Downey - Justinian as Achilles.pdf

8/16/2019 Downey - Justinian as Achilles.pdf

1/11

American Philological Association and Johns Hopkins University Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserveand extend access to Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association.

http://www.jstor.org

merican Philological ssociation

Justinian as AchillesAuthor(s): Glanville DowneySource: Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Vol. 71 (1940), pp.

68-77Published by: Johns Hopkins University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/283115Accessed: 12-12-2015 14:00 UTC

EFERENCESLinked references are available on JSTOR for this article:http://www.jstor.org/stable/283115?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents

You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of contentin a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 129.96.252.188 on Sat, 12 Dec 2015 14:00:12 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhuphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/283115http://www.jstor.org/stable/283115?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contentshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/283115?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contentshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/283115http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhuphttp://www.jstor.org/


2/11

68

Glanville

owney

[1940

VII.-Justinian s Achilles

GLANVILLE

DOWNEY

YALE

UNIVERSITY

This paper studies

the background and

significance

of the

equestrian

statue

of Justinian

which

stood

on a column

at

Constantinople.

The monument

was

supposed

to

represent

the Emperor

as Achilles, a

comparison

chosen

in order

to

exemplify

the prince's

valor.

The

motives which

may have prompted

the

erec-

tion

of the

statue

are

reviewed,

and its

significance

as a part

of

the imperial

symbolism and propaganda is discussed.

Among

the

most notable contributions

hich have

been

made

in recent

years

to

our knowledge f

Roman

and Byzantine

history

are the

studies

of

J.

Gage

and

A.

Grabar

on the

theology

of the

Victoria

Augusti

and on the

iconography

f

the emperor

n

official

Byzantine

art.' Gage

has shown with admirable

clarity

the im-

portance

of

the

conception

by

which

the

emperor,

s commander-

in-chief

f

the

armies,

came

to

be regarded

as

possessing

entire

responsibility or theirvictories,and enjoyingthe sole and per-

petual

right

of

celebrating

riumphs

for

them. The sovereign-

gentis

humanae

pater

atque

custos-was,

by

virtue

of his

office,

n

infallible

ictor,

nd the

power

with

which

he

was

endowed

in

this

respect

extended

tself

o all the other activities

nd

circumstances

of

his

reign.

The ChristianEmperor

nherited

he

perpetual

power

of victory

of

his

pagan

predecessor;

n

addition,

he served

as the

vice-gerent

f

God

on

earth,

and was looked

upon

as the source

of

all good things nd the fount f all wisdomand law.2

These

conceptions

re at the core

ofthe official

rt of

Byzantium.

Grabar

has

assembled

and studied

the monuments-in

mosaic,

sculpture,

painting,

vory-carving,

extile

and

jewellery-in

which

the

emperor's

official

personality

was

constantly

set before

his

subjects.

A

whole

cycle

ofthemes

portrayed

he

sovereign's

unc-

tions

and

powers,

and illustrated

his

automatic

power

of

victory.

The

emperor

was shown

conquering

demons

and

barbarians

and

receiving he homageof his captives and his vassals. One of the

1

J. Gage,

La

theologie

de

la victoire

imperiale,

Revue

historique

CLXXI

(1933),

1-43,

and

Stauros

nikopoios.

La victoire

imperiale

dans

1'empire

chretien,

Revue

d'histoire

et

de

philosophie

religieuses

xiii

(1933),

370-400;

A.

Grabar,

L'empereur

dans

Itart

byzantin:

recherches

ur

l'art

officiel

e

l'empire

d'orient

(Paris,

Belles

Lettres,

1936).

2

See

also

the

studies

cited

by

the

present

writer,

T.A.P.A.

LXIX

(1938),

356,

n. 14.


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


3/11

Vol. lxxi]

Justinian s

Achilles

69

important

hemeswas that

of

the

royalhunt,

n

which

the

emperor

appeared

as

a

glorious

nd

invincible

untsman,

laying

ll

manner

of terrifying ild beasts. Prowess in the chase was (the literary

texts

how) equated

with

prowess

n

war,

and in

these cenes

which

had

a

long ancestry

going

back

to

Egyptian

and

Mesopotamian

art)

the

ruler'straditional

ower

of

victory

n

the huntwas

treated

as a

symbolof

his

triumphs ver his

enemies.

An

important lace

in

this

triumphal ycle

was

occupied by

the

equestrian

statues of the

emperors,

monumentswhich served ad-

mirably to

depict the

military

prowess

of the rulers.

One of

the

most mportant f thesewas a statue ofJustinian t Constantinople.

Erected on

top of a pillar n

the

Augustaeum, his

statueoccupied

one of the most

commanding

ites

in

the

city.

The statue

itself,

being

of

bronze,

has

disappeared,

but there re a

number f

iterary

descriptions f

it,notably one

by

Procopius, nd a

drawingof the

statue has also been

preserved,

made in

the

early

fifteenth

entury

at

the

behest of the

traveler

nd

antiquary

Cyriacus of

Ancona.3

Procopius describes the statue

as follows:

4

On the top of thecolumn tands greatbronzehorse, urned owards

the

east,

a

very wonderful

ight.

It seems

to

be

moving,

nd

to

be-

pressing

orward

plendidly. It

raises

one of ts fore

eet,

s though t

were

bout to

step

forward,

nd

plants he

other n

the stone

beneath;

and it

gathers

ts hind

feet

ogether

n

readiness o

move. And on

this

horse

s

seated

a

bronze tatue of

the

emperor,ike a

colossus.

The

statue

s

arrayed

s

Achilles; or

hus

they all

thedress

schema]

hich

he wears.

He is

shod with

half-bootsnd

the egs

are bare

ofgreaves.

Then

he

wears

breastplate,

n

the

heroic ashion,

nd a

helmet overs

hishead,giving he mpressionhat t is nodding,nd a dazzling ightflashes rom t. Onemight ay, n poetic anguage, hatthiswas that

starof

the atesummer

eason

Sirius].

He

looks

oward herising

un,

commanding

he

Persians,

believe,

o

stop. And

in

his

lefthand he

3

A

list

of

the

literary

sources is

given

by

Th.

Reinach, Revue

des etudes

grecques

x

(1896), 82,

note

3; the

principal

passages

are also

cited

by P. E.

Schramm,

Das Herr-

scherbild in

der Kunst des

friehen

Mittelalters

(Vortrage

der

Bibliothek

Warburg,

ii)

Leipzig,

Teubner,

1922/3,

154-155;

and

many of them

are

translated

by

F. W.

Unger,

Quellen

der

byz.

Kunstgeschichte

(Vienna,

1878),

137-146.

The

best

reproduction

is

provided by G.

Rodenwaldt,

Archaologischer

Anzeiger,

1931,

331-334;

this, a

photo-

graph of the original, is more accurate than the simplified line drawings which had

previously

been

published,

e.g.

by

Ch.

Diehl,

Justinien

(Paris,

Leroux,

1901),

27,

fig. 11, and

by

H.

Leclereq,

Justinien, in

Cabrol-Leclercq,

Dict.

d'archeol.

chret. t

de

liturgie,

viii,

1, col.

530,

fig.

6428.

The

reproduction

used

as the

frontispiece in

the

edition

of

Procopius,

De

Aedificiis,

by

H.

B.

Dewing

with

the

collaboration

of

the

present

writer,

n

the

Loeb

Classical

Library,

is

taken

from

Rodenwaldt's

publication.

4

De A

edificiis

1.2.5-12.




4/11

70

Glanville

owney

[1940

carries

globe, he

culptor

howingn

this

way that he

whole

arth nd

sea are

subject

to

him; he

has neither

wordnor spear

nor

any

other

weapon,

ut

the

cross

tandsuponhis

globe,

hrough

hich

lone

he has

wonhis empire nd hismasteryn war. Andstretchingut his right

hand toward

he

east,

and spreading

is fingers,

e bids

the

barbarians

in those egions

o

remain

ntheir

wn

country,

nd advance

no further.

