationales and architectural reuse,” DOP 48 (1994) 167–78. 36 Sarah Bassett artiicium magnorum opera: haec pulcherrima nostrae ornamenta fuant patriae, nec decolor usus in vitium versae monumenta coninquinet artis. You should give up your childish festivals, your laughable rites, your shrines unworthy of so great an empire. Oh noble Romans, wash your marble statues wet with dripping splatters of gore— let these statues, the works of great cratsmen, stand undeiled; let them become the most beautiful adornments of our native city—may no depraved purpose taint the works of art, no longer in the service of evil.38 Further, in Constantinople itself the Lausos collection, a display of Hellenic cult images with dates ranging from the sixth century to the fourth century B.C. amassed by heodosius II’s chamberlain, Lausos, appears to have been organized in such a way as to demonstrate the development and progress of stylistic and technical achievement among the ancients, suggesting a belief in the idea of the perfectibility of art linked to an understanding and appreciation of issues of style.39 As these examples suggest, late antique observers not only identiied a category of representation as art, but also were attuned in their appreciation of this category to issues of style; however, although the example of the Lausos collection suggests an approach to the understanding of historical styles, it leaves open the question of what fourth- and ith-century A.D. viewers found aesthetically valuable in contemporary production and display. Analysis of late antique poetry and poetics reveals an appreciation for variety and complexity within the larger structure. Ausonius’s hymn to the Moselle provides a good example: using the river as his organizing armature, Ausonius breaks the poem into sections within which he examines the lora and fauna of the river, the inhabitants of its banks, and the activities associated with it in precise and vivid detail. his structure, characterized by Michael Roberts as the “Jeweled Style”, is also fundamental to late antique visual composition, as indicated by any one of a number of the period’s surviving monuments. In both the fourth-century arch of Constantine and the ith-century mausoleum of Galla Placidia, for example, the larger composition is composed of a series of smaller, individually framed scenes themselves that together create the whole. Nor is the tactic limited to works of monumental scale. Ivory diptychs, silver plate, and textiles all show the same interest in the division and subdivision of the larger composition into framed elements rich with detail.40 What I would like to propose therefore is that the rich sculptured décor of Constantinople, displayed as a series of individual monuments in public gatherings that were themselves set into distinct contexts, spaces such as the Augusteion, the hippodrome, or the forum of Constantine within the larger armature of the city’s structure, was itself a manifestation of a “Jeweled Style” aesthetic 38 Contra Symmachum 1, 501–5. H.J. Thomson (ed.), Prudentius, vol. 1, Loeb Classical Library (London and Cambridge, MA 1969) 388. Translation from Alchermes, “Spolia” (supra n. 37), 171. 39 Bassett, Urban Image, 98–120. 40 See Roberts, Jeweled Style (supra n. 3), 17–19 for discussion of Ausonius; 66–121 for observations on and illustrations of the visual arts. Sculpture and the Rhetorical Imagination in Late Antique Constantinople 37 that in turn contributed to the sense of urban kallos. hroughout the city individual gatherings of statuary organized in discrete spaces articulated themes appropriate to the city’s larger image. hus, the display of antiquities in spaces such as the hippodrome, the Baths of Zeuxippos, and the forum of Constantine detailed aspects of Constantinopolitan history, particularly its roots in the Trojan past and relationship to Rome. In the Augusteion, by contrast, the ranks of imperial portraits of contemporary manufacture legitimated the great Constantinopolitan dynasties and in so doing the ongoing project of imperial rule. Linked within the larger fabric of the city, these varied displays created a picture of the urban whole designed to proclaim Constantinopolitan hegemony among the cities of the later Roman world. As the range of sculpture within this whole suggests, variety was a key element in the overall composition. How such variety, manifest here both in terms of a range of subject matter and in the combination of works of ancient and contemporary manufacture, might have been understood and appreciated is