Classical Numismatics Discussion
  Welcome Guest. Please login or register. 10% Off Store-Wide Sale Until 2 April!!! Explore Our Website And Find Joy In The History, Numismatics, Art, Mythology, And Geography Of Coins!!! Expert Authentication - Accurate Descriptions - Reasonable Prices - Coins From Under $10 To Museum Quality Rarities Welcome Guest. Please login or register. 10% Off Store-Wide Sale Until 2 April!!! Explore Our Website And Find Joy In The History, Numismatics, Art, Mythology, And Geography Of Coins!!! Support Our Efforts To Serve The Classical Numismatics Community - Shop At Forum Ancient Coins

New & Reduced


Author Topic: The Colossus of Barletta.  (Read 6305 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Will Hooton

  • Comitia Curiata II
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1019
  • SUSPIRIUM PUELLAM GULIELMUS THRAEX!
The Colossus of Barletta.
« on: June 06, 2009, 01:15:51 pm »
Leafing through J.C. Stobarts wonderful The Grandeur that was Rome, I found a plate of the so called Colossus of Barletta, which was said to have washed ashore after a Venetian galley sunk off the Italian coast, returing from the sacking of Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade. The identity of the bronze statue, cleary bearing late imperial regalia, is unknown. Wikipedia speculates the statue is either Theodosius II, Valentinian I or Honorius, though tradition holds that this is a representation of Heraclius.

So maybe we collectors with our eye for bust and profile, can pin down an ID!

Who do you think he looks like?

Enjoy! :)

Offline *Alex

  • Tribunus Plebis 2022
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
  • Etiam Iovis omnibus placere non possunt.
Re: The Colossus of Barletta.
« Reply #1 on: June 06, 2009, 01:49:28 pm »
I have commented on this statue in a previous thread. https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=36223.0
I personally think that the facial features are strikingly similar to those of Valentinian I as shown on the AE1 from my collection below. The stern look and the shape of the face and eyes are to me very similar. Valentinian's exploits too, would make him a worthy candidate for a colossal statue.
A further point to remember is that, although the Venetians may have looted the statue from Constantinople, it does not necessarily mean that it is a representation of a Byzantine or Eastern Roman emperor. The statue might not have originated in Constantinople, it could have been previously taken to that city from Rome as happened with many other pieces when the Western Empire disintegrated.

Alex.


Offline 284ad

  • Praetorian
  • **
  • Posts: 95
  • biberunt ut Gothi
    • My collection blog.
Re: The Colossus of Barletta.
« Reply #2 on: June 06, 2009, 02:49:29 pm »
I have to agree with Alex it's the heavy set chin that gives it away for me.

Offline gallienus1

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1287
  • Hope for the best but prepare for the worst
Re: The Colossus of Barletta.
« Reply #3 on: June 07, 2009, 07:43:51 am »
I have been impressed by this statue since seeing its image in my 1976 edition of Peter Brown's The World of Late antiquity. What I never realized was just how big it is. Scouting around Google Images I found a  picture that gives some scale and these close ups showing the emperor has a slight beard. Alex, like Peter Brown, identifies him as Valentinian I and uses a nice profile shot to state the case, but to my eye he looks a closer match to Jovian as I think the Coin Archives portrait shows.

Regards,
Steve

Offline 284ad

  • Praetorian
  • **
  • Posts: 95
  • biberunt ut Gothi
    • My collection blog.
Re: The Colossus of Barletta.
« Reply #4 on: June 07, 2009, 09:07:33 am »
I got quite intrigued so I went for a hunt through Jstor and found quite an interesting article, which makes figuring out who it is a bit more fun.

I won't tell you who the article says the statue is merely the reasons why and maybe you guys can try and figure it out.

1) The statue must be from post 324AD due to the style of the diadem.
2) The man is about 50 years old.
3) The statue has a beard.
4) The positioning of the diadem above the ears.



 

Offline 284ad

  • Praetorian
  • **
  • Posts: 95
  • biberunt ut Gothi
    • My collection blog.
Re: The Colossus of Barletta.
« Reply #5 on: June 07, 2009, 11:21:21 am »
While he seems to fit the bill I think history should count him out....or at least makes him an unlikely choice.

Offline Will Hooton

  • Comitia Curiata II
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1019
  • SUSPIRIUM PUELLAM GULIELMUS THRAEX!
Re: The Colossus of Barletta.
« Reply #6 on: June 07, 2009, 11:32:07 am »
While he seems to fit the bill I think history should count him out....or at least makes him an unlikely choice.

I certainly agree! It is highly improbable. In any case, I lean towards Alex's choice of Valentinian as well.

Offline Heliodromus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2176
Re: The Colossus of Barletta.
« Reply #7 on: June 07, 2009, 11:33:27 am »
There's a bust attributed as Valentinian I in the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, Copenhagen that's a very close match. I've no idea how the bust was attributed as him, however. The photo is from Rene Seindal's awesome photo site:

http://sights.seindal.dk/sight/877_Valentianus_I.html

The arching eyebrows and prominant nose-to-mouth lines seem like features the Barletta statue sculptor wanted to emphasise, and well match this bust.

