LEO III AND THE ANEMODOULION

BENJAMIN ANDERSON / WASHINGTON

The Anemodoulion ()melodo}kiom, also )melodo}qiom) was one of the

principal marvels of medieval Constantinople, figuring both in the semi-
canonical recitation of Constantine of Rhodes and in the reports of
foreign travelers.1 Located just north of the junction of the Mese and the
Makros Embolos, it was an exceptionally tall four-sided (or “four-
legged”) monument with a pyramidal roof, crowned with a bronze
statue of a winged woman that functioned as a weather vane.2 Its upper
regions also featured Erotes entangled in vines (here one thinks of some
form of inhabited scroll) and two figures of the winds in the form of
youths blowing horns (probably in relief, although the text does not
specify).3 Beneath, it was ornamented with a variety of pastoral scenes,
apparently marble reliefs, including a number of birds and fruit-trees,
and scenes of ploughing, milking, and fishing.4

Completion of this paper was facilitated by a research fellowship from the

Center for Advanced Study in the Visual Arts at the National Gallery of Art,
Washington. I wish to thank Albrecht Berger and the two anonymous readers for
their comments.
1 Constantine of Rhodes: Description des oeuvres dart et de lglise des saints
Aptres, ed. . Legrand. Paris, 1896. Foreign travelers: see the Kitb al-Ishrt
il Marifat al-Ziyrt of Al ibn Ab Bakr al-Haraw, ed. J. W. Meri, A lonely
wayfarers guide to pilgrimage. Princeton 2004, 121: qubba al-āhwı̄a al ārbaa
“the dome of the four winds.” See also A. Berger, Das Chalkun Tetrapylon und
Parastaseis, Kapitel 57. BZ 90 (1997) 7 – 12, at 9, for a possible reference in
Robert de Clari.
2 Location: Berger, Chalkun tetrapylon (as footnote 1 above), with the sketch at
page 12. Exceptionally tall: Nicetae Choniatae historia, ed. J. van Dieten.
CFHB, 11. Berlin 1975, at 648 (nearly equal in height to the column monuments
of the city). Four-sided: Choniates (tetq\pkeuqom). Four-legged: Constantine of
Rhodes (as footnote 1 above), line 186 (tetqasjek³r). Pyramidal roof:
Constantine of Rhodes, line 182; Choniates (1r an» sw/la jat± puqal_da tekeu-
t_mtor). Female figure: Choniates (cumaij|loqvom). Bronze, winged: Constan-
tine of Rhodes, lines 196 f.
3 Erotes on high mock those below: Constantine of Rhodes (as footnote 1 above),
lines 190 – 192. Figures of the winds: Constantine of Rhodes, lines 193 – 195.
4 Marble reliefs: Paqast\seir s}mtoloi wqomija_ (Parastaseis) in: Scriptores
originum Constantinopolitanarum, ed. Th. Preger, Leipzig, 1901, at § 40 (!p¹
laql\qym !maceckull]mai). (For Parastaseis § 40 as a description of the
Anemodoulion, which it does not explicitly name, see e. g. A. Berger,
Untersuchungen zu den Patria Konstantinupoleos. Poikila Byzantina, 8. Bonn

DOI 10.1515/BYZS.2011.003
Brought to you by | Glasgow University Library
Authenticated | 130.209.6.50
Download Date | 6/17/13 8:48 AM
42 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 104/1, 2011: I. Abteilung

The first source that explicitly names the Anemodoulion / Anemo-

dourion is the eighth-century Parastaseis Syntomoi Chronikai. 5 It seems
certain, however, that it is identical to the bronze tetrapylon (WakjoOm
Tetq\pukom) mentioned in passing in various chronicles and in the
Synaxarion and Typikon.6 The earliest report (ordered not by date of
the text, but of the event related) pertains to the earthquake of 447.7 It
is possible to collect various scattered reports of its later history; thus by
the tenth century it seems to have marked the site of a hay market,
while Andronikos Komnenos planned to complement it with a column
monument bearing his own statue.8 Our last report of the Anemodou-
lion dates to the early 13th century, when Niketas Choniates included it
in his catalog of monuments destroyed by the Crusaders.9
We have three explicit statements regarding the date of the
Anemodoulions construction. The eighth-century Parastaseis Syntomoi
Chronikai record it as a work of Constantine I, while the early tenth-

1988, at 313; F. A. Bauer, Stadt, Platz und Denkmal in der Sptantike. Mainz
1996, at 237.) Birds: Parastaseis § 40; Choniates (as footnote 2 above), at 648
(ûpar lousij¹r eqmir t± 1aqim± lek\d_m 1je? 1mtet}pyto). Fruit-trees: Con-
stantine of Rhodes (as footnote 1 above), line 189. Ploughing: Parastaseis § 40;
Cf. Choniates (cegp|mym 5qca). Milking and fishing: these scenes described at
some length by Choniates.
5 Parastaseis (as footnote 4 above) § 29. For the date see esp. O. Kresten, Leon
III. und die Landmauern von Konstantinopel: zur Datierung von c. 3 der
Parastaseis syntomoi chronikai. Rçmische Historiche Mitteilungen 36 (1994) 21 –
52.
6 For their identity: Berger, Untersuchungen (as footnote 4 above), 313 f.; Bauer,
Stadt (as footnote 4 above), 237; Berger, Chalkun Tetrapylon (as footnote 1
above), 8 and fn. 7, responding to the doubts of C. Mango, The columns of
Justinian and his successors, in: Studies on Constantinople. London, 1993, study
X.
7 Ioannis Malalae Chronographia, ed. I. Thurn. CFHB, 35. Berlin 2000, here at
284 f.; Chronicon Paschale, ed. L. Dindorf. CSHB, 9. Bonn 1832, here 589. For
the date of the earthquake, see B. Croke, Two early Byzantine earthquakes and
their liturgical commemoration. Byz 51 (1981) 122 – 147, here at 131 – 144.
8 Hay market: Life of St. Andrew the Fool, ed. L. Rydn. Uppsala 1995, lines
1940 – 43. For the date see fundamentally L. Rydn, The date of the Life of
Andreas Salos. DOP 32 (1978) 127 – 153. Andronikos: Choniates (as footnote 2
above), 332 f. He did not plan to replace the female figure atop the
Anemodoulion with his own statue (pace C. Mango, The art of the Byzantine
Empire, 312 – 1453: sources and documents. Englewood Cliffs 1972, here at 44
fn. 114), but rather to erect a column monument next to the Anemodoulion.
9 Choniates (as footnote 2 above), 648.