another question. In the context of Constantinopolitan sculptured display, was variety simply a matter of complexity for complexity’s sake, a piling up of forms without rhyme or reason, or did the individual elements accumulated in the service of the larger aesthetic themselves correspond to forms that served some purpose in the overall development of the whole? In the absence of any late antique writings on visual theory and on the basis of the fact that the ancients themselves recognized a link between verbal and visual tradition,41 rhetorical theory, a literature which not only acknowledged but also elaborated a complex theory of style and from which the aesthetic idea of variety itself derives, ofers some insights into the problem.42 With respect to style, the most inluential of the theoretical treatises for late antiquity, one which had currency into the sixth century and beyond, was a work by the second-century author Hermogenes of Tarsus, On Style.43 As Hermogenes and his readers understood, it was the duty of an orator to consider, irst, his subject matter, and second, the most compelling arrangement and presentation of this material. he means to accomplishing this goal was style; that is the way in which the mechanics of language, such elements as sentence structure, word choice, cadence, and rhythm, deined the way of speaking. Style was in large measure determined by subject matter and genre. hus, not only would a speech crated for the courtroom have a very diferent style from one made in honor of a wedding, but among courtroom presentations themselves, accusation was expected to have a diferent tone from defense.44 Further, style itself was associated with virtue. hus, individual styles embodied diferent virtues and in so doing enhanced the meaning of the oratory. Hermogenes identiied seven basic speaking styles, each with its own subdivisions, in the service of this expression: Sapheneia (Clarity), which included Katharotes (Purity) and Eukrineia 41 For the link between the verbal and the visual, see not only the famous Horatian dictum, “ut pictura poesis” (Ars poetica 361), but also Cicero, Brutus (18.70; 73.228; 86.296), and Quintillian, Institutio oratoria (12.10), which equate the styles of rhetors to the styles of sculptors. hat the equation between verbal and visual form remained viable into late antiquity is evident from Procopius of Gaza, who remarks that painting and poetry have the same agenda: the imitation of gods, men, their passions, and their lives. See Declamatio 3 (Venus) in A. Garzya and R.J. Loenertz (eds.), Procopii Gazaei epistolae et declamationes (Ettal 1963) 88, lines 1–3. 42 For a consideration of the relationship between sculp- tured form and rhetorical tradition in the Roman world, see Hölscher, Römische Bildsprache (supra n. 3); LeibundgutMaye, “Gleichzeitigkeit” (supra n. 3); and R.R.R. Smith, “he public image of Licinius I: Portrait sculpture and imperial ideology in the early fourth century,” JRS 87 (1997) 170–202. 43 See Rabe for text. For notes and translation see Wooten. For a discussion of Hermogenes see G. Kennedy, Greek Rhetoric under Christian Emperors (Princeton 1983) 96–116. Parts of the following discussion are based on my article “Style and meaning in the imperial panels in San Vitale, Ravenna” (supra n. 3). 44 For the diferences in style between presentations see Rabe, 385, 413, and Wooten, 108–11, 130. 38 Sarah Bassett (Distinctness); Axioma (Dignity) and Megethos (Grandeur), with subsets of Semnotes (Solemnity), Trachytes (Asperity), Sphodrotes (Vehemence), Lamprotes (Brilliance), Akme (Florescence), and Peribole (Abundance) and Mestotes (Fullness); Epimeleia (carefully wrought style) and Kallos (Beauty); Gorgotes (Rapidity); Ethos (Character), and its subdivisions of Apheleia (Simplicity), Glykytes (Sweetness), Dimytes (Subtlety), and Epieikeia (Modesty); and, inally, Alethinos (Sincerity) and its subset Barytes (Indignation). All of these styles were grouped under the larger designation of Deinotes (Force), itself deined as the proper use of style.45 In composing and delivering a speech it was understood that no rhetor would adhere solely to one style throughout. Indeed, variation in style from line to line was desirable both as a means to more accurate expression and as a tactic for avoiding the pitfalls of too close an application of a single mode of expression. Given the desirability of varying styles, what determined the ultimate tenor of a speech was the predominance of one mode, for example, Megethos (Grandeur), over another.46 How might such a