\r;jp vr H ·■ 1« t\ · ·'·* AM i ir ?

ΐγΐψ'ΐΧ τΐτ;*ί> 56rt-J {VTS% \

COHSTA ΝΤίΝΟ-F LE
:.H THE EA.ELY E. GJ iTY GENTUEY;
EM xs A O’Y'V c; m r ft γέέ αελ ; /g, k /-y r ϊεε λ a t?ts/ r
A ./>./: wi ■>//l '.ME.u |V ,/ ·/ ,/; LEEv. Ui MEWY V/aYEU

a,. ■..·,. :...

|Μγ.Μ,
r ·: > t;E· ‘ >E>
/ V V;/
·»;·’/ · iH j/;' *·',-·?
jj: ···■ M *:...
..-Iff i

he i y>*
 NUNC COCNOSCO EX PARTE

THOMAS J. BATA LIBRARY

TRENT UNIVERSITY
33 2 Λ έτβϊ'5°

V* U

Digitized by the Internet Archive

in 2019 with funding from
Kahle/Austin Foundation

https://archive.org/details/constantinopleinOOOOunse
 CONSTANTINOPLE
IN THE EARLY EIGHTH CENTURY:
THE
PARASTASEIS SYNTOMOI CHRONIKAI
 COLUMBIA STUDIES
IN THE
CLASSICAL TRADITION

under the direction of

WILLIAM V. HARRIS (Editor) — |W. T. H. JACKSON
PAUL OSKAR KRISTELLER — STEELE COMMAGER
EUGENE F. RICE, Jr. — ALAN CAMERON
JAMES A. COULTER

VOLUME X

LEIDEN
E. J. BRILL
1984
 CONSTANTINOPLE
IN THE EARLY EIGHTH CENTURY:
THE
PARASTASEIS SYNTOMOI CHRONIKAI

Introduction, Translation and Commentary

EDITED BY

AVERIL CAMERON AND JUDITH HERRIN

IN CONJUNCTION WITH

ALAN CAMERON, ROBIN CORMACK and CHARLOTTE ROUECHE

LEIDEN
E. J. BRILL
1984
 Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition publishes monographs by
members of the Columbia University faculty and by former Columbia students. Its
subjects are the following: Greek and Latin literature, ancient philosophy, Greek and
Roman history, classical archaeology, and the influence of the classical tradition on
mediaeval, Renaissance and modern cultures.

The following books have been published in the series:

I. Monfasani, John: George of Trebizond: a Biography and a Study of his Rhetonc and Logic
(1976)
II. Coulter, James A.: The Literary Microcosm: Theories of Interpretation of the Later
Neoplatonists (1976)
III. Riginos, Alice Swift: Platonica. The Anecdotes concerning the Life and fVritings of Plato
(1976)
IV. Bagnall, RogerS.: The Administration of the Ptolemaic Possessions outside Egypt (1976)
V. Keuls, Eva C.: Plato and Greek Painting (1978)
VI. Schein, Seth L.: The Iambic Trimeter in Aeschylus and Sophocles: A Study in Metrical Form
(1979)
VII. O’Sullivan, Thomas D.: The De Excidio of Gildas: Its Authenticity and Date (1978)
VIII. Cohen, Shaye J. D.: fosephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development as a
Historian (1979)
IX. Taran, Sonya Lida: The Art of Variation in the Hellenistic Epigram (1979)

The publication of this book was aided by the Stanwood Cockey Lodge Foundation,
the British Academy, the Henry Brown Fund, the Marc Fitch Fund
and the Seven Pillars of Wisdom Trust.

ISBN 90 04 07010 9

1984 The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or

translated in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, microfiche
or any other means without written permission from the publisher

PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS BY E. J. BRILL

 CONTENTS

Preface . νπ
List of Abbreviations and Editions. ix
Map of Constantinople . xm
Sketch map of the palace area. xiv

Introduction. 1
i) The Textual History of the Parastaseis. 2
ii) The Parastaseis and the Patria. 3
iii) The Present Publication . 9
iv) The Structure and Style of the Parastaseis. 9
v) The Date of the Parastaseis. 17
vi) Is the Parastaseis a Guidebook? . 29
vii) The Parastaseis and Ancient Statues. 31
viii) Historical events in the Parastaseis. 34
ix) The Sources of the Parastaseis. 38
x) The Value of the Parastaseis for Art History. 45
Conclusion. 53

Text and Translation. 55

Commentary . 167

Bibliography . 278

Indices . 283
Index Topographicus. 283
Index Nominum. 285
Index Rerum. 289
Index Graecitatis. 290
 PREFACE

The Parastaseis Syntomoi Chronikai (lit. ‘Brief Historical Notes’) is a

remarkable work describing the city and antiquities of Constantinople.
Its Greek is extremely difficult, its content often obscure and the extant
text seemingly incomplete. No doubt in part for these reasons, its unique
value has been largely unappreciated, while such discussion as has been
devoted to it has resulted in no agreement. It is our view that this is an
important work; while we cannot pretend to have solved all of the many
problems which it poses, we hope in this collective study to establish both
general conclusions and guidelines for further study.
At first sight the Parastaseis seems merely a confused and often inac¬
curate survey of some classical monuments and statues surviving in
Byzantine Constantinople. On closer study, however, it can be seen as a
repository of early medieval attitudes to the Christian capital and its
pagan past. It stands, in fact, as a very early example of the inhabitants’
attempts to decipher the traces of the past that surrounded them. The
compilers appear to have been a group of functionaries working in the
late seventh and early eighth centuries. They deliberately engaged in the
laborious procedure of trying to identify buildings, statuary and objects
throughout the city. Many of these they could hardly understand. Fur¬
thermore, it seems that they did not have access to the written sources for
the early history of Constantinople now available to us. For them, Con¬
stantine had receded into the realm of myth and fantasy, and the classical
remains which they sought out in the decaying city of New Rome were
objects of mystery, anxiety and superstition. In addition, their preoc¬
cupation led them to discuss not only statues which have now disap¬
peared, but also works of art which they could no longer see themselves,
such as statues associated with particular events or areas of Constantino¬
ple in the urban memory of the time. Their concern with the power in¬
vested in ancient statues made them sensitive to the early eighth-century
issue of the status of images, above all religious ones.
Within the limitations imposed by the lack of secular histories relating
to the foundation of the city, and by the narrowly ecclesiastical nature of
the available reading matter, the Parastaseis was put together in an am¬
bitious and unusual way. Ambitious in that it involved sustained effort
without the necessary historical records, and unusual, in that it stands
almost alone as a secular work in this dark age of Byzantine learning and
literature. The evidence for statues and monuments found here and
VIII PREFACE

nowhere else must be treated with the greatest respect as early and fre¬
quently eye-witness testimony.
There has never been a full-length study of the Parastaseis, though this
has been a possibility since the 1901 Teubner text of Theodor Preger
(here reprinted). Our publication has been the result of a truly col¬
laborative effort throughout its long gestation. It began in 1974-76 in a
seminar held by Alan and Averil Cameron at King’s College, London.
The foundations of this translation and commentary were laid at that
time through the collective work and individual contributions of
members of the seminar: Alan Cameron, Averil Cameron, Robin Cor-
mack, Liam Gallagher, Judith Herrin, Geoffrey House, Lucy-Anne
Hunt, Marlia Mundell Mango, Charlotte Roueche and Caro Wilson.
Liam Gallagher also contributed some acute suggestions after examining
the MS in Paris. Charlotte Roueche began the editorial work in 1978,
and it was continued by Averil Cameron, Robin Cormack and Judith
Herrin. The final version has been the work of Averil Cameron and
Judith Herrin. During this long period the circumstances and
background of the Parastaseis became a major focus for discussion. The
text has gradually emerged as a compilation characteristic of the years
preceding and opening the iconoclastic controversy. It should be
understood primarily in that context; at least as much, that is, for what it
can tell us about early eighth-century Constantinople as for its informa¬
tion on the public places and classical monuments of the late antique city.
Since the early stages of our work, the introduction, translation and
commentary have been totally rewritten, and the two editors take full
responsibility for the final result, as for all errors or omissions. We must
acknowledge the help at various times during the final writing of Riet van
Bremen, Robert Browning, Anthony Bryer, Alan Cameron, David
Buckton, John Haldon, Susan Ashbrook Harvey, Michael Hendy,
Walter E. Kaegi Jr., Cyril Mango, Paul Speck and L. M. Whitby. It is
especially pleasing that the collective enterprise of scholars of different
ages and experience, from different countries and over so long a period of
time, should have come to fruition in this way, and we would like to
thank the Editorial Board of Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition and
the general editor of the series, W. V. Harris, for enabling it to be
published here.

London, May, 1983 Averil Cameron

Judith Herrin
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND EDITIONS

AB Analecta Bollandiana
Agathias, Hist. Historiarum libri quinque, ed. R. Keydell, Berlin 1967.
A/A American Journal of Archaeology
A mm. Marc. Ammianus Marcellinus, Res gestae, ed. C. U. Clark, 2 vols. Berlin
1910-15.
Ann. Scuola arch, di
Atene Annuario della Scuola de archeologia di Atene
Anon. Treu Excerf)ta Anonymi Byzantini, ed. M. Treu, Gymnasiums-Proeramm
Ohlau 1880.
ANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang da rornischen Welt, ed. H. Ternporini
Anth. Plan. Anthologia Planudea = AP, book XVI.
AP Anthologia Palatina = Anthologia graeca, ed. H. Beckby, 4 vols.
Munich 1957-8, 2nd ed., 1967-8.
Aratus, Phaen. Arati Phaenomena, ed. E. Maass, Berlin-Leipzig 1893.
B Byzanlion
BCH Bulletin de correspondence hellenique
BF Byzantinische Forschungen
BMGS Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies
Book of the Prefect Le Livre du Prefet, ed. J. Nicole, Geneva 1893, repr. London 1970.
BSA Annual of the British School at Athens
Bury, Imperial Admini¬
strative System J. B. Bury, The Imperial Administrative System in the Ninth Century,
London 1911.
Bury, LRE2 J. B. Bury, A History of the Later Roman Empire from the death of
Theodosius to the death of Justinian (A.D. 395-A.D. 565), second edi¬
tion, 2 vols. London 1923.
BZ Byzantinische Zeitschrift
Alan Cameron, Porphy¬
rias Alan Cameron, Porphyrins the Charioteer, Oxford 1973.
idem, Circus Factions Alan Cameron, Circus Factions, Oxford 1976.
Cedrenus George Cedrenus, Synopsis Historiarum, ed. I. Bekker, CSHB
1839.
Christodorus of C optus = AP, book II.
Chron. Pasch. Chronicon Paschale, ed. L. Dindorf, CSHB 1832.
CIL Corpus Inscnptionum Latinarum
CJ Codex Iustinianus, ed. P. Kruger, Corpus iuris civilis, vol. II, tenth
edition, Berlin 1929.
Com. Marc. Comes Marcellinus, Chronicon, ed. T. Mommsen, MGH, Auctores
Antiquissimi, vol. XI, Berlin 1894, pp. 60-104.
CQ Classical Quarterly
csco Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium
CSHB Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae (Bonn)
CTh Codex Theodosianus, ed. T. Mommsen and P. M. Meyer, 2 vols.
Berlin 1904-5.
DA CL Dictionnaire d’Archeologie chretienne el de Liturgie
Dagron, Naissance G. Dagron, Naissance d’une capitate, Paris 1974.
De Coer. Constantine Porphyrogennitus, De Caenmontis aulae byzantinae (The
Book of Ceremonies) ed. I. I. Reiske, 2 vols. CSHB 1829-30.
Diakrinomcnos in Theodore Lektor (see below).
 X LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND EDITIONS

Diegesis G. Dagron and J. Paramelle, ‘Un texte patriographique. Le

“r^cit merveilleux, trfes beau et profitable sur la colonne du
Xfmlophos” (Vindob. suppl. gr. 172, fol. 43v-63v)’, TM 7
(1979), pp. 491-523.
DOC P. Grierson, Catalogue of the Byzantine Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks
Collection, vol. II, Washington, D.C. 1968.
Ddlger, Regesten F. Dolger, Regesten der Kaiserurkunden des ostromischen Reiches, vol. I
Munich-Berlin 1924.
DOR Dumbarton Oaks Papers
Du Cange, Glossarium C. F. du Cange, Glossarium ad scriptures mediae et infimae Graecitatis,
2 vols., Lyons 1688.
Ebersolt, Constantinople J. Ebersolt, Constantinople, Paris 1951.
EO Echos d’Orient
Eusebius, HE Historia Ecclesiastica, ed. E. Schwartz, Eusebius Werke, Band II, 3
vols., GCS 1903-9.
Eusebius, Vita Const. De Vita Constantini, ed. F. Winkelmann, Eusebius. Werke, Band I.
Uber das Leben des Kaisers Konstantin, GCS 1975.
Evagrius, EH The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius, ed. J. Bidez and L. Parmen-
tier, London 1898.
FlIG IV Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum, ed. C. Muller, vol. IV, Paris
1868.
GCS Die griechische christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte
George of Pisidia,
Exp. Pars. in Georgia di Pisidia, Poemi I. Panegiri Epici, ed. A. Pertusi, Ettal
1960. '
Gero, Byzantine Icono-
clasrn in the reign of
Leo III S. Gero, Byzantine Iconoclasm in the reign of Leo III, CSCO vol. 346,
Subsidia 41, Louvain 1973.
Gero, Byzantine Icono-
clasm in the reign of
Constantine V S. Gero, Byzantine Iconoclasm in the reign of Constantine V, CSCO vol.
384, Subsidia 52, Louvain 1977.
GRBS Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies
Guilland, Institutions,
1. 11 R. Guilland, Recherches sur les institutions byzantines, 2 vols. Berlin-
Amsterdam 1967.
Guilland, Topographic,
1,11 R. Guilland, Etudes de topographic de Constantinople byzantine, 2 vols.
Berlin-Amsterdam 1969.
Head, Justinian II C. Head, Justinian II of Byzantium, Madison 1972.
Ilesyehius Hesychius Illustris, Patria Constantinopoleos, ed. Preger, I, pp.
1-18.
HSCP Harvard Studies in Classical Philology
IRA IK Izvestiya of the Russian Archeological Institute in Constantinople
1st. Mitt. Istanbuler Mitteilungen
JbAC Jahrbuch des Antike und Christentum
Jahrbuch des DAI Jahrbuch des deutschen archaologischen Instituts
Janin, CBl R. Janin, Constantinople byzantine, second edition, Paris 1964.
Janin, Eglises et mona¬
stics1 R. Janin, La geographic de I’eglise byzantine, vol. Ill, Les eglises et les
monastics, second edition, Paris 1969.
JHS Journal of Hellenic Studies
JOB Jahrbuch der osterreichischen Byzantinistik (formerly, Jahrbuch der oster-
reichischen byzantinischen Gesellschaft)
John Ant. John of Antioch, in FHG IV.
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND EDITIONS XI

John of Ephesus, HE Ecclesiastical History, ed. E. W. Brooks, CSCO, Scriptores Syri, ser.
3, vol. Ill, Louvain 1935-7.
John of Ephesus, Lives
of the Eastern Saints ed. E. W. Brooks, Patrologia Orientalis, vols. 17-19, Louvain
1923-6.
John Lydus, de Mens. De Mensibus, ed. I. Bekker, CSHB 1837.
Jones, LRE A. Η. M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire 284-602, 3 vols., Oxford
1964.
Julian, Misopogon ed. W. C. Wright, Loeb ed., II, 1913.
Krumbacher, Gesch.
byz. Lit.2 K. Krumbacher, Geschichte der byzantinischen Literatur, second edi¬
tion, Munich 1897.
LSJ Liddell-Scott-Jones, Greek-English Lexicon
Mai alas Chronographia, ed. L. Dindorf, CSHB 1831.
Malchus in FHG IV.
Mango, Art of the By¬
zantine Empire C. Mango, The Art of the Byzantine Empire 312-1453, Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey 1972.
Mango, TS C. Mango, ‘Antique Statuary and the Byzantine Beholder’,
DOP, 17 (1963) pp. 53-75.
Mango, Brazen
House, C. Mango, The Brazen House: a study of the vestibule of the Imperial
Palace of Constantinople, Copenhagen 1959.
Mango, Byzantium C. Mango, Byzantium. The Empire of New Rome, London 1980.
Mansi J. D. Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio,
Florence-Venice 1759-98.
MEFR Memoires de I’Ecole franyaise de Rome
MGH Monumenta Germaniae Historiae, ed. G. H. Pertz, T. Mommsen
and others, Hanover 1826-.
Michael Glykas Annales, ed. I. Bekker, CSHB 1836.
Moravcsik, Byzantino-
turcica2 G. Moravcsik, Byzantinoturcica, 2 vols. second edition, Berlin
1958.
Muller-Wiener W. Muller-Wiener, Bildlexikon zur Topographie Istanbuls, Tubingen
1977.
Narratio de S. Sophia ed. Preger, I, pp. 74-108.
Nicephorus Breviarium, in Nicephori opuscula historica, ed. C. de Boor, Leipzig
1880.
Nicetas Choniates,
Hist. Histona, ed. I. Bekker, CSHB 1835.
Nicetas Choniates, De
Signis as above, pp. 854-68.
Oikonomides, Lutes de
preseance, N. Oikonomides, Les listes de preseance byzantines des IXe et Xe siecles,
Paris 1972.
P Parisinus graecus 1336.
Par. Parastaseis syntomoi chronikai, ed. Preger, I, pp. 19-73.
Patna I, II, III, Patna Constantinopoleos, I, II, III, ed. Preger, II, pp. 135-50,
151-209, 214-83.
PG J. P. Migne, Patrologiae cursus completus, series graeco-latina, Paris
1857-66.
Philostorgius, HE Philostorgius Kirchengeschichte, ed. J. Bidez, rev. F. Winkelmann,
GCS 1972.
PLRE, I, II A. Η. M. Jones, J. Martindale, J. Morris, Prosopography of the
Later Roman Empire, I, Cambridge, 1971;
T. R. Martindale, Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, II,
Cambridge 1980.
XII LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND EDITIONS

Preger T. Preger, ed. Scriptores Originum Constantinopolitanarum, 2 vols.

Leipzig 1901-7, repr. New York 1975.
Procopius, Anecd. Procopii Caesariensis Opera Omnia, ed. J. Haury, rev. G. Wirth, vol.
Ill, Historia Arcana, Leipzig 1963.
Procopius, de Aed. as above, vol. IV, De Aedificiis, Leipzig 1964.
Procopius, BG as above, Vol. II, De Bello Gothico, Leipzig 1962.
Prudentius, Contra
Symmachum ed. M. Cunningham, Corpus Christian., 126, Turnhout 1966.
RE Pauly-Wissowa, Real Enzyklopadie
REB Revue des etudes byzantines
RESEE Revue des etudes sud-est europeennes
RHR Revue de I’histoire des religions
Robert of Clari trans. E. H. McNeal, The Conquest of Constantinople of Robert of
Clari, New York 1936.
Schilbach, Metrologie E. Schilbach, Byzantinische Metrologie, Munich 1970.
Socrates, HE Historia ecclesiastica, in PC, 67, cols. 30-842.
Sozomen, HE Sozomenus Kirchengeschichte, ed. J. Bidez and G. C. Hansen, GCS,
Berlin 1960.
Speck, Universitat P. Speck, Die kaiserliche Universitat von Konstantinopel, Munich
1974.
Speck, Artabasdos P. Speck, Artabasdos, der rechlglaubige Vorkampfer der gottlichen Lehren,
Bonn 1981.
Stein, BE, II E. Stein, Histoire du Bas Empire, vol. II, rev. J.-M. Palanque,
Amsterdam 1949, repr. 1968.
Suda Suidae Lexikon, ed. A. Adler, 5 vols. Leipzig 1928-38.
Symeon the Logothete Chronographia, ed. I. Bekker, in Theophanes Continuatus, CSHB
1838, pp. 603-760.
Synaxarion CP H. Delehaye, Synaxarium ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae. Propylaeum ad
Acta Sanctorum Novembris, Brussels 1902, repr. Louvain 1954.
Theodore Lektor Theodores Anagnostes Kirchengeschichte, ed. G. C. Hansen, GCS
1971.
Theodoret, HE Theodoret Kirchengeschichte, ed. L. Parmentier, F. Scheildweiler,
GCS 1954.
Theophanes Theophanis Chronographia, ed. C. de Boor, vol. I, Leipzig 1883,
repr. Hildesheim 1980.
Theophanes Continua-
tus ed. I. Bekker, CSHB 1838.
Theophylact Simocatta Theophylacti Simocattae Historiae, ed. C. de Boor, rev. P. Wirth,
Stuttgart 1972.
TM Travaux et Memoires
Tzetzes, Chiliades ed. T. Kiessling, Leipzig 1826.
Victor of Tonnena Chronicon, ed. T. Mommsen, MGH, Auctores Antiquissimi, vol. XI,
2 = Chronica minora saec. IV, V, VI, VII, vol. 2, Berlin 1894.
Vita Eulhymii ed. P. Karlin-Hayter, Vita Euthymii Patriarchae CP, Brussels 1970.
Vila Stephani iunioris PC, 100, cols. 1069-1185.
W Vizantiiskii Vremennik
Zonaras Epitome Historiarum, ed. M. Pinder and T. Biittner-Wobst, 3 vols.
CSHB 1841-97.
Zosimus Historia Nova, ed. F. Paschoud, Bud£, 3 vols., 1971-9.
ZRVI Zbomik Radova Vizantoloskog Instiluta (Belgrade)
Map 1. Constantinople in the early Byzantine period
Map 2. Sketch plan of the palace area, after W. Miiller-Wiener, Bildlexikon zur
Topographic Islanbuls (Tubingen, 1977), p. 232.
 INTI« )I)UCTK )N

I lx- text here presented is preserved only in one eleventh-century

MS., I’m. gi ΓΠ() (herealici I*). Il is generally known as the Parastasas
Syntomoi Chrorukai (lit. ‘Uriel Historical Notes’), which is the title given in
the MS., though it may not he the original one. Il is a strange and dif¬
ficult, hut nonetheless liclily rewarding work, ol interest in a variety of
ways. Most obviously, il belongs to the class ol texts known collectively as
‘palriographic’, that is, works concerning themselves with the monu¬
ments of (Constantinople. In this group ol texts, it o< c upirs an early and
important plac e, and despite muc h evident c onfusion, preserves valuable
information about the city and its monuments, in particular ancient
statues. Since· the work ilsell can be dated to the eighth century (below,
sec t ion v), it is a rare source ol knowledge of the late antique and early
medieval < ily, and must be· shat ply distinguished from the embroideries
or additions in the- lain texts. As a work of the early period, it offers in¬
triguing insights into the- cultural world ol an age from which very little
other literary evidence has survived.
Hut the Para&laui\ (hereafln Par.) is also problematic for though the
description ‘a kind ol tourist’s guidebook to the curiosities of Constan¬
tinople’1 seems at first sight adequate, on closer sc rutiny this phrase fails
to do full justice to Par.'s complexity.1* In fact, Pm would be next to
useless as a guidebook sine e it is both incomplete and repetitive. Further¬
more, it makes no attempt to explain the relative locations of the
monuments which it describes, and is indeed less interested in describing
them than in recounting then history and interpretation (often an arc ane-
pagan meaning), flic- repetitions, together with certain other distinct
feature's (sec (ion iv below) have led us to cone hide that Par represents the
wor k of a group rather than a single· author, and that it may to some ex¬
tent constitute a dossier ol information, including letters, rather than a
finished work. The appearance of references to named individuals ap¬
parently responsible for certain sec tions suggests some kind of group ac¬
tivity, possibly under the patronage ol the ‘Philokalos’ who is several
times named. Yet the literary air of some· of the names, together with
numerous false ‘citations’,1 makes even this problematic.
There are thus many diffie ulties involved in clue idating this text, and it
lias never before received the- attention which it clearly deserves. Oric

1 Mango, AS, |) 60. This article in the (rent introduction to Par ancl its subject matter.
7 Section vi below,
1 Section ix below.
2 INTRODUCTION

barrier to full understanding is certainly the state of the Greek text, which
is both difficult in itself (to say the least) and frequently corrupt and even
lacunose.4 Par.’s editor, Th. Preger,5 went a long way towards making
intelligible a text where emendation is often little more than a matter of
guesswork; we are thankful, therefore, to have the opportunity of reprint¬
ing his text and apparatus criticus, and have made this the basis of our
translation. However, though it is often impossible to propose better
solutions with the certainty that one would like, we have discussed every
instance where the meaning or the text is uncertain, and often offered our
own suggestions, based on a fresh collation of P from microfilm.

i. The Textual History of the Parastaseis

Par. was edited from the one MS, P (Par. gr. 1336), by Th. Preger in
1898, and this edition he later incorporated, with a small number of cor¬
rections, in his two-volume Teubner edition of Scriptores Originum Constan-
tinopolitanarum (I, Leipzig, 1901; II, Leipzig, 1907), where Par. appears in
volume I, pp. 19-73 (reprinted here).6 The prefaces to both Preger’s edi¬
tions, especially the second,7 give basic information about Par. and are
supplemented by Preger’s excellent indices. The same editor also pro¬
duced an earlier Programm on the textual tradition of Par.8 These works
are the foundation of all study of the text of Par., and Preger’s pioneering
achievement will be recognised once the complexity of Par. is fully
understood.9
As stated above, Preger’s text and apparatus are taken as basic for this
translation and commentary. This is not only for their usefulness, in¬
cluding that of the apparatus in reporting interpretations or conjectures by
earlier editors (Lambeck, 1655, Combefis, 1664, Banduri, 1711) and ex¬
tensive quotations from the testimonia (Suda, Anon. Treu, Patria; see sec¬
tion ii below), but also because we believe, with Preger himself (I, 1901,
p. ix) that many problems remain unsolved, and that the nature of both

4 See the review of Preger’s text byj. Pargoire, BZ 12 (1903), pp. 333-35 (‘cette prose
idiote’, ... ‘un manuscript de Paris parfaitement execrable’).
5 See Th. Preger, Scriptores Originum Constantinopolitanarum I-II (Leipzig, 1901, 1907,
repr. New York (Arno Press), 1975). Par. is to be found in vol. I (1901), pp. 19-73.
6 The two volumes also contain the Patria in full (see section ii below), and our
references to the Patria are to this edition. Preger’s first edition of Par. is to be found in Th.
Preger, Anonymi Byzantini Παραστάσεις σύντομοι χρονικαί, Programm des k. Max.-Gymnasiums
Miinchen, 1898. The preface of this edition contains material not included in the 1901
preface.
7 pp. viii-x.
8 Beitrage zur Textgeschichte der Πάτρια Κπόλεως, Programm des k. Max.-Gymnasiums,
Miinchen, 1895.
9 See Pargoire, p. 333 (n. 4 above).
 INTRODUCTION 3

the Greek and the subject matter preclude the constitution of a new text
that would be substantially better than Preger’s.

ii. The Parastaseis and the Patria

Par. represents an early stage in a line of works of similar kind loosely

labelled the Patria of Constantinople. Not only do the later works develop
the assumptions already present in Par.,10 but actually embody, with
greater or lesser degrees of reworking, large amounts of Par. ’s text. This
section will discuss the latter aspect of Par. ’s relation to the later
works—its textual relation to them—while section v below will treat its
relation to patriographic works in general. In both cases, it must be em¬
phasized that Par., besides being directly used by several later works, was
put together at a much earlier date. Very few modern studies have
recognised the importance of distinguishing clearly the evidence of Par.
from that of the later texts;* 11 yet it is essential when using these works to
differentiate between material from Par., which is of the eighth century or
earlier, and later expanded versions of the same or similar material in the
Patria.
It is not clear whether there were earlier works in the manner of Par.,
which are now lost. Certainly chronicles such as those of Marcellinus and
Malalas in the sixth century contain a good deal of material about
buildings and monuments, and some of the mythological versions of the
history of Constantinople which are so striking in Par. (section viii
below). The so-called Patria of Hesychius Illustris (probably sixth cen¬
tury)12 bears some similarities with Par. in terms of subject matter, but
none of the idiosyncrasies of our text (section iv). There may have been a
patriographic source used by Par. dating from the late sixth or early
seventh century (below, section ix), but again, the material derived from
it may have come from a chronicle dating from the reign of Heraclius.13
It may well be that Par. was actually the earliest and fullest of
patriographic works proper, and certainly its many peculiarities seem to

10 For these works see G. Dagron and J. Paramelle, ‘Un texte patriographique. Le
‘recit merveilleux, tres beau et profitable sur la colonne du Xerolophos’ (Vindob. Suppl.
gr. 172, fol. 43v-63v)’, Travaux et Memoires 7 (1979), pp. 491-523, especially 491-504. We
shall refer often to the text edited here ( = Diegesis), an introduction to a 16th century MS.
of the Oracles of Leo the Wise’ concerning the reliefs on the column in the Xerolophos.
11 Rarely noted, for instance, in R. Janin, Constantinople byzantine, 2nd ed. (Paris,
1964), which for all its defects remains essential. Even Dagron, op. cit., p. 494, in practice
uses Par. and the Patna interchangeably.
12 The Ongines of Constantinople by Hesychius, also edited by Preger, Scriptores, I
(1901), pp. 1-18, was perhaps part of a longer history (preface, p. vi).
13 See L. M. Whitby, ‘The Chronicle Sources of Theophanes’, B, 53 (1983), pp. 312-
45, and see on chap. 43.
4 INTRODUCTION

point to self-conscious literary aims. It is by no means a product of

‘popular’ compilation (see section iv). Later, however, most of its con¬
tents were incorporated in two extant works of less interest and in¬
dividuality. These are (a) the anonymous text edited by M. Treu and
known for convenience as the Anonymous of Treu (Anon. Treu)14 and
(b) book II (in Preger’s edition) of the Patria, a corpus of texts relating to
the antiquities of Constantinople put together c. 995.15 Much of the
groundwork for establishing the relation between Par. and these texts was
done by Preger.16 However, since where P is defective or corrupt, the
parallel passages in the later texts are essential witnesses for the
reconstitution of Par., this relation must now be set out in detail.
It will be seen that Anon. Treu and the Patria often follow Par. very
closely, in arrangement and in detail, but that the Patria in particular fre¬
quently supplements Par. and that its attitudes to its material differ in im¬
portant respects from those in Par., particularly in its aggressively
iconophile posture. If, as we argue, Par. can be dated with certainty to
the eighth century, its importance as an early witness is obvious, as is the
consequence to be drawn from the Patria's dependence on it. But the rela¬
tionship is not a simple one: a few passages suggest that a fuller text of
Par. was available to the compilers of the Anon. Treu and the Patria than
the one which we have in P. (see on chap. 70). However, the realisation
of Par. ’s earlier date is important not only for the value of its evidence,
but also for tracing the development of patriographic themes and tech¬
niques. All the patriographic works have an aim over and above simple
recording; they catalogue Constantinopolitan monuments in such a way
as to bring out certain warnings about what they take to be the power of
ancient statues, which are assumed to be capable of yielding predictions
as to the future of the city and its emperors, as well as exerting
malevolent influences on contemporary persons.17 We believe that while
Par. clearly belongs to this chain of texts and exhibits ways of thinking
characteristic of them, it represents an early stage in the development of
these attitudes, before certain themes had been as fully developed as they
were to be in the later texts. This conclusion is of great importance for
understanding the intellectual history of Constantinople.

