PLAN AND PURPOSE OF THE BUILDING

THE PALACE OF THE GIANTS

The southern half of the great complex differs little from the large houses on the north slope of the Areopagus (P1. 6: A, B, C). Like them it represents the final development of the typical Athenian house, the history of which can be traced from the classical period into Late Antiquity (above, p. 34). The core element was a colonnaded courtyard around which were grouped rooms of various sizes and shapes as required by the needs of the household. Normally the largest room in the house was placed on the long axis of the courtyard from where it commanded the best view of the court.

The entrance led from the street directly into the court and tended to be modest. Sanitary facilities were of the simplest, and the inclusion of a bath within the house came late, as in House C where it was added only in the final period (above, p. 87). A house with a long history might eventually comprise not just one but two or even three peristyle units (Houses A, B, C). There is little evidence for more than one storey in the normal house, nor has any trace been observed of enclosed garden areas outside the building proper.

The residential part of the Palace obviously follows this same old tradition. In size it differs little from Houses B and C. The inclusion of a bath in the original design of the Palace is in keeping with its relatively late date. The existence of a partial upper storey is only slightly unusual. More re- markable is the spacious setting with enclosed and presumably planted areas on all sides.

But the feature that most clearly distinguishes the Palace from the more or less contemporary houses on the slopes of the Areopagus, and indeed from those found anywhere else in Greece, is the North Court, an integral part of the original design. The concept of a peristyle on this scale with its exedrae both rectangular and apsidal is utterly foreign to the tradition of domestic architecture in this part of Greece. Equally strange to that tradition is the studied monumentality of the facade and main entrance. One is reminded of the much discussed mosaic representation in the Church of Sant'Apollinare Nuovo22 in Ravenna dating from ^A.D. 490 (P1. 67:c). The extremely prominent tripartite facade clearly labeled "Palatium" is generally accepted as referring to the palace of the builder of the church, the Emperor Theodoric. Although the precise architectural interpretation may be debated, there can be no doubt that the striking facade is to be taken as symbolic of the seat of imperial power.

As observed already (above, p. 100), the facade of the Giants had much in common with tri- umphal arches of the most developed form. Thus it may be supposed to have evoked some associa- tion with the emperor, who was normally the object of the honor represented by the arch. Inasmuch as a triumphal arch, or an adaptation of an arch, commonly marked the entrance to an important public area such as a city, sanctuary, or forum, the choice of this architectural form for the entrance to the great court of the Palace invested the establishment with a certain aura.23

22 E. Dyggve, Ravennatum Palatium Sacrum. La Basilica ipetrale per cerimonie. Studii sull'architettura dei palazzi della tarda antichita, Copenhagen 1941; W. F. Volbach, Friihchristliche Kunst, Munich 1958, pp. 28-29, pl. 152;

Krautheimer, Architecture, pp. 196-197, figs. 148-149; G. de Francovich, II Palatium di Teodorico a Ravenna, Rome 1970, passim; N. Duval, Corsi di cultura sull'arte ravennate e bizantina XXV, 1978, pp. 93-122.

23 On these aspects of the triumphal arch, see H. Kahler, RE VII a, 1939, s.v. "Triumphbogen," cols. 472-474;

M. Pallottino, EAA I, 1958, s.v. "arco onorario e triomfale", p. 590.

110

© American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. License: CC-BY-NC-ND.

PLAN AND PURPOSE OF THE BUILDING

Equally telling is the placement of the Palace in what must have been still recognizable as the center of civic life in the days of Athens' greatness. Significant also is the relationship between the Palace and the Panathenaic Way at a time when their national festival, and especially the Proces- sion, still meant a great deal to Athenians. We have noted how the fagade of the North Court dominated the ancient course of the Procession, while the large room that is to be restored in the upper storey at the northeast corner of the Southeast Court complex must have seemed like a "royal box" designed expressly for watching the procession as it approached from the north, passed, and made its way up toward the Acropolis. One is reminded of the fact that many of the Roman Im- perial palaces adjoined circuses: the Palatine in Rome, the palace of Diocletian in Antioch as described by Libanius, the palaces in Constantinople, Milan, Sirmium, and Trier.24 The Pan- athenaic Way had provided the track for some of the most spectacular equestrian events in the Panathenaic festival,25 and still the Procession itself was regarded as a great spectacle.

