1The so-called Second Sophistic is generally equated with the literary and rhetorical work in the period from the 1st to the 3rd century A.D., mostly in Greek, which occurred primarily in the eastern Mediterranean area, but also in Italy (e.g. Rome)[1]. However, the movement was not confined to rhetoric, but had an effect as an overall cultural phenomenon beyond this linguistic field[2]. The entire Second Sophistic can thus be understood as an expression of a basic social attitude, which is explicitly formulated above all in literary texts, and which must accordingly also be evident in other areas[3]. In addition to the literary level, other factual levels like plastic art in which the Second Sophistic was able to manifest itself, must also be taken into account. The sophistical reversion to Greek culture also makes it necessary to consider how the population in Rome and Italy reacted to this movement. The building in the northwest of the Forum Traiani , interpreted as an Athenaeum , provides evidence for this. It can be seen as a manifestation of the so-called Renaissance of Athens in Rome, which took place in Hadrian’s time. The Pax Romana guaranteed by the emperor was the prerequisite for the upper class to be able to concern themselves to intellectual educational goods. The population of Rome was thus able to participate in the heyday of Athens in the past, which at the same time served to ennoble themselves in the present[4]. A mixture of cultural influences and backgrounds resulted that, as a whole, formed the self-image of the people involved in the Greek East as well as in Rome and Italy, thus making the Second Sophistic an empire-wide phenomenon. Aelius Aristides gives an insight into the identity and ideas of this group in his speech Εἰς Ῥώμην[5].

2The following explanations focus on the sculptural decorations of public buildings in the Pamphylian city of Side , which were built in the period in question. In order to be able to understand the effects of this trend on the real (Sidetic) lifeworld, the influence of sophistic text creation on the decision-makers must also be taken into account. The wealthy sophists were practically required to use their wealth to promote the cities, for example through building projects. Glenn Bowersock calls these benefactions an interplay of literary, political, and economic influence[6]. It is obvious that the respective financiers (co-)determined the exact furnishings of the buildings they financed. Thomas Schmitz points out quite clearly that the benefactors emphasized their individuality when financing buildings by deciding what should be built[7]. This exertion of influence offered the opportunity to send specific messages to the recipients, which could happen not only through the architecture, but also through the figural decoration of the building. In this context, however, the ›sending of messages‹ mentioned should not be misunderstood as a conscious act, but as a form of expression of one’s own social environment or one’s own cultural self-understanding, in the sense of Erwin Panofsky[8]. In his study of classicistic statues, Paul Zanker wrote that from the Flavian period onwards, and especially in the 2nd century A.D., a large part of the ideal sculpture produced was used to decorate public buildings, which increased due to the heavy building activity. In this way, ideal sculpture was intended to give all sections of the population the feeling that they were participating in the Greek intellectual world, a privilege that in earlier times was only accessible to the upper class. This phenomenon can also be linked to the emperors’ self-portrayal as philosophers[9].

3Side was one of the most important and prosperous cities in Asia Minor during the High Imperial period, which is visible to this day in the architectural and sculptural remains[10]. The majority of the surviving Sidetic statues are imperial replicas from the 2nd and 3rd centuries A.D., from iconographic models that arose in the so-called Classical and Hellenistic periods[11]. The question of why these references occurred in large numbers is not so clear. As will be shown below, the Second Sophistic can be viewed as an aspect that had a clear influence on the choice of figural themes and concrete forms. In this context, it must be taken into account that although the sculptures were made as replicas of Greek originals, they cannot necessarily be equated with the models in terms of their specific functions. Thus, like the authors of the relevant texts, the clients of the sculpture acted from a re-enacted perspective in a way that they believed corresponded to the actions of the actors of the past[12]. In this context, reference should also be made to the founding of the Panhellenion by Hadrian in 131/132 A.D. In order to gain access to this prestigious group of Greek poleis, many of the cities of Asia Minor tried to clearly show their often fictitious descent from cities of the Greek motherland. Hadrian’s approach to propagating genealogy as the determinant of culture coincides with the texts of Favorinus, who understood genealogy as a criterion for identity (e.g. in his text περἰ Φυγῆς), as Tim Whitmarsh has pointed out[13]. In relation to Side (and also other cities in Asia Minor) this means that in the overall context the use of replicas of Greek statues was not only for their own sake, but that wider, reciprocal statements were implied. In a Roman provincial town, in which the ›official‹ center Rome was also present and was represented accordingly, these statements can be described as quite remarkable. According to this point of view, the reception of rhetoric is not the indispensable prerequisite for the erection of replicas of Greek masterpieces of the 5th and 4th centuries B.C. Rather, the speakers and writers were also influenced in their work by the adoption of Greek iconographic models within sculpture and, conversely, stimulated the production of such sculptures even further with their texts. Therefore, it seems instructive to question whether and to what extent the installation and presence of statues in Side should be understood as part of the phenomenon of the Second Sophistic, beyond all traditions of placement and display of replicas of Greek sculpture, and what these manifestations actually looked like. In the following, two buildings from Side, the so-called Building M and the Theater , are the focus of the article and are examined in more detail in the context of the premises and questions mentioned.

