¹ This work is part of a programme of archaeological research at Aphrodisias undertaken by the Institute of Fine Arts and the Faculty of Arts and Science of New York University since 1991. A principal aim is to document the excavations and finds made by the late Professor Kenan Erim at the site between 1961 and 1990. Preliminary reports: Smith, R. R. R. and Ratté, C., ‘Archaeological research at Aphrodisias in Caria, 1993’, AJA 99 (1995), 33–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ‘Archaeological research at Aphrodisias in Caria, 1994’, AJA 100 (1996), 5–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ‘Archaeological research at Aphrodisias in Caria, 1995’, AJA 101 (1997), 1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ‘Archaeological research at Aphrodisias in Caria, 1996’, AJA 102 (1998), 225–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

² On the excavated city centre: Erim, K. T., Aphrodisias: City of Venus-Aphrodite (1986), 48–131Google Scholar. For recent work on the urban plan and city grid: see op. cit. (n. 1). On the new restored plan of the city centre (Fig. 1): Ratté, C., ‘Urban development of Aphrodisias in the late Hellenistic and early imperial periods’, in H. von Hesberg (ed.), Kontinuität und Diskontinuität in den Städten frühkaiserzeitlichen Kleinasiens (forthcoming).Google Scholar

³ On some of the statue monuments of the Middle Empire, seej JRS 1998, 68–70.

⁴ Governor's rank: ALA, pp. 66–7, 320–1. On the role of the governor, recently: Roueché, C., ‘The functions of the governor in Late Antiquity: some observations’, Antiquité Tardive 6 (1998), 31–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar; eadem, ‘Provincial governors and their titulature in the sixth century’, ibid., 83–9. (This whole issue of Antiquité Tardive is devoted to the subject of late Roman governors.)

⁵ Generally on cities in Late Antiquity: Jones, A. H. M., The Later Roman Empire (1964), ch. 19Google Scholar; Foss, C., Ephesus after Antiquity: A Late Antique, Byzantine, and Turkish City (1973)Google Scholar; Mango, C., Byzantium: Empire of New Rome (1980), ch. 3Google Scholar; Liebeschuetz, W., ‘The end of the ancient city’, in J. Rich (ed.), The City in Late Antiquity (1992), 1–36Google Scholar; 4 B. Ward-Perkins, The Cambridge Ancient History XIII: The Late Empire, A.D. 337–425, Ed. Averil Cameron and P. Garnsey (1998), ch. 12. On the urban history of late antique Aphrodisias: R. Cormack, ‘The classical tradition in the Byzantine provincial city: the evidence of Thessaloniki and Aphrodisias’, in Byzantium and the Classical Tradition (1981), 103–19; idem, ‘Byzantine Aphrodisias: changing the symbolic map of a city’, Proc.Camb.Phil.Soc. (1991), 26–41; ALA, xxix–xxvii, 329–30; Ratté, C., ‘New research on the urban development of Aphrodisias in Late Antiquity’, in D. Parrish (ed.), Urbanism of Western Asia Minor: The Current Status of Archaeological Research (forthcoming)Google Scholar.

⁶ On the walls: Erim, op. cit. (n. 2), 50–4. On their date: ALA, pp. 43–5.

⁷ ALA, nos 19 and 22.

⁸ Erim, op. cit. (n. 2), 88–91; ALA, no. 20.

⁹ Well documented by inscriptions: ALA, nos 17–18, 48–52, 58, 61, 67, 74, 86–7 (summarized, P. 329).

¹⁰ Paul, G., ‘Die Anastylose des Tetrapylons’, in Roueché, C. and Smith, R. R. R. (eds), Aphrodisias Papers 3 (1996), 201–14Google Scholar.

¹¹ cf. Roueché, C., ‘Inscriptions and the later history of the theatre’, in Erim, K. T. and Smith, R. R. R. (eds), Aphrodisias Papers 2 (1991), 99–108Google Scholar.

¹² Welch, K., ‘The stadium at Aphrodisias’, AJA 102 (1998), 547–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹³ Rockwell, P., ‘Unfinished statuary associated with a sculptor's studio’, Aphrodisias Papers 2 (1991), 127–43Google Scholar. A full study is in preparation by Van Voorhis, J. A. (based on her doctoral dissertation, ‘The Sculptor's Workshop at Aphrodisias’, PhD New York, 1999)Google Scholar.

¹⁴ cf. Gros, P., ‘Les nouveaux éspaces civiques du debut de l'Empire en Asie Mineure: les examples d'Ephèse, Iasos, et Aphrodisias’, in Aphrodisias Papers 3 (1996), 112–20Google Scholar, at 118, for the conjecture about the prytaneion.