14 M. Treu, Excerpta Anonymi Byzantini, Gymnasiums-Programm Ohlau (1880).

15 Preger, Scriptores, II (1907), pp. 151-209. Preger demonstrated in 1895 (op. cit., n. 8)
that these works belong to the tenth century and are not (as previously supposed) by
George Codinus. Bekker’s edition in the Bonn corpus (CSHB, 1843) and the text of Migne
(PG 157, 1866, from Bekker), are both misleading and should be avoided. See further
Preger, Scriptores, II, pp. iii-xxiv. All our references to the Patna are to Preger’s 1907 edi¬
tion.
16 See notes 6 and 8 above.
17 See Mango, T5, for many examples of this attitude from a variety of other texts.
 INTRODUCTION 5

Though the formal connections between Par., Anon. Treu and the
Patria are complex, that between Par. and the Anon. Treu itself is
relatively simple. It so happens that our knowledge of Par. rests entirely
on one eleventh-century MS. (P), which is actually later in date than the
only complete MS. of the Anon. Treu (Par. suppl. gr. 607a, of the tenth
century). Yet it is clear that Anon. Treu not only followed and copied
Par., but also that it was composed well before the Patria, since it was
drawn on extensively by the Suda lexicon, a compilation of the late tenth
century.18 The Anon, begins with a random collection of material from
different sources (pp. 3-9 Treu), followed by a sequence of abbreviated
extracts from Par. (pp. 9.14-21.19). These extracts are not only shortened
but simplified and explained. Where Par. is often tortuous or even
incomprehensible, the Anon, is invariably clear and simple. This very
fact means that the Anon, is rarely of demonstrable value in itself for the
restoration of Par. Very often one has the impression that the compiler
was confronted with and perplexed by much the same problems as us.
On the other hand, where P is defective, the Anon, might help; and since
the compiler was working before both the Suda and the Patria, it is at least
possible that he had access to a text of Par. better in general than that of
P. Very cautious use of the Anon. Treu in textual matters is therefore in¬
dicated; but see below for Par., chaps. 1-20.
By contrast, the Patria have a rich and varied MSS. tradition.19 The
MSS. diverge quite widely in style, content and arrangement of the
material, the most elegant and even the most historically accurate not
necessarily reflecting the text of the original most closely. Indeed, the
normal conception of a unitary work or discrete ‘text’ can only be applied
within limits. We should think rather of a growing body of material in
which much overlap and variation is possible, and in which fidelity to an
original text is far from being the prime concern. However, in broad
terms Par. is distinctively the earliest phase in this body of material;
equally, it is clear enough that the greater part of the basic text of Patria II
was copied almost word for word from Anon. Treu, for in both we find
the same selection of abbreviated extracts from Par., the same telling
omissions, the same simplifications, even though the order of individual
‘chapters’ or entries has been considerably altered. The compilers of the
Patria even included, in a work devoted to the antiquities of Constantino¬
ple, the irrelevant material about other places in Anon. Treu, pp. 3-9-13,
only omitting the chapters about the Goths and the Norici (pp. 8.28,-9.10

fO.
iB preger> Scriptores, I (1901), p. x; Beitrage (n. 8), pp. 28 ff.
19 Prcger, Scriptores, II (1907), pp. xxv IT., lists 67 MSS. For their relationships, see
ibid., pp. iii-xxiv and Beitrage, pp. 7 IT.
6 INTRODUCTION

For the chapters taken through the medium of Anon. Treu, therefore,
the Patria is of no great value for the study of Par. But the compiler(s) also
used a copy of Par. direct. As will be seen from the comparative table
below (fig. 1), apart from certain omissions, Anon. Treu followed the
order of chapters in Par. very closely, with the exception only of the rever¬
sal of chaps. 22 and 23. It is essential to note however that Anon. Treu
has omitted nearly the whole of the beginning of Par., that is, chaps.
1-10, 13-15, and 17. In all the other cases of omission in Anon. Treu, the
Patria are similarly deficient, but these opening chapters, in the con¬
tinuous form of Par., chaps. 1-20, appear complete in the Patria, added at
the end. The corrlpiler(s) must therefore have known another text of Par.
direct, from which these chapters could be taken. But it does not look as
though they regularly consulted this text when compiling the sections
based on Anon. Treu. We may deduce that Anon. Treu’s exemplar of
Par. lacked the opening. Indeed, Par. in its present state begins abruptly,
and it is not impossible that there was originally some other opening, now
lost. To return to the Patria: they did not use their text of Par. to make
good the other omissions in Anon. Treu, and they left in some chapters to
appear twice over {Par., chaps. 16, 17, 19, 20). The process of compila¬
tion of the Patria, so far as their relation with these other texts is con¬
cerned, was therefore a crude one.
Accordingly, since the Patria normally follow their source more closely
than the compiler of Anon. Treu, and make less effort to eliminate in¬
comprehensibilities, the Patria offers a better check for Par., chaps. 1-20
than Anon. Treu for the rest of the work. On the other hand, the Patria
will frequently interpolate (e.g. chap. 93) and update (e.g. chap. 41).
Cautious use of the Patria for the reconstruction of Par. is again indicated.
The problem becomes acute in relation to Par., chap. 5, where a whole
folium is missing in P. It is likely enough that Patria II, chaps. 87-91
represent approximately what stood in Par.·, but there are crucial pro¬
blems of dating involved in the material of this section, which make the
problem particularly difficult (see section v below, and notes ad loc.).
There is another, more substantial, problem. Patria II contains twenty
chapters (35-37, 45, 46a, 54-65, 72, 101, 103) absent from both Par. and
Anon. Treu. Where did they come from? We cannot exclude the
possibility that they originally stood in a fuller text of Anon. Treu and/or
Par. In particular, among the twenty odd chapters from a version of Par.
added at the end of the Patria, there are two (101 and 103) which do not
occur in our manuscript of Par. and which are additional to the sequence
in Patria, chaps. 88-91 that seems to represent the missing section of Par.
between the present chaps. 5 and 6. Since all the other material in this se¬
quence (Patria, 86-110) demonstrably comes from the opening of Par., it
 INTRODUCTION 7

is tempting to suppose that Patria 101 and 103 also stood in the fuller text
of Par. used by the compiler(s) of the Patria, with the exception only of the
allusion to Michael Rhangabe in 101; 103, certainly, is entirely in the
manner of Par.20
The following table, based on Preger,21 shows, with Anon. Treu as
base, the relative arrangement of material from Par. in Anon. Treu and
the Patria.

Fig. 1: Table to show the arrangement of material from Par. in Anon. Treu and the Patria

Anon. Treu Par. Patria Anon. Treu Par. Patria

p. 3.1 Treu 1 13.13 34 29
3.18 15 13.17 35 30
4.3 14a 13.20 35a 38
4.11 2 13.23 36 32
4.20 3 13.27 37 41
4.28 4 14.14 38 42
5.1 17 14.25 39 43
5.15 5 15.1 40 46
5.20 6 15.17 41 52
5.24 7 15.22 42 53
6.4 8a 43
6.8 8 44
6.18 9 15.30 44a 28
6.28 11 45
7.1 12 46
7.13 13 47
7.17 14 48
7.26 10 49
8.3 80 50
8.12 81 51
8.20 84 52
8.28 16.8 53 66
9.10 16.15 54 67
1 110 55
1
2 107 16.18 56 48
I
3 109,108 57
i 86 17.1 58 50
5 87 17.7 59 44
lacuna 88 17.16 60 73
89 17.19 61(a) 53
89a 17.24 61(b) 54
90 17.28 62 79
r 91 63
92 17.31 64 82
93 18.25 65 83
8 94 19.1 66 47
) 95 67
10 106 68

20 Cf. its allusions to the meaning of statues, its use of ίστορίαι, its references to the ar¬
cane knowledge of οί στηλωτικοί, its use of έστοιχειώσατο (for all these see section iv).
21 Beitrage, pp. 30-35.
8 INTRODUCTION

Anon. Treu Par. Patria Anon. Treu Par. Patria

9.14 11 96 69
9.26 12 97 19.5 70 48
13 98 19.12 71 19(b)
14 99 19.17 72 68
15 100 19.21 73 33
10.15 19.24 69
16 102= 16
10.21 19.26 74 40
17 102= 18 19.30 34
10.26 18 104 75
10.29 19 104a= 76 20.3 76 73
11.1 20 105 = 19(a) 20.7 77 28
21 20.10 78 28
11.8 23 20 20.14 79 74
11.13 22 21 20.17 80 28
24 81
11.23 25 22 20.20 82 39
11.28 26 23 83
27 20.23 84 75
12.7 28 24 20.26 85 85
12.24 29 25 86
13.1 30 26 21.12 87 71
31 21.16 88 70
13.4 32 27 21.20 περί 51 (cf.
13.10 33 28 τοΰ Μοδίου Par. 12)

Finally, we must consider MS. G of the Patria (P ar. su ppl. gr. 657, of
the thirteenth century), which not o nly uses far more elegant language,
but also arranges the material quite differently. This reorganisation
shows, in fact, that G’ s scribe has been through his exemplar twice.22
More significantly still, there are places where obscurities in the text of
the Patria are sorted out, or else supplemented with additional informa¬
tion. Par., chap. 41 is particularly interesting in this connection. Where
G does conspicuously diverge from the other Patria MSS. in a passage
deriving from Par., therefore, its readings might just preserve a better
text of Par.
The complex relationship between Par., Anon. Treu, the Patria and
now the additions of MS. G demonstrates the inappropriateness of the
normal procedures of textual criticism in dealing with these compilations.
Each represents a particular stage in the development of a corpus of inter¬
related but separate texts. Nevertheless, if there is one more fitted than
the rest to be seen as a distinctive and separate whole it is Par., both
because it is the earliest and because it has its own idiosyncratic literary
aspirations.

22 Preger, Scriptores, II (1907), p. xii.

 INTRODUCTION 9

iii. The present publication

The aim of this publication is to make this text, difficult as it is, accessi¬
ble both as a source and as a witness to the literature and culture of the
eighth century, especially in relation to the patriographic tradition. We
have provided a fairly literal translation, elucidating the text as we
understand it and giving alternatives wherever there seems to be a
serious difficulty. We do not hesitate to discuss the text itself where need
be. The commentary also has as its first aim that of elucidating the text
itself, then that of explaining its subject matter and value. Obviously it
does not provide exhaustive discussion of the many different topics raised
in Par., but we hope to have provided a minimum bibliography for fur¬
ther study.

iv. The Structure and Style of the Parastaseis

Par. consists of a collection of brief notes, or entries (referred to here as

‘chapters’, but not implying continuity of theme), on given topics of Con-
stantinopolitan topography and monuments. There is much overlapping,
and certain subjects, e.g. the Hippodrome and the Forum of Constan¬
tine, are treated more than once without any attempt at harmonisation.
Certain distinguishable sections can be detected, but they seem based
rather on the different classes of material available to the compiler(s) than
on divisions of subject matter. There is no apparent thematic structure,
though certain chapters are grouped together by a similarity of topic.
The main divisions of Par. are these:

1-26: an amorphous collection of information about places, including

churches, which are treated as such only here, and arranged roughly
geographically. This section contains several references to Arians
(chaps. 1, 5d, 7, 8, 10). Within the notes on places there are often (but
not always) allusions to statues (chaps. 4, 5, 5a, 5b, 5c, 5d, 6, 7, 8, 10,
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 26). In P this section
is separated from the rest by an ornamental conclusion leaving the bot¬
tom of the page blank, while c. 27 constitutes a new heading. 1-26 show
the interest in theamata discernible elsewhere (chaps. 4, 6, 17, 20, 21)
and cite acclamations of the Greens (chap. 3, cf. 29, 35a, 38, 40, 59,
81). It is unlikely that 1-26 existed as a whole previously; for signs of
reworking or ‘editing’ see c 2, 11, 15, 19, 24, 26. The general tone is
didactic, as elsewhere. The latest references are to Leo III (717-41)
(chaps. 1, 4, 5d — but see notes ad loc.). Chap. 15 contains a contem¬
porary reference, and cf. also chaps. 19 and 24. For the sources named
in this section, see below, section ix.
27-28: 27 is the heading to 28, and is set out as such in P. 28 consists of a first-
person narrative, apparently by one Theodore, describing an en¬
counter with a falling statue which killed his companion Himerius. The
10 INTRODUCTION

heading (chap. 27) calls the latter chartularius. The story is addressed to
a certain Philokalos, and warns against the dangers attaching to pagan
statues. It is set in the reign of Philippicus (711-13) (chap. 28, p. 36.21
Preger).
29-36: another separate section, this time with a title ‘Again from Theodore
the Lector (?the same as in 27-28), a brief section on women’. This sec¬
tion lists statues of empresses (and, from chap. 34, some emperors); the
latest allusion is to the reign of Heraclius (610-41) (chap. 36). This sec¬
tion is much more laconic than the foregoing. Green acclamations ap¬
pear twice (chaps. 29, 35a), and another reference to the Greens at
chap. 36.
37-43: a section headed ‘About spectacles’, consisting first (37-41) of notes on
five numbered ‘sights’ of Constantinople. Chaps. 42 and 43 lack the
heading ‘spectacle’, and the numeration, but the subject matter is
similar; as 42 begins with a further address to Philokalos, it is possible
that these two chapters may have been added on later. Or, if they are
original, the headings should perhaps be restored. 41 ends also with
such an address, which there looks like a conclusion. Both allusions im¬
ply that Philokalos was in some way responsible for encouraging this
research, and 42 alludes to his letters requesting information. The
beginning of 43 seems to ascribe the material of the chapter to a
Dioscorus otherwise unknown, but see notes ad loc. The latest allusion
is to the second reign of Justinian II (705-11) (chap. 37).
44-44a: a heading and an allusion in 44a ascribe 44 and 44a to a certain Papias.
Whether he continues as the source for what follows, or how far, is
unclear: there are no further headings in P and no clear indications
from the subject matter. The latest allusion is by implication to Justi¬
nian II (second reign, 705-11) (chap. 44a).
45-59: arranged according to the activities of certain emperors: Leo I (45),
Julian (46-49), Gratian (50), Valentinian (? Ill) (51) and, in a slightly
different format, Constantine (52-59). 56 (on the statue on Constan¬
tine’s porphyry column in the Forum) invites comparison with chap. 5,
and the two stand independently (see below, section viii).
60-65: a section about the Hippodrome and its monuments. 61 alludes to the
‘godless’ Justinian II (705-11), and 63 to a monk being burned in the
Hippodrome for the faith (but ‘in our time’ is a conjecture — see note
ad loc.).
66-89: like the first section, the last lists and describes a series of monuments
and places, but this time on the whole more briefly. The same didactic
tone is preserved and statues feature in chaps. 66, 68, 70, 71, 73, 74,
75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87. The section contains a
reference to a portrait of Philippicus (711-13) (chap. 82), and alludes to
the restoration of the port of Neorion by Leo III (717-41) (chap. 72).

These sections often seem to correspond to separate sources and in

some cases to the hypothesis of separate authors (though see below for
arguments suggesting that the work was put together by a single editor).
This impression is confirmed by the repetitions of material and subject
matter: chaps. 5, 38, and 56, for example, all concern the birthday
 INTRODUCTION 11

celebrations of Constantinople; 7 and 54 give alternative explanations of

the name Ta Viglentiou; the reclining Heracles mentioned at chap. 37
recurs at 64; 44a and 78 both refer to the gorgons’ heads at the Chalke,
and 32 and 80 to the statues of Zeno and Ariadne there; 5a and 42 both
refer to the bronze ox at the Neorion harbour, 18 and 35a to the
equestrian statue of Theodosius, 58 and 70 to the Philadelphion, and 23
and 56 to the objects associated with the great column. These are not
straight repetitions, but different and usually independent entries on the
same subjects, the sort of thing that in a unitary work would have been
‘edited out’.
All this points to the existence of different sets of material somehow put
together. It is hard to believe that Par. as we have it is a finished work,
even though there is ample evidence of literary pretentiousness. On the
other hand, despite the disparities, it shows some striking uniformities
overall. Most obvious is the literary style, if such it can be called. Certain
sections are noticeably simpler in expression, e.g. especially chaps.
66-89, others more tortuous (especially 64), but by and large the work
shows linguistic uniformity. It has an oddly didactic tone; cf. the frequent
allusions in all sections to the process of research that went into its com¬
pilation, and the specialised audience of cognoscenti who are capable of ap¬
preciating it. Other characteristic features are spread evenly throughout
the work: for instance, factional acclamations, which appear in five of the
eight sections distinguished above, and references to Zeno, about whom
Par. is rather well informed (chaps. 20, 26, 29, 32, 40, 51, 80, 89). So Par.
cannot be regarded simply as a collection of separate texts copied
together by a scribe: it has gone through a basic, if not a thoroughgoing,
process of editing, and this has given the collection an overall, if peculiar,
patina.
There are, however, signs, not merely of different sets of ‘entries’ in
Par., but of the activity of a group or ‘circle’ of contemporaries collecting
information on the monuments of the city as a quite distinct enterprise.
The idiosyncratic attitudes traceable throughout the present text derive
more from the shared concerns of this group than they do from one com¬
piler. Thus the tendency always to be on the lookout for ‘wonders’, the
didacticism, the self-conscious vocabulary of ‘research’, the reliance on
oral information (see section ix below), the suspicion of pagan statues
(though the latter was widespread in early medieval Byzantium).23 A cer¬
tain Philokalos is four times addressed (chaps. 27, 28, 41, 42), in
language which suggests that he was some kind of patron. In particular,
the trouble which the collection of this material has caused is stressed

23 See note 17 above.

12 INTRODUCTION

more than once (chaps. 27, 41, cf. 24). Since some of this material seems
as if it might be in the form of personal letters, the possibility arises that
Philokalos, if that is his real name, put. together the dossier we now know
as Par., or even that the collection represented in our one MS. was
Philokalos’s own copy.24 Chap. 42 mentions letters from Philokalos to the
other contributors, asking for just such information as we now have in
Par. The many references to alternative explanations derived from oral
sources (section ix below) support this notion of a group of authors who
found their material in many cases by simply going round and asking,
rather than in books.
It is less clear exactly which of the names recorded in Par. are those of
members of this group (section ix), but we should probably set its initial
activity under the Emperor Philippicus (711-13). One of the firmest
indications is provided by the story of the death of Himerius the char-
tularius, told by one Theodore Lector (chaps. 27, 28). This is clearly dated
to the reign of Philippicus, and contains an address to Philokalos.
Chapters 41 and 42 use the first person plural in addressing Philokalos
and emphasising the toil involved in fulfilling his requests; Caracallus the
praepositus, who seems to be cited as the source for chap. 41, might
therefore be another member of this group. Other possibles are ‘Philip
the eparch’ and/or ‘Philip the dynast’, cited in chaps. 61-62 for informa¬
tion, some of it oral, about the statues in the Hippodrome. Then there is
‘Herodian’, mentioned in chap. 61, and the unnamed informants of the
first-person author of that chapter (T have heard from many people_
cf. chap. 59). Less certainly authentic names are discussed in section ix
below. But even if the membership is uncertain, and despite Par.'s
tendency to resort to fictitious sources (section ix), these discrete
passages, and the allusions to Philokalos combined with first-person en¬
tries, do strongly suggest a genuine initiative towards more or less
original ‘research’, which derived from a group of laymen, officials in
Constantinople, in the reign of Philippicus and continued in that of Leo
III (section v). The collection and writing up of material seems to have
taken some time, but the signs point to the reign of Philippicus as a key
moment in the evolution of Par. The authors went about their work
vigorously, consulting written sources where they could and asking ques¬
tions where they could not (see e.g. chaps. 60, 62, 69, 75). Often the very
language in which they refer to their sources of information is awkward
(24, 41, 44a, 69), as though they were unfamiliar with the processes of
scholarly work, as well as with the technicalities of reading inscriptions
and so on. Sometimes they will dispute the primacy of one type of source

24 As suggested by Liam Gallagher.

 INTRODUCTION 13

over another (68a, 69). The entire procedure, and its recording, is highly
self-conscious, and the work is full of throw-away allusions to statues
which ‘can still be seen’ (e.g. chaps. 16, 44, 83, 87 — present tense signi¬
fying survival; 15, 19, 37 etc. — references to survival ‘till the present
day’, for which see section v). Though the compilers resorted to whatever
written sources they could find (section ix), this is not a work represent¬
ing the gradual and more or less anonymous development of the
patriographic tradition. It is the deliberate effort of men of some educa¬
tional and literary pretensions.
This self-awareness is in fact very apparent in the semi-technical
vocabulary which Par. affects, and which seems to reflect a common
agreement about methods and objectives. The contributors regarded
themselves as ‘philosophers’, men who could understand the deeper
significance of monuments (chaps. 14, 28, 40, 64, 75). Their activity in
explaining or interpreting the meanings of statues is seen as the practice
of philosophy (37, fin, and 39, fin), involving much effort, and not ac¬
cessible to the masses (ibid.). Only ‘lovers of knowledge’ (24) can under¬
stand the subject matter or appreciate the ways in which it has been
transmitted, or the difficulty of piecing together the information. There
are special words for this process: έρευναν, e.g. chaps. 24, 27; ίστορεΐν, 28,
62. It seems to have involved actual expeditions round the city looking at
monuments and inscriptions (chaps. 24, fin, 42, fin). Then came the
writing up of the material, which included not only monuments in
general but specifically statues (cf. chap. 28 ‘we went off ... to investigate
the statues’) and their interpretation, and any kind of ‘wonder’ or ‘spec¬
tacle’ (chaps. 37-43). Hence Par. ’s terminology for statues is likely to be
important (section vii below), and we have always indicated in the
translation which Greek word we are rendering. Unfortunately, both the
ambiguity of some of the terms themselves (stele, for instance, can be used
of a statue, a picture or a monument) and Par.’s lack of consistency make
it impossible to be sure in every case exactly what is being described.
It would seem, then, that Par. took its inception from the efforts of a
group of friends,25 many of them government officials. Much of their
work depended not on written records but on hearsay (section ix); thus
the frequent ‘they say’ or ‘it is said’, and hence too the difference of opi¬
nion about certain monuments. The first-person entries and the
references to unspecified people who have told the author certain things
(e.g. chap. 59, fin) all point to personal activity, in an atmosphere in
which books were not objects of daily and familiar use (section ix). Chap.

