OXFORD STUDIES IN LATE ANTIQUITY Series Editor Ralph Mathisen Late Antiquity has unified what in the past were disparate disciplinary, chro- nological, and geographical areas of study, Welcoming a wide array of method: logical approaches, this book series provides a venue for the finest new scholarship on the period, rarging from the later Roman Empire to the Byzan~ tine, Sasanid, early Islamic, and early Carolingian words, The Arabic Hermes From Pagan Sage to Prophet of Science Kevin van Bladel ‘Two Romes Rome and Constantinople in Late Antiquity aited by Lucy Grig and Gavin Kelly Two Romes Rome and Constantinople in Late Antiquity Edited by Lucy Grig and Gavin Kelly OXFORDEEE eeEeEeEeEeEeEeEEeEeEeEeEeEeEEEEEEEEEE——_==« OXFORD vf Unies Ps ne pobre Oxked Uanentys ajc stslence ‘esarh ehaanip and econ Orlet Neve Audland Copetone Deter HongKong Karch evstunpar Maid. Maboune. Masco Cy Nard “Newel Shang Tape Torta Aceon Ais Br" Chle Cech epic Pance Greece “Gove Hueey, typ. Paend Prop Snppee (Satrroe Sian?” Tuad Taney Uimibe Voom ‘Copyright © sor by Oxiord Univers Pras In uid y Ox Unter rt gta reas Nowa New Yon fsa epee deh fOr Ue Pret reer pet fii pobeton ma beep sot nae ame fm yen, “ironman. eg tee iba of Cong Catspng a Peat. “Rome ty igen Gavi Kay. prem Ondiadeilteat de ogame dd tame aH» al ace) sone ivy nanbl Tt) Hiooge s.clystdoen ie Rome ry sy odo ieTukeyaal— ‘myo yon Seal hegre Hisey Soi change Tukey natal inory—To oo Rome Relators aha ‘sibel ayant ‘ona on sri Lome ics Sots ea \ eas dine ied Se of Ameren Preface ‘We fist thought of collaborating on the two Romes in 2005, Rome and Con- stantinople in Late Antiquity had figured in our previous research, but it seemed tous that there was surprising little effort made to look atthe two greatest cities ‘of the late ancient Mediterranean together, despite the ideological and political importance of thei relationship and the many features they had in common. In the following summer, many ofthe contributors to this book met in Lam- peter for a panel entitled “Two Romes" as part of the Celtic Classics Conter- fence: we are grateful to Anton Powell, the inventor and organizer of the conference, for accepting our panel and for providing a format that allowed plenty of time for contributions to be heard and debated. Although the group ‘who had been brought together came from different traditions and disciplines, ‘we found both that there was much to be gained from studying the two Romes together and that we shared a revisionist dissatisfaction with the overly teleo- logical approaches of much previous scholarship, whereby Rome was always destined to decline and become a papal city, and Constantinople likewise was always destined to take Rome's place. By the end of three days, we knew that we wanted to bring the project forward to publication, but felt that we had heard too little on the New Rome compared to the old. This matched the survival of evidence from antiquity and the trend of modern scholarship, but it lacked balance; so we convened a short conference on early Constantinople in Edin- bburgh in spring of 2007 (opening on the birthday of the city, 1 May). Many of the speakers from Lampeter also attended, and in general we have found the experience of putting this book together one of sharing in an ongoing debate. One additional chapter (John Vanderspoel’) was subsequently invited on the good advice of OUP's readers. ‘The book is structured in sections: our general historical introduction, which also contextualizes the individual contributions, is paired with intro- uctory chapters on the representation of cities in Late Antiquity and on the buildings and infrastructure of the two cities, Sections follow on topographyvi Preface and archaeology; politcal history (as seen through the imperial presence inthe ‘two cities inthe fith century); literary representation (focusing on the charac- teristically late antique genre of panegyric); and religion. Tae epilogue, finaly, is a provocative and wide-ranging essay on the Romanness of Byzantium, Within sections in particular, contributors have carefully read and reflected on ‘each other's chapters. Colleagues and institutions alike make Edinburgh a fine place to research Late Antiquity: we should particularly like to thank Tom Brown, Sara Parvis, Ursula Rothe, and Karen Howie for various acts of assistance, and the School of History, Classis, and Archaeology and the Centre for Medieval Studies for financial sponsorship. Our contributors joined in the spirit of collective enter prise and generously commented on each other's work, and patiently endured the wait for publication, We should also like to thank the various conference speakers whose work is appearing elsewhere. ‘OUP's reviewers made many valuable suggestions, ané we are grateful to Stefan Vranka and his team at OUP New York for their help in bringing the book to publication. We are also grateful to those institutions and individuals ‘who shared photographs and plans and waived reproduction rights, where ap- plicable. Elf Keser-Kayaalp deserves special acknowledgement for producing such excellent plans and drawings. ‘Although thie is large book, we are aware there are many important topics that could have been investigated and have not been: the subject could have filled many large books. We hope that others willbe stimu‘ated to write them, Lucy Grig. Gavin Kelly ‘Edinburgh, 2x April 031 Contents Preface v List of Figures ix Lis of Abbreviations xi Contributors. xiii PartI Introduction: Rome and Constantinople in Context 4, Introduction: From Rome to Constantinople 3 Lucy Grig and Gavin Kelly 2. Competing Capitals, Competing Representations: Late Antique Cityscapes in Words and Pictures. 32 Lucy Grig 5. Old and New Rome Compared: The Rise of Constantinople 53 Bryan Ward- Perkins Part II Urban Space and Urban Developmentin Comparative Perspective 4. The Notitia Urbis Constantinopolitanae 81 John Matthews ‘5, Water and Late Antique Constantinople: Tt would be abominable for the inhabitants of this Beautiful City to be compelled to purchase water.” 116 James Crow 6, Arlstocratc Houses and the Making of Late Antique Rome and Constantinople 136 Carlos Machado Part III Emperors in the City 2, Valentinian Il and the City of Rome (425-53): Patronage, Politics, Power 361 ‘Mark Humphries i lSvill Contents 8, Playing the Ritual Game in Constantinople (379-457) 183, Peter Van Nufflen PartIV. Panegyric 9. Bright ights, Big City Pacatus and the PanegyriciLatini 203, Roger Bees so, A Tale of Two Cities: Themistius on Rome and Constantinople 223 John Venderspoel 1, Claudian and Constantinople 241 Gavin kelly 1 Epic Pnegyric and Political Communication inthe Fih-Century West 265 Andrew Gillett PartV Christian Capitals? 1. There but Not There: Constantinople inthe Itineravium Burdigalense 293, Benet Salway 14 Virgilsing Christianity in Late Antique Rome 325 John Carran 1s. “Two Fomes, Beacons of the Whole World": Canonizing Constantinople 345 Neil Melynn 16, Between Pettine ideology and Realpolitik: The See of Constantinople in Roman Geo-Ecclesiology (449-538) 364 Philippe Blaudea Part VI Epilogue vz. From Rome to New Rome, from Empire to Nation State: Reopening the Question of Byzantium's Roman Identity 387 Anthony Kaldelis Bibliography 405 Index 497 Index Locorum 449 23 24 25 26 at 32. 33 a4 35 ———KKVe TTTTtCtC“CsSOSOOSCS:S~<“ ig, Ovi rs i 5-8 Jones, Bell ud 75, See alo Holiday. "Roman samp Palaing" 97-39 Fate Toni 34 Competing Capitals 37 image could stand for Rome. This was crucial to Rome.” Indeed, in Ammi ‘us’ account, asin earlier imperial writings, we can se that the iconcity works the other way round: it is Rome that encapsulates the rest ofthe world (The ‘Roman baths are described as “as tig as provinces,” after all” Rather than one image standing for Rome, instead the city of Rome was evoked as more than the sum ofits parts, as more than an assemblage of marvelous monuments, cach resisting iconic reduction. "Ammianus was of course not the only author to evoke Rome as a city crammed full of must-sees, ultimately indescribable, fundamentally immes- surable. This theme can be found inthe works of imperil authors writing in both Latin and Greek. Pliny the Elder described the difficulty of accurately ‘measuring the extent of so great a:ity (NH 35.66-67): ‘A measurement running from the milestone set up at the head of the ‘Roman Forum to each of the city gates—which today number thirty- seven if the Twelve Gates are counted as one and the seven of the old gates that no longer exist are omitted —gives a total of20:765 miles ina straight line. But the measurement of all the thoroughfares block by block, from the same milestone tothe outermost edge of the buildings including the Praetorian Camp, totals little more than sixty miles. And ifone should consider in addition the height ofthe buildings, he would assuredly form 8 fitting appraisal and would admit that no city has existed in the whole world that could be compared with Rome in size.” Aclius Aristides makes the point again in a slightly different way, stressing the incompleteness of even the totalizing view (On Rome 6 For it is Rome who first proved that oratory cannot reach every goal About her not only is it impossible to speak properly, bu itis impossible even to see her properly, .. . For beholding so many hills occupied by buildings, or on plains so many meadows completely urbanized, or s0 ‘much land brought under the name of one city, who could survey her accurately? And from what point of observation? While the inadequacy of verbal description for cities isa common trope,” it could nonetheless bear real ideological force. Rome is frequently evoked as a city that cannot be summed up, pinned down, or adequately described. 19 hi, posi 20. Cf diewbere (99) Ammlanu pring complimeat to Nleomeda when be describes thet ty asreembling erp Leone fourteen of Rome 2: SeeCarey Py Cato of Cala 4-7 2. CE Acs Tats 5a1-5 06 Aenea ce38 Grig "Nonetheless, a group of late antique texts suggests anew attempt to quantify the city: these are the various versions of “inventories” or “regionaries” dating from the fourth and fifth centuries.” There are two, very similar, Roman inven tories: the Curiosum and the Notitia Urbis Romae. It is significant, too, that closely comparable texts were also produced for Constantinople and Alexan- dria, The nature and purpose of these texts have been variously interpreted, though most scholars have assumed thatthe texts are basically administrative. ‘Each text enumerates, region by region, the significant buildings and monu- ‘ments ofits respective city, and asa consequence, each has been endlessly mined by scholars of topography and archaeology. Recently, in a provocative article, Javier Arce attacked the near-canonical status ofthe two Roman texts as sources for the history ofthe urban fabric and population of the late antique city. Arce described thelr listings as “caprichosa’ and “fantisticas” and refused to assign to the texts any offical status, or administrative use, at all* While most scholars ‘wot not wish to go quite as far (in denying any validity at al to the texts’ list- ings), it is clear that Arce’ central insight is correct: these texts are blatantly {ideological ‘This ideological engagement apparent not least in terms of the choices made by the compilers of the lists, which are far from neutral. The Curiasum and Nottia present a particular—indeed, particularized—vision of their city, ‘They offer what is arguably an antiquarian’s Rome; newfangled Christianity is nowhere tobe found in the cityscape evoked. The is eepite the estimated dates of the texts: the Curiosum can be dated to ca. 334-57 and the Notitia to after 358. "The Rome ofthe inventories isa city of many temples but no churches (Ammi- anus would doubtless have approved). “The ideological intent of the inventories is also apparent in another field: the urban inventories are ideological in that they are written to present, in a context of civic rivalry, their particular city’s claim to primacy. Generically, 1s well as ideologically, they are clearly to be related to epideictic rhetoric: they show a debt to the laudes urbium, which owe their own existence to the classical tradition of civic rivalry: This is made especially clear by acompet- itor of the Roman accounts: the Notitia Urbis Constantinopolitanae of ca. 425, by some degree the most obviously rhetorical (Le panegyrical) of the group" Tn the preface, the author explains his motives for composing the text, ‘explaining that while other authors have tended to write about distant places 25, See Valetnt and Zuechet Code topographic, VoL. 65-398. 