¹⁵ Smith, R. R. R., ‘The imperial reliefs from the Sebasteion at Aphrodisias’, JRS 77 (1987), 88–138Google Scholar, at 96; Smith, and Ratté, , AJA 102 (1998), 238–9Google Scholar, for recent archaeological investigation of the late antique phases.

¹⁶ Cormack, R., ‘The temple as cathedral’, in Roueché, C. and Erim, K. T. (eds), Aphrodisias Papers 1 (1990), 75–88Google Scholar; Smith, and Ratté, , AJA 99 (1995), 43–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar, for the date of the temple—church conversion, based on coin finds.

¹⁷ cf. Ward-Perkins, op. cit. (n. 5), 408: ‘… in most provinces … late Roman aristocrats retained earlier habits of urban life. Where those aristocrats were, there artisans, with their keen eye for a market, are likely to have remained …’

¹⁸ Useful general studies and collections of material: von Sydow, W., Zur Kunstgeschichte des spätantike Porträts im 4. Jhd.n.Chr. (1969)Google Scholar; Severin, H. G., Zur Porträtplastik des 5.Jhds.n.Chr (1972)Google Scholar; Sande, S., ‘Zur Portratplästik des 6. Jhds. n.Chr.’, Acta Ad Art.Hist.Pert. 6 (1975), 65–166Google Scholar; Stutzinger, D. (ed.), Spätantike und frühes Christentum (1983), nos 62–77Google Scholar; Meischner, J., ‘Das Porträt der theodosianischen Epoche I-II’, JdI 105 (1990), 302–24Google Scholar and JdI 106 (1991), 385–407Google Scholar; B. Kiilerich, Late Fourth Century Classicism in the Plastic Arts. Studies in the So-called Theodosian Renaissance (1993).

¹⁹ Ephesus: Kollwitz, nos 6–11 (six headless togati); IR I, nos 192–202 (a togatus statue, togate busts, heads); IR II, nos 151–6 (a togate bust, heads). See also: Oberleitner, W., ‘Fragment einer spätantiken Porträtkopfes aus Ephesos’, ÖJh 44 (1959), 83–100Google Scholar; idem, ‘Beiträge zur Geschichte der spätantiken Porträtköpfe aus Ephesos’, ÖJh 47 (1964), 5–35. A new catalogue is in preparation under the direction of Maria Aurenhammer.

²⁰ Ostia, Rome (togati, heads): L'Orange, H. P., Studien zur Geschichte des spätantiken Porträts (1933), Cat. nos 101–3, 117–19, 122Google Scholar; Goette, Togadarstellungen, 140, Bb 182, pl. 27.5–6; Cima, M. (ed.), Restauri nei Musei Capitolini: le sculture della sala dei magistrati e gli originali greci della sala dei monumenti arcaici (1995), 125–35Google Scholar, for the two togati with raised mappas from the ‘Temple of Minerva Medica’.

²¹ Athens (togate bust and torso): Kollwitz, nos 18–19; Harrison, E. B., The Athenian Agora I: Portrait Sculpture (1953), no. 64. GoetteGoogle Scholar, Togadarstellungen, 153, L 77, pl. 58.1. Corinth (headless chlamydati): Kollwitz, nos 13–16. Sparta (two heads): Woodward, A. M., ‘Excavations at Sparta, 1927: the theatre’, BSA 28 (1926–1927), 3–36Google Scholar, at 26–30, nos 3–4, figs 7–8; Waywell, G. B. and Wilkes, J., ‘Excavations at the ancient theatre of Sparta, 1992–94: preliminary report’, BSA 90 (1995), 435–60Google Scholar, at 458, no. 3, pls 48c-49c. Thessaloniki (a pair of busts, a female and a chlamydatus male): Kiilerich, op. cit. (n. 18), 113, with earlier lit., figs 61–2.

²² Constantinople: Kollwitz, nos 4–5 (headless togati); IR II, nos 275–6, 335(?) (female bust, heads). Sardes: IR I, no. 220; IR II, nos 171–2 (heads). Smyrna: IR I, no. 134 (head). Stratonikeia (a pair of busts, a female and a chlamydatus male): Özgan, R. and Stutzinger, D., ‘Untersuchungen zur Porträtplastik des 5. Jhdts. n. Chr. anhand zweier neugefunden Porträts aus Stratonikeia’, Ist. Mitt. 35 (1985), 237–74Google Scholar. Note also a new headless statue found at Caesarea Maritima in 1992, wearing short chlamys and sword: Ghersht, R., ‘Three Greek and Roman portrait statues from Caesarea Maritima’, Aliquot 28 (1996), 99–113Google Scholar, at 103–8 (I thank Luke Lavan for this reference).

