Downfall of the Statues: End of the Honorific Statue Habit in Late Antiquity

The end of the honorific statue production, after almost 1,000 years, has a large ‘ecology’ of reasons that made the statue habit no longer reasonable, meaningful, or sustainable. There is, however, no comprehensive book-length evaluation that identifies and scrutinizes the multifaceted reasons, certainly none that places cultural changes in dialogue with the legislative reforms and civic politics. My book-in-progress scrutinizes the multifaceted (1) historical, political, and economic; (2) cultural; and (3) environmental factors leading to the demise of statues. My monograph, documenting the long-lasting popularity and the following demise of honorific statues, provides a historical model for the human tendency to establish compulsive attachments to inanimate things, and the conditions under which these attachments came to a dissolution.

—-

The honorific statue was a special artifact: a three-dimensional anthropomorphic contract that forged a quid pro quo relationship between the subject honored and the awarding body. The statue was an ensemble of symbolic meaning consisting of a portrait head, a costume, a base, and an inscription on which were played out a variety of human agency, ranging from the expression of political and economic power to social status and religious affiliation. The medium was the material reciprocation of benefactions and good deeds (‘euergetism’), employed from the fourth century B.C.E. onwards — for almost one thousand years — and yet the habit of dedicating new statues was gradually abandoned in Late Antiquity (fourth-sixth centuries C.E.). There are about 1700 statue dedications in the fourth century, 300 in the fifth, and only 65 or so in the sixth. The last epigraphically attested statue of the ancient world is that of emperor Phocas until the 13th century, set up in 609 in Constantinople (LSA 2774).

During my fellowship at the CHS, I worked on a monograph project that scrutinizes the multifactor reasons and processes through which the habit of honorific statuary became obsolete in Late Antiquity, namely the (1) historical, political, and economic, (2) cultural, and (3) environmental factors. Below, I provide a synopsis of my book project alongside its most significant results based on research I conducted at the CHS.

An honorific statue encompassed an inscribed base, a statue body, and a statue head. Those areas that had been producers and users of honorific statues in the Roman Imperial Period (first-third centuries C.E.) continued to be so in Late Antiquity. These are North Africa, Italy, Greece and Asia Minor. In regions where this habit had never been fully adopted in the early period, such as Britain, Gaul, Iberia, and the Roman Near East, including Egypt, the dedication numbers remain low. My book project focuses on Constantinople and Asia Minor, where the honorific statue dedication is the second highest after Italy in Late Antiquity.

Many modifications in the honorific habit in Late Antiquity accompanied the elimination of statues. Among the honorands in the Roman period, there are few imperial figures and office holders, a high proportion of civic notables, local benefactors, and significant numbers of athletes, especially women. By contrast, the main protagonists of the honorific statue habit in Late Antiquity are the emperors and governors appointed by the imperial government. The numbers of local elites went down, and very few women were honored.

The broad trends by centuries can be summarized as follows: (1) 250–300 C.E.: Halt of new statue production, decline of honors and inscriptions. (2) Fourth century up to the Theodosian period: Intensive and exclusive re-use of Imperial statuary. (3) Theodosian period (379–457 C.E.): Production of new statuary in new costumes, mostly for government officials. (4) Late fifth-sixth centuries: New production of statues in Constantinopolitan fashions, re-use and circulation of new late antique statues, and honors for private benefactors.

In the fourth century until the Theodosian period, few statue dedications were exclusively restricted to re-used Imperial statues (togate, cuirassed and himation) with changed or re-carved heads. Intensive re-use could partially be explained by the shortage of materials and qualified artists after the anarchic political environment of the late third century. This is evident from the edict of emperor Constantine (CTh 13.5.2):

I argue that the fewer honors and re-use in the fourth century can also be potentially explained by the significant bureaucratic and legislative changes. Reforms under Diocletian and Constantine led to tightened imperial authority and the phenomenon often called the ‘decline of the councils.’ The fiscal and administrative system was restructured to facilitate greater imperial control of provincial life. The provinces were reduced in size and increased in number to tighten the central supervision of the city councils, leading to the overarching imperial bureaucracy, especially a rise in governors, which doubled in number. Senatorial and bureaucratic recruitment reached a revolutionary scale in the fourth century, not only at the imperial center, but also in the provincial cities. The late antique governor was anxious to make himself popular, not always with the councils, but with the common people, whose acclamations could be reported to the emperor. Governors who have completed a successful period in office could expect benefaction from the provincials, which were in the form of recommendation letters and material items, such as inscriptions and honorific statues.