Even on normal days the occupants of the piano nobile in the Palace enjoyed an impressive view of the Acropolis with Mt. Hymettos in the distance. From the upper windows of the gazebo-like octagonal tower one could also overlook the rest of the Palace to savor the view of the Temple of Hephaistos then, as now, rising against the background of Mt. Parnes. Here again one is reminded of the attention paid to the location of Imperial and official palaces: in Antioch the palace over- looked the Orontes, in Spalato the Adriatic, at Dura-Europos the Euphrates.26

Another factor that argues against our complex being a private establishment is its sheer size. We are woefully ignorant, to be sure, of villas in Greece, but there appears to be nothing of this scale known at present. Even Herodes Atticus' favorite villas at Marathon and Kephissia are represented only by a few scattered sculptures and inscriptions.27

In view of the flourishing state of the schools of philosophy in Athens of the 5th century, one might ask whether the Palace might have served as the seat of one of the schools. The only school that could be considered at this period, however, was the Neoplatonic, and the residence of the head of that school is known to have stood to the south of the Acropolis (above, pp. 42-44). In view of the still ambiguous standing of the Christian church in contemporary Athens, it is far from likely that the complex could have been intended as a bishop's palace. Equally remote is the possibility that any civic official would have been provided with such a palatial seat in the Athens of Late Antiqui- ty. Nor is there anything to suggest a military presence in Athens at this period that would have jus- tified residential accommodation of this nature.

Can any more plausible function be proposed for our building? Perhaps the most probable use was as an official residence, maintained by the Imperial government and intended for the occasional accommodation either of the emperor himself or of high-ranking Imperial officials when on tours of duty. Such establishments are the subject of several edicts in the Theodosian Code which were promulgated in a period (A.D. 313-348) close in time to the construction of our building.28 There is

24 Ward-Perkins, Architecture, p. 450.

25 E. Vanderpool, "Victories in the Anthippasia," Hesperia 43, 1974, pp. 311-313; Agora Guide3, pp. 104-106.

26 W. L. MacDonald in his discussion of the significance of Domitian's Palace in Rome emphasizes the splendid location of the site in relation to the city: The Architecture of the Roman Empire, New Haven 1965, pp. 69-74.

27 Aulus Gellius, Noctes atticae 1.2.2; Philostratus, VS n.i (562); Graindor (footnote 4 above, p. 16), pp. 115, 147, 227-228; S. Karusu, "Die Antiken vom Kloster Luku in der Thyreatis," RM 76, 1969, pp. 253-265; W. Ameling, Herodes Atticus, II, Inschriftenkatalog, Hildesheim/Zurich/New York 1939, In a recent general account of villas, including those of Late Antiquity, Greece does not appear among the many "villa-bearing" districts: J. Percival, The Roman Villa: An Historical Introduction, Berkeley/Los Angeles, 1976.

28 Theodosiani libri XVI cum constitutionibus sirmondianis2, T. Mommsen, ed., Berlin 1954. The translations of passages below are taken from Pharr. Cf. T. Mommsen, "Praetorium," Hermes 35, 1900, pp. 437-442. For the 1ll

© American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. License: CC-BY-NC-ND.

V. THE PALACE OF THE GIANTS

some fluidity in nomenclature. The buildings are designated sometimes as palatia, sometimes as praetoria, this at a time when a palatium might house someone other than an emperor and a praeto- rium was no longer exclusively the residence of a military commander. In ^EdictVII. I 0.2 (A.D. 407) it appears that the term praetorium is construed as the permanent residence of the governor of a province while palatium denotes an official residence for occasional use. In an edict of ^A.D. 405 (vii. ⁱ^0.i) the buildings are referred to simply as "sacred dwellings" (sacrae domus).

