American Philological Association

Justinian as Achilles
Author(s): Glanville Downey
Source: Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Vol. 71 (1940), pp.
68-77
Published by: Johns Hopkins University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/283115
Accessed: 12-12-2015 14:00 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked 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 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 support@jstor.org.

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

http://www.jstor.org

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

68

GlanvilleDowney

[1940

VII.-Justinianas 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 erection of the statue are reviewed, and its significance as a part of the imperial
symbolism and propaganda is discussed.

Among the most notable contributionswhich have been made

in recentyears to our knowledgeof Roman and Byzantine history
are the studies of J. Gage and A. Grabar on the theologyof the
VictoriaAugusti and on the iconographyof the emperorin official
Byzantine art.' Gage has shown with admirable clarity the importance of the conceptionby which the emperor,as commanderin-chiefof the armies, came to be regarded as possessingentire
responsibilityfor their victories,and enjoying the sole and perpetual right of celebratingtriumphsfor them. The sovereigngentishumanae pateratque custos-was, by virtue of his office,an
infalliblevictor,and the power with which he was endowed in this
respectextendeditselfto all the otheractivitiesand circumstances
of his reign. The ChristianEmperorinheritedthe perpetualpower
of victoryof his pagan predecessor;in addition, he served as the
vice-gerentof God on earth,and was looked upon as the source of
all good thingsand the fountof all wisdomand law.2
These conceptionsare at the coreofthe officialart of Byzantium.
Grabar has assembled and studied the monuments-in mosaic,
sculpture,painting,ivory-carving,textileand jewellery-in which
the emperor's officialpersonalitywas constantlyset before his
subjects. A whole cycle of themesportrayedthe sovereign'sfunctions and powers,and illustratedhis automatic power of victory.
The emperorwas shown conqueringdemons and barbarians and
receivingthe homage of 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: recherchessur l'art officielde 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.

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

Vol. lxxi]

Justinianas Achilles

69

importantthemeswas that of the royalhunt,in whichthe emperor

appeared as a gloriousand invinciblehuntsman,slayingall manner
of terrifying
wild beasts. Prowess in the chase was (the literary
textsshow) equated withprowessin war,and in thesescenes (which
had a long ancestrygoing back to Egyptian and Mesopotamian
art) the ruler'straditionalpowerof victoryin the huntwas treated
as a symbolof his triumphsover his enemies.
An importantplace in this triumphalcyclewas occupied by the
equestrian statues of the emperors,monumentswhich served admirably to depict the militaryprowessof the rulers. One of the
mostimportantofthesewas a statue ofJustinianat Constantinople.
Erected on top of a pillar in the Augustaeum,this statue occupied
one of the most commandingsites in the city. The statue itself,
beingof bronze,has disappeared,but thereare a numberof literary
descriptionsof it, notablyone by Procopius,and a drawingof the
statue has also been preserved,made in the early fifteenth
century
at the behest of the travelerand antiquary Cyriacus of Ancona.3
Procopius describes the statue as follows: 4

On the top of the columnstandsa greatbronzehorse,turnedtowards

the east, a verywonderful
sight. It seems to be moving,and to bepressingforwardsplendidly. It raisesone of its forefeet,as thoughit
wereabout to stepforward,
and plantsthe otheron thestonebeneath;
and it gathersits hindfeettogether
in readinessto move. And on this
horseis seated a bronzestatue of the emperor,like a colossus. The
statueis arrayedas Achilles;forthustheycall thedress[schema]
which
he wears. He is shod withhalf-boots
and thelegsare bare of greaves.
Then he wearsa breastplate,
in theheroicfashion,and a helmetcovers
his head, givingthe impression
thatit is nodding,and a dazzlinglight
flashesfromit. One mightsay, in poeticlanguage,thatthiswas that
starof thelate summerseason[Sirius]. He lookstowardtherisingsun,
the Persians,I believe,to stop. And in his lefthand he
commanding
3 A list of the literary sources is given by Th. Reinach, Revue des etudes grecques Ix
(1896), 82, note 3; the principal passages are also cited by P. E. Schramm, Das Herrscherbild 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 I (Vienna, 1878), 137-146. The best reproduction
is provided by G. Rodenwaldt, Archaologischer Anzeiger, 1931, 331-334; this, a photograph 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.et 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, in the Loeb Classical Library, is taken from Rodenwaldt's publication.
4 De A edificiis 1.2.5-12.