The

significance

f

the statue

in

the triumphal

cycle

is clear

from

rocopius'

description.

Grabar

n

his discussion

f themonu-

ment

emphasizes

he

symbolism

f

thecross

mounted

on the globe

which

the

emperor

carried;

this was the

oravpoS

VMKOWOL6s,

the

sign

which,from

the time

of

Constantine,

had

given

victory

to the

emperor.

The

most

intriguing

spect

of

the

statue

is that

it is said

to

represent

he

emperor

as

Achilles.

Grabar

points

out

6

that

the

identification

f

the emperor

erewithAchilles

eflects

he

tendency,

which was

a natural

one

at

Byzantium

(especially

n

view

of the

conventions

f

rhetoric

nd the

panegyric),

o

illustrate

he valor

of the prince

by

comparing

im

with the heroes

of

antiquity.

This

is

of

course the

chief

point,

but

the

statue

still

suggests

further

questions. Why the choice of this particularGreek hero? Did

this character

reside

n

the

form nd

appearance

of the

statue,

or

was it the personality

nd

history

f

Achilles,

rather

han

the

cos-

tume

alone,

which

gave

the

statue its

significance?

What

icono-

graphic

source

or

tradition

would be

represented

y

the choice of

this

guise

for

a statue

of

the

emperor?

And did

Justinian

himself

ever actually

appear

in this

fashion,

r was

he

represented

n

this

way

only

n

the

statue?

Answers

o some of these

questions

have

been offered y G. Rodenwaldt whoseworkon thispointwas not

utilized

by

Grabar).

There

remains,

n

addition,

a

literary

ext,

unknown

o

both

of these

scholars,

which

provides

notable

back-

ground

for

the

monument

nd enables

us to understand

ts

origin

a

little

better.

Firsc

we

may

look

at

Rodenwaldt'sconclusions.

He

examines

the statue

in a

review

of the ancient Renaissances

and

their

character.7

The

mode

of

expression

common

to each

of

these

renaissancess theconscious doption,byan ageofgrowingtrength,

of classical

or classicistic

models

for the

representation

f

its

own

individual

nature.

Such

phenomena

can

be

perceived

at

various

5

Op.

cit. (see

note 1),

46-47.

6

Op.

cit.,

94-95.

7

Abstract

of a

lecture,

Archdologischer

Anzeiger

(see

note 3),

318-338.




5/11

Vol.

lxxi]

Justinian s

Achilles

71

periods

of

Roman

history, ne of which

is

the

age

of

Justinian.

F.

Pringsheim,

n

an

essay

on Die archaistische

Tendenz

Jus-

tinians, findsevidence that the emperor's legal work is not

merely

purelypractical

n

its

scope,

but reflects lso a kind of

aca-

demic

effort t

the

re-creation f

antiquity. Justinian's

whole

program

was, indeed,felt

n

his own time

to be a

renovatio

f

the

Imperium

Romanum.9

Rodenwaldt

ees

indications

f

this

archaiz-

ing

tendency

n

various characteristics

f

the art of the

period,

nd

one

of

the

monuments

which he

discusses

n

this

connection

s

the

Achillesstatue.

Seeking

a reason forthe

use

of

the

term

Achilles,

Rodenwaldtwas able to suggestonlythatthe statuerepresented

reminiscence

f

the statues

of

the

type

described

by

Pliny

(N.H.

34.5.10.18):

Togatae

effigies

ntiquitus

ita

dicabantur.

Placuere

et nudae

tenenteshastam ab

epheborum

gymnasiis

xemplaribus,

quas

Achilleas vocant.