The primary purpose of the institution was undoubtedly to provide convenient and suitable tem- porary accommodation for high-ranking government officials. But the emperors were also con- cerned to protect local authorities from the extravagant demands of lesser functionaries. Thus in an edict of A.D. 406 _(vii. I . i) municipal councils and municipalities were relieved of the necessity "to heat any private baths for the use of tribunes or of minor counts. . . . this service is granted only to counts with the rank of illustrious and to masters of soldiers, if they should so wish."29

The governors of provinces and the vicars of the prefecture were charged with the maintenance of the palaces (vii.io.i of A.D. 405). These officials were responsible not only for maintaining the buildings in good condition but also for seeing that admission was refused to any unqualified persons who boldly relied "on high rank or fortune." The edict continues, "Of course we judge it unnecessary to prohibit horses that are not Ours from the stables of Our palaces." The question of responsibility for maintenance had been a matter of long standing. Already in ^A.D. 396 (xv.i.35) it had been decreed that "if any palace (palatium), official residence of a governor (praetorium), state storehouse, or stable and sheltering place for public animals should fall into ruins, such structures shall be repaired out of the resources of the governors."

Athens of the 5th century was, to be sure, neither an administrative capital nor a military base.

The governor of the province had his seat in Corinth, while the Prefect of Illyricum, under whom the province was included, would presumably have spent most of his time in faraway Sirmium or, later, in Thessaloniki. Consequently one would not expect to find a permanent residence (praeto- rium) in Athens. But prefects, governors, and many other high-ranking Imperial officials must have been obliged to make official visits to Athens from time to time, while some of them, in keeping with their tastes, undoubtedly found it possible to spend longer periods because of the cultural and social climate of the ancient city.

On such occasions our building would have served admirably the convenience of both the visitor and the host city. The east block of the Southeast Court complex offered comfortable lodging for the guest and his immediate circle with space also for a permanent staff in the Southeast Court proper.

The South Court complex comprised modest but adequate facilities for formal meetings and meals.

Relaxation was readily available in the well-furnished bath, and, if we are right in our identifica- tion of the rooms outside the southwest corner of the South Court (21), the guest's horses could be stabled in a safe place with plenty of room for exercise. The North Court, we may assume, would have served for large public receptions or ceremonies in connection with an official visit. In between such special occasions the same court with its spacious colonnades and exedrae would apparently have been open to the citizens, a token revival of the great days of old when the whole Agora, sur- rounded by its splendid stoas, had been the proud preserve of the Athenians.

distinction between principia and praetoria when the terms are applied to military establishments, see R. Fellmann, Die principia des Legionslagers Vindonissa und das Zentralgebaude der romischen Lager und Kastelle, Brugg 1958, esp. pp. 89-92.

29 For troubles brought on the provincials in an earlier period by high-ranking officials, their staffs, and especially their wives, see Tacitus, Annales 111.33-34. The technical term for the staff of a provincial governor was cohors; see for example Juvenal, ^VIII.^I27. For travel arrangements of the wealthy and important, cf. L. Casson, Travel in the Ancient

World, London 1974, pp. 180-181.

112

PLAN AND PURPOSE OF THE BUILDING

From the Codex Theodosianus we know who was responsible for the maintenance of such estab- lishments, but who paid for their construction? It was conceivably some government department, more probably, however, some wealthy individual. We have already seen examples of generous benefactions made to Athens, as to other ancient Greek cities, by high-ranking Imperial officials who had some personal interest in Greek culture, and one possible name has been mentioned (above, p. 65). As noted above (p. 65), the discovery of an imposing portrait statue of a high Imperial official in close proximity to the Palace is suggestive of its Imperial connections (PI. 66:b).30 In Greece such honors were normally accorded either in gratitude for or in expectation of substantial benefactions.

Whatever the identity of the donor, the choice of site and many aspects of the architecture of the Palace bespeak a close and sympathetic knowledge of the Greek, more particularly of the Athenian scene, and a nostalgic view of the old city's glorious past. The emplacement of the complex in the very middle of the ancient Agora and in very close relation to the Panathenaic Way is too precise to have been accidental. Symptomatic also was the decision to resurrect and re-use the "Giants" in the most prominent position in the new structure. In the early 5th century there must have been some persons in Athens still aware that these great statues had been carved in the Antonine period as characteristically classicizing adaptations of pedimental figures of the Periclean Parthenon. We have noted also the possibility that the combination of rectangular and semicircular exedrae in the North Court was inspired by similar features in the Library of Hadrian which was itself under- going restoration at about this same time (above, p. 63). Likewise the octagonal tower that rose above outheast corner of the Palace looks like a reflection of the Tower of the Winds.

Nor did the architect who drew up the overall plan of the Palace need to go outside Greece for models. As we have already noted (p. 110), the strictly residential part of the complex is little more than a well-organized and slightly larger than normal example of a traditional Athenian house type. Peristyle courtyards of large scale had been familiar in Athens at least from the Hellenistic period. The practice of combining a large peristyle with another architectural unit had also been in vogue for long in Greece, notably in the planning of the palaestra-gymnasium type of complex.

Currently, i.e., in the 5th century, a similar combination of elements was being employed in Greece in the design of early Christian churches.31 In a number of these buildings the sanctuary proper in the form of a basilica was approached through an atrium, a large courtyard set against the

30 S 657. Agora I, no. 64. Preserved height 1.33 m., i.e., approximately life size. The statue was found in 1936 built into a modern wall ca. seven meters north of the northeast corner of the Palace. The association with the Palace is not of course certain, but such an ungainly mass of marble is not likely to have been carried far for re-use. In the 5th century the only conceivable context in this area for such a statue is the Palace. For its more precise location the only clue is the treatment of the back, which was only roughly blocked out and certainly not meant to be visible. The loss of attributes precludes a sure identification of the subject's rank beyond that proposed in the original publication on the basis of the costume: "the portrait of an unidentified senator". The statue appears to date from the late 5th century, too late to be connected with the foundation of the Palace.

In the National Museum in Athens is a portrait bust of a bearded man, N.M. 423, reduced in antiquity from a full- length statue, that has been dated by comparison with a consular diptych of ^A.D.428 to about that time, close, that is, to the date of foundation of the Palace. See P. Graindor, Byzantion 1, 1924, pp. 245-250; J. Kollwitz, Ostromische Plastik der theodosianischen Zeit, Berlin 1941, pp. 91,104,106,125-128, pl. 41; Agora I, p. 80. The place of finding of the bust is not recorded. If by chance it could be associated with the Palace the damage that presumably led to its re- duction from full length to bust might have occurred in the Slavic raids of the 580's that are well attested in the area of the Agora (above, p. 93).

31 On the plans of basilicas of the 5th century in Greece, see G. A. Soteriou, Xplo-rLavLKil ^Ka'LBvCavrtv' 'ApXaLo- Xoyia, Athens 1942, pp. 290-319; Orlandos (footnote 16 above, p. 105), pp. 89-151; Krautheimer, Architecture, pp. 90-101, fig. 34 (Epidauros, ca. ^A.D. 400), fig. 35 (Nea Anchialos, Basilica A, ca. ^A.D. 470), fig. 37 (Nikopolis, Basilica A, 6th century), fig. 38 (Lechaion, St. Leonidas, ^A.D. 450-460[?]), and pp. 518-527.

113

V. THE PALACE OF THE GIANTS

west front of the basilica and colonnaded on three sides. Occasionally the entrance to the atrium was given a modestly monumental treatment. In the ^atriumwere performed the matins, the collection of offerings and other preliminary parts of the Christian service, after which those qualified proceeded into the church proper while catechumens, repentant sinners, and the mentally ill remained in the atrium. The passage from the atrium into the body of the church was normally effected through a long, narrow corridor, the narthex, which played the same role as the long corridor (12) in our Palace. Such similarities in architectural layout are not to be construed as having any religious significance. At a time when very few substantial buildings other than churches were being erected in Greece it would be strange if the gifted architect who was responsible for our Palace had not also designed some churches.

The search for significant parallels for our establishment is difficult.32 Those buildings that can with certainty or even with probability be identified as official residences are few in number, and of those few a large proportion are so ruinous or so little explored that their plans are far from com- plete. The difficulties of the search are exacerbated by what we know from the Codex Theodosianus of the checkered fortunes of such establishments: neglect and deterioration, repair and re-assign- ment, sale at public auction.33 Furthermore, as we have learned from the study of the Athenian building, one must reckon on the possibility of strong influence from local tradition so that com- parison among buildings in various parts of the Empire calls for caution.

It would be pointless to attempt comparison with establishments that are known to have been the permanent residence of the emperor whether in Rome, Ravenna, Milan, Constantinople, Cologne, Trier, Sirmium, Split, Salonica, or Antioch. Quite apart from the fact that we have no record of an emperor residing in Athens in the time of the Palace, the Athenian establishment could not possibly

Im Dokument THE AMERICAN SCHOOL OF CLASSICAL STUDIES AT ATHENS (Seite 128-143)