Historiae Custos Sculpture and Tradition in the Baths of Zeuxippos

8/14/2019 Historiae Custos Sculpture and Tradition in the Baths of Zeuxippos

1/17

Historiae custos: Sculpture and Tradition in the Baths of Zeuxippos

Author(s): Sarah Guberti BassettSource: American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 100, No. 3 (Jul., 1996), pp. 491-506Published by: Archaeological Institute of AmericaStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/507026

Accessed: 20/10/2009 09:15

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

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

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

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].

Archaeological Institute of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

American Journal of Archaeology.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/507026?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aiahttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aiahttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/507026?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/17

Historiaecustos:Sculpture and Traditionin the Baths of ZeuxipposSARAH GUBERTIBASSETT

AbstractTo coincide with the dedication of Constantinoplein A.D. 330, the emperor Constantine decorated theBaths of Zeuxippos,one of the city'soldest and grand-est thermalestablishments,witha finecollection of sculp-ture. Three types of statuarywere used: imagesof godsand demigods, figures of mythological heroes takenlargely,though not exclusively,from the TrojanWarcy-cle, and portraitsof famous GreeksandRomans.Thesecategoriesweregenerallyconsistent with the establishedtraditions of Roman thermal decor in which statues of

gods and demigods referred to the healing andculturalactivitiesassociated with the baths,mythologicalfiguresserved to delight andentertain,andportraiturehonoredlocal citizens and benefactors. At the same time, how-ever,the use of portraitureat the Zeuxipposproveddis-tinctive.Representations of local citizens, traditionallya prominentfeaturein the programsof importantpub-lic baths, were eschewed in favor of the great literary,philosophical, and political figures of Graeco-Romanantiquity.This singular choice reflected a desire to de-tach Constantinopolitan identity from the confiningagenda of local history and link it with the universalcultural traditions of Greece and Rome. It was a visionthat derived from contemporary ideas about educationand the nature of power and that was, ultimately,ap-propriate to Constantinople's role as capital of theRoman Empire*

INTRODUCTIONIn preparation for the inauguration of Constan-

tinople in the spring of A.D. 330, the emperor Con-stantine (310-337) completed the public bath knownas the Zeuxippos by decorating it with rich marblesand 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 formidablerole in Roman public life to mount a display of stat-uary that shaped the image of his city and definedits role within the larger context of empire. In a col-lection that numbered no less than 81 pieces, imagesof gods and demigods, mythological heroes, and apanoply of statesmen, philosophers, and men of let-ters, the culture heroes of the Graeco-Roman world,stood massed to proclaim Constantinople's legiti-mate right to unrivaled imperial status. It is the pur-pose of this article to describe how this claim wasmade.

Any consideration of the Zeuxippos must beginby taking into account Reinhard Stupperich's 1982study of the collection, in which he argued that it

* This article derives from subject matter first presentedin my dissertation, PaeneOmniumUrbiumNuditate: TheReuseof Antiquities in Constantinople,FourththroughSixth Centuries(Diss. Bryn Mawr 1985). Some of the ideas discussed herewere presented at the 1988 Byzantine Studies Conference;see Abstracts of Papers (Houston 1988) 39. I would like tothank Susan Boyd, Engin Ozgen, and Ilknur Ozgen for theirkind help in obtaining photographs. I am also grateful tothe two anonymous AJA reviewers and to the AJA editorsfor 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.E1928 Hudson, Preliminary Report upon theExcavationsCarriedOut in and near the

Hippodromeof Constantinople in 1927(London 1928).Casson et al. S. Casson, D. Talbot Rice, and D.E1929 Hudson, SecondReportupon the Exca-vations Carried Out in and near theHippodromeof Constantinople in 1928(London 1929).Casson 1930 S. Casson, "Les fouilles de l'Hippo-drome de Constantinople," GBA 30

Ekphrasis

Manderscheid

Marvin

Muller-WienerNielsen

Stupperich

Yegul

(1930) 213-42.Christodoros of Thebes, ""EK(ppaol( 5v&yaXTCt)tvicv ei; TO6rl6oiov yu[-VaOlovzTOO?TKaXOUVlo ZEUVi77R0r,"The Greek Anthology I, trans. W.R.Paton (London 1916) 59-91.H. Manderscheid, Die Skulpturenausstat-tungderkaiserzeitlichenThermenanlagen(Berlin 1981).M. Marvin, "Freestanding Sculpturefrom the Baths of Caracalla,"AJA87(1983) 347-84.W.Muller-Wiener,Bildlexikon ur Topogra-phie Istanbuls (Tiibingen 1977).I. Nielsen, Thermaeet Balnea: TheArchi-tecture and Cultural History of RomanPublic Baths (Aarhus 1990).R. Stupperich, "Das Statuenprogrammin der Zeuxippos-Thermen. Uberle-gungen zur Beschreibung der Chris-todorus von Koptos,"IstMitt32 (1982)210-35.

EK. Yegiil, Baths and Bathing in ClassicalAntiquity (New York 1992).491American Journal of Archaeology 100 (1996) 491-506


3/17

SARAH GUBERTI BASSETT

K /l~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~cb

/ /

Muiller-Wiener,ig. 263)