4Two final preliminary remarks are necessary. Firstly, the finding of the sculptures from Side only shows the respective last phase of use. Redesign and repositioning must always be considered, especially for the last ancient settlement phases of the city during late antiquity; in many cases the exact processes and the original place of erection of a statue cannot (or can no longer) be reconstructed. For this reason, in the following explanations only sculptures are considered that can be addressed with plausible reasons as furnishings of the respective buildings in the period of the 2nd and early 3rd centuries. In addition, only those statues from the respective sites are considered in detail that can provide clues to the Second Sophistic, since a complete consideration of all statues from all find spots covered in this paper would not serve the topic and would also go beyond the scope[14]. Secondly, the figural themes of the treated statues are placed at the center of the argument. Jale İnan, who has covered the sculptures from Side in several publications[15], remains instrumental in naming, dating and classifying the statues. Her results, which the author largely follows, form the basis for the following explanations.

5It is understandable in any case that an intellectual and real recourse to the past, which was perceived as glorious, had to touch on a theme that was inextricably linked to Greek culture: the agon. Based on the preserved sculptural decor and also the architecture, the author has argued in several articles that the so-called Building M in Side shows clear similarities to gymnasia or to the palaestrae of thermal gymnasia or is strongly based on them[16]. It is a square measuring 88.5 × 69.5 m, surrounded by stoae on all four sides[17]. The depth of the columned halls was given by Arif Müfid Mansel as about 7 m each. There are three halls on the east side of the courtyard, the middle one being slightly larger than the two on the side (26.45 × 15.20 m vs. 19.50 × 14.75 m). The elevated status of the middle room is also illustrated by the position of the columns in the square, which protrudes in a U-shape towards the middle of the square. The niche facade of the hall was lined with marble. The columnar architecture of the facade, with Attic-Ionic bases and Corinthian capitals, rests on a 1.65 m high base that runs around the room, following the projection and recession of the wall niches[18]. This middle hall was named Kaisersaal by A. M. Mansel, an interpretation that has prevailed despite all the discussions about the function of Building M[19]. The basic dating of the complex to the Antonine period also comes from Mansel, for which he used the architectural ornamentation and large parts of the statues found[20].

6Numerically, the largest number of Sidetic sculptures was found in Building M[21]. The most important pieces for the present topic include five athlete statues (one replica each of Polykleitos’ Diadumenos[22], Myron’s Diskobolos [23], Lysippos’ Apoxyomenos[24], the Oil-pouring Youth[25] and a statue in the style of Pythagoras’ Diskobolos Herm [26]), three representations of Hermes (of the Kyrene-Perinthos type[27], the Richelieu type[28] and the type of Lysippos’ Sandal Binder[29]), a head of Apollo[30], and a Marsyas of the Zagreb type [31]. Due to their dating and thematic content, which certainly fits with the postulated function of the building as a gymnasium or palaestra, these sculptures can be addressed with some arguments as belonging to the original decor of Building M. As early as 1979, Andreas Linfert spoke about most of the pieces as being created in a common context because of the visible remains of the neck bosses[32].

7The dating of Building M and the aforementioned statues to the middle of the 2nd century falls within the period of the Second Sophistic. Onno van Nijf has formulated the decisive point in the present context, namely that Greek identity, apart from the language, also manifested itself in the practices of the gymnasium, especially against the background that in pre-Hellenistic times these competitions were only open to Greek polis citizens[33]. These two foundations show that the surviving sculptural program of Building M must be described as a clearly thought-out system. The pieces that have been preserved are largely related to the function of the gymnasium (e.g. the athletes, the depictions of Hermes, Nike or Marsyas) and at the same time, the Greek types that were received here in Roman times are in a striking relationship to each other, as A. Linfert also pointed out in an article. Polykleitos (Diadumenos, Oil-pouring Youth), Lysippos (Apoxyomenos, Hermes untying his sandal), Myron (Diskobolos), Pythagoras of Rhegion (Diskobolos), Kresilas (Hermes Kyrene-Perinthos) and probably also Phidias (Apollo) are recognizable. Linfert called the installation »the result of comparative art history research that is quite astonishing by ancient standards«, since the requirements of ancient technical literature with regard to the installation of sculptures are implemented very precisely in the form of statues[34]. This also takes up a central point of the sophistical educational culture, namely the knowledge of and preoccupation with the past, which was perceived as significant, by the responsible euergetes. Demonstrating one’s own knowledge in a way that is effective for the public fits in with these tendencies. The furnishing of Building M thus shows a decor, consisting of thematically appropriate sculptures, which at the same time glorifies the agonal culture of ›Classical Greece‹ associated with the gymnasium[35]. Although the corresponding pieces are not depictions of victorious athletes from the time the building was constructed – at most the heads and/or inscriptions that have not survived would have been personalized[36] – rather they generally stand for the important competitive character, which, similar to the sophistic texts, is a deliberate reference to past times, which in this case was apparently also intended to legitimize the institutions of the present. This also applies in particular to the clear emphasis on the complex as a ›Greek gymnasium‹, which also fits with the reflections of Fabrizio Slavazzi, who addresses the sculptural program as a gymnasium and athletic-military composition which, in his opinion, is intended to glorify the traditional values of Greek education[37]. This education concerned both the physical and intellectual development of young men. In Building M, this mental attitude is visualized by the depicted gods and their responsibilities, the statues of athletes and the statue of Marsyas. In addition to the aspects already mentioned, which relate to the creators of the corresponding Greek models, this second point also plays an important role, since it documents the examination of the ways of thinking, the myths, etc. of the time that was regarded as exemplary. In this context, the use of the figure of Marsyas, which originates from Greek mythology on the one hand and also has clear connections to the (music) agon on the other, is particularly revealing. The sculptural program in Building M can thus also be understood as a visual implementation of the ideals of the Second Sophistic, in particular the return to the glorious past.