Brought to you by | Glasgow University Library

Authenticated | 130.209.6.50
Download Date | 6/17/13 8:48 AM
 B. Anderson, Leo III and the Anemodoulion 43

century poem of Constantine of Rhodes attributes it to Theodosius I.10

The late tenth-century Patria Konstantinopoleos, finally, report that it
was constructed by one Heliodoros during the reign of Leo III.11 The
report of the Patria has not been taken seriously by modern
commentators, and indeed it would seem to be obviously false if the
bronze tetrapylon and the Anemodoulion were identical.12 In the
following, however, I wish to argue that it contains a grain of truth.
Let us begin with a simple consideration: none of the early Byzantine
references to the bronze tetrapylon make any mention of its decoration
or indicate a function as a weathervane; the designation Anemodou-
lion / Anemodourion, containing a specific reference to the winds, does
not appear before the eighth-century Parastaseis. 13 A tetrapylon was a
standard element in the urban armature of the Roman era, serving
primarily to articulate the junctions of major thoroughfares.14 For this
reason, although we can establish no solid terminus post quem for the
construction of the bronze tetrapylon, Mangos suggestion that the

10 Parastaseis (as footnote 4 above) § 40; Constantine of Rhodes (as footnote 1

above), line 184.
11 P\tqia Jymstamtimoup|keyr (Patria) in: Scriptores, ed. Th. Preger (as footnote
4 above), here at § III.114.
12 Mango, Art (as footnote 8 above), at 44, calls the Patrias attribution “highly
unlikely in view of its decoration”; if this is a reference to the putative
iconoclasm of Leo, one need only recall the lively tradition of figural secular arts
among the Isaurian emperors. Thus already A. Grabar, Liconoclasme byzantin:
le dossier archologique. Paris 1957, here at 157: “les empereurs iconoclastes
rejetaient les images religieuses, mais maintenanaient les figurations du cycle
imprial.” Berger, Untersuchungen (as footnote 4 above), 323, describes the
entire passage as “vçllig unhistorisch,” without further argument.
13 The references known to me from the late Roman chronicles are: Malalas (as
footnote 7 above), 284 f. and 424; Chronicon Paschale (as footnote 7 above), 589.
From later Byzantine chronicles, but clearly reliant upon late Roman sources:
Theophanis Chronographia, ed. C. de Boor. Leipzig 1883, here at 226;
Kedrenos, Historiarum compendium, ed. I. Bekker. CSHB 34 – 35. Bonn
1838 – 39, at I.609 – 611 and I.658.
14 For an excellent analysis of the type and its function, see W. L. MacDonald, The
architecture of the Roman Empire II: an urban appraisal. New Haven 1986, here
at 87 – 92. M. M. Mango, The porticoed street at Constantinople, in: N.
Necipoǧlu (ed.), Byzantine Constantinople: monuments, topography and
everyday life. Leiden 2001, 29 – 51, at 31, understands the crossing of the Mese
and Makros Embolos as the junction of cardo maximus and decumanus
maximus, the ideal site for a tetrapylon.

Brought to you by | Glasgow University Library

Authenticated | 130.209.6.50
Download Date | 6/17/13 8:48 AM
44 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 104/1, 2011: I. Abteilung

bronze tetrapylon “appartenait vraisemblablement au trac primitif” of

the Constantinian city is inherently plausible.15
While late Roman tetrapyla were frequently embellished with
statues, extensive decoration with relief sculptures was somewhat
rarer.16 Furthermore, the pastoral subject matter of the reliefs that
decorated the Anemodoulion would be entirely out of place on a civic
monument of the late Roman era.17 We do, however, have a solidly
attested instance of the addition of novel two-dimensional representa-
tions to a tetrapylon in eighth-century Constantinople. Under Philip-
pikos Bardanes, the Milion was decorated with depictions of the five
ecumenical councils, to which a sixth was shortly added; under
Constantine V these were replaced with images of horse-racing.18
Here we might also cite the image which, as related in the letter of
the Patriarch Germanos to Thomas of Claudiopolis, was erected “before
the royal dwellings” (thus presumably on the ChalkÞ) by Leo III and
Constantine V, “our all-pious and Christ-loving emperors.” This
portrayed the forms of the apostles and prophets together with texts
by the same concerning the Lord.19 It has been understood by Leslie
Brubaker as an ensemble of sculptures in the round, but given that
Germanos refers to the image first as a single st^kg, then as a single
eQj~m, it is just as likely that we are dealing with a relief sculpture (or
indeed a mosaic or painting).20