²³ For a fuller account of what is sketched here, see JRS 1998, 65–9.

²⁴ Flacilla: ALA, no. 23. A late antique headless draped female statue found in a private context, in the late mansion to the north of the Sebasteion (‘Atrium House’), was probably a portrait statue: JRS 1990, 129, pl. V, 4. At Ephesus, note the headless (and reused) statue of Scholasticia in the baths she restored: Foss 70, fig. 22; Strocka, V. M., ‘Zuviele Ehre für Scholastikia’, in M. Kandler, S. Karwiese and R. Pillinger (eds), Lebendige Altertumswissenschaft: Festgabe zum Vollendung des 70. Lebensjahres von Hermann Vetters (1985), 229–32Google Scholar, demonstrating that it is a recycled statue of the second century A.D.

²⁵ IR I, nos 243–6; IR II, nos 199–208. JRS 1990, nos 1–11. Some recent finds: Smith, R. R. R., ‘Archaeological research at Aphrodisias, 1989–1992’, Aphrodisias Papers 3 (1996), 10–72Google Scholar, at 13–20. Further below, nn. 34, 41, 43, 98. A new catalogue is in preparation.

²⁶ Collected and fully commented in ALA.

²⁷ It should be noted that some of the drawings are partial and preliminary reconstructions in that there may be elements missing which are not shown, especially upper and lower plinths on the bases. The drawings are intended primarily to illustrate the scale and effect of the bases and statues seen together — previously discussed and illustrated in separate places. The captions indicate, where relevant, what parts may be lacking.

²⁸ Inscribed base: ALA, no. 20. Statue: Erim, K. T. and Smith, R. R. R., ‘Sculpture from the theatre’, Aphrodisias Papers 2 (1991), 67–98Google Scholar, at 95–6, no. 38, fig. 34. Head: IR II, no. 80. Combined monument: Smith and Ratté, AJA 102 (1998), 243–4Google Scholar, fig. 20 (reconstruction without upper plinth). Full study: Smith, R. R. R., ‘A portrait monument for Julian and Theodosius’, in Chr. Reusser (ed.), Festschrift für D. Willers (forthcoming)Google Scholar.

²⁹ Bases: ALA, nos 25–7. Statue: Kollwitz, no. 1; IR I.no. 66.

³⁰ ‘Arcadius’ head: IR II, no. 82.

³¹ Togatus holding inkpot (height: 1.60 m): IR II, no. 195.

³² For an inkpot and pens(?) in a narrative context, see the scene of Pilate's court in the sixth-century Rossano Gospels: Grabar, Byzantium, 207, fig. 232.

³³ As suggested by Rockwell, op. cit. (n. 13), 138.

³⁴ Base: ALA, no. 31. Statue: Erim, K. T., ‘Two new early Byzantine statues from Aphrodisias’, DOP 21 (1967), 285–6Google Scholar, no. 2, fig. 2.

³⁵ See for example the reconstructed statue monuments of Dometeinus and Tatiana at Aphrodisias: JRS 1998, 67, figs 1–2.

³⁶ Istanbul ‘Magistrates’: Kollwitz, nos 2–3; IR I, nos 242–3.

³⁷ Base: ALA, no. 32. Statue: unpublished.

³⁸ Base: ALA, no. 56. Statue: IR I, no. 244.

³⁹ For all of which, see ALA, pp. 93–7, on nos 55–9.

⁴⁰ Base: ALA, no. 62. Statue: IR II, no. 208.

⁴¹ Date: Roueché, C., ‘A new inscription from Aphrodisias and the title patēr tēs poleōs’, GRBS 20 (1979), 173–85Google Scholar. For this group at Aphrodisias and Ephesus: Smith, R. R. R., ‘A late Roman portrait and a himation statue from Aphrodisias’, in 100 Jahre österreichische Forschungen in Ephesos: Aktendes Symposions Wien (1999), 713–19Google Scholar.

⁴² Compare statuary settings at Ephesus studied in Foss, op. cit. (n. 5), ch. 5. On Constantinopolitan statuary practices, see Cameron, Alan, Porphyrius the Charioteer (1973)Google Scholar. Useful collection of evidence in F. A. Bauer, Stadt, Platz und Denkmal in der Spätantike: Untersuchungen zur Austattung des öffentlichen Raums in den spatantiken Städten Rom, Konstantinopel und Ephesos (1996).