i2\ \ r~~~~'i/i>

f'i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:t I~~ ~ ~~~--'"/"7"

~~~~~~~ ,t .'/ :/ '..~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. '",.'7~~~~~~~~~~~~'. , , ' "~'

.- ... :_: .....I ~ ha~id~'~ i~~~~~~~~.....~---,7---' ;--~. . . . . . ~~....

F~~~~~~~~ig 1 . P a fCntniol hwn h ahZuipsadajcenulig. Fo-Mflle-Winr, fig.23

was assembled with the programmatic intent of de-scribing Constantinople as the New Troy. Observa-tion of what Stupperich felt to be two anomalies inthe collection's makeup, the presence of portraits ofhistorical figures and an unusually large numberof representations of mythological figures associatedwith the Trojan War, led him to this conclusion.'While Stupperich was right to question some aspectsof the collection's makeup, I believe that there is ulti-mately no basis for his final conclusion. Literary andarchaeological evidence simply do not warrant theproposed 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 con-clusion I offer my own suggestions as to how thiscollection 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 ofthe Byzantine emperors, and the public forum knownas the Augusteion (fig. 1). Sources record that, al-

' Stupperich.

492 [AJA 100


4/17

SCULPTURE AND TRADITION IN THE BATHS OF ZEUXIPPOS

Fig.2. Plan of the Baths of Zeuxippos. (After Miiller-Wiener, ig. 29)though the pride of the Late Antique capital, thecomplex was actually an inheritance from the pre-Constantinian era of the city's history. Founded andbuilt by Septimius Severus in the last years of thesecond century,2 the Zeuxippos was taken over byConstantine who made it a showpiece by doweringit with freestanding sculptural decoration in bronzeand marble. In his account of the rush of buildingactivity leading up to the dedication of Constanti-nople, the historian Malalas described this under-

2 The attribution toSeptimiusSeverus s traditional andis based on repeated references in Byzantinesources. Seeloannis Malalas chronographia(Bonn 1831) 321B; ChroniconPaschale (Bonn 1832) 494B; and T. Preger, Scriptores origi-num Constantinopolitanarum Leipzig 1902/1907) 15-16, 132,168.3Malalas (supra n. 2) 321B.4 See Socrates, Hist. Eccl. 2.9, which describes an en-counterbetweenthe Prefect of Constantinople, Philip, and

taking as the capstone of many such enterprises:"Moreover, he [Constantine] completed the bathknown as the Zeuxippos, decorating it with columnsand different colored marbles and statues made ofbronze."3Thus outfitted, the Zeuxippos functionedas the oldest and most centrally placed of the capital'simperial baths during the fourth, fifth, and sixth cen-turies. Throughout this period it served not only theneeds of public bathing, but also as a locus for allmanner of public speaking and debate.4 Then, in

the PatriarchPaul.In 344 Philip invitedPaul to the bathson the pretext of conducting a public debate. The invita-tion proved nothing more than a ruse to entrap Paul andthe meeting concluded not with any public exchange ofideas, but with Paul'sarrest and deportation. Paul's will-ingness to accept the invitation demonstrates the extentto which this type of public debate in the bath settingwasconsidered normal.

4931996]


5/17

SARAH GUBERTI BASSETT532, it met with disaster. Fires raging in the after-math of the anti-Justinianic NIKA rebellion sweptthrough the complex destroying the building andits contents. Thereafter, the history of the Zeuxip-pos is murky. Although rebuilt byJustinian,5 it is notclear how much longer the complex continued tofunction. Sources indicate that the bath served asa setting for public meetings well into the seventhcentury.6 The last mention of the building in anythermal capacity is by Theophanes, who states thatthe 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.8This history was given substance through exca-vation, with the result that the Zeuxippos can beimagined, at least in general form (fig. 2).9 Exca-vations sponsored by the British Academy in 1927and 1928 revealed the foundations and lower wallsof a vaulted brick and concrete structure, BuildingI. A large peristyle, Building II, flanked Building Ion its east side. Provisions for a hydraulic system andthe presence of vaulting identified Building I as thebath proper, while the large, open peristyle indicatedthat Building II was a gymnasium."'The excavated remains suggest, without makingpossible any sense of detail, that the Zeuxippos wasa bath-gymnasium. Common as a bath type in west-ern Asia Minor from the second century A.D., itscharacteristic features included an integration ofvaulted bathing chambers with open, rectangularexercise grounds." The Zeuxippos combination ofvaulted halls with open peristyle is consistent withthis typology.So too is the building's initial date. The complexrose directly on the yellow clay of Constantinopleand no traces of earlier construction came to light.Coin finds, construction techniques, and fragmentsof sculpted wall revetment at the lowest levels con-firmed a second-century date, and indicated thatthis complex was the Severan bath that had been

5Procop. Aed. 1.10.3 describes the destruction and re-building of the complex under Justinian.6 In 680 the monk Polychronius is reputed to havemade an unsuccessful attempt at raising the dead in theZeuxippos peristyle. SeeJ.D.Mansi,SacrorumConciliorumnovaet amplissimaollectioXI (Florence 1765) 609.7ChroniconHildesheim 1963) 383.8Varioustheories abound, among them that the Zeux-ippos was used as a silk factory or a prison. See Muller-Wiener 51.9Forexcavation reports, see Casson et al. 1928,Cassonet al. 1929,and Casson 1930. Muller-Wiener51 providesa bibliography of secondary sources.10See Casson et al. 1929 for a discussion of the build-

taken over and integrated into the Constantiniancity plan.12Evidence of burning, complicated sequences ofbrickwork, and superimposed pavement at levels im-mediately above the second-century construction in-dicated destruction and reconstruction following thebuilding's original design.'3 Analysis of the brick-work at these levels showed that this rebuilding couldnot have taken place before the sixth century, whileevidence of coin finds, burn marks, and the reuseof materials from the pre-sixth-century bath as con-struction material indicated that the complex thatgrew out of the walls of the second-century structurewas that of the Justinianic restoration.14The history of the restored Justinianic complexremains unclear. Minor additions here and there hintat later reuse without specifying chronology or pur-pose. That the building was abandoned before thePalaiologan period (1261-1453) is clear from the factthat the site was used as a dump from the 12thcentury.15COLLECTION OF SCULPTURE

The second-century Severan building served as theframework for the lavish surface decoration andsculptural adornment implemented by Constantine.Writing from the vantage point of the 12th century,the historian Cedrenus described the complex forhis contemporaries:

In the eighth yearofJustinian's rule, the Severanbathsthat went by the name of Zeuxippos were destroyed.In them were many painted marvels and well-madesplendors of marble, stone, and mosaic, as well asbronze images that were the work of ancient men.Of these images there was not one without a soul.16What Cedrenus evoked was a building rich in thetrappings of Late Roman civilization. Excavationfinds, although few, support this image. Fragmentsof colored marble wall revetment were brought tolight in Buildings I and II.17Materials included verde

ing remains."1On the bath-gymnasium,see Nielsen 105-108 andYegul 250-313.12Casson et al. 1929, 6 and 13.'"Casson et al. 1929, 12.14Casson et al. 1929, 15.15Casson et al. 1929, 9 and 14.6Historiarum Compendium Bonn 1838) 647-48. TOT66i1?veT7rp0ro9l Kai TO 6KTdywOVOV ai TO XoerpOv TOO?EP3fPOUTO6XEy6Evov ZE64ti7roq, EV t TiOtKiXul TqnV jv0eopia KaiXairnp6TrlS TeXVcOV, TO)VT? t.tpgdpcov Kai Xi0cov Kai Wii(pi6covKai eiKOVC)Vt&aXaKO6U7ToE7OTJ1qvovCOV7' aiCovoq avSpeovgpya, !O6vov TOOit TiapCival auiTaitq )Xdq T )V ;qo6iqeyvovTo.

17Casson et al. 1929, 9-10.

494 [AJA 100


6/17

SCULPTURE AND TRADITION IN THE BATHS OF ZEUXIPPOSantico and red and yellow African marbles.18 Piecesof a carved Proconnesian marble frieze showing ne-reids and dolphins framed by decorative floral mold-ings were also found. These fragments were assigneda second-century date on stylistic grounds and a lo-cal provenance on the basis of material. Rough carv-ing and traces of plaster on the relief surfaces ofthe frieze indicated that the panels would have beenstuccoed and painted to opulent effect.19These rich wall surfaces provided the backdropfor what was ultimately the most fascinating aspectof the Zeuxippos's decor, its freestanding statuary.In fact, as the Cedrenus commentary indicates, itwas the collection of sculpture that seems to havecaptured contemporary imagination and in so do-ing secured the bath's subsequent fame. Althoughdestroyed in the fire of 532, the overall shape andcontents of the collection can be reconstructed fromliterary and archaeological sources.LITERARY SOURCES