25 For the possibility of such groups, see N. Wilson, ‘Books and Readers in
Byzantium’, in Byzantine Books and Bookmen, Dumbarton Oaks Colloquium 1971 (Washington,
D C., 1975), pp. 1-15.
14 INTRODUCTION

24 most strikingly illustrates the evident unfamiliarity of these authors

with true scholarship; even the inscriptions still visible in the city on
statue bases and the like need expert decipherment. Probably this state of
affairs is responsible, to some degree, for the many false ‘authorities’
cited in Par., and the false citations of real authors (section ix). Though
this is typical of patriographic works,26 Par. seems to be deliberately aim¬
ing at impressing the reader with its ‘scholarly’ claims, for even a brief
inspection will reveal that this is a work with pretensions to literary style.
It is not a ‘popular’ work either in aim or execution. If it seems
sometimes to belong to the category of eighth-century texts which Brown¬
ing has called ‘sub-literary ... representing an uneasy balance between
the purist ideal and the speech of the people’,27 this is because, through
lack of exemplars, Par. has not been successful in achieving its ends. That
is, the authors did not really know what good Greek style was. They were
laymen in Constantinople, who had no doubt received the standard
education then available, but as their reading shows (section ix), it will
have been largely in ecclesiastical texts, and perhaps not too much even
of that. They knew that high-style secular Greek was different, but lacked
the equipment to see how.
Yet Par. is quite distinct from, for instance, the work of Hesychius or
the Narratio de S. Sophia. There is a general air of complicity in arcane
secrets: Galen the philosopher laughs because he understands the mean¬
ing of the writing on the gorgons’ heads (chap. 40), while the whole of
chap. 64 is a celebration of the cleverness of philosophers when they can
expound the meanings of statues. We are not surprised when Kranos is
said to smile at his own insight. The authors of Par. know that what they
are doing is difficult, even dangerous. The typical reaction of non¬
members of their circle on being initiated into some of their discoveries is
assumed to be surprise: ‘if anyone looks closely at the inscriptions of the
Forum, he will be even more surprised’ (chap. 38). They themselves, as
‘philosophers’, are open to experiences and interpretations denied to the
less clever; cf. chap. 37 ‘a sight visible even today to philosophers’. There
is thus an overall archness, a sense of belonging to an exclusive club,

26 See Dagron and Paramelle (n. 9), p. 491 f.

27 R. Browning, Medieval and Modem Greek (London, 1969), p. 61 (references are to this
edition; see now rev. ed. 1983). On levels of Greek in the period see too the same author’s
‘The Language of Greek Literature’, in Sp. Vryonis Jr. (ed.), Byzantina kai Metabyzantina
1, ‘The “Past” in Medieval and Modern Greek Culture’ (Malibu, 1979), pp. 104-33;
‘Literacy in the Byzantine World’, BMGS 4 (1978), pp. 39-53; I. Sevienko, ‘Levels of
Style in Byzantine Prose’, JOBG 31 (1981), pp. 289-312. Mango emphasizes the low level
of learning in the century after Heraclius (C. Mango, Byzantium. The Empire of New Rome,
London, 1980, e.g. p. 137). More generally on the problem, E. Patlagean, ‘Discours
ecrit, discours parle. Niveaux de culture a Byzance aux VIIIe-XIe siecles’, Annales E.S. C.
34 (1979), pp. 264-78.
 INTRODUCTION 15

whose activities require certain definite qualifications. And they are en¬
tirely serious about their task, recognising that the interpretations which
their ‘research’ may reveal are all too often malevolent ones.
We would expect such affectation to be perceptible in Par.’s literary
style, and we shall not be disappointed. In the near-total absence of com¬
parable secular literature from the period, it is hard to be categorical: yet
Par. stands out for the oddity and obscurity of its expression.28 The seek¬
ing out of rare inscriptions (now a lost art, so that it is not surprising that
Par. ’s authors found such difficulty in decipherment) is paralleled by the
search for rare words and constructions. Yet a high proportion of words
unknown elsewhere (see below) is combined with a looseness of construc¬
tion that can go to grotesque lengths. In fact the most obscurely expressed
sections are those where Par. is trying to describe everyday subject mat¬
ter—directions, for instance—in its own words (chaps. 16, 33, 44a). This
must suggest an unfamiliarity with good Greek style, combined with the
desire to write in some kind of ‘elevated’ way. On a first reading of Par.,
the most striking feature is probably the frequent changes of subject, and
the constant use of genitive absolutes, often as connectives between
sentences, after which Par. will simply continue with a main verb refer¬
ring to the same subject. Nominative absolutes serve similar purposes, or
are attached at the ends of sentences, and in general participles often ap¬
pear where a main verb is required. Infinitives, too, often replace main
verbs or are juxtaposed with them. Often through one or more of these
usages, Par. ’s sentence structure becomes very disturbed, and the situa¬
tion is made worse by the authors’ fondness for relative clauses, often
with little or no relative content. The combination of extraordinarily con¬
torted sentences with rare and abstruse vocabulary, added to the affecta¬
tions noted above, marks Par. out as a work of pretension to high style,
but written by one or more authors with little or no experience of good
high-style Greek.
The problem of multiple authorship and overall editing is not simple,
and the brevity of Par. makes it impossible to arrive at statistically well-
based conclusions about its style. We have not been able to do more than
come to impressionistic findings. Certainly the work is not homogeneous
throughout. Thus chaps. 66-89 are more straightforward in style, with
fewer serious difficulties than other sections; a feature of these chapters is

28 A comparison with the work of Hesychius and the Narratio de S. Sophia (both in
Preger, Scriptores, I) certainly bears this out. It is striking that the Anonymous of Treu
seems to have felt it necessary to simplify Par. wherever possible. We can now compare
the LifeoiS. Samson (F. Halkin, ‘Saint Samson le xenodoque de Constantinople (VIe sie-
cle)’, Riv. di Studi bizantini e neoellenici, n.s. 14-16 (24-26) (1977-79), pp. 5 ff.; see especially
p. 6 note 3).
16 INTRODUCTION

the constant use of λεγόμενος (‘called’ or ‘so-called’) with names, ap¬

propriate enough perhaps for areas of Constantinople, but less so for the
names of places like Nicomedia (76), or Iconium (83). Chaps. 29-36, the
‘Catalogue of Women’, is characterised by a particular brevity; most of
the sentences lack a main verb. Chaps. 37-43 seem rather more difficult
and contorted than the rest, especially when compared with the fluency of
chap. 28, the anecdote of Himerius the chartularius, which reads as
though it might be a real letter. Most difficult of all is chap. 64, in which
seven philosophers confront the Emperor Theodosius II in the Hip¬
podrome; though the text of P is undoubtedly corrupt, most of the dif¬
ficulty, and no doubt the corruption too, arises from the obscure subject
matter, which turns on puns, riddles and hidden meanings.
Yet certain key words are well spread throughout the work. Thus δέον
γινώσκειν (‘note’) comes in the first and last sections (chaps. 1, 16, 66,
68); άμφότερα for ‘all’ at 31 and 56; actives used for passives
throughout,29 and loose connectives and genitive absolutes are scattered
through the whole work, as are the characteristic references to ‘research’
and ‘philosophy’ (see above). While there is a concentration of difficult
vocabulary in chaps. 37-43, similarly obscure words appear elsewhere,
especially in the first section, and all parts show an obscurity often arising
from an overriding concern for brevity. The language is often
repetitive,30 perhaps indicating careless or hurried notes taken from a
spoken account. Par. as we have it may indeed be a far from final version:
compare the strange use of ζητεί (‘check’, cf. chap. 6), which could cer¬
tainly be a scribal gloss, but may also have stood in the ‘text’ as copied by
P. It seems most likely that Par. represents a compilation from a set of
separate ‘entries’ or even letters, by different ‘authors’, and that it has
gone through a preliminary, but not very thorough, process of editing by
the compiler, perhaps the very Philokalos who is several times addressed
(see above). The style varies to some extent, though not completely, be¬
tween sections; but the attitudes evinced are much the same throughout,
suggesting at least that the different contributors were in agreement
about what they were doing.
A closer look at Par. ’s language confirms the impression of a blend of
the literary, or at least the obscure, with typical late Greek usages. The
vocabulary itself poses many problems. Thus the meaings of έξαμον
(chaps. 12, 37), μεσοσυλλαβών (16), όργανον (8), πυρος (39, 40) are
unclear. There are many Latinisms, particularly of course for official

29 For all these and other characteristic usages, see Preger’s index of υαήα grammatica
(Scriptores, I, 1901; pp. 120-24), which includes readings of P not adopted in Preger’s text.
30 See Preger, s.v. abundantia sermonis (1901, p. 124).
 INTRODUCTION 17

terms, but also more generally: thus έξέρκετα (56), πάκτον (8, 39).31 Par. is
fond of diminutives, e.g. θεμάτιον (20). It employs the classicising op¬
tative and dative, sometimes incorrectly by classical standards, yet also
omits augments and reduplication, interchanges prepositions, makes
mistakes of declension and gender, uses active for passive and so on. The
bad state of P makes it hard to know when these are the mistakes of Par.
and when they are textual corruptions. But overall one can see in Par. the
changing nature of the Greek language in the eighth century. Par. cannot
be said to have succeeded in writing in an intelligible high style, if that
was its aim; but its preciosity makes it both unusual and hard to classify
in relation to other texts. Nevertheless, as an example of a secular Greek
work from the eighth century, its sheer rarity value makes it an excep¬
tionally valuable document.

v. The date of the Parastaseis

As we have suggested above, Par. received the first impetus in the reign
of Philippicus (711-13), when a group of self-styled ‘philosophers’ or
‘researchers’ apparently collected material for inclusion, partly by going
round and looking at the monuments themselves. Individual sections
may have been written at different times, and the work as a whole may
have evolved over a period, or even gone through more than one
‘edition’, but by and large Par. dates from the first half of the eighth cen¬
tury, and most of it was probably written before the first iconoclastic
measures of Leo III in 726. Nothing except one doubtful allusion in chap.
56 (see below) suggests a date later than the mid-eighth century, and we
are convinced that whereas it may be wrong in principle to try to fasten
an exact date of composition on Par.,32 it is a work of the first half—and
mostly of the first quarter—of the eighth century.
This conclusion has important consequences for the evaluation of
Par. ’s evidence. It combines with the findings set out in section ii above to
place Par. in a very clear and distinctive relationship to the Patria, with
which it must not be uncritically confused. The evidence of Par., in other
words, is primary, whereas that of the Patria, is usually derivative of
Anon. Treu, and of Par. only through this intermediary, except for the
sections where it can be shown to have used Par. direct, and the few cases
where it seems to have extra information possibly once standing in Par.
On the whole, then, Patria II derives its information from Par., but at two
centuries’ remove.

31 See Preger’s list of graecolatina for others.

32 The only full discussion of the date of Par. is that by G. Millet, ‘Parastaseis Syntomoi
Chronikai. Essai sur la date’, BCH 70 (1946), pp. 393-402, who does precisely that and
opts for the period 8th November, 742 to 746.
18 INTRODUCTION

As we shall argue, Par. ’s composition belongs at a time when there was

already lively concern about the status of religious images. The pagan
statuary of Constantinople would have aroused a similar concern, in the
light of contemporary worries about idolatry, which we can see reflected
in Par. It is however far from betraying the aggressively iconophile tone
so evident in the Patria,33 and this too marks it out as a work of the earliest
stages of iconoclasm. It shares certain concerns evident in other works of
the period—cf. its interest in Arians, and in the Emperor Julian as a pro¬
totype of the iconoclasts. But it does not take sides openly on the issue of
iconoclasm proper, though its sympathies lie on the side of the images.
The Patria, in strong contrast, have no such inhibitions, and are not
afraid to condemn the iconoclastic emperors in the roundest terms.

1. We must begin with the references in Par. which link the work with
specific reigns.
(a) Justinian 7/(685-95, 705-11).
For Par., the second reign of Justinian II seems to represent recent
history. Only Par. (chap. 37) gives the name of the Khazar Khan to
whom Justinian appealed for aid, and in the same chapter it records
statues of Justinian and his Khazar wife at the Basilica, commemorating
his restoration by the Bulgar Tervel in 705 and the great ceremony of
gift-giving which followed. Still in the same chapter, Par. tells of the
kneeling statue of Justinian, an object of some art-historical interest.
Elsewhere Par. is uncomplimentary to Justinian, calling him ‘ungodly’
(chap. 61), and referring to a statue in the Hippodrome depicting
somehow his ‘story’ (perhaps his mutilation and exile in 695). This at¬
titude seem to reflect the hostile account of Justinian current during the
reign of Philippicus and justificatory of the latter.34 It is noticeable that
Par. is favourably disposed towards Philippicus (see below), who was
brought to the throne in a military coup against Justinian.35 We would
not expect from a work like Par. overt comment on the bloody history of
the early eighth-century emperors; but its various allusions to them do
hint at the stance of at least some of the contributors. It is tempting to see
in the reference to the bloody deeds and murders that have recently taken
place in the Hippodrome in chap. 63 an allusion to these events, even
though Par. is careful to place them ‘before our time’. The late seventh
and early eighth centuries saw many emperors fall; perhaps in chap. 41

33 Which call Constantine V μισόθεος (III, 9, p. 217); the Chronicle of Theophanes (early
ninth century) goes much further, calling Leo and Constantine ασεβής and δυσσεβής and
more (e.g. pp. 413, 427 etc.).
34 See C. Head, Justinian II of Byzantium (Madison, 1972), p. 14 f.
35 Head, p. 146. For these emperors, see J. Herrin, ‘The Context of Iconoclast
Reform’, in A. A. Bryer and J. Herrin, (eds.), Iconoclasm (Birmingham, 1977), pp. 15-20.
 INTRODUCTION 19

this lies behind the mysterious reference to prophecies in the

Amastrianon of the rise and fall of emperors, ‘especially if the accursed
emperors are fornicators in their utterances or their descendants’. It is
very unusual for Par. to resort to such specific and forceful language, and
likely that the reference is quite definite.
(b) Tiberius Apsimar (698-705).
Proclaimed by the Byzantine fleet after the fall of Carthage to the
Arabs (698). Apsimar is mentioned twice in Par. (chaps. 3, 37), each time
entirely neutrally.
(c) Philippicus Bardan (711-13).
In chap. 28, telling of the expedition to study statuary in the
Kynegion, the writer, one Theodore Lector, says that the ‘friends’ of the
Emperor Philippicus went with him back to the Kynegion to investigate
the death of Himerius the chartularius. It is implied that Philippicus
himself, being told how things stood by a certain ‘philosopher’ called
John, gave instructions for the offending statue to be buried on the spot.
This extract ends with an address to Philokalos (see above), and it seems
most likely that it was written very shortly after the event. At chap. 82,
Par. records a portrait of Philippicus put up in the Baths of Zeuxippus
and ‘said to be’ an excellent likeness, much admired by artists.
Theophanes also mentions Philippicus in connection with the Zeuxippus,
but does not know of the portrait;36 it seems then as though Par. has
special knowledge, particularly in the light of the careful vocabulary and
emphasis given to the entry (see note ad loc.). It describes Philippicus as
‘gentle’ and ascribes his Monothelitism to ignorance. Perhaps this
chapter was written while he was still alive, or there would surely have
been some allusion to his mutilation and death. At any rate, it is notable
for its favourable attitude to him. Finally, at chap. 37, Par. alludes to his
having been ‘tried’ at the Basilica—another detail not found in other
sources, and probably to be associated with 703 rather than with his fall
in 713 (see note ad loc.)\ if so, then this is another indication suggesting
composition during his reign. In view of the direct allusions to Leo III,
and even Constantine V (see below), we must assume that Par., as would
be natural to expect, evolved over a number of years. But its inception
looks very much as if it should be placed in the reign of Philippicus, while
memories of Justinian II were still very fresh and recent.
(d) Leo III (717-41).
Leo III is mentioned four times in Par., if we count chap. 5d (see
below), either under the name Leo the Isaurian or Conon.37

36 p. 383 de Boor (Philippicus was having his siesta there when the conspirators of 713
captured him and took him to be blinded and dethroned).
37 For Leo’s names see note on chap. 1.
20 INTRODUCTION

(i) Chap. 3 records the acclamation given to the ‘great and pious Leo’
on his restoration of the land walls of Constantinople. Only here does
Par. use the term ‘pious’ of an emperor; as it is a standard epithet for
reigning emperors, this entry presumably derives from a contemporary
source. The description of a procession and a religious ceremony strongly
suggests the record in oriental sources of a similar occasion as part of the
imperial propaganda during and after Leo’s successful resistance to the
siege of 717/18 (see note ad loc.). It seems therefore that this entry
preserves an authentic record of an occasion in the early years of Leo’s
reign.
However, an alternative restoration of the corrupt MSS. tradition
would give an allusion to Leo III and his son Constantine V together as
restorers of the walls, as is in fact attested on extant inscriptions. The
most natural date for such activity would be after the earthquake of 740
when we know that such rebuilding took place.38 It is certainly possible,
too, that this entry came from an official record of acclamations, and that
the use of the epithet ‘pious’ does not give us a date for this part of Par.,
but merely for the event commemorated.39 On balance, however, the
first interpretation, i.e. linking this with the aftermath of the 717/18
siege, seems the more likely. Leo died in 741, so there would have been
little time for processions, especially as Theophanes presents the
rebuilding after 740 more in terms of dire emergency than of triumphal
achievement, as here. Above all, the circumstantial detail about the pro¬
cession, combined with the formal designation of the emperor, make the
linking with the propagandistic activity recorded in the oriental sources
for the earlier period extremely plausible. It may still be that the extract
came to the compilers of Par. some time after the event, in a list of ac¬
clamations of various sorts (see on chaps. 29, 38). But at least we have
here a chronological pointer of some exactitude for this material. It is
most unlikely to have been included in Par. substantially later, since
favourable references to iconoclast emperors were largely suppressed in
later iconophile sources. Thus if it was not embodied in Par. or at least
recorded by the compiler of this entry at the time, it will not have been
added very much later, and probably not later than 726 or 730, when Leo
destroyed the Christ icon on the Chalke (see below). Since this reference
to Leo differs strikingly from the others in Par. in being so favourable, it
is most natural to suppose that it comes from a genuine source dating

38 Theophanes, p. 412; Nicephorus, p. 59 de Boor; seejanin, CB2, pp. 267 ff.; note to
chap. 3.
39 As with Theophanes, p. 396, calling Leo III ό ευσεβής βασιλεύς. Contrast the passages
cited in n. 33 above.
 INTRODUCTION 21

from the early years of Leo’s reign, when he was enjoying great military
prestige, but before overt signs of iconoclasm.
(ii) Chaps. 1 and 72 both refer to Leo by his baptismal name, Conon.
Like many emperors born out of the purple, particularly in this period,
Conon adopted a more regal name in order to advance his career.40 The
original name stuck, however, and these two instances deserve considera¬
tion as genuine early testimony. The only other eighth-century text to
give it is the Adversus Constantinum Caballinum of c. 775/87.41 While chap.
72 simply uses the name Conon, chap. 1 cites Marcellus the Lector (see
section ix below) for a statement about ‘Conon the Isaurian’. It is unlike¬
ly that this is an error, and although eighth and ninth-century sources
show some confusion as to Leo’s origins, some placing his birth in Syria,
others in Isauria, the likelihood is that his family were Isaurians who had
migrated to Syria (see note ad loc.).
(iii) The remaining reference to Leo III is more problematic. Chap.
5d, which is lost in P and has to be supplied from the Patna (see note ad
loc.), again refers to Leo as an Isaurian, and says that many statues were
destroyed by him because he was ‘irrational’ (alogistos). The passage
seems to associate Leo with hostility to monuments; though these are
pagan ones, his action in destroying them puts him in the same category
for Par. as Julian, a precursor of iconoclasm (see below). Further, ‘irra¬
tional’ seems to be a code word used by iconophiles of iconoclastic
behaviour (see note ad loc.). It is unclear therefore whether chap. 5d does
represent what Par. actually wrote (for another use of alogistos in a similar
sense see Patria, II. 33, p. 168). But although our other examples of
alogistos and so on are later in date, it is not impossible that it could be us¬
ed in this sense already in the reign of Leo. It would then seem natural to
date 5d after Leo’s First major iconoclastic action, i.e. after 726/30. But
the wording of the chapter is very vague; thematia seems rather to suggest
general attitudes to statues rather than a dramatic act, perhaps not
specific acts of image-breaking at all, but rather the general notion that
Leo was cast in the mould of Julian (see below). The chronology of the
years 726-30 is far from certain, as is the question whether Leo issued a
specific edict against images at that time.42 There is not much to go on in

40 See on chap. 1. The Patriarch Germanus taunted him with the name Conon and
prophesied disaster from it—Theophanes, p. 407.
41 For discussion see S. Gero, Byzantine Iconoclasm during the reign of Leo III, CSCO 346,
Subsidia 41 (Louvain, 1973), pp. 1-24; ‘Notes on Byzantine Iconoclasm in the Eighth Cen¬
tury’, Byzantion 14 (1974), pp. 23-42.
42 Brazen House, p. Ill, n. 12. For the date of the destruction of the icon by Leo, see
ibid., Appendix I, and for general discussion of the history of the icon and its date,
pp. 108-42. Partly on the basis that the reference to the icon in 5b came in at the stage of
the Patria, Mango concluded that the Chalke icon was probably not set up before the
seventh century (p. 112).
22 INTRODUCTION

this chapter; but its carefully vague wording is characteristic of Par. (see
below), and while it may belong to the years after the destruction of the
Chalke image, it is perhaps more likely in the context of unease before the
calm was broken by that action.
It will be helpful now to summarise the chronological pointers in
chaps. 5b and 5c, also supplied from the Patria like 5d. Chap. 5b refers to
the Chalke icon of Christ, with no indication whatever that it was sensa¬
tionally destroyed by Leo III in 726 or 730; it seems inconceivable that a
reference such as this could have been left in after the icon’s destruction
and before it was finally replaced in 843. While it is theoretically possible
that the allusion came in for the first time in the Patria, and thus relates to
the restored image, as Mango once assumed,43 it is more likely that the
passage does represent what stood in Par., which must therefore date
from before 726/30. It is not usually in the manner of the Patria to add a
detail of this brief sort; moreover, the juxtaposition of reference to the
icon and reference to statues of Maurice and family, if both are early, is
of wider interest, since it would confirm that the icon already existed in
Maurice’s reign, even if the concluding words ‘for they were made by
him’ need not strictly be taken to mean that the icon itself was set up by
Maurice. Chapter 5c similarly indicates an early date of writing, and the
simplest assumption is that the passage came substantially in this form
from Par. It records the removal of the relics of S. Euphemia from
Chalcedon to Constantinople, an event which probably took place in the
early seventh century.44 But there is no mention of the fact that the
restored church of S. Euphemia in which the relics were placed was
desecrated by Constantine V, the son of Leo III, and converted into a
store for arms and manure.45 It is most unlikely that this chapter was
original to the tenth-century Patria, or even near it in time, for by then
the full story of the triumphant return of the relics to Constantinople
under Constantine VI and Irene had been known in written form for a
century; Constantine V was believed to have cast them into the sea, and
their recovery called forth an elaborate story according to which they
were washed up on the island of Lemnos (see note ad loc.). So both 5d and
5c probably point to an early date for this part of Par.
The allusions to Leo III do not therefore give consistent chronological
indications. Chap. 1 gives a terminus post quem, for that entry, of 718/19

43 Mango, Brazen House, p. 173.

44 See F. Halkin, Euphemie de Chalcedoine: Legendes byzantines (Brussels, 1965); R.
Naumann and H. Belting, Die Euphemia-Kirche im Hippodrom zu Istanbul und ihre Freshen
(Berlin, 1966), pp. 23-27.
45 For which see Patria, III.9, p. 217.
46 Theophanes, p. 439; see S. Gero, Byzantine Iconoclasm during the reign of Constantine V,
CSCO 384, Subsidia 52 (Louvain, 1977), pp. 155 ff.; Halkin, op. cit., p. 89.
 INTRODUCTION 23

(the second year of Leo III). If chap. 3 should be associated with the
earthquake of 740, it provides a second terminus post of that year. But it
seems more probable that chap. 3 relates to the immediate aftermath of
the 718 siege (see above). In any case, termini in individual chapters only
relate to those chapters. As for the earthquake of 740, it is not mentioned
as such in Par., and there are some grounds for supposing that it provides
a terminus ante quern for parts at least, since much damage was done, e.g.
to the statues of Constantine on the Atalus gate and Theodosius on the
Golden Gate;47 none of this is recorded by Par. But it could be that the fall
of the statue of Theodosius at the Xerolophos, recorded in chap. 71, was
the result of the 740 earthquake (see note ad loc.).
It is quite clear, then, that Par. was not completed in the reign of
Philippicus. Several chaps, mention Leo III, but seem to relate to differ¬
ing points in his reign. It is possible that chap. 5d stood in Par. much as it
is, and if so, it suggests a date after 726 or 730. Chap. 3 might relate to
740, but more probably to 718.
(e) Constantine V (sole reign 741-75)
Leo Ill’s son and successor, Constantine V, is alluded to indirectly
more than once in Par., and on one restoration of the text in chap. 3, is
named there (but see above and note ad loc.). His building activity,
however, including the redecoration of the Milion, and the Blachernae
church, is not mentioned, and this is noteworthy in view of Par.’s fre¬
quent references to the Milion (see on chap. 35).
A number of references allude to events as having taken place ‘in our
time’ or the like, and these references clearly point to the reign of Con¬
stantine V. First, in chap. 15, on the Forum, Par. says that three of the
‘gilded sirens’ were removed from the Forum by ‘the emperor in our day’
and set up near S. Mamas, leaving four still in the Forum. Now the only
eighth-century emperor who can be associated with S. Mamas and with
the persecution of monks in the Hippodrome (see below) is Constantine
V. The S. Mamas complex, consisting of harbour, portico, palace, hip¬
podrome and church,48 was used by him as a base for his attack on the
capital in 742/43.49 It was also the scene of his persecution of iconophiles,
the execution of the monk Andrew Kalybites and the legendary debate
between Andrew of Crete and the emperor.50 In chap. 15, then, Par.
avoids naming Constantine out of circumspection. At chap. 63, however,

47 Theophanes, p. 412.
48 Millet, art. cit. (n. 32), p. 395; Janin, CB2 pp. 473-74.
49 Millet, p. 396 f.
50 Theophanes, p. 432. The odd story of Plato the eunuch (chap. 26), though located in
the fifth century, probably reflects similar contemporary events; its moral has to do with
what happens to those who ‘oppose the emperor’.
24 INTRODUCTION

though the emperor is still unnamed, Par.’s opinion comes over more
clearly. The reference is to the burning of a monk called Anastasius in the
Hippodrome, which leads Par. to state that the place was used for
murders and evil deeds ‘even up to our time’. Anastasius is said to have
been put to death for ‘opposing the emperor’, and ‘so to speak, for the
sake of truth’. An Anastasius has been proposed for the identifica¬
tion—the first Iconoclast patriarch who replaced Germanus in 730;51 but
he was not burned to death, but publicly humiliated in the Hippodrome
for his support of the rebel Artavasdos. After this he regained the patriar¬
chal throne and died only in 753, just before the opening of the Iconoclast
Council of Hiereia.52 And if this iconoclast is the right man, given Par. ’s
favourable attitude to images (see below), where does ‘the truth’ come
in? Iconophile sources do record public humiliations inflicted in the
Hippodrome under Constantine V, though we know of no other
Anastasius who suffered in this way.
Whoever this Anastasius was, Par.’s reference fits the mid-eighth cen¬
tury context well enough, and its curiously guarded reference to ‘the
truth’ surely puts it on the side of the iconophiles. It has been suggested
that this was the Anastasius who is one of Par.’s informants (see chap.
10), who perhaps composed a collection of iconophile texts (see note ad
loc.) but this remains speculative.
Par.’s references to this unnamed emperor can only be referring to
Constantine V, and the second of them, in chap. 63, belongs in the con¬
text of the persecution of the monks, that is, in the 760’s, when S.
Stephen the Younger was martyred.53 On the other hand, this will then
be the latest certainly datable reference in Par., and it stands alone; most
other dating indicators point to the first half of the century. It is
noticeable too that Par. is extremely circumspect in writing of Constan¬
tine V. It tells us nothing of the details of his iconoclastic policies, nor of
the Council of Hiereia (754); as we have seen, his redecoration of the
Milion goes unrecorded. It may be that the authors are deliberately
avoiding such controversial matters. But it still seems probable that the
bulk of Par. as it now stands dates from earlier in the century, and that it
received only limited additions under Constantine V.
Presumably therefore the numerous references in Par. to statues which
are still to be seen ‘up to the present day’ or ‘in our time’ and the like

51 Millet, p. 396 f.; see Theophanes, pp. 407-8.

52 Theophanes, pp. 420-21, 427.
53 Theophanes, p. 439. For the Life o{ S. Stephen the Younger, see now M.-F. Rouan,
‘Une lecture “iconoclaste” de la vie d’Etienne le jeune’, Travaux et Memoires 8 (1981),
pp. 415-36; George Huxley, On the Vita of St. Stephen the Younger’, Greek, Roman and
Byzantine Studies 18 (1977), pp. 97-108.
 INTRODUCTION 25

(chaps. 1, 2 ‘our predecessors handed down’, 6, 7, 14, 15, 19, 37, 41, 43,
62, 68, 70, 76, 77) must be taken to refer to the early eighth century too,
though perhaps they cover a range of dates within the spectrum indicated
by the more explicit allusions. Sometimes, too, Par. will simply use the
present tense (‘can be seen’, for instance) in such a way as to indicate that
the object is still there (chaps. 16, 44, 83, 87, and cf. 11, an invitation to
readers to go and look for themselves).

2. Certain preoccupations in Par. confirm this concentration in the

eighth century. The text belongs in the context of anxious discussion of
such matters as idolatry and the general status of images—indeed, it
probably originated as a result of such discussion. But it betrays little
overt sign of full-blown iconophile/iconoclast polemic.
Among Par. ’s preoccupations are:
(a) a noticeable concern with the Emperor Julian, who features
throughout the work as a persecutor of Christians and an iconoclast (e.g.
his burning of Christians in the Hippodrome (chap. 42), and of a bishop
(48); his rejection of the Tyche of Constantinople because it had a cross
on it (38), and similarly of his Christian wife (70)). He is said to have
destroyed statues (38, 48), and to have encouraged idolatry by deceitful
means (47, 48). This identification of Julian as the enemy of Christian
images resulted in iconophile condemnation of him as a precursor of
Iconoclasm.54 The Council of 691/92 had banned exactly the pagan and
superstitious practices which Par. sees as being so dangerous, and it was
natural that Julian, as the archetypal enemy of Christianity, should take
on a heightened significance in this context of increasing fear of idolatry.
(b) A similar fascination with Arianism, including a significant notice on
Arius himself (chap. 39). The first section in particular seems to concen¬
trate on supposed Arian atrocities, and Arians feature as iconoclasts in
chap. 10, where Par. records their burning the icons of three early
patriarchs and that of the Virgin and Child at the curved Milion. The lat¬
ter event is a confusion: it might reflect late seventh and early eighth-
century iconoclastic activity attributed to the Jews,55 or else it may be a
garbled version of successive alterations to the decoration of the Milion
under Philippicus and Anastasius-Artemius.56 It looks as though Par.