⁴³ The concentration of sculpture finds marked to the north of the Sebasteion are the late marble shield portraits of classical sages and culture heroes from the ‘Atrium House’, published in JRS 1990, nos 1–11, supplemented by Smith, R. R. R., ‘A new portrait of Pythagoras’, in Aphrodisias Papers 2 (1991), 159–67Google Scholar.

⁴⁴ ALA, nos 14 and 37.

⁴⁵ Theodosian group, above n. 29. Vicar (Menander): ALA, no. 24. Albinus: ALA, no. 82 (his acclamations are nos 83–4).

⁴⁶ IR II, nos 186–7; JRS 1998, 66–7, figs 1–2.

⁴⁷ Imperial figures: ALA, nos 2, 3, 4, 20–1, 23, 25–7. Governors and other imperial office-holders: ALA, nos 5, 6, 7, 14–16, 24, 31–2, 36–7, 41, 62–5. Local notables: ALA, nos 33, 53, 56, 73, 82, 85–8. For a wider perspective, see the very useful discussion of public statue practice in Late Antiquity by Horster, M., ‘Ehrungen spätantiker Statthalter’, Antiquité Tardive 6 (1998), 37–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar, examining synthetically the some 300 surviving honorific texts for late antique provincial governors from both the eastern and western parts of the Empire.

⁴⁸ Certainly ALA, nos 7 and 24.

⁴⁹ ALA, no. 5.

⁵⁰ ALA, nos 24, 31,88.

⁵¹ ALA, nos 16, 23, 36, 63.

⁵² ALA, nos 20, 21, 25–7, 37, 41, 62.

⁵³ ALA, no. 62.

⁵⁴ For which, see ALA, p. 62, with references.

⁵⁵ Figures in ALA, p. xx; cf. Liebeschuetz, op. cit. (n. 5), 4–6.

⁵⁶ On the final demise of honorific statue dedications: C. Mango, ‘Épigrammes honorifiques, statues et portraits a Byzance’, Aphierōma ston Niko Svorōno I (1986), 23–35 = Studies on Constantinople (1993), ch. IX; Cameron, op. cit. (n. 42), 254–5. A reduction of statues in the second half of the fifth century, following a law of 444 (CJ 1.24.4) stipulating that honorands should pay for their own monuments, is hypothesized by Horster, op. cit. (n. 47), 57.

⁵⁷ ALA, p. xxii.

⁵⁸ ALA, pp. xxii–xxiii; followed, in condensed form, by Liebeschuetz, op. cit. (n. 5), 5: ‘Verse epigrams tend to take the place of prose in honorific inscriptions. … often seem to have been set up for their decorative value. … aesthetic and ceremonial rather than political’.

⁵⁹ Pl. V, 3 shows the inscribed panelled shaft (inv. 72–54) from an early third-century honorific monument to a leading local citizen, one T.Flavius Sallustius Athenagoras, which was re-used with a new inscription on the back for the base of a statue of Valens (ALA, no. 21) set up in the west Tetrastoon. The earlier text is unpublished.

⁶⁰ ALA, no. 7.

⁶¹ For the late epigrams: esp. Robert, Épigrammes. See also Mango, op. cit. (n. 56); R. Merkelbach and Stauber, J., Steinepigramme aus dem griechischen Osten (1988)Google Scholar; Rouech, C.é, ‘Benefactors in the Late Roman period: the eastern empire’, in M. Christol and O. Masson (eds), Actes du Xe congrès international d'epigraphie grecque et latine, Nimes Oct. 1992 (1997), 353–68Google Scholar; Horster, op. cit. (n. 47), 52–3.

⁶² Mounting moral rhetoric of government: Corcoran, S., The Empire of the Tetrarchs: Imperial Pronouncements and Government (AD 284–324) (1996), 207–13Google Scholar. Escalation of language of virtues in Latin honorific texts: ILS 1220–1284 (earlier fourth to mid-fifth century), with Neri, V., ‘L'elogio della cultura e l'elogio delle virtu politiche nell' epigrafia latina del IV secolo d.c.’, Epigraphica 43 (1981), 175–201Google Scholar.

