As we have seen, the available data allow us to affirm that late- antique imperial palaces were great buildings with very astonishing architectonic structures. Unfortunately, this can be assumed only on the bases of their plans, which are often incomplete – as the rest of the structures are buried under modern cities, awaiting excavation or destroyed
78 BRENK 2005,72-78.
79 On this point, with particular reference to the city, see: ORSELLI 2003b, esp. 864-867 and
– while their elevation survive only for a few metres. Their architecture can be partially understood but their picture remains dim and largely unknown. Due to robbery and destruction, only fragments of the decoration have been found, revealing a very precious furbishing of marbles, mosaics, and precious artworks that is however insufficient to draw correct reconstructions of the decorative and pictorial programmes. It is clear that these data are too fragmentary to understand what the imperial palace looked like. A complete and exhaustive study of the imperial palace on the basis of archaeology is impossible today. Without a clear idea of the appearance of the late-antique palace, we must look elsewhere to evaluate the social and ideological meaning of this building.
In this attempt to understand how the imperial palace was conceived, we have taken into account a number of literary texts both Latin and Greek – since both the languages were still in use in different parts of the empire and in different contexts until the sixth century. Our investigation started with the idea that how we represent something reflects our conception of that thing and thus that, although using different means that are appropriate to different media, both written and visual representations of the imperial palace were suitable sources.80 In this survey, analysing historiography and poetry from the first centuries of the Roman Empire to the sixth century A.D., we found ourselves again working on absences. The imperial palace was in fact never described. It was always mentioned in connection to the
80 The visual representations of the imperial palace will be considered in the following
presence of the emperor in the imperial cities or as one of the most important features of the city itself, enhancing its status among the cities of the Empire, as we stated above. For instance, when in the fourth century Ammianus Marcellinus described the adventus of Julian, he said that the emperor was accompanied to the palace of Sirmium, final stop of the ceremony;81 while in numerous other passages the author briefly mentioned the palace as the place where the emperor resided in his travels across the empire. Celebrating the splendour of Milan, Ausonius mentioned the palace as one of the glories of the city, along with the hippodrome, the city-walls, the mint, and the baths.82 Likewise, in its apology of Antioch Libanios emphasized the role of the palace as splendour of the city, as the element that by its presence enhances the meaning of the city itself.83 When in the sixth century John Malalas described the city of Constantinople as it was built by Constantine, he wrote that the emperor built a palace ()!&* (+,
-./!) such as the one in Rome, and listed it together with the hippodrome
among the great achievements of Constantine in the city.84 The palace was always mentioned in association with an emperor and his stay, and thus was a compound of the imperial figure, the natural location where the emperor resided. Furthermore the palace was an element of tremendous importance for the identity of the city, mostly mentioned along with the hippodrome and the major monuments of imperial display that made a city an imperial city
81 AMM.MARC., Hist., 21.10.1, ed. J. Fontaine, Paris 1996, 64 (regia). 82 AUSONIUS,
Ordo,VII,3-7,ed. H.G. Evelyn White, II, 272-273.
83 LIBANIOS,
Or. XI,205-207, ed. R. Foerster, Stuttgart 1963, 507-508.
84MALALAS,
and were emphasized in the cityscape for their dimensions and splendour. The palace was therefore seen as a natural attribute of the emperor, a quality of the imperial power that had an enormous impact on the appearance and status of the city as an imperial seat.
The palace was sometimes recorded as the location of an event and, for this reason, some features such as its rooms were quickly mentioned. For instance in the sixth-century account of the Nika revolt (532) and in various passages in the Anekdota, Prokopios often referred to different areas of the imperial palace and the hippodrome of Constantinople. Unfortunately, these are only brief allusions, included in the accounts of other events.85 When John Malalas tells of the meeting between Pulcheria and Eudokia in the private chambers of the empress in the palace, he mentions the curtains which adorned it.86 The passages were intended to describe an event and thus only allow for a rough understanding of the different spaces within the palace and of the decoration of its rooms. The palace was never described at length.
In our survey, we found very few descriptions of imperial palaces. They are all represented as great achievement of the emperors, on which great sums of money were spent and which reflected the splendour and the magnificence of the imperial house.87 Instead of focussing on the palaces’ appearance, the authors seem attracted by the works of art that adorned
85 PROKOPIOS, Bell. Pers., I.XXIV.43-50, ed. H.B. Dewing, I, London 1914, 234-239. 86 MALALAS,Chr., 14.4, ed. I. Thurn, Berlin 2000, 274.
87 See for instance: SUETONIUS,
De vitae caesarum. Nero,31,ed. H. Ailloud, Paris 1932,
them, by their shining colours and preciousness, and by the great spaces that convey the grandeur of the patrons. This is evident in Suetonius’ description of Nero’s palace, in which great attention is paid to the huge size of the building: a compound of porticoes, halls, domes, gardens with lakes, and different structures that recalled a city. It was covered in gold, pearls, and precious stones, and ingenious devices pervaded it with perfumes.88 In his fourth-century description of the palace of Antioch, Libanios outlines the huge size and the beauty of the palace.89 The author mentioned the favourable location of the dwelling on the Orontes and its abundance in rooms, colonnades, and halls; however he clearly stated that was impossible to give an accurate account of the palace in his text, since the palace was so great in size and beauty that it should have been the subject of an oration and not only of a passage. In the sixth century, when Prokopios mentions the imperial palace of Constantinople in the De aedificiis, he clearly stated that it was impossible to describe it in words.90 The author was however very careful in defining its boundaries expressing the enormous dimensions of the palatine complex, which was so huge – as it was rebuilt by Justianian after the Nika revolt (532) – that it included a former imperial house, the so- called palace of Hormisdas.91 He described at length the square in front of the palace, the Augusteon, and the entrance of the palace, the Chalké, giving
88 SUETONIUS,
De vitae caesarum. Nero,31,ed. H. Ailloud, Paris 1932, 175-176.
89 LIBANIOS,
Or. XI,205-207, ed. R. Foerster, Stuttgart 1963, 507-508.For commentaries
(and translations) on the passage, see: DOWNEY 1959, esp. 675 and 283; FESTUGIÈRE 1959,
esp. 24-25, 44-46; NORMAN 2001, esp. 48-49 and nn. 109-113. 90 PROKOPIOS, De Aed.,I.10.10,ed. H.B. Dewing,London1940,82-83. 91 PROKOPIOS,
a detailed account of the works of art, such as statues, mosaics, and portraits, displayed there.92 In Prokopios’ description of the Chlake, great attention was paid to the beauty of the monument and to its impressive architecture that was a compound of columns, domes, and arches, but especially to the lavish decoration and the colours of the marbles. The description seems accurate; however it did not allow for a final and firm reconstruction, fostering a very lively scholarly debate.93
The most interesting celebration of the palace, and particularly of the throne room, is that of Corippus, writing in praise of the emperor Justin II (565-578).94 The passage draws the palace (Augusta domus) as a heavenly vision of shining light, comparing it with the starry sky. Again the huge dimensions of his rooms and its sumptuous and bright décor are emphasized. In this display of light the throne is covered by the golden vault of a richly adorned ciborium. This setting, repeatedly recalling the sky with cosmic metaphors, anticipates the appearance of the emperor. Although not describing the palace at length, the text is of capital importance in that it features the palace with a heavenly aura and depicts it as a ‘living sky’. As outlined by Carile, this image makes the assimilation between the palace
92 PROKOPIOS,
De Aed., I.10.5-9, ed. H.B. Dewing, London 1940, 82-83: Augusteum;
PROKOPIOS,De Aed.,I.10.5-9, ed. H.B. Dewing,London1940,11-20:Chalké.
