Statues and other high quality depictions of Byzantine emperors?

[Lord Finnish]

One thing I like about classical Roman history is that most emperors had lifelike statue made of their likeness. I find it very pleasing to read about a person when I know what he looked like.

But for Byzantium I see nothing of the sort. All I ever see is measly coins and a few manuscripts. Did Byzantine emperors really not want to be immortalized in stone or anything?

 

[JodelDiplom]

They were Christian and rejected the worship of idols. Before the conversion every citizen had to make sacrifices at a statue or likeness of the emperor and worship (or at least respect) him as a deity. So I suppose they saw: statues = idols, and therefore rejected having their likeness be made into a statue.

The whole "immortal" theme is also rather un-Christian. Your soul will live forever in the afterlife regardless of how many statues there are of you, and that's supposed to be good enough for you as a good and pious Christian.

 

[Lord Finnish]

They were Christian and rejected the worship of idols. Before the conversion every citizen had to make sacrifices at a statue or likeness of the emperor and worship (or at least respect) him as a deity. So I suppose they saw: statues = idols, and therefore rejected having their likeness be made into a statue.

The whole "immortal" theme is also rather un-Christian. Your soul will live forever in the afterlife regardless of how many statues there are of you, and that's supposed to be good enough for you as a good and pious Christian.

Christian emperors did have statues made out of them. You can find a statue of Valentinian III for example. Some early Byzantine emperors had statues made of them too, like Leo I.
I don't think it has to be about worship, a statue can be just a historical remainder, in Constantinople they had tons of statues of folks like Constantine I and even the goddess Athena but people didn't tear them down for being idols, they were just historical depictions.

 

[Kyriakos]

Paintings are the main source, obviously. There are many good ones.

I love the one of Alexios II Komnenos, cause he sort of looks like myself

 

[Calad]

A good example how religious fanaticism corrupted Roman Empire.

 

[JodelDiplom]

A good example how religious fanaticism corrupted Roman Empire.

I don't see how having less statues around is a corruption. Besides, the late Roman Empire suffered from so many things that went wrong, you can't expect it to make it through all those crises and come out still looking the same, worshiping the same old idols, believing in the same old pagan ideals, treating its people the same old (shitty) way.

 

[trybald]

Paintings are the main source, obviously. There are many good ones.

I love the one of Alexios II Komnenos, cause he sort of looks like myself

Emm, no. That's another Alexios, the one who died in 1142 and son of emperor John Komnenos. This Alexios was "only" a Ceasar since he predeceased with father.

Actually, during the Byzantine era there were lots and lots of images of ruling emperors, usually in painted form which mostly did not survive until our times. Statues, by coincidence more likely to survive, simply went out of fashion although continued to be made is small quantities. There was, for example, an equestrian statue of Justinian in downtown Constantinople. However it was, judging by the coins on which it was immortalized, rather clumsy and poorly made.

The fact that statues' popularity faded away made the job of a sculptor less desirable. Consequently, since fewer young people were willing to pick up the trade, there was no transmission of skills. The few sculptures that continued to be made were therefore of progressively poorer craftsmanship and durability. Which in turn made them even less sought after.

 

[Kyriakos]

Emm, no. That's another Alexios, the one who died in 1142 and son of emperor John Komnenos. This Alexios was "only" a Ceasar since he predeceased with father.

Actually, during the Byzantine era there were lots and lots of images of ruling emperors, usually in painted form which mostly did not survive until our times. Statues, by coincidence more likely to survive, simply went out of fashion although continued to be made is small quantities. There was, for example, an equestrian statue of Justinian in downtown Constantinople. However it was, judging by the coins on which it was immortalized, rather clumsy and poorly made.

The fact that statues' popularity faded away made the job of a sculptor less desirable. Consequently, since fewer young people were willing to pick up the trade, there was no transmission of skills. The few sculptures that continued to be made were therefore of progressively poorer craftsmanship and durability. Which in turn made them even less sought after.

Hm... Isn't the one in the painting Alexios II, son of Manuel Komnenos?

(and if he isn't, do you have a source for that? ).

 

[trybald]

Hm... Isn't the one in the painting Alexios II, son of Manuel Komnenos?

(and if he isn't, do you have a source for that? ).

That's not a painting, but a mosaic.

Secondly, all of my avaiable sources sa its Alexios, son of John Komnenos. Thirdly, the young man has a visible moustache and is obviously an adult, whereas Alexios II was sidelined when he was 13 and got murdered while 14.

 

[Kyriakos]

That's not a painting, but a mosaic.

Secondly, all of my avaiable sources sa its Alexios, son of John Komnenos. Thirdly, the young man has a visible moustache and is obviously an adult, whereas Alexios II was sidelined when he was 11 and got murdered at 14.

Pls name the sources

 

[trybald]

This mosaic was published and labelled as such in the Polish language translation of Alexiad and Runciman's History of the Crusades. Secondly, the man has identical facial features to another authenticated picture of Alexios, son of John, which is a minature that depicts him alongside his father.

 

[Kyriakos]

This mosaic was published and labelled as such in the Polish language translation of Alexiad and Runciman's History of the Crusades. Secondly, the man has identical facial features to another authenticated picture of Alexios, son of John, which is a minature that depicts him alongside his father.

I am just interested in this and would love to have a definitive source. If Runciman himself labeled the mosaic as one of a son of Ioannes Komnenos, then that would be pretty significant (despite obviously not being by itself by definition conclusive), but not even that is evident from the phrasing of your post. The rest of it is also a cryptic reference.
Anyway, if you don't want to bother with a concrete answer, that is that; like i said i just happen to care about this issue and therefore had to ask you for a source

 

[jamhaw]

I believe the Orthodox were also less sympathetic to statues generally, IIRC statues were deemed idolatry (unlike mosaics etc.). Although technically acceptable in secular art I would assume, it helped them go out of fashion.

 

[The Super Pope]

I imagine the recurring bouts of iconoclasm didn't help either. A plastered over mosaic can be recovered, a smashed statue cannot