24. Aes “inven de Rm” 718 3 Ide 26, See lattes gy on this ext Competing Capitals 39 (o tslf an interesting sutement about genre)” Constantinople has been eglected. Such a perfect city (o which nothing can be added) deserves a Getalled account, the authcr claims, though it will never be sufficient. As with ‘smmianus’ account of Rome, the superlative, indescribable nature of Con- santinopleis stressed, heightened by the litotes: nether prlse nor evea love is enough for so great city; the reader ofthe account is imagined as an admirer who wil inevitably be filed with astonishment * ‘The Constantinople Nottia Is clearly modeled on the Roman version, It again presents an inventory ofthe buildings and monuments ofthe city, region byregion (fourteen, ofcourse, modeled on Rome).Itis striking that, unlike in the Roman inventories, churches here are conspicuously present: churches in fact head the list of buildings in seven out of fourteen regiones. The “grand total” list that finishes oF the Notitia, moreover—the so-called Collectio Civtatis—is also key in heping us understand the ideological claims of the text. The first category of building enumerated undoubtedly constitutes the authors trump card in constructing the city’s claim to greatness: paatia {uingue. Its clearly stressed that Constantinople is the home of emperor. The next category enumeratec is ecclesiastical eclesias quattuordecim, again stressing the importance of Christan cult buildings inthis representation of| Constantinople. “The sacred buildings, cult sites, or images ina city had always been of great Amportance when itcame to civic selfepresentation and promotion. Examples from the Greek est are peshaps the most famous in this regard—for instance, the celebrated cult of Artemis of Ephesus. The adoption of Christianity as the oficial religion ofthe Roman state offered new opportunities in this regard, jst as it posed problems atthe same time. Christian writers liked to ply with the idea of the rivalry of ees based on their possession of holy relics, just as their "pagan" predecessors nad lauded their cites’ prestigious temples, cults or ges The poet Paulinus of Nola provides some particularly striking exam- ples of this The city he was most keen to promote was his adopted patria, Nola an obscure Campanian town blessed only wit the remains of St. Felix (asint, moreover very much of Paulinus’ own construction!) While Paulinus was se- ous about promoting Nola asa holy city, he did so not least through playful literary allusion, toying with the poetry of his old friend Ausonins, another ‘writer interested in the civ: pecking order. 1 Thscecillsthe Expr Totas Mand et Gent, cone contemprary wth he Roms Investors Ths text as noted above a5, ose to Constatnope and proc the spremacy of Rome 1 Unter igt ar partburdigetr inspect coporum qugue idem sees rece umes idem rerum nm ma cheamerbete signa, eda neo Singuls edcta monuments empldine uoque tanec eats etontafteatr curb ec leider sure necro. Not. Cont prog 35.—_::-—-- 40 Grig Some time at the end of the fourth century, Ausonius composeé his Ordo Urbium Nobilium, a sequence of poems that featured twenty famous cities.” ‘Again this work certainly ha its roots in traditional rhetorical literature. The relative status of cities in antiquity was, as noted above, a traditionaly popular topic for epideictic rhetoric, and the cites of Asia Minor in particular had a (Got always very honorable) tradition of civic rivalry.” There was ofcourse no canonical rating of cities —they strove for relative position. As Ausorius points cet, cities have different claims to fame and prestige; he puts Constantinople ‘and Carthage in joint “second place,” the former on the grounds of ts recent ‘ower, the later on its histori glories. From the point of view of aneasterner, ‘or even an Italian, Ausonlus' isis eccentrically western, with a defiite prefer- tence for his native Gaul. This personal touch is most clearly demonstrated by the dedication of the last and longest poem of the Ordo to Ausonius’ own na- tive city, Bordeaux—last though definitely not least, framed to act, somewhat hnubristically, as a pendant to Rome." ‘Nola, of course, did not make it into Ausonius’ Ordo—why would it? The ‘Nolan apologist, however, in something of a clever referential sleight of hand, makes a strong claim for her special status, He claims that Nola has, in fact, become a second Rome (Paulinus of Nols, Carm. 1326-30): ‘You have won the title of city second to Rome herself (postque ipsam titu- los Romam sortita secundos), once first only in dominion and conquering arms, but now frst inthe world through the apostles’ tombs.” Paulinus here is echoing a line of his fiend Ausonius’ Mosellas* we might well ‘consider thata playful challenge tothe Ondo is intended. Obviously, the idea that ‘Nola takes second place only to Rome in any kind of ranking is hyperbolic though no less than placing Bordeaux asa pendant to Rome! but then the genre ofthe laudes urbis was not one in which modesty was ever thought appropriate. ‘While Paulinus was most interested in promoting the claims of Nola, he also ‘was willing to tackle a more obvious pairing: that of Rome and Constantinople, as: The cies incuded arin oder: Rone Constantinople ad Carthage (it Anioch and Aranda a ont) rer Mil, Capo, Agua, Aves, Sevile, Cordoba, Tarragon Brags Athens, Catania, Syracuse, Toulouse, Nerboane, and Borde. bo Thc lle teced next colo and insripions vee Rober," tiusre®Avsnise rms eeence to crc lyin hi secoun of Asloch nd lesan Ondo 5x6 VN. See Ns, “ving Rome" 23-26 igor Capua di, howee a seringl refered to by Pasnus; ee Gt, iiAssonio” (CE Carm485-88 11 rau poplor agelonigenque Brien: prasetararum sa tener undo: utquecaput eran Romar popuumgue pleut ttm nn primo ret ab fa frit primi, stone, M407 ine ami! Competing Capitals 41 {in Carm. 19, Paulinus considers Constantinople’s claim to bea rival to Rome, a claim that, once again, he considers solely by reference to the saintly relics pos- sessed by the respective cities. In the following passage, Paulinus pairs twin patron saints, imagined as twin towers, fortifying ther cities: Peter and Paul in Rome, Andrew and Timothy in Constantinople (Carm. 19329~42)°* ‘When Constantine was founding the city named after himself, and was the first of the Roman kings to proclaim himself Christian, the god-sent Jdea came to him that since he wae then embarking on that splendid enterprise of building a city which would rival Rome, he should likewise emulate Romulus’ city with a further endowment—he would eagerly defend his walls with the bodies of apostles. He then removed Andrew from the Greeks and Timothy from Asia; and so with twin towers [gemi- nis turribus) stands forth Constantinople, rivaling with her head the Great Rome, and more genuinely rivaling the walls of Rome through the eminence that God bestowed on her, for He counterbalanced Peter and. Paul with a protection just as great, since Constantinople gained the dis- ‘ciple of Paul and the brother of Peter. Interestingly this passage might be sai tobe sti coming down in favor ofthe sopremacy of Rome in that, in another allusive sleight of hand, sezmsto echo Ciaudia's bitter comment sbout Constantinople inhi invective poem against Rufinus.™* Another Christian poet interested in constructing an image of a truly Christian Rome (vision markedly diferent from tha of Claudian) is Proden- tins.” Prudentius, too, makes use of the idea of saintly patrons as city fortifica- tions in his hymn to thevingin martyr St. Agnes (Prudentius, Pe. 141-4): ‘The tomb of Agnes lies in the home of Romulus, a brave girl and glorious ‘martyr. Laid within the sight oftheir towers, the virgin watches over the well-being of Rome’ citizens. Both poets evoke the towers that crowned the city walls both associate the pro- tecting power of the martyrs with these fortifications. While both towers and walls stand forthe inviolabilty ofthe city they also stand for the city itself acom- ‘monplace enough metonym, tobe related to visual as wel as literary imagery. “The use of the architectural image or icon was popular inthe visual represen tation of cites in Antiquity. Some cities were known for or by thelr famous 3: Te Wal gh are), 36. Compare ut quontom Romane... emule 3-3) with Urbs tam, mae que duct axmla Ramat cy awh tought to be the rao rest ome Clin, Rare 254 Throne by ago, Nata Sere Kl 28‘monuments, such as the temple of Artemis in Ephesus or the lighthouse at Ostia, Which were replicated across various media." More widespread than the use of specific local highlights, however, was the depiction of city fortifications, notably ‘gates, particularly in provincial coinage issues.” This visual shorthand—the rep- resentation of he city by or as its fortifications —only increased in Late Antiquity “Many examples of images of cities, more or less cenonically represented as polyg- onal fortified structures across ¢ wide range of media, date from this period, ‘Manuscript illustrations are particularly arresting, including illustrations from the famous Vatican Virgil, the Vienna Genesis, and the Nottia Dignitatum.*” “The frequent visual representation of cities in Late Antiquity as strong, im- permeable and forbidding, as sale and secure within their walls, seems partic. larly striking, and indeed ironic in a period when some cities were actually falling. A poignant literary reminder ofthis s given by the poet Rutilius Nama- tianus, who wrote De Reditu Suo in or soon after 437. This travelog poem describes the author's departure from Rome and his return journey to his na- tive Gaul. While sailing alongside the coast of Italy, Rutilus sees unrecogniz~ able ruins of formerly proud fortified settlements (1.409-14): ‘You cannot recognize the monuments of an earlier age: greedy time has devoured their lofty fortifications. Only traces remain now thatthe walls, are lost: homes lie buried under a wide paving of rubble. Let us not be indignant because mortal frames dissolve: from these examples we di cern that towns can die. Rutilius’ poem is very much a post-i0 text: even while he recalls “that towns can de,” he maintains, or at leat proclaims, an optimistic confidence thatthe city of Rome will enjoy a glorious recovery Visual representations of ities of the Roman Empire, as if preserved in antiquarian aspic, present a similar hope Such images are more than simply “nostalgic’s” they are protreptic and performative—they are indeed, lke all etyseapes, ideological. “The “city gate icon, popular though it was, also combined with a still more ubiquitous type of urban icon ofthe imperial and late antique period: the city “Tyche.