The increased number of ‘new men’ appointed as civic officials, particularly governors, recycled the old himation statues that symbolized the classical dignity of the eastern civic elite. It was so important to establish their authority among the ‘blue-blooded’ elite families that some of these patrons even commissioned new statues in the old classical style of himation. In the meantime, the decline of the local councils of the cities meant that fewer wealthy benefactors engaged in euergetism activities, and replaced by the imperial governor as the rising protagonist of the honorific habit.

New costumes enter the pictorial record in the Theodosian period. Recycling habit continued, but many chose to commission new portrait statues out of new blocks of marble. The new statues were clad in the official rank-indicating costumes of the new toga and chlamys, which were, with a few exceptions, all from the East. The careful designation of rank-indicating costumes could perhaps be explained by the laws of Valentinian I in 372, which consolidated into one unitary system all the ranks and marks of distinction (CTh 6.7.1, 6.9.1, 6.11.1, 6.14.1, 6.22.4). A further sartorial law of 382 from Constantinople stipulated that members of certain groups should dress everyday according to their status as senators, soldiers, officials and slaves (CTh 14.10.1).

Moving onto the late fifth century, a vaguely defined group of new officials became influential in the running of the local cities. The most important of these functionaries are the curator, defensor, the corn-buyer (sitona / sitones), and the “father of the city”, pater tes poleos. These officials were local men nominated by the council, but formally appointed by the imperial government, and responsible to the provincial governor rather than to the council. We see several statue dedications for these new officials in the fifth century onwards.

Other legislation precipitated statue production and use. A new tax law of 431 granted the right to administer one third of the tax income to the cities, which previously went to the imperial government (CJ  4.61.13). Due to the rise in the prosperity of the cities, private benefaction and resulting statue honors also made a comeback, including new statue dedications, but the trend does not last long.

Cultural factors contributing to the elimination of the statue medium include the changes in the style of statues, inscriptions on bases, impact of Christianity and ontological perception of statues.

Style and Inscriptions. The general academic observation about style in Late Antiquity has so far been a formal and stylistic shift from the naturalism of the High Empire to abstraction, stylization and symbolic representation of human figures, as attested by the enlarged eyes with deeply drilled pupils and emphatic irises and an upturned gaze. In Imperial portraiture, from the fourth century onwards, the emperors are indistinguishable from each other. In private portraiture, however, the classical tradition is alive throughout Late Antiquity. Only in the late fifth and early sixth centuries, style gets more conventional with symmetrically placed facial wrinkles and hair locks, as well as a more restrained and frontal pose, especially compared to earlier Imperial portraits. As I argue in my book, the main conceptual change in the styles of Late Antiquity is that images began to gradually distance and detach themselves from the subject that they alluded to. In general, we see a style of representation that replaces naturalistic traits in favor of emblematic ones that expressed not the actual physical qualities, but internal virtues, social standing and class of a person.

Changes in the inscriptions on statue bases highlight a similar disconnect between the inscription and the honorand. Prose inscriptions were replaced with verse inscriptions that do not refer to the formal offices, social category, or patronymics of the subject. Instead, they widely refer to the wisdom, virtue, integrity, lawfulness and justice, intense hard work, fixity of purpose, incorruptibility, ambition for building, and culture of the subject. The inscriptions reflect the good qualities of the person and his belonging to the class of the ‘privileged,’ which comprised governors, bishops and local benefactors. The audiences needed to see an image of hard work, justice, incorruptibility, and state-guaranteed security. Those values were rare and much yearned for.

Christianity and Christianizing the Imperial statue. Legalization and dissemination of Christianity had a gradual but decisive impact on the statue habit. In general, honoring of individuals through statues did not take root among Christians, although sculpted and painted images of Christ were frequent in the early centuries of Christianity. These images must have been frequent enough that a law code of 427, promulgated by Theodosius II and Valentinian, declared them illegal (Codex First Book, tit. 8): “no one may carve or paint a statue of the Saviour Christ in earth, stone, or in marble placed on the ground.” There are a few surviving tondo busts and a statue from Constantinople tentatively identified as apostles or evangelists (LSA 2416, 2417, 2418, 2419, 2420). Bishops were not directly interested in honorific statuary, although some honorands might be bishops, because they held civic duties and were influential in city politics.

Ontology of the Imperial statue. In Roman law and in practice, the image of the Imperial statue could legally substitute for the emperor in his absence. In Late Antiquity, the ontological affinity of the Imperial statues with their prototype started to be perceived as controversial. Urban processions in Constantinople, for instance, involved carrying the image of the emperor as if he were attending the ceremony. The annual ceremony on May 11th, the birthday of Constantinople, involved a gilded wooden effigy of Constantine the Great escorted to the Hippodrome, where the statue received the homage of the reigning emperor (John Malalas, 321.22-322.16).

Gradually, however, the treatment of the imperial statue might have raised eyebrows because reiteration in this way was incongruent with Christian thought. Transferring agency to a material being, whether human or statue, in a way animating them, is beyond the capacity of human, and is a power of creation that only God may possess (Gen 1:27; Gen 2:7; Job 9:9; Psalm 8: 4–8). Tertullian suggests that the artist, by forming a human image in stone or paint is competing with the God, and attempts to usurp God’s function, hence gets in close proximity to the devil. “What is not God’s,” Tertullian says, “must be His rival’s” (On the Apparel of Women, Chapter 8). The questionable ontology of the Imperial statues resulted in physical attacks against them and consecutively promulgated law codes that define and restrict rules of their setting-up.

There are many environmental factors that inadvertently contributed to the demise of the statue habit, and yet rarely considered in art historical studies. Most significantly, there is higher than usual tectonic activity in the East Mediterranean between the fourth and sixth centuries, named by geologists the Early Byzantine Tectonic Paroxysm (EBTP). Recurring earthquakes left many cities in ruins, requiring continuous repairs. Constantinople, located on one of the most active fault lines, was hit by earthquakes multiple times (more than ten) within this period. The necessity to repair the fallen monuments in Asia Minor posed serious stress to local economies and imperial government.

As if recurring earthquakes were not enough, an unidentified volcano in the northern hemisphere erupted, probably in 536, causing severe environmental consequences, covering the atmosphere with a veil of dust, ash, and sulphur dioxide (Marcellinus Comes, Chron. (trans. B. Croke, p. 25); Cassidorus, Variae, 4.50). The eruption in 536 was followed by another in 540, this time in a tropical zone. These volcano eruptions caused what scientists call a ‘climate forcing’, a rapid cooling of the earth by several degrees Celsius, leading to lower summer temperatures, diminished sunlight, draught, and consequently famine.

Within a few years of these environmental disasters, during the reign of Justinian, the infamous bubonic plague started. The disease was first reported in Egypt and eventually spread to Constantinople in 542. In the longer run, the plague led to the reduction of the workforce at Constantinople and elsewhere due to severe shortage of food.

These factors perhaps did not directly affect the honorific habit, but they placed financial and human resources strains on society, which might have halted statue making. More importantly, these stressors led to the demise of classical urban life as we know it. Various military attacks of ‘barbarians’ against the Eastern Roman Empire were added to these calamities, as a result of which populations began to move out of the cities to the countryside to start a new life in villages gathered around monasteries. An honorific statue was only significant in an urban context. When this lifestyle was upended, a statue lost its habitat and became obsolete.

As I summarized above, my interdisciplinary research at the CHS encompassing archaeological, art historical and epigraphic inquiry resulted in my advocacy for multifaceted factors rather than monocausal explanations for the curious abandonment of portrait statues in Late Antiquity. I propose in my book a snowball effect caused by these factors leading to the end of the classical city, of which the demise of the portrait statues is one symptom. Overall, I consider the CHS fellowship an exceptional research opportunity to delineate the chapters of my new book as well as conduct extensive research and writing as a solid step towards publishing my work as a monograph.