⁶³ Literary texts: MacMullen, R., ‘Some pictures in Ammianus Marcellinus’, Art Bulletin 46 (1964), 435–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar = Changes in the Roman Empire: Essays in the Ordinary (1990), 78–106, esp. 95–102; from a different perspective, M. Roberts, The Jeweled Style: Poetry and Poetics in Late Antiquity (1989), ch. 3, ‘Poetry and the Visual Arts’, esp. 111–21, on dress. For the variety of literary interest in dress, see the texts on togas gathered in Delbrueck, Konsulardiptychen, xxxiv–xlvii, and Goette, Togadarstellungen, 10–19. For the antique habitus regulations in the law codes, see H. Löhken, Ordines dignitatum. Unter-suchungen zur formalen Konstitutierung der spätantiken Führungschicht (1982), 82–7; O. Schlinkert, Ordo senatorius und nobilitas. Die Konstitution des Senatsadelin der Spätantike (1996), 147–53. The best known is Cod. Theod. 14.10.1 of 382, about senatorial dress in Constantinople (senators must wear the toga for senate meetings and senatorial trials, otherwise the peaceful paenula, and certainly not the chlamys); cf. Schlinkert, op. cit., 148–50.

⁶⁴ On the chlamys costume in general Delbrueck, Konsulardiptychen, 36–40. Fibulae: Sodini, J. P., ‘La contribution de l'archéologie à la connaissance du monde byzantin (IVe–VIIe siècles)’, DOP 47 (1993), 139–84Google Scholar, at 167, with specialist literature cited nn. 205–9. The long ‘crossbow’ fibula is the type normally worn with the ranking chlamys: ibid., fig. 23, and regularly in narrative scenes (below, n. 66).

⁶⁵ Belt of office: Daremberg-Saglio, s.v. cingulum, with literary and law code references; Delbrueck, Konsulardiptychen, 36–7; Löhken, op. cit. (n. 63), 83–6. Against the widely held view that the lack of a (visible) belt in representations implied that the subject was ‘inactive’ or ‘with only titular office’, see Horster, op. cit. (n. 47), 45.

⁶⁶ Grabar, Byzantium, figs 143 (St Demetrios, Thessaloniki), 162 (King Herod, S. Maria Maggiore, Rome), 171–2 (Justinian and entourage, S. Vitale, Ravenna), 222 (courtiers before Potiphar's wife, Vienna Genesis), and 232 (Pilate and officials, Rossano Gospels). Note especially the cycle devoted to dressing in the chlamys uniform painted in the tomb at Silistra on the lower Danube, in which it is remarkable that separate wall panels feature the bringing by servants of the following items of the master's dress, (1) tight booted trousers (visible on the statues only as boots?), (2) tunic, (3) massive cingulum, and (4) the chlamys itself: D. P. Dimitrov and M. Čičikova, The hate Roman Tomb near Silistra (1986).

⁶⁷ MacMullen, , op. cit. (n. 63), 99–101. Front and back: Grabar, Byzantium, fig. 232 (Pilate scene, Rossano Gospels)Google Scholar.

⁶⁸ Long travelling cloak: R. R. R. Smith, Aphrodisias I: The Monument of C.Julius Zoilos (1993), 34–5, with further examples n. 37, pls 12–13. Short paludamentum worn with tunic only (that is, without armour), common in middle imperial historical reliefs but rare as a statue costume: H. G. Niemeyer, Studien zur statuarischen Darstellung der römischen Kaiser (1968), nos 34–5.

⁶⁹ cf. Delbrueck, Konsulardiptychen, 40, with illustrations in Bruns, Obelisk.

⁷⁰ Ševčenko, I., ‘A late antique epigram and the so called Elder Magistrate from Aphrodisias’, Synthronon (Bibliothéque des Cahiers Archéologiques 2, 1968), 29–41Google Scholar.

⁷¹ ALA, no. 3 3: ‘the wise Eupeithius’, who may then have been a sophist. Fragmentary statue (plinth, feet, lower part of chlamys), inv. 66–554: unpublished. This man's wearing of the chlamys does not undercut its root military meaning. What is striking is that even a local wanted to wear this garment.

⁷² Grabar, Byzantium, fig. 232.

⁷³ On administrative office as militia: Löhken, op. cit. (n. 63), 36–7; Schlinkert, op. cit. (n. 63), 84, n. 1, 134, n. 36. The dress law of 382 alluded to above (n. 63), Cod. Theod. 14.10.1, is explicit on this connection, and in a striking turn of imperial rhetoric refers to the ‘terror of the chlamys’: senators are not to wear the habitus militaris in the capital, rather the toga or the paenula, ‘the fearsome chlamys having been laid aside’, chlamydis terrore deposito.