The most complete evidence for the Zeuxipposcollection is a description, or ekphrasis, written atthe end of the fifth century by the Egyptian poetChristodoros of Koptos.20 Christodoros was an es-tablished poet in Constantinople where he workedin official circles. Two epigrams mourning the deathof the official John of Epidauros survive from hispen,21 and the 10th-century lexicon, the Souda, de-scribes him as the author of various lost works, amongthem an epic commemoration of Anastasius I's waragainst the Isaurians and urban descriptions of Con-stantinople and Thessaloniki.22 Given this output,it is likely that the Zeuxippos description was writ-ten in some sort of official capacity.The Ekphrasis survives incomplete as a 416-versepoem recording freestanding statues or statue groupsin three basic categories: gods and demigods, myth-ological figures, and portraits. That this descriptionrecorded actual pieces as opposed to some imaginedgathering is clear from correspondences betweennamed statues and archaeological finds. Statue basesinscribed with the names of Hecuba and Aischines(see below, figs. 4-5), two figures mentioned in theEkphrasis,were found during excavation of the site.23As a source of information the Ekphrasis is, there-

18Casson et al. 1929, 42.'9 Casson et al. 1928, 27-28, fig. 36, and Casson et al.1929, 42.20See Ekphrasis for text and translation. On Christo-doros himself, see P. Baumgarten, De Christodoropoeta The-bano(Bonn 1881);RE 3, pt. 2 (1899) 2450-52, s.v.Christo-

doros (Baumgarten); T Viljamaa, Studies in GreekEncomiastic

fore, invaluable: identification of all of the 81 statuesor statue groups known to have stood in the bathsdepends upon it. At the same time, however, thereare distinct limits to the poem's usefulness, whichderive, on the one hand, from the fact that it is onlypartially preserved, and, on the other hand, fromthe aims and aspirations of the author.As preserved, the Ekphrasis begins with a descrip-tion of a statue of the Trojan warrior Deiphobos andends with a discussion of a portrait of Virgil. In be-tween, in no consistent thematic order, 79 other stat-ues are named and described. There is no introduc-tion or conclusion, and, apart from the lemma thatstates that the poem describes the statuary in thebaths, no reference to location or setting. This abruptopening and closing is at odds with the formal, oftenflorid qualities of Late Antique verse, and it is there-fore likely that the complete original included botha preface and a conclusion in which circumstancesand setting were elaborated. It is also possible thatother statues or statue groups were mentioned.While these lacunae are not sufficient to preventreconstruction of the collection in a general sense,they do circumscribe the way in which the gatheringcan be interpreted. Given the lack of informationregarding setting and the distinct possibility thatsome descriptions are missing, any attempt at estab-lishing sequences and interrelations must proceedwith caution.

Also problematic is the nature of the observations.Although the poem purports to describe the indi-vidual statues, the notion of what constitutes descrip-tion is governed less by the desire to record physicalappearance than by the need to document the per-ceived sensations of emotion and intellect experi-enced by the individual figures displayed. The re-sult is that individual passages are often long oninterpretation and short on documentation. Con-sider, for example, the description of the oratorDemosthenes:

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

Poetryof theEarlyByzantinePeriod Helsinki 1963) 29-31,56-57, 100;andStupperich 213-14. Christodoroswasoncereferred to as Christodoros of Thebes. Currentusage pre-fers the designation Koptos.21 TheGreekAnthology II (London 1914)nos. 697, 698.22SuidaeLexicon V (Stuttgart 1971) 827.23Casson 1929, 18-21.

4951996]


7/17

SARAH GUBERTI BASSETTsharpened 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 withvoice, but Art kept him fettered under the seat ofher brazen silence.24

In the florid language admired by the age, Christo-doros identifies and describes his subject with onlypassing reference to physical appearance. The open-ing verse describes the figure as standing and thelast suggests in its reference to "brazen silence" thatthe statue was bronze. Mention of the fact that thefigure seems about to speak indicates lifelike appear-ance. 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 theorator's mental state by alluding to past historicalevents. This technique allows Christodoros to infera mental state from which the orator's thoughts areduly extrapolated. Farmore interpretive than factual,this verse is conceived less as an exercise in physicaldocumentation than as the stirring evocation of amoment. Indeed, the real subject of Christodoros'spoetry is not so much observed physical reality asthe ephemera of thought and feeling.This type of description characterizes most of theEkphrasis and is perfectly consistent with the aimsof the genre as it was practiced in Late Antiquity.25Ekphrasis was considered an aspect of rhetoric. Itsstated purpose was to describe, among other things,people, places, monuments, and works of art. A de-scription could be written as poetry or prose, couldbe real or imagined, and could stand alone as anindependent work or be incorporated into largercompositions. Whatever its form, it was importantthat the ekphrasis be convincing. Indeed, the wholepoint of the exercise was to make the designated sub-ject, whether fictional or real, so vivid that it wouldseem to materialize before the reader's eyes.

Descriptions of works of art employed their ownset of conventions to achieve this end.26 Foremostamong them was an insistence upon naturalism. Ex-amples abound of paintings or statues so lifelike that

24Ekphrasis, lines 23-31.25For ekphrasis, see G. Downey, Reallexikonfiir byzantin-ischesKunstII (Stuttgart 1971)32-77; and H. Hunger,DiehochsprachlicheprofaneLiteraturerByzantiner1 (Munich 1978)178-88.26See H. Maguire,"Truthand Convention in ByzantineDescriptions of Works of Art,"DOP 28 (1974) 111-40;Maguire, Art and Eloquence in Byzantium (Princeton 1981);and K.Lehmann-Hartleben, TheImaginesf theElderPhil-ostratus,"ArtB23 (1941) 16-44.

27For direct reference to bronze, see Ekphrasis,ines 12,

they seem about to move or speak. In the Ekphrasisitself 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 natu-ralism. Equally important was the work of art'sabilityto 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 lessa discussion of physical appearance than an identi-fication and interpretation of subject matter basedon the selective allusion to form. This habit was theguiding principle behind Christodoros's own com-position, where physical description, if it exists atall, serves as a springboard for the interpretationof a statue's mental and emotional state. If nothingelse, the poet was determined to convey that qualitythat Cedrenus defined as soul.

Although Christodoros's own interests lie lesswith the details of accurate physical description andmore with the identification and interpretation ofsubject matter, the Ekphrasiscan, nevertheless, be use-ful as a source of information about the collection'smaterial aspect. There is, for example, sporadic ref-erence to medium. Of the 81 statues observed, 16are explicitly said to be of bronze, while metaphorin other verses suggests that a further six statuesshould be added to this list.27 No mention is madeof other media.

In a few instances the poem also indicates sculp-tural typology. Lines 297-302 record a statue ofHermes, specifying that the figure stood with historso bent over his raised right leg, his right handpulling at his laces, his head upturned. This accountdescribes what can only be a replica of the Late Clas-sical Sandalbinder.28

The detailed aspect of the Hermes descriptionis the exception, but although less precise, otherverses allow generalized visualizations in terms ofknown sculptural types. Lines 292-96 record a statueof Achilles as a nude, beardless youth with a spear