93 Until the present, Mango contributed the most comprehensive study on the Chalké
(MANGO 1959). For the Chalké, see also: JANIN 1964,110-112; ZERVOÙ TOGNAZZI 1996;
BRUBAKER 1999a.
94 CORIPPUS, In laudem, III.180-230, ed. Av. Cameron, London 1976, 66-67, 187-188
and the heavenly paradise explicit, and clarifies the nature of the imperial appearance.95
Descriptions of the palace are extremely rare; they emphasize the great dimensions and the amazing beauty of the building, in a way that, as we will see, is consistent with other descriptions of palaces in Roman times and Late Antiquity. The special attention paid to the palace’s entrance or astonishing features should be connected with the importance of conveying the greatness of the emperor and of the basileia, by means of celebrating the façade of the palace, itself visible to all. At the beginning of the sixth century, Cassiodoros, an important personality at the court of Theoderic, in fact explained that the impressiveness of the palace can first be seen in its vestibule. He clearly states that the palace and its monumental entrance convey the power of the empire and the imperial sovereignty.96 However, the rarity of imperial palaces’ descriptions is due to the impossibility of describing it. As it appears from Libanios and especially Prokopios, it is not possible to describe the palace.97 This is perhaps due to its impenetrability and sacrality, which since the fourth century – in Eusebios and an anonymous panegyrist of Constantine – seem the major characteristics of the imperial palace.98 Strangers were rarely admitted in the palace of the emperor. It was continuously guarded by troops of special soldiers, called
95 See especially: CARILE A.2003a; CARILE A.2003b; CARILE A.2003c, 610-613. 96 CASSIODOROS, Variae, VII.5 (especially VII.5.1), ed. Mommsen, Berlin 1894, 204-205. 97 LIBANIOS,
Or. XI,207, ed. R. Foerster, Stuttgart 1963, 508;PROKOPIOS,De Aed.,I.10.10,
ed. H.B. Dewing,London1940,82-83.
98 P
ANEGYRICI LATINI, IX, 16.5, ed. D. Lassandro and G. Micunco, Torino 2000, 312-313.
candidati.99 As only a few people were admitted to the presence of the
emperor, so the entrances to the palace were strictly selected. The palace, visible manifestation of the basileia, was inaccessible and unapproachable.100 Its monumental entrance was the only part visible to the
eyes, and the court writers could thus describe it to their audience without violating the secret of the palace’s interior.
For Cassius Dio and Prokopios, every place where the emperor dwells is a palatium. This appears also from our survey on the literary evidence; the palace seems a necessary attribute of the emperor, it is a compound of the imperial power, an essential trait of the imperial figure with whom the palatium forms a hendiadys, a compound. The importance of the palace relies on the deepest concerns of the basileia of the emperor. In Late Antiquity, to abandon the palace meant to renounce the empire. This was clearly stated in an anonymous praise of Constantine – cum excedendo
palatio iam se abdicasset imperio (‘by leaving the palace he had already
renounced to the command’) – as well as in the words pronounced by the empress Theodora in Prokopios’ account of the Nika revolt.101 The palace is thus a prominent attribute to the basileia and the emperor.
As we have seen, an exhaustive and complete description of the imperial palace is lacking. The only way to understand its role and how it was perceived and understood is to work on the ‘negative evidence’. In the
99 For the candidati, see: GUILLAND 1976.
100 For the secret character of the imperial reception and the palace, see: CARILE A.2003b,
618-621;TEJA 1993,619-624. 101 P
ANEGYRICI LATINI, IX, 16.6, ed. D. Lassandro and G. Micunco, Torino 2000, 312-313;
majority of the cases the palace is the necessary location for court life, with only a few (though important) words spent to describe it and its aura. Again we are facing an ‘absence’: the palace is there, but we cannot understand its appearance, it seems an indescribable but bright place. Its presence is real in the scene but aporical in that it is not possible to visualize it. We are working on glimpses, on lack of material, on absence of imperial palaces that are however meaningful because they are filled with their presence.