54 For which see the Patriarch Germanus’s letters to two Anatolian bishops (before
730), PG 98.164 B, 165 C-D, 168 D-188 B (from Mansi). The monk Andrew Kcdybites
called Constantine V ‘the new Valens and Julian’—Theophanes, p. 432. See too the Life
ofS. Stephen, PG 100.1181.
55 For instance that recorded by Bishop Arculf of Gaul during his visit to Constantino¬
ple, c. 681 (D. Meehan, ed., Adamnan’s De Locis Sanctis, Dublin, 1958, pp. 118-19).
56 Theophanes, p. 382; Nicephorus, p. 48; see A. Grabar, L’Iconoclasme byzantin (Paris,
1957), p. 48 f.
26 INTRODUCTION

uses ‘Arian’ as an umbrella term for all undesirables; in chap. 5d (but see
above) their tombs are near those of pagans, and in chap. 8 they club the
archdeacon Arcadius to death. Arianism as a living creed was not a
serious problem in the eighth century, but it figures largely in later anti-
iconoclastic polemic. This surely accounts for the prominence of Arians
in Par. and their association with iconoclasm, and more generally with
all the enemies of true Christianity. As a further important example of
Par.' s connection with the polemical themes of the period we may cite its
inclusion of the Paneas statue (chap. 48), which is there simply because it
was a story currently much in point; the statue of Christ put up by the
woman with the issue of blood is said to have been destroyed by none
other than Julian. Here only, Par. cites Eusebius correctly (see section ix
below); but the story was well known in contemporary debate, and was
cited in similar detail by Patriarch Germanus in his letter to Bishop
Thomas, thus exactly at the time when we believe most of Par. to have
been put together.57 Interestingly, Par. has removed references to the
Gospel, in line with its literary pretensions.58 Not merely did the
destruction of this statue, told in a famous passage of Eusebius, become a
standard example cited of the beginnings of iconoclasm: Eusebius himself
was blackened in iconophile texts as a Arian especially for his disapproval
of images.59 Par. is not concerned to go into these subleties; indeed, it
rather carefully avoids direct comment on such matters. It betrays its
sympathies only occasionally, and belongs more comfortably in the at¬
mosphere of the polemic of early or pre-iconoclasm, rather than in the
full-blown and uninhibited world of later iconophile writers. By com¬
parison, the Life of S. Stephen the Younger, though dating only from
80 7,60 is far more outspoken. Naturally, part of the explanation must lie
in the difference of Par. ’s subject matter and purpose; but even so, it is
hard to see it as other than a text of the first half of the eighth century.

3. This is strongly indicated also by the relationship of Par. to Anon.

Treu and the Patria (see above). Par. was the source of the Anon. Treu,
and Anon. Treu in turn of the Patria. Since some parts of the Anon. Treu
were incorporated into the Suda, which belongs to the tenth century, the
chances are the Anon, was compiled in the early tenth century, if not
before. The final touches, if such terminology is at all appropriate, must
therefore have been applied to Par. between the 760’s and say, 850. But

57 PG 98.185 D.
58 Par. is in fact remarkably (and therefore deliberately) free of Scriptural quotations
(see on chap. 64).
59 See Gero, Byzantine Iconoclasm during the reign of Constantine V, pp. 37, 49 ff.
60 PG 100. 1072 C, with Theophanes, p. 436.
 INTRODUCTION 27

since there is nothing in it to suggest with certainty a late ninth-century

stage of composition, while many indications point to the early eighth
century as the time when most of it was being written, we may safely
assign the activity of the compilers to that period.
Only one reference in Par. might seem to tell against these general con¬
clusions about the date. That is in chap. 56, where it is claimed, on the
authority of Diakrinomenos, that among the objects placed on top of the
pillar with the statue of Constantine in the Forum was a coin of Constan¬
tine known as the sotericius. Needless to say, there was no such coin, and
Par.'s ideas about Constantine’s coinage are extremely shaky, as shown
elsewhere.61 But there was a coin of this name dating from the tenth cen¬
tury onwards;62 if this passage is not misapplying that name to the fourth
century, then it is hard to see how else to explain the use of the term
sotericius. But an isolated reference to an object of the tenth-eleventh
centuries, even if certain, could not in itself be used to date the whole
work to that period, against the clear weight of the other evidence. It is
not only likely that Par. went through several different versions before it
was copied in P, which is an eleventh-century MS.: we can see also from
Anon. Treu and the Patria that this must have been the case (see section ii
above). So the ‘sotericius’ could be due to a tenth-century copyist, or
even the scribe of P; for it does not appear in the Anon. Treu, and
therefore not in the Patria either. The reference in P must then be regard¬
ed as of uncertain provenance, and more likely to be a later accretion
than to have stood in the original Par. It should be emphasised that it
stands entirely alone in pointing, apparently, to a later date for Par. than
we have proposed. Were there other comparable features we should have
to revise our date. But as it is, Par. is noticeably lacking in the developed
tenth-century iconophile language of the Patria, and all other indicators
favour the eighth century.

4. Further, the impression of the city of Constantinople which it pro¬

vides is entirely consistent with an eighth-century dating. We can deduce
from Par. that the city is in a state of contraction: ‘time and time again we
are told that various monuments—statues, palaces, baths—had once ex¬
isted but were destroyed’.63 The populated area seems to have shrunk64
and cisterns fallen out of use after the aqueduct of Valens was destroyed
by the Avars in 626.65 It is hard to draw firm conclusions from Par.,

61 See on chap. 12.

62 See note on chap. 56.
63 Mango, Byzantium, The Empire of New Rome, p. 80.
64 Cf. J. Teall, ‘The Grain Supply of the Byzantine Empire, 330-1025’, DOP 13
(1959), p. 103.
65 Mango, loc. cit.
28 INTRODUCTION

because it often describes objects and monuments that formerly existed

rather than what could be seen in contemporary Constantinople. Thus
though the aqueduct was still not repaired in the early eighth century,
Par. writes of it as though it were still functioning (chap. 74). However, it
is clear from chap. 28 that the Kynegion is an abandoned place where
dangers of various sorts might lurk, and from chap. 73 that the Zeuxippus
is a sorry reminder of its past glories. As for the antique monuments
which still stood, they ‘were no longer understood for what they were’,
but feared for hidden (and invariably hostile) powers.66 In general, the
period from the Arab siege of 717 to the plague of 747 was a dismal time
for Constantinople’s urban history, perhaps its lowest point.67 Yet
enough remained of the late antique city for contemporaries to be con¬
cerned to explain its monuments as a matter of urgency. It would be
natural to see the impetus for Par., in fact, in the all too evident decline of
the late antique city and the desire to record and explain what remained,
for the Forum of Constantine, for instance, had already become a focus
of myth and legend, and the Hippodrome a scene of enigmatic decoration
and strange statues.
We shall see below (section ix) that Par. ’s contributors belong very
much to the intellectual milieu of eighth-century Constantinople, when
books were few and scholarship difficult. Had they done their work in the
tenth century, after the work of Constantine Porphyrogenitus had made
many texts available once again, their achievement might have looked
very different. As it was, they were ill-equipped for their task, and had to
depend all too often on ill-informed oral information or hearsay, perhaps
often little more than mere gossip. Surviving late antique inscriptions
were a mystery to them, and for much of their subject matter they seem
to have had no written material to start from. Yet these men were prob¬
ably as well educated as any, for laymen of the period. They apparently
belonged to the bureaucracy, and had access to the court, to judge from
the story of the death of Himerius the chartularius, incidentally a title at
home in the eighth century.68 They employ titles, again, which suggest
an early stage of their development, rather than the complex stratification

66 Mango, loc. cit. Several patriarchs and emperors mutilated statues in order to render
them harmless — Patria, II. 101 (Michael I, 811-13); Theophanes Continuatus, pp.
155-56 Bonn (the 9th-century patriarch John the grammarian); ibid., 411-12 (Romanos I
Lekapenos). The sister of the Empress Sophia (wife of Justin II, 565-78) allegedly had a
statue of Aphrodite destroyed when it exposed her as an adulteress (Patria, II, 65). See
Mango, AS1, p. 61.
67 Mango, Byzantium, p. 78.
68 See R. Guilland, ‘Contribution a l’histoire administrative de l’Empire byzantin. Le
chartulaire et le grand chartulaire’, RESEE 9 (1971), p. 406; N. Oikonomides, Les listes de
preseance byzantines des IX* et X* siecles (Paris, 1972), p. 310.
 INTRODUCTION 29

in force by the time of the Patria.69 In embarking on Par., these men were
undertaking an ambitious task for which their education had not fitted
them and for which few reliable sources were readily available. It is in¬
structive because it is not a ‘popular’ work, but the product of laymen of
some standing. As a product of the first half of the eighth century Par. can
tell us a good deal about that obscure period.

vi. Is the Parastaseis a guidebook?

Par. has seemed to many to be a kind of guidebook to the sights of Con¬

stantinople,70 and this impression is certainly heightened by its interest in
‘spectacles’. But while it shares certain obvious characteristics with
guidebook literature, not least in its curiosity about place names,
etymology and associations, it also displays striking differences.
Firstly, Par. lacks the basic concern of a guidebook to introduce a
visitor to the city, help him to find his way round and point out the most
important places and buildings. No one would be able to get from Par. a
sense of the topography of Constantinople as a whole, or its principal
sights in relation to each other. It has nothing in common with the
Roman itineraria which take the visitor on an organised tour of the chief
shrines of Rome, starting from one within the old city walls and then
following the cemeteries outside the city in a clear order, pointing out ob¬
jects of interest along the way.71 By contrast, Par. is disorganised, with
overlapping entries in no particular order. It consists of separate and
sometimes independent sections strung together without an evident ra¬
tionale. It also seems to presume in the reader a degree of familiarity with
the city, often not bothering to locate a monument precisely or to explain
its relation to others. Its audience, in other words, is not the stranger or
tourist but the inhabitant of Constantinople who wanted to understand
about the monuments which he already knew.

69 See on the development of titles the remarks of B. Bavant, ‘Le duche byzantin de
Rome’, MEFR (Moyen Age) 91 (1979), pp. 41-88.
70 See η. 1 above and Mango, Byzantium. The Empire of New Rome, p. 80.
71 See e.g. R. Valentini and G. Zuchetti, Codice Topografico della Citta di Roma II (Rome,
1942), Notitia ecclesiarum urbis Romae, pp. 72-99, especially 75; and the thirty-two steps up
to Golgotha recorded in the guide by Epiphanius the monk (J. Wilkinson, Jerusalem
Pilgrims before the Crusades, Warminster, 1977, p. 117). These itineraries belong to the
seventh-eighth centuries and are therefore curiously close to Par. chronologically, yet lack¬
ing its special interests. Cf. also the Iconographia Ratenana, a drawing of Verona, probably
tenth century, showing the combination of medieval with surviving classical buildings (C.
Cipolla, ‘L’antichissima iconografia di Verona, secondo una copia inedita’, Atti dell’ Acad.
Lincei, Memorie, ser. 5.8 (1903), pp. 49-60).
30 INTRODUCTION

But if Par. is not a guidebook, nor is it a laudatio urbis.72 It does not

enumerate the glories of the classical and then of the Christian city, nor
praise the succession of emperors who have beautified it with fine
buildings. It is almost entirely ignorant, for example, of the fundamental
work of Justinian after the Nika revolt of AD 532, which transformed the
heart of the city, and it reduces Constantine, and still more Septimius
Severus, to figures of myth (see section viii). It is not concerned to praise
either contemporary Constantinople or the Constantinople of the past,
and while there is much in Par. that is pure fantasy, no one would be
tempted to see it as having exaggerated the splendours of the city and
obscured its present decay.73 Though Par.’s stance is unequivocally
Christian, it focusses not on the delineation of the Christian city, with its
churches and shrines, but on the antique survivals. Nor does it assign any
role in the development of the city to the Church, whether to the Church
as an institution or to individual bishops.
All these differences mark Par. out as distinct from the medieval guides
to Rome or Jerusalem, which did, on the contrary, seek to direct their
readers to the notable, and often the major Christian, features of their
cities. Par. omits so much, including most of the major churches, among
them S. Irene, Blachernae and so on. On the other hand, it gives detailed
histories of statues no longer visible, or of buildings that have collapsed.
None of this would have been of use to the early medieval visitor. It also
has an interest in the mythical past of Constantinople that would be
unusual for a guidebook.74 It makes no attempt to be comprehensive,
whereas a distinct expansion to cover an increasing number of Christian
sites is perceptible in the guidebooks to the Holy Land after the sixth cen¬
tury.75 Nor does Par. make any attempt to collect ancient inscriptions
systematically,76 though in places it is aware of their potential impor¬
tance. Par.’s concerns, though they admit of a good deal of neutral
material by the way, are focussed on statues, their meaning and the
possible lessons which they might have for contemporary inhabitants of

72 L. Ruggini, ‘Changing Fortunes of the Italian City from Late Antiquity to Early
Middle Ages’, Rivista di Filologia 105 (1977), p. 463, on this kind of literature. Compare
the Versus de Mediolano civitate, a poetic encomium of Milan, c. 739 (ed. G. B. Pighi,
Bologna, 1960); Versus de Verona, a poetic description of Verona, c. 800 {ibid.).
73 As the laudationes did (Ruggini, p. 466).
74 Epiphanius the monk, for instance, does not mention the synagogue at Tiberias,
noted by an eighth-century pilgrim, Willibald (see Wilkinson, op. cit., n. 68, pp. 117 ff.,
128). The Roman itineraries largely omit classical sites (Valentini and Zuchetti, op. cit.,
pp. 60-66, 72-99, 106-31; C. Huelsen, La Pianta di Roma dell’anonimo Einsidlense, Rome,
1907, Atti della Pontificia Accademia Romana di Archeologia, ser. II, vol. ix).
75 Wilkinson, op. cit., pp. 59-61, 63-71, 117-21.
76 As was done in early medieval Rome (G. B. de Rossi, Inscriptiones christianae urbis
RomaeUA (Rome, 1857-88), pp. 18-33.
 INTRODUCTION 31

Constantinople. Its message, unlike that of the guidebooks, is gloomy:

the ‘spectacles’ which it describes prophesy only disaster.

vii. The Parastaseis and ancient statues

We must now pursue further the question of Par. ’s attitude to these

monuments.
First, vocabulary. The work uses a variety of terms for (presumably)
statues—stele (by far the most common), eikon, zodion, agalma, eidolon,
stoicheion, indalma, andrias (once only, in chap. 48), as well as more general
words like homoioma (60-61), ektupoma (62), themation (26), chalkourgema
(49). Most of these do seem to refer to statuary, but at chap. 82 stele
would appear to be used of a painting, and eikon at least is essentially am¬
biguous.
This concentration on statuary is not accidental. It was almost a lost
art (below, section x), yet Constantinople was still full of these physical
reminders of classical antiquity, many of which had indeed been brought
there by the first Christian emperor, Constantine. Par. displays in vivid
form the suspicion with which contemporaries viewed these pagan re¬
mains.77 Thus while many entries in Par. are neutral in tone (e.g. chaps.
29 f., 66 f.), and some concern topography or occasionally churches (e.g.
the opening chapters), most of Par.’s remarks are aimed at bringing out a
hidden power or meaning which was presumed to lurk in pagan statues.
The story of the chartularius Himerius who was killed in the Kynegion by
a falling statue has an explicitly drawn moral: ‘don’t trust ancient
statues, especially pagan ones’ (chap. 28). In chap. 14, Ardaburius is
said to have met his death because he had unwisely destroyed a statue. In
chap. 64, an elaborate ‘confrontation’ between seven philosophers and
the Emperor Theodosius II, it is assumed that all the major statues in the
Hippodrome have meanings which can be understood by philosophers,
usually to the detriment of the city and its Christian rulers. Finally,
pagan statuary is often seen as capable of providing a prophetic meaning
(e.g. chap. 20); thus its exposition normally requires specialist
knowledge—what Par. calls ‘philosophy’ (section iv above). Thus while
not all pagan statues are objects of fear, each is potentially that. A not
dissimilar attitude can be seen in another eighth-century work, the com¬
mentaries of Cosmas of Jerusalem on the poems of Gregory of Nazian-
zus.78 In general, Cosmas is better informed than Par. But in his section
on the seven wonders of the ancient world he shows the same desire to ex¬
plain the mysterious attributes of certain statues and thus render them

77 Above, n. 66.
78 PG 38, cols. 341-670.
32 INTRODUCTION

harmless to the Christian observer; he comments in this way on the

statues of subject peoples on the Capitoline Hill in Rome which could
prophesy war, on the colossus of Rhodes, the Mausoleum at Halicar¬
nassus and the statue of Bellerophon and Pegasus at Smyrna. In each
case there is an attitude familiar to the reader of Par., according to which
it is essential to understand these pagan monuments correctly, if they are
not to have some malevolent effect.79
These fears and suspicions were felt at all levels of society,80 as is evi¬
dent here from the interest taken by the ‘friends of the emperor’ in the
fate of Himerius (chap. 28). Par. ’s notion of the possibility of prophecy in
connection with pagan statues is very prominent (chaps. 20, 41, 57, 62,
64), as is its tendency to associate classical statues with pagan sacrifices or
Christian martyrdoms (chaps. 20, 22, 37, 40). These are attitudes
characteristic of patriographic texts. But Par.’s conception of the pro¬
phetic potential of pagan statues is shadowy and undeveloped in com¬
parison with the sixteenth-century Diegesis of the column in the
Xerolophos, in which the reliefs on the column are seen as carrying a
detailed prediction of the entire future of Constantinople.81 This work
formed a kind of introduction to the so-called Oracles of Leo the Wise’,
a collection in verse of just such ‘prophecies’ attributed to the Emperor
Leo VI. It had an extensive circulation from at least the Comnenian
period, and especially after the fall of the city.82 Both Par. and the
Diegesis, though so far apart in time, have many features in common,
including (but again in more developed form in the later work) the idea of
a confrontation between emperor and philosophers about the meaning of
statues.83
The suspicion of pagan statues in Par. is connected with a fear of
idolatry. The statue of Perseus and Andromeda at Iconium is presented,
for instance, not only as the site of sacrifices but also as a place where

79 See col. 546 f.

80 Contra, Mango, dS, pp. 59 ff., taking several examples from Par. to show the at¬
titudes of the ‘common man’ (Ardaburius, chap. 14; Fidalia, chap. 20; Himerius, chap.
28). The cases noted in n. 66 show that the elite was just as likely to entertain these suspi¬
cions.
81 Ed. Dagron and Paramelle, TM 1979 (see note 9). For instance, Par., chap. 20 refers
only vaguely to ‘prophecies’ which were associated with the founding of the Xerolophos
by Severus, whereas the Diegesis describes in detail how Severus and his associate the
‘philosopher and astrologer’ John inscribed on the column reliefs signifying the entire
future history of the city and its emperors (Dagron, p. 514). D. A. Miller well indicates
the suspicion with which antique statues were regarded in the 10th century (Imperial Con¬
stantinople, New York, 1969, pp. 158 ff.).
82 See C. Mango, ‘The Legend of Leo the Wise’, ZRVI 6 (1960), pp. 59-93. By this
time the Emperor Leo VI had almost usurped the place of Apollonius of Tyana as a
bewitcher of statues (Mango, p. 74).
83 Dagron, pp. 516 (Constantine), 531 (Leo VI), and see note on chap. 64.
 INTRODUCTION 33

Christians had been martyred in the persecutions (chap. 85); an arch¬

deacon is said to have been beheaded by Arians near some pagan statues
in the Senate (chap. 8); after the ‘war of Constantine and Severus’ (see
below, section viii) Constantine is said to have broken up pagan statues
and pulled down a temple (chaps. 53, 57). Julian attracts similar stories:
thus the pagan temple erected by him at Paneas is said to have been on
the site of the martyrdom of a Christian bishop (chap. 48), while because
of his command that statues ostensibly of himself and his wife but really
of pagan gods, should receive proskynesis, ‘a huge number were deceived
and fell headlong into idolatry’ (chap. 47).84 The latter deception is
presented as ‘sorcery’; something similar can perhaps be seen in chap. 89
(see note act loc.). But there is a clear difference of degree between the at¬
titudes of Par. and those of the later patriographers, which is revealed
especially in the use of the word stoicheion. In later texts this word often
means a statue which has actually been bewitched by a philosopher or
magician, i.e. a ‘charged statue’ or talisman.85 But in Par., while
stoicheion may sometimes have this meaning (chap. 89, and cf. 4, 64), it
may also be neutral; the same ambiguity is attached to zodion (possibly
chaps. 28, 41, but neutral at 43 and 86a). The expert at this ‘bewitching’
of statues in Constantinople was of course thought to be Apollonius of
Tyana, but while he is found explicitly mentioned in the Patria, and while
Cedrenus says clearly that the Hippodrome statues were bewitched by
him,86 he is nowhere mentioned in Par.87 Again, the specialised meaning

84 Which raises the question of whether eidolon should actually be translated ‘idol’.
Eidololatreia can certainly mean ‘idolatry’, as here (cf. Dagron, p. 516, line 106), and in
the context of Julian, eidolon clearly does refer to what we mean by ‘idol’ (chaps. 47, 49);
compare too chap. 57 of Severus. But it can also be used more neutrally (chap. 60). A
consistent translation of eidolon as ‘idol’ would be misleading. For the concern about
idolatry as a constituent in the debate about images see Leslie Barnard, ‘The Theology of
Images’, in A. A. Bryer and J. Herrin (eds.), Iconoclasm (Birmingham, 1977), p. 10 f.
85 See C. Blum, ‘The Meaning of stoicheion and its derivatives in the Byzantine Age’,
Eranos 44 (1946), pp. 316-25. This article, published posthumously, and in unfinished
form, nevertheless does usefully survey the problem of the meaning of stoicheion in Byzan¬
tine works, including Par.
86 Cedrenus, II, p. 346 Bonn. The Patria, 11.79, claim that he did this to statues all over
Constantinople. On Apollonius, see W. Speyer, ‘Zum Bild des Apollonios von Tyana bei
Heiden und Christen’, JbAC 17 (1974), pp. 47-63; E. L. Bowie, ‘Apollonius of Tyana:
tradition and reality’, ANRW ii. 16.2, (Berlin, 1978), pp. 1652-99; C. P. Jones, ‘An
epigram on Apollonius of Tyana’, JHS 100 (1980), pp. 190-94.
87 Dagron’s phraseology at art. cit. (n. 9), p. 494, suggests that Par., chap. 40 states that
Apollonius of Tyana at Constantine’s behest had a hand in setting up on statues in the city
a record of its whole future history. But it is only the Patna, II. 103, which says this. It is no
accident, then, that the Patna uses the word apotelesma for statues with power (stoicheia), a
word generally used in earlier texts but avoided by Par. (see Blum, p. 317). This, and the
fact that Hesychius knew of Apollonius’s activity (p. 11 Preger), might suggest that there
was something deliberate about Par.’s silence about him.
34 INTRODUCTION

of stoicheion was well established in the late ninth century,88 but is not
uniform in Par. The compilers of Par. are entirely earnest about their
statues and their warnings, but the messages which the statues were
capable of providing have not yet, at this stage in the tradition, been
decoded in a detailed fashion.
Par. ’s interest in statues also invites comparison with the higher-level
literary ekphraseis, that is, formal descriptions of works of art, in particular
with one work, the De Signis of Nicetas Choniates, written after the sack
of Constantinople by the Crusaders in 1204.89 This too is a work that is
hard to place, for save Constantine the Rhodian’s poem on the seven
wonders of Constantinople (tenth century) it is the first surviving ekphrasis
of antique works since Justinian’s day.90
Again, therefore, Par. must be compared with a much later work.
Nicetas’s description is written in a far more learned style than Par. But
though meant for the elite, its attitude to the statues it describes is as
superstitious as that of the Diegesis; the author is as ready to believe in the
prominent role of Apollonius of Tyana as the Patria or Cedrenus.91 By
comparison with all these works, Par. ’s attitudes are noticeably restrain¬
ed; they represent an early stage in a developing tradition.

viii. Historical events in the Parastaseis

It is easy to demonstrate that when Par. does offer historical informa¬

tion, it is often confused or ridiculous. But in some matters it is
remarkably well informed, and the nature and extent of its historical
knowledge is of some interest as an illustration of what was available in
the eighth century to educated laymen in the capital.
Quite naturally in such a text, historical episodes are described several
times under different headings, perhaps by different contributors draw¬
ing on conflicting evidence. This is most obvious in the accounts of the
foundation ceremonies and subsequent ‘birthday’ ceremonial of Con¬
stantinople, where it is sometimes hard even to be sure whether the in¬
auguration or the annual birthday ceremony is being described (chaps. 5,
38, 53, 56 and cf. 68a). Byzas and Antes, the eponymous founders of
Byzantium, are often mentioned as the opponents of Constantine, as in

80 Theophanes Continuatus, pp. 155-56, 411-12 (though even then it could be

sometimes used neutrally — Dagron, art. cit., p. 496, n. 18).
89 On which see A. Cutler, ‘The De Signis of Nicetas Choniates: a Reappraisal’, AJA 72
(1968), pp. 113-18 and E. Mathiopulu-Tornaritu, ‘Klassisches und Klassizistisches im
Statuenfragment von Niketas Choniates’, BZ 73 (1980), pp. 25-40. On ekphrasis, A.
Hohlweg, Reallexikon zur byz. Kunst II (Stuttgart, 1971), pp. 34 ff.
90 Mango, dS, p. 67.
91 So Mango, TS, p. 68, but see Mathiopulu-Tornaritu, p. 29, n. 18 and generally.
Cutler, art. cit. (n. 89), is more positive.
 INTRODUCTION 35

Malalas, yet elsewhere Par. shows knowledge of real emperors before

Constantine (chaps. 11, 76 Diocletian; 60 Augustus; 41 Trajan).
‘Severus’ (see on chap. 73) is both the builder of the Xerolophos and the
Zeuxippus (chaps. 20, 73), and thus a historical personage in the history
of the pre-Constantinian city, and, as representative of paganism,
another of Constantine’s opponents (chap. 57). Byzas and Antes
themselves are placed both in the time of Constantine and before Severus
(chap. 37). Constantine’s foundation of the city has achieved the status of
an epic battle in which twenty thousand pagans perished (chap. 52). His
vision before the Battle of the Milvian Bridge (AD 312) is transported
from Rome to Constantinople (chap. 54), to the site of another great bat¬
tle between his general (Maximinus) and the Gazoi supposedly settled
there by Severus, while chap. 41 again places the vision in Rome.
Par. refers in several passages to the ceremonies which accompanied
the dedication of the city in 330 and to the subsequent ‘birthday’
ceremonial on May 11th of succeeding years.92 In chap. 56 (the most im¬
portant passage) we read of the dedication in AD 330, a procession into
the Forum of Constantine, and the erection and acclamation of Constan¬
tine’s statue on a porphyry column there; Par. several times refers to this
statue as ‘the great statue’. On the next day, we are told, races were held
in the new Hippodrome, and the festival established as an annual event.
There is clearly much that is anachronistic in Par. ’s description here, and
a close correspondence with the chronicle tradition represented for us by
Malalas and the Chronicon Paschale. Nevertheless, Par. has more cir¬
cumstantial details to offer than either. It preserves a clear awareness,
even in the eighth century, that the statue of Constantine, or a copy (see
on chap. 5), was the recipient of imperial cult, and that a statue ofTyche,
presumably the Tyche of the city, was closely associated with this
ceremonial. The question thus arises whether Par.’s elaboration on the
evidence of Malalas and the Chronicon Paschale is exactly that, or whether
it might preserve an older tradition. The fact is that we have no contem¬
porary accounts of the religious aspects of the foundation of Constantino¬
ple except that in the Life of Constantine (III.48), which is obviously biased;
it by no means follows that we must reject later and ‘paganising’ ac¬
counts simply because they are later (and, it is implied, therefore fabrica¬
tions). The authors of Par. had no reason to stress a non-Christian
ceremonial in the early history of Constantinople, any more than there