8Another important point that speaks in favor of a conscious selection of the statues set up in Building M is the above-mentioned fame of the sculptors who created the Greek models for the statues set up in the so-called Kaisersaal. This recourse came about at a time when the Second Sophistic was tangible in Side, which probably helped determine the concrete form in architecture and sculpture. In principle, the building did not need to be designed as a gymnasium, since it would also have been possible to choose the ›modern‹ form of thermal gymnasium at the time of construction. This was probably not done in Side[38]. Likewise, the statuary decoration need not have gone beyond the connection with the agonal character. The comprehensive education of the euergetes is apparent here[39]. The overall findings shown here therefore point out Building M, in addition to all practical meanings, as a consciously designed building in the context of the Second Sophistic, which was intended to illustrate the educational ideals of Greek culture. As van Nijf argues, this was understood as a visualization of an ›ordered‹ society that knew local hierarchies and was dominated by a pro-Roman elite[40]. The euergetes of the complex obviously felt that they belonged to this elite, or at least financially they probably did. With the help of the sculptural decoration, they showed their participation in these educational ideals, their knowledge of the historical situation, their embedding in Greek culture and, last but not least, their closeness to the emperor.

9In Building M, with the depiction of an emperor, other factors were also included in the statue program which are to be understood more from the Roman perspective[41]. This sculpture shows very clearly that the current political situation of Roman rule was also taken into account, the donor expressing his closeness to the imperial family in images. At the same time, however, there is also a strong claim to present Building M as a building in Greek tradition. This clearly shows the contradiction, or dilemma, that the sophists face. On the one hand, the Greek heritage was emphasized, also in a kind of conscious differentiation from Roman rule, on the other hand, it was precisely the new system that gave the protagonists of this movement their freedom of action. As these were members of the social elite, they benefited from the Roman Empire and the Pax Romana, especially in a trading city like Side, with its ›international‹ contacts[42]. This connection to state conditions within the context of the Second Sophistic is not unique to Side, as, among others, the following comparative example illustrates.

10The Vedius Gymnasium in Ephesus is just one complex showing that Building M was not a singular building. It was created in the middle of the 2nd century A.D. and is named after its donor, M. Claudius P. Vedius Antoninus Phaedrus Sabinianus. Architecturally, it is a thermal gymnasium, and corresponds to the ideal layout of this type of building in terms of floor plan[43]. Particularly striking is the so-called Marble Hall, which adjoins the Palaestra to the west and is separated from it by six double semi-column pillars. The walls on the inside of the hall were divided by projections and recesses, resulting in a tabernacle architecture. On the floor, a 1.32 m high plinth ran along the walls[44]. The sculptures on display in the Marble Hall included a Myronic Discobolos from the Antonine period[45], a fragment of an arm that may have belonged to a Diadumenos[46], and the donor, represented as a Togatus[47]. The donor’s inscription also names gods such as Hermes or Herakles as well as the emperor who ruled at the time the complex was built, Antoninus Pius[48]. Hubertus Manderscheid says that the sculptural decoration of the Vedius Gymnasium combined the ideal of the gymnasium with the aspect of education and the typical Roman elements. As an ensemble, these sculptures formed the framework for the statue of the emperor, and it is striking that the absolute majority of the statues were found in the area of the Palaestra[49]. The Vedius Gymnasium thus shows clear parallels to Building M, which are also relevant in relation to the nature of the Second Sophistic. The donor was demonstratively depicted together with the emperor, thus showing his closeness to the ruler. At the same time, the statues set up provide very clear connections to the Greek ideal of education, as practiced in the gymnasium. The return to and knowledge of this past condition, which is regarded as exemplary, while at the same time emphasizing one’s own pro-Roman attitude is clearly recognizable in both cases and fits in with the zeitgeist as well as the strategies used by the sophistic euergetes.