Graeca

res

nihil

velare,

at

contra

Romana

ac

militaris

horacas addere. The

connection

between

these

nude

figures

nd

the

armed

effigy

f

Justinian

s rather

difficult

o

per-

ceive,

as

Rodenwaldt

recognizes;

he

concludes,

however:

0

Bei

dem

oXnyta

AXLXXEtover

EL'KwcV

lIsst sich kaum die Vermutung

vermeiden,

ass

hier ine unklare

Erinnerung

n

die

effigies

chilleae

des Plinius

vorliegt,

bwohldiese weder

Mantel noch

Panzer

haben.

Schwerlichhat

Justinian

e das

klassische

Kosttim

der

Statue ge-

tragen,die

Worte

AXLXXEtS

nd

fpLKCOS

lehren

klar die

der

Antike

zugewandte Idee

des Kunstwerks.

Apparently he

obscurity r

uncertainty

which

would

have existed

if

Justinian's

tatue

were

a

reminiscence f

the

type

mentioned

by

Pliny

would be,

in Roden-

waldt's opinion,one morecharacteristic fthearchaizing endency

which

was

responsible or the

emperor's

ppearance

in

this

guise.

The

backgroundof the

statue

is

considerably

lteredand

am-

plified

y

an

historical

pisode

which

both

Grabar

and

Rodenwaldt

overlooked.

This

occurred while the

usurper

Basiliscus

occupied

the

thronewhich had

been

abandoned

by

the

EmperorZeno

(A.D.

475-476).

Basiliscus

had

a

nephew named

Armatus,

a

foolish

and

effeminate

oung man

with

an

unpleasantstreak

of

cruelty.

ArmatusbecametheloverofBasiliscus'wife, heAugustaZenonis,

and

she

persuaded her

husband to

grant

him

high

office.

The

8

Studi

in onore

di

P.

Bonfante

(Milan,

Treves,

1930),

i.551-587, cited

by Roden-

waldt.

9

Corippus,

In

laudem

Justini

1.185ff.

Mon. Germ.

Hist.,

Auct.

Antiq.,

iii.122).

0

Op.

cit.

(see note

3),

334-335.




6/11

72

Glanville

owney

[1940

young

fopwas

made magistermilitum. 1

This sudden

advancement

to

a

post

of

honor,

plus themoneywhich

he now had

at his disposal,

elated the youthbeyond all measure. By the paradoxicalprocess

which

on

occasion

emerges

n such a character,

he young

man of

fashionbegan to

thinkof himself s a

warrior istinguished

orhis

valor.

This

delusion

so obsessed him (writesCandidus,

the

con-

temporary

historian

who

recounts

the

episode) that

he began to

wear the costume

of Achilles

TKEV)

'AXLXXEws)nd

to ride about

in

this fashion

on his

horse,

and parade

insolently efore he

people

in the hippodrome.

2

His

vanity was still further

puffed

up

when the mob began to call him Pyrrhus;this was actually an

allusion

to

his

rosy cheeks,

but he took

it as a compliment

o

his

courage.

The episode

is a

rather

trivial

one,

and Armatus

did not long

survive

the return

f Zeno to power.

Yet it

casts some light,not

only

on

thisparticular

bit of

imperial

ymbolism,

nd Justinian's

adoptionof t,but

on

the way

in

which uchsymbolism

was regarded

by the

populace

at the

time.

The incidentbrings

further

roof-

ifsuchwere needed-that the costumeor character of Achilles

would

in

such

a

connectionbe a

symbol

of

bravery

and

courage,

and

it

is

evident

that this

s

the

explanation

f

Justinian's

doption

of the

schema. The

episode

also

indicatesthat the

people

who saw

Armatus,

nd found

him

ridiculous,

were

pretty

well

alive

to

the

symbolical

meaning

of

such

a

costume;

Armatus' ppearance

in

the

dress would certainly

have fallen rather flat

if

people

had not

known,

without being told,

what

it

stood

for. Candidus did not

think

it

necessary

to

explain

to his readers the

significance

f

the

Achilles costume

-neither did

Procopius.