9S On the foundation of Constantinople see G. Dagron, Naissance d’une capitate (Paris,

1974), pp. 37-41 (the basic account, but vitiated by the failure to distinguish the evidence
of Par. from that of the later Patna, and in general insufficiently critical); R. Krautheimer,
Three Christian Capitals (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London, 1983), pp. 41 ff.
36 INTRODUCTION

was reason to initiate this ceremonial in Malalas’s day. The most

reasonable hypothesis, then, is that some such ceremonial centred on the
statues of Constantine and the city Tyche did take place in the fourth cen¬
tury. There were good reasons why even a Christian emperor might
adapt and utilise the trappings of imperial cult, and emphasis the Tyche
of Constantinople as part of the effort to establish the identity of the new
foundation.93 In chapter 38, moreover, Par. clearly connects the statue of
Constantine with the idea of Helios (for the interpretation of the chapter,
confused in other ways, see note ad loc.)] again, this should be taken
seriously. The fact that all explicit identifications of the statue with a
statue of Apollo-Helios are later than Par. (see on chap. 68a) does not
necessarily mean that it was not a Helios. In fact, Par. shows knowledge
of differing versions of the foundation of the city: at chap. 68a it rebuts
the suggestion that the statue was originally of a ‘pagan’ while at 56 it
supposes there to have been Christian rites performed, and at 53 it may
reflect contemporary ideas that Constantinople had been dedicated to the
Virgin even in 330.94 The Christianising version was that generally cur¬
rent, indeed, one might say universal, in Par. ’s day: again, therefore, the
more secular accounts of the foundation and birthday ceremonies (chaps.
5, 55, 38, 56—see notes ad loc.) are unlikely to be later inventions. Cer¬
tainly the antiquarian claims for pagan ritual and pagan involvement at
the foundation (especially in John the Lydian, De Mens. IV.2) are unlike¬
ly to go back to a genuine tradition,95 but there is nothing improbable in
themselves about the ceremonies mentioned in Par., which are less
specifically pagan than secular and imperial. It is probable, indeed, that
for the authors of Par. nothing here seemed particularly pagan or offen¬
sive. Par. as a whole is a firmly Christian text, concerned with the
dangers of ‘idols’ and pagan remains, and it presents Constantine as the

93 See S. MacCormack, ‘Roma, Constantinopolis, the Emperor and his Genius’, CQ_
25 (1975), pp. 131-50, especially 139, 145 f.
94 See note ad loc. The story of the dedication of Constantinople to the Virgin, current
by the seventh century, is clearly an attempt to give a respectable Christian origin to the
city when there was no firm tradition along these lines. Further, it originated at a time
when for various reasons Constantinople did perceive itself to be under the special protec¬
tion of the Virgin. See A. Frolow, ‘La dedicace de Constantinople dans la tradition
byzantine’, RHR 127 (1944), pp. 61-127; Averil Cameron, ‘The Cult of the Theotokos in
Sixth-Century Constantinople’, JThS n.s. 29 (1978), pp. 79-108; ‘The Virgin’s Robe: an
Episode in the History of Early Seventh-Century Constantinople’, B 49 (1979), pp.
42-56.
95 For a very sceptical view see Alan Cameron, ‘The Foundation of Constantinople’,
forthcoming; such ‘pagan elements’ are dismissed out of hand by T. D. Barnes, Constan¬
tine and Eusebius (Cambridge, Mass., 1981), p. 222. On the other hand they are taken
seriously e.g. by S. Mazzarino, Antico, tardoantico ed era constantiniana I (Bari, 1974),
pp. 441 ff.; L. Cracco Ruggini, ‘Vettio Agorio Pretestato e la fondazione sacra di Costan-
tinopoli’, Φιλίας χάριν, Miscellanea in onore di E. Manni (Rome, 1979), pp. 595-610.
 INTRODUCTION 37

Christian founder throughout; that these passages should have been in¬
cluded indicates both that they reflect a good early tradition and that the
authors regarded them as entirely compatible with a Christian interpreta¬
tion of Constantine’s foundation.
We can see the extent to which Par. did set Constantine within an
ideological framework familiar to its own day in the passages where it
mentions crosses as having been erected by him, with statues of himself
and Helena his mother (chaps. 16, 23). These crosses, if genuine, are
likely to have been post-Constantinian, reflecting the belief current only
after his death than Helena had found the True Cross. Par. records
buildings named after Constantine, such as the Constantinianai baths
(but see on chap. 73) and especially the Forum of Constantine (see on
chap. 39), but it does not attempt a serious conspectus of his rebuilding as
a whole, not even the great churches erected by him. Thus Constantine is
less a historical character for Par. ’s authors than a symbolic, semi¬
legendary figure in the history of the city. Similarly, Par. ’s information
about fourth- and fifth-century historical events after Constantine is
either mythologising (cf. chap. 64) or banal (18, 35a). More interesting
are the odd circumstantial details, such as the claim that metal statues
were melted down for coin under Marcian (chap. 13),96 and that the
coinage of Julian caused embarrassment to Theodosius (chap. 46). On
some points Par. ’s knowledge is clearly superior, as in chap. 50 (Gratian
in Rome). Par. seems particularly well informed on the fifth-century
emperors Leo I, Zeno and Leo’s wife Verina.97
The historical awareness shown in Par. is anecdotal and biographical,
usually connected with the fate of some statue, as in the remarks on
Anastasius’s treaty with the Persians (chap. 44), in which he is said to
have handed over a statue of a fox with an inscription mentioning
Aphrodite and Selene. The last two deities occur again in connection
with the Persians (chap. 11) and chaps. 5 and 6 describe the Persians as
carrying off statues to Persia. The work is not interested in the reality of
Byzantino-Persian relations save as a backdrop for the history of statues.
It is even more strikingly prepared to ignore completely the current real
threat to Byzantium, which was coming from the Arabs, whereas the Per¬
sian empire had been a dead letter since the early seventh century. If we
compare Par. with Theophanes on the years 698 onwards, the difference
is overwhelming. But whatever the reason for this total exclusion of the
Arabs, Par. ’s rather frequent references to Persians help to locate much of

96 For another case of melting down precious metal see chap. 54; and cf. chap. 42 (the
bronze ox melted down by Heraclius). The interest of the authors often seems to focus on
the value of the material in question.
97 Leo: chap. 14, 45, 64, 67, 88; Basiliscus: 26, 29, 32; Verina; 29, 40, 89, cf. 61.
38 INTRODUCTION

the work again in the early period while such events as it relates were still
remembered.
It is curious that despite all that is know of the building activity of
Justinian I he figures so rarely in Par. His redistribution of the S. Sophia
statues round the city is given more attention than his rebuilding of the
church itself (chap. 11), and Par. seems totally unaware of the Buildings of
Procopius (see below). We are told only that the city markets were moved
from the Neorion to the harbour of Julian under Justinian (chap. 72).
Par. is much better informed about the later sixth-century emperors,
beginning with Justin II (565-78), for whom a certain Plumbas is cited in
a confused entry (chap. 81), and most clearly in relation to Maurice
(582-602). The description of the statues in the Senate seems to be drawn
from material dating from Maurice’s time and confirmed by observation
(chap. 43). The information about the statues on the fagade of the Chalke
may come from a source of about AD 600, or a chronicle composed under
Heraclius (chaps. 5b, 44a).98 As we near Par. ’s own time, its information
about emperors become more circumstantial. Chap. 74 identifies
Phocas’s statue behind the Magnaura and records how the emperor tried
to hasten its completion. In the same chapter, Par. reports a story which
derives from the Life of S. Theodore of Sykeon." And for Heraclius
(610-41), Par. has accurate and important information about his
recruiting in Pontus, financed by melting down a bronze ox (chap. 42, cf.
36-37); Par. had excellent sources here, perhaps official ones. As for
emperors from Justinian II, they have been reviewed already in section
v, and belong to the realm of recent memory. Not surprisingly, it looks as
though such written material as was available to Par. petered out with the
reign of Heraclius.
Par. ’s historical references, therefore, are conditioned both by subject
matter and by the availability of sources. Most emperors it knows by
name only, or by an anecdote or two. But its frequent references to Con¬
stantine owe little to secular historical sources, and we shall see that such
history as Par. does give us tends to be derived from ecclesiastical writers,
and then usually at second hand. Par. ’s contributors had little access to
history proper, and they had to take it as it came, whether through stray
anecdotes, from official lists, or from such compendia as were available.

ix. The Sources of the Parastaseis

Nevertheless, the authors were ambitious to give their work the ap¬
pearance of learning, and frequently mention written sources by name

98 Whitby, art. cit. (n. 13); Mango, Brazen House, p. 102.

99 See note ad loc. For the Life, see A. Festugiere, Vie de Theodore de Sykeon (Brussels,
1970), para. 133, pp. 105-6.
 INTRODUCTION 39

for specific information; equally often the citations are demonstrably

false. We must begin with references such as these in our attempt to
estimate Par. ’s real sources.
The most conspicuous of the false citations are those naming ec¬
clesiastical historians. Thus at chap. 52 Socrates is cited for the figure of
twenty thousand dead when Constantine fought Byzas; naturally he said
no such thing. At chap. 66 Sozomen is wrongly given as the authority for
a silver statue of Theodosius II. He was hardly likely to have mentioned
the statue of Justinian for which he is cited at chap. 68, for his history
ended with the year 439; no more likely than Eusebius, Theodoret or
Theodore Lector, also cited for the same statue. As for John
Diakrinomenos, whose history ran from about 431 to 471,100 he may have
mentioned the statues of Theodosius II, Valentinian (? Ill) and Marcian,
and a palace built by Leo I (chaps. 67, 71), but hardly the dedication of
Constantinople (twice in chap. 56) or the crimes of Julian in 362/63
(twice in chap. 48).101 And Theodoret is also falsely cited for the building
of the Modion under Valentinian (chap. 12).
The ecclesiastical historians, therefore, were not much more than
names to the compilers of Par., mostly known to them, in all probability,
through the omnibus epitomes compiled in the sixth and seventh cen¬
turies.102 But these are the names they think of first as historical
authorities, even for secular events and for the history of statues. In chap.
68, Theodore Lector seems to be the main source, and Sozomen,
Theodoret and Eusebius are cited through his collection. Again, in chap.
74, Par. cites Theodore for the aqueduct of Valens, when Socrates (HE
IV.8), had the author known it, is the locus classicus; even the reference to
Theodore here comes through a later epitome.103 Lastly, when telling the
story of Eudoxia’s silver statue at the Augusteum (chap. 31), Par. fails to
quote either Socrates (HE IV. 18) or Sozomen (HE VIII.20), or even
Theodore Lector (p. 82 Hansen).
There is one correct citation of Eusebius, the primary source, at chap.
48, on the Paneas statue. Yet it would be hasty to suppose that the writer
had read about it in the text of the Church History. The destruction of the
Paneas statue was in fact already an example used by iconophiles in
discussion of religious images, cited by the Patriarch Germanus before
the official adoption of iconoclasm, and it was to be much cited later.104 It

i°° por the remaining fragments, see G. C. Hansen, Theodoras Anagnostes: Kir-
chengeschichte (Berlin, 1971).
101 As it happens, Par. more often cites Diakrinomenos for the fourth than for the fifth
century.
102 For which see Hansen, op. cit. (n. 100), pp. xxix-xxxix. 103 See Hansen, p. 64.
104 Germanus: PG 98. cols. 185-88; see Gero, Byzantine Iconoclasm dunng the reign of Con¬
stantine V, pp. 49 ff.; Mango, Brazen House, p. 109; see e.g. LifeoiS. Stephen the Younger,
PG 100. 1085.
40 INTRODUCTION

is telling that Par. includes it, but likely that its knowledge came from
contemporary debate rather than direct from Eusebius. The closeness of
Par. ’s terminology to the original (we find here Par. ’s only use of the term
andrias, also used by Eusebius) suggests a written source, but we should
look for this rather in the compendia which probably included it (see
below). Here Par. probably also found the reference to Diakrinomenos
(,loc. cit.) rather than to the more obvious Philostorgius (HE VIE 3, p. 79
Bidez) or Sozomen (HE V.21).
It is not surprising that Par. turned to the ecclesiastical historians, since
in the eighth century the early Byzantine secular historians were forgot¬
ten, and education would have been based primarily on ecclesiastical
authorities (see below). John of Rhodes’s Passio S. Artemii lists among
authors consulted Eusebius, Socrates, Philostorgius, Theodoret ‘and
many others’, though the author knew only Philostorgius;105 compare the
citations of Philostorgius and Theodoret, together with a certain
Hesychius and Dorotheus, in the Life of Theodore of Chora.106 The ec¬
clesiastical historians were cited as witnesses at the Council of Nicaea in
787,107 and are drawn on in S. John Damascene’s De imaginibus, written
probably soon after the accession of Constantine V (741).108 Obviously,
then, the compilers of Par. would tend to turn to these authors, but it does
not follow that they knew their works at first hand. More probably, the
knowledge they derived from books came from the anthologies and selec¬
tions which for many took the place of full texts. Books in the early eighth
century were very expensive and rarely privately owned,109 but an¬
thologies and epitomes circulated among lay officials in the capital, and
these collections formed the basic texts and schoolbooks of successive
generations of intellectuals in Constantinople. A collection of this kind
may be traceable in chap. 10 of Par.110 Although education continued to

i°5 ρ0Γ authorship, see H.-G. Beck, Kirche und theologische Literatur im byzantinischen
Reich (Munich, 1959), pp. 482-83. For Philostorgius, see J. Bidez, Philostorgius Kir-
chengeschichte, 2nd ed. rev. F. Winkelmann. (1972), p. xliv f.
106 Bidez, op. cit., p. lii. The monk Epiphanius, writing c. 800, likewise claimed to have
used Eusebius for his Life of the Virgin (Beck, op. cit., p. 513). By contrast, Photius, a cen¬
tury later, had a first hand knowledge of both ecclesiastical and secular sources for the late
patristic period (C. Mango, The Homilies of Photius, Washington, D.C., 1958, pp. 237 ff.).
107 Mansi, XIII. col. 1042; see Hansen, op. cit. (n. 100), pp. xxix, 99, 124, 155.
Significantly enough, however, two brief extracts from the Epitome go under the name of
Socrates and a passage of Socrates under that of Rufinus, who of course wrote in Latin.
108 For the date, see Beck, op. cit., pp. 477 ff. For the quotations, see Hansen, op. cit.,
pp. 107, 117, 131, 140, 142 (six from Theodore Lector); PG 94. 1375 A (Socrates), 1366
B, 1398 B (Theodoret).
109 N. G. Wilson, art. cit. (n. 25), pp. 3-4.
110 See note ad loc. and Alan Cameron, ‘A quotation from Nilus of Ancyra in an
iconodule text’, JThS n.s. 27 (1976), pp. 128-31.
 INTRODUCTION 41

be available for lay officials111 in Constantinople, the materials it could

use were severely limited, as Professor Mango has emphasized.112 We
suggest that Par.’s reliance on anecdote, hearsay and personal ‘research’
reflects this situation. It was not surprising that the contributors should
have thought first of the ecclesiastical historians when they wanted to cite
a historical source, for these were the authors they were accustomed to
hear cited as authorities. Nor was it surprising that many of their
‘references’ would have been erroneous, if they did not have access to the
complete original texts, but only to selections of abbreviated extracts.
The false citations of ecclesiastical writers in Par. do however lead us to
be suspicious—and rightly—of other allusions in the work to sources that
are less easily checked. For example, what of Apollinarius and Alex¬
ander, who with Theodoret and Eusebius are said in chap. 68a to have
discussed a statue of Constantine, ‘as Milichius has described’? As for
Mekas and Glaukos in chap. 41, the phraseology alone makes it clear
that Par. drew its reference to them from Theodoret. Of the other named
sources in Par. the only known one is the ‘chronographer’ Hippolytus
(chaps. 6 and 7), perhaps the genuine chronicler Hippolytus of
Thebes,113 whose work would be a recent composition in Par.’s day.
Chap. 6 tells a story which belongs firmly in the context of Persian-
Byzantine hostilities, and chap. 5c, on a similar subject, may be from
Hippolytus too. We are actually told in chap. 6 of a ‘third edition’ of
Hippolytus’s work. It looks as though Hippolytus himself may have been
responsible for three of the five editions in which his work is known,114
and as if he was an extremely close contemporary of Par.’s compilers. In
chap. 7, he is cited for a very different period, which suggests that the
work was both accessible and consulted direct. The curious marginal
note at chap. 6 (‘check this extraordinary story’) suggests that the scribe
too reckoned Hippolytus’s work to be accessible.

111 The fathers of Tarasios (born c. 730), Nicephorus (c. 750) and Theodore Studites
(759) were all well-educated imperial officials, while the Life of S. Stephen the Younger
{PG 100. 1069 ff.) reveals the existence of secondary education in the capital before 730.
Platon of Sakkoudion (born 735) received a lay education and the existence of educated
people is assumed by Theophanes’s claim that they were persecuted by Leo III (p. 405 de
Boor). See P. Lemerle, Le premier humanisme byzantin (Paris, 1971), pp. 128-34.
112 ‘La culture grecque et l’Occident au VIIIe siecle’. Settimani di Studi_XX (Spoleto,
1973), pp. 712 ff.; ‘Who wrote the Chronicle of Theophanes?’, ZRVI 18 (1978), pp. 9-17;
Byzantium. The Empire of New Rome, p. 137. Some general remarks in Kathryn M.
Ringrose, ‘Monks and Society in Iconoclastic Byzantium’, Byzantine Studies 6 (1979), pp.
130-51.
113 F. Diekamp, Hippolytus von Theben (Munster i. W., 1898), with full discussion of the
two citations from Par. (included at pp. 33-34 as fragments ‘zweifelhafter Echtheit’) at pp.
xliii-xlviii. At least 14 MSS quote fragments nominatim.
114 Diekamp, op. cit., p. xvi.
42 INTRODUCTION

Other names remain very problematic—Caracallus the praepositus

(chap. 41), Clement (66), Dioscorus (43), Herodotus the chronographer
(7),115 Ligurius the Hellene (5b, 64), Marcellus the Lector (1), Milichius
the chronographer (68), Promuntius (69), Philodorus the logothete (85).
Then there are the names of ‘philosophers’—Canonaris (55), Aristides
(40), Secundus (80), Plumbas (81). Some of these may be real personages
and members of Par.' s ‘circle’ (section iv). Mostly they are cited for inter¬
pretations of statues rather than for factual information, and their con¬
tributions often take the form of oral communication. Thus Marcellus
Lector is quoted in chap. 1 for an allegedly false statement relating to the
year 718/19, Clement in chap. 66 for an identification of statues ap¬
parently of Constantine IV (668-85) (though see note ad loc.). Theodore
the Lector’s ‘Catalogue of Women’ (chaps. 29-36) was written after the
reign of Justinian II (d. 711), and chaps. 27-28, perhaps by the same
Theodore, date to the reign of Philippicus (711-13). Chap. 41, said to be
by Caracallus the praepositus, is addressed to Philokalos, and mentions let¬
ters received by him (see above, section iv). Finally, if Philip the eparch
(chap. 61), Herodian (ibid.) and Philip the dynast (62) are probably
members of the Par. circle, or at least contemporary with it, then so are
Promuntius (62) and Philodorus the logothete (85).
However, ‘Ligurius the Hellene’ (5b, 64), supposedly consul under
Leo I (457-74) and ‘Milichius the chronographer’ (68) look especially
suspicious. If we were to accept all these names at face value, they would
attest an amazingly large literary activity in an age otherwise so pitifully
lacking in written material. But it is hard to distinguish not only between
the genuine and the fabricated, but also between the real name and the
possible nom de plume. And many of these ‘sources’ testify to verbal com¬
munication, or personal letters, rather than to written accounts. We are
in the world of oral tradition and personal inspection of the monuments
without reference to available documents. It would seem that when the
compilers went round Constantinople doing their ‘research’, they had
only a hazy idea of how to proceed. In particular, they could not easily
read surviving inscriptions. Chap. 24 reveals that such inscriptions were
generally regarded as unintelligible and alien; it then launches into a self-
conscious justification of procedure, according to which we are told that
most of Par. ’s material was handed down orally, not in writing, by ‘our
fathers’. The whole passage is indicative of a situation in which the

115 Perhaps we should emend to Herodian (cf. chap. 61). Though the Patria also offer
the name Herodotus, a scholion in the Mosquensis of George the Monk (quoted in Muralt’s
edition, p. 428), clearly derived from the Patria (cf. E. Patzig, BZ 6 (1897), pp. 332-33)
gives the name in the form Herodes.
 INTRODUCTION 43

author is making a great effort to engage in a very unfamiliar activity, of

which he does not know the ground rules.
It is in the light of this that we should judge Par. ’s frequent resort to fic¬
titious sources, which were intended to lend an air of learning to the
finished work. It was not easy to search out the past history of
monuments when the compilers were both unfamiliar with the correct
identification of the monuments themselves and lacked the resources to
consult genuine historical records.
On the other hand, there is detectable in Par. a growing concern for ac¬
curacy and authority which can be seen elsewhere in eighth-century
literature. The compilers were not simply trying to show off: they were
consciously attempting to find authority for their statements, to seek out
reliable sources, to verify. Something of this approach was now develop¬
ing in the course of theological debate, beginning with the question of
Monothelitism and continuing with the quarrel over images. The
Patriarch Sophronius of Jerusalem (d. 639) drew up a list of six hundred
Biblical and patristic citations against Monothelitism, which formed the
basis of the florilegium of Maximus Confessor presented in part at the
Lateran Council of 649. A similar, but intensified, concern for accuracy
and documentation was demonstrated at the sixth ecumenical council of
680/81, which attempted to deal once and for all with the question of
Monothelitism. The need for authentic texts stimulated the production of
florilegia of selected quotations in which accuracy was at a premium.
Something of the atmosphere of debate can be perceived from the letters
of the Patriarch Germanus to two Anatolian bishops before 730, while the
iconoclast emperor Constantine V undertook an organised search of book
collections in monasteries outside Constantinople in the course of the
preparation of ammunition for the Council of AD 754.116 Whether or not
the Anastasius named in chap. 10 is the Anastasius burned in the Hip¬
podrome, presumably by Constantine V, ‘for the sake of truth’ in chap.
63 (see p. 24 above), it does look probable that he was the author of a
florilegium of the now common type (n. 110). If so, we have confirmation
that Par. shared the reading background, and the concerns, of ec¬
clesiastical writers of the period, even though its subject matter was so
different. It would be over-bold to argue that this ecclesiastical activity
promoted secular learning in general as early as Par., though it seems to
have done so in the later part of the century. But it is likely enough that
the attitudes which lay behind it also affected laymen, including the con¬
tributors to Par., and that Par ’s concern for verification and search for

116 C. Mango, ‘Historical Introduction’, A. A. Bryer and J. Herrin (eds.), Iconoclasm

(Birmingham, 1977), p. 3; ‘The Availability of Books in the Byzantine Empire’, Byzantine
Books and Bookmen (Dumbarton Oaks Colloquium, Washington, D.C., 1975), pp. 29-30.
44 INTRODUCTION

authority, however dubious and ill-founded it now seems, stems from this
background.
We can see this concern for accuracy and authority in several places in
Par., on the statues in the Augusteum and the Forum, for example
(chaps. 68, 68a), where a parade of sources is brought out, even if at sec¬
ond hand. At chap. 61 the author (though the plural is used at the begin¬
ning of the entry) prefers the majority opinion to that of Herodian; it is
not clear whether either opinion was written, but the writer is clearly ex¬
ercising critical judgement, έδίδαξεν, the word used of Herodian, is am¬
biguous; at chap. 44a Par. uses it of ‘Papias’ but adds ‘from his own
writings’, ίστορεΐν is similarly vague (cf. chap. 62, for instance, of Philip
the dynast).117 Rather telling is the fact that Par. ’s Greek, never its strong
point, is at its most awkward when trying to express how the material was
collected and from what sources—not merely the notorious chap. 24, or
44a, but also 69, where we find an odd reference to Promuntius having
verified something by reference to ‘writing’. This is confirmed by ‘those
who are familiar with his writings’, especially, Par. then says, those who
judge by prophecy. How are we to conclude that Par. itself found this in¬
formation? The word it actually uses of Promuntius is λέγει. It is often
therefore impossible to be sure whether in a given entry Par. draws on
written or oral information (certainly written at e.g. chap. 74, but not
usually so explicit). In the text as a whole there is a pervasive flavour of
oral communication (e.g. chaps. 59, 60), with frequent statements that a
certain statue ‘is still to be seen’, as though people were going round
looking for themselves (chaps. 44, 83, 87, and frequent references to ‘the
present day’, or ‘in our time’, e.g. chaps. 14, 15, 19, 37, 41, 43 etc.); this
is surely Par. ’s major source of information—i.e. common hearsay or
mutual discussion. The attitude is even projected into the past, as at
chap. 65, where someone is said to have ‘pointed out’ to Asclepiodorus in
the reign of Anastasius the inscription on the reclining Heracles.
Where oral sources were not enough, Par. resorted to written
authorities. As we have seen, however, these were not in plentiful supply,
and the chief source of historical information for Par. probably came from
florilegia of ecclesiastical texts, mostly put together for doctrinal or
polemical purposes. In addition to this kind of material, Par. seems to
have access to a list of factional acclamations which went as far as Leo III
but which did not provide the historical contexts of the acclamations it in¬
cluded; this is the most likely explanation of the otherwise extraordinary
error in chap. 38, where Par. attributes to the Emperor Constantine a
genuine epigram still visible in the Hippodrome on a charioteer named

117 Similarly chaps. 1 ώς λόγος εχει, 9 έμφέρεται, 10 έμφέρεται εις τούς πολλούς etc.
 INTRODUCTION 45

Constantine.118 Beyond that, Par. perhaps drew its rather detailed

knowledge of the late sixth-century emperors from a written source,
perhaps a chronicle, and if so, probably the one that was available to the
Great Chronographer later in the eighth century.119 Some of the passages
on the birthday celebrations of Constantinople (e.g. chaps, 5, 56) use
language that is technical enough to suggest a written source. But it
seems unlikely that our authors could draw on an existing work of the
type represented by Par. itself. Chronicles such as those of Marcellinus
Comes and Malalas in the sixth century had incorporated material such
as we find in Par. on buildings, and, in the case of Malalas, about Byzas
and Antes,120 and Hesychius’s extract also covers some of the same
ground.121 But we have the distinct impression in Par. of a major enter¬
prise undertaken for the first time and with great self-consciousness. The
contributors had a definite purpose—to record and above all expound the
pagan statues for the benefit of the unwary—and they emphasise the ef¬
fort which it entailed for them (especially chaps. 39, 41). They were out¬
side the mainstream of eighth-century literature, which was firmly ec¬
clesiastical, yet they were influenced by its attitudes and their work was
shaped, inevitably, by the circumstances of the time in which they wrote,
not merely in the type of authority which they cite and the material which
they include, but also in the very large gaps in their knowledge, which ex¬
tended, as we shall see, to the basic literary descriptions of works of art as
well as to the standard secular histories.

x. The value of the Parastaseis for art history

The difficulty of using Par. as a straightforward source of information

will now be obvious, though most scholars who have so used it have been
unaware of most of the problems that we have discussed. The first re¬
quirement, as we have seen, is a clear separation of the evidence of Par.
from that of the later texts. The second is to be aware of its peculiarities of
emphasis. It is intended for inhabitants of Constantinople; its focus is the
city of the past, not the city of the present. It is less interested in architec¬
tural structure than in sculptural decoration—an interest which reflects
the fact that figurative sculpture in metal or stone was in almost total
disuse in the eighth century.122 Par. ’s lack of interest in contemporary art

118 See note on chap. 38.

119 So L. M. Whitby, ‘The Great Chronographer and Theophanes’, BMGS, 8 (1982)
pp. 1-20.
120 E.g. p. 320 Bonn.
121 Cf. pp. 16-17 (Constantine and Helena—their statues in Constantinople); 18 (the
dedication ceremony).
122 See Mango, dS, especially p. 71. The latest dated statue in Par. is the kneeling one
of Justinian II in the Basilica (chap. 37, with note ad loc.).
46 INTRODUCTION

may account for its deficiencies in descriptive and technical vocabulary

when recording art works, which were exacerbated by its ignorance of
previous literary descriptions such as Christodorus’s ekphrasis on the
baths of Zeuxippus,123 or Procopius’s Buildings. This lack of aesthetic in¬
terest and deficiency in critical vocabulary often make it difficult to grasp
what Par. is actually describing, sometimes to the extent that it is uncer¬
tain whether a sculpture in the round or a relief or even a painting is in
point.
Despite these general problems, Par. ’s evidence is vital. It may be con¬
sidered under the following headings:
1. Its emphasis on sculpture as part of the everyday environment.
2. Its value as a possible checklist of statuary in Constantinople in the
eighth century, whether antique works brought there earlier or works of
Byzantine origin.
3. Its evidence for lost works, sculptural and architectural.
4. Its indications of the topography of Constantinople.
5. Its indications of Byzantine attitudes to visual art.