15 C. Mango, Le dveloppement urbain de Constantinople (IVe – VIIe si cles).

Paris 2004, here at 30. At 57 he describes the Anemodoulion, which he believes
to be distinct from the bronze tetrapylon, as a “belle oeuvre du Ve si cle.” No
reason is given for the date.
16 Thus also J. Mhlenbrock, Tetrapylon: zur Geschichte des viertorigen
Bogenmonuments in der rçmischen Architektur. Paderborn, 2003, 56 – 65, esp.
at 59 for the “ungewçhnlich” nature of the relief decoration of the Anemodou-
lion.
17 For a masterful analysis of the iconography of late Roman imperial monuments,
see E. Mayer, Rom ist dort, wo der Kaiser ist: Untersuchungen zu den
Staatsdenkmlern des dezentralisierten Reiches von Diocletian bis zu Theodo-
sius II. Mainz 2002.
18 Grabar (as footnote 12 above), 55 f. on the council paintings; and 155 – 157, on
the chariot scenes.
19 PG 98: 185 A (cf. Mansi XIII, 124E–125 A):T_ d³, fti ja· aqto· oR t± p\mta
eqseb]statoi ja· vik|wqistoi Bl_m basike?r st^kgm !kgh_r t/r oQje_ar viko-
he@ar, tµm pq¹ t_m basike_ym k]cy eQj|ma 1ce_qamter, 1m Ø t_m !post|kym ja·
pqovgt_m !mah]lemoi t±r Qd]ar ja· t±r to}tym peq· toO Juq_ou 1ccq\xamter
vym±r, t/r 2aut_m pepoih^seyr t¹ ja}wgla t¹m syt^qiom stauq¹m !mej^qunam;
20 L. Brubaker and J. Haldon, Byzantium in the iconoclast era (ca. 680 – 850): the
sources. Birmingham Byzantine and Ottoman Monographs, 7. Aldershot 2001,

Brought to you by | Glasgow University Library

Authenticated | 130.209.6.50
Download Date | 6/17/13 8:48 AM
 B. Anderson, Leo III and the Anemodoulion 45

Let us return, then, to the report of the Patria concerning the

Anemodoulion. Its exclusive focus is on the decoration of the monu-
ment, not its structure (indeed, no reference is made to a tetrapylon),
and its reliefs are explicitly stated to be spolia, reportedly from
Dyrrachion.21 One detail of Constantine of Rhodess description also
makes one think of spolia: he explicitly refers to only two figures of the
winds (“one of the west wind, the other of the south wind”).22 If the
Anemodoulion were decorated with newly fashioned sculpture, we
would expect the full complement of four winds, but if it were decorated
with spolia, it is conceivable that only two were available. Is it possible,
then, that we are dealing with an eighth-century embellishment of a late
Roman tetrapylon?23 A number of considerations speak in favor of this
hypothesis.
First, and most compellingly, we have the marked shift in terminol-
ogy between the late Roman and the medieval sources. As noted above,
)melodo}kiom / )melodo}qiom does not appear before the eighth-century
Parastaseis. 24 In the medieval period, on the other hand, WakjoOm
Tetq\pukom is retained only by those chronographers dependent upon
earlier sources in their accounts of late Roman history (Theophanes,
Kedrenos) and in the liturgical literature.25 The latter phenomenon
could also be explained by conservative retention: whereas most entries
in the Synaxarion use the bronze tetrapylon simply as a topographical
indicator, it is discussed more directly in the account of the earthquake
of 447, where the text is clearly dependent upon the reports of the late
Roman chroniclers.26 It is also conceivable that ecclesiastical retention

here at 75 f. See also on this passage C. Barber, Figure and likeness: on the limits
of representation in Byzantine Iconoclasm. Princeton 2002, here at 52 f.
21 Patria (as footnote 11 above), § III.114: T± d³ t]ssaqa wakjouqce}lata t±
lec\ka Ewhgsam !p¹ toO Duqqaw_ou.
22 Constantine of Rhodes (as footnote 1 above), line 195: f]vuqom %kkor, %kkor aw
p\kim m|tom.
23 Berger, Chalkun tetrapylon (as footnote 1 above), 9, anticipates an argument of
this sort: “Die auf dem Tetrapylon dargestellten Szenen passen nicht recht zu
einem Siegesdenkmal und
berhaupt einem Monumentalbau. Ihre Deutung im
Zusammenhang mit diesem Bau ist unklar und w
rde es auch bleiben, wenn
man von einer nachtrglichen Anbringung von Reliefs an einen lteren Bogen
ausgehen wollte.” I hope to show that such an argument does, in fact, clarify the
interpretation of the monument.
24 See footnote 5 above.
25 See footnote 13 above.
26 Synaxarium ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae e Codice Sirmondiano, ed. H.
Delehaye. Acta Sanctorum 63. Brussels 1902, here at 425: !p¹ t_m Tqyadis_ym
1lb|kym 6yr toO wakjoO Tetqap}kou. Malalas (as footnote 7 above), 284 f.: !p¹

Brought to you by | Glasgow University Library

Authenticated | 130.209.6.50
Download Date | 6/17/13 8:48 AM
46 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 104/1, 2011: I. Abteilung

of WakjoOm Tetq\pukom indicates a certain reluctance to acknowledge

the resolutely secular subject matter of the Anemodoulions decoration
(naked Erotes, etc.).27 On the other hand, if we are to date the figural
decoration of the Anemodoulion to late antiquity, we must imagine that
its weathervane and its fantastically baroque decoration attracted no
notice from contemporary authors.
We must also consider the rough fate of the bronze tetrapylon in late
antiquity. It was affected in one manner or another (specifics are never
given) by the earthquake of 447, the fire of 464, and the conflagrations
attendant upon the faction riots of 548 and 561.28 The seventh century
does not seem to have witnessed any significant efforts at urban renewal
in Constantinople, and by the eighth century the tetrapylon must have
been in poor shape, a perfect candidate for a concrete display of
renovatio under the Isaurian emperors.
Indeed, the decoration of the Anemodoulion fits well within the
broader context of artistic production in the era of Iconoclasm. Three
sets of wind figures, otherwise a very rare motif in medieval Byzantine
art, appear in the Vatican Ptolemy (Vat. Gr. 1291), in all likelihood an
imperial commission of Constantine V.29 From the little that we know of
the contemporary decoration of churches, the Isaurian emperors seem

t_m kecol]mym Tq\adgs_ym 1lb|kym 6yr toO WakjoO Tetqap}kou. Chronicon

Paschale (as footnote 7 above), 589: !p¹ t_m kecol]mym Tq\adgs_ym 9lb|kym
6yr toO wakjoO Tetqap}kou.
27 The nudity of the Erotes is emphasized by both Constantine of Rhodes (as
footnote 1 above), line 190, and Choniates (as footnote 2 above), 648. For a
survey of medieval Byzantine attitudes towards the representation of nudity, see
H. Maguire, The profane aesthetic in Byzantine art and literature. DOP 53
(1999) 189 – 205, here at 200 – 203.
28 Earthquake of 447: Malalas (as footnote 7 above) 284 – 285; Chronicon Paschale
(as footnote 7 above), 589. Fire of 464: Kedrenos (as footnote 13 above), I.609 –
611; for the date, see C. Mango / R. Scott, The chronicle of Theophanes
Confessor: Byzantine and Near Eastern history AD 284 – 813. London 1997,
here at 174. Riots of 548: Theophanes (as footnote 13 above), 226; Kedrenos,
I.658. Riots of 561: Malalas, 424.
29 At folios 45v–46r, 46v, and 47v. For a reproduction of 46r, see B. Obrist, La
cosmologie mdivale. Textes et images. I. Les fondements antiques. Florence
2004, Fig. 60. For the date of the manuscript, see D. H. Wright, The date of the
Vatican illuminated handy tables of Ptolemy and of its early additions. BZ 78
(1985) 355 – 362. Wind personifications also appear in manuscripts of the
Christian Topography (e. g. Vat. Gr. 699, f. 40v; reproduction in C. Stornajolo,
Le miniature della topografia cristiana di Cosma Indicopleuste. Milan 1908,
Tav. 7) and in the Khludov psalter, an image clearly derived from the
Topography (Moscow, Historical Museum Cod. 129, f. 133r; reproduction in
M.V. Ščepkina, Miniatjury chludovskoj psaltyri. Moscow 1977).

Brought to you by | Glasgow University Library

Authenticated | 130.209.6.50
Download Date | 6/17/13 8:48 AM
 B. Anderson, Leo III and the Anemodoulion 47

to have favored pastoral imagery of the sort found on the Anemodou-

lion, in particular representations of fruits and birds.30 Here we should
also mention the poorly understood question of the Horologion of
Hagia Sophia, a public monument that attracted much attention from
medieval travelers and is comparable to the Anemodoulion as a
metrological monument. The bronze doors of the Horologion, at least,
were erected in 838/39 under Theophilus and Patriarch John (“the
Grammarian”), and it is easy to imagine that their installation would
have coincided with a renovation (or the original construction?) of the
monumental clock itself.31 It is noteworthy that Hrn ibn Yahy and al-
Haraw were both told that the clock was a work of Balns / Apollonius,
and that John the Grammarian was remembered in later centuries as
“the new Apollonius.”32 It is thus conceivable that a memory of
Patriarch Johns activity was concealed behind the popular attribution
to the famous magician.
A similar mechanism may be at work in the Patrias account of the
Anemodoulion. The only truly fabulous element of this passage is its
statement that the monument was built paq± Jkiod~qou toO dusse-
boOr, “by the impious Heliodoros.” Heliodoros was a name that, by the
middle Byzantine period, had become attached to a multitude of
figures, nearly all of whom were capable of conflation with each other:
the author of the Aethiopica, a fourth-century bishop of Tricca, the
author of some iambic verses on alchemy, and the sorcerer-adversary of
Leo of Catania in the Life of the latter (BHG 981). In brief, Heliodoros
30 See especially: La Vie dtienne le Jeune par tienne le Diacre, ed. M.-F.
Auzpy. Birmingham Byzantine and Ottoman Monographs, 3. Aldershot 1997,
here at 126 f. (text) and 221 f. (translation).
31 For the inscriptions of the bronze doors, see C. Mango, When was Michael III
born? DOP 21 (1967) 253 – 258, at 253 f.
32 Hrn: J.-C. Ducne, Une deuxi me version de la relation dHrn ibn Yahy
sur Constantinople. Der Islam 82 (2005) 241 – 255, here at 246 (text) and 248
(translation). Haraw: a fragment preserved in Zakariyy b. Muhammad b.
Mahmd al-Qazwn, Kosmographie, ed. F. Wstenfeld. Gçttingen, 1848, here
at II.407. French translation in A. Vasiliev, Quelques remarques sur les
voyageurs du Moyen Age Constantinople, in: Mlanges Charles Diehl. Paris
1930, I.293 – 298, here at 296. Identification of the clock described by Haraw
with the horologion of Hagia Sophia requires reading al-mı̄dān not as “hippo-
drome”, but more generically as “square” (i. e. the Augusteion): thus also
Vasiliev, “il se trouve dans lHippodrome (ou sur une place?)”. The entire
question of the public clocks of medieval Constantinople is confused and merits
a separate study. John as “new Apollonius”: P. Magdalino, Lorthodoxie des
astrologues: la science entre le dogme et la divination Byzance (VIIe–XIVe
si cle). Paris 2006, here at 58 – 59.