* These figures, based onthe famous Tyche of Antioch, carried an attribute (normally a rudder or cornucopia) and wore a “mural crown,” which depicted the citys walls andlor other fortfcations:© On this example, a second-ceatury $8. Fao “Teo 2-24 5p Many examples canbe seen Sea, Greck imperial Cotsen. ng 284 365, 796 42 Seethrenpeger Katz, “Représentons ve forbs” ‘Theft section ofthe poem (6) i ealogy to Rome and her geste, 4 Seeagain Berl "Vial Images” ep. 3-29 ‘Av diseused by Tout, “ThelindsRome” 2 14 See Brose, "Tyee an the Forte of ies” 16. See Chita Dat Gc der Stade 42 Grig Competing Capitels 43 Figure 22 City Gate cola fram Laodice ad Mae, HCR ozo, Ashmolean Maseum, University Oxon. coin from Laodicea in Syria, the Tyche’ crown is very clearly delineated so that ‘ve can see the twin towers ofthe city gate, the walls, and even a lighthouse (see figure 22). These representations were, however, usually highly generic: in onder to identify a particular city, further contextual information (whether text or an additonal image cr symbol) would be required. While traditionally Tyches were associated with the Greek east in particular, in the late antique period we see their use to depict te fall geographical range of imperial capitals.” “These visual shorthands tended away from particularity and towards uni- formity: was there a space for Rome in this body of images? Traditionally, of ‘course, Rome was diffrent. For one thing, she always claimed to be more than just a city: Rome was not just an urbs, even the Urbs. While other cities were represented by largely anonymous Tyches, the goddess Roma never simply “stood” for the city of Rome in the same simple way that, say, the Tyche of [Antioch stood for Antioch. Rome had always stood aloof from the commu- nity of Tyches, a seemingly contented band of second-rankers. Nonetheless, in the fourth century, Roma began to appear in a new guise, in a whole series of oficial images from coins to consular diptychs, more or less twinned with her upstart “sstex” Constantinopolis.” ‘When Constantinople was (re)founded, the city was endowed with @ new ‘yche, the frst represertations of which are found in silver medallions minted {6 Sear Gack imperial Com 20.1497 ‘5. See hon, “Imperial pees { “hedvilyofRame. never ute fed into the famewok provided bythe category of enonifcations, Rome war to tng too presets cy” MacCormack, "Rona, Conta Eapolis” ao Moreover om! wae peneallys epresenttion of Romeo the ote wd rather thana diva forte cy tee contuction ofthe temple of Venue an Roma inthe cy of ome by Haden had marked sigaactdevlopment “The prec fll elssoship between Rome and Conetentiople wat varouly cael Jnteasgué and eal Byzantine ets Rome was Constantinople mere aul Soph wee,44. Grig in 330." Here, Constantinopolis is shown seated on a throre, wearing a mural crown and veil, holding a branch and cornucopia, with her feet resting on a ‘prow, ina reference to the maritime location ofthe city. Thus far she appearsas a standard Greek-type Tyche, but this image, though popalar, was not to be definitive. The anomalous, special status of Constantinopolis could be repre- sented by several variations in her depiction: sometimes the wears a helmet (like Roma), sometimes her cornucopia is replaced by the sceptre, or even the Victory-on-globe, representing sovereignty." Just as the image of Constantinopolis varies, so too do images that depict Rome and Constantinople together. Examining these images can help us pin- point changes inthe (relative) depiction ofeach city. Coins depicting Roma and CConstantinopolis together begin with the vota issues of Constantius II from 543 onward, To begin with, the two figures are very much not identical twins, with Roma's superiority made evident in several ways, as stown in the solidus ‘of Constantius I, minted in Rome, in 355-57, shown in figure 23.” Roma wears her traditional helmet while Constantinople wears the Tyche’s mural crown; Roma is definitively in the superior position, seated to the right of Constanti- nopolis (our left), as wel as being depicted frontally while Constantinopolis is in profile, turning to face her “big sister." Overtime, however, Constantinopo- lis grew to look more like Roma and les like a generic Tyche.” However, by 415, this solidus of Theodosius I (se figure 2), minted in Constantinople, repre- sents the two cities as more evenly matched: twins facing ore another, wearing ‘matching helmets and holding their sceptres in the same attitude. Images of the twinned personifications of Rome and Constantinople were ‘ot limited to coinage, but also appeared in some distinctively late antique ‘media. Coin representations may well have influenced a gol glass, which pre- sents the two as identical twins, each bearing a globe and 2 sceptre, while an anonymous female figure prostrates herself a their fet. A medium that nat- urally favored pairing imagery was the ivory diptych: figure 25 isa beautiful example from the fifth century, now in the Kunsthistorisches Museum in 5. Set Toybes, “Roms and Constatinopelis LX, 9.1 St Thi, for dlicuton an Uutation of thet aos type. $5: Kent, RIC aps see further on sues fom the Rome mist Keay, "Urbs Roma and Costa opi Medalions” $9. Alan Cameron, Eagle reasure 14-4 dts the appearance ofthis newonoprapby to ‘he and weald ke tolink ts delopment to Cao of te Counc of Censtantneple, bat thirinkge doe seem ite ocd. end to are with Dron, Nese ow ses the ‘olution os morecomplerand ambiguus Toynbee, Roms and Consanippolsiv demonstrates, ating vey inthe representation ofthe two ces a thine Se frie Bahl, Consent ‘opal nd Roma 4 Kent, RCo 207, 5 Morey, Gold Glaus 39h XV a0. higure 19 Roma and Consanunopolis coi, mined in Rome 3557. HGR wou. Ashmolean sseum, Univesity of Oxford, Figure2.4 Roma and Constantnopoliscoin, minted in Constantinople in 45. Trustees ofthe Ich Moses,gute as (owtnued) ne Coretentnepaiedipyeh Kunahisoriches Museum, Viens48 Grig Vienna it clealy differentiates the two personfications along traditional lines: Roma wears a helmet and Constantinopolis a crown, Roma carries the Victory-on-globe and Constantinopolis the cornucopia.” ‘All ofthese images played on the natural affinity between Rome and Con- stantinople as twin cities often depicted as sharing sovereignty over the lobe. However, the two did not only feature as a double at but could also appear as jst two members of a whole group of cites. The most famous “grouping” of this sors probably the set of four gilded slver statuettes (generally considered to be chair fittings) from the Esquiline treasure, which eeture personfications of Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, and Alexandria.” The “canonical” status of this particular foursome is far from clear even in Rome ite in the Roman “Codex Calendar” of 354, Ter replaces Alexandria." Nonetheless, itis the “Bequiline fous” that is singled out for special treatment in what must be the most intriguing single visual representation ofthe shifting late antique urban condo: the Peutinger map. ‘The so-called Tabula Peutingeriana is notoriously dificult to define or pin dove ts antiquity, satus, nature, and purpose have ll been much debated.” However, it s generally agreed that the document represents alte fourth-cen- tury original (what we ae lft with isa twelfth-century copy. tis a parchment ‘map of the asicaloecumene, showing malor roads with distances between the cites, ofthe Empire and beyond, stretching as faras Sri Lanka. It is some- times described asa chat rather than a standard or geographical map, or per- hapeisbest described as document about travel whic it depicts as movement from one city to another (see figure 2.6, The original was linear representa- tion nearly 7 meters long, but only 34 centimeters wide, which would have ‘worked best when displayed asa continuous whole; the effect was spoiled when ‘the parchment was split up into eleven sections in the nineteenth century. Ints original format, one could clearly have seen the late Roman world depicted as ‘collection of networked cites, each represented by shorthand convention and by inscription The cities featured on the map can be grouped into three levels of impor- tance, according to the manner of depiction. Each city in the lowliest and by far largest tier is shown as two small towers, recalling the “twin towers” ubiq- ‘tous in both text and image, as we have seen. The second category is much 56 Volbach, fnbenerbiten der Sptett, 0 98 Roma and Costartinoplis also appear as secondary dung gure on ober ipeyes e008. 312083, 17. See Shea, Tnperel Tes” nor 20 ad 2 porayed on thbook’ data. $2. Sethe ble coson in Slzman, On Roan Tm 7-2; other grospings are disuse by Salon imperial Tchad Toyabe, ‘Roma snd Constasnoplis= Late aniqetresomes. Father than quartet of lading chee dated by Dowersock, Masel s History, 8-84 Sp. For useful and nigel daca see Savy, “Natre and Gees” (Go, Aanoted by avo, Teo 3. ge rete the Ancient Wok! Mapping Figure26 Rome at the center ofthe Pntinge map. from Angcrer and Gach Tabula Prutingriana itera k (Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hi50 Grig less populous, comprising ony six cities, which are represented by a varaton ‘on the same theme-as miniature walled cites. Scholars have tried and failed to make sense ofthe grounds on which cities are depicted on one “level” or another, Among many others, the “bottom” group includes aholycty (Jers lem) and a onetime imperial capital (Milne) Other imperial (and summer) capitals, however, make the second grade: Ravenna, Aquileia, Nicomedia, Nicaea, Thestalonica,and Ancyra. None of thi makes assigning a precise date to the document posbl. The seemingly unclear principles of selection here might be best explained, Salway suggest, by imagining the Pestinger mapas 2 personaly rather than official, document, infsenced by individual taste and local knowledge." “The depiction ofthe “top tier” of cites featured on the Pevtinger map Intriguingly combines diferent urban icons besring various ideological complexions. The op rank seems to have once consisted of four imperial capitals: Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, and Alexandria. However, Alex andria's representation ses to have been lft incomplete in the copying of the map, although there is an image of its most famous landmark, the Pharos, there is nothing else, not even a name label, left to mark the ely Each ofthe other thre cites, however, is depicted in the first instance, by fa slightly eccentric and subtly differentiated personification." Rome, the only personification to be circled, its, lke all three, on a throne, holding Shield and scepte, but is distinguished by the fact that she Is holding a globe; unusually, she wears a crown, Constantinople ahd Antioch ae bath ‘wearing helmets, but Antioch is further distinguished by the addition of himbus, as well as by the presence ofa smal figure seeking protection at her feet.” ‘ach city is depicted with some degre of geographical precision: Antioch on the Oronts, Constantinople on the Bosporus, and Rome on the Tiber, clearly located above the pot of Rome. Final, each cty is represented by an architectural icon, afamous urban monument. The choices here are intriguing. “Antioch’s symbol appears tobe the temple of Apollo at Daphne (destroyed by fire in 362 and hence problematic forthe dating ofthe map); the building is (4 Sway, Nature and Genes, 2 While ot clare describe dee igus female to thi ober they appear strangly smal Such pul festores (ik the sforemenondacunase tat of Aleraaricepition) dows remind tht nacre in tranaon might have Store the map, ther bamperng, ofcourse ts scolalyierpetatin, (We might wiht compare here the prostate Spare st the fet of Roms and Consastnopais ‘nthe geld gos daroed shove Hower, Bomesoc suggests thatthe Ege on he Festingr taep isin ctu peconiestion ofthe Orones, arom te Exguline Tyee of Asie’ Baveroes, Motes e Hit, 38, Competing Capitals 51 «ualy located atthe famous grove, and is connected to an aqueduct. Con- “gantinopleis represented by perhaps the ultimate symbol fits imperial name- ‘ake, the Constantinian column, to which the personification is pointing. It appears that the imperial, specifically Constantinian, status of the city is, thereby being highlighted. However, Rome's architectural icon is slightly off ‘enter, ut its identity is very lea, being labeled ad sanctum Petrum: the Ba slica of . Peter, a rather different kind of imperial monument. ‘The ordo of cities represented on this map has several interesting nuances. It {notable thet while four cities clearly share top billing, one is nonetheless more equal than the others. Rome is twice distinguished: by the details of her personification and by her geographical representation. Though not central in terms of the geographical extent ofboth empire and oecumene, Rome is none- theless represented asthe center from which all key roads originate. Ina docu- ‘ment all about travel, Rome is clearly represented as the key city from and toward which one travels. Rome is hence set, aso often, ina position of precar- {ous supremacy: perilously close to assimilation as just one of several cities, and yet just about maintaining her postion a caput mundi ‘The Tabula Peutingeriana is rare in providing an architectural icon to stand for the city of Rome—in this case, S, Peter. While Rome had traditionally lucked an architectural icon ae such, i ie rather intriguing that when one f nally appearsitis so unambiguously Christian. The choice of, Peter suggests the victory of one particular ideological cityscape of Rome: itis scarcely the urban icon that Ammianus, Claudian, or even Ausonius would have favored. Intime, of course, it would be asa Christan capital that Rome would stake her {rauch contested) claim to supremacy, but this would be a hesitant and long drawn out process. ‘his brief chapter has presented an often synchronic account of the late antique ordo urbium, seeking to avoid an overly teleological view. We know how the story developed, but for much ofthe late antique period the picture would have been much less clear. None ofthe late antique representations of cites examined in this brief survey can lay claim to definitive, no even (prob- aby) any “official” status: there was no offical ordo. Hence itis fitting that the cityscapes examined provide fleeting, often very personal, or eccentric, certainly partial, vistas 64. Aninterestingcomparion ees provided bythe so-called topographical ord of the Mepllpayhia movi rom Antioch. The sppensoceplt several churches, wel athe ‘gringo alas and Catal, along witha mabe of private welling ee Lev, Antch Moe Pavements a6 ad Lait 5. Tw mop shoe sre intra Christan, mot stringy nthe comments made 0 ‘lia landscapes, although euler get speci treatsentS. Peterson a ere (haan charches feature iaeestingy he Crurch fee i depleted cleo Constantinoplest Grig _At several points it has been suggested that Rome's ultimate greatness lay in denying representation all together. Pethaps it was best for her partisans to say ‘almost nothing at all; therefore, I shall eave the last word (except it never was) to Ausonins. In his Ordo Urbium Nobiium, Rome is part, and yet set apart, from the parade of cities. Rome receives the briefest poem of all, but it is also the first. Infact, the very brevity serves only to confirm her supremacy: Rome hhas no need of description; she simply is (Prima urbes inter, divur domus, ‘aurea Roma). But the sands upon which her supremacy was built would inevi tably shift All representations of cities, however antiquarian, totalizing, or in- tertextually sophisticated, were there to be contested, in a mostly civilized certamen, Old and New Rome Compared ‘The Rise of Constantinople BRYAN WARD-PERKINS Tur uare avrique unaan msronise oF Constanrinoris AND Rome are normally, and quite reasonably, viewed separately from each other; tut there is «case for comparing them directly, since Constantinople was in- «creasingly described as "new" or “second” Rome, and provided with facilites fand an administration to match and rival those of the old capital. Already daring Constantine’ littime it was referred to as altra Roma (the other, or “t second” Rome) and as the old capitals “sister and in 357 the orator Themis- tins, addressing Rome’ proud senate in Greek, called Constantinople nea Rome (nev Rome). The eastern city was granted the entirely exceptional honor ofits own senate even at the tme ofits dedication in 330, and although this body was initially oflower status to that of Rome, it was raised to equal rank by Constan- tivs If atthe end of the 3508 The same emperor put the imperial administra- don of Constantinople on an equal footing with that of Rome, through the creation of a Constantinopolitan “prefect of the city"; and in 38, at @ church council held in Constantinople, its bishop, although lacking any claims to ‘Tam ver gratfl othe ramets people who hae provided information for this caper and sf etic ofits ideas a elas coretng sme epreios errs in parila, Marlens ‘Aetie,Peter Bll Robert Coats Stephens in Cro, Ll Greco Roggin, Uitch Geb Lacy Gri Med Humphries, CavinKely, Gite Lantrap, Cros Machado, Ce Mango, Mala Mandal ‘Meag, Yori Maren, Nel Meiyan, Che Sotnet 08 Roger Tomlin. My knowedpe of Constant ‘sles aly dependent one many wonderfllerure that Cyl ang as given in Oxford The moet rigial contributions oth arcl ee the comparative cevins Sguens3,35, 4nd ‘oct which are by BFRese Koa (wh prepared al the gues for publication) "References dri Consutin' time; Optatiann Porras, Cem. 6 108824 Nes Rind: Tet, O43) lien, 379 Theta als fered wo Contaatnape * data Re Gecood Rom In Grek): Ort Since ats ks oth defi adit rs the precle strength ofnve Roma was convene vague—"New Rome” not oes “Ihe Roma” See forthe Geig and Kall intredcton gv, ection 2 Formore on his cet ght Seren perspectives) Grigand Kel ntadaction gx, section sand Vanderspod gv 34-32 334 Ward-Perkins apostolic succession, was decreed to be second onl othe bishop of Rome, and above even the ancient and proud ses of erusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria? Imitation, anda degre of rivalry with Old Rome, is implicit in the txts that, describe the new city. For instance, a Latin description of Constantinople written in around 4a, the Notita Urbis Constantinopolitanae, divides the city into fourteen regions in clear emulation of the old capital, and bea the title Urbs Constantinoplitana nova Roma (“The City of Constantinople, New Rome’) Comparing the two cites is therefore not a gratuitous modern exer cise in league table creation, but a venerable practic that date back to Late Antiquity. In tracing the trajectories of Rome and Constantinople, the fifth century islkely tobe the key period, since it was atime of great change in the status and intluence ot both cities—but in opposite directions. In the fourth cen- tury, Rome was stl the symbolic heat ofa powerful empire and the home ‘ofa fabulously rich aristocracy with estates all over the Mediterranean, even ‘though, with the fall of Maxentius in 312i lost its role as an imperial resl- dence. In the first decade of the fith century, however, its good fortune ended asthe western empire began to unravel. The loss of empire dd bring some of the very last emperors back to the city, peshaps in the hope of benefiting from the reflected glory ofits past® But by 476, Rome was a city with a wonderful past but with azole in the present that was restricted toa Kingcom of Italy—wealthno longer lowed to it fom the rest of the empire, and its aristocracy had los all but ther Italian estates. Furthermore the city had suffered two serious sacks—at the hands ofthe Goths in 410 and ofthe Vandals in 455. By contrast, Constantinopl’s status, power, and wealth rose markedly during the fith century. The eastern empire continued to thrive economically in all but its Balkan provinces, and Constantinople became the permanent residence and true capital of the emperors, who withdrew entirely from “Antioch, the favored imperil residence ofthe fourth century, and also aban- ddoned campaigning in person. The new balance of resources and power between Rome and Constantinople was made crystal clear when an expedi- tion launched by an emperor lvingin Constantinople, Justinian, captured the ld capital in 536, turning it into a provincial city onthe fringes ofan eastern empire. 2 Senate and prfectre: Depron, Naanc, 0-35 anda, Taner, Dare oft Eeumenia Coc Val 3 (Canon) whee Contasinole inguin fred toon Rome See free Malgnn 5 Gilet, "Rome Ravenna” Petes) Old and New Rome Compared 55 1, THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE ‘Comparing the two cities is more dificult than we might expect. Textual refer- gnces are useful, but scattered and seldom readily comparable; so we are heavily dependent on archaeology. However, the evidence this has produced 50 fir is ineven in quality, currently greatly favoring Rome over Constantinople, For jnstance, in Rome, for very obvious ideological reasons, there has been a Fow- frful tradition of Christan archaeology since at leat the sixteenth century, tnabling us to Know more about the early churches of Rome than those of any ‘other city. There is, of course, no comparable tradition in Istanbul, waere fesearch into the Christin past hes never been « high priority. One of Con- ‘antinople’s most important, and most mysterious, early churches was Con- szantine’s Holy Apostles, which dominated the city from high ground and served a8 the burial place of the imperial dynasty. It would be a fascinating bullding to excavate, butits remains lie under the mosque of Mehmet the Con- built here a least in part to destroy the very memory of the Holy Apos- thes and seal it underground forever. Even without deliberate assaults on their ‘memory, very large and important churches have disappeared in Istanbul ‘seemingly into thin air. In the sixth century, Procopius, who knew the buld- ings of Constantinople well, recorded thatthe church of S. Mokios, very pos- sibly als built by Constantine, was the largest in the city ("to which all other shrines yield in siz); but its remains have never been found.