It should be noted that the cross held by the statue is a rather incongruous modern addition - it would more likely have been a labarum that the emperor was holding.

Ben

Offline 284ad

  • Praetorian
  • **
  • Posts: 95
  • biberunt ut Gothi
    • My collection blog.
Re: The Colossus of Barletta.
« Reply #8 on: June 07, 2009, 11:58:17 am »
Are there any portraits of Valentinian with a beard though?

Offline Heliodromus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2176
Re: The Colossus of Barletta.
« Reply #9 on: June 07, 2009, 12:38:29 pm »
Are there any portraits of Valentinian with a beard though?

I wouldn't be so concerned about that - it's only a 2-day military stubble rather than a real beard, and so slight that I'm not sure anyone seeing the statue from street level would even notice it.

If there was another candidate that matched the permanent facial characteristics such as those distinctive arched eyebrows (plus all the other necessary factors - phyiscal and other) and was commonly depicted with the 2-day stubble then it might be more of a factor, but IMO it'd be a pretty weak basis to identify a statue on.

Note incidently that the type of the diadem isn't actually a factor in dating it to 324+ since ANY diadem would date it to 324+. More to the point it's trivially not Constantine or anyone up to Julian II since their distinctive appearances don't match.

Ben

Offline 284ad

  • Praetorian
  • **
  • Posts: 95
  • biberunt ut Gothi
    • My collection blog.
Re: The Colossus of Barletta.
« Reply #10 on: June 07, 2009, 02:02:18 pm »
The article I read was still sticking to the idea that it was Heraclius for the following reasons ( I understand the shaky footing of coin portraiture in late antiquity so don't worry I'm not saying it is necessarily correct)

1) The diadem is a type that is very uncommon on Valentinian's coins and more common on far later Imperial portraits.



you see how the front of the diadem protrudes slightly like the diadem on the statue rather than lies flat. This is more common on later portraits from Tiberius II onwards.


2) The way the diadem sits is very different to the portraits of earlier Late Antique emperors. The coins and bust of Valentinian show the diadem fitting closely behind the ears and the ears themselves are clearly visible. The Colossus however has the diadem worn slightly higher with the ears mostly covered by a thick head of hair. This can be seen on several coin types of Heraclius.



3) The beard. Now this may seem inconsequential but I believe that Emperors were very particular in creating their public image and any feature on a statue like this is there because they wanted it. It's not a case of them just forgetting to shave before getting their statue done.  Heraclius often was portrayed with a short beard as the coin above shows.

4) Heraclius has reason to deserve a statue like this after fighting a 6 year war against the Persians from 622-628AD

Those are the idea put forward by F.P Johnson in a very old article on the topic....now my own thoughts as to why it is not Valentinian.

The rendering of the face is a lot simpler than the bust of Valentinian. I would have expected for such an immense public work as this the finest craftsmanship rather than the rather clumsy angular features on the Colossus. This to me implies a later date to the piece.

Anyway I accept none of this makes a watertight case but that's the fun of it.

Offline cliff_marsland

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 838
    • My gallery
Re: The Colossus of Barletta.
« Reply #11 on: June 28, 2009, 11:04:38 pm »
That statue was always one of my favorites.  I kind of lean towards Valentinian I, but I have no proof.  Are there any busts of Byzantine emperors surviving?    I thought this statue would be a bit too realistic for the Byzantine period.

The person portrayed does bear a rather striking resemblance to Patrick Troughton, from the old Dr. Who series.

Offline LordBest

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2045
Re: The Colossus of Barletta.
« Reply #12 on: June 29, 2009, 04:09:20 am »
My personal opinion is that the Colossus dates to the mid fifth century, I base this on stylistic similarities with a head of Theodosius II (picture attached). By contrasting the treatment of the hair and ears on both the Colossus' and Theodosius' to a head of Arcadius (picture attached) I seperate them from the late fourth century. All this is rather arbitrary and I could be horrifically wrong.
If I am I correct, this rules out Valentinian I. But it is clearly not Theodosius II, the nose is far too long and the shape of the face quite different.
I believe there is a bas relief of Heraclius in Turkey somewhere, but I have only seen a rather poor picture from a tourist guide. Byzantine ary by the sixth century was quite different to that of fifth century, and the trend continues into the seventh. If we look at heads of Justinian I and Theodora (pictures attached) we see how different they are to earlier portraits. I find it unlikely that they would have reverted to what I label here the fifth century style for the reign of Heraclius, sixty or seventy years later.
My opinion as to the identity of the Colossus of Barletta? Marcian. The date indicates mid fifth century, but it is not Theodosius. Nor is it Leo I, (picture coming in next post) That leaves Marcian as the most likely candidate.
                                                                                   LordBest. 8)

Offline LordBest

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2045
Re: The Colossus of Barletta.
« Reply #13 on: June 29, 2009, 04:16:49 am »
Picture of Leo I attached. There is also the possibility it is a Western Emperor. Honorius can be ruled out, in my opinion, based on facial features and stylistic differences (picture attached). The rest of the Western emperors can be divided into those which are too inconsequential, too impoverished, too young or simply did not rule long enough for their reign to produce such a monumental masterpiece.
                                                                                  LordBest. 8)

Offline wandigeaux (1940 - 2010)

  • Deceased Member
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 873
Re: The Colossus of Barletta.
« Reply #14 on: June 29, 2009, 04:46:28 pm »
Leo I?  Can that head possibly go with that torso with the fringed drape (the kind frequently seen on provincial coinage of the 3rd C., and before; Pat Lawrence has posted a very nice example somewhere here)?  I am totally ignorant of Roman portrait sculpture, but I can't buy this one.  It would be nice to know the criteria used by those who attributed this.
 
Thanks to LordBest for posting these.

The Justinian and Theodora busts are wonderful!  Cheers, George Spradling
Hwaet!
"The pump don't work 'cuz the Vandals took the handle" - St. Augustine
GET THE HELL OFF MY LAWN!!
(1940 - 2010)

Offline LordBest

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2045
Re: The Colossus of Barletta.
« Reply #15 on: June 29, 2009, 10:04:24 pm »
I believe the ancient head has been inserted into a modern bust for display purposes.
                                                                                LordBest. 8)

Leo I?  Can that head possibly go with that torso with the fringed drape (the kind frequently seen on provincial coinage of the 3rd C., and before; Pat Lawrence has posted a very nice example somewhere here)?  I am totally ignorant of Roman portrait sculpture, but I can't buy this one.  It would be nice to know the criteria used by those who attributed this.
 
Thanks to LordBest for posting these.

The Justinian and Theodora busts are wonderful!  Cheers, George Spradling

Offline cliff_marsland

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 838
    • My gallery
Re: The Colossus of Barletta.
« Reply #16 on: June 30, 2009, 01:30:58 am »
What about Constantius II, Theodosius I, or Zeno?

The bust I've seen of Constantius, although rather abstract, has a beak nose, so perhaps it is not he. 

I think Valentinian I is the most likely suspect, though.

It could be a candidate from left field - sometimes the more ineffectual the leader, the more grandiose the statue.  It's a very unlikely chance, but it could be one of the shadow emperors.  Wouldn't it be funny if it turned out to be Libius Severus


Offline LordBest

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2045
Re: The Colossus of Barletta.
« Reply #17 on: June 30, 2009, 02:21:17 am »
If I am wrong about the mid-fifth century date (and I make no claims of certainty), then I think Theodosius could be a likely candidate. However going by surviving non-numismatic portraits, I would say Theodosius I had a rather long, oval shaped face in contrast to the Colossus' wide, angular face. Given the quality of the surviving examples, ie smashed and somewhat idealized this is a shaky supposition.
I would rule out Constantius II, going by his other surviving sculptures (see attached).
As to other minor rulers, the creation of this sculpture would have cost a vast amount of money, required great resources and exceptional craftsmanship. I have difficulty believing some minor emperor could have produced it.
In fact, given the poor state of the Western Empire in the fifth century I would be sceptical that it is a Western emperor at all, given that it did come from Constantinople. Although, as *Alex has said, it could have come from the West, we have no record of it doing so, and we do know that at least one late Western emperor was actively melting down bronze sculptured.
Zeno could be quite likely, come to think of it, although from memory he was not quite as militaristic as Marcian.
                                                                          LordBest. 8)

What about Constantius II, Theodosius I, or Zeno?

The bust I've seen of Constantius, although rather abstract, has a beak nose, so perhaps it is not he. 

I think Valentinian I is the most likely suspect, though.

It could be a candidate from left field - sometimes the more ineffectual the leader, the more grandiose the statue.  It's a very unlikely chance, but it could be one of the shadow emperors.  Wouldn't it be funny if it turned out to be Libius Severus



Offline cliff_marsland

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 838
    • My gallery
Re: The Colossus of Barletta.
« Reply #18 on: June 30, 2009, 02:42:00 am »
It's fun to speculate, and I suppose we may never know for sure.  There's been a lot of good candidates, and given the dearth of realistic portraits, it's really hard to decide.

I postulated Theodosius I because A) he ruled a relatively long time, had a victory over Eugenius, which may have warranted a grand statue. 

I also put forward Zeno because he too, ruled a relatively long time, was a military emperor, and had his own triumph, albeit on a minor scale, over some usurpers.

I agree that the Shadow emperors probably aren't viable candidates, although a couple probably had the private means to make the statue, such as Avitus or Petronius Maximus, but both are highly unlikely candidates.

Also, what about the guys really in charge of the West - Aetius or Ricimer?  Both surely must have had statues.  Is there any record or what they looked like?  Again, probably unlikely, and if they did, they statues probably weren't as impressive as this one, which is a masterpiece for a late Roman statue.


Offline cliff_marsland

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 838
    • My gallery
Re: The Colossus of Barletta.
« Reply #19 on: June 30, 2009, 03:02:15 am »
excuse the typo - they statues = their statues.

 

All coins are guaranteed for eternity