Brought to you by | Glasgow University Library

Authenticated | 130.209.6.50
Download Date | 6/17/13 8:48 AM
48 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 104/1, 2011: I. Abteilung

had become “il tipo del sapiente munito di un sapere arcano, del
filosofo-mago.”33 It is simultaneously possible that an actual historical
figure, some functionary of Leo III, lies behind this popular attribution.
Indeed, if one strips the Patrias report to its essentials, there is
nothing inherently implausible about the claim that the Anemodoulion
was decorated under Leo III. In fact, the attribution solves a number of
difficulties regarding the interpretation of the monument and the
sudden shift in the terminology used to describe it. It is furthermore
difficult to imagine why the patriographers should have wished to
attribute one of the marvels of Constantinople to an emperor whom
they openly despised.34 There is no patriographic reflex to ascribe
monuments to Leo, as there was to Constantine I. The assertion of
Constantine of Rhodes, that the Anemodoulion was a work of
Theodosius I, could conceivably refer to the erection of the original
bronze tetrapylon, a possibility not excluded by that original monu-
ments terminus ante quem of 447. But had Constantine of Rhodes been
aware of an association with Leo III, he would have had every reason to
suppress any mention of the (by then) hated Isaurian in the composition
of a work dedicated to Constantine VII.
I would therefore propose the following chronology for the bronze
tetrapylon: it was erected early in the citys history, perhaps already
under Constantine I, as a standard element of Roman civic armature. At
this time the most notable feature of its decoration was its incorporation
of bronze, and it was this that led to its conventional name (WakjoOm
Tetq\pukom). We should probably imagine that its pyramidal roof was

33 See A. A. Longo, La Vita di S. Leone vescovo di Catania e gli incantesimi del

mago Eliodoro. RSBN 26 (1989) 1 – 98, here esp. at 13 – 15; quotation at 15. A
potential problem results if one views the Heliodoros of the Patria, apparently a
functionary of Leo, as “identical” to the Heliodoros of BHG 981, who is
explicitly presented as an adversary of “our most pious emperors, Leo and
Constantine,” usually identified as Leo III and Constantine V; for the
identification ibid., 43 – 44. The Vita has further been read as a specimen of
“iconoclast” hagiography, and Heliodoros as the figure of the “iconodule”
rendered ridiculous: ibid., 43 – 55 and M.-F. Auzpy, Lanalyse littraire et
lhistorien: lexemple des vies de saints iconoclastes. Byzantinoslavica 53 (1992),
57 – 67, here at 62 – 67. The problem is avoided if one simply sees Heliodoros as
the stock character of the sorcerer.
34 See e. g. Patria (as footnote 11 above), § III.31, with Berger, Untersuchungen (as
footnote 4 above), 283 (legend of the destruction of the Octagon, related in full
polemical mode).

Brought to you by | Glasgow University Library

Authenticated | 130.209.6.50
Download Date | 6/17/13 8:48 AM
 B. Anderson, Leo III and the Anemodoulion 49

clad in bronze tiles, not unlike the gate of the imperial palace.35 The
structure suffered from numerous earthquakes and fires throughout the
subsequent centuries, but by the late eighth century had been
redecorated with a weathervane, in addition to reused figures of the
winds and pastoral reliefs, and was rechristened the Anemodoulion / A-
nemodourion. The eighth-century terminus ante quem of this redecora-
tion, provided by the references in the Parastaseis, renders the Patrias
attribution of the structures decoration to Leo III plausible. Further-
more, elements of its decoration fit far better in the artistic environment
of the eighth century than in that of late antiquity.
If the attribution of the Anemodoulion proper to the reign of Leo III
is accepted, it is furthermore possible to propose a specific occasion for
its erection. The Arab naval siege of Constantinople in 717/18 was, as all
sources agree, ultimately crushed when a storm arose and scattered the
ships, which may already have been in retreat.36 A fascinating account of
this event is preserved in the Armenian historiographical tradition.
According to the earliest version of this narrative, the Arab commander
Maslama wrote to Leo bragging that he would turn Hagia Sophia into a
bathhouse and break the True Cross over his head if he should not
surrender. In response Leo “took the unconquerable standard upon his
shoulders, accompanied by the patriarch and the multitude of the
populace, with candles and incense, raising a hymn, and came through
the gate of the city. The king struck with the standard of the cross the
waters of the sea, saying thrice, Help us, Christ, Savior of the world.
And straightway the depths of the sea were stirred and drowned the
army of Ishmael.”37