* Such a stale of fairs is impossible to imagine in Rome. In Rome, the se:ular remains of ancient times have also received far more attention from European scholarship, and care from the city's rulers, than have those of Constantinople, Countless excavations have been carried out in Rome specifically to shed light on its glory days, whereas in Istanbul even some spe<- tacular monuments of the Roman past have been left to slumber in peace. For stance, itis known that broken fragments of a sculpted column, erected by “Theodosius I, survive in the foundations ofa sixteenth-century Ottoman bath house They are stil there and there they will remain forthe foreseeable future; only a very few ca-ved fragments, exposed by chance, are visible” In Reme, Mussolini, or an earlier ruler, would have demolished the bath house and ‘grubbed out ts foundations, inthe hope of sticking together again Theodosius’ broken column. In Istanbul at least in the ealy years of Ottoman rule, some temains ofthe Byzantine past were deliberately targeted for destruction. When Pierre Gilles vsitedthe city ins544~48, the column with acolossal bronze statue {6 Procoput, Bling 427, Dering For more tetimonisto i rs aie Mango Le lopement abn yeas ctsig is date ti it atest a4), . ine Beton sar Topegrapie anbule, 6,56 Ward-Perkins of Justinian on horseback, which had stood in Constantinople’s central square, had recently been demolished, and Gilles himself saw the sad remains ofthe statue broken up and about to disappear into the Sultans cannon foundry." The contrast with the treatment of antiquities in sixteenth-century Rome is elo. quent for only afew years earlier, in 53, the great equestrian bronze of Marcus ‘Aurelius had been moved from the Lateran, to be displayed in splendor in the riddle of Michelangelo's newly designed square on the Capitol. ‘A further example of the sketchy nature of the archaeological record from Istanbul, and the problems that this raises, isthe current near total lack of ev dence forthe numerous public bath buildings (thermae) known to have existed in fourth- and fifth-century Constantinople, Bight thermae are listed in the Notitia of about 425. The majority, from their names, were imperial founda. tions, which should certainly have been built on a grandiose scale; and some scraps of literary evidence suggest that they were indeed large. For instance, there was room to display at last eighty statues inthe baths of Zeuxippus in around A.D. 500; and in 365, two legions passing through the city (t this date cach perhaps numbering a thousand men) were based, and probably billeted, ina bath building? However, except for asmall pat ofthe baths of Zeuxippus, excavated in 1928, no physical evidence for any of them is known, and travelers) accounts suggest that they had already disappeared by the sixteenth century— in the 15408, the determined and thorough Pierre Gilles searched in vain for remains of the many baths he had read about in ancient sources: "No remains of the baths of Zeuxippus survive, nor of the many other baths. Have the baths of Constantinople disappeared because they were much smaller than the massive structures of Rome and other imperial cites (like Tres, Arles, and Milan), whose remains are still prominent within the modern cityscape; ot have they justbeen demolished much more completely?" ‘Admittedly, forthe late antique city of Rome, the intense antiquarian end archaeological actvity of the past has been a mixed blessing, since all early “excavations” were in reality treasure hunts, or, at best clearances down to classical levels, involving untold destruction to the archaeological record oflate and postimperial times. However, inthe last thirty to forty yeas, there has 1 Giles, Antiques, a7 (Mast, 7-99. Oa rele, see farther Mathews 9x 9, Noa Urbis Constontiopoianan 1302329 25334 240 td 43 Replon2.5.7.95, tndtesomnary iting bath med afer Cantata Land Arcadia Honoris aed {eter three afer women ofthe imperil ly. athe of Zeunipps these sts zien long poem peered inthe Palatine Antbclogy (ook The és events ia he "Anastasius ane Armies Marelins 36804 1, Exceatedremnng ofthe ath of Zeusipps: Mle Wine, devon 2 Topographic arb 9 Casio nd Talbot ce Stond Repo .0-7 Gilles, Antique, 2 Oa, 72 "Th imperial bt of Accs hve cote appeared ere he epost fae soda covering mich ofthe nie cy every ep indeed, sch dep tha in sarba. Old and New Rome Compared 57 ein a silent revolution within Italian archaeology, bringing careful strat snic investigation to the fore, so that we are now getting reliable informs fion on the transformation, and eventual abandonment, of Rome's clasical heritage, as well as on its days of splendor. The recent excavations in Constan- tinoples harbor of Theodosius suggest that this revolution in archaeological technique has now reached the urban archaeology of Istanbul; but as yet the results for the late antique history ofthis city are slight. 2, MONUMENTS, SAINTS, WALLS, AND AqueDucts none respect, of course, Constantinople could never hope to match Rome—in the number, size, and splendor of its traditional secular monuments. Rome, since late republican times, had been endowed with an extraordinary array of monuments: theatres, amphithestres, circuses, bath buildings, secular basilicas, triumphal arches and columns, monumental squares, and more—in staggering ruraber as well as size. The small city of Byzantion, which had not even been a provincial capital before Constantine selected it for greatness, could never catch upwith this grandiosity, Emperors in Constantinople did however make serious efforts to rival the ‘old capita. In the 380s Theodosius I and in 4o2 Arcadius each ordered for his new forum a great column in marble, decorated with spiral reliefs of military triumph. There can be no doubt that these monuments were builtin emulation ofthe famous columns of Marcus Aurelius and Trajan in Rome. That of Theo- doslus, as we have earned above, disappeared in the eal sixteenth century, and. {ew details of it are known. However, that of Arcadius survived until the early eighteenth century and was drawn by various travelers—for instance, it domi- nates the skyline of the city ina view by Melchior Lorichs of 559—and its base sill survives in stu.” Even more importantly, it was thoroughly described, and. its height calculated, by the intrepid adventurer and antiquary Piere Gilles in thes54os. He feared the suspicion of the localsifhe tried to measure the column by the most obvious and reliable means available—dropping a line from top to bottom. So instead, ashe ascended the interior spiral staircase, he carefully mea- sured the height of the enormous blocks that made up the column, its base, and its capital.” Thanks to Pierre Gilles’ determination and ingenuity, we know roughly how tall Arcadius’ column was and can place i, set tothe same scale, alongside that of Marcus Aurelius in Rome (see figure 3). Unsurprisingly, but 22. Koll, Osmische Past Gili, Le Clon Mlle Wnt Bldesiton zur Tpegraphetebals390°8 "a Giles, Antiguo 47 (Mt, 7-39- The ful atin teat alo ve in the footnotes of Baca, La Colonna. s-37s& Ward-Perkins CONSTANTINOPLE gure 31 The columns of Areadiv ané Mareus Aurelius, reproduced to thesame sale (based ‘on Kona, “Arkadiossiule” 6g Abb. combined with Planes engraving ofthe Marcus ‘column, nd an anonymous drawing ofthat of Arcadian. impressively, we find that Arcadius (and presumably Theodosius before him) did not skimp—theirs were columns of over 100 Roman feet, te same size, if ‘ot slightly larger, than their models in Rome." Indeed, the cclumns of Con- stantinople had a considerable scenic advantage over their western cousins and. rivals. Both were set on high ground overlooking the Propontis, making them clearly visible to anyone approaching Constantinople by sea, and both were sited on the Mess, the main route by land into the heart of the cty; whereas the 4. Theses ofthe two columns oe in ar jae bad on Konrad "Abadia s69 Abb, According Konrad crelavon, bic lok convincing, he heights ode tire recoded spzalcolumas the tps of her apd) eo wer, a8 flows Trajan. mates (vith lower Due then the oe twoh Mazes Arai amar: Arcadia. meters Image of Arcadia ‘urn ena ok aller tani Ronen cousins eche tha oly hire oad eps of decoratin, at agit the 3 ad 8 (error) bad ofthe colina of Tsun and Maras ‘are. The very bra of the clumn srevs init, and iin fat rosrtsprormately 43 he clumas of Trajan (67m) and arcus (3.8m) These Sigurt ave rom Kear arse” 36 sine La colonies) sd Capin eta, Looms 29 (MF, Old and New Rome Compared 59 alomns of Rome, both sted in the valley bottom, would always have been neat los, a they are today, inthe maze of streets that make up the city Tnexploring the obvious emilation, and the impliit rivalry, that existed etween Constantinople and Rome, the obelisks ofthe two cities are particu In insteutive. In Rome, ever since the conquest of Egypt by Octavian- AAagstus, emperors had been bringing obelisks tothe cit—the ast to arrive, the largest ofall (which now stands outside the Lateran), was brought by Con- statins to adorn the Circus Maximus after his visi tothe cityin 357. Accord ingto the inscription carved on its new bas, this obelisk had been intended for Constantinople by Constantine, but abandoned by him in Egypt—implicty, bybringingit to Rome, Constantius was correcting an error of judgment by his father and recognizing the true primacy ofthe old capital® ‘Unsurprisingly, emperors in Constantinople decided thst their “new Rome” ako needed obelisks. In 390, under Theodosius I, an Egyptian obelisk was fected on the spina ofthe hippodrome, which still stands ther today. Its a impressive objec, even in its incomplete state (its lower partis missing, broken off and presumably le behind in Egypr) and itis set on « huge block of Pro- onvesian marble carved on all four sides with scenes of imperil ceremonial. ‘Another thee, possibly four, obelisks also reached Constantinople, including a remarkable monolith of Egyptian porphyry, which must have been especially quarried to adorn the cit, since no obelsks in this highly prized stone (the Gelor ofimperil purple) were available from ancient Egypt. But, despite these impressive efforts by its rulers, Constantinople could never quite match the three centuries of head start that Rome had had inthe assembling of obelisks. Tout possibly five ae recorded in the eastern city, but fully fourteen stil sur- vive in Rome today, four of them larger than the hippodrome obelisk—and smafy more once existed. “That Constantinople fel itelf under pressure from Rome when it came to cbdisks, is shown by a second remarkable object on the spina ofits hippo- drome~a “false obelisk, built of squared blocks of tone and once sheathed in bronze. It is almost certainly of late antique date (though it isnot recorded +5, Nah, letra Distioary. 43-4: verse, Obi, 35-64 For the Inscription end he ‘binary el), CIt Any = 8 9 aly Ammon, 9-26 1 Bruns, Der Obl ese, Obl, 9-9 Mile-Wiee,ildeiton zu Topographic ‘abu 6-66 ad 6 this bel ad sleadybea dened for Constantinople by Constants and Jain, flowing Const equvelene gto Rome ie uli p48 We ‘Bde. "Ito, Obl, 54-0. The arrival of none ofthese obeliks can be date, but all mst have ‘eked Constantinople ate Anguty, he porphyry cbelaks broken and missing at bath nds ibe saving portion 43m ig) "Nuh, Portal Dinar, 2100-6 vere, Obes 78a60 Ward-Perkias ‘unequivocally belore the tenth century) and tis 32 meterstall—thesameheigh, as Constantius Is obelisk in the Circus Maximus, the largest ic Rome and Indeed the largest known from Egypt (se figure 32).” This coincidence of height can ardlybe due to chance. ize, when it came to obelisk, clearly mat tered: and in the absence of a eal obelisk to rival Rome’ greatest she ruler of Constantinople ft obliged to build their own.” ‘The lesser scale and numberof the secular monuments of Constantinople reflect broader realty within which the city was bound to lag behind Rome namely its lack of «remarkable past. Byzantion, given its postion on the land route that linked the Balkans withthe eastern provinces, and on te ses route between the Aegean and the Black Sea, was a site of considerable stratege importance and bad had its moment in history—for instance, being besieged, badly damaged, and then substantially rebuil by Septimius Severs atthe end ofthe second century. But it was always @ minor town, wth nothing remotely to match the glories ofthe western city, which had begun with the rivalry of Romulusand Remus, deep in the distant past. In any historical contest, it would take centuries ofoth triumph and miraculous escape (a from thePersan and ‘Ava siege of 626) for Constantinople to even begin to look Rome inthe ey. Byzanton’s minor rol, and lack fa good history before Constantine, isFlly demonstrated in Constantinople’ poor Chistian credentials 1 could boas only two local martyrs, Akakios and Mokios, nether household names although as we have seen, someone (possibly Constantine himself) di his best for he later by ‘ullding hrm avery large church. But theres no evidence that even Constantine ‘considered his new citys an important Christian centr, and he concentrated his principal ecclesiastical buildingin the easter haf ois empire inthe Holy Land” ‘Only later in the fourth century did emperors begin to correct Constantinoples 1 ani, Costeaple byzantine beght snd dt ofthe masonry ob ts cecal exer than oe went entry since we revtoed under Cantante Porphyrogeniss (Gis who recordedhis workin surviving isto Wich alu fer tthe bronze lites that once contd) Ae antique dat for such lr slid nd archalnng stractresalipost eral and issupportedby tre pleces of evidence ele oth base of Todos abel, ‘Sowing to aba s he ippodrome (his wn abd oe ter, that could be his oe Besa, Der (bel Abb pans and the reerenc in the Nettie ofa, 4s toa Colt” meer (sonpeies) whiney Nose Urbs Contanenopoltense a4 (he smnmaryColoeru ‘oun This cald be bur abel since Constantine Porphycopenitusin is eat icripon drew + dose pall betes in Bronze covering) andthe famous bron Colors of odes Natthews qv eoport ti ew. se Many centuries ber, Washington, D.C the New Rome ofthe loeteeth cent, was gives nobel that ot abs both Reme and Constantinople Te Washington Monument bal (ike ‘the Constetinopola obels) of sla block, od complete nb, ands a impressive 9 ‘meters hgh and wes ely (before the el Tower was Esuhed a 88) he tallest manmade ‘rvtureon the planet. "Nor does Consactinple sare rong the rpc sees (Alera, Antioch, rule nd ‘ops meatoned inthe canons ofthe Coun of Nise (39. Old and New Rome Compared 61 CONSTANTINOPLE ROME ionny TMONTETORIO ST yedoosia Oneuise Porat FRgure 32 Three obeliks in Constantinople, and vome of those of Rome, all reproduced 1 the same ele, (For the alliage of he obeliss of Rome, from anengsving fia by GB. Cie tee D Onofre, belch pl.) Christian deft, by shipping in bodies and body parts from better endowed areas ofthe empire. In 356, Constantius Il brought to Constantinople the bodyofTimo- thy (an aposte of Pau), and in the flowing year those ofthe evangelist Luke and tne poste Andrew (brother to Petes). These are the very rt recorded instances cfstntsbeing moved far fom ther orginal resting places, a act that shows both how bighly emperors respected Constantinople and how serious was the need to ‘chance its saintly standing. In 3, Theodosius I added the head of Joh the Bap- tisin 406, the body ofthe prophet Samu arrived; and in 5, those of sus fos terfather Joseph and of on the Baptist father Zacharias 22, Daron Nalsance, The dates ee thas given nthe ConslarlaComtantnopoitana fo ‘he bodies oTimoty, uke and Andsew) andthe ChoniconPuchle. The bodies of Anew ad ke may ve reehed Constantinople as ni e6396 Burges, "The Psi Artem”62 Ward Perkins But however many saints were brought into the city it could never match ‘Rome's Christian history and Christian relics. Rome was universally accepted to be the resting place of a host of martyrs, including the two most prestigious followers of lesus—Pati, the hero of the book of Acts, who took Christianity to the gertiles, and Peter, to whom Christ addressed the portentous words: “Thow art Pete, and upon this rock I will build my church... . And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 16:18-19). Rome's apostolic position was unassailable, and the bishops of Rome, who had established to everyone's satisfaction that Peter had founded their see and was their direct predecessor, exploited this historical position to the full. They increasingly called their bishopric an “apostolic see,” and Peter the ‘prince cf the apostles”? Other bishops might fret at Rome's claims to determine doctrine and good practice, bt they did not, and could not, dispute its saintly patrimony and the extraordinary status that flowed from this. Her, for instance, is John Chryso- stom, native of the great see of Antioch and later bishop of Constantinople itself, writing about Rome: ‘Heaven, when the sun is emitting its rays, is not as resplendent a the city ‘of the Romans radiating everywhere inthe universe the light of these two lamps [Peter and Paull... With what two crowns is it domed... . With, what golden chains is it girded. ...T admire this city, not because ofits mukitude of gold, not because of its columns, not because of its pomp, Dut because of these two pillars of the church. “There was no fully satisfactory answer to Rome's superiority in saints. But in the sixth century, Constantinople id come up with what was at least «partial solution to the problem—the adoption of the Virgin Mary as is special patron ‘She was, of course, a peculiarly well placed intercessor, and ber body was not available to any city since it was coming to be accepted that she like Christ, had, ascended directly into heaven. She did, however, leave on ea:th some special relics—her robe and her girdle—both of which were claimed by Constantinople. ‘While Rome was always going to outshine Constantinople in its wealth of ‘raditional monuments and in the richness of ts secular and Christian past, in ‘other areas it could be caught, and even overtaken, At the beginning ofthe fifth Century when it becaunie clea that security was not going to be restored rapidly 25, Pll Roms Christan, op-o and 489-66 See Banden gy on Petrie cog nthe sith ands cota, na Toon Chrys, Homily 6 (PG 6346-47 Thave uted the waslaton of Dror Thee faporlnyas {ke proce ofbulding up the Virgin tnd herds asthe special protects of Constast- open inthe ate Bh cet and wes complete by Eau: Mango, "The Orgs ofthe Biches Shrine Old and New Rome Compared 63 gure 33 The sly ithcentry walls of Rome and Constantinople compared. Drawn by Ef ‘Keser Kaye. tothe Bakars, and in the face of the Gothic threat inside Italy both Constanti- nople and Rome were given spectacularly enhanced walls Se figure 33). The workin Rome, ordered by Honorius and completed in 403, consisted of the mas- Sivebeightening ofan earlier circuit builtby Aurelian in thethied century. The land walls of Constantinople, built around 433 under Theodosius I, were com- pletely new, ofering a triple line of defense: substantial moat with a low first Aefesive wall or potechisma); an intermediate wall with towers (which even ‘nits own would not have disgraced the city); and, finally a much tlle wall ‘einforced with huge towers, large enough to support powerful artillery pieces.* With these new fortifications, the two cities were perhaps close to level peg- fing in terms oftheir defenses, the most impressive ofthe entire empire. The walls of Rome, with over 300 towers, were necessarily much longer than the Jand walls of Constantinople with their ninety-six towers, and they were taller, but they were only a single line of fortification, unlike the formidable tiple barrier erected by Theodosius Il. But within a hundred yeas the defenses of Constantinople would definitively overtake those ofthe olé capital. Under the 6, Rome Ricimond, The Cty Waly sil the Bes snl oorce, baths ehonslogy is refned by (ess, "Osservnion." Constantinople Die Landauer oy Kaschen, Die Lendmaue Yl and Mo ath andes Di Lndauer ls Malle We Bednar porapie64 Ward-Perkins pans ana ( semitone Teens aera npn F Figure. The"Long Walls” (om Slvr to Bik and aqueduct Constantinople. Courtesy coffees Crow, ‘emperor Anastasius, atthe very beginning ofthe sixth century, Constantinople ‘was given a completely new forward line of defense—a wal, some 46 kilome- ters long, reaching from sea to sea and protecting a substantial slice ofthe citys hinterland (see figure 3.4)” By contrast, the defenses of Rome changed very litle after the early fith century (indeed, they were stil substantially in their late Roman form when defended by papal troops, and breached, in 1870). "The water supply of Constantinople never quite matched that of Ronie, but it came close, Rome acquired eleven aqueducts through late republican and early {imperial times, with some of them (like the Aqua Claudia) carried into the city on pectacular rows of arches. The amounts flowing into Rome, and the number of different sources tapped, even allowed for the selective use of different qualities of water: the impure water of the Alsietna, for instance, was used primarily for irrigation and powering mills, saving the prized waters of aque- ducts like the Marcia for drinking” Praise for Rome's water supply was & ian Wal" Grow nd Ris “ovesiguig the Hineand” Anata 27 Crow, "The Anas wal wos mila fo Hada’ in Ben though ethan bal ts egth he ort rsh wall wat rend hn oo) 2s Aah, The Aqua of Anlet Romer the essential survey For the very fiat ‘quality ofthe Marca andthe Alsetny, Ponts, De Aquaedct, 1. (Old and New Rome Compared 65 sigeas The aquedacts of Rome and Constantinople compared. Drawn by Elf Keser Kaya. commonplace—Pliny wrote that there was “nothing more wonderful in the ‘whole world” while Frontinus drew a favorable contrast between Rome's “many ‘massive and indispensable structures bringing in so much water” and “the ob- viously idle pyramids and the inert but famous buildings of the Greeks” ‘While itis entirely possible that there was decay tothe system in the fifth cen- ‘ary, much oft was certainly till functioning inthe early sixth century, since the Romans are recorded to have been “distressed by their inability to bathe” when the aqueducts were cut during a siege in 537.” Constantinople could never rival the full sophistication of Rome's water spy ut its aqueducts were steadily enhanced through the fourth and fifth centuries. After its early dependence on local supply, brought in along fairly short channels, by the early sixth century the city had scquired much the longest sqeductof the ancient workd—around 120 kilometersas the crow fies, but over 25 kilometers ong if followed along its winding course (se figures 3.4and 33)" Gonstantinopolitans could now glory in what their hydraulic engineers had achieved, in the way that writers had long gloried in the water supply of Rome. For Instance, the shetor Themisti lauded the skilled engineering ofthe aqueduct of 49, Play NH 9.14% Or Rel) Frnt, De Aguardt a Rent) $5. Procepus, War 205 = Gothic War 209), trans: Dering 2% Thecombine lng ofthe varius aqueduct channels of Constantinople perhaps exceeded tHe combined length of Rae's agueducts Crow el, The Water Supply However, atm ofthe ‘uy and vary of wet provided, Rome wa cerainiy eter endowed than Contanneple Which forostance yas alo sul om sey of water aa gona hig” daring he suet SSonths even unde uta, when he ys aguedac rte war a met exten Procopis uldngr isons66 Ward-Perkins ‘Valens (with its tunnels and bridges) by praising the emperor for introducing the “Thracian water nymphs into the city, who “undeterred by rocks, mountains or ravines, skirted these obstacles, burrowed under them or flew through the air ‘Conitantinople also acquired a remarkable number of huge cisterns, more Impressive even than those of Rome, primarily to store water during the dry summer months—though this was an achievement forced on the city by its lack of alternative sources of fresh water (while Rome could if necessary, sup- plement or replace its aqueduct water from wels, and from the Tibes).” The best known Constantinopolitan cisterns are two spectacular underground structures, the Basilica Cistern (or Yerebatan Saray), built by Justinian, and that “of Philoxenos" (or Binbirdirek; see figure 3.6), both in the center of town and both now major tourist attractions. The Basilica Cistern has 366 columns supporting its vaults (in 12 rows of 28), while that of Philoxenos hes 224 double columns (448 in all, jastfying, with only a touch of hyberboe, its Turkish name, “the thousand and one columns”). But just as impressive in their way are three huge open-air cisterns built near the Theodosia walls, all ofthe fifth and very early sixth centuries, which between them could hold around 600,000 cubic meters of water To form an idea of ther size (which is very dificult to capture even in photographs), we need only know that they are all of roughiy the same dimensions and that one of them, the cistern of Aetius (builtin 421) now holds within ita medium-sized football stadium. ‘The defenses and the water supply of Constantinople were both enhanced during the fifth and early sith centuries, which highlights an obvious and very relevant contrast with Rome. While Constantinople’ infrastructure grew with ‘8 concomitant gain in security and comfort, that of Rome stood stil: the very last major secular balding project knovn in the old capitals the extension of the city walls completed in 403." Furthermore, there is good evidence to show that the monumental patrimony of the old capital, on which we fave dvelt above did not just stagnate, but began to crumble. In 443, prefect ofthe ity 13% Thetrantion bated on Mange, "Th Water Supp pastage alto aoaeted in ‘crow etal Te Wt Supply 24) Towards te end of befor century Gregory of asints, again efecrng ois tunnels ond ries, desctbed Constantinople’ aguedac wan underrouad sod overheed re” (07 59. Cro eal The Water Supp 226. 53 Overiaciterarare lined isthe reer ingest comple by Jonathan Bad Crow et 1 The Water Supply 14-35 Choagh nol willbe late Romani ste 34 Fortheaumbers fea: Mango, Byzantine Artcture 68-70. (Bcanse othe col damp condition within the Pilea Ciera wat wed next modern ine for sping serheace the whee inthe foreground of gure 3.0. 2: Crow eta, The Water Sup ss. 36 Intbe tare tay alu be pole to compare tbe harbor fies of Constatinope (wich were progressively aed t through the fourth and fh centre) wth Rome's spectacls, but pe ‘ape decaying, harbors at Pets. (Old and New Rome Compared 67 Figures. The cern “of Philnenoe (Binbirdire "8 The cistern appears inthis engraving as today filled with arth o about third of org Insight he rng that one ean see om the columns aren reality the band wed tin two ‘aperingosed column drums of equal heighd (Allam and Walsh, Constantinople acing ps4) caried ou a repair to the baths of Constantine and celebrated his work in the traditional manner, with an inscription. But the wording ofthis inscription i far fromtraditional—in it the prefect emphasizes the very limited cos ofhisrepai “herestored the baths) with small sum (parvo sumptu), as much asthe scarcity ‘ofpublic funds would allow (quantum publica patiebantur angustice”” Thisis an extraordinary statement, making a virtue of petty repair, after centuries of {scriptions that had praised the huge sums and massive effort expended on the bewutiication of Rome. Funds must have been very scarce indeed. Archaeological evidence points in the same direction. Some areas of Rome ‘certgnly survived as monumental spaces through the fifth and early sixth cen- turies, For example, as late as 608 a statue tothe emperor Phocas was dedicated inthe heart of the Forum, opposite the Senate House. This dedication, in re- ality, was almost certainly the rededication of a much older statue, adding a new inscription to its base; but it shows that an area ofthe Forum was still dee- ‘orous enough in the eariy seventh century forthe honoring of an emperor in Ue tradition manner." Recent excavations have uncovered elsewhere a similar 38. CL sis00= ILS,68 Ward-Perkins picture of the survival of some Roman monuments in their ancient form until very late dates. Forinstance, the paved square in front ofthe Paz:heon is now known to have bees kept clean at its Roman level into the tenth century, with even the addition ofa small fountain, probably inthe late eighth century. Only, after 900 did the scuare’s fine paving, monumental form, and fountain disap- pear under a mass of dumped rubble.” However, excavations elsewhere in Rome have revealed monuments that were already in ruins, orat least beginning ofall apart, inthe fithcentury. For instance, the massvve Basilica Aemilia, right next to the Senate House, was never rebuilt after a disastrous fre in the early fith century (very possibly caused by the Gothic sack of 420). Its facade was rebuilt in a new ‘orm, so that from the outside the building looked suitably decorous; bt behind this facade ‘was an empty burat-out shell*® Decay, rather than out-and-out destruction, ‘was however probably more typical of the state of Rome’s monuments in the fifth century. For instance, the extensive excavations in the area cf the Crypta, Babi have shown that during the fifth century rubbish was being dumped ‘within the monumental buildings of early imperial times, that these were be- ginning to crumble and that new rough tracks were being formed, cutting across the monumental areas (see figure 37)" Unfortunately, unless the excavations were carried out very recently, with suitable care and attention dedicated to the chronology of abandonment (as at the Crypta Bali and Pantheon), evidence ofthe later history of monuments has {invariably been deszoyed. However, even a reexamination of early excavations can occasionally tum up fascinating scrap of evidence. Inthe Forum of Augus- ts for instance, which was cleared under Mussolini (with scant attention to its later history), an observant scholar recently noticed an inscription carved on fone of the huge colapsed column drums ofthe temple of Mars Ultor. The in- scription, which car only have been added tothe column drum afte: it had fallen (ince itis on one ofthe hidden surfaces), reads "PAT DECI,” with clear abbre- Vietion mark over the “PAT* (se figure 38). This can reasonably beexpanded to read Pat(rici) Dec (Of the Patrician Decius), perhaps a mark of ownership. If the name has been interpreted correcty the inscription could wel be of the 29, Vigil, "Strattare 04-7 Vigil and Maes “ndapins” sx the fous ln font of whathad Become the circh of Maria ad Martyrs) was pecnap ade by ope Hadelan abe tinea epi othe Ago Vigo. Recent workha shown tht he marble paving the Fer ‘of Trajan wat lepine ut te sith century, when i wassystematicaly enone. By thes {he frames emotes slreadyna poor stat of repaea sownby he presence of Ke ‘faround 1m 70, etbldhe o convert Tajanc marble nts ime bu tea hve bees ‘avered in dep rabble Neneghist nd Satan Valetan, Fort Imperial 23-3 “Macha, Baling the at 14-75 ‘0 Manacords, “Tasbrmeioal” 3-38; Manacorda, Crypts Bab 4-5 ln its entry. Prom D. Manacod, Oya Bab, 4,8 47) Figuie sy Hype sevouatsuntion uf se ne fda Crypts Ball70 Ward-Perkins Figure 38 The inscription, pos of the Patrician Decus, inthe Forum of Angnstus. The row in the photograph shows the column drum on which t appears second half of the fifth century, or of the early sith, since there are three ‘prominent aristocratic Decii recorded in Rome in that period (consuls, respec- tively, in 486, 493, and 529), Furthermore, the letter forms ofthe inscription (uch a its distinctive “A”) would suit such a dat, If this dating and interpreta- tion are correct (and there are several “is” involved here), the inscription is ev- dence that, by around 00 at the latest, one ofthe columns of Augustus’ temple cof Mars Ultor had already collapsed (or perhaps even been torn down), with its ‘marble drums lying eround tobe claimed by arich and powerful aristocrat? ‘Overall the archaeological evidence suggests that islands of monumentality were maintained in Rome into the sixth century, and even beyond (as at the Pantheon), but almost certainly within a context of widespread decay. This isa picture supported by the written evidence of Procopius, who saw the city during the Gothic wars ofthe sos and s4os. Atone point, he describes how the 4 Mepoghtn and Santange Valezan, "Elsa rasformasone78-bs Menepini and Sentangel Venza Rama nellomedioeo, Fa sim lst, hts pose evidence ‘ofeonsdersbleranaton and soliton x the Calonseum by the el seth cetay, even tough ‘he arena was slo see Rea apd Pu, "GERONT! V7 Meoephini and Santangel Valen, (Old and New Rome Compared 71 tesieged inhabitants of Rome were reduced to eating the nettles that grew in quantity among the city’s ruins @ rois éoermios) but, atthe same time, foals notes how “the Romans love their city above all the men we know ... Ma preserved [its] buildings and most ofits adornments, such as could through fhe excellence oftheir workmanship withstand so long lapse of time and such peglect”® Rome was crumbling, even though efforts were being made to slow the decay. "Wehave from Constantinople no detailed evidence forthe state ofits secular sonuments, similar to that which has been emerging from Rome. But, when the center ofthe city burned during the Nika riots of ss, it was rebuilt by Jus- tinian, most famously with his Churca ofS, Sophia, but also witha new entrance to the imperial palace, new baths of Zeuxippus, and new colonnades down to the Forum of Constantine, as wel a with a monumental column and bronze state of the emperor Unlike in Rome, where ie inthe early fith century led tothe abandonment ofthe Basilica Aemili, even though this was in the heart ‘ofthe Forum Romanum, in Constantinople the fire of s3a was followed by a complete rebuilding in the case ofS Sophia on a very much grander scale. 3. Ta Houses or t2 Ric, ANo oF THz Not So Rick ‘A similar picture of ith-century decay can now also be told about the sump- tuous houses of the Rome's aristocracy." At the very beginning ofthe fifth cen- tury these domis must have outshore the equivalent aristocratic residences of Constantinople, since they made a profound impact on Olympiodorus, an east- ern weiter who knew Constantinople well: “each of the great houses of Rome ‘contained within itself... everything which a medium sized city could hold, a hippodrome, fora, temples, fountains, and diferent kinds of baths. . .. One ‘house isa town, the city hides ten thousand towns." Furthermore, Rome con- tained a very large number of domas—1.790 ae listed in fourth-century descrip- tions of the city. Archaeological evidence confirms that, while many of these hhouses were old in origin, they were carefully maintained, and further embel- lished, during the fourth century. For instance, the “House of the Symmachi” 19, Preps Wars 3735 (= Gate War 3.73), and Wars ass 4. Brocpias Wars 29 (© Person Wary Bulag 203. 4%. Foren acount ofthese developments, se Machado gi nd hs forthcoming Urban Space sc Poerin Late Antique ome, 16 Number of dont: Curiam Urbs Romae and Noi Urb Roma, 6048 (el Viletni and Zacchet, Codie opera, ya) Fre quotation: Ofmpiodores 4% Bible Fr the rchedogcl evidence fr Lore’ domi through the fourth and ih centuries othe Wars 4235-8. Gesdbal. “Velie abiative iam’ Ensoll and La Roet, Ares Roma, sss: chad, Between Memory obion72 Ward-Perkins (on the Caclian hill) gained a sumptuous new marble floor for one ofits recep. tion rooms, while the house of Junius Bassus on the Esquiline was enhanced by a new hall, decorated with sophisticated opus sectile work ‘The evidence from Constantinople is far more sketchy than that from Rome, though some fifty fourth- and fifth-century aristocratic houses are recorded in ‘written sources.” From some of their names, and above all from the insignif. cance of pre-Constantinian Byzantion, we can deduce that the city’ rich ‘houses must have been new buildings of late Roman times. The only ones that, have been partially excavated and published are two houses just north ofthe hippodrome, which are impressive in both size and complexity see figure 39). ‘The first, built for the imperial eunuch Antiochus (as an inscription attests, probably inthe 430s, had a symmetrical suit of rooms with complex ground plans opening off large D-shaped portico. The second, which is of about the same date, had a long dining hall with multiple apses (in which semicircular couches would have been placed), preceded by a large rotunda, itself opening off a much smaller portico. Tis second house used tobe attributed to Lausus, another very distinguished official of the 420s and 4308. ‘The atribution is, doubtful, though Laususis known from textual evidence to have owned a spec- tacular mansion somewhere inthis area, large enough to house a famous col- lection of antique sculpture, including some huge pieces, like Pheidias’ Zeus from Olympia. The textual evidence forthe house of Lausus, and the exca- vated evidence from near the hippodrome, although very patchy, issuficient to give an impression ofthe rich aristocratic housing that sprung up in Constan- tinople and to show that atleast some of this development occurred in the fifth century By contrast, recent archaeological work in Rome has shown that here the condition of the aristocratic domas changed markedly forthe worse during the fifth century The scanty textual evidence is admittedly somewhat contra- dictory. On the one hand, the Life ofthe ascetic aristocrat Melania provides telling detail of how one rich house in Rome was badly damaged during the Gothic sack of 410. Melania and her husband had earlier tried to sell their principal residence inthe city but had not found a bayer for “such alarge and splendid building” However, “after it was partly destroyed by the enemy, it ‘was sold for virtually nothing, since it had been damaged by fir”? On the ‘other hand, the book of papal biographies, the Liber Pontifcalis, points to @ rather different situation when it records that Sixtus III (432-40) gave his new 4: Porthere two houses, se Mango, Vickers and Francis, “The Palace of aun" 8p-o6; Bad, The Pace of Lass" 6-63 1 Vile Sancae Melanie 4 Old and New Rome Compared 73 /° 2 2 10 Meee yore 39 Thetwo aristocratic house excavated ner the hippodromein Constantinople. After Feel "The Palace of aueu Fg. foundation of S. Maria Maggiore two doms within the city, one of which (With a bath and bakery attached) brought in an annual income of 54 solidi, while the other rendered 104. These are very large sums, larger than earlier rents recorded in the Liber Pontifcalis, and hardly suggestive of a dramatic callase in demand for expensive housing,” ‘While the textual evidence is inconelusive, recent excavations in Rome seem. to point unequivocally to marked decay among its aristocratic houses. For Instance, of two great domias excavated recently on the Caelian, the “House of Gaudentius” and the massive “House of the Symmachi” only the unimpressive service areas of the former seem to have been used during the fith century, $9. LP 463m Duchese74. Ward-Perkins while the later appears to have been wholly abandoned. Similarly a recent re-examination of the evidence for a lage house excavated in 1947-49 by Ter- ‘ini, Rome’ central railway station, suggests thatthe greater part of It was abandoned and walled off sometime between the mid-fith and the early sith century’ Some wealthy houses must have survived through the fifth century to draw the rents recorded in the Liber Pontfialis and to house an aristocracy sil wealthy enough to hold expensive games in Ostrogothic times, but as yet ar chacological evidence of these buildings is almost nonexistent. Presumably, as with the public monuments, some impressive private houses persisted—but within a wider context of decay ‘Of more ordinary housingin this period, we know almost nothing from either and it is therefore impossible to come to any realistic estimates of overall population. However, we can be certain that by 00, the population of Rome was Sadly decayed from what it had been earlier. In the 5308 Cassiodorus, observing its massive buildings ands shrunken population, had this to say about the city: “itis clear how large the population of Rome once was the vast space enclosed bby the walls bears testimony toa mass of citizens, as does the extensive enclosure ofthe entertainment buildings, the marvelous size of the bath buildings, and the great number of mills” Rome, by the erly sath century, was a city living on former, and now decaying, grandeut. Constantinople by contrast was a boom toven, adding, through the fith and into the sixth centry, tots water supply and defenses, to it aristocratic domi, and almost certainly to its population. 4, Tax BuiLpINes oF THE CHURCH During the fourth and very early fifth centuries, bth Rome and Constantinople acquired a number of large and sumptuously decorated churches. In Rome these included two five-ssled basilicas around 100 meters long, one built for St Peter by Constantine, the other for St. Paul, ordered by Valentinian II and “Theodosius. For Constantinople we know very much les, but the Holy Apos- tles was unquestionably an impressive building, and so, oo, almost certainly was the Church of S. Sophia as rebuilt following a fire in 404." ‘During the fifth century, the new churches of Constantinople should have continued to be large (and even increased in size), while those of Rome should have got smaller and smaller, both cities’ churches had followed the pattern Pool etal, “Latopografi aca” 43-8 49-54 $2: Saoangel Valencnl and Menghin Pas tnde™ 15. Carsodores, Varaes39 $4. Krasteimer ea, Corp Baslleeram Chistanarum Roma, 93-279 $9 Forthe Holy Apowes, Eusebius, C4385. For. Soph, Schneider, Grab im West, Malntone, Hale Sepia, 4-4. Old and New Rome Compared 75 sate have traced for secular monuments, queducts, walls and aristocratic phasing. The surviving evidence, however, doesnot immediately support this evr. From fi-centry Rome, two very large churches srvive—S, Maria Flog, built and lavishly decorated with mosaics by Pope Sixtus Il inthe ipo and 8. Stefazo Rotondo, erected by Pope Simplicius sometime between Aeband fs. a8welas a sumptuous redecoration ofthe Lateran Bapistery also ‘Aried out by Sixtus ITS None of this was on quite the imperial scale of {peters and S. Paul's S. Maria Maggiore has three rather than five aisles and Jr around 70 rather than 100 meterslong, But none theless these churches seem fo point ina very different direction tothe stagnation and decay documented forthe secular menuments and aristocratic houses of Rome, some of which, aithough standingon the Caelian Hill right next to S. Stefano, were falling into fui in the very feriod that this impressive church was being erected.” Fur- thermore, both S. Maria Maggiore and S, Stefano are considerably larger than the two fifth-century churches of Constantinople that are known in more or les their complete form, the churches ofS. John Stoudios of about 450 and of the Theotokos Chalkopratea ofthe later fith century. These churches are litle under 50 meters long, although both were once preceded by atria, off which, in the case of the Chalkoprateia, opened an annexed suite of rooms (probably a baptisery). The Roman churches are only rivaled in scale in the 20s, when the fabulously rich Anicia Juliana built the great Church ofS. Poly- ‘xktos, known from excavations in the 1960s (se figure 3.0). However, there are special circumstances that may explain, and that cer- tainly nuance, this anomalous pattern, Fist, the two survivirg churches from Constantinople may be unrepresentative of the full range of ecclesiastical buildings constructed within the fith-century city, since, as we have seen, we now so very little about the Christin archaeology of the city. If the great fourth-century Basilica of S. Mokios could disappear withoat trace and the Church of. Polyeaktos only be discovered by chance in 1960 itis very possible that substantial Cnstantinopolitan churches ofthe ith century have been lost without trace. Second, although Rome's surviving fith-century churches are 56. § Marl Maggor: LP 45 (2-38 Duchesne); Kauteimer al Corps Bosiearum irsianoran Roma 60 5. Sela, LP 4s e249 Duchesne); Keauelme etal, Corps Bscarum Christiana Roma, 499-240 Bapisery LP 489 (334 Duches). ‘2 Malinishoure andthe howe ofthe Synmachl and of Gaudertarwerellin the immediate cy of Sia, ‘A, Challopraea, Mille Wiener, Bdekon ur Topographieanbuly, 6-o: les "Neve Belunde les, “rabengen” John Studios, Mller Wlene, lesion 2 Topographic ‘abs, 9-53. The Cure of othe est preserved henry church of Consatinope, St ici ple thn the Calor; the plans ofboth are reprodaced de by side ia Milles Winer, "Cartetnapli” 60S, Poleukton, Harriton, Excavations Haron, TempleROME ‘CONSTANTINOPLE sstermonoronoo a Figure 3.0 The plans all deawa tothe seme scale, of two Sih-cenury churches in Rom (6- Maria Maggore and 5. Stefano Rotondo), compared with thos of fifth and an eal seth century ehurch in Constantinople (he TheotokosChalopratea and 8, Plyeuktoa- Plans pre pared by i Keser Kayan. larger then those known from Constantinople, their marble elements (bases columas, and capitals) are almost all reused pleces, taken from abandoned clas sical buildings. By contrast, in Constantinople, marble is carved in the lates styles and newly quarried, generally at nearby at Proconnesos, but sometime: such farther afield—the Church of S. John Stoudios, for instance, has a set of exotic verde antico columns brought to the city from Thessaly. Already in the fifth century if one was interested in the latest fashion in marble decoratior and marble carving, it was certainly to Constantinople that one looked, not tc Rome. Third, the size of Rome's churches may reflect local circumstances rather than broader well-being within the city. The three impressive projects o the fifth century that we have considered—S, Maria Maggiore, 8, Stefano, ané the Lateran Baptistery—-were all papal commissions, andthe popes during the fifth ceatury were accumulating more and more gifts and more and more ‘wealth. The size ofthese churches probably reflects increasing papal wealth ané ‘papal prestige, rather than general prosperity within the city.”” 49, Plt "Berd; Marzal "Rome a ranson” 5-38 Old and New Rome Compared 77 ROME CONSTANTINOPLE ‘igores0 Plans and sections athe same scale, of, Palo foe le-mura (Rome) and S Sophia {Constantinople Baked onthe drawings in Fletcher, History of Architecture “Though itmay not have occurred in the ith century, the primacy of Constan- tinople over Rome in church building was conclusively established by Justinian, hen he rebuilt. Sophia felowing the Nika rots of 32 This astonishing church, trected in less than six years isnot only very large in plan, iis also hugely tall, and covered, of course, not with a timber roof, but witha great mosaiced dome. In plan, S. Sophia is not dissimilar in size to the great imperial churches of fourth-century Rome, but in terms ofheight, engineering panache, and the sheer ‘olume of space enclosed, it massively outdoes them (see figures 331 and 312) Furthermore, people in Constantinople were well aware that this was a building that outshone even Rome. At the second dedication ofS. Sophie, probably in January 563, the orator Paul the Silentiary heaped praise on the Emperor Just Jan, who “by raising this ininite temple... has made you [Constantinople] more Briliant than your mother on the Tiber who bore you"; and he imagines old ome attending the cererrony of rededication: “But you too, first born Latin ore, come, singing in harmony with fresh-budding Rome; come rejoicing that ‘yoUsee your child surpassing her mother, for tisis the delight of parents.** © Pulte Sentry, Dereripton of aia Sophia go s64-6n: Bal