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

70

GlanvilleDowney

[1940

carriesa globe,thesculptorshowingin thiswaythatthewholeearthand

sea are subjectto him; he has neitherswordnor spear nor any other
whichalonehe has
weapon,but thecrossstandsuponhisglobe,through
out his right
won his empireand his masteryin war. And stretching
he bids the barbarians
hand towardthe east, and spreadinghis fingers,
and advanceno further.
in thoseregionsto remainin theirowncountry,
The significanceof the statue in the triumphalcycle is clear
fromProcopius'description. Grabar in his discussionof the monument5 emphasizesthe symbolismof the crossmountedon the globe
which the emperorcarried; this was the oravpoS VMKOWOL6s, the sign
which, from the time of Constantine,had given victory to the
emperor.
The most intriguingaspect of the statue is that it is said to
representthe emperoras Achilles. Grabar points out 6 that the
oftheemperorherewithAchillesreflectsthe tendency,
identification
which was a natural one at Byzantium (especially in view of the
conventionsof rhetoricand the panegyric),to illustratethe valor
of the princeby comparinghimwiththe heroesof antiquity. This
is of course the chief point, but the statue still suggests further
questions. Why the choice of this particular Greek hero? Did
this characterreside in the formand appearance of the statue, or
was it the personalityand historyof Achilles,ratherthan the costume alone, which gave the statue its significance? What iconographic source or traditionwould be representedby the choice of
this guise fora statue of the emperor? And did Justinianhimself
ever actually appear in this fashion,or was he representedin this
way only in the statue? Answersto some of these questions have
been offeredby G. Rodenwaldt (whose workon this point was not
utilized by Grabar). There remains,in addition, a literarytext,
unknownto both of these scholars,whichprovidesa notable backgroundforthe monumentand enables us to understandits origin
a littlebetter.
Firsc we may look at Rodenwaldt's conclusions. He examines
the statue in a review of the ancient "Renaissances" and their
character.7 The mode of expression common to each of these
renaissancesis theconsciousadoption,by an age ofgrowingstrength,
of classical or classicisticmodels for the representationof 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, ArchdologischerAnzeiger (see note 3), 318-338.

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

Vol. lxxi]

Justinianas Achilles

71

periods of Roman history,one of which is the age of Justinian.

F. Pringsheim,in an essay on "Die archaistischeTendenz Justinians,"8 finds evidence that the emperor's legal work is not
merelypurelypractical in its scope, but reflectsalso a kind of academic effortat the re-creationof antiquity. Justinian'swhole
programwas, indeed, feltin his own time to be a renovatioof the
ImperiumRomanum.9 Rodenwaldtsees indicationsofthisarchaizing tendencyin various characteristicsof the art of the period,and
one of the monumentswhich he discussesin this connectionis the
Achillesstatue. Seekinga reason forthe use of the termAchilles,
Rodenwaldtwas able to suggestonly that the statue representeda
reminiscenceof the statues of the type describedby Pliny (N.H.
34.5.10.18): Togatae effigiesantiquitus ita dicabantur. Placuere
et nudae tenenteshastam ab epheborume gymnasiisexemplaribus,
quas Achilleas vocant. Graeca res nihilvelare, at contra Romana
ac militaristhoracas addere. The connectionbetween these nude
figuresand the armed effigyof Justinianis ratherdifficultto perceive, as Rodenwaldt recognizes; he concludes, however:10 "Bei
dem oXnyta
der EL'KwcV lIsst sich kaum die Vermutung
'AXLXXEtov
vermeiden,dass hiereine unklareErinnerungan die effigies
A chilleae
des Pliniusvorliegt,obwohldiese wederMantel noch Panzer haben.
Schwerlichhat Justinianje das klassische Kosttimder Statue getragen,die Worte 'AXLXXEtS
und fpLKCOS lehrenklar die der Antike
zugewandte Idee des Kunstwerks." Apparentlythe obscurityor
uncertaintywhichwould have existed if Justinian'sstatue were a
reminiscenceof the type mentionedby Pliny would be, in Rodenwaldt's opinion,one more characteristicof the archaizingtendency
which was responsiblefor the emperor'sappearance in this guise.
The backgroundof the statue is considerablyaltered and amplifiedby an historicalepisodewhichboth Grabar and Rodenwaldt
overlooked. This occurredwhile 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 effeminateyoung man with an unpleasant streak of cruelty.
Armatusbecame the lover of Basiliscus' wife,the Augusta Zenonis,
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 Rodenwaldt.
9 Corippus, In laudem Justini 1.185ff. (Mon. Germ. Hist., Auct. Antiq., iii.122).
0 Op. cit. (see note 3), 334-335.