18,31, 39, 47, 73, 78, 83, 122, 152, 178, 198, 256, and 314.For indirect references, see the use of doTp6arcoflash),XdCrnoshine), and taLcpaivcoshine brightly)in lines 13,92, 99-100, 357, and 388.28The equation between the Sandalbinder and theHermes is mentioned by W.R.Paton. See Ekphrasis 3 n.1. The statue is knownfrom four majorreplicas in Copen-hagen, Paris, Munich, and Perge. See LIMCV.1,368-69,s.v.Hermes (G. Siebert) for discussion and bibliographyand LIMCV.2, pls. 279-80 for illustrations.

496 [AJA 100


8/17

SCULPTURE AND TRADITION IN THE BATHS OF ZEUXIPPOSin his right hand, a shield in his left. As described,the figure's pose suggests a broad similarity to theDoryphoros, a statue that itself has been associatedwith Achilles.29

An Aphrodite statue also invites comparison toknown sculptural types. Lines 78-81 describe abronze statue of the goddess in a form reminiscentof any one of a number of half-draped Aphroditetypes. The poem specifies that the figure stood nakedfrom the waist up, her hair tied back, a swath of drap-ery around her hips and legs. Although no directassociation is possible, works such as the Aphroditeof Arles, the Venus Townley, or the Venus de Milosuggest the statue's general look.30Where the Ekphrasis is silent is on the subject ofscale. Christodoros never states or even so much ashints at the size of the figures. This information mustbe deduced from archaeological evidence. Pertinentmaterials include statue bases and the fragment ofa colossal head.STATUEBASES

Excavated during the 1928 season, the statue basesnumber three and are circular with molded flangesat top and bottom.31 Two of the bases, A and B, arenow 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 fromone another by their surface features. Base A is carvedwith the inscribed image of a vase, while base B car-ries the inscription EKABE, a reference to the statueit once supported.32 The third base, C (fig. 5), isslightly smaller, measuring 1.35 x 0.67 m. Like baseB it is inscribed, in this instance with AICXHNHC,the misspelled name of the orator Aischines.33 Asnoted above, both the Aischines and the Hecuba in-scriptions correspond to figures mentioned in theEkphrasis.34

Unprepossessing though they be, the bases reveala good deal about the collection both with regard

29Identification of the Doryphoros with Achilles isbased on Pliny's HN34.18) description of statuesof nude,spearbearing youths as "Achillean" r "Achilles-like."eeT.Lorenz,Polyklet: oryphorosStuttgart1966) 10-13; andLorenz,PolykletWiesbaden 1972)4-17. Over 50 copies ofthe Doryphoros exist. The best knownis the statue fromthe Palaestraat Pompeii nowin the NationalArchaeolog-ical Museum, Naples (inv.no. 6146). For discussion andillustration, eeA.Stewart,GreekculptureNewHaven1990)160-62, pl. 378.30 The Aphrodite from the Roman theater at Arles isnow in the Louvre (MA439). See LIMCII.1,63, s.v.Aph-rodite (A. Delivorrias, G. Berger-Doer, and A. Kossatz-Deissmann) for discussion and LIMC11.2,pl. 51 no. 526

for illustration.The Aphroditefound in Ostia and known

Fig.3. Base A. Istanbul Archaeological Museum.(Photocourtesy Museum)

to the individual monuments and to the gatheringas a whole. First, their scale indicates that the figuresthey carried were life-size or larger. Second, cuttingsin the flat supporting surface above the inscriptionsshow that the statues themselves were bronze.35Thisinformation squares with that of Christodoros, whostates that the Hecuba statue was bronze and sug-

as the VenusTownley s now in the British Museum (inv.no. 1574).See LIMC I.1,65, s.v.Aphrodite (A.Delivorrias,G.Berger-Doer,and A. Kossatz-Deissmann)or discussionand LIMC11.2,pl. 63 no. 643 for illustration.For discus-sion and illustrationof the Venus de Milo at the Louvre(MA399) see LIMC I.1,73, s.v.Aphrodite (A.Delivorrias,G.Berger-Doer,andA. Kossatz-Deissmann)ndLIMC 1.2,pl. 63 no. 643.31 See Casson et al. 1929, 18-19 and Casson 1930,235.32Bases A and B are currently displayed in the gardenof the Istanbul Archaeological Museum.Inventorynum-bers are unavailable.33The location of base C is currently unknown.34Ekphrasis,ines 13-18 and 175-88.35 Casson et al. 1929, 18-19.

4971996]


9/17

SARAH GUBERTI BASSETT

Fig.4. BaseB,theHecubabase (inverted). stanbulArchae-ological Museum. (Photo courtesy Museum)gests as much for the Aischines in the use of the verb

otxpai,rtco.The bases also give a sense of the collection's over-

all aspect and planning. Cuttings in the bottom ofA and B indicate that the two were originally usedelsewhere. By contrast, base C shows no evident signsof reuse. The consistent scale and circular form ofthe bases indicate that a concerted effort was madeto provide a homogeneous display. Presumably allof the bases in the collection were round. The factthat the three finds were random, widely separateddiscoveries in the course of a relatively limited andincomplete excavation confirms this idea. At the sametime, the evident differences in profile and propor-tion between the pair AIB and the single base C sug-gest reuse from varying provenances, with A and B

36 Marvin381 suggests that there mayhavebeen stock-piling of sculpture. If so, this practice would have beenequallyvalidfor bases that wereoften made to order andincluded in the price of a statue.See also R.Duncan-Jones,TheEconomyf theRomanEmpire Cambridge1982) 78.

Fig.5. BaseC,theAischinesbase.(FromCassonet al. 1929,fig. 11)having one source and C another. The sources them-selves are unknown; however, while it is clear thatA 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 takenpristine from a long period of storage, or that it wasmade specifically for the baths.36COLOSSAL HEAD

In addition to the statue bases, the Zeuxippos ex-cavation yielded a fragment of a colossal female head(fig. 6).37 The current location of this piece is un-

37 Casson et al. 1929,41-42, figs. 48-49. Casson 1930,236. The fragmentmeasured 19.5 x 17.5 cm, and Cassonpositedthattheundamagedheadwouldhavebeen between27 and 30 cmin height.IdentificationwithAthena,Urania,Aphrodite, Nemesis, and Hera was suggested.

498 [AJA 100


10/17

SCULPTURE AND TRADITION IN THE BATHS OF ZEUXIPPOS

Fig.6. Fragment of a colossal female head excavatedat the Zeuxippos. (FromCasson et al.1929, fig. 48)

known, but examination of the fragment at the timeof its excavation revealed it to be of fifth-century B.C.Attic manufacture and of Pentelic marble. The stat-ue is important because it shows that marble figureswere used together with bronze. As well, its prove-nance and date demonstrate that, as in the case ofthe bases, sculpture was reused.

Although the head does not correspond in anyobvious way to Christodoros's surviving description,the fragment works as an interesting complementto the text. Inability to associate the head with anyof the described deities supports the idea of missingdescriptions. Apart from this issue, however, the headserves as a useful indicator of taste. From the listof subject matter it is clear that there was a widechronological range in the works displayed. Statu-ary of fourth- and third-century B.C. Greek concep-tion stood together with such uniquely Romancreations asJulius Caesar and Virgil. As the Sandal-binder and the two Aphrodite statues indicate, manyof the works of Greek and Roman invention werecopies of or variations on standard sculptural types

that could have been produced at any time duringthe Hellenistic or Roman period. The fifth-centuryfragment demonstrates that works of more ancientmanufacture were also displayed. It is clear, there-fore, that contemporary taste admitted and doubt-less appreciated a wide range of style.USE OF COPIES

Impossible to assess from the available informa-tion is the extent to which the monuments displayedwere originals or copies. The issue is, perhaps, moot.The use of copies was a standard and expected ele-ment in ancient public works projects where a rep-ertoire of several dozen favorite works by the greatartists of classical antiquity was displayed against suchformidable backdrops as nymphaea, city gates, the-aters, and baths. As the examples of the Sandalbinderand other probable copies indicate, the Zeuxipposwas no exception. Far from carrying the stigma ofbad taste that such a display would today, the publicexposition of these works was embraced as a wayto evoke the glory of the Hellenic past and celebrate

4991996]


11/17

SARAH GUBERTI BASSETTits vitality in the Graeco-Roman present.38 In thespecific case of the Zeuxippos, therefore, the exten-sive use of copies was not only likely, but also prob-able and desirable.REUSE OF STATUARY

Taken together the literary and archaeologicalsources describe the collection as an aestheticallydiverse melange of bronze and marble statuary ofvarious dates and provenance. That this statuary wasof high quality is demonstrated by the example ofthe Greek head. Such a profile is consistent with thekinds of collections found in other Roman baths.Statuary of first- and second-century A.D. manu-facture stood together with contemporary pieces inthe Baths of Caracalla.39 Similarly, statues foundin the Large West Baths at Caesarea clearly predatethe third-century A.D. structure they adorned,40 andinscriptions from the West Baths at Cherchel attestto the removal and reuse of statuary.4'This reuse of sculptural material in public bathsprobably had its roots in economic necessity. No pub-lic building was more expensive than the bath, andfully half of the expenditure for such a complexwould have been occasioned by the purchase ofsculpture.42 It was, therefore, only prudent andsometimes necessary that statuary be reused. In thecase of the Zeuxippos, this general urge to savingsmakes it likely that the copies themselves would havebeen reused.43DISPLAY

The question remains as to how the collection wasdisplayed. As noted, the lemma to the Ekphrasis in-troduces the poem as a description of statuary inthe public gymnasium of the Zeuxippos. It is not clearwhether this reference indicates the building as awhole or the specific area of the peristyle tradition-ally associated with the gymnasium. It is likely, how-ever, that Christodoros intended the whole, as theterms "gymnasium"and "bath"were often used inter-changeably to describe the same building, with gym-

38On the public display of statuary, see G.M.A.Hanf-mann, From Croesus to Constantine:The Cities of WesternAsiaMinor and Their Arts in Greekand Roman Times (Ann Arbor1975) 57-74.39Marvin 369.

40 Nielsen 87.4 Marvin 369, n. 312.42Marvin 380-81.43 The reuse of sculpture in public settings was a com-mon aspect of Constantine's development of Constanti-nople. Economic and iconographic motives contributed

to this practice. In the case of the Zeuxippos, economyseems to have been the initial motivation. On the larger

nasium being the preferred choice when referringto bath-gymnasia.44Assuming then that Christodoros was indeed de-

scribing the complex in its entirety, it is most prob-able that the statuary would have been concentratedin the frigidarium, the showpiece of any Imperialestablishment. Popular secondary display areas in-cluded changing rooms, entrance halls, and peri-styles. As with other baths adorned with sculpture,it is doubtless the case that statuary displayed in theseareas stood highlighted in niches and aediculaeagainst walls, or were freestanding around pools, butneither the literary nor the archaeological evidenceis sufficient to permit elaboration of this point forthe Zeuxippos.Nonetheless, because references to sequencethroughout the poem indicate that Christodoros de-scribed 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 acrossand between hypothetically constructed spaces.45According to his reckoning, the poem indicates fivestatue 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 divinefigures, while groups III (lines 143-221) and IV (lines222-310) are dominated by characters from the Tro-jan War. Within each group, diagonal correspon-dence and pendant placement are seen to enhancemeaning.

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 viewingorder, it is by no means certain that the progressiondescribed is a mandatory one. Indeed, in the con-text of the bath where there was no fixed program ofuse and the visitor was free to circulate at will, a pre-scribed sequence seems unlikely, as any installationrelying so heavily on systematic balance and spatialprogression would have made little sense and had

Constantinopolitan tradition of reuse, see G.C.Heyne, "Pris-cae artis operae quae Constantinopoli extisse memoran-tur," Commentationesscientiarum Gottingensis 2 (1790-1791)3-38; R.M. Dawkins, "Ancient Statues in Medieval Constan-tinople," Folklore35 (1924) 209-48; and C. Mango, "AntiqueStatuary 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 somestatuary was understood as spolia and derived significancefrom the very fact of its antiquity.44Yegil 312, 490.

4 Stupperich 217-27.

500 [AJA 100


12/17

SCULPTURE AND TRADITION IN THE BATHS OF ZEUXIPPOSeven less impact. Instead, the designers of thesethermal collections preferred a loose placement andjuxtapositioning of images that allowed for variousviewing possibilities on both a grand and an inti-mate scale.46 Christodoros's description suggests justthis kind of ensemble. The overall picture to emergeis one of a collection in which statues of gods anddemigods mingled indiscriminately with represen-tations of heroes and historical figures. On occasion,this seemingly random display was punctuated bysmaller, thematic gatherings such as those observedfor groups II and IV, but the overall effect was gen-erally one of casual, flexible viewing.47Related 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 groundlevel on the periphery of their individual spaces. Itis, of course, possible that this was the case, but itis also true that some of the statues may have beenplaced on bases in open spaces or in niches and ae-diculae that were part of vertical wall installations.This type of wall display was a common solution inpublic settings, especially in Asia Minor.48Given theConstantinopolitan dependence upon design solu-tions and construction techniques from this part ofthe Roman world,49 there is no reason to excludesuch a possibility here.ICONOGRAPHY

Just as the material aspects of the Zeuxippos col-lection were consistent with the traditions of bathdecor, so too was its iconography. As noted, Chris-todoros observed statuary in three categories: godsand demigods, mythological figures, and portraits.Large thermal establishments in Rome and the pro-vincial centers of North Africa and Asia Minor showa more or less similar sculptural repertoire.50 As atthe Zeuxippos, statues of gods associated with thefour elements, healing, or pleasure were displayed

46 On the display of thermal statuary in general, seeManderscheid.47The appearance of isolated pockets of iconographi-cally consistent displays within the larger context of thewhole isnotunheard of in bathcomplexes.See,e.g.,F Yegiil,"AStudyin ArchitecturalIconography:Kaisersaaland theImperial Cult,"ArtB64 (1982)7-31, esp. 26-27 on the useof Dionysiac sculptural themes in the CaracallanMarbleCourt of the Imperial baths at Sardis. A similar thematicconcentration showing the Labors of Herakles was foundin room B of the Lambaesis baths. See Manderscheid, nos.489-96. Representations of Marcus Aurelius and FaustinaMinor were displayed together with the Muses at the Bathsof Faustina, Miletos. See Manderscheid, nos. 214-22.48See, e.g., C. Vermeule, GreekSculptureand Roman Taste(Ann Arbor 1977) 91-93, fig. 77.49The bath-gymnasium itself is a design characteristic

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

The most popular deities in the sculpted Romanbaths were Asklepios and Hygeia, Dionysos and hisattendants, Aphrodite, Herakles, and Apollo withthe Muses. All were associated with the bath and itsactivities through their connections with the ele-ment of water, the idea of health or pleasurable so-cial activity. Asklepios and Hygeia were the two mostpopular divinities, no doubt because of their asso-ciations with health. Dionysos and the sea-born Aph-rodite were linked with water, as was Herakles, whosephysical prowess also made him a logical denizenof the bath. In the case of Apollo, statues of the godin the company of the Muses acknowledged the in-tellectual and social stimulation expected as an idealpart of any thermal visit, while solitary representa-tions of the deity referred to the god's own healingpowers.51In the particular case of the Zeuxippos, the godsand demigods numbered 11. There were three stat-ues each of Apollo and Aphrodite, a single figureof Hermaphroditos and two groups, one of Hera-kles with Auge and a second showing Poseidon withAmymone. Most of these figures appear in otherbaths. Herakles is ubiquitous as a paragon of phys-ical fitness.52 Less obvious is the inclusion of Her-maphroditos, a figure also included at the Baths ofCaracalla and in the West Baths at Cherchel,53 andArtemis, who is known from the baths at Italica,Cales, Sufetula, and Cherchel.54 The explanation fortheir presence is that Hermaphroditos was associ-ated with Aphrodite and Artemis with nature and,through nature, water. It was this same connectionthat allowed the inclusion of the Poseidon group.55