35 See e. g. C. Mango, The brazen house: a study of the vestibule of the imperial
palace in Constantinople. Arkaeologisk-kunsthistoriske Meddelelser, 4,4. Copen-
hagen 1959, here at 21.
36 For the sources see esp. I. Rochow, Byzanz im 8. Jahrhundert in der Sicht des
Theophanes: quellenkritisch-historischer Kommentar zu den Jahren 715 – 813.
Berliner Byzantinische Arbeiten, 57. Berlin 1991, here at 95 – 97; P. Speck, Kaiser
Leon III., die Geschichtswerke des Nikephoros und des Theophanes und der
Liber Pontificalis: eine quellenkritische Untersuchung. Teil 1: Die Anfnge der
Regierung Kaiser Leons III. Poikila Byzantina, 19. Bonn 2002, here at 273 – 281.
37 S. Gero, Byzantine iconoclasm during the reign of Leo III. Corpus scriptorum
christianorum orientalia, Subsidia, 41. Louvain 1973, here at 134 – 136, translated
from the text of the eleventh-century chronicler Stephen of Taron. Cf. Des
Stephanos von Taron armenische Geschichte, tr. H. Gelzer and A. Burck-
hardt. Leipzig, 1907, here at 96. A more elaborate version of the story, which
Gero believes to depend on Stephen, is preserved in: History of Lewond, the

Brought to you by | Glasgow University Library

Authenticated | 130.209.6.50
Download Date | 6/17/13 8:48 AM
50 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 104/1, 2011: I. Abteilung

The historicity of this episode it not of interest to us. What is clear is

that it represents a pro-Isaurian account of the siege of 717/18 that
cannot possibly derive from “local” Armenian sources, but must rather
derive from a lost Greek source of the eighth or ninth century. As Gero
has argued, that source may well have been “a lost iconoclastic synaxis
for August 15”, on which date, in later centuries, the delivery of the city
through the intervention of a Marian icon would be celebrated.38 Two
elements of the account are suggestive of a composition in the
immediate aftermath of the siege: its unambiguously positive image
of Leo, and the frequent comparison of the Arab troops to Pharaohs
army. This latter motif is prominent in the two earliest extant Greek
accounts of the siege, a homily of Germanos and the iambic verses of
Theodosius Grammaticus.39
Although the topographical indicators of the procession described
are extremely vague, it is nevertheless possible to present a plausible
reconstruction of its course. Let us begin with its terminus: the company
exited through a gate and onto the shore, where Leo struck the water
with a cross. Our sources invariably present the storm as arising in the
Sea of Marmara, so we should imagine the procession as issuing on that
coast. The southern sea walls possessed a number of gates, which have
been the subject of some confusion in the literature, but our attention
here should be drawn to a notice in the Patria according to which the
Kontoskalion Gate took its name from a certain tourmarch named
Agallianos Kontoskeles.40 This figure is to be identified with the
Agallianos, tourmarch of the Helladic fleet, who mounted an unsuc-
cessful revolt against Leo III in 727.41 The Kontoskalion itself is now

eminent Vardapet of the Armenians, tr. Z. Arzoumanian. Wynnewood, 1982,

here at 112.
38 Gero, Leo III (as footnote 36 above), 37 and 189. For the argument against any
use of a Marian icon in the procession of 717 – 18, B. V. Pentcheva, Icons and
power: the Mother of God in Byzantium. University Park 2006, 46 – 48.
39 V. Grumel, Homlie de Saint Germain sur la dlivrance de Constantinople.
REB 15 (1957) 183 – 205, especially at 197 (text) and 204 (translation). For the
poem of Theodosius Grammaticus see S. P. Lampros, Ystoqij± Leket^lata.
Athens, 1884, 129 – 132, especially at line 15; further Gero, Leo III (as footnote
36 above), 172 – 176.
40 Patria (as footnote 11 above), § III.133.
41 PMBZ 113. For the revolt, see Theophanes (as footnote 13 above), 405; cf.
Rochow, Byzanz (as footnote 35 above), 118 f. and Speck, Leon III. (as footnote
35 above), 489 f. For the identity of the patron and rebel, e. g. Preger, Scriptores
(as footnote 4 above), 329; R. Guilland, Les ports de Byzance sur la
Propontide. Byz 23 (1953) 181 – 238, here at 226.

Brought to you by | Glasgow University Library

Authenticated | 130.209.6.50
Download Date | 6/17/13 8:48 AM
 B. Anderson, Leo III and the Anemodoulion 51

commonly identified with the easternmost of the two major harbors on

the Marmara coast, that of Julian / Sophia.42 We should imagine, then,
that the Harbor of Julian and its gate (the Turkish Kum Kapı) were
restored in the decade following the defeat of the Arab siege. The
renewed site will have provided the ideal terminus for a procession
commemorating the victory.43
If the procession terminated at the Kontoskalion, then it must have
originated at the bronze tetrapylon, whence a street led southwest to
this very gate.44 Indeed, the tetrapylon was a close neighbor of one of
the three major cross monuments of Constantinople, that which was
named, according to the ninth-century “Guidi-Vita” (BHG Nr. 364) of
the Emperor Constantine, “Victory” and “Invincible”.45 Although the
medieval sources see this as a dedication of Constantine himself, later
restored by Heraclius, it seems likely that it was erected only under
Heraclius in the seventh century.46 The site of a major cross monument