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

72

GlanvilleDowney

[1940

youngfopwas made magistermilitum."1This sudden advancement

to a post ofhonor,plus the moneywhichhe now had at his disposal,
elated the youth beyond all measure. By the paradoxical process
which on occasion emergesin such a character,the young man of
fashionbegan to thinkof himselfas a warriordistinguishedforhis
valor. "This delusionso obsessed him (writesCandidus, the contemporaryhistorianwho recountsthe episode) that he began to
and to ride about in
wear the costumeof Achilles (TKEV) 'AXLXXEws)
this fashionon his horse, and parade insolentlybeforethe people
in the hippodrome."12 His vanity was still furtherpuffedup
when the mob began to call him Pyrrhus;this was actually an
allusion to his rosy cheeks, but he took it as a complimentto his
courage.
The episode is a rathertrivial one, and Armatus did not long
survive the returnof Zeno to power. Yet it casts some light,not
only on this particularbit of imperialsymbolism,and Justinian's
adoptionofit,but on theway in whichsuch symbolismwas regarded
by the populace at the time. The incidentbringsfurtherproofif such were needed-that the costume or "character" of Achilles
would in such a connectionbe a symbol of braveryand courage,
and it is evidentthat this is the explanationof Justinian'sadoption
of the schema. The episode also indicatesthat the people who saw
Armatus,and found him ridiculous,were prettywell alive to the
symbolicalmeaningof such a costume;Armatus'appearance in the
dress would certainly have fallen rather flat if people had not
known,withoutbeing told, what it stood for. Candidus did not
think it necessary to explain to his readers the significanceof
the "Achilles costume"-neither did Procopius. The fact that
people foundArmatusridiculoussuggestsalso that theywould take
the emperor'sappearance in such a schemaseriously. It is evident
that they regardedsuch a schemaas peculiarlyfittedfor,and reserved to, the emperor;forif people would have been inclinedto
laugh at such symbolismin an emperoras well as in Armatus,
Justinianwould hardlyhave had himselfportrayedin 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 (Cambridge, Univ. Press, 1911), 473; and E. Stein, Geschichtedes spdtr6mischenReiches, I:
Vom romischenzum byzantinischenStaate (Vienna, Seidel, 1928), 537.
is preserved by Suidas, s.v. 'ApaWTos = F.H.G.,
12 This fragment of Candidus
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).

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

Vol. lxxi]