11The archaeological results show a clear contradiction of the sophistical texts, in which the gymnasium does not seem to occupy a particularly prominent position. In this context, Martin Hose refers to Philostratos, Dion or Aelius Aristides. He sees one of the reasons for this mismatch in the status of the gymnasia as a spiritual identification point for the local population. Since these were not supra-regional intellectual centers, the sophists (coming from outside) did not seek them out either[50]. In Building M, but also in the Vedius Gymnasium, the Second Sophistic can be found archaeologically. In this context, the actual function of a gymnasium must also be taken into account. Just like the sophists, the athletes were also part of the elite and used their activities to differentiate themselves from the rest of the population. And just as the former used their rhetoric for competitive purposes, they also measured themselves in (sporting) competitions[51]. These events represented an important part of one’s own identity, which continued to exist even – or just – after the establishment of Roman rule. Fikret Yegül emphasizes that the gymnasium was perhaps the most diverse institution in Greek culture. Since these buildings were equipped with altars, shrines, monuments and statues, a religious and moral atmosphere was created in which, among other things, past and present merged[52]. The grammatikos was the mediator of Greek culture, with this mediation taking place through literature and sport. The place where these teachings took place was in a very large number of cases the gymnasium[53]. These explanations show that the gymnasium, due to its social importance, was definitely suitable for institutionalizing the aforementioned return to the (imagined) ›Greek culture‹ of bygone times[54].

12Another aspect of the phenomenon of the Second Sophistic can be seen in the sculptures of the Theater of Side. Due to its function, the building offered itself as a place for the installation of corresponding statues. The type of building itself was originally Greek, so despite the known (mainly architectural) changes in Roman times as a whole already referred to the Greek past[55]. The Sidetic Theater, which is still visible today, was also built over the older, predecessor building from the ›Hellenistic period‹[56]. Since the older building can still be recognized today due to architectural remains, it must still have been visible, at least in fragments, at the time the new building was built, which means that the population must have been aware of its existence. The theater building is located at the narrowest point of the Side peninsula and is touched on two sides by the central Colonnaded Street. This central location was predestined for prestigious statues. The Theater of Side was one of the largest such complexes in Pamphylia and Asia Minor, but differs significantly from the other theater buildings in this area due to the largely free-standing cavea, which was not integrated into a hill. Rather, there is a resemblance to the theaters and amphitheaters of the western empire[57]. The new Roman building was built in the middle of the 2nd century A.D. Johannes Nollé points out that it was probably considered very important by the population. This is shown, among other things, by an inscription naming a T. Flavius Spartiaticus under whom construction work began[58].

13Of the sculptures found here, four pieces in particular are relevant to the subject matter at hand[59]. On the one hand, it is a male torso, which İnan discussed as a replica of the Kassel Apollo [60]. For stylistic reasons (particularly because of the anatomical shapes in the chest, stomach and back areas), the author dates this to the middle of the 2nd century A.D. and thus to the construction period of the Theater. Also from this period is the group of the Three Graces , represented as a dancing unit, with the central Grace facing in the opposite direction to the two at the sides[61]. A Tyche and a Hermaphrodite, which İnan has already convincingly interpreted as part of a Silenos-Hermaphrodite Group, date from the Severan period[62]. In terms of content, Apollo fits in with the place where it was found, through his function as the god of the arts. Equally appropriate, through mythology and the appearance of the corresponding figures in the plays, are the Three Graces and the Hermaphrodite, or the Silenos-Hermaphrodite Group. In terms of content, Tyche also fits in very well with a theater. As Can Özren points out, this deity was repeatedly portrayed in the theaters of the Greek East, which has to be seen in the context of the gladiator fights that took place there[63].

14All of the sculptures mentioned are replicas of originals from the so-called Greek Classical and the so-called Hellenistic period. This reference to the past, together with the dating to the 2nd and 3rd centuries A.D., makes it possible to address it in the context of the cultural phenomenon of the Second Sophistic. This suggests that, in addition to all substantive parallels to the installation site, those responsible wanted to clearly show their knowledge of the Greek past of this area[64]. The result is a clearly thought-out picture, the significance of which is also shaped by the geographical location of Side in the middle of the Greek-speaking east of the Roman Empire, which is shaped by Greek culture. References to this culture were better presented in such a place than in areas with a completely different historical background. This means that in this context the precise execution of the sculptural decoration should also make the heritage of the past visible and at the same time the euergetes’ knowledge of this heritage should be highlighted by these representations.

15In his article on the sculptural decoration of the Roman theaters in Asia Minor, Özren also went into the visual language of the sculptures used. This was utilized by the Greek-speaking population for their own purposes and interests; the statuary programs were Roman, but the statements intended by them were specifically Greek. This dichotomy was tolerated by Rome. The euergetes of the constellations, on the one hand, showed an awareness of the history, culture and political independence of the Greek cultural area, although on the other hand a loyalty to the new rulers is visible in the inscriptions[65]. These intentions also reflect a central way of thinking among the representatives of the Second Sophistic. In this context, Marco Galli also pointed out that statue dedications in the Antonine period often gave rise to theater donations[66]. Without the theater’s publicity, the installation of these statues would not have been able to reach so many recipients, which in turn would have run counter to the goals of the client in the context of the Second Sophistic (return to Greek culture in times of foreign rule, demonstration of one’s own education, etc.). By resorting to Greek forms in the sculptures used, there is also a clear point of contact with the sophistic rhetors and their texts, namely the effect on the potential recipients. The requirements for the external impact of the respective art genre were the same, the recipient had to be able to understand the message on the one hand, i.e. also to decode the ›codes‹ and on the other hand to identify with it. Only in the overall complex of the installation site could the sculptures unfold their full effect.

16The theater in the nearby town of Perge is just one comparative example. The scaenae frons of the building was created in its present form between 160 and 190 A.D. The first modification work was carried out in the early to middle Severan period[67]. Of the sculptures found that belong to the Antonine phase, a Tyche, a Marsyas and two representations of the mythical founders of Perge are particularly meaningful in the present context[68]. In addition to the clear parallels in content between the two depictions of Tyche in Side and Perge, the sculptures belonging to the mythical realm are particularly meaningful. Additionally, to the thematic connection of Marsyas with theater, which is illustrated by his relationship to Dionysos, given as a satyr, it is above all his appearance in the myths of Greek culture. In this way he also resembles the founding heroes of the city of Perge, who also relate to the city’s past, which dates back to the time before the theater was built. In the context of the Second Sophistic, it is these points in particular that produce a clear resemblance to the situation in Side[69]. The populace’s own (imagined) past once again served as a backdrop for the present in a building that was predestined for the appearances of the ›specialists‹ in this area, namely the sophistic speakers. As in Side, the result is a connection between the building type and the decorative furnishings, which implies deeper statements than ›just‹ the connection with the plays performed in the theaters.

17Theaters were among the most important places where sophistical speeches were held, which is evident from the function of the buildings themselves. A large number of the theaters newly built in the imperial period or remodelled from Hellenistic predecessors were used not only for entertainment, but above all for popular assemblies. The (sophistic) speaker was able to present himself very well thanks to the backdrop of the scaenae frons and the excellent acoustics[70]. The theater is therefore a place that was predestined for performances that were intended to create a certain effect. The primary interest of the speaker, namely to win over the audience, could be ideally supported. The sculptures set up in the theater buildings appear like a deliberately chosen backdrop that was intended to complete the production. In this overall view, the Side Theater also reflects the guidelines of the Second Sophistic to a certain extent. It is not just a Roman-era structure replacing an older Greek predecessor, but rather an architectural type which, together with the spectacles presented there, referred back per se to the past – the same past that the rhetors appearing there placed in the center of their texts. The texts were also written in Roman times, by an elite that owed their position to that state to a large extent, but who clearly drew on the Greek, pre-Roman heritage and placed it at the center of their work.

18The sculptural decoration of theaters also shows this scheme, since the statues were created in the Roman era but refer to much older works. The fundamental phenomenon of the furnishing of such buildings with sculptures, especially the rich statuary decoration, was, on the other hand, more Roman specific[71]. The example of the (Sidetic) theater can once again underpin the finding that the Second Sophistic was not just a purely literary phenomenon. The overall view also shows in a particularly clear way the interactions that the mutual cultural contacts between the East and West of the Roman Empire could develop.

19Against the background of the relevance of the theater as a venue for sophistic speakers, in addition to all the content-related connections to the theater as a venue, a convergence with ideas that are often encountered in the context of the Second Sophistic can be assumed for the concrete formation of the Sidetic program. The statuary can thus also be seen as a kind of visualization of the sophistical texts or speeches, with both genres to be understood as complementary carriers of meaning.

20In addition to the pieces from Building M and the Theater, other sculptures from Side are known, the installation of which can also be seen in the context of the ways of thinking and acting of the Second Sophistic. One such example is the approximately life-size head of a statue of Athena. It was found in the so-called Great Colonnaded Street, near the Theater[72]. The exact display location of the ensemble of sculpture is not clear, nor is the question of whether it was part of the street’s original statuary decoration. The traces of mortar still present on the surface of the head and the severed parts of the face and back of the head suggest a secondary use as building material. İnan has identified the type as a replica of the so-called Athena Hope from the Antonine period, whose original is from the 5th century B.C. She described the helmet of the goddess, the remains of which are still visible, as Attic[73].

21Basically, the presentation of Athena, who was one of the main deities of Side, is quite understandable in public space, regardless of the exact primary installation site, any secondary installations and the exact installation context. However, as Nollé explains, the emphasis on this deity in Side and other cities during Roman rule could also serve to make existing (sometimes older) contacts with Athens visible. In this context, the public display of the statue would be a medium to make the connections to the ›cultural center‹ Athens visible to all potential recipients. The exact type of the head appears to be consistent in this context. The depiction of one of Side’s main deities could also refer to the old cults that had been practiced in their honor in earlier times. This in turn provides the motif of remembering oneself. Nollé pointed out that the old cults in Side were practiced particularly intensively in the 2nd and 3rd centuries A.D.[74]. This is another reason for a public presentation of the Athena statue. The return would then refer to the cultic sphere and thus also to the earliest beginnings of the city.

22The head of Athena can thus also be viewed in the context of the Second Sophistic. The emphasis on ancient connections with the Greek cultural center of Athens, which existed before the incorporation of Asia Minor into the Roman Empire, points to the glorious past of the city of Side and its citizens, which existed at least in the imagination of the euergetes. The people responsible staged the Sidetic community as a ›cultural nation‹ in the tradition of Athens[75]. It also fits into this picture that the statue of Athena Parthenos (!) can be seen as a model or at least as a stylistically very similar representation to the so-called Athena Hope[76].

23In addition, in Hadrianic times, a Sidetic delegation was sent to Athens to take part in the Great Panathenaic Games[77]. In this context, the sending of the delegation at exactly the time when cities were intensely revisiting their past appears to be a conscious act on the part of those responsible. Pre-Roman contacts within the Greek cultural area could thus be emphasized. Thinking further, the idea could even be conceived that the depiction of Athena was erected to commemorate this journey and remained in use for a correspondingly long time until the last settlement phases of the city in late antiquity, which means that the following generations of townspeople, assuming a longer period of use of the sculpture, could also participate in it. Since there is no (preserved) inscription, this point cannot be answered definitively. In any case, this would fit together in terms of time and content[78]. A gilded statue of a Milesian citizen, who according to the associated inscription led a delegation to Rome in the 1st century B.C. and was honored for it with the sculpture, shows that such mementos were set up[79].

24In addition, it is also known that in the sophistic texts the motif of the older Greek culture versus the Roman plays an important role[80]. The setting up of the portrait of Athena would thus represent the visualization of this idea. It also fits that the head is clearly based on a model from the Classical period, visible in the remains of the face and hair as well as the Corinthian helmet, while the overall appearance in turn refers to the city’s own past and the pre-Roman period. This mixed situation suggests that the exact decision to produce and display the statue of Athena (e.g. the choice of the specific type of statue or possibly also the place of installation) was definitely influenced by ways of thinking as propagated by the Second Sophistic. This cultural phenomenon thus acted as a catalyst that led to the exact formation of the characteristic, while the fundamental decision can be traced back to the general conditions, a phenomenon that can also be assumed for the athlete statues from Building M already mentioned or the Apollo from the Theater, for example.

25Another sculpture that can be viewed in the context of the Second Sophistic has survived only in the form of its inscribed base and comes from the city’s Nymphaeum [81]. It was originally an honorary statue dedicated to a certain M. Valerius Titanianus according to the epigraphic references. In addition, the text states that this man performed the service ab epistulis Graecis [82]. Bowersock emphasized that this office, in the form of ab epistulis, was in a sense a monopoly of Greek-speaking sophists and rhetors in the 2nd and early 3rd centuries A.D. Twelve such persons are known between the reigns of Hadrian and Caracalla. In most cases their office has been referred to as ab epistulis Graecis [83]. It is therefore natural to speak of Titanianus as a person who was at least close to the currents of the Second Sophistic. The erection of his statue thus creates a first connection between this cultural phenomenon and the Nymphaeum, which does not have to contradict the general function of an honorary statue at all. Rather, both points should be seen as two related aspects which illustrate the cultural self-understanding of the builder of the Nymphaeum, especially in connection with euergetism, which was so important for the sophists[84]. It is striking in this context that the base of a statue of an emperor (Caracalla) was also found at the Sidetic Nymphaeum[85]. There is also a statue of a variant of the Small Herculaneum Woman, which dates from the time the fountain was built, and a slightly older depiction of the Large Herculaneum Woman[86]. Possibly the found statues of Nike, which in turn are replicas of older Greek types, also belonged to this system[87].

26The (self-)representation of elites in combination with the emperor, other relevant personalities from the construction period and possibly also with replicas of older types of statues showing Greek gods basically goes together very well. At the same time, the example of Titanianus also shows the diverse interactions that made up the Second Sophistic: on the one hand, he is clearly associated visually with the Roman ruler; on the other hand, it can be assumed that he was at least close to sophistic currents, which means that the cultural return to the pre-Roman period was also relevant for him. Should this man also have been the founder of the Nymphaeum, which is in principle quite possible but cannot be completely verified on the basis of the findings, he behaved exactly as was expected of him and his kind. Due to its proximity to the emperor, the status of his office was also predestined to exercise effective protection, as Nollé describes[88]. This means that his position as part of the imperial or state administrative apparatus and also the framework conditions provided by the Roman Empire, especially the Pax Romana, were essential for his (financial) possibilities. The portrayal of this educated, politically influential man, who was prominently presented or presented himself in the midst of the local Sidetic community, indicates that he was regarded as an important guarantor of the city’s status or defined himself as such.

27In particular, the comparison with the so-called Herodes Atticus Nymphaeum at Olympia provides further clues. The building was donated by Herodes Atticus and his wife Regilla and was dedicated in 153 A.D.[89]. The eponymous donor belonged to the group of sophists and presented himself in the sculpture program of the fountain as a benefactor close to the emperor by having his family and the imperial family portrayed together[90]. A total of three statues of the Large Herculaneum Woman have been found at Olympia, one of which is named Regilla and one Faustina Minor[91]. The comparison between the two buildings thus shows clear similarities in the types of statues used and the pictorial subjects that represented mortal persons. This can point to similar processes in the creation of the sculptural decorations.

28Even if the exact connection between the official Titanianus and the Nymphaeum cannot be completely reconstructed for Side due to a lack of inscriptions and other sources, the conclusion is that this connection played an important role in the construction and operation of the complex. The depiction of Titanianus in the context of the Nymphaeum can be read as an expression or image of an ›orderly‹ urban society led by a pro-Roman (sophistical) elite, which included the emperor[92]. (Self-)representation by the respective elites is therefore an important motive for the selection of at least some of the sculptures of the Nymphaeum.

29The Second Sophistic can be seen as a phenomenon of the 2nd and 3rd centuries A.D. which had a variety of effects on the environment of the inhabitants of the (not only) eastern Mediterranean area. Especially with regard to the surviving sculptural decorations of the mentioned buildings at Side very clear effects on the real actions of the persons responsible for it can be seen. Since the sophists were mostly men from the social elite who also had the corresponding economic opportunities, the phenomenon of the Second Sophistic could also manifest itself in material culture because, as mentioned above, the sophists also appeared as euergetes. Using the example of late antique Constantinople , Sarah Bassett worked out that the public presentation of one’s own knowledge of the Greek past became an essential necessity in order to be able to participate politically as a decision-maker[93]. These practical policy effects could also have an influence on the literary world, in the sense of a mutual relationship, just as the texts could have an impact to the living environment.

30As shown by Building M and the Theater, at least two guidelines of the Second Sophistic can be identified in the Sidetic buildings based on the associated sculptural decorations, namely the harking back to the ›Classical‹ Greek ideal of education and the reference to the performances of the speakers. The archaeological evidence of Building M shows, in respect of the Antonine replicas of the concrete types of statues, a strong return to the art of the ›Classical‹ and ›Hellenistic‹ periods. This is a clear recourse to the Greek past of the eastern Mediterranean and the ›Classical‹ poleis, especially Athens, as was also propagated in the corresponding texts. From this point of view, it is probably no coincidence that works by sculptors who were already famous in antiquity, such as Polykleitos or Lysippos, were used to decorate Building M, although the specific pictorial themes must also be taken into account[94]. The patron god of activities in the Greek gymnasium, Hermes, is depicted three times overall. Together with the preserved Apollo, it shows the ideal of education as it was conveyed to the young poleis citizens[95]. The five depictions of athletes also belong in this scheme and show the concrete implementation of the physical aspect of this ideal; at the same time, it is clear that the agones organized in Building M also played a role for the usage of these statues.

31The sculptures found in the Theater also show Greek types. In addition to all content-related connections to their place of installation (Apollo as god of the arts, mythical figures, etc.), ideas and ways of thinking can also be classified as relevant for the specific choice of individual pictorial themes, which are to be seen in the context of the Second Sophistic. In particular, the reference to the appearances of the speakers who presented their texts in the Theater should be mentioned in this context. In this case, the specific sculptural decoration appears as the visual equivalent of the content of the sophistic speeches, which dealt with Greece’s past, which was perceived as great. As the author argues for Building M, the genres of sculpture and rhetoric are to be understood as media through which the themes of the Second Sophistic were presented to the recipients.

32Similar considerations can also be formulated for the aforementioned statues of the Nymphaeum and the Colonnaded Street, although the significantly poorer finds and archaeological records in both cases must also be taken into account. In each case, however, there are pieces whose exact execution makes it essentially conceivable that aspects of the Second Sophistic played a role in their compilation. In addition to the reference to Athens and the visualization of older traditions and connections to this city, i.e. the cultural positioning of one’s own community within the Greek cultural area, or the propagation of a Greek identity, it is also especially euergetism. As shown above, M. Valerius Titanianus, who is venerated in a statue on the Nymphaeum, can with good reason be regarded as a follower of the movement of the Second Sophistic. His portrait fits in with the construction of the magnificent fountain just as much as that of Caracalla. The question of whether Titanianus can be described as the euergetes of the Sidetic Nymphaeum is extremely difficult to answer on the basis of the findings. Irrespective of this, however, it shows, either through his self-portrayal (should he have been the founder) or through the honor from outside (by the Sidetic community), that the educated, politically influential sophists were presented in a publicly effective way and that the Second Sophistic was a publicly visible phenomenon within the cities.

33In the overall view of the sculptural decorations mentioned, it is striking that, in addition to all references, imagined traditions, etc., in many cases a contextualization in the ›current‹ situation, i.e. to the Roman state and to the real political circumstances, is recognizable. This is particularly evident in the statue of M. Valerius Titanianus, but the pattern can also be seen in the Theater and in Building M. The ›turning away from the real world‹ of a Greek-speaking elite who tried to propagate the achievements of the Greek past in intellectual ways, which has been repeatedly posited for the Second Sophistic[96], can thus be countered by the fact that physical and material activities are also recognizable. Despite all the evocations, there are clear references to the reality of life of the protagonists. The Roman Empire was clearly involved in the activities as a frame of reference, which seems understandable in principle when one considers that the Second Sophistic was not exclusively a phenomenon of the eastern Mediterranean region. Rather, it was a cultural movement that affected and was supported by elites in the eastern (Greece, Asia Minor etc.) and western parts (Italy) of the Roman Empire. In this context, T. Whitmarsh speaks of Attic Greek as the common bond that connected higher social classes in the west and east and separated them from those of lower socioeconomic status. As a result, ›Greekness‹ was no longer geographically tied to certain places, but rather a social construct of (provincial) elites[97].

34In summary, with regard to the question of the extent to which the phenomenon of the Second Sophistic can be related to the sculptural decoration of the Sidetic buildings discussed, it can be said that this phenomenon creates a broadened focus that has the potential to deepen our understanding of the contexts of presentation at least for Building M and the Theater, since it allows mindsets to be shown that at least influenced the concrete choice of the (types of) statues. However, it also becomes clear that it is not sufficient as the sole explanation for the sculpture programs, and that traditions of the display of statues must also be taken into account. The connection between sophistic and euergetism, mentioned several times above, also proves to be particularly meaningful, since the people involved were able to visualize their ideals and thus present them to the population. It becomes clearly visible that the connections are not limited to the display of replicas of Greek statues, but that there are plainly deeper meanings and motifs that are manifested in different nuances in the various buildings.

The preserved statues from Side, which were created in Roman imperial times, are among the outstanding examples of Roman-era plastic art from Asia Minor. The majority of these sculptures were created in the 2nd and 3rd centuries A.D., but were replicas of iconographic types which in turn date to the so-called Classical Greek and Hellenistic eras. Based on the sculptural decor of the Theater and the so-called Building M in Side, the paper discusses the extent to which the cultural movement of the Second Sophistic manifested itself in the sculptural environment of public buildings in Side, with comparative examples from other cities of Asia Minor also being cited. Various aspects of the Second Sophistic can be recognized in this way and allow further understandings concerning the processes that contributed to the particular choice of the statue types and iconographical subjects used. The aim is to gain a wider view of the sculptural environment in public spaces in Side.

Die erhaltenen kaiserzeitlichen Statuen aus Side gehören zu den herausragenden Beispielen kleinasiatischer römerzeitlicher Plastik. Die Mehrheit der im 2. und 3. Jh. n. Chr. entstandenen Skulpturen sind als Nachbildungen ikonographischer Typen anzusprechen, die ihrerseits in die Zeit der sog. Griechischen Klassik und des Hellenismus datieren. Im Beitrag wird, ausgehend von den Statuenausstattungen des sidetischen Theaters und des sogenannten Gebäudes M, die Frage diskutiert, inwieweit sich die kulturelle Strömung der Zweiten Sophistik in den Skulpturenausstattungen öffentlicher Bauten in Side manifestierte, wobei auch Vergleichsbeispiele aus anderen Städten Asia Minors herangezogen werden. Verschiedene Leitlinien der Zweiten Sophistik lassen sich auf diese Weise erkennen und ermöglichen Rückschlüsse auf die Prozesse, die zur genauen Wahl der verwendeten Statuentypen und Bildthemen beitrugen, womit ein tiefergehendes Bild der Skulpturenlandschaft im öffentlichen Raum Sides gewonnen wird.

Side´de ele geçen heykellerin, Anadolu´nun Roma Dönemi heykel sanatında büyük bir öneme sahiptir. 2.‒3. yüzyıla ait olan heykellerin çoğu ikonografik bakımdan Yunan Klasik ve Hellenistik dönem heykellerinin kopyalarıdır. Makalede Side Tiyatrosu ve M Yapısı olarak adlandırılan mekanın heykelleri ele alınarak İkinci Sofistik Dönem´in kültürel etkilerinin Side kamu yapılarında sergilenen heykellere nasıl yansıdığı sorusuna yanıt aranmaktadır. Ayrıca Anadolu kentlerinde ele geçen benzer örnekler de konuya dahil edilmiştir. İkinci Sofistik Dönem´in çeşitli izleri bu şekilde tanınabilmektedir. Kullanılan heykel tiplerinin ve görsel temaların seçim süreci hakkında da bilgi sağlanabilmektedir. Bu bağlamda, Side´deki kamusal alanlara ait heykellerle ilgili detaylı bir görünüm elde edilmektedir.