scheme, in which speciic forms carried speciic associations and in so doing constructed speciic meanings, have been transported to the streets and squares of late antique Constantinople? Following Hermogenes, subject matter should determine the course of observation. he city’s sculptured displays described the mythic origins of the city, its relationship with Rome, and its status as the steward of the larger cultural traditions of the Graeco-Roman world, while simultaneously documenting the imperial dynasties that made this all possible.47 In this regard, the content of these ensembles conformed to categories of discussion which another great rhetor, Menander of Laodicea (third to fourth century), saw as necessary to the composition of urban encomia.48 hus in rhetorical terms the city’s sculptured adornment could be seen and understood as a kind of grand urban encomium set in visual terms. If subject matter determined the rhetorical genre, then genre, as noted, determined style. On the matter of encomium, Hermogenes singled out certain styles as appropriate. Speciically, he claimed that Semnotes (Solemnity), Lamprotes (Brilliance), and Peribole (Abundance), all elements of Axioma (Dignity) and Megethos (Grandeur), must be present, together with Glykytes (Sweetness), an element of Ethos (Character). To achieve Semnotes (Solemnity) Hermogenes advised the use of direct statement in sentences made of short clauses that read like aphorisms. It is necessary, he opines, to speak dogmatically.49 Aiding and abetting this cause were words based on broad sounds arranged in rhythms that produce a stately cadence.50 Lamprotes (Brilliance), which, according to Hermogenes, provided an element of luster designed to prevent speech from being overly severe, shares many of the qualities of Semnotes (Solemnity), including word choice and rhythm. It, too, is expressed through direct statement, but longer clauses, carefully wrought, soten and dignify the tone.51 Peribole (Abundance) and Mestotes (Fullness) may be expressed in a variety of ways. Elaboration of subject matter to include both 45 Saphneia (Clarity): Rabe, 226–42 (Wooten, 8–18); Axioma (Dignity) and Megethos (Grandeur): Rabe, 242–96 (Wooten, 18–54); Kallos (Beauty): Rabe, 296–311 (Wooten, 54–64); Gorgotes (Rapidity): Rabe, 312–20 (Wooten, 65–70); Ethos (Character): Rabe, 321–52 (Wooten, 70–89); Alethinos (Sincerity): Rabe, 321–52 (Wooten, 89–101); Deinotes (Force): Rabe, 369–80 (Wooten, 101–8). 46 On the mixing of styles, see Rabe 221–22, 381 (Wooten 5–6, 108–11) and G. Kennedy, New History of Classical Rhetoric (Princeton 1994) 268. 47 Bassett, Urban Image, 50–97. 48 For Menander see D.A. Russell and N.G. Wilson (eds. and trans.), Menander Rhetor (Oxford 1981) 79. On the classiication of rhetorical genres, see G.A. Kennedy, “he genres of rhetoric,” in S.E. Porter (ed.), Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period 330 B.C.–A.D. 400 (Leiden 1997) 43–50, and idem., Greek Rhetoric under Christian Emperors (supra n. 43), 63. 49 Rabe, 250 (Wooten, 23). 50 Ibid., 247 (Wooten, 22). he prescribed rhythms include the dactilic, anapestic, iambic, spondaic, and paeonic. See further ibid., 252–53 (Wooten, 24–25). 51 Ibid., 264–69 (Wooten, 32–36). Sculpture and the Rhetorical Imagination in Late Antique Constantinople 39 the general and the particular is a clear index of these qualities, as is the use of such devices as the presentation of facts and information in reverse order, parallel construction, repetition and elaboration, and the inclusion of subordinate clauses.52 Finally, there is Glykytes (Sweetness). Glykytes (Sweetness) results from the use of short words with few syllables in moderately long phrases of varied rhythm together with an ornamentation of language through the use of such devices as parallelism.53 Semnotes (Solemnity) and Lamprotes (Brilliance), Peribole (Abundance) and Mestotes (Fullness), Glykytes (Sweetness): how might these forms have been manifest in Constantinopolitan sculpture? If the city’s multiple sculptured displays can be understood collectively as an encomium, then I would propose that it is possible to see individual gatherings as well as individual pieces of statuary within those gatherings as embodying elements of these various styles. Consider, for example, the Barletta Colossus, a bronze cuirass statue of a ith-century heodosian emperor (ig. 4).54 he statue, which washed up on the Adriatic shore in A.D. 1309, is thought to have been plunder from the A.D. 1204 sack of Constantinople by the army of the Fourth Crusade. Although