1. In relation to sculpture, Par. gives only the minimum of information,

assuming that the reader will recognise the object or place. In chap. 11,
for instance, the reader is told that if he goes round the city he will be able
to identify some of the statuary dispersed from S. Sophia; he is not given
precise instructions.
Much of the public sculpture of the city, however, was displayed in
monuments, on high columns, or on inscribed bases. It is not surprising
therefore that Par. can often identify figures without being able to offer a
precise description of them. In the case of the statue which killed
Himerius in the Kynegion (chap. 28), the identification is difficult
because the statue is high up. Sometimes oral tradition is adduced (chap.
60 for the identification of Augustus) or even preferred to written authori¬
ty (chap. 61, Athena rather than Verina). But this is clearly a world in
which many of the statues are not understood or even correctly identified
by many, so that specialists have to be called in. Yet there were probably
collectors at this time, whose collections helped to transmit classical
motifs to the Middle Ages.124

2. Whether or not it was Par. ’s intention to compile a list of statuary,

the possibility of extracting one from Par. as it stands presents itself, even

123 Christodorus’s poem occupies book II of the Palatine Anthology.

124 Cf. A. Cutler, ‘The Mythological Bowl in the Treasury of San Marco at Venice’,
Near Eastern Numismatics, Iconography, Epigraphy and History, Studies in Honor of George C. Miles
(Beirut, 1974), pp. 235-54.
 INTRODUCTION 47

though the difficulties are great.125 In chap. 11, for instance, we are given
a precise number of statues taken from S. Sophia: 427, mostly pagan but
including about eighty Christian statues (those identified are of the im¬
perial family or the post-Constantinian aristocracy). Par. reports that
Justinian distributed these round the city. But there is no way of knowing
whether the total could possibly be correct, or whether the same statues
are described again (or how often) in other contexts. Another problem
arises with Par. ’s vocabulary (section vii above). Eikon, stele and zodion are
all used in the context of the statue that killed Himerius (chap. 28); stele is
the usual word for statue and is used about seventy times in Par., yet it
can be used of a painting (chap. 82). Eikon, as we have seen, can refer to
sculpture, but also to an icon in the technical sense (chap. 5b, cf. chaps.
10, 49). Mostly the various words are used interchangeably, whether the
statues are Christian or pagan, classical or imperial.
However, Par. is a major text in any attempt to trace the fate of antique
statuary brought to Constantinople. Mango has estimated that the
number of antique pieces surviving in the Middle Byzantine period was
‘probably over one hundred’.126 Many of them are listed in Par., though
it must be remembered that Par. has a cut-off point in the mid-eighth cen¬
tury, and that some no doubt perished after it was put together. Par. also
has an important role to play in the appraisal of early Byzantine portrait
sculpture, the majority of pieces mentioned dating from the fourth and
fifth centuries. Noteworthy also is the evidence it offers on the decoration
of the Chalke fagade, for which it gives important information about late
sixth-century sculpture, at least if chap. 5b represents what originally
stood in Par. (see note ad loc.).

3. The same problems that make it difficult to compile a list of datable

sculpture from Par. apply to the related question of visualizing and
reconstructing works of art from its evidence. Its specific descriptions are
often disappointing, far less informative than those in the more literary
exercises of the ekphraseis. If the work is described elsewhere, Par. is rarely
a useful additional source. It is more a matter of trying to puzzle out the
often difficult allusions in Par. to works not fully described elsewhere (e.g.
the porphyry group said to be of Constantine and his sons in chap. 43).
The reasons behind these difficulties lie in the nature of Par. and often in
the sheer awkwardness of its language (section iv above). But because of
these problems, it must be firmly recognised that it is a mistake to try to

125 Cf. the classic attempt at such a list in C. G. Heyne, Priscae artis opera quae Constan-
tinopoli extitisse memorantur, Commentationes societatis regiae scientiarum Gottingensis, cl.
philol.-hist. 11 (1790-91), pp. 3-38.
126 Brazen House, p. 98 f. See notes to chaps. 5b, 44a.
48 INTRODUCTION

reconstruct works of art or monuments simply by combining the informa¬

tion of Par. with that of the Patria. This temptation has all too often been
followed. Thus while Mango, for instance, is careful to characterise the
Patria in this respect as the inferior, because later and derivative text,127
Janin was not so scrupulous and often used the evidence of Par. and the
Patria quite indiscriminately, despite his own cautions.128
It may be useful to list the works of art actually recorded in Par. The
following are the works that are fairly clearly described:

chap. 4: a statue of Fidalia (destroyed)

chap. 5: group at the Neolaia (see notes). Statues of Adam and Eve and
Plenty and Famine on columns
chap. 5a: bronze ox at the Neorion harbour, engulfed by Maurice
chap. 5b: statues of Maurice, his wife and children on the Chalke, above
the icon of Christ;
two Athenian statues of philosophers, holding out their hands to
each other
chap. 6: two-headed statue of a woman, taken from Panormon by
Chosroes to Persia
chap. 7: group of Constantine, Fausta, Hilarion and Constantine II (sic),
the latter silver, gold-dipped, with a gold head;
statues of Severus, Harmatius, Zeuxippus, Viglentius,
Eleutherius (buried by Arians in the Tetradesion)
chap. 8: charioteer groups; statues of Artemis and Aphrodite
chap. 10: panel paintings of patriarchs, burned by Arians with the icon of
the Virgin and Child
chap. 11: 427 statues removed from S. Sophia by Justinian I and dispersed
around the city; among them Zeus, Carus, the zodiac, Selene,
Aphrodite, Arcturus carried by ‘two Persian statues’, the South
Pole, a priestess of Athena beside Hero the philosopher, about
eighty Christian statues, including Constantine, Constantius,
Constans, Galen the quaestor, Julian the emperor and Julian the
eparch, Licinius, Valentinian, Theodosius I, Arcadius, Serapio,
three of Helena, one porphyry, one bronze with silver inlay, one
ivory. Many of these can still be found in the city
chap. 12: statue of Manaim the general at the Horreum;
silver statue of Valentinian (taken for tribute)
chap. 13: large statue of Menander the seer at the Artotyrianos,
melted down for coin by Marcian
chap. 14: equestrian statue of Aspar at the Taurus
chap. 15: silver cross in the Forum and statues of two angels, Constantine
and Helena. Gilded statues of Constantine’s sons and himself
chap. 17: bronze statue of an elephant in the Forum
chap. 18: bronze equestrian statue of Theodosius at the Milion

127 E.g. Brazen House, pp. 102-3.

128 For which see CB2, pp. xxviii-xxx, 426-27. In Janin’s Les eglises et les monasteres, 2nd.
ed. (Paris, 1969), pp. 354-58, (to take one example) similar reasons have caused him to
doubt Par.’s excellent evidence on the church of S. Mocius (chap. 1).
 INTRODUCTION 49

chap. 19: equestrian statues of Gratian’s family, Theodosius and Valenti-

nian, with a certain Firmillianus
chap. 20: a composite statue of Artemis, with Severus the founder of the
Xerolophos and a tripod; sixteen twisted columns
chap. 21: a hare, hound and faun made of one piece of metal, very large
chap. 22: bridge at S. Mamas with bronze dragon
chap. 23: objects below the great statue of Constantine in the Forum
chap. 26: statue of a eunuch, Plato, at church of S. Procopius at Chelone
chap. 28: heavy statue which killed Himerius in the Kynegion, buried by
order of Philippicus
chap. 29: bronze statue of Verina on a pillar near S. Agathonikos; another
at the Anemodoulion
chap. 30: small gilded statue of Euphemia
chap. 31: large silver statues of Eudoxia, her daughter, and two other
daughters;
another bronze statue of Eudoxia on a pillar at the Augusteum
chap. 32: statue of Arcadia the second wife of Zeno (sic);
statues of Ariadne and Zeno on the Chalke
chap. 33: statue of Pulcheria at the Chalke
chap. 34: statues of Constantine and Helena and a cross on the roof of the
Milion
chap. 35: group at the Milion of Sophia, Arabia her daughter and Helena
her niece, gilded
chap. 35a equestrian statues of Arcadius and Theodosius II near that of
Theodosius I
chap. 36: at the Tribunal, statues of Eudocia, Marcian and Constantine
chap. 37: at the Basilica, gilded kneeling statue of Justinian II and his wife;
a large statue of an elephant;
the reclining Heracles, later removed to the Hippodrome,
brought to Constantinople with a chariot and a boat and twelve
silver statues
chap. 38: at the Milion, Zeus Helios in a quadriga;
small statue of Tyche of the city, buried by Julian
chap. 39: silver statue of Pallas, scales of Asclepiodorus, emerald alabaster
garland of Cleopatra at the Forum;
equestrian statue of Maxentius destroyed by Constantine;
marble relief (?) of Arius, Sabellius, Macedonius and Eunomius
chap. 40: small marble dog, animal heads, two gorgons of marble; an ox¬
herd and an ox (?), all at the Artotyrianos
chap. 41: at the Amastrianon, a small statue of the city (?), Zeus Helios in
marble on a quadriga, Hermes (?), Aristides, the reclining
Heracles, Apollo as charioteer, a river, an eagle and a wolf (?),
tortoises and birds, eighteen female serpents, Koukobutios the
philosopher, horses and musical instruments (?)
chap. 42: a large bronze ox, melted down by Heraclius
chap. 43: porphyry statue with three heads, said to be of Constantine and
his sons Constans and Constantius, lost at sea in the time of
Theodosius II;
bronze and stone statues of Constantine and Fausta, porphyry
statue of Helena
50 INTRODUCTION

chap. 44: marble fox with gold and silver lettering, given as tribute
chap. 44a four gorgon heads on Chalke, the other four at the Forum Tauri
on the palace of Constantine, with the statues of Julian and his
wife, Constantine and his sons and Gallus;
cross put up by Justinian I, a gilded Belisarius with radiate
crown, Tiberius II and Justin II and seven relatives, some mar¬
ble, some bronze, very lifelike
chap. 45: pictures (?) of Pulcheria in the palace;
statues of Marcian and Pulcheria set up by Leo I on the Theodo-
sian porticoes
chap. 46: statue of Julian outside the Mint, destroyed by Theodosius I
chap. 47: imperial statues set up by Julian;
gold-niello statues of Apollo and Artemis set up at Nicomedia
(reused as imperial statues?)
chap. 48: Paneas statue of Christ with the woman with the issue of blood,
destroyed by Julian and replaced with statues of Zeus and
Aphrodite and Julian himself
chap. 49: statue of Julian on porphyry column at Constantinian porticoes;
panel icons and bronze statues of Julian at Rome and Antioch
chap. 50: statues of Gratian and his wife in Rome, of silver
chap. 51: statue of Valentinian III at porticoes of Leontius
chap. 52: silver gilded cross set up by Constantine in the Forum Bovis with
statues of Constantine and Helena, their hands holding the cross
chap. 53: statues (?) of Constantine, Helena, Christ and His Mother at
Kontaria
chap. 54: bronze statue of Constantine made from armour, at Ta Viglen-
tiou
chap. 56: Constantine’s statue in the Forum;
objects placed on the pillar
chap. 57: at Taurus, statue (?) of Severus;
(?) pagan statues destroyed by Constantine;
statue of Constantine with cross in right hand;
relief showing Constantine’s wars
chap. 58: at Philadelphion, gilded cross set up by Constantine as in his vi¬
sion, on a four-sided porphyry column with a sponge depicted at
the bottom;
statues of Constantine, Helena and his sons on thrones beside the
column;
statues of centurions (?)
chap. 59: thirty statues set up by Constantine in the Forum
chap. 60: sixty statues from Rome in the Hippodrome including one of
Augustus
chap. 61: Thessalian statue in Hippodrome, above the Kathisma; female
statues (Scylla and Charybdis; see note);
equestrian statue of Justinian I;
bronze seated Athena (thought by some to be the Empress
Verina)
chap. 62: dragon-statue set up (?) by Arcadius commemorating (?)
Honorius;
hyena brought from Antioch under Constantine
 INTRODUCTION 51

chap. 65 marble reclining statue in Hippodrome, with inscription

chap. 66 silver statue of Theodosius I in Forum Tauri;
marble statues of Constantine (IV) son of Constans (II) or Con¬
stantine I and his son Constans
chap. 67 statue in Pittakia of Leo I
chap. 68 in Augusteum, statue of Constantine on column, with Constan-
tius, Constans, Constantine II, Licinius and, later, Julian at
foot. Later the Constantine statue was replaced by Theodosius I,
also silver, with Arcadius and Honorius at the foot. Or, accord¬
ing to Sozomen (sic), Justinian I
chap. 68a statue of Constantine in the Forum, said to be pagan
chap. 69: tripod in Great Strategion, attributed to Alexander the Great
chap. 70: Philadelphion group of the sons of Constantine;
statues of Julian and his Christian wife Anastasia (sic)
chap. 71: at Xerolophos, Theodosius II on pillar, with Valentinian and
Marcian at foot. This statue fell down in an earthquake
chap. 72: statue of Arcadius at Neorion;
many statues (?) set up by Constantine
chap. 73: fallen statues at the Constantinianai
chap. 74: bronze seated statue of Theodosius I at Basilica;
statue of Phocas behind the Magnaura, on (?) the Heliakon, in
bronze
chap. 75: statue of Valentinian III on pillar at Marinakion which stood
upright and could not be replaced when it fell in an earthquake
chap. 76: stooping statue of Diocletian in front of the Kathisma in the Hip¬
podrome, one of many statues brought from Nicomedia
chap. 77: heavy statue of Maximian at the Chalke with members of the
house of Theodosius I
chap. 78: four gorgons at the Chalke, with the sign of the cross above them
chap. 79: statue of Artemis in the Hippodrome
chap. 80: statues of Zeno and Ariadne on pillars at the Chalke (but see note
ad loc.)
chap. 81: statues of Justinian and Theodora facing the Zeuxippus
chap. 82: painted image of Philippicus at the Zeuxippus, very lifelike (see
note)
chap. 83: the Zeus in the Hippodrome, from Iconium along with many
other statues
chap. 84: four gilt horses above the Hippodrome, brought from Chios
under Theodosius II (probably the four horses at San Marco,
Venice)
chap. 85: statue of Perseus and Andromeda from Iconium, brought to the
Constantinianai under Constantius II
chap. 86: statue of Anastasius behind S. Menas
chap. 87: statue of Valentinian III and Aetius at the cistern of Aetius

It will be seen that Par. is on the whole very sparing of descriptive

detail. When it does add an epithet, it is usually to specify the material
from which the statue is made; mostly to say that it is of precious metal,
or ivory or rarer marbles. A number of pieces in bronze are mentioned,
52 INTRODUCTION

and one in iron. This suggests that there is more interest felt in the value
of the materials than in artistic style or skill. Only very rarely does Par.
comment that a statue or image is ‘lifelike’ (chaps. 44a, 82). But Par. is
interested in iconography (the subjects are normally identified) and in
some cases provenance, especially of antique statues. It is the mixing
together of surviving and lost statues, with no clear topographical or
other arrangement, that makes the work as we have it so confusing. It is
repetitive, and some statues, as some places, e.g. the Forum and the Hip¬
podrome, are described more than once. While copies of ancient statues
were often made, Par. records the same statue in different places without
indicating whether one was a copy. This applies to the reclining
Heracles, mentioned at the Amastrianon, the Hippodrome and the
Basilica. Sometimes, one suspects, Par. describes the same group twice
without noting the repetition, and thus gives the impression of two
groups rather than one (perhaps in the case of the Constantine and
Helena with the cross at the Milion and in the Forum). But even allowing
for Par.’s raggedness, it gives us an astonishing amount of information
about the decoration of the city in the eighth century and earlier.

4. As a guide to topography, Par. is as unclear as it is when reporting

statues. It shows us the city as a spacious environment of fora and public
buildings and monuments; some mention too is made of processions and
ceremonial in these settings. It also indicates that certain sites had a
special concentration of statues, for instance the Forum, the Xerolophos,
the Basilica, the Kynegion, the Hippodrome and the Milion. But the lack
of systematic arrangement of material, whether topographic or thematic,
except within small sections, makes it difficult to relate these places to
each other solely on the basis of Par. Later texts did rework Par.’s
material in topographical order,129 but much work is needed to ascertain
whether they used Par. correctly or not. Certainly it is quite clear that
Par. does not provide a guide for finding one’s way round the city (section
vi above). But as with its evidence on statues, its information relating to
topography is of the first order.

5. Because of Par.’s pretensions to ‘research’, it cannot be seen as a

direct reflection of popular taste. And because of its lack of interest in
aesthetic matters, it does not offer much evidence of contemporary at¬
titudes to visual art. Its interest in sculpture may represent a reaction to

129 P. Speck, G. Prinzing, ‘Fiinflokalitaten in Konstantinopel’, in H. G. Beck (ed.),

Studien zur friihgeschichte Konstantinopels (Munich, 1973), pp. 179-227. For an example of
how the later texts can be used to reconstruct the appearance of Constantinople in the 10th
century and later, see D. A. Miller, Imperial Constantinople (New York, 1969), pp. 15 ff.
 INTRODUCTION 53

the contemporary decline in that medium, and to the current disputes

about the nature of images; certainly something of the sort lies behind
Par. ’s fascination with pagan statues and their potential. Yet as argued in
section v above, a more powerful motive may have come from the
physical decline of the city. Many of the monuments mentioned by Par.
had been destroyed or fallen into decay. The compilers were anxious to
record what they could find out, not only about the meaning and history
of surviving monuments, but also about notable features of the city’s past
history. Given their methods, this aim locates Par. firmly in the early
medieval period. At a later date even less remained, and the aim would
have been more difficult of execution in some ways; yet more and better
written source material would have been available than Par. was able to
use.
If one is looking for aesthetic statements or exact descriptions of
monuments, Par. must be a disappointing work. Its primary aim was not
to record statues for any artistic reasons, but for their hidden potency,
which for the compilers was of more immediate concern than their
physical appearance or aesthetic quality. Thus, Par. ’s concern is not with
art as art, and this inevitably renders it a difficult text to use as a source
for art works. Nevertheless, it is far from being the farrago that is usually
described under its name.130 In sheer volume its evidence for antique
monuments is of primary importance and it can often be reliably sifted
and made useful.

Conclusion

Par. is by any standards a curious work. It raises all kinds of questions,

about the nature of Greek in the eighth century, about what Constantino¬
ple actually looked like in the Byzantine ‘Dark Ages’, about what people
thought about their antique past. The product, it would seem, of a sort of
local history society, it provides some testimony to the survival of preten¬
sions to learning in an obscure period, even if that learning was ill-based
and directed at seeking mysterious inner meanings. A full evaluation of
Par. ’s evidence would take us into many different fields and entail a far
bigger book. We have tried to take the first step, to rehabilitate Par. as a
unique text of the early eighth century, peculiar perhaps, but not to be
diminished by unwary conflation with the derivative and much less in¬
teresting Patria.

130
E.g. Alan Cameron, Circus Factions (Oxford, 1976), p. 245.
ΠΑΡΑΣΤΑΣΕΙΣ ΣΥΝΤΟΜΟΙ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑΙ

TEXT AND TRANSLATION

 1. Αέον γινώΰχειν ότι 6 άγιος Μώχιος πρώην μεν υπό
Κωνβταντίνον τον μεγάλου παροιχοδομή&η 'Ελλήνων πλή&η
εχείΰε χατοιχούντων πολλά' χαι ναόν είναι τον Α ιός έχεΐβε,
5 καθ’ ήν <ζχαι εκ των λί&ων αντονβ εχτιΰε τον ναόν' πίπτει
δε υπό Κωνβταντίνον εν τή τρίτη αντον νπατεία. ’Εν δε
ταίς ήμεραις Θεοδοβίου τον μεγάλου εξορίζονται οι ’Αρειανοϊ
των αγίων έχχληβιών χαϊ έλ&όντες εν τω ναω τον άγιον
Μωχίου ήράβ&ηΰαν χαι παραχαλονΰι τω βαΰιλεΐ χατοιχεΐν
ίο αντονς έχει, ο χαι γεγονεν. Παρενϋ'ύ ονν άνεγείρονΰι τον
αντον ναόν οι 'Αρειανοϊ χαι δοξάζεται παρ’ αυτών 6 ναός
ετη ζ'' χαι πίπτει, cbg λό^θ£ εχεΐ, λειτονργονντων αυτών εν
τω ζ' ετει' καθ’’ όν Αρειανοϊ άπεχτάνΰ'ηΰαν πολλοί. Εν
$έ ταϊς ήμεραις ’ίονβτινιανον τον βαΰιλέως άνεγείρεται 6
15 αυτός ναός χαϊ ΐΰταται έως ημών εν δόλω Μάρχελλος άνα-

§ 1 1. 2—5 (ναόν) et 6—15 (Έν—ημών): Codin. II110 (ρ.72,

17 Bekker. y. app. crit.)

3 πλή&η πολλά est attributum vocis 'Ελλήνων, de eius-

modi barbarie v. Dindorf ad Malal. p. 128, 19 et 227, 5, Dob-
scbutz Cbristusbilder 214**, 5 παρά τω αίγιαλώ τά ’Αμαντίον
προςαγορενόμενα 5 χαϊ έχ των λί&ων αντον supplevi ex
Codino 6 Κωνΰταντίονί 9 ήράα&ηααν] ήϋ'ροία&ηοαν Alexis
12 ώς λόγος έτει Ρ (hi edd.), correxi coni. § 7, 82, 85
13 xa&’ ην? 15 ημών έν δόλω‘ // μάρχελλος Ρ, ffalso Marc,
etc.’ vertit Banduri; pro iv δόλω conicit Lamb, ολως yel ovv
&όλω iungens periodo praecedenti. έν δ' λόγω Comb.
 1. Note that S. Mocius was originally built by Constantine the
Great (324-37), when a large number of pagans lived in that area.
And there was a temple of Zeus there, on the site of which < and
with whose stones > 1 he built the church. It collapsed in the reign of
Constantius2 (337-61), in his third consulship (342). In the days of
Theodosius the Great (i.e. Theodosius I, 379-95) the Arians were
expelled from the holy churches and coming to the church of S.
Mocius they desired it and asked the emperor for permission to
dwell there, which indeed came to pass. So the Arians immediately
rebuilt this same church and the church was used by them for
divine services for seven years. It collapsed, so we are told, in the
seventh year as they were celebrating the liturgy; and in it many
Arians were killed. But in the days of the Emperor Justinian
(527-65) the same church was rebuilt and stands in our own day.

1 Added by Preger from Patria, II.110, p. 209.

2 P has Constantine, but see note. Apparently ύπό stands for επί.
 58 ΠΑΡΑΣΤΑΣΕΙΣ ΣΥΝΤΟΜΟΙ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑΙ

γνώδτης φηΰίν ότι εν τώ δεντέρω ετει τής βαβιλείας Κό-

νωνος τον Ίΰαύρον πίπτει ο ναός.
2. 'Ο άγιος ‘Αγα&όνικος νπό 'Αναΰταοίον το πρότερον
και Ίονΰτινιανον τον μεγάλον τό δεύτερον οίκοδομήθ'η' iv
5 ω καί πατριάρχαι επιδκόπηοαν εν τω αντω ναω ζ' επί χρό-
νονς ν'’ καί βαΰιλείς ΰτεφηφορονΰιν εκείδε. Αι ήν αιτίαν
μετεποιη&η Ί* ύπό Ο'νμον, ον γινώδκεται. Τοντο δε παρε-
δωκαν οι προ ημών ότι καί παλάτιον μέγιδτον πληΰίον τον
ναόν τούτον ην' νπό δε Τιβερίον τον πρώτον μετεποιη&η
ίο διολεδ&εν εις τα ννν βαΰίλεια.
3. Τα τείχη τα προς θ'άλαδδαν ανακαινίζονται επί Τι-
βερίον 'Λιβιμάρον' εως γάρ αντον η μέλη μένα ηΰαν πάνν.
Τα δε τείχη της δύΰεως των μεγάλων πορτών επί Αέοντος
τον μεγάλον καί ενΰεβοϋς' κα& ην καί ελιτάνενΰαν καί
15 τό 'κύριε ελεηΰον’ τεΰΰαρακοντάκις εβόηΰαν καί ό δήμος
τον Πραΰίνον έκραξαν' 'Λέων Κωνδταντϊνον εις κράτος
ενίκηβεν’.
4. ’Εν τη κατωγαία πάρτη τη πληρεβτάτη δτοιχεϊον
ΐΰτατο Φιδαλείας τίνος 'Ελληνίδος. Λρ&είΰης δε της ΰτηλης
20 'θ'αν μα ζτ\ν) ίδεβθ'αι μεγα, τον τόπον εκείνον επί πολύ

§ 2 Codin. II 107 (ρ. 71, 1 Β) § 3 Codin. II 109 et 108

(ρ. 71, 8 Β) § 4 Codin. II 86 (ρ. 59, 3 Β)

4 ίονστιιανον Ρ 6 έστεφηφόρονν Band. 7 Φυμού]

Ρ, adulterinum esse videtur; Τιβερίον Lamb., από θεμελίου?
cf. § 75 10 διολίΰθΊν edd. et Codin., sed cf. Theophan.
p. 299, 17 etc. 13 της dvfffcoe] τής πόλεως Lamb. Λέον-
τος κτλ.] scriptoris errore Leo Macelles muros instauravisse
dicitur, cum id Isaurum suscepisse sciamus; cf. Banduri 2,
780 (δνσσεβονς idcirco scribere voluit Comb.) 15 τεσσαρί]
μ' Ρ 16 κωνΰταντΐνος Ρ, corr. Comb., cf. § 35; Λέων καί
Κωνσταντίνος . . ένίκηααν Lamb., Λέων Κωνσταντίνος καί Θεο¬
δόσιος . . ένίκησαν Codin. 18 πληαιεστάτη Lamb. 19 φι-
δαλίας Ρ 20 ην suppl. Comb, ex Codino
 TRANSLATION 59

Marcellus the Lector falsely states that the church collapsed in the
second year of Conon the Isaurian (i.e. Leo III, AD 718).
2. S. Agathonikos was built in the first place by Anastasius
(491-518) and a second time by Justinian the Great (527-65). Seven
patriarchs held office in this same church over fifty years, and
emperors wear crowns there. For what reason it was altered f .1
is not known. Our predecessors handed this down to us, however:
that there was also a large palace near this church, and that being in
a ruined state it was converted by Tiberius (II, 578-82) into the
present palace.
3. The sea walls were repaired under Tiberius Apsimar
(698-705); before him they had been completely neglected. The
western walls, those of the great gates, were restored under Leo the
Great and Pious;2 on that occasion they also held a religious proces¬
sion and chanted the ‘Kyrie eleison’ forty times, and the demos of
the Greens shouted ‘Leo has surpassed Constantine’.3
4. At the ground-level gate which has been filled up4 stood a
statue (stoicheion) of a certain pagan, Fidalia. When the statue {stele)
was removed, a great wonder was to be seen, namely that the place