Justinianas Achilles

73

(especiallysince many of the people who saw the statue must have
known about the episode of Armatus). Evidently the "Achilles
costume" was consideredto be dignifiedenough,and well enough
established as a part of the imperialsymbolism,for Justinianto
run no riskof makinghimselfridiculousby appearingin it. So, at
least, the emperorhimselfmust have thought. Thus it may be
that when people laughed at Armatustheywere laughingnot only
at his pretensionsto being a man of valor,but also at his adopting,
forthis,a costumewhichbelongedto the emperor.
Of course it is no longernecessaryto attemptto account forthe
typeof the statue ofJustinianby supposingthat it was an " unklare
Erinnerung"of the type describedby Pliny. It was the character
of Achilles ratherthan simplythe type of the statue itself,which
gave the effigy
of the emperorits significance. It mightbe claimed
that the appearance of Justinianin this guise representedmerely
an artistictradition,and that the representationof a Roman emperoras Achilleshad come to be so much of a conventionthat any
originalsymbolismhad been lost. The episode of Armatus,however, tells heavily against this view; for the significanceof the
schemaof Achilleswould have had to be verygenerallyrecognizable
when Armatus paraded himselfin his costume. Moreover,if the
symbolical significanceof the costume as a part of the imperial
regaliahad come to be forgotten,
whileat the same timethe costume
itselfcontinuedto be used simply by artistictradition,the symbolism could scarcely have gone unrecognizedafterthe publicity
whichit had receivedfromArmatus.
Armatus'effortlikewiseplaces on a different
basis the question
whetherJustinianever actually wore the costume. If, as Rodenwaldt supposed,the emperorcould scarcelyhave wornthe costume
himself,but appeared in thisfashiononlyin the statue,the erection
of the monumentmightbe taken as anothermanifestationof an
archaizing tendency. Now, however,Armatus' conduct suggests
that it is very possible that the emperorappeared in this guise on
appropriate ceremonialoccasions, for example (like Armatus) in
the hippodrome. The comic episode of the empress' young lover
need not have preventedJustinianfromusingthe costume; indeed
the experienceof seeing it wornby a pretenderlike Armatusmight
have the effect,by way of contrast,of makingthe costume,when
wornby the emperor,seem more important,and more appropriate
to the ruler.

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

74

GlanvilleDowney

[1940

While Grabar's work has made the primarysignificanceof the

statue-its officialtheologicalmeaning-clear, a word may be said
about some of the motives which lay behind the making of the
monument. One ofthethingsthatcomesto mindhereis Justinian's
vanity. Many of his acts appear to betraya personalvanitywhich
at timesseems almost childish."3 He named at least nineteencities
forhimselfand even gave his name to one of the classes of students
in the law-school. His theological activity gave him an opportunityto displayhis learning,and his habit ofdrawingup laws himselfenabled him to show his rhetoricalaccomplishments. It seems
to have been vanity, too, that was at least in some measure responsible for his decreeing in 541 that the consulshipshould no
longerbe held by anyone but the emperor;evidentlyhe was not
pleased by the thought that an officewhich was a traditional
dignityof the emperorshould be held by his subjects as well.'4
What if his setting up the Achilles statue was simply a piece of
vanity?
This mightseem to be a major factorbehindthe appearance of
the monument. But there are, of course, other elements. The
symbolismof the VictoriaAugusti and of the o-ravpOsVLKO7OLOS was
deeply rooted in the Roman state. And at the same time,it must
not be forgotten,the Roman emperorby virtue of his officewas
surroundedby a glamorand a prestigewhichscholarslivingin the
world of today, when monarchy (save in India and Japan) has
become at best a democraticinstitution,findit hard to visualize.
It is true that the emperor'sdignityand authoritywere sometimes
precarious. But when an emperor,in addition to claiming the
respectand even venerationto whichhe was traditionallyentitled,
could like Justinianpoint to achievementswhich overshadowed
those of his predecessors,his prestigemust have been enormously
increased.
The statue in another way also representsa traditionwhich
was of importancein the peculiarpoliticaland theologicalorganization of the laterempire. The imagesof the emperorswhichplayed
a central part in the old imperialcult survived,along with many
otherusages of this cult, in the Christianempire,and continuedto
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 Zeitschriftxxx
(1929/30), 376-381.
14 This is pointed out by Stein, loc. cit. (see note 13), 380.