of Asia Minor.See Yegiiland Nielsen (supran. 11).Fortherelationship between Constantinople and Asia Minor,seeR. Krautheimer, EarlyChristian nd ByzantineArchitecture(Harmondsworth1975) 112.50See Manderscheid 28-46 for thermal iconography.51Manderscheid 30-34.52Manderscheidnos. 16,17(?),51-53, 76,141,178(?),179,347, 360, 407, 465, 489-97, 530, and 531.53Manderscheid nos. 47, 520, 521.54Manderscheid nos. 35, 114, 439, 535.55See 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-strickenArgolid,recalled the relationship betweenseaandspring, symbolizingas it did so water'scontinuous capac-ity for renewal.

1996] 501


13/17

SARAH GUBERTI BASSETTNoticeably absent from the Zeuxippos were stat-ues of Asklepios and Hygeia and of Dionysos andhis attendant nymphs and satyrs. It is possible thatthese figures, which were so lively a part of the bathscene elsewhere, were mentioned in the missingverses of the Ekphrasis.

Mythological FiguresThe collection of mythological figures at the Zeux-ippos is also comparable to known bath collectionswhere subjects from a wide range of classical mythsand literature were displayed to the stimulation anddelight of the bath's patrons. In the Constantinopol-itan baths, figures were selected from at least twonarrative sources: the great cycles of the Theban andTrojan myths.Two figures from the Theban narratives were re-corded at the baths, the seer Amphiaraos and hisson Alkmaion. Given the paucity of the figures andthe fact that the Ekphrasis is incomplete, this partic-ular choice of characters is difficult to assess. It maywell be that there was a larger, more complete groupof figures depicting heroes from the Theban narra-tives. After the Trojan epic, these gruesome storieswere the most popular of the ancient myths, andgroups of the heroes were known in antiquity.56

Stupperich makes no allowance for a Thebangroup, preferring instead to associate the characterswith other categories. Amphiaraos is included inthe Trojan gathering, and Alkmaion, his identitychanged to Alkman, takes his place among the poets.While there are reasonable grounds for confusionin considering these two figures, there is no reasonto ignore, much less change, their basic identity.In myth and literature, Amphiaraos was a seerand one of the seven who went against Thebes. Atno point does his story intersect with the eventsat Troy. In spite of this fact, Stupperich includedhim with the Trojan group, arguing that, as a seer,he would make an ideal pendant for another prophet,Koiranos.57 Apart from the difficulties involvedin reconciling the two independent narratives,Stupperich's pendant argument is tentative at best,the foremost obstacle being that there is no Koiranosin Christodoros's description. Stupperichs Koiranosis the statue that Christodoros identifies as Aglaos.The reidentification of the figure is argued on thebasis of the statue's described genealogy.58 In verse

56Paus.10.10.4describes a group of the Epigonoi at Del-phi and 2.20.5 mentions a monument at Argos.57Stupperich 223.58Stupperich 223.59See Schol.Eur.Or.5 and Tzetz.Chil.1.499 for identifica-

263, Christodoros describes Aglaos as the father ofthe seer Polyeidos; however, as Stupperich rightlynotes, Koiranos, not Aglaos, was the seer's father. Thisbeing the case, the proposed reidentification mightseem reasonable save for the fact that the evidenceof the text weighs against it. In describing the statue,Christodoros identifies Aglaos as a prophet, whichhe was not. In myth and literature Aglaos is knownvariously as a son of Thyestes and Laodameia, a sonof Hermione, and the poorest man in Arcadia.59Christodoros makes it clear that the details of hisown identification of this obscure figure are basedon hearsay: "The prophet Aglaus stood there whotheysay [my emphasis] was the father of the inspiredseer Polyidus" (lines 263-65).The befuddlement and general lack of convictionthat Christodoros brings to bear on this discussionis reflected not only in the mistaken identificationof the figure as a seer, but also in the character ofhis verse. In sharp contrast to other descriptions,where every effort is made to create a psychologicalinterpretation, the Aglaos characterization is leftunexplored. This uncharacteristic omission readslike nothing so much as the fudging of an authorunfamiliar with his subject. Indeed, so uncertain isthe tone of Christodoros's writing that it is a wonderthat the identification was made at all until one re-calls that the statues were labeled. It is clear, there-fore, that Christodoros had the identity providedfor him, but no recognizable context in which to makesense of it. One can imagine the poet reading theunfamiliar name, wondering to himself who Aglaoswas, and asking around for advice, only to be mis-informed.

The inclusion of Alkmaion in the portrait groupderives from a similar misunderstanding.") In mythand literature, Alkmaion, the son of Amphiaraos,is one of the Epigonoi who avenges his father's deathat the gates of Thebes. Christodoros makes no men-tion of these events, but refers to the figure in verses393-95 as Alkmaion the prophet, acknowledging inthis identification the gift of sight, which he inher-ited from his father. Convinced, however, that thestatue cannot really represent Alkmaion becausethe figure is shown without the laurel crown of aseer, he promptly rejects this identification in favorof Alkman, the seventh-century B.C. poet. Pickingup on Christodoros's own doubt, Stupperich favors

tion as the son of Thyestesand Laodameia.Schol.Eur.An-drom. 2 refers to Aglaosas the son of Hermione,andPlinyHN 7.151 describes him as the poorest man in Arcadia.16Fordiscussion of Alkmaion, see Stupperich 225-26.

502 [AJA 100


14/17

SCULPTURE AND TRADITION IN THE BATHS OF ZEUXIPPOSan identification as the poet, but there is no realreason to do so.

Christodoros's reidentification is the result of atroubled response to iconography. To his way of think-ing, a laurel crown was the essential and definingattribute of any seer, and yet there is nothing in theiconography of Alkmaion to warrant such doubt. Stat-ues of Alkmaion do not survive, but depictions ofthe hero in vase painting are consistent in their rep-resentation of the figure without laurel.6l Moreover,it is by no means a prerequisite that seers be shownwith this attribute. No less a figure than Amphiaraosis portrayed without the laurel crown.62As in the case of the Aglaos statue, it is clear thatthe identification was made on the basis of inscrip-tion. In verse 393 Christodoros states that the statuewas labeled and the reidentification as Alkman, it-self presented openly as conjecture, should be under-stood as one based on the need to suggest a namereasonably 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 Constantinopolitanbaths is perfectly in keeping with the inclusion ofmythological figures in thermal settings, and suggestsfurther that the mythological component at theZeuxippos was much richer than the surviving de-scription indicates. Moreover, the puzzled natureof Christodoros's own discussions is interesting in andof itself as an index of contemporary attitudes andexpectations and the kinds of awareness that LateAntique viewers brought to bear on their experienceof such a gathering.

By far the largest number of mythological statuesdescribed, 29 in all, were linked to the Trojan epic,63and their number is large enough to suggest that,at least in the particular sequence described, thespecific moment of the Ilioupersis was meant to beevoked. Lines 143-221 record a series of famouscouples attendant at the fall. Christodoros first men-tions Aeneas and Creusa. Creusa is described as weep-ing, which indicates that she is shown during or afterthe final battle. Statues of Helenos and Andromachefollow, and, after them, in the act of reconciliation,

61 For discussion of Alkmaion and illustrations of hisiconography,see LIMC1.1,546-52, s.v.Alkmaion(I.Kraus-kopf) and LIMC1.2, pls. 410-12, figs. 3-18.62For Amphiaraos, see LIMCI.1, 691-713, s.v.Amphi-araos (I. Krauskopf) and LIMC1.2, pls. 555-69. See esp.pls. 564-65 for sculptural representations.63The full roster of Trojancharacters ncludedAchilles,theLocrianandTelemonianAjaxes,Andromache,Calchas,Cassandra,Charidemos, Chryses,Clytios, Creusa,Dares,