The

fact

that

people

found

Armatus

ridiculous

uggests

lso that

they

would take

the

emperor's ppearance

insuch a schema

eriously.

It is

evident

that

they regarded

uch

a

schema

s

peculiarly

fitted

or,

nd

re-

served to,

the

emperor;

for f

people

would

have been inclined

to

laugh

at

such

symbolism

n an

emperor

as

well as

in

Armatus,

Justinian

would

hardly

have had himself

ortrayed

n this fashion

11

On the episode see J. B. Bury, History of the Later Roman Empire (London,

Macmillan,

1923),

i.392;

E. W. Brooks,

in the

Cambridge

Medieval

History,

I

(Cam-

bridge,

Univ.

Press,

1911), 473;

and

E.

Stein,

Geschichte

des

spdtr6mischen

Reiches,

I:

Vom romischen

zum

byzantinischen

taate

(Vienna,

Seidel, 1928),

537.

12

This fragment

of

Candidus

is

preserved

by Suidas,

s.v.

'ApaWTos

= F.H.G.,

iv.117. The fragment

was formerly assigned

to

Malchus,

but

it now

seems

more

likely

that

it comes

from Candidus

(see

Bury,

op.

cit.

[see

note

11],

i.392, nn.

1-2).




7/11

Vol.

lxxi]

Justinian

s

Achilles

73

(especially

ince

many

of

the

people

who

saw

the

statuemust

have

known

about the

episode

of

Armatus).

Evidently

the

Achilles

costume was considered o be dignified nough, nd well enough

established as a

part

of

the

imperial

ymbolism,

or

Justinian

o

run no

risk

of

making

himself

idiculous

y

appearing

n it.

So,

at

least,

the

emperor

himself

must

have

thought.

Thus it

may

be

that when

people

laughed

at Armatus

they

were

aughing

not

only

at

his

pretensions o

being a

man of

valor,

but also at his

adopting,

for

this,

a

costume

which

belonged

to the

emperor.

Of

course

t is no

longer

necessary

o

attempt

o

account for

he

typeofthestatueofJustinian ysupposing hat twas an unklare

Erinnerung of

the

type

described

by

Pliny.

It was the

character

of

Achilles

ratherthan

simply the

type

of

the statue

itself,

which

gave the

effigy

f the

emperor

ts

significance. It

might

e

claimed

that

the

appearance

of

Justinian

n

this

guise

represented

merely

an

artistic

tradition,

nd that

the

representation f a Roman

em-

peror

as

Achilles

had come

to

be so

much

of

a

convention hat

any

original

ymbolism

had been

lost.

The

episode of

Armatus,

how-

ever, tells heavily against this view; forthe significance f the

schema

f

Achilles

wouldhave

had

to be

very

generally

ecognizable

when

Armatus

paraded

himself n

his

costume.

Moreover, f the

symbolical

significance

f the

costume

as

a

part of

the

imperial

regalia

had

come to

be

forgotten,

hile t the

sametime

the

costume

itself

continued

to be

used

simply

by

artistic

tradition,

he

sym-

bolism

could

scarcely

have

gone

unrecognized

fter

the

publicity

which t

had

received

from

Armatus.

Armatus'

effort

ikewiseplaces

on

a

different

asis the

questionwhether

Justinian ver

actuallywore

the

costume.

If, as

Roden-

waldt

supposed,

the

emperor

ould

scarcely

have

worn

the

costume

himself, ut

appeared

in

this

fashion

nly

nthe

statue, the

erection

of

the

monument

might

be

taken as

another

manifestation

f

an

archaizing

tendency.

Now,

however,

Armatus'

conduct

suggests

that it

is

very

possible

that

the

emperor

ppeared

in

this

guise

on

appropriate

ceremonial

occasions,

for

example

(like

Armatus)

in

the

hippodrome.

The

comic

episode

of

the

empress'

young

over

need not have preventedJustinian rom singthecostume; ndeed

the

experience

f seeing

t

wornby a

pretender

ike

Armatus

might

have

the

effect,

y

way of

contrast, f

makingthe

costume,

when

worn

by

the

emperor,

eem

more

mportant,

nd

more

appropriate

to

the

ruler.




8/11

74 Glanville

owney

[1940

While

Grabar's work

has

made

the

primary

ignificance

f the

statue-its

official

heological

meaning-clear,

a word

may

be

said

about some of the motiveswhich lay behind the makingof the

monument.

One

ofthe

things

hat

comes

to

mind

here

s Justinian's

vanity.

Many

ofhis

acts

appear

to betray

personal

vanity

which

at times

eems

almost

childish. 3

He named

at least nineteen

ities

for

himself nd

evengave

hisname

to

one of

the

classes

of

students

in

the law-school.

His

theological

activity

gave

him

an

oppor-

tunity

o

display

his

learning,

nd

his

habit

of drawing

p laws

him-

self

enabled

him

to

show

his rhetorical ccomplishments.

It

seems

to have been vanity,too, that was at least in some measurere-

sponsible

for

his

decreeing

n 541 that

the

consulship

should

no

longer

be

held by anyone

but the

emperor;

evidently

he was

not

pleased

by

the thought

that

an

office

which

was

a traditional

dignity

of

the

emperor

should

be held

by

his subjects

as

well.'4

What

if his

setting up

the Achilles

statue

was simply

a piece

of

vanity?

This

might eem

to

be a

major

factor

behind

the

appearance

of

the monument. But there are, of course, other elements. The

symbolism

f

the VictoriaAugusti

and of

the o-ravpOsVLKO7OLOS

was

deeply

rooted

n

the

Roman

state.

And

at the same

time,

t

must

not

be forgotten,

he

Roman emperor

by

virtue

of

his

office

was

surrounded

y

a

glamor

and

a

prestige

which

cholars iving

n

the

world

of

today,

when

monarchy save

in India

and

Japan)

has

become

at

best

a

democratic

nstitution,

ind t hard

to

visualize.

It

is

true

that

the

emperor's

dignity

nd authority

were

sometimes

precarious. But when an emperor, n addition to claimingthe

respect

nd

even

veneration

o which

he was traditionally

ntitled,

could

like

Justinian

point

to achievements

which

overshadowed

those

of his

predecessors,

is prestige

must

have

been

enormously

increased.

The

statue

in

another way

also represents

tradition

which

was

of

mportance

n the

peculiar

political

nd theological

rganiza-

tion

of the later

empire.

The images

oftheemperors

which

played

a central part in the old imperialcult survived, long withmany

otherusages

of this

cult,

n the Christian

mpire,

nd

continued

o

13

See,

for

example,

Diehl,

op.

cit.

(see

note

3),

19-20,

and

E.

Stein,

Justinian,

Johannes

der

Kappadozier

und

das

Ende

des Konsulats,

Byzantinische

Zeitschrift

xx

(1929/30),

376-381.

14

This

is

pointed

out

by Stein,

loc. cit.

(see

note

13),

380.




9/11

Vol.

lxxi]

Justinian

s Achilles

75

form n

important

lement

n

the

emperor's

official haracter

nd

position. The

imperial

tatues and

images

were

of

course

no

longer

worshiped,but theyreceiveda venerationwhichwas, in the new

circumstances,

counterpart

f

the

old

worship.

The

statues

of

the

emperors

like

thatof

Justinian)

now served

to

evoke

and

focus

a

feelingwhichwas

a

simple

manifestation

f

oyalty,

nd

a

recog-

nitionof

the

divine

protectionwhich

gave

a

superhuman haracter

to the

emperor's

power.

5

This leads to

a final

point.

The

word

propaganda

today

has

unattractive

and rather ludicrous connotations.

Yet

one

must

realize that it was carriedout systematically,kilfully,nd on the

whole

successfully y

the

Roman

emperors,

who

needed to

keep

their

programs

nd

their functions

ver before

the

eyes

of

their

subjects, and had to

do this with

means

quite

different

rom

he

various

devices

which are

available

today.

Much

of

this

work

was

not

propaganda

as it is

understood

today, but,

as

has

been

pointed

out

by

Charlesworth,'6

s

better alled the

creation

of

good-

will.

The mottoes

on

coins,

the

reminders

n

the building

nscrip-

tions,the imperial magesand statues,all servedto bringhome to

the

people

of

the

empire

the

existence nd

activities

of

theirrulers

and

the

benefits

nd

the

protection

for

which

they might

ook

to

them. This

exploitation

was

not

only

legitimate

but

necessary.

Any statue

of

a Roman

emperor

thus

had

a

connotation

and

a

special significance

which

would

not occur

to us

automatically.

And this

statue of

Justinian's

epresented

part ofthe

same tradi-

tional

message

from

he

emperor

o his

subjects. A

statue

such as

this was one oftheways inwhichJustinian ould remindpeople of

what he had

done, and could, at

the same

time,create the

atmos-

phere

n

which he

wished

his reign o be

regarded.

Everyonewho

saw

the statue-and

many

people saw it

every

day-would

be made

to

think

of the

military

chievements f

the emperor nd

of what

his

reign still

promised.

The tradition

of the

VictoriaAugusti

was

one

which

would seem

of

great

importance o

Justinian, ne

which,

without

necessarily

ny

feeling f

antiquarianism,

e would

be especiallyanxiousto maintain. Tradition,then,and justifiable

pride,

mightwellhave

outweighed

ny elementof

vanity

nvolved,

15L.

Brehier,

Les

survivances

du

culte

imperial

a Byzance, in

L. Brehier

and

P.

Batiffol,

Les

survivances du

culte

imperial romain

(Paris,

Picard,

1920),

60.

16

See M. P.

Charlesworth,

The

Virtues of a

Roman

Emperor:

Propaganda

and

the

Creation

of

Belief,

Proceedings

of

the

British

Academy

xxiii

(1937), 20.




10/11

76

Glanville

owney

[1940

and

may

have been enough

to

save Justinian

rom

eingridiculed,

even though

he may (at

least accordingto some views)

have

de-

served t.

One

of the major questions

in the

history f

the later

Roman

empire s

how it was that

that

empiremanaged

to

maintain

tself

as

long as

it did

in the East, while

ts

westernhalf

gave way

so soon

before

he barbarians.'7

Studies such

as those

of

Gage and Grabar

have

illuminated

he traditions

which

played a leading

part in the

continuation

f the mperial

dea,

andhave also

illustrated

he neces-

sity of examining

he various

manifestations

f this tradition

from

all the possiblepointsofview. The statue of Justinian s Achilles

can claim

an

important

art

n

this tudy.

It illustrates

he

variety

of

the

factors,

ersonal

nd contemporaneous,

hich

could

influence

the

employment

of

the

traditional

symbols, and

contrariwise

t

suggests

he

way

in

which

the

traditional ymbolism,

he

same and

yet

changing,

ould be

used

to

express

the

stamp

of

an

individual

emperor.

For theultimate

uestion

s whyJustinian

hose

Achilles

to represent

himself

nd his reign.

Vanity

may have

played

its

parthere, nd thetraditionmay have given the emperor icenceto

indulge

himself

n

this respect;

yet there

till

remains he

point

that

the

character

f

Achilles

was available

for

Justinian

o adopt

if

he

chose it.

In

a

way

it might

be

said

that not

only

did

Justinian

take

on

the

character

f

Achilles,

but

the

emperor mposed

some

of

his

own character

on

Achilles.

Some

people at

least

must

have

feltvery

strongly

he

glamor

which resulted

from uch a

combina-

tion.

Justinian

must have

calculated

the

impression

which

the

statuewould make, and he musthave knownprettywell what its

effect

would

be. The

Romans

were

always

a

highlycomplicated

people;

and

when it

was

possible

for

Justinian

o

represent

imself

as victorious

ruler

in

some

conventional

guise-as

he

did,

for

example,

n

the

mosaics

in

the

Chalke

18-he

must have had

some

carefully

onsidered eason

for he choice

of Achilles.'9

17

This

problem

has

been

well

stated

by

N.

H.

Baynes

in

a book

review

in

the

Journal

of

Roman

Studies XIX (1929),

226-227.

18

Cf.

Grabar,

op.

cit.

(see

note

1), 55-56.

82.

19One is led to speculate whether Alexander's admiration for Achilles may not

have entered

into the

symbolism

of the

statue,

or

into

some

people's

interpretation

of it.

By

associating

himself

with

Achilles,

or

taking

Achilles to

be his representative,

or,

so

to speak,

his hero, Justinian

may

have

suggested

(or

may

have

been

thought

to

suggest)

an

association

between

himself

and Alexander.

Even

if

there

was

no

express

intention

to

set

up

such an equation,

the

idea of it

would

be a

very

natural

one.

The

impression

which

the memory

of

Alexander

made on

the Roman

people

and

the

Roman




11/11

Vol.

lxxi]

Justinian

s Achilles

77

These thoughts

ring

us round

finally

o one

aspect

of

the

history

of

the

Roman

empire

which must

be

kept

constantly

n

mind,

though t is a questionwhichdoes notalwaysappear insuchsimple

fashion

as to

require,

and

receive,direct

answer. The

query

is,

namely,

What

did the common

people under the

Empire

expect

of

their

rulers,

and how

were

they

satisfied?

20

This

question

must be

pondered by

anyone

who is

concernedto know

why

the

Empire was as

successful s it

proved to be.

Our

statue

would

seem to

have

some

value

here.

The

emperor

nd

what he stood

for

were familiar

enough. So

too

was Achilles.

There had for

example been a figure f thewarrior mongthe bronzestatues in

the

Zeuxippus

at

Constantinople

whichhad

been

destroyed

n

the

fire f

the Nika

riot

in

532. A

few

years

previously

Christodorus

of

Thebes

had written

description

f

it:

21

Divine

Achilles was

beardless nd

not clothed n

armor,

but

the

artist

had

given

him

the

gesture of

brandishing

spear

in

his

right

hand and of

holding a

shield

in

his

left.

Whetted by daring

courage he seemed to

be

scattering he

threatening louds

of

battle, forhis eyes

shone

with

thegenuine ightof a son ofAeacus. Emperor nd herotogether

would

create

an

effect

whichwas

not

by anymeans

simply

figure

of

the basileus

dressed

up and

play-acting.

emperors,

and the way in which

they imitated him

and

multiplied

representations of

him, is well

brought out by

A.

Bruhl,

Le souvenir

d'Alexandre

le

grand

et les

romains,

Melanges

d'archeologie et

d'histoire

(Ecole

franCaise

de

Rome)

xLvII (1930),

202-221;

see

also

A.

Alfoldi,

Insignien und

Tracht der

romischen

Kaiser, Ro'm.

Mitt.

L (1935),

152-154,

and

Grabar

(see note

1), 94-95.

20

J

quote

Charlesworth,

loc.

cit. (see

note

16),

5.

Reference

may

also

be made

here

to

a recent paper by the presentwriter, The Pilgrim's Progress of the Byzantine

Emperor,

Church

History

Ix

(1940),

207-217.

On

the

subject

discussed

there,

the

reader

may

profitably

consult an

illuminating

paper

by A. D.

Nock,

Orphism

or

Popular

Philosophy? ,

Harvard

Theological Review

xxxiii

(1940),

301-315.

21Anth. Pal.

2.291-296,

transl.

of W.

R.

Paton in

the

Loeb Classical

Library.

This content downloaded from 129 96 252 188 on Sat 12 Dec 2015 14:00:12 UTC

Downey - Justinian as Achilles.pdf

Documents

Transcript of Downey - Justinian as Achilles.pdf