⁷⁴ Scroll as attribute of literary culture: Zanker, P., The Mask of Sokrates: The Image of the Intellectual in Antiquity (1995), 190–7, 268–84. Codicils: Löhken, op. cit. (n. 63), 78, 124, 131Google Scholar. The presentation of such a document is the core narrative of the Theodosian missorium in Madrid: Grabar, Byzantium, 303, figs 348–51; most recently, Meischner, M., ‘Das Missorium des Theodosius in Madrid’, JdI 111 (1996), 389–432Google Scholar, proposing to change the date, on which see now Raeck, W., ‘Doctissimus Imperator: Ein Aspekt des Herrscherideals in der spätantiken Kunst’, AA (1998), 509–22, at 520–2Google Scholar.

⁷⁵ On which, see material collected by Nellen, D., Viri litterati: Gebildetes Beamtentum und spätrömisches Reich im Westen (2nd edn, 1981)Google Scholar. It is remarkable that the new chlamys-wearing statue from Caesarea Maritima (above, n. 22) has both a highly visible sword and a scroll bundle at its feet (on which the end of the sword scabbard rests). This seems to be a rare explicit combination of military and administrative/cultural attributes.

⁷⁶ On the late Roman toga: Delbrueck, Konsulardiptychen, 44–51; Goette, Togadarslellungen, 59–63; Wrede, H., Gnomon 67 (1995), 541–50Google Scholar, at 544–8 (review of Goette, Togadarstellungen); S. Stone, ‘The toga: from national to ceremonial costume’, in J. L. Sebesta and L. Bonfante (eds), The World of Roman Costume (1994), 13–45, at 34–8.

⁷⁷ Goette, H. R., ‘Mulleus-Embas-Calceus’, JdI 103 (1988), 401–64Google Scholar.

⁷⁸ On different toga types current in the third century and the ‘Brothers’ Sarcophagus: Goette, Togadarstellungen, 51–8, 161 S 32, pl. 74.2; Stone, op. cit. (n. 76), 25, fig. 1.16.

⁷⁹ For example, a statue from Ostia: Goette, Togadarstellungen, 140, Bb 182, pl. 27.5–6.

⁸⁰ Foss, C., ‘Stephanus, Proconsul of Asia, and related statues’, Okeanos: Essays I. Ševčenko ( = Harvard Ukrainian Studies 7) (1983), 196–217Google Scholar = Foss, C., History and Archaeology of Byzantine Asia Minor (1990), ch. III.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Delbrueck, Konsulardiptychen, 51–4.

⁸² Stephanus: IR I, no. 202; Foss, op. cit. (n. 80). Note an important recent article that affects Stephanus' office and chronology: Feissel, D., ‘Vicaires et proconsuls d'Asie du IVe au Vie siècle: Remarques sur l'administration du diocese asianique du basempire’, Antiquité Tardive 6 (1998), 91–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 95–102, showing that Stephanus was both proconsular governor of Asia and vicar to the prefect of the other provinces of the diocese of Asia, in the early fifth century.

⁸³ Sceptre: Delbrueck, Konsulardiptychen, 61–2.

⁸⁴ On the mappa: Delbrueck, Konsulardiptychen, 62–3. More recently, with references and different view: Clair, A. St, ‘Imperial virtue: four late antique statuettes’, DOP 50 (1996), 147–62Google Scholar, at 153–5, proposing to see the attribute more as a symbol of the imperial authority of the bearer in the context of the games. Most recently, in an important article on the function of the diptychs: Cameron, Alan, ‘Consular diptychs in their social context: new eastern evidence’, JRA 11 (1998), 384–403Google Scholar, holding mostly to Delbrueck's consular (and for the raised mappa, racestarting) view.

⁸⁵ Delbrueck, Konsulardiptychen, 62, citing only the role of the mapparius mentioned in Cedrenus (I, p. 297 Bonn), was unnecessarily cautious on this point. Other sources, especially Suetonius, Nero 22 and Martial 12.29, make it clear. See further texts cited in Daremberg-Saglio, s.v. mappa.

⁸⁶ Bruns, Obelisk, 61–8, at 64–5, figs 77 and 82–3 (details). On the base, see recently Kiilerich, op. cit. (n. 18), 31–49, with lit. n. 91.

⁸⁷ So correctly Bruns, Obelisk, 53–61, at 56, fig. 62 and 68–9 (details). So also on the more weathered NE side, below which the raising of the obelisk itself is shown, five mappa-waving figures in the lower tier are wearing the paenula, or at least clearly not the ranking chlamys with large crossbow fibula: ibid., 46–7, figs 49–50.

⁸⁸ Delbrueck, Konsulardiptychen, nos 6 and 56; Volbach, nos 5 and 54.

⁸⁹ ALA, 66–7, 320–1.

⁹⁰ Megara, Corinth: Kollwitz, nos 13–17.

⁹¹ Volbach, no. 62; so also no. 35, the Halberstadt diptych, which is the subject of Cameron, op. cit. (n. 84).

⁹² Himation suit: JRS 1998, 65–6, with refs n. 51.

⁹³ Published in Smith, op. cit. (n. 41).

⁹⁴ Inv. 83–69 and 87–3, from near Tetrapylon: Erim, K. T. in Aphrodisias Papers 1 (1990), 10–11, fig. 2Google Scholar.

⁹⁵ Stray find in 1989 from north side of Karacasu-Tavas highway, near Geyre: Smith, R. R. R. in Aphrodisias Papers 3 (1996), 37–8Google Scholar, fig. 35. Another (battered) himation torso, inv. 76–44, might also be late in date. The himation was naturally still worn on contemporary philosopher and intellectual portraits (PI. XII, 3–4).

⁹⁶ ALA, nos 53, 82, 85–7, with Roueché's detailed commentaries.

⁹⁷ Miltner, F., ÖJh 44 (1959), Bb 347–8Google Scholar, fig. 189. Text on base is IEphesos 1302. Recently, Horster, op. cit. (n. 47), 46, n. 50, but her identification of Damocharis' costume as an early form of toga is incorrect.

⁹⁸ References for the portrait heads illustrated in Pls VI–XII are as follows. PI. VI, 1, Eutropius: IR, no. 194 and below n. 109. PI. VI, 2–4, Istanbul ‘Magistrates’: above n. 36. PI. VII, head from South Agora, inv. 64–431: IR II, no. 199. PI. VIII, 1–2, Brussels head: IR II, no. 204. PI. VIII, 3–4, head from South Agora, inv. 89–4: Smith, , Aphrodisias Papers 3 (1996), 13–20Google Scholar, fig. 6. PI. IX, head from South Agora, with squinting eye, inv. 67–697, 84–50: Erim, K. T., ‘De Aphrodisiensi restituto: an early Byzantine head from Aphrodisias’, in C. Bayburtluoǧlu (ed.), Akurgal'a Armaǧan: Festschrift Akurgal (= AnadoluAnatolia 22, 1982–83) (1989), 111–13Google Scholar, figs 1–3. PI. X, 1–2, Boston head: IR II, no. 207. PI. X, 3–4, head from South Agora, inv. 89–2A: Smith, op. cit. (n. 41). PI. XI, Palmatus: above n. 40. PI. XII, 1–2, Valentinian II/Arcadius: above n. 29. PI. XII, 3–4, ‘sophist’ bust and philosopher shield, from Atrium House, inv. 81–111 and 81–112: JRS 1990, nos 8 and 11.

⁹⁹ On the Constantinian sacer vultus and fourthcentury imperial style, see recently JRS 1997, 185–7, with further refs.

¹⁰⁰ On which, JRS 1990; Zanker, op. cit. (n. 74), ch. 6.

¹⁰¹ Statuary in other cities: above nn. 18–22. Diptychs: Delbrueck, Konsulardiptychen; Volbach. Theodosian base: Bruns, Obelisk. Ravenna: Grabar, Byzantium, figs 170–3, for best accessible colour illustrations; more in Deichmann, F., Frühchristliche Bauten und Mosaiken von Ravenna (1958)Google Scholar.

¹⁰² The ‘Younger Magistrate’ in Istanbul has a tonsure: PI. VI, 3–4. Churchmen with tonsure, for example, at Ravenna: Grabar, Byzantium, fig. 171.

¹⁰³ Governor's toil: Robert, Epigrammes, 21, n. 3, with listing of examples; also ALA, no. 41; IEphesos 1304, 1310.

¹⁰⁴ On military campaign stubble in portraits and texts, see JRS 1997, 197.

¹⁰⁵ Barletta: R. Delbrueck, Spätantike Kaiserporträts (1933), 219–26, pls 116–20. Ravenna: Grabar, Byzantium, fig. 171. Note also the armoured Honorius with light beard on the Probus diptych in Aosta: Volbach, no. 1. Stubble is very rarely worn by togati in the Constantinopolitan settings of the diptych scenes (Volbach, no. 6), and most of the toga-wearers on the Theodosian base (Bruns, Obelisk, for details) seem to be beardless. The conclusion seems to be that togate senators were to be (represented as) clean-shaven at home in the capital; cf. Delbrueck, Konsulardiptychen, 43.

¹⁰⁶ For example, the long hairstyles of the ‘sophist’ and old philosopher: here PI. XII, 3–4.

¹⁰⁷ Kitzinger, E., Byzantine Art in the Making (1977), 80. On this bust (IR I, no. 194): below n. 109Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁸ Grabar, Byzantium, 226: ‘The quiet resignation of the faces of these men, whose lot was cast in age of iron, gives them a look of spiritual grandeur of a quite exceptional order’.

¹⁰⁹ Eichler, F., ‘Das Denkmal des Eutropius von Ephesos’, Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien: Philosophisch-historische Klasse: Anzeiger 76.1939 (1940), 5–13Google Scholar. The inscription reads: ‘Accept this small return for your sleepless labours (philagrupnoi mochthoi), Eutropius, divine scion of Ephesus, for having adorned your native city (patris) with well-laid avenues of marble’ (IEphesos 1304). The bust is one of a group of similar portraits from Ephesus, the most recent addition to which is a fine and striking head from near the Octagon on the Embolos: Aurenhammer, M., öJh 54 (1983)Google Scholar, Beiblatt 140–2.

¹¹⁰ The following repeats briefly some points of method made more fully in JRS 1997, 194–5 and JRS 1998, 57–61.

¹¹¹ Virtues and ideals are catalogued by Näf, B., Senatorisches Standesbewusstein in spätrömischer Zeit (1995)Google Scholar, vices and possible malfeasances by Noethlichs, K. H., Beamtentum und Dienstvergehen. Zur Staatsverwaltung in der Spätantike (1980Google Scholar). See also Schlinkert, op. cit. (n. 63).

¹¹² For this and what follows: Robert, Épigrammes, passim.

¹¹³ MacMullen, R., Corruption and the Decline of Rome (1988)Google Scholar; Matthews, J., The Roman World of Ammianus (1989), ch. 12: ‘The Character of Government’; Noethlichs, op. cit. (n. 111)Google Scholar.

¹¹⁴ Ithudikēs: Robert, Eṕigrammes, 13–29.

¹¹⁵ Robert, Épigrammes, 89 (Gortyn), 17 (Epidamnus), 20 (Olympia), 24 (Thespiae), 21 (Ephesus), 25 (ta semna Themidos mathōn: Himerius, Or. 27.11), 41 (Athens), 138 (Argos); ALA, no. 41 (Aphrodisias).

¹¹⁶ Special eyes of late antique philosophers: JRS 1990, 146. Special eyes of late Roman emperors, densely attested in texts: JRS 1997, 198–201.

¹¹⁷ Toil: above nn. 103, 109. Stephanus: I Ephesos 1310: ithudikēs Stephanōi katharēs meta mochthon a[p]ēnēs, which Feissel, op. cit. (n. 82), 98, translates as follows: ‘ À Stephanos, pour sa droite justice, aprés la peine de son intégre gouvernement’; apēnē = carpentum, is used here as an image of the proconsul's ‘vehicle of office’, as explained fully by L. Robert, Bull. Epig. (1961), 220.

¹¹⁸ Giuliani, L., Bildnis und Botschaft: Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zur Bildniskunst der rötnischen Republik (1986)Google Scholar.

¹¹⁹ Cameron, Averil, Fl.Cresconius Corippus: In laudem Iustini Augusti minoris libri IV (1976), 12–14Google Scholar, 172–4; eadem, ‘The construction of court ritual: the Byzantine Book of Ceremonies’, in D. Cannadine and S. Price (eds), Rituals of Royalty: Power and Ceremonial in Traditional Societies (1987), 106–36, esp. 125–6, on the earlier period and the (lost) book on ceremonies that one Peter the Patrician was able to compile in the sixth century.

¹²⁰ Missorium: above n. 74. Theodosian base: above n. 86. Ravenna: above n. 101. Cf. MacCormack, S. G., Art and Ceremony in Late Antiquity (1981)Google Scholar, concerned however mainly with texts.

¹²¹ Diptychs: above n. 84. Rossano Gospels scene: above n. 72.

¹²² Churchmen, for example, in the Ravenna mosaics: Grabar, Byzantium, figs 152 (Ursicinus, Sant' Apollinare in Classe) and 171 (Maximianus and three others to viewer's right of emperor, San Vitale). Saints and martyrs in this manner, some examples: Grabar, Byzantium, figs 138 (martyr in church of St George, Thessaloniki), 143 (youthful St Demetrios between bishop and togate eparch), 146 (Sts Cosmas and Damian, Rome), and 151 (St Apollinaris, Ravenna). Full treatment: Maguire, H., The Icons of their Bodies: Saints and their Images in Byzantium (1996)Google Scholar.