Menelaos and Helen. Several other pairs are noted:Odysseus with his concubine Hecuba; Cassandra andher rapist, the Locrian Ajax; Pyrrhus and Polyxena;and, finally, the reunited Oenone and Paris. Manyof the figures documented as single statues also wereconnected with the city's fall. In fact, of the charac-ters mentioned, only two, Sarpedon and Chryses, arewithout any connection to the sack.Because the Ekphrasissurvives incomplete, the sig-nificance of inclusion or omission is not clear. It maybe that other characters from this and other storieswere displayed. The presence of Sarpedon and Chry-ses together with characters from the Theban cyclecertainly suggests as much, as does the mention oftwo stray figures, Amphytryon (lines 367-71) and awrestler, which Christodoros identifies variously asMilo of Croton, Philo, or Philammon (lines 228-40).It may well be, therefore, that surviving referencesto the city'sfall represent but one aspect of the decor'soverall mythological content, in which case it wouldbe unwise to set too much store by them.

Stupperich, however, is convinced of the primacyof the Trojan imagery and argues that it was designedto project the image of Constantinople as the NewTroy.He uses the alleged placement of the Palladionunder the Column of Constantine together with re-marks by ancient and medieval historians to supportthis stance;64 none of this evidence, however, offersthe support necessary to buttress the claim.When excavated, the Column of Constantine re-vealed no trace of the Palladion or any of the relicsalleged to have been immured with it. Although thislack of evidence is certainly not enough to deny out-right that the relic may once have existed, recentscholarship has argued convincingly that the legendof its placement postdates the sixth century.65The literary sources offer equally flimsy support.Stupperich cites two Late Antique authors, Sozo-men and Zosimos, together with a third, Byzantinehistorian, 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 read-ing of the texts, however, makes it clear that not oneof these authors makes this claim. At the beginningof a long passage dedicated to a discussion of the

Deiphobos, Entellos, Hecuba, Helen, Helenos, Lampon,Menelaos,Odysseus,Oenone,Paris,Polyxena,Pyrrhos twostatues), Sarpedon, and Thymoetes. Most of the figuresarementioned byHomer,but some, such asDaresand En-tellos, owe their Trojanorigins to Virgil.64Stupperich 235.65See A. Cameron, "The Foundation of Constantino-ple: MythsAncient and Modern,"ByzantineStudies Con-ference, Abstractsf Papers Durham 1983) 33.

1996] 503


15/17

SARAH GUBERTI BASSETTfoundation of Constantinople, Sozomen, who wroteat the end of the fifth century, states that Constan-tine founded a city on the Hellespont at the site ofAjax's tomb. He then goes on to say that this citywas abandoned by Constantine in favor of Byzantiumas the result of a divine vision.66Thus, although Soz-omen mentions Troy,he in no way conflates the city'sidentity with that of Constantinople. Sozomen's ver-sion of events is echoed by Zosimos, who wrote atthe turn of the sixth century. Like his predecessor,Zosimos reports that there were two distinct foun-dations, the first on the Hellespont, the second atByzantium. Of the former he observes that it wasestablished between Sigeion and Ilium.67Troy, in hisversion, is but one element of a two-headed geograph-ical marker. The third author, Zonaras, wrote in the12th century. He states that Constantine consideredseveral sites in the Troad before settling upon By-zantium. Troy does not even figure in the list of can-didates."8

Apart from the lack of supporting evidence, it isalso the case that neither the subject matter nor thescale and consistency of the Zeuxippos imagery iswithout precedent. Characters from the Trojan epicwere displayed together with other mythologicalthemes in the Baths of Caracalla69 and the Hadri-anic Baths at Aphrodisias.7" While only one or twofigures survive from each of these settings, it ispossible that there were more statues from the sametheme in those complexes. Extensive iconographiccycles certainly existed, as a series of Herakles stat-ues at Lambaesis indicates.71

In addition to the fact that episodes from the Tro-jan epic are present in other baths, it is also worthrecalling 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 oneverything from household silver and toilet articlesto shields.72 It is more likely, therefore, that the Tro-jan images at the bath were expected to entertainand delight in much the same manner, with the differ-

;3Sozomenus 2.3.1-3.67 Zosimus 2.30.1.68 Zonaras 13.3.1-3.i'9Manderscheidno. 64. The subjectmatter is identifiedas Troiluswith Hector or Achilles. Marvin 358-63 favorsthe identification as Achilles.7"Manderscheid nos. 250-51. These are statues ofAchilles and Penthesileia, and Menelaos and Patroklos.71Manderscheid nos. 489-97.72Forexamples, see K. Weitzmanned., TheAgeof Spiri-tuality(New York 1979) nos. 195-97, 200, 201.73Manderscheid 34-38 discusses the use of portraiture.The followingportraitsstood in the Zeuxippos:Aischines,

Alcibiades, Anaximenes,Apuleius,Aristotle,JuliusCaesar,Cratinus, Demokritos, Demosthenes, Erinna, Euripides,

ence that they would have done so on a monumental,public scale.Portraits

The Zeuxippos collection also remained faithfulto the traditions of thermal decor in its inclusionof portraiture.73 Throughout the Roman world thiselement was standard in bath displays. Such collec-tions commonly included statues of emperors andmembers of the imperial family, priests, magistrates,local benefactors, and grandees, contemporary fig-ures linked, more often than not, to the particularhistory of the place. This was the case, for example,in the Hadrianic Baths at Aphrodisias.74 Of the 30pieces of sculpture found, 15 were portraits. Of these,possibly only one, a statue of Valentinian II, wouldhave enjoyed empire-wide recognition. The remain-ing 14, male and female, were representations ofimportant local citizens whose presence was at oncehonorific and descriptive. Through them Aphrodi-sias paid homage to its benefactors, and, by relyingon a concept of the past that focused on the deedsof famous individuals, described the unique historyof the place that allowed it, as a community, to takeits place with pride among the cities of the empire.

Although the Zeuxippos collection included por-traits, the gathering at the Zeuxippos was anomalousin 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 contemporaryfigure.75The remaining 33 showed historical figuresfrom pre-Homeric times through the second centuryA.D. Subjects included poets, philosophers, militaryfigures, historians, and statesmen. Within this groupthe overwhelming emphasis was on the representa-tives of Classical Greek civilization: 16 of the por-traits depicted fifth- or fourth-century B.C. Greeks.As with the deities and mythological figures, thelacunary nature of the Ekphrasismakes anyjudgmentabout the significance of inclusion or omission prob-

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.74Manderscheid nos. 229-58. See esp. 235-49 for theportraits.75Fl. Pompeius was a nephew of Anastasius (449-518)and consul in the Eastin 501. See A. Cameron and R.Bag-nail, Consuls f theLaterRomanEmpireAtlanta 1987) 537.Stupperich 225-26 reidentifies the figure as Pompey theGreat,arguingthat such an identification is more appro-priate to his proposed display scheme. There is, however,no reason to doubt Christodoros's dentification.

504 [AJA 100


16/17

SCULPTURE AND TRADITION IN THE BATHS OF ZEUXIPPOSlematic. It is difficult to know just what to make ofthe overwhelming emphasis on historical characters.That Fl. Pompeius was the only contemporary figureto stand with the bath'shistorical portraits is unlikely.At the same time, however, its fifth-century date makesit obvious that the figure was a post-Constantinianaddition, possibly one of several figures dedicatedin the baths in 467.76This late date suggests that theinitial fourth-century gathering was set up with a coreof historical figures to which it was expected that,as in other baths, contemporary figures would beadded 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 havebeen populated with characters representative of thepre-Constantinian city's history. Instead it was hometo the great heroes of Greek and Roman culture, menand women who from the dawn of recorded historyhad shaped and achieved status within the distinc-tive Graeco-Roman cultural canon. The choice, whichcould not possibly have been accidental, was under-stood by Stupperich as the description of a poeticdynasty that began with Homer and ended withChristodoros himself. This subject was for him thenatural complement to the Trojan War theme, whichknitted the various sculptural categories into a co-hesive whole.77Apart from the difficulties associatedwith dealing with the Trojan War theme in the man-ner suggested by Stupperich, this interpretation isunsatisfactory in that it ignores the fact that manyof the historical figures are not poets. Statesmen,philosophers, military figures, and literati of vari-ous types occupied equal space with poets in thebaths. In fact, of the 33 historical personages re-corded, only 11 were poets.It is more likely that the selection of historicalfigures was the product of Constantine's own aspi-rations for his city. Constantinople was founded asthe capital of the Roman Empire, and, as such, itwas required to serve the empire as a whole. Giventhese circumstances and the Zeuxippos's status asthe new capital's premier bath, the collection's em-phasis on Greek and, to a lesser extent, Romanhistorical figures at the expense of locals shouldcome as no surprise. Of what interest could thepetty and obscure details of Byzantium's relativelybanal and at times inglorious past have been to thecitizens of the greater Roman Empire? In stakingits claims to capital status, Constantinople neededto transcend the specificity of time and place to create

a universal frame of reference. Only then could itstand unrivaled among the already distinguishedcities 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 cit-izens, these figures created a new version of events.With them the petty, sometimes sordid details of lo-cal history were pushed aside and the monumentalsweep of the Graeco-Roman past was embraced asthe city's own. This shift in focus exchanged paro-chial vision and sentiment for one that was moreuniversal in scope. Through it the capital's historybecame not only that of the Roman Empire, but also,and more portentously, the history of civilizationitself. It was this sort of revisionist history that en-visioned Constantinople as nothing less than theheir to and guardian of the cultural and historicallegacy of Greece and Rome.CONCLUSIONS

What was it that inspired Constantine, a man other-wise unknown for his intellectual leanings, to set suchstore by cultural tradition in creating this image ofpower? In part, the answer lies in the nature of theplace. The choice of the Zeuxippos as a setting forsculpture together with the categories of represen-tation was predetermined by the traditions of Ro-man thermal decor. The sheer weight of urban tra-dition made it unthinkable that the premier bathin the Roman Empire's capital city should continueto stand unadorned. What is less obvious is the rea-soning behind the emphasis on the Graeco-Romanpast. On the one hand, the desire to claim continu-ity with a rich cultural heritage seems straightfor-ward enough. In so doing the emperor establishedan indissoluble link with the past that lent dignityto his city by describing it as the steward of a nobletradition. On the other hand, it is less clear why sucha position should have been necessary. What signifi-cant difference could the city's relationship to theintellectual patrimony of the Graeco-Roman worldhave made to the efficacy of its rule?The image of power consolidated at the Zeuxip-pos derived from Late Antique assumptions aboutthe nature of authority. In the later Roman Empire,access to power was, by tradition, a function of ed-ucation and its accompanying cultural polish. In thisscheme of things education meant but one thing:mastery of the literary and rhetorical traditions ofthe Greek paideia. Such mastery found its ideal ex-pression in the sophisticated control of language,

76 ChroniconPaschale (supra n. 2) 595B.

1996] 505

77Stupperich 225, 231-33.


17/17

506 S. GUBERTI BASSETT, SCULPTURE AND TRADITION IN THE BATHS OF ZEUXIPPOSgesture, and reference, which was itself emblematicof the decorous self-control that was so much theproperty of the empire's ruling elite. Commandedby a few, paideia was, paradoxically, a unifying force,as it created an empire-wide frame of reference thatallowed members of the elite to recognize and inter-act with one another.78East and West, from the provincial level on up,it was on the basis of this high culture that claimsto leadership and authority were pressed. The ad-vantage in accepting them was clear: education inthe paideia was understood as a guarantee of moralfiber. Only a man trained in this tradition could berelied upon to possess the combined merits of dutyand vision necessary to the governing task.79It is in the light of this concept of authority thatthe Zeuxippos collection should be understood. Themassed historical figures stood as the embodimentof paideia: these were the very men and womenwhose works and deeds had shaped the educationalcanon, upheld its distinctive traditions, and giventhe Roman elite its universal mode of discourse. Assuch their presence in the bath had considerablymore far-reaching implications than their revision-ist historical function might at first suggest. In ad-dition to rewriting the history of Constantinople,these figures linked the city and its eponymous em-peror to the true and indisputable source of LateAntique power, the moral authority vested in thepaideia.As the very existence of historical figures for reuseat the Zeuxippos suggests, the visual appeal to thepaideia was a common theme throughout antiquity.From the Hellenistic age through the third centuryA.D., representations of literary and historical figuresin the form of portrait busts, herms, and freestand-ing full-length statues are known from public andprivate settings as diverse as libraries, gardens, por-ticoes, and lararia.8"The theme was also taken up in mosaic and paint-ing. An early third-century mosaic pavement fromTrier shows portrait busts of Greek and Roman li-terati in a unifying geometrical frame,81 as does a

78See generally W.Jaeger, Paideia: TheIdealsof GreekCul-ture, rans.G.Highet (Oxford 1936);and H. Marrou,A His-toryofEducation in Antiquity (London 1956) 95-100. On theroleof the paideia in LateAntiquity, ee R.A.Kaster,Guard-ians ofLanguage:TheGrammarianand Society n LateAntiquity(Berkeley 1988); and P. Brown, Power and Persuasion in LateAntiquityMadison 1992), esp. 35-70.79Brown (supra n. 78) 38.80See T.Lorenz, GalerienvongrieschischenPhilosophenundDichterbildnissen bei den Romern (Mainz 1965).81 K. Parlasca, Die romischenMosaikenin Deutschland(Ber-lin 1959) 41-43, pls. 42-47.

later third-century pavement from Cologne.82 In theEast, at Baalbek, a similar pavement was found.83Like the Cologne and Trier mosaics with which itis contemporary, this pavement portrays revered phi-losophers in a geometric setting. Fifth-century fres-coes of Socrates and Chilon from the Slope Housesat Ephesos testify to the sustained, seemingly uni-versal appeal of the theme.84These examples suggest that the Zeuxippos collec-tion differed in degree but not in kind from the dec-orative environments that well-placed citizens in thelater Roman world constructed for themselves in anattempt to link and so enrich their own lives withthe values of the paideia. It was, in effect, the mon-umental realization of a widely cherished culturalideal, a project that drew upon the collective imageof self-definition propagated by the empire's rulingelite.

With the weight of paideia behind it, the Zeuxip-pos asserted Constantinople's unquestioned rightto authority over the cities of the empire and in sodoing gave a new, but comfortably recognizable, twistto conventional bath iconography. To the traditionalmix of images centered on concepts of health andhealing, mental delight, and local honor, the Zeuxip-pos added the more portentous imagery of empire.As part of the city's monumental imperial core itwas well placed to do so. Nor was it the only buildingto undertake such a task. Next door in the hippo-drome, sculpture was used to similar effect. In themilitary and political terms appropriate to the cir-cus and its activities, the city was described as NewRome, the legitimate heir to the rights and privilegesof Old Rome itself.85 In asserting Constantinopol-itan primacy in the cultural terms appropriate tothe bath, the Zeuxippos formed the perfect comple-ment to the hippodrome and became its ideal pen-dant. Together bath and circus argued for and createdan image of imperiumunrivaled on any and all fronts.

840 MONTGOMERY AVENUEAPARTMENT 802BRYN MAWR, PENNSYLVANIA 19010

82 Parlasca (supra n. 81) 80-82, pls. 80-82.83 G.M.A. Richter, The Portraits of the Greeks 1 (London1965) 81, fig. 314.84 V.M. Strocka, EphesosVIII.1: Die WandmalereiderHang-hduser in Ephesos(Vienna 1977) 114-18, pls. 263-65. An ear-lier first-century fresco of Socrates is also mentioned. See93-98, pls. 194, 196. With respect to the Slope Houses andtheir decoration, Hanfmann (supra n. 38) remarks thattheir unique and important contribution is the extent towhich they demonstrate a democratization of ideas.85 See Guberti Bassett (supra n. 43).

Documents

Historiae Custos Sculpture and Tradition in the Baths of Zeuxippos