arms below the elbows and the legs are restored, the statue preserves fundamentally its original format. A cuirassed and diademed emperor stands with one foot Fig. 4. Colossus, Barletta, Italy (W. Eugene Kleinbauer). forward, knees locked and torso stif. His right arm is raised at a right angle. His let arm, bent at the elbow, extends in front of him and supports a swath of drapery that falls straight. I would like to suggest that the formal elements of this statue might be understood by analogy to rhetorical categories, and that it therefore is possible to see in it all the necessary elements of Axioma (Dignity) and Megethos (Grandeur); that is, Semnotes (Solemnity) tempered by Lamprotes (Brilliance) and Peribole (Abundance). For example, monumental scale together with the emphasis on 52 Ibid., 277–95 (Wooten, 41–54). Ibid., 330–39 (Wooten, 75–81). 54 he statue has been identiied with various emperors from Valentinian I (A.D. 364–375) to Heraclius (A.D. 610– 641). Although the suggested identiications range from the fourth century through the seventh, hairstyle indicates the ith century. R. Delbrueck, Spätantike Kaiserporträts (supra 53 n. 17), 219–26, and Breckenridge (supra n. 17) believed the igure to be that of Marcian (A.D. 450–457) and associated it with the Constantinopolitan column. More recently Stichel, Kaiserstatue, 61–62, noting the pendulae that hang from the diadem behind the ears, has proposed identiication as Honorius (A.D. 395–423), the emperor who irst introduced this particular fashion. 40 Sarah Bassett frontal composition make the kind of unambiguous direct statement essential to the deinition of Semnotes (Solemnity). he strong horizontal and vertical arrangement of the limbs around 90 degree angles and the direct fall of the mantle underscore that argument, while an injection of Lamprotes (Brilliance) sotens this mood. he igure’s broken external contour contrasts with the solidity of internal form and the overt statement of the frontal composition as do the linear patterns of the drapery on the torso’s surface, adding the sense of complexity so closely associated with Lamprotes (Brilliance). Peribole (Abundance) too is present. he pose which shows the emperor stepping forward is, paradoxically, without motion, an efect created by the stif torso and locked knees. Such visual contradictions may be considered analogous to the inversions of word order and the reverse presentation of facts that are among the features of rhetorical Peribole (Abundance). What the colossus lacks is Glykytes (Sweetness). For that quality it is possible to turn to another Constantinopolitan statue, the Lysippan Sandalbinder from the Baths of Zeuxippos (ig. 5).55 he statue shows the god Hermes as he bends over his raised right foot while simultane- Fig. 5. Hermes ixing his sandal, Ny Carlsberg Glyptothek, ously turning to look out in the direction of the Copenhagen no. 2798 (S. Bassett). viewer. he sense of direct statement so vividly imparted by the Barletta statue’s pose is here exchanged for a complex composition built around the visual pull of the igure in two directions. his divided movement expressed by the use of diagonals and alternations between mass and space suggests a greater emphasis on Peribole (Abundance) and Mestotes (Fullness). Likewise, the elaborate tangle of drapery and the sinuous twists and turns of the proile around the hands, some sharp and quick, others long and arching, suggest an analogy to the short words and varied phrasing preferred in the verbal expression of Glykytes (Sweetness). hese two statues, the one imperial and contemporary, the other mythic and ancient, suggest the association of certain styles with certain subjects.56 Speciically, the formal qualities of imperial 55 Bassett, Urban Image, 172–73 no. 63. he statue is dated variously to the fourth, third, and second centuries. B.C.G. Lippold, Handbüch der Archäologie (Berlin 1939) 280–81; M. Bieber, he Sculpture of the Hellenistic Age (New York 1961) 74; and J. İnan, Roman Sculpture in Side (Ankara 1975) 94 consider the work Lysippan on the basis of its proportions and place it in the fourth century B.C. Others, among them F.P. Johnson, Lysippos (Durham, NC 1927) 175–77, and J. Dörig, “Lysipps leztes Werke,” JdI 72 (1957) 19–43 at 55, claim the Hermes for Lysippos’s third-century school. B.S. Ridgway, “he date of the so-called Lysippan Jason,” AJA 68 (1964) 113–28 at 28 suggests that the igure was produced in the eclectic milieu of the second century B.C. Although the range of date and attribution is wide, the statue conforms to the general trend in Constantinopolitan reuse in that it is essentially a product of the late classical age. 56 Compare Leibundgut-Maye, “Gleichzeitigkeit” (supra n. 3), who observes the use of diferent visual styles, each Sculpture and the Rhetorical Imagination in Late Antique Constantinople 41 sculpture may be linked to the qualities of Axioma (Dignity) and Megethos (Grandeur), while those of mythic antiquities are more properly associated with the values of Glykytes (Sweetness). In this instance the contrast between the Barletta Colossus and the Lysippan Sandalbinder is one of single statues, but in settings such as the Augusteion or the great heodosian fora, places given over almost exclusively to dynastic imagery, the preponderance of contemporary imperial portraits sharing visual properties akin to that of the Barletta Colossus would have created an atmosphere portentious with Axioma (Dignity) and Megethos (Grandeur). Conversely, at the Baths of Zeuxippos, the hippodrome, or the forum of Constantine, venues in which the majority of sculpture was ancient and whose function it was to construct the narratives that created Constantinopolitan history, Glykytes (Sweetness) with all its mythic and pleasurable associations held sway. his visual distinction between the formal qualities of both individual statues and larger groupings of monuments in public spaces suggests further evidence of links to rhetorical thinking, evidence that has bearing on the aesthetic issue of variety. Hermogenes notes that stylistic variety is essential as a means to highlight the most important elements of a composition. In the Hermogenic scheme, each stylistic form has its opposite. hus, Katharotes (Purity) stands in opposition to Peribole (Abundance), Lamprotes (Brilliance) to Hyptiotes (Flatness) and, most importantly for this discussion, Glykytes (Sweetness) to Semnotes (Solemnity). In rhetorical composition the juxtaposition of such stylistic opposites is desired as a means to underscore and highlight the characteristics of each. hus, Glykytes (Sweetness) at the side of Semnotes (Solemnity) sets the charm and grace of the one style against the weighty sobriety of the other. In so doing it not only emphasizes the formal qualities of each style, but with it the virtues associated with them. Semnotes (Solemnity) with its glosses of Lamprotes (Brilliance) and Peribole (Abundance) was the perfect image of imperial grandeur designed to underscore the moral authority of the emperor. By contrast, Glykytes (Sweetness), with its intimations of loveliness and pleasure, was construed as the perfect style for the expression of mythic narrative. As Hermogenes himself remarked, it was the purpose of Glykytes (Sweetness) to establish the grandeur of Semnotes (Solemnity).57 If the treatment of visual form can indeed be understood by analogy to the rhetorician’s words and phrases, then I would like to conclude with the proposal that the displays of sculpture in Constantinople represent not a direct translation of a set of rules for rhetorical composition into visual language but rather a habit of composition and seeing on the part of artists, planners, and viewers analogous to the habits of writing and listening deployed by rhetors and their audiences, habits that would have been inculcated during the long years of schooling undertaken by the members of the empire’s ruling elite.58 In both the visual and the verbal contexts a shared understanding of subject signaled the genre, in this instance encomium, and within that genre, the structures and their accompanying shades of meaning. hroughout Constantinople these shades were hardly subtle and nothing if not traditional. Here the purpose was to bring the virtues associated with various styles into play to create an environment the grand and varied aesthetic of which stood as an encomium, a laus Constantinopolitana, to the empire’s premier city. with its own historic and political associations, in the manufacture of busts of Trajan. Leibundgut-Maye draws a direct analogy between these visual traditions and rhetorical styles. Similarly Hölscher, Römische Bildsprache (supra n. 3) likens the range of form in Roman sculpture to the range of verbal expression in rhetorical models. 57 Rabe, 387 (Wooten, 113). In this passage Hermogenes speaks also of Apheilia (Simplicity), which shares the same stylistic features of Glykytes (Sweetness). See Rabe, 336 (Wooten, 79). 58 Bassett, Urban Image, 98–120, and ead., “‘Excellent offerings’: he Lausos Collection in Constantinople,” ArtBull 82 (2000) 6–25.