42 E.g. W. Mller-Wiener, Bildlexikon zur topographie Istanbuls. T

bingen 1977,
here at 62 f.; A. Stauridou-Zaphraka, T¹ Jomtosj\kio ja· t¹ :pt\sjako:
Sulbokµ stµ lek]tgt_m kilami_m t/r Jymstamtimo}pokgr jat± tµm vsteqg peq_-
odo. Bgfamtim\ 13 (1985) 1302 – 28.
43 Berger, Untersuchungen (as footnote 4 above), 483 f., argues that the Patrias
etymology for the name of the gate / harbor is a “nachtrgliche Konstruktion,”
and that the name Kontoskalion actually indicates “Hafen mit kurzem
Anlegesteg.” This is quite plausible, but it does not explain why the authors
should wish to associate the gate with Agallianos. It is more likely that they knew
an inscription on the gate naming the tourmarch, and then invented a second
name for him (Kontoskeles) to provide a fake etymology for the harbors
conventional name. Berger argues that “Mit dem Bau des Hafens kann er
[Agallianos] nach den historischen Umstnden seines Aufstandes kaum etwas zu
tun haben.” But this ignores that he was clearly named tourmarch before
launching his rebellion, and must therefore have had a long career in the navy,
during which he might at any time have been involved in the construction of a
harbor and / or gate (thus e. g. between 718 and 727). More to the point is
Guilland, Ports (as footnote 40 above), 226: “En sa qualit de tourmarque,
Agallianos tait tout fait qualifi pour diriger les travaux dun port.”
44 See esp. A. Berger, Regionen und Straßen im fr
hen Konstantinopel. IstMitt 47
(1997), 349 – 414, here at 406 with Abb. 9.
45 Un b_or di Costantino, ed. M. Guidi. Rendiconti della Reale Accademia dei
Lincei: classe di scienze morali, storiche e filologiche Ser. 5, 16 (1907) 304 – 340
and 637 – 662, here at 650 – 652. Cf. the translation by F. Beetham, Constantine
Byzantinus: the anonymous Life of Constantine (BHG 364), in: S. N. C. Lieu / D.
Montserrat (eds.), From Constantine to Julian: pagan and Byzantine views.
London 1996, 97 – 146, here at 139 f.
46 Bauer, Stadt (as footnote 4 above), 351 – 353.

Brought to you by | Glasgow University Library

Authenticated | 130.209.6.50
Download Date | 6/17/13 8:48 AM
52 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 104/1, 2011: I. Abteilung

would form a fitting starting point for a procession in which the emperor
bore a cross upon his shoulders.47
The decoration of the bronze tetrapylon with a weathervane and
reliefs of the winds, therefore, would have been an appropriate gesture
in the aftermath of the Arab siege, which according to Isaurian ideology
had been lifted when Leo implored God to raise up a storm that blew
the fleet away. The bronze tetrapylon would have been the ideal
candidate for this new decoration on account of its proximity to the
cross known as “Invincible” and associated with Constantine and
Heraclius. We can well imagine a yearly re-enactment of the event on
August 15th, beginning at the Anemodoulion and ending at the
Konstoskalion. The restoration of the two termini by Leo and his
officials would represent an attempt to lend the new triumphal route an
appropriate monumentality.
Mango has argued that the outer portion of the so-called Golden
Gate at the southern end of the Constantinopolian land walls, which was
decorated with various mythological reliefs in secondary use, was a
“triumphal monument of the middle Byzantine period.” He preferred a
ninth- or tenth-century date for this ensemble, a proposal which has
since been seconded on technical grounds.48 If the arguments presented
above are accepted, then we have recovered a still earlier triumphal
monument of medieval Constantinople, and one with striking similar-
ities to the Golden Gate: a pre-existing monument embellished in the
medieval period with re-used late Roman reliefs of a secular character.
Thus the apparent origin of the Anemodoulion in the era of Leo III
should cause us to reconsider the origins of imperial efforts to rebuild
Constantinople as a fitting capital for a medieval empire. If we are
correct to associate the construction of the Anemodoulion with the
defeat of the Arab fleet, then this would constitute the first proper
triumphal monument erected in Constantinople since the reign of

47 This remarkable detail in the Armenian account adds an element of imitatio

Christi to the Mosaic resonances of Leos procession that have frequently been
noted. Typology in a single body! Although the reference of the Armenian
sources to the cross as “unconquerable” may be generic, it is also possible that it
preserves an allusion to this specific monument, known in the Greek sources as
the !m_jgtom (as in the Guidi-Vita, as in footnote 44 above, and Nikephoros
Kallistos, PG 146, 121B).
48 C. Mango, The triumphal way of Constantinople and the Golden Gate. DOP 54
(2000) 173 – 188, here at 181 – 186; N. Asutay-Effenberger, Die Landmauer von
Konstantinopel-İstanbul: historisch-topographische und baugeschichtliche Un-
tersuchungen. Millennium-Studien, 18. Berlin, 2007, here at 61 – 71.

Brought to you by | Glasgow University Library

Authenticated | 130.209.6.50
Download Date | 6/17/13 8:48 AM
 B. Anderson, Leo III and the Anemodoulion 53