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

Vol. lxxi]

Justinianas Achilles

75

forman importantelementin the emperor'sofficialcharacterand

position. The imperialstatues and imageswereof courseno longer
worshiped,but they received a venerationwhich was, in the new
circumstances,a counterpartof the old worship. The statues of
the emperors(like that of Justinian)now served to evoke and focus
a feelingwhichwas "a simplemanifestationof loyalty,and a recognitionof the divine protectionwhichgave a superhumancharacter
to the emperor'spower." 15
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,skilfully,and on the
whole successfullyby the Roman emperors,who needed to keep
their programsand their functionsever before the eyes of their
subjects, and had to do this with means quite differentfromthe
various devices which are available today. Much of this work
was not propaganda as it is understoodtoday, but, as has been
is bettercalled the creationof goodpointedout by Charlesworth,'6
will. The mottoeson coins, the remindersin the buildinginscriptions, the imperialimages and statues, all served to bringhome to
the people of the empirethe existenceand activitiesof theirrulers
and the benefitsand the protectionforwhich they mightlook to
them. This exploitation was not only legitimatebut necessary.
Any statue of a Roman emperor thus had a connotationand a
special significancewhich would not occur to us automatically.
And this statue of Justinian'srepresenteda part of the same traditional message fromthe emperorto his subjects. A statue such as
this was one of the ways in whichJustiniancould remindpeople of
what he had done, and could, at the same time, create the atmospherein whichhe wished his reignto be regarded. Everyonewho
saw the statue-and many people saw it everyday-would be made
to thinkof the militaryachievementsof the emperorand of what
his reign still promised. The tradition of the VictoriaAugusti
was one which would seem of great importanceto Justinian,one
which,withoutnecessarilyany feelingof antiquarianism,he would
be especiallyanxious to maintain. Tradition,then,and justifiable
pride,mightwell have outweighedany elementof vanity involved,
15 L. 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.

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

76

GlanvilleDowney

[1940

and may have been enough to save Justinianfrombeing ridiculed,

even though he may (at least accordingto some views) have deserved it.
One of the major questions in the historyof the later Roman
empireis how it was that that empire managed to maintain itself
as long as it did in the East, whileits westernhalfgave way so soon
beforethe barbarians.'7 Studies such as those of Gage and Grabar
have illuminatedthe traditionswhich played a leading part in the
continuationofthe imperialidea, and have also illustratedthe necessity of examiningthe various manifestationsof this traditionfrom
all the possible pointsof view. The statue of Justinianas Achilles
can claim an importantpart in thisstudy. It illustratesthe variety
of the factors,personaland contemporaneous,whichcould influence
the employmentof the traditional symbols, and contrariwiseit
suggeststhe way in whichthe traditionalsymbolism,the same and
yet changing,could be used to express the stamp of an individual
emperor. For the ultimatequestionis whyJustinianchose Achilles
to representhimselfand his reign. Vanity may have played its
part here,and the traditionmay have given the emperorlicence to
indulgehimselfin this respect;yet therestill remainsthe pointthat
the characterof Achilles was available forJustinianto adopt if he
chose it. In a way it mightbe said that not only did Justinian
take on the characterof Achilles,but the emperorimposed some of
his own character on Achilles. Some people at least must have
feltvery stronglythe glamorwhich resultedfromsuch a combination. Justinian must have calculated the impressionwhich the
statue would make, and he must have knownprettywell what its
effectwould be. The Romans were always a highlycomplicated
people; and when it was possible forJustinianto representhimself
as victorious ruler in some conventional guise-as he did, for
example, in the mosaics in the Chalke 18-he must have had some
carefullyconsideredreason forthe 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 himselfwith 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

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

Vol. lxxi]

Justinianas Achilles

77

These thoughtsbringus roundfinallyto one aspect ofthe history

of the Roman empire which must be kept constantlyin mind,
thoughit is a questionwhichdoes not always appear in such simple
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 successfulas it proved to be. Our statue would
seem to have some value here. The emperorand what he stood
for were familiarenough. So too was Achilles. There had for
example been a figureof the warrioramong the bronze statues in
the " Zeuxippus" at Constantinoplewhichhad been destroyedin the
fireof the Nika riot in 532. A few years previouslyChristodorus
of Thebes had writtena descriptionof it: 21 "Divine Achilles was
beardlessand not clothedin armor,but the artisthad givenhim the
gestureof brandishinga spear in his righthand and of holdinga
shield in his left. Whetted by daring courage he seemed to be
scatteringthe threateningclouds of battle, forhis eyes shone with
the genuinelightof a son of Aeacus." Emperorand hero together
would create an effectwhichwas not by any means simplya figure
of the basileusdressed 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 present writer, "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
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions