Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T18:57:13.842Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Classified knowledge: the epistemology of statuary in the Parastaseis Syntomoi Chronikai*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 January 2016

Benjamin Anderson
Benjamin Anderson*
Affiliation:
Bryn Mawr College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Parastaseis Syntomoi Chronikai is a dossier of materials composed throughout the eighth century by a variety of authors. These materials are unified by their concern with the statues of Constantinople and the prophecies they are understood to embody. The authors are unified by their claim to descent from old Constantinopolitan families and their xenophobic opposition to arrivistes in the imperial service. Thus the Parastaseis asserts a form of knowledge unique to the well-born and essential to the management of the empire. It is an artefact of aristocratic particularism in reaction to the centralizing efforts of the eighth-century emperors.

Type
Articles
Information
Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies , Volume 35 , Issue 1 , 2011 , pp. 1 - 19
Copyright
Copyright © The Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek Studies, University of Birmingham 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

I wish to thank John Haldon for his comments on an earlier version of this essay, and for encouraging me to pursue its topic. A condensed version of this argument was presented at the 34th Annual Byzantine Studies Conference, New Brunswick, New Jersey. Completion of the article was facilitated by a research fellowship from the Center for Advanced Study in the Visual Arts at the National Gallery of Art, Washington. Elaine Beretz read through a late draft and made a number of useful suggestions. I am grateful to the two BMGS reviewers for their criticisms and suggestions.

References

1 Mango, C.,’Antique statuary and the Byzantine beholder,’ DOP 17 (1963) 53–75 Google Scholar, here at 60.

2 Cameron, Av. and Herrin, J. (eds), Constantinople in the early eighth century: the Parastaseis Syntomoi Chronikai (Leiden 1984) 28 Google Scholar; Ševčenko, I., ‘The search for the past in Byzantium around the year 800,’ DOP 46 (1992) 279-93Google Scholar, here at 292.

3 ‘Common project’: Cameron and Herrin, Constantinople, 11 and 14-16; ‘benefit of the unwary,’ 45; ‘local history society,’ 53.

4 Dagron, G., Constantinople imaginaire: études sur le recueil des ‘Patria’ (Paris 1984) 31 Google Scholar.

5 Dagron, Constantinople, 59.

6 ODB, s.v. ‘Parastaseis Syntomoi Chronikai’; cf. Kazhdan, A., “Constantin imaginaire’: Byzantine legends of the ninth century about Constantine the Great,’ B 57 (1987) 196–250 Google Scholar; Kazhdan, A., review of Cameron and Herrin, Constantinople , BZ 80 (1987) 400–403 Google Scholar.

7 Kazhdan, A., with Sherry, L. F. and Angelidi, C., A history of Byzantine literature (650-850) (Athens 1999) 308-13Google Scholar.

8 Haldon, J.,’The fate of the late Roman senatorial elite: extinction or transformation,’ in Haldon, J. and Conrad, L.I., eds., The Byzantine and early Islamic Near East VI: Elites old and new in the Byzantine and early Islamic Near East (Princeton 2004) 179–234 Google Scholar, esp. at 210-29.

9 Omont, H., Inventaire sommaire des manuscrits grecs de la Bibliothèque Nationale, second partie (Paris 1888) 16 Google Scholar.

10 Scriptores originum Constantinopolitanarum, ed. Preger, Th., I (Leipzig 1901) 19–73 Google Scholar. This was Preger’s second edition of the text: for the first, see Preger, Th., Beiträge zur Textgeschichte der Patria Konstantinoupoleos (Munich 1895)Google Scholar.

11 Cameron and Herrin, Constantinople.

12 Transcription of proper names and technical terms has also been altered for the sake of consistency; the system employed by the ODB has been used throughout.

13 Cameron and Herrin, Constantinople, 5.

14 Cameron and Herrin, Constantinople, 5-8.

15 For the Parastaseis as the first properly medieval patriographic text, see Dagron, Constantinople, 31; Berger, A., Untersuchungen zu den Patria Konstantinupoleos (=Poikila Byzantina 8) (Berlin 1988) 40 Google Scholar.

16 Kresten, O., ‘Leon III. und die Landmauern von Konstantinopel. Zur Datierung von c. 3 der Parastaseis syntomoi chronikai ’ Römische Historiche Mitteilungen 36 (1994) 21–52 Google Scholar.

17 Berger, Untersuchungen, 40-49; I. Ševčenko, ‘Search for the past,’ 290.

18 Speck, P., ‘War Bronze ein knappes Metall? Die Legende von dem Stier auf dem Bus in den ‘Parastaseis’ 42,’ Hellenika 39 (1988) 3–17 Google Scholar, here at 6.

19 Cameron and Herrin, Constantinople, 18-19, and 17: ‘a work of the first half - and mostly of the first quarter - of the eighth century.’ Restatement in Cameron, Av., ‘Byzantium and the past in the seventh century: the search for redefinition,’ in Fontaine, J. and J.Hillgarth, N., eds., The seventh century: change and continuity (London 1992) 250-76Google Scholar; reprinted in Cameron, Av., Changing cultures in early Byzantium (Aldershot 1996) V, at 257 Google Scholar n. 18.

20 Further opinions on the dating of the Parastaseis: Dagron, Constantinople, 29-48 (‘vers 750’); Kazhdan, History, 312 (Iconoclast era); Millet, G., ‘Parastaseis syntomoi chronikai: essai sur le date,’ Bulletin de correspondance hellenique 70 (1946) 393–402 CrossRefGoogle Scholar (ca. 742-46).

21 Here I follow the discussion of Cameron and Herrin, Constantinople, 9-10, with differences noted.

22 The division made by Cameron and Herrin after 59 is reasonable, but ultimately obscures the logic of the work.

23 1 through 89 plus 5a-d, 35a, and 44a.

24 The ten being 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 24, 25, 55, 63, and 89.

25 Two obvious exceptions are 48 (Caesarea) and 89 (Kranos).

26 The chapters that clearly describe statues that no longer stand are 4, 5a, 5c, 5d, 6, 8, 13, 14, 22, 43, 44, 46, 48, 57, and 73. There are also ambiguous cases, (e.g. 5 and 17).

27 Chapters 5a, 5d, 8, 16, 20, 21, 28, 40, 41, 54, 57, 61, 64, 65, and 69.

28 Usually taken to be the Anemodoulion: Berger, A., ‘Das chalkun tetrapylon und Parastaseis, Kapitel 57,’ BZ 90 (1997) 7–12 Google Scholar.

29 On the philosophers of patriography, see Dagron, Constantinople, 115-24. There is an interesting variance between Dagron, who sees these figures as fictional, and Cameron and Herrin, Constantinople, 13, who believe the authors count themselves among the philosophers. The latter approach is ultimately more productive, for even if some distinction is maintained, the philosophers nevertheless serve as ideal models for the authors (thus also Dagron, Constantinople, 124).

30 The statue was located on or near the starting gates.

31 Kazhdan, History, 311.

32 Thus already Stichel, R.H.W., Die römische Kaiserstatue am Ausgang der Antike: Untersuchungen zum plastischen Kaiserporträt seit Valentinian I. (Rome 1982) 26 Google Scholar.

33 See Bauer, F.A., Stadt, Platz, und Denkmal in der Spätantike (Mainz 1996) 148-67Google Scholar, on the Augustaion, and 218-24, on the Basilike.

34 Majeska, G .P., Russian travelers to Constantinople in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries (Washington, D. C. 1984) 136 Google Scholar (‘Russian anonymous’) and 184 (Zosima the Deacon), for the texts, and 240 for commentary.

35 ‘Part of the same ensemble,’ in ODB, s.v. ‘Augustaion’; ‘Persians, Vandals, and Goths,’ in C. Mango, ‘The columns of Justinian and his successors,’ in idem, Studies on Constantinople (Aldershot 1993) X, at 3. Procopius’ account of the monument may contain a literal description of the three shorter columns: Justinian έγκελεύεται τοΤς έκείνη βαρβάροις καθήσθαι ο’ίκοι καΐ μή πρόσω ίέναι. Procopii Caesariensis opera omni, ed. Haury, J., IV (Leipzig 1964) 18 Google Scholar.

36 Theophanes, Chronographia , ed. de Boor, C. (Leipzig 1883) 367 Google Scholar.

37 For a brief account of Justinian’s second reign, see Haldon, J., Byzantium in the seventh century: the transformation of a culture, 2nd ed. (Cambridge 1997) 76-8Google Scholar.

38 Of course this does not describe an actual monument of Justinian: Stichel, Kaiserstatue, 27 with n. 175. The statue will have originally represented Scylla: Bassett, S., The urban image of late antique Constantinople (Cambridge 2004) 227-30Google Scholar.

39 Ševčenko, ‘Search for the past,’ 292; thus also Cameron and Herrin, Constantinople, 28. The authors of the Parastaseis rarely identify themselves, although the section from 29-36 is identified as the work of Theodore the anagnostes. The story of Himerios the chartoularios is also related by a Theodore (no office identified). In addition, Chapter 61 begins thus: ‘Philip the eparch confirmed many things for us,’ and Chapter 41 introduces us to the apparently contemporary Karakallos the praepositus, also identified as the source of the information relayed. There is furthermore a tendency to identify the ‘historical’ figures by their rank, and, more generally, an interest in administrative matters: Markellos the anagnostes (Chapter 1); Hilarion the praepositus (7); Galen the quaestor, Julian the eparch, and Serapion the hypatikos (11); Ardabourios the strategos (14); the soldiers of the eparch have jurisdiction over the Forum (17); Plato the koubikoularios (26); Julian the hypatikos and Nouzametos the hyparchos (37); Galindouchios the doux (41); Valentinian the praepositus (42); the stratelates Demophilos (49); the eparch Olbianos and various spatharioi, koubikoularioi, and silentiarioi (56); Kallistratos the hypatos (59); consuls used to receive their codicils in the forum (59); Philip the dunastes [?] (62); Narkissos the praepositus and an unnamed anagnostes (64); Philodoros the logistes (85).

40 J. Haldon, ‘Fate,’ 211-16; Haldon, Byzantium, 169-71, and more generally, 387-99.

41 For the expansion of the senate in the fourth century, see Heather, P., ‘Senators and senates,’ in Cameron, Av. and Garnsey, P., eds., The Cambridge Ancient History XIII (Cambridge 1998) 184–210 Google Scholar.

42 Cameron and Herrin, Constantinople, 44, on the ‘pervasive flavour of oral communication’ in the Parastaseis.

43 Martindale, J. R., The prosopography of the later Roman Empire, III (Cambridge 1992) s.v. Narses 1, 3, and 11 Google Scholar.

44 See especially Dagron, Constantinople, 143-50; Cameron and Herrin, Constantinople, 32.

45 Dagron, Constantinople, 146.

46 Magdalino, P., L’orthodoxie des astrologues: la science entre le dogme et la divination à Byzance (VIIe-XIVe siècle) (Paris 2006) 61 Google Scholar.

47 As made by James, L., ‘Pray not to fall into temptation and be on your guard: pagan statues in Christian Constantinople,’ Gesta 35 (1996) 12–20, at 15CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

48 ODB, s.v. ‘Parastaseis Syntomoi Chronikai.’

49 Kazhdan, ‘Constantin imaginaire,’250. See also Kazhdan, A., review of Cameron and Herrin, Constantinople , BZ 80 (1987) 400–403 Google Scholar, at 403.

50 Dagron, Constantinople, 94, also sees the memory of Crispus here. At 93-97 Dagron provides an evocative reading of this chapter, wherein the statues provide a means for the ‘expiation’ of imperial crimes. Their burial by the Arians, then, constitutes a form of revenge by interrupting the ritual. But his conclusion goes too far: ‘… on place sous la ville qui port le nom et exalte la légitimité de Constantin … les preuves de son illégitimité.’ Are they not rather proofs of penance?

51 Thus also Av. Cameron,’Byzantium and the past,’ 261-62. Cf. her critique of Kazhdan’s reading at 257 n.18.

52 Winkelmann, F., ‘Die älteste erhaltene griechische hagiographische Vita Konstantins und Helenas,’ in Dummer, J., ed., Texte und Textkritik: eine Aufsatzsammlung (—Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur 133) (Berlin 1987) 623-8Google Scholar.

53 Winkelmann, F., ‘Die vormetaphrastischen griechischen hagiographischen Vitae Constantini,’ Actes du XIIe Congrès International d’Etudes Byzantines II (Belgrade 1964) 405-14Google Scholar, at 406 and 408-13: the ‘second redaction’ does not concern us here.

54 Kazhdan,’Constantin imaginaire,’ passim. Cf. Winkelmann, ‘Vormetaphrastischen Vitae,’ 412.

55 ‘Un βίος di Costantino,’ ed. Guidi, M., Rendiconti della Reale Accademia dei Lincei: classe di scienze morali, storiche e filologiche Ser. 5, 16 (1907) 304-40Google Scholar and 637-62, at 334–36. Translation after Beetham, F., ‘Constantine Byzantinus: the anonymous Life of Constantine (BHG 364),’ in Lieu, S.N.C. and Montserrat, D., From Constantine to Julian: pagan and Byzantine views (London 1996) 97–146 Google Scholar.

56 ‘βίος di Costantino,’ ed. M. Guidi, 649-52; trans. Beetham, ‘Constantine Byzantinus,’ 138-40.

57 ‘βίος di Costantino,’ ed. M. Guidi, 336; trans. Beetham, ‘Constantine Byzantinus,’ 127.

58 Kazhdan, ‘Constantin imaginaire,’ 250.

59 Thus also Kazhdan, A., review of Cameron and Herrin, Constantinople , BZ 80 (1987) 400–403, at 401Google Scholar.

60 Chapter 59 relates the statues set up by Constantine in the Forum; at Chapter 60 we move to his activity in the Hippodrome, while 61 through 64 deal with the monuments and deeds of later emperors in the Hippodrome. Even these latter chapters are primarily concerned to establish which works are Constantine’s: thus at 62 a hyena is distinguished from its surroundings as Constantinian, and the entire point of 64 is to establish who set up what.

61 Dagron, Constantinople, 85, citing Chaps. 52–59, had surmised that ‘L’auteur des Parastaseis suit peut-être un modèle, un ouvrage d’histoire constantinienne déjà fortement romancé, d’où il tire en quelques fiches de lecture une topographie constantinienne aussi précise que légendaire.’

62 See note 30 above.

63 See note 27 above.

64 Constantine: Chapters 16, 40, 54, and 64. Severus: 20 and 57. Trajan: 41. Valentinian: 64. Alexander: 69.

65 The division corresponds roughly to the end of imperial efforts to decorate the city with ancient statues. See Bassett, Urban image, 121.

66 As noted by Cameron and Herrin, Constantinople, 38.

67 Similar remarks, but without drawing the social implications, by Magdalino, Orthodoxie, 61.

68 Winkelamnn, F., Quellenstudien zur herrschenden Klasse von Byzanz im 8. und 9. Jahrhundert (=Berliner Byzantinische Arbeiten 54) (Berlin 1987) 139-40Google Scholar and 225-26; Haldon, J., ‘A touch of class?’ Rechtshistorisches journal 7 (1988) 37–50 Google Scholar, at 48-9.

69 Haldon, ‘Fate,’ 217.

70 Haldon, ‘Fate,’ 211-16, quote at 215-16.

71 For a summary of the evidence see Cameron and Herrin, Constantinople, 18–19. On Philippikos see now Herrin, J.,‘Philippikos ‘the gentle’,’ in Amirav, H. and Romeny, B. ter Haar, eds., From Rome to Constantinople: studies in honour of Averil Cameron (Louvain 2007) 251-62Google Scholar.

72 Kountoura-Galake, E., О Βυζαντινός κλήρος και η κοινωνία των ‘σκοτεινών αιώνων’ (Athens 1996) 60–75 Google Scholar and 87-98, on monastic and clerical opposition to Justinian; Haldon, ‘Fate,’ 210 and 216-17.

73 Theophanes, Chronographia , ed. de Boor, C. (Leipzig 1883) 367 Google Scholar; on the allegory of the Parastaseis see above. In both texts this marks the unique appearance of the word.

74 Theophanes, Chronographia , ed. de Boor, C. (Leipzig 1883) 383 Google Scholar, where the emperor lunches μετά πολιτών άρχαιογενών in the Baths of Zeuxippos. On this passage see Haldon, ‘Fate,’ 218; J.-C. Cheynet, ‘L’aristocratie byzantine (VIIIe-XIIIe siècle),’ Journal des Savants (Jul.-Dec. 2000), 281-322, at 294; Herrin, J., ‘Philippikos and the Greens,’ in Sode, C. and Takács, S., eds., Novum millennium: studies on Byzantine history and culture dedicated to Paul Speck (Aldershot 2001) 137-46Google Scholar.

75 Winkelmann, Quellenstudien, 14-15; Haldon, ‘Fate,’ 232.

76 Haldon, ‘Fate,’ 210, for the advent of a ‘shifting and fluid bureaucratic-military establishment’.

77 Theophanes Continuatus, Chronographia , ed. Bekker, I. (Bonn 1838) 35-6Google Scholar. Thanks to Albrecht Berger for bringing this passage to my attention. Cf. Genesios, , Regum libri Quattuor (=CFHB 14), ed. Lesmueller-Werner, A. and Thurn, I. (Berlin 1978) 16 Google Scholar.

78 References collected in Stichel, Römische Kaiserstatue, 25–26 n. 167; see esp. Genesios, ed. Lesmueller-Werner and Thurn, 74.

79 Theophanes, Chronographia , ed. de Boor, C. (Leipzig 1883) 455 Google Scholar, with Mango, C., ‘A forged inscription of the year 781,’ ZRVI 8 (1963) 201-7Google Scholar; reprinted in idem, Byzantium and its image (London 1984) X.

80 Brokkaar, W. G., ed., The oracles of the most wise emperor Leo and the tale of the true emperor (Amsterdam 2002) 35–44 Google Scholar.

81 Vat. Gr. 1291. For its attribution to Constantine’s court see Wright, D. H., ‘The date of the Vatican illuminated handy tables of Ptolemy and of its early additions,’ BZ 78 (1985) 355-62Google Scholar; Ševčenko, ‘Search for the past,’ 287; Magdalino, Orthodoxie, 23. More generally on the revival of astronomy in the eighth century see Magdalino, Orthodoxie, 50-1 and 55-6, who interprets the phenomenon, not in terms of internal social dynamics, but as a response to external pressure (cultivation of astronomy by the Abbasids).

82 Theophanes, Chronographia, 467–68, with Pingree, D., ‘Classical and Byzantine astrology in Sassanian Persia,’ DOP 43 (1989) 227-39Google Scholar, at 239.

83 Thus the letter of king Symeon of Bulgaria to Leo Choirosphaktes, ed. in Koilas, G., Léon Choerosphactès: magistre, proconsul, et patrice (Athens 1939) 77 Google Scholar.

84 Theophanes Continuatus, Cbronographia , ed. Bekker, I. (Bonn 1838) 185 Google Scholar. On the stories of Leo’s education see especially Lemerle, P., Le premier humanisme byzantin: notes et remarques sur enseignement et culture à Byzance des origines au Xe siècle (Paris 1971) 149-50Google Scholar and Speck, P., ‘Weitere Überlegungen und Untersuchungen über die Ursprünge der byzantinischen Renaissance,’ Maria II (=Poikila Byzantina 6) (Bonn 1987) 253-83Google Scholar, at 266-68.