Heraclius.49 Nor would it be a unicum in Leos reign. A stretch of the

walls of Nicaea was restored after the Arab attack of 727, and the finely
cut inscription, which attributes the work to “our Christ loving
emperors Leo and Constantine,” explicitly commemorates the site
where “the insolence of the enemies was put to shame.”50 The style of
the rebuilt walls, consisting of regularly cut and coursed spoils, is highly
distinctive and, it might be argued, intentionally historicizing.51
After the earthquake of 740, large stretches of the land walls of
Constantinople were likewise restored, with the inscriptions once more
invoking the victory of Leo and Constantine.52 Their dedication was
accompanied by a procession in which the victorious emperors were
acclaimed by the circus factions in traditional fashion.53 The style of the
walls is, in this case, most noteworthy for the effort that was made to
replicate the appearance of the original Theodosian walls.54
The emperors of the seventh and early eighth centuries had precious
few victories to celebrate, but following the retreat of the Arab fleet in
718, Leo and his confidants might reasonably have felt that a corner had
been turned. The appropriation of the old tetrapylon as a new victory
monument and the rebuilding or restoration of the Kontoskalion gate
would thus mark the first concrete traces of a new ideology of renovatio.
As such it bears comparison to the Ecloga, promulgated in all likelihood
at the very end of Leos reign, and explicitly presented as a reform
49 The last attested monument before the Anemodoulion would be the equestrian
statue of Niketas, cousin of Heraclius, celebrating his victory over the Persians in
614. Anth. Plan. 46 and 47; and see further F. A. Bauer, Statuen hoher
W
rdentrger im Stadtbild Konstantinopels. BZ 96 (2003), 493 – 513, here at
511 – 512: “das letzte vollplastische Bildwerk der Antike
berhaupt”.
50 5mha heeij0 boghe_ô t¹ t_m 1jhq_m jataisj}mhg hq\sor, / 1je? oR vik|wqistoi
Bl_m basike?r K]ym j(a·) Jymstamt?mor !me- / ja_mgsam p|h\ tµm p|kim M^jaiam
…. A. M. Schneider / W. Karnapp, Die Stadtmauer von İznik (Nicaea).
İstanbuler Forschungen, 9. Berlin, 1938, here at 49.
51 See especially C. Foss and D. Winfield, Byzantine fortifications: an introduc-
tion. Pretoria, 1986, at 90 and 100.
52 For the most recent appraisal of the stretches restored, see Asutay-Effenberg-
er, Landmauer (as footnote 48 above), 174 – 175. For the inscriptions see B.
Meyer-Plath / A. M. Schneider, Die Landmauer von Konstantinopel, Zweiter
Teil. Denkmler antiker Architektur, 8. Berlin, 1943, at 127 (nos. 12, 13, and 16),
128 (no. 18), 130 (no. 24), 131 (no. 29), 132 (no. 32), 134 (nos. 38 and 39): typical
is the formula Mijø B t}wg K]omtor ja· Jymstamt_mou.
53 Parastaseis (as footnote 4 above) § 3. See fundamentally on this passage
Kresten, Leon III. (as footnote 5 above), esp. at 44 – 46 for comparisons with
late Roman acclamations.
54 Asutay-Effenberger, Landmauer (as footnote 48 above), 174.

Brought to you by | Glasgow University Library

Authenticated | 130.209.6.50
Download Date | 6/17/13 8:48 AM
54 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 104/1, 2011: I. Abteilung

measure to ensure the better comprehension of the law, with the

ultimate hope that the emperors of a just state might be crowned with
further victories over their enemies.55
The ideology of renewal, with specific reference to late antique
models, was continued in the reign of Constantine V, as Paul Magdalino
has recently argued. At least two of the elements of this renewal can be
traced directly back to Leos reign: the emphasis on developing the
region between the Mese and the Kontoskalion, anticipated by the
monumental constructions discussed here, and the revival of interest in
imperial ceremonial, anticipated by the procession to the sea and the
dedication of the restored walls of Constantinople.56 Thus, even if it now
seems inaccurate to trace the origins of imperial iconoclasm back to
Leos initiative, we might still seek in his reign the origins of an Isaurian
ideology of imperial renewal more broadly construed.57

Abstract

The Anemodoulion, a Constantinopolitan tetrapylon decorated with numerous

figural reliefs and crowned by a weathervane, has traditionally been seen as an
entirely late antique construction. A re-evaluation of the medieval sources
shows that, while the tetrapylon itself was constructed in late antiquity, its
figural decoration and conversion into a weathervane likely date to the reign of
Leo III (717 – 741). Viewed in connection with other monuments of Leos
reign, in particular the gate of the Kontoskalion Harbor, and historical
accounts of the end of the Arab siege of 717/18, the Anemodoulion may be
interpreted as a triumphal monument celebrating the dispersal of the Arab
fleet via a powerful storm. It thus provides new insight into the earliest efforts
of the Isaurian emperors to rebuild Constantinople as a fitting capital for a
medieval empire.

55 As explicitly stated in the Proimion. Ecloga, das Gesetzbuch Leons III. und
Konstantinos V., ed. L. Burgmann. Forschungen zur byzantinischen Rechtsge-
schichte, 10. Frankfurt, 1983, here at lines 21 – 51; and pages 100 – 104 for the
date.
56 P. Magdalino, Constantine V and the Middle Age of Constantinople, in: Studies
on the history and topography of Byzantine Constantinople. Aldershot, 2007,
Study IV. For an ideological building program under Constantine see also R.
Ousterhout, The architecture of iconoclasm: the buildings, in Haldon and
Brubaker, Iconoclast era (as in note 19 above), 3 – 19, here at 17 – 18.
57 See esp. P. Speck, Kaiser Leon III., die Geschichtswerke des Nikephoros und des
Theophanes und der Liber Pontificalis: eine quellenkritische Untersuchung.
Teil 2: Eine neue Erkenntnis Kaiser Leons III. Poikila Byzantina, 20. Bonn 2003.

Brought to you by | Glasgow University Library

Authenticated | 130.209.6.50
Download Date | 6/17/13 8:48 AM