1 The text is corrupt: see note.

2 Leo III (717-41): see note.
3 Preger prints Combefis’ emendation, giving the meaning ‘Leo has surpassed
Constantine’, the reference thus being to Constantine the Great. See note for the
alternative possibility, ‘Leo and Constantine have mightily conquered’, i.e. chang¬
ing P’s singular verb into a plural and understanding the reference as meaning
Constantine V (co-emperor with Leo III, 720-41).
4 Suggested by Professor C. Mango.
 60 ΠΑΡΑΣΤΑΣΕΙΣ ΣΥΝΤΟΜΟΙ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑΙ

σειεσθαι, ώστε και τον βαΰιλέα ·&ανμάΰαι και λιτήν άπελ-

&εΐν εν τω τόπω και όντως πανΰαι Σάβα του όσιου δι
ευχών τούτο ποιήδαντος.
5. ’Εν vrj λεγομεντ] Νεολαία ΐΰτατο γυναικεία ΰτήλη
5 και βωμός (μετά μοδ^χαρίδιον μικρόν εν οις και ίπποι
χρυΰίω διαλάμπεις τέδΰαρες' έπϊ (δίφρου δε και)> διφρελά-
τον <ibj|<^eiac ετήλη)> έν τή δεζια χειρ!κατέχουεα ετηλίδιόν
τι, άγαλμα διατρέχον. Τούτο οί μέν λέγουει Κωνεταντίνου κα-
ταεκευήν, <(οί δέ?)> την ΖεύΕιν μόνην, τήν δέ λοιπήν άρχαίαν
ίο είναι καί μηδέν παρά Κιυνεταντίνου καταεκευαεθήναι. ‘Έωε
γάρ Θεοδοείου τοΟ μεγάλου θέαμα παρά τών πολιτών γέγονεν
έν τώ Ίπποδρομίψ, μετά κηρών καί λευκών χλαμύδων φο-
ρούνταε πάνταε είεέρχεεθαι τήν αύτήν ετήλην μόνην έπάνω
άρματοε [ήγουν καρούχαε] έωε τού ετάματοε άπό τών καγκέλ-
15 λων. Τούτο δέ έξετέλουν, δτε τό γενέθλιον τήε πόλεωε έορτά-
Εετο. Έκεΐ δέ έν Σϋώδοιε έετηλώθηεαν είε τούε κίοναε ό Άδάμ
καί ή €ύα καί ή Ευθηνία καί ό Λιμόε.
5 a. ’(Εν τή λεγομένη λίμνη τού Νεωρίου βοΰε ϊετατο χαλ-
κούε παμμεγεθέετατοε πάνυ. ΚράΓειν δέ έλεγον αύτόν ώε βούν
20 μίαν τού ένιαυτού, καί γίνεεθαι παραπτώματα έν τή ή μέρα
έκείνη, έν ή έκραΗεν. ’6πΙ δέ Μαυρίκιου τού βαειλέωε έν αυτή
τή λίμνη κατεχώεθη

§ ό Codin. II 87 (ρ. 59, 11 Β)

1 βασιλέα] aut Anastasium ant Justinianum fuisse Sabae

vita a Cyrillo conscripta docet 2 πανααι] de verbi usu intran-
sitivo vid. de Boor in ind. ad Theophanem 4 νεολέα P; locus
circi fuisse videtur unde νεολαία spectare solebat δ βωμός
καρίδιον P; corrigebam corruptelam ex homoioteleuto natam
Codinum (μετά μοσχαριού) secutus: in exemplari fuerat βωμόσ
μετά μοσ καρίδιον, de μετά cum accus. cf. § 10 et 32, de tenui
pro aspirata v. index s. v. phonetica; καϊ μοσχάριον Lamb., καί
άρνίον μικρόν Comb. 6 δίφρον δέ καϊ supplevi ex Codino,
ubi legitur έπϊ δίφρον καϊ διφρηλάτον γνναικός (sc. στήλη)·, και
διφρηλάτης έπϊ δίφρον Lamb. 7 Post &η excidit folium ex
codice; supplevi 1. 7 — p. 22, 26 ex Codino II 8 7—90 (p 59,
14—61, 18 B). Ad rem cf. § 38
 TRANSLATION 61

shook for a long time, so that even the emperor marvelled and sent
a procession to the place and only stopped it in this way. S. Sabas
(439-532) achieved this by his prayers.
5. In the place called Neolaia stood a statue [stele) of a woman
and an altar <with a>') small calf; with these too were four
horses, shining with gold; and on a <chariot with a> charioteer
was a < statue1 2 of a female> (stele) holding in her right hand a small figure
(stelidion), a running image (agalma). About this, some say that the group
(kataskeve) was erected by Constantine (324-37), while < others say>
merely the group of horses, while the rest is antique and not made by Constan¬
tine. For up to the time of Theodosius the Great (379-95) there was a spectacle
(theama) enacted by the citizens in the Hippodrome, when everyone with
candles and white chlamydes came in conveying this same statue (stele) alone
on a chariot [or a carriage]3 4) up to the Stama from the starting gates. They
used to perform this each time that the Birthday of the city was celebrated. And
there were represented in statues (zoda) on columns Adam and Eve and Plenty
and Famine.
5a. About the harbour of Neorion*.
At the harbour called Neorion stood a bronze ox of enormous size. They said
that it bellowed like an ox once a year and that on that day on which it bel¬
lowed, disasters happened. In the reign of the Emperor Maurice (582-602) it
was sunk in this harbour.

1 Supplied from Patna 11.87, p. 196.

2 All the italicized section is missing in P and supplied here from Patria, loc. cit.
See notes.
3 Probably a gloss: see Preger’s apparatus at Patria, p. 196.
4 Omitted by Preger (likewise the heading of c. 5b).
 62 ΠΑΡΑΣΤΑΣΕΙΣ ΣΥΝΤΟΜΟΙ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑΙ

5 b. ΤοΟ Μαυρίκιου ετήλη καί τήε γυναικόε καί τών τέκ¬

νων αύτοΟ έν τη Χάλκη ϊεταται άνωθεν τήε θεανδρικήε είκόνοε
του Ίηεοΰ ΧριετοΟ- ύπ5 αυτού γάρ κατεεκευάεθηεαν. Αί δε
δύο ετήλαι αί έκτεταμέναι τάε χεΐραε ό ειε τω έτέρω εκ τήε
5 ’Αθηναίων γήε ήκαειν φιλοεόφων δέ φαειν είναι, ώε φηειν
Λιγύριοε ό Έλληνικόε.
5 c. Μετά τό άποθανεΐν Μαρκιανόν τον βαειλέα έγένετο
€ύτύχουε τινόε μαθητήε όνόματι ’Άκατοε, διάκονοε υπάρχων
τού ναού τήε άγίαε Εύφημίαε- δε ιδών ήττηθένταε τούε κατά
10 €ύτύχην κατέλαβε Οεραπίωνα (?) τό κάετρον τούτο δέ ήν έν
τών ΤΤερεών, ‘Ρήγιον τουνομα. Έμήνυεε δέ ΤΤεριττίψ τω κα-
ετροφύλακι τά τήε άεθενείαε τών έν Καλχηδόνι οίκούντων δε
παρευθύ τού άρματοε έπιβάε — ούτωε γάρ τοΐε έν 'Ρηγίψ κα-
ετροφύλαΕι πέφυκε — μετά έβδομήκοντα χιλιάδων έρχεται έπί
15 τήν Καλχηδονίων μητρόπολιν οί δέ έκεΐεε προγνόντεε έφυγον
έν τω Βυ£αντίω άραντεε μεθ’ εαυτών καί τά τίμια λείψανα
τήε άγίαε Εύφημίαε· δπερ αύτόε "Ακατοε άμυνόμενοε διά τό μη
ευγχωρηθήναι Ευτυχεί τήν έκκληείαν κατά ταύτηε τον ΤΤέρεην
ΤΤεριττίωνα ήγαγε. Τότε ήρπάγη παρά τών ΤΤερεών ό Ήλιοε
20 θεόε ό λεγόμενοε Κρόνοε, δε ϊετατο έν ΚαλχηδόνΓ δν καί άπή-
γαγογ είε ΤΤερείαν.
5d. Έπί Λέοντοε τού Ίεαύρου πολλά θεμάτια παρελύθη-
εαν άρχαΐα διά τό τον άνδρα άλόγιετον είναι. Τότε τό λεγό¬
μενον Τρίίωδον τό είε τά κούφα τού άγιου Μωκίου κάτωθεν
25 ύπάρχον έπήρθη- έν αύτώ ήετρονόμουν έωε τότε πολλοί- καί
τύμβοι ‘Ελλήνων καί ’Λρειανών νττάρχονϋι κεχωβμενοί καί
αλλα εις πλη&ος ΰκηνώματα.
6. Τό δε Πάνορμον κάΰτρον νπό τον Πανόρμον ”Ελ-
ληνος εκτίΰ&η δατλότειχον νττάρχον Οιδήρον καί χαλκού
30 δίκην άναμεμιγμένον. ’Εν δε τη ττρός βορραν ηόρτη τον
αντον κάΰτρον ί'ΰτατο Οτνράκιον ίκμώδη καί ΰτηλη γνναι-

§ 6 1. 4 — ρ. 23, 8 (—ννν): Codin. II 92 (ρ. 62, 1 Β)

28 Πάνορμον] portus Cyzici significaii videtur 31 οτν-

ράκιον] πνργίον vel πνργίδιον Comb, et Band. Sed στνρ.
 TRANSLATION 63

5b. About the statues at the Chalke.

The statue (stele) of Maurice and his wife and children at the Chalke
stands above the icon (eikon) of Jesus Christ represented as God and man; for
they were put up by him.1 The two statues (stelaf) whose hands are outstretch¬
ed towards each other came from the land of the Athenians; they say they are of
philosophers, as Ligurius the pagan says.
5c. After the death of the Emperor Maurice2 (582-602) there was a disci¬
ple of a certain Eutyches named Akatos, who was a deacon of the church of S.
Euphemia. When he saw that the followers of Eutyches were defeated, he went
to the fort Serapion (this was one of those held by the Persians, called
Rhegion). He told Perittios, the commander of the fort, about the vulnerability
of the inhabitants of Chalcedon. Perittios immediately mounted his chariot (for
this was the equipment of the commanders of Rhegion) and with seventy thou¬
sand men he made for the metropolis of Chalcedon. The people, however,
learned in advance and fled to Byzantium, taking with them the precious relics
of S. Euphemia. It was in revenge that Akatos, because the church had not
been given over to Eutyches, led the Persian Perittios against it. It was then
that the Sun-god, the so-called Kronos, in gold-niello,3 which stood in
Chalcedon, was seized by the Persians. They actually took it away to Persia.
5d. About the statues in S. Modus4 5 6
In the time of Leo the Isaurian (717-41), many ancient monuments
(thematia) were destroyed, because the man was irrational A At that time the
Trizodon, as it is called, was removed. It was in the hollow place below S.
Mokios. Up to that time many people used to perform astronomical calcula¬
tions by it. And tombs of pagans6 and Arians are buried there, and
many other corpses.
6. The fort Panormon was founded by Panormos the pagan, and
it has a double wall like iron and bronze welded together. At the
north gate of the same fort stood a steep7 staircase and a statue (stele)

1 I.e. the statues were put up by Maurice. See note for the implications of this
for the date of the Chalke icon.
2 P has Marcian, but see commentary.
3 Omitted here by Preger, though present at Patria, 11.89, p. 198.
4 Similarly omitted by Preger, though present at Patna, loc. cit.
5 See note.
6 P’s text resumes at this point.
7 See commentary.
 64 ΠΑΡΑΣΤΑΣΕΙΣ ΣΥΝΤΟΜΟΙ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑΙ

χεία δικέφαλος. ’Έν&α και &έαμα γέγονεν' εμπνριβμον γάρ

ποτέ το κάβτρον χατειληφότος και πάβης της πόλεως έδα-
φιβϋ'είβης μετά και των τειχών ΐβταβ&αι το πνργίον έκεΐνο
της πάρτης, εν&α και η βτηλη βννίβτατο. ’Αλλα πολλάκις
5 και τον πνρός προςεγγίζοντος τω τόπω tog νπό τίνος διώ-
κοντος αντο όπιβ&εν ως οργνιας ε' νπεχώρει της βτηλης.
Αντη δε παρεληφ&η νπό Χοβρόου τον Περβών τνράννον
καί έβτιν εις Περβίδα λατρενομένη εως τον ννν, καθώς δ
Παραδείβιος διοικητής έκεϊβε κρατηθείς και εκφνγών δηλα
ίο πεποίηκεν εν τω χρονικω 'Ιππολύτου το τρίτον δημοβιευο-
μένω. [Ζητεί ίΰτορίαν εξαίβιον.]
7. Το δε καλούμενον Σμύρνιον πληβίον τον Τετράδιοίον
εμβόλου εχει υποκάτω της γης, το προς βορράν μέρος ορ-
γνιας ι\ ΰτήλας θ' πληβίον τον ναόν τον Θεόδωρόν. Είβίν
15 δέ αί βτηλαι αί μεν τέββαρες Κωνβταντίνον τον μεγάλον
και της γνναικος αύτοϋ Φαύβτας καί 'Ιλαρίωνος πραιποβί-
τον καί τον παιδός τον τρίτον Κωνβταντίνον τον ομωνύμου?

§7 1. 12 —ρ. 24 1. 11: Codin. II 93 (ρ. 62, 19 Β)

Byzantinis esse turriculam vel rcolumnam intus cavam gra-

dibusque instructam’ docet Reiske ad Const. Porph. de
caer. p. 151, 14, cf. p. 601, 2, Theoph. cont. p. 140, 16,
Codin. Ill 190 et 202 (p. 124, 11 et 127, 10 Β) ίκμώδη]
ήχμώδι P, correxi, de forma cf. § 43 ζώδιον πορφνροειδή
(ανχμώδι Comb., αίχμώδη Du Cange, αίχμώδες vel η αιχμή
Lamb.) 1 ϋ~ανμα? ένπνριβμον Ρ 2 τον κάΰτρον Ρ
έδαφη&είβης Ρ 9 παραδείβιος appellative accipit
Comb.: 'vivarii comes’ vel praefectus; de dioecetae munere
v. Reiske ad Const. Porph. de caer. 717, 19, Du Cange Gloss,
lat. s. v. Dioecetes 10 'Ιππολ.] cf. Hippolyt. Theb.
ed. Diekamp p. 33 δημοαιενόμενον P 11 extrema verba
seclusi 15 τεσσαρε^] τρεις P (etiam Codini codd.) 17 Falsa
tradit scriptor, sed noli corrigere (καί. Κρίβπον τον παιδός Κων¬
βταντίνον τον μεγάλον vel καί τον παιδός Κωνβταντίνον τον
ομωννμον καί έτέρον Κρίβπον όνομαζομένον Lamb., καί τέ¬
ταρτη τον παιδός Κωνβταντίνον τον Κρίβπον Comb.); inter-
 TRANSLATION 65

of a woman with two heads. Here a spectacle (thecoma) took place.

When a fire gripped the fort and the whole city burnt down together
with the walls, that tower of the gate where the statue (stele') stood
remained standing. And many times the fire indeed came very near
the place but fell back five fathoms from the statue {stele), as if forc¬
ed back by something preventing it. The statue (stele) was taken by
Chosroes, tyrant of Persia (probably Chosroes II, 579-628) and is
worshipped in Persia up to the present day, as Paradeisios, a tax-
collector who was captured there and escaped, has made plain in
the third edition of the chronicle of Hippolytus. [Check this extraor¬
dinary story].1
7. The place called Smyrnion near the Tetradesion portico has
below the ground, in the part ten fathoms to the north, nine statues
(stelai), near the church of S. Theodore. Of these statues (stelai),
four are of Constantine the Great (324-37) and his wife Fausta, and
Hilarion the praepositus and his third son, also named Constantine

1
A scribal memo which has crept into the text. See note.
 66 ΠΑΡΑΣΤΑΣΕΙΣ ΣΥΝΤΟΜΟΙ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑΙ

ον 'Ηρόδοτος καί 'Ιππόλυτος χρονογράφοι λέγονΰιν άποκε-

φαλιβ&ηναι υπό τον πατρός' ον καί λυπηθείς ό πατήρ
μετενόηΰε καί εχλανβεν επ’ αύτω μ' ημέρας, ώς ό λόγος έχει,
μη λουΰάμενος το 6ώμα, μη άναψύξας εν κοίτη. ’Εποίηΰε
δ δε την ΰτηλην εξ άργυρον καθαρού βάψας αυτήν χρνΰω
πλείΰτω, την δε κεφαλήν μόνην εκ χρυΰίον τελείου γρά-
φουΰαν εν τω μετωπιδίω' 'ηδικημένος υιός μου\ Ταντην
ΰτηΰας μετάνοιαν βάλλων ελιπάρει &εω υπέρ ών έπλημμέ-
ληΰεν. Αί δέ λοιπαϊ ε' ΰτηλαι ύπάρχουΰιν Σευηρου, 'Αρμα-
ιο τίου, Ζενξίππου, Βιγλεντίου ζτοϋ τα Βιγλεντίουy κτίβαντος
καί ’Ελευθερίου τον εις το Σινάτον το παλάτιον κτίΰαν-
τος. Ούτοι πάντες ξίφει παρεδό&ηβαν και υπό τοϋ άδικη-
ΰαντος ΰτηλω&έντες ΰνγχώρηΰιν παρά τον πλημμεληΰαντος
ίδυΰωπονντο. Παρέλαβον δέ καί τα οικεία τέκνα τούτο
ΐδ αυτό ποιεΐν καί εκ τούτων πολλοί έως Ονάλη τον 'Αρεια-
νοϋ. Οι ονν ’Αρειανοί μη φέροντες την ήτταν την διά
Κωνϋταντίνου εν τω είρημένω Τετραδιΰίω εμβόλω πλη-
ΰίον τοϋ άγιον Θεοδώρου ταντας κατέχωΰαν έ'ως της 6η-
μερον.
20 8. ’Εν δέ τω Σινάτω άπετέ&ηΰαν ηνίοχοι εν ζευ'ξίπ-

§ 8 Codin. II 94 (ρ. 64, 3 Β)

polavit locum Codinus, quem sequitur cod. Mosqu. Georgii

Monachi p. 428 (cf. Patzig Β. Z. VI 332) 1 Ήρωδίων
coll. § 61 Lamb. Αππολί] cf. ad p. 23 1. 10 4 μηδέ?
9 σεβηρον Ρ άρμάτον Ρ 10 τον τά Βιγλ. ex Codino
suppl.Lamb. 18 εως την 6η· Ρ, sed cf. § 19,23,26 20 Hoc lOco
valde obscuro narrari videtur in senatu statuas aurigarum, quae
erant έν ζενξίππoig (curruum genere?) sublatas et in organo
astronomico positas esse; currus vero in fornice esse defossos
άπετέ&ηοαν] — άφηρέϋ'ηααν? cf. § 11 Έν τή έχχληοία
ΰτηλαι άφηρέ&ησαν. Cui adversari videtur vis verbi in § 60
ηνίοχοι έν ζενξίπποις] quales significentur aurigae nescio;
'ζενξιπποι iunctores’ Corp. Gloss. Lat. Ill 241, ό, 'ζεύξιππος
desuitor’ C. Gl. L. II 46, 20; an έν έξίπποις βέξάιπποι sex-
 TRANSLATION 67

(sic), whom Herodotus and Hippolytus the chronographers say was

beheaded by his father, and for whom his father grieved and wept
for forty days, so we are told, neither washing his body nor resting
on his bed. He made the statue (stele) of pure silver and coated it
with much gold, and the head alone was made of pure gold,
inscribed on the forehead ‘My son who was wronged’. When he
had erected this he prostrated himself in penance and prayed to
God for his sins. The remaining five statues (stelai) are of Severus,
Harmatius, Zeuxippus, Viglentius the builder of <Ta Viglen-
tiou> 1 and Eleutherius who built the palace at the Senate. All these
people were executed by the sword and having been com¬
memorated in statues (stelothenta) by him who had wronged them,
they were implored with prayers for forgiveness by the sinner. Both
his own children and many of their descendants took over this duty
until the time of Valens the Arian (364-78). And the Arians, unable
to endure their defeat by Constantine, buried them in the Tetrade-
sion portico mentioned above near <the church of> S. Theodore
until the present day.
8. In the Senate there were placed charioteers in their chariots,

1
Supplied from Patna, 11.93, p. 201.
 68 ΠΑΡΑΣΤΑΣΕΙΣ ΣΥΝΤΟΜΟΙ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑΙ

ποις καί ετέ&ηΰαν εν τω άϋτρονομικώ όργάνω, εν&α της

’Αρτεμιδος καί της ’Αφροδίτης ί'ΰτανται ΰτήλαι' εν αίς βκν-
τάλαις άπεκεφαλίΰ&η ύπό των :Αρειανών ’Αρκάδιος αρχι¬
διάκονος της άγιας Ειρήνης' έν&α και λεγονΰι βείεβϋ'αι
5 τάς βτηλας εως τριών ημερών τον Φανάτον τούτον. Αί δε
καροϋχαι εν τω είλήματυ κατεχώΰ&ηβαν επί Θεοδοβίον τον
βαΰιλέως.
9. Και τούτο δε εμφέρεται, δτι οι δώδεκα κόφινοι δέκα
έτη εν τω νεω παλατίω τον Σινάτον πεποιήκαΟιν’ μετά δε
ίο ταϋτα <(έν)> τω είλήματι κατεχω6&η6αν Μητροφάνονς επι-
ΰκόπον Κωνσταντινουπόλεως τούτο ΰνμβονλενΰαντος τω με-
γάλω βαΰιλεί Κωνϋταντίνω.
10. Και τούτο δε εμφέρεται εις τούς πολλούς, δτι Μη¬
τροφάνονς καί :Αλεξάνδρου καί Παύλον αί εικόνες εν
15 οανΐΰι γεγόναΰιν υπό τού μεγάλον Κωνΰταντίνον' καί
ΐβταντο εν τω Φόρω πληΰίον της μεγάλης ΰτηλης τής εν
τω κίονι κατά την ανατολήν’ άςτινας εικόνας οί 'Αρειανοί
μετά τδ κρατήΰαι τω πνρί παραδεδωκαν εν τω κορονίω
Μίλίω μετά καί τής Θεοτόκον άπεικόνιΰμα καί αυτού
20 τού νηπιάΰαντος Οαρκί Αηϋού) κα&ά 'Αγκνριανός χρονο-

§ 9 1. 8—10 (κατεχ.): Codin. II 95 (ρ. 64, 9 Β) § 10

Codin. II 106 (ρ. 70, 4 Β)

iugae’ C. Grl. L. Ill 302, 69 et alibi)? 1 καί έτέ&ησαν seel.

Band. 2 ί'ΰταται ατήλη P, correxi ex Codino iv αί$] καί.
Lamb. σκντάλαις] 'σκυτάλη rutrum’ C. Gl. L. Ill 263, 14
6 έλήματι Ρ, είλήματί του 'Ιπποδρομίου GB 8 έμ-
φένεται Ρ, corr. Lamb., cf. § 10, 59 10 έν suppl. Comb,
(etiam Codini codd. GB) είλήματί τοΰ Φόρου GB; cf.
quae tradit Constant. Rhod. 76 (προς &έμε&λα τοΰ στύλου
sc. τοΰ πορφυρού) et adn. ad Hesycb. p. 17, 13 11 συμβολεύ-
σαντος Ρ 18 sq. ώρείω Μιλίω Lamb. coll. § 38 19 άπει-
κόνισμα Ρ] cf. § 32 adn. crit. 20 Αγκυρανός fAncyra oriun-
dus’ Lamb.
 TRANSLATION 69

and they were put at the place of astronomical calculations,1 where

stand the statues (stelai) of Artemis and Aphrodite. This is where
Arcadius the archdeacon of S. Irene was beheaded with clubs by
the Arians. They say that the statues (stelai) there shook for three
days after his death. The chariots were buried beneath the arch in
the time of the Emperor Theodosius (presumably Theodosius I,
379-95).
9. It is also said that the twelve baskets spent ten years in the
new palace of the Senate. After this they were buried in the vault
following the advice of Metrophanes, bishop of Constantinople
(306/7-14), to the Emperor Constantine the Great.
10. It is also said by the majority that likenesses (eikones) of
Metrophanes and Alexander (314-37) and Paul (337-57) were
depicted on boards under Constantine the Great (324-37). They
stood in the Forum, near the great statue (stele) on the column on
the eastern side. These likenesses (eikones) the Arians, after they had
prevailed, delivered up to be burned in the fire in the Koronion2
Milion, together with the likeness (apeikonisma) of the Mother of
God with Jesus Himself who had become an infant in the flesh; so

1 See note.
2 See note.
 70 ΠΑΡΑΣΤΑΣΕΙΣ ΣΥΝΤΟΜΟΙ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑΙ

γράφος εν τη Αεκαλόγω αντον άκριβέβτερον παρά Άνα-

ΰτάοιον ήμΐν παραδέδωκεν. [τό <Γ αητό καί αντος 'Ανα-
ΰτάοιος.]
11 . ’Εν τη μεγάλη εκκληΰία τη νϋν ονομαζόμενη αγία
5 Σοφία ΰτήλαι άφηρέ&ηΰαν νκζ\ αί πλεΐαι μεν 'Ελλήνων
νπάρχονΰαι' αΐτινες εκ των πολλών νπήρχον τον τε Ζεν
[καί τοϋ Αιδς] καί Κάρον τον πατροιοϋ Αιοκλητιανον καί
το δωδεκάζωδον καί ή Σελήνη καί ή ’Αφροδίτη καί δ
’Αρκτοϋρος άΰτήρ παρά δύο Περΰικών βτηλών βαΰταζόμενος
ίο καί δ νότιος πόλος καί ιέρεια τής ’Α&ηνας άπδ τον πλενροϋ
τον rΉρωνα φιλόβοφον μαντενονΰα. ’Εκ δε των Χριΰτιανών
δλίγαι μεν ώΰεί π' καί δέον εκ των πολλών δλίγας μνη-
μονενΰαι' Κωνΰταντίνον, Κωνΰταντίον, Κώνϋταντος? Γαληνόν
κναίΰτορος, <^Ιονλιανον Καίΰαρος καί έτερον ’Ιονλιανον επάρ-
15 χοη)>, Αικινίον Ανγονΰτον, Οναλεντινιανον καί Θεοδοοίον καί
’Αρκαδίον [καί] τον νίοϋ αντον ^ Σεραπίωνος νπατικον καί

§ 11 1. 4 — ρ. 27, 4 in.: Codin. II 96 (ρ. 64, 12 B); Anon.

Treu ρ. 9, 14 (Suid. s. v. Σοφία). — Eadem a Codino re-
tractantur I 49 (p. 16, 16 B)

1 έν τώ δεκάτω λόγω Codini codd. AMB 2 Glossema

indicavi 4 ίκ τής κτλ. . . Σοφίας Lamb. αγία bis extat
in Ρ 5 πλήαι Ρ (αί πλεΐαι-νπήρχον om. Tr. Suid.), πλεϊ-
σται Band. 6 τον τε Απόλλωνος καί τον Αιδς Lamb, ex
codd. A Codini I 49 7 καί. τον Αιδς seclusi πατρνον Ρ;
Κάρον τον πατρός καί Αιοκλ. Lamb., Κάρον τον προ Αιοκλ.
Meursius 8 καί των δώδεκα ζωδίων Tr. καί σελήνη ή
άφροδίτης Ρ, recte Tr. et Codin. 9 βασανιζόμενος P, recte
Tr. et Codin. 10 νομάτιος P, recte Tr. et Cod. ιέρεια]
ή έριδία Ρ, ίεριδία Comb. fort, recte 11 ήρωνα Ρ μαν-
τενειν τινά faiicui vaticinari’ non alienum videtur esse ab
hac aetate, cf. πολεμεΐν, έγγίζειν τινά § 54 et § 28, Hatzi-
dakis Einleitung p. 220 sq. 12 ολίγοι Ρ, ονκ δλίγαι Lamb.,
sed opponi videtur p. 26, 5 αί πλεΐαι 13 γαλλίνον Tr.
14 ’Ιονλιανον—έπάρχον supplevi ex Tr. et Cod. 16 καί
interpolationem esse apparet ex Tr. et Cod. σαραπίωνος Tr.
et Codini codd. aliquot
 TRANSLATION 71

Ancyrianus the historian has most accurately handed down to us in

his Decalogue through Anastasius.
[And Anastasius himself says the same].1
11. At the Great Church which is now called S. Sophia, 427
statues (stelai) were removed, most of them of pagans. Among the
many were ones of Zeus, and of Carus (emperor, AD 282), the
ancestor of Diocletian (284-305), and the Zodiac, and the Moon
and Aphrodite and the North Star, Arcturus, supported by two
Persian statues (stelai) and the South Pole and a priestess of Athena
prophesying to Hero the philosopher, in profile. There were only a
few (statues) of Christians, about eighty. Out of the many it is
worth mentioning a few: Constantine (324-37), Constantius
(337-61), Constans (337-50), Galen the quaestor, <Julian Caesar
and another Julian, the eparch>,2 Licinius Augustus (308-24),
Valentinian (?I, 364-75) and Theodosius (I, 379-95) and Arcadius
[and] his son (395-408), Serapio the governor, and three of Helena

1 A scribal memo, apparently from someone who had checked; cf. chapter 6.
2 Supplemented from Anon. Treu and Patria, 11.96, p. 202.
72 ΠΑΡΑΣΤΑΣΕΙΣ ΣΤΝΤΟΜΟΙ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑΙ

ΓΕλένης μητρός Κωνΰταντίνου τρεις' η μεν μία πορφυρά διά

μαρμάρων, η δε ετέρα διά ψηφίδων αργυρών εν χαλχω
χίονι χαϊ η άλλη έλεφαντώδης Κύπρου ρητορος προςενέγ-
χαντος' άςτινας ’Ιουβτινιανός μερίβας τη πόλει τον ναόν τον
μέγιβτον ανεγείρει μετά πίΰτεως καί πόνου. Οί δε πεπειρα¬
μένοι. των προειρημένων περίεργόμενοι την πόλιν χαϊ ζη-
τουντες εύρήΰουΟιν ουχ όλίγας.
12. Μαναΐμ ΰτρατηγοϋ νιχηβαντος Σχύ&ας χατά χράτος,
ΰτηλη ηξιώ&η τιμη&ηναι εν τω χαλουμένω Ώρείω, ο τινες
χαλοϋβι Μόδιον' ζτ\ν χαλούμενον ώρολόγιον, εν&α νυν
ΐβτανται χίονες χαϊ άψϊς προς τον οΐχον τον νυν λεγόμενον
Κρατεροϋ' εν&α ΐβταται χαϊ μόδιος χαλχοϋς χαϊ ώρείον χαϊ
δύο χειραι χαλχαι επί άχοντίων^. Το δε Μόδιον δέον
έβτϊ μη παραδραμεΐν ημάς ότι επί Οναλεντινιανου έτυπώ&η.

§ 12 Codin. II 97 (ρ. 64, 14 Β) fere ad verburn. Treu p. 9,

26 (Suidas s. v. Μαναΐμ): "Οτι Μαναΐμ τον βτρ. νιχηβαντος
Σχύδας ΐβτηβαν βτηλην αντοϋ έν τώ χαλ. ’άίρείω, ο τινες χαλ.
Μόδιον ην γάρ ώρείον, ΐν&α ννν ΐβτανται χίονες προ τον
οΐχον τον Κρατεροϋ· ’έν&α ΐβτατο χαϊ μόδιος χαλχοϋς πληβίον
των χειρών ην δε ό μόδιος δίχαιον μέτρον, ώς αν τώ
χωρηματι αντοϋ χαϊ πωλώβι πάντες οί βιτοπραται χαϊ
άγοράζωβιν οί σιτώναι χαϊ τώ ΐβω μέτρω δίδοται το
βιτηρέβιον τοϋτο δέ ένομο&έτηβεν Οναλεντινιανός· πιπρά-
βχεβ&αι δε τον αϊτόν μοδίονς δώδεχα τώ νομίβματι μηδενος
άντιλέγοντος. "Ο&εν τις ναύτης βαβιλεϊ βΐτον άπεμπωλών χαϊ
άδιχών φωρα&εϊς έν τη πράβει την δεξιάν άφηρέ&η χεϊρα · οί
δέ φαβιν, ότι μάλλον άντεϊπε τώ βαβιλεϊ ώς άδίχως νομο&ετη-
βαντι χαϊ διά τοϋτο άφηρέ&η την δεξιάν χεϊρα. Ό&εν έτνπώ-

2 χαρχώ Ρ 4 Ιου/////ιανός Ρ 8 μαναναήε Ρ, cf. Tr.

Idem nomen in fragmentis Papiae ed. de Boor Texte u. Unter-
suchungen V 2, 170 (την μητέρα Μαναΐμον et alibi Pape-
Benseler s. v. Μανάημος)·, cf. Acta Ajpost. 13, 1 Μαναην
νιχηβαντες Ρ 9 ώρίω Ρ 10 ην —13 άχοντίων suppl.
ex Codino; casu excidisse docent Tr. et Suid. 14 βαλεν-
τινιανοϋ Ρ
 TRANSLATION 73

the mother of Constantine; one of porphyry and [other] marbles,

another with silver inlay on a bronze column and the other of ivory,
given by Cypros the rhetor. These statues Justinian (I, 527-65)
distributed about the city when he built the Great Church with faith
and effort. Those who know the foregoing find a good number of
them if they go round the city and look for them.
12. When Manaim the general had mightily defeated the
Scythians he was considered worthy of being honoured with a
statue {stele) in the so-called Horreum, which some call Modion.
There was what is called a measure1 2 where now columns and an apse stand,
near the house now called the house of Crateros. A bronze measure also stands
there, and a granary, and two bronze hands on spikes.2 As for the Modion,
we must not omit the fact that it was put up in the time of Valenti-

1 On the very difficult terminology of this chapter, see the commentary.

2 The italicized portion is supplemented from Patna, 11.97, p. 202.
74 ΠΑΡΑΣΤΑΣΕΙΣ ΣΥΝΤΟΜΟΙ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑΙ

Τότε γάρ και άρχιμόδιον παρά των εν Κωνΰταντινονπόλει

οίκονντων άνηρεννη&η δεκαδνο Ί* τοντο τον άργνρον τνπώ-
Οαντος' άργνρονν <(δε)> απ’ αρχής ετνπώϋ'η το νόμιΰμα. Τοντο
δε καί Θεοδώρητος διαφατενει τρανότατα. Αί δε χαλκαΐ
χεΐραι εκτοτε νπεράνω ετνπώ&ηΰαν' τον γάρ βαΰιλέως τοντο
το κονμονλιον μόδιον νομο&ετήϋαντος, μη άνταίρειν δε
τ(οΐς^ ναντιοϋδιν προςτάξαντος, κατά τά διτηρέΰια εις εξ
άμφοτέρων των ναντών τω βαΰιλεΐ τ<(ονβ ΰΐτον άπεμπωλών
εν τοΐς εκεΐΰε δίκην άδικον καταγγείλαντος εν τω κατωγαίω
Μοδίω την δεξιάν χεΐρα άπώλεΰεν. ΌαΙεν καί. ετνπώ&ηδαν
αί χεΐραι τοΐς λαμβάνονΰιν καί τοΐς διδονΰιν, άμφοτέρονς
εκ των προςτεταγμενών μη άγανακτεΐν. Ό-Φεν καί Οναλεν-
τινιανοϋ τον βαΰιλεως ΰτηλη εξαμον εν δεξιά χειρϊ κατε-
χονοα άρπαγηναι εις πάκζτον'β διά τό καί αντην είναι
άργνραν *f* μικράν νπό ζτονβ Κονρίον προτίκτορος επί ’Ιου-
Οτινιανον τω <(β' ετει).

%·ηΰαν κτλ. ad verbum transcripsit. Cf. etiam Codin. II 51

(p. 45, 16 B) et Treu p. 21, 20

1 άρχη μοδίων Lamb. 2 άνηνρέ&η Comb. p. 308 dfxaj-

δύο P. Incertum exciderint necne post δέκα una vel duae litterae
margine subciso τοντο κτλ.] locum non expedio; quid dixerit
auctor, ex Tr. apparet. Exspectamus: δεκαδνο (sc. μοδίονς)
τούτον (= τοΰ βαΰιλέως) τω άργνρω (τό άργνρον Bjzantinis =
νόμιΰμα) ζπιπράΰκεΰ&αιβ τνπώΰαντος 3 άργνρονν <?ε] άργν-
ρόν Ρ, df supplevi ex Codino 6 άντερεϊν P, correxi coll.
§ 26 7 ναντιονοιν P, derivatum est a * ναντιώ vel * ραν¬
τίζω = ναύτης είμί·, v. Hatzidakis p. 395 sqq. de similibus
verbis κατά] καί P, corrigebam εις έξαμφοτέρων Ρ (άμ-
φότεροι = πάντες cf. § 17) 8 τον] exstat in folio initium
litterae τ; reliqua abscisa sunt άπεμπώλονν P 9 δίκην
άδικον] — δίκην αδικίας καταγγείλαντος] sc. τοΰ βαΰιλέως
vel τοΰ δικαστον 12 βαλεντινιανον Ρ 13 έξαμον — examen?
cf. §37; an έξάγιον? 14 άρπαγηναι] καί ηρπάγη Lamb.,
ώστε άρπαγηναι Comb. εις πάκ | Ρ reliquis abscisis, item
1. 15 et 16 τοΰ et β’ έτει perierunt cum margine 15 μακράν
Comb. κνρίον P, correxi ex Tr. et Cod.
 TRANSLATION 75

nian (364-75). For at that time an official measure was established

among the people of Constantinople, and f he Fixed1 it at twelve
< measures> to the silver coin, for the nomisma was originally
struck of silver. Theodoret describes this most clearly. The bronze
hands were then set up above it; for when the emperor (i.e.
Valentinian) had decreed this < as the> full measure, and had in¬
structed the shippers not to resist, one of the shippers who was sell¬
ing his corn to the emperor for the corn dole lost his right hand at
the foot of the Modion when someone among those present accused
him of cheating.2 As a result the hands were set up for buyers and
sellers warning both not to rebel against what had been decreed. So
too a statue (stele) of the Emperor Valentinian holding a measure in
its right hand was removed to pay tribute by Curius the protector in
the < second year> of Justinian,3 * 5 because t<ffiough> small, it
too was of silver.

1 See commentary. Something may be missing, though the extreme compres¬

sion is perhaps just possible.
2 The Greek is very difficult, and is consequently paraphrased by the Patna to
simplify it. P’s text however may stand despite the contortions. See commentary
throughout.
5 The title protector suits the reign of Justinian I (527-65) better than that of
Justinian II (685-95, 705-11); ‘in the second year’ is supplied from the Patria,
II.97a, p. 203.
 76 ΠΑΡΑΣΤΑΣΕΙΣ ΣΥΝΤΟΜΟΙ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑΙ

13. Μενάνδρου μάντεως Κρητών ηκεν εν Κωνΰταντι-

νουπόλει είκών, ην εΰτηΰαν επί τον 'Αρτοτυριανόν οίκον εις
&έαν διά το είναι την ΰτηλην εις μήκος πηχών ιε\ πλάτος
δε <(^,V ηντινα χυτήν μη νπάρχουΰαν, άλλ’ ελατήν Μαρ-
5 κιανος εις οβολούς ελάΰας τοΐς δημοΰίοις προςε&ηκεν.
14. Αρδαβουριος ΰτρατηγός επί Αεοντος του πάνυ εν
τοΐς Θρακωοις μερεΰιν :Ηρωδιανοϋ ΰτηλην ευρών επίκυ(ρτον)
πάνυ καί παχεϊαν ’θ'υμω&είς ωλεΰεν' ηντινα όλεΰας χρυΰίου
λίτρων ρλγ' τάλαντα ευρεν, ά μετά προθυμίας τω βαΰιλεΐ
ίο κατεμΊ^νυΰεν. 'Ο δε νπ’ αυτού εΰψάττετο καί δδυνώμενος
ελεγεν' ουδείς μολίβδω χρυΰον καταμίξας επί ζημίας *{* ην-
δρίζετο, οία παρά τω κυρτω τοΰτω βαΰιλεΐ εις εμε ΰυμβε-
βηκεν. ’Έν&εν καί οι διερχόμενοι τω τόπω καί μάλιΰτα
φιλόΰοφοι ου τοΐς προτεροις κακοΐς τω &ανάτω ’Αρδαβου-
15 ριον εβαλλον, αλλ’ εινεκεν ΰτηλης 'Ηρωδιανου καταλυΰεως’
δτε καί ’Άΰπαρ ΰύν αυτω το πέρας εδε'ξατο. ’Άΰπαρος

§ 13 Codin II 98 (ρ. 66, 14 Β) paucis discrepat; ν. adn.

§ 14 Codin. II 99 (ρ. 67, 3 Β)

1 κριτών Ρ; Menander quidam, γόης καί άπατενων, me-

moratur a Cedreno I 433, 14; 437, 7, Ps.-Pol. p. 212 H.
2 ίστησεν Ρ 4η' periit cum margine, suppl. ex Codino
χν μευτην νπάρχονΰαν καί άργνροελατην κα&αράν
Codin. 6 Similes historias collegit Art. Graf Roma nella
mem. del medio evo I 161—171 7 ρτον periit cum marg.
8 χρνοίον P, corr. ex Codino 10 όδνρόμενος Lamb.
11 χρναω Ρ ίπιζημιας ηνδρ. Ρ, ίπί ζημίας vel έπιζημιος
ήνδρ. Codini codd. mel., ίπιζημιος ηνρίσκετο ex Codini codd.
deterioribus vel ίπί ζημίας ηλίβκετο Comb., ίπί ζημίας (όντως)
ηνδρίζετο Wuensch (poenas dans sic afflictus Bst), ίπιζημιος
ίνομίζετo W. Fischer; an ίπί ζημία ηναρίζετo? 13 τον
τόπον Codin. 15 ίνέβαλον Codini codd. praeter ΙΑ,; de
βάλλω pro ίμβάλλω ν. Usener Theodosios ρ. 141; an τον θά¬
νατον Αρδαβονρίω ίβαλλον? Cf. Passio S. Perpetuae ρ. 125, 5
Franchi: κάγώ ητις ηδειν προς ϋ'ηρία με καταδικαα&εΐσαν,
ί&ανμαζον ότι ονκ ίβαλλόν μοι αντά
 TRANSLATION 77

13. The likeness (eikon) of Menander the seer of the Cretans

came to Constantinople. They placed it on the Artotyrianos hall to
be seen, because the statue (stele) was fifteen cubits high and eight
cubits broad. It was not cast but of beaten metal, and Marcian
(450-57) struck it into coins and put it in the Treasury.
14. Ardaburius, a general in the reign of Leo the Great (457-74),
found in the region of Thrace a statue (stele) of Herodian which was
very hunchbacked and heavy. In a fit of anger he broke it, and on
breaking it he found 133 talents of gold pounds, which he en¬
thusiastically reported to the emperor. But he was killed by him. In
his agony he said ‘No one debasing gold with lead (i.e. not even a
counterfeiter) has f received1 such a punishment as has been dealt to
me by this hunchbacked emperor!’ And so those who pass by the
place, especially philosophers, did not attribute the death of Ar¬
daburius to his previous misdeeds, but thought it was because of his
destruction of the statue (stele) of Herodian. This was when Aspar
also met his death with him. A statue (stele) of Aspar is preserved up

1 For the text, see commentary.

 78 ΠΑΡΑΣΤΑΣΕΙΣ ΣΥΝΤΟΜΟΙ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑΙ

ΰτήλη εν τοΐς Ταύρον ΰώζεται εως της δενρο κατοχνΐα εν

ΐππω *j* αννύω δεξιολαβει κα-θ’ώ? δραται.
15. (βΕνβ δε τω Φόρω τω δε'ξιω της ανατολής μέρει
εδέξατο ΰτηλας πορφύρας δια μαρμάρων (ιββ' καί ΰειρήνας
5 ιβ'~ άςτινας ΰειρηνας οί πολλοί ϊππονς ζ&αλαΰΰίους) κα¬
λούδι χρνΰεμβάφονς. ’Επί δε ημών επτά καί μόναι κα&ο-
ρώνται' τάς δε τρεις εξ αντών δ εν τοΐς ημετέροις χρόνοις
εν τοΐς τον άγιον Μάμαντος μετέ&ηκε μερεΰιν, αί δε δ'
ΰώζονται εως της δενρο.
ίο 16. Λέον γινώϋκειν δτι δ ΰτανρδς δ μεΰοΰνλλαβών άνα-
γινωΰκόμενος 'άγιος’ παρά τον προΰτατονντος τω Φόρω
άνηγέρ&η" εν&εν καί ταχνδρόμων δύο καί αντοϋ Κωνΰταν-

§ 15 Codin. II 100 (ρ. 67, 19 Β) § 16 Codin. II 102

(ρ. 68, 8 Β) fere ad verbum. Treu ρ. 10, 15 (Suid. s. v. Ελένη
et ΰτανρός): Ότι έν τη αψίδι τής καμάρας τον φόρου
ΐατανται δυο ΰτήλαι Ελένης καί Κωνΰτ. καί ΰτανρδς έν μέΰω
αντών γράφων είς άγιος' καί δύο ταχνδρόμων ομοίως ΰτήλαι·
άνετέ&ηΰαν δε υπό τον τον φόρον έπέχοντος. °Ότι έπϊ το
μέρος το βόρειον του φόρον ί'ΰτατο ΰτανρός, ώς είδεν αυτόν έν
τω ονρ. Κωνΰταντΐνος, χρνΰέμπλαΰτος έν τοΐς ακρ. ΰτρ. μή-
λοις· ’έν&εν καί αυτός καί οί viol αντον κα&ορώνται χρνΰέμ-
βαφοι. [Inde Codin. II 16 (ρ. 28, 11 Β) et II 18 (ρ. 29, 9 B);
ν. Beitrage ζ. Textg. ρ. 36]

1 κατοχνα Ρ, est participium praesentis perfecti more for-

matum; cf. ηκεν ήκαΰΐν ήκέναι similia (κα&εξόμενος Codin.)
2 I αννύω P; ante a una littera yidetur cum margine periisse;
γαννύω edd., sed ραννύω fuisse rnilii ex vestigiis magis probatur;
μεν
έρρωμένωΟοάία. (ρωνννω?) δεξιολαβεΐ] cf. Leo Gramm, p.252,18
Bonn, τον δεξιόν ίππου ον ήλαννε; ίππος άδέΰτρατος vel άδί-
ΰτρατος (a dextra) in Sopboclis lex. s. v. 3 έν et 4 i pe-
rierunt cum margine ^εξιώ] Codin., δευτέρω P 4 έδέ-
ξατο P] sc. Λέων? έδέξαντο edd. et Codini A2 5 ϋ’αλαΰΰίονς
addidit Lamb, ex Codino 6 επτά καί μόνοι Ρ, επτά μόνον
Comb., sed cf. § 28 et 56 et Malalas ed. Dind. ind. s. ν. καί
10 μεΰοΰνλλαβών] activum pro passivo: cf. γράφειν §7,17,
26, 44 a, τοΐς προαναδεδηλωκόΰΐ § 17 12 άνηγορεύ&η Ρ
 TRANSLATION 79

to the present day in the region of the Taurus; it is mounted on a

horsef as can be seen.
15. < In> the Forum on the right1 2 part of the eastern side, he3
received twelve statues (stelai) of porphyry and (other) marbles and
twelve sirens, which most people call gilded sea horses. But in our
time only seven are to be seen. The emperor in our day moved
three of them into the region of S. Mamas, but the other four are
preserved in place up to the present day.
16. Note that the cross on which can be read at the intersection
‘Hagios’4 was set up by him who was the patron of the Forum.
There too two statues (stelai) are preserved on the right and left of
the angels, one of Constantine himself and one of Helena. To the

1 P’s text is both defective and corrupt; see note.

2 So Patna, II. 100, p. 204; P has ‘second’.
3 I.e. Constantine.
4 Possibly something like this:

Γ O

(suggested by Professor C. Mango).

 80 ΠΑΡΑΣΤΑΣΕΙΣ ΣΥΝΤΟΜΟΙ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑΙ

τίνον και 'Ελένης εκ δεξιών καϊ εξ ενωννμων ΰώζονται

βτήλαι. Το δε προςέρχεΰθαι προς βορραν καϊ άπέρχεΰθαι
προς ανατολήν, ΰτανρδς άργνρέμπλαΰτος εν τοΐς άκρωτηρια-
κοϊς ΰτρογγνλοις μήλοις εν αντω τω τόπω νπδ Κωνΰταν-
5 τίνον τον μεγάλον άνηγέρθη, ώς εθεάΰατο ξαντόν εν τω
ονρανωΐ}' ένθεν οί νίοϊ καί αντδς καθορώνται χρνΰέμ-
βαφοι.
17. ’Εν αντω τω Φόρω καϊ ελέφαντος ΰτήλη φοβερά
ϊΰτατο εν τοΐς ενωννμοις μέρεΰι πληΰίον τής μεγάλης ΰτή-
ιο λης' ο καί παράδοξον εδείκνντο θέαμα. Σειΰμον γάρ γενο-
μενον ποτέ καϊ αντδς πεπτωκώς άπώλεΰεν ενα τον οπιΰθεν
πόδα. Οί δε τον έπαρχον βοήΰαντες ταξεώται — I'itog γάρ
τά τον Φόρον παρ’ αντοΐς φνλάττεΰθαι — ΰννδραμόντες
εγεΐραι ενρον εν τω αντω ελέφαντι άνθρωπον όΰτά άμφό-
15 τέρα δλον τον ΰώματος καϊ πνξίον μικρόν, ο εν τή κεφαλή
εγραφεν\ '’Αφροδίτης παρθένον ίεράς ο-υ^έ θανονΰης χωρί¬
ζομαι . ΓΌπερ δ έπαρχος τω δημοΰίω προςέθηκεν εις νονμία
τοΐς προαναδεδηλωκόΰι.
18. ’Εν δε τω λεγομενω Μιλίω Θεοδοΰίον ΰτήλη ΐΰτατο

§ 17 Codin. II 102 (ρ. 68, 10 Β) fere ad verbum § 18

Codin. II 104 (ρ. 69, 12 B); Treu p. 10, 26 (Suid. s. v. Θεοδόΰίος)

2 τώ δε προςέρχεαθαι = εν τώ δε πρ. Ε. Kurtz 3 6ταυρδν

άργνρέμπλαβτον Ρ καί iv τοΐς άν,ρωτηρίοις ΰτρογγνλοις μήλον
Band. Globi extremis crucis partibus affixi ex argento erant
5 άνηγορεν&η Ρ έθεάαατα Ρ αντδν έν τω ονρανώ
ex Codino suppl. Lamb. 10 o] ΐνθα Codin., ov Lamb.
11 ενα των δπιοθεν Lamb. 15 δ] ον Ρ et Codin., correxi
ex consuetudine auctoris cf. § 7, 26, 44a . 16 ϊέραος ονδε
θανονσα P; corrigebam; Αφροδίτη est hominis nomen. Locum
variis coniecturis tentant Lamb, et Comb. (Αφροδίτης Παρ¬
θένον ιερά· ονδε θανονΰης χωρ. Alexis) 17 νομία Ρ
18 προανα^εΑ] forma activa pro passiva, γ. ρ. 30, 10; spectat
ad ρ. 29, 5
 TRANSLATION 81

north as you come in and to the east as you go out, a cross inlaid
with silver, with circular orbs at the ends of its arms was erected in
this place by Constantine the Great, just as he saw < it in the
sky> d There gilded statues of his sons and himself can be seen.
17. In the same Forum also stood an awe-inspiring statue {stele)
of an elephant, in the area on the left near the great statue {stele).
This manifested a strange spectacle {theama). For once there was an
earthquake and the elephant fell over and broke one back foot. The
soldiers of the Prefect (for the Forum falls under their sphere of du¬
ty) shouted to each other and came running up to re-erect it, and
found inside the same elephant all the bones of a complete human
body, and a small tablet, which had written at the top:1 2
‘Not even in death am I separated from the holy maiden
Aphrodite’.
The Prefect added this to the public treasury for coins, in addition
to the above cases.
18. In the place called the Milion stood a bronze equestrian

1 Supplied from Patna, 11.102, p. 205.

2 Or ‘a small box, which had written on its lid’.
 82 ΠΑΡΑΣΤΑΣΕΙΣ ΣΥΝΤΟΜΟΙ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑΙ

έφιππος χαλκη' ην άνεγείρας πολλά ϋιτηρέΰια τη πόλει

προςε&ηκεν.
19. At δε εν τω Περιπατώ έφιπποι ΰτηλαι γένος Γρα-
τιανον άπαν και Θεοδοσίου και Οναλεντινιανον' ε| αυτών
5 και κυρτόν Φιρμιλλιανον προς γέλωτα γέγονεν' ο και σώ¬
ζεται εως της σήμερον.
20. Τον δε Ξηρόλοφον πρώην &έαμά τινες εκαλοϋσαν'
και εν αντω γάρ κοχλίδαι ις' και "Αρτεμις, σνν&ετή στήλη,
και Σενήρου τον κτίσαντος και &εμάτιον τρέπουν. ’Έν&α
ίο και Ό'νΰίαι πολλαϊ παρά τον αντον Σενηρον γεγόνασιν’
ένθα και χρησμοί πολλοί εν αντω τω τόπω γεγόνασιν' καθ’
ον και κόρη παρ&ένος έτνϋ'η" και αστρονομική ϋ·έσις εις
λς' χρόνους διηρκεΰε.
21. Το δε Έζακιόνιν το λεγόμενον εσχε ποτέ πτώκα
15 και κννα και Νεβρώδ παμμεγέ&η, τά τρία από ενός ΰιδή-
ρον' και πολλά ετερα θεάματα εν αντω τω τόπω εσώζοντο.
Ταντα Μαρκιανός παρέΰτειλε και εν τοϊς τον αγίου Μά-
μαντος μέρεΰι προςέ&ηκε. Και λοντρόν δε ην εις μέγε&ος,
έν ω και πολλοί εκινδννευον διά τό λέγειν μη δέζασ&αι
2° χρησμόν.

§ 19 Codin. II 104 a (deest in edd.); Treu p. 10, 29, Suid.

s. y. ΰτηλη et Γρατιανός (Cod. p. 53, 16 B), v. Beitrage zur
Textg. p. 37 § 20 Cod. II 105 (p. 70, 1 B); Treu p. 11, 1,
Suid. s. v. Ξηρόλοφος (Cod. p. 30, 1 B), v. Beitrage etc. p. 38

1 έφ’ ίππου P Tr. Suid. χαλκόν P, corr. ex Tr. Suid.

4 βαλεντινιανον P έξ αντον P, correxi ex Cod. 5 8] η
Lamb., sed cf. p. 31, 10 et 15 6 τή P 7 τό δέ ξηρ. P
(cf. § 71) θέμα Suid. 8 κοχλίαι Tr. Suid.; columnae
Traiani et M. Aurelii in Notitia regionum Urbis Romae c. 8
et 9 fcoclides’ dicuntur ιβ' P, ις' Codin. Tr. Suid.
9 τίπονν P 12 καθ’ όν καιρόν καϊ Suid. 13 διαρκέααΰα
Tr. Suid. 15 νπό P 19 διά τό λίγειν ήτινάς)? ρ. 33, 5
20 χριαμόν? (χρισμός — χρίσμα? multi ut ferunt periclitati
sunt propter unctionem neglectam?)
 TRANSLATION 83

statue (stele) of Theodosius (379-95). When he erected it he donated

much grain to the city.
19. The equestrian statues (stelai) in the Peripatos are of the
whole family of Gratian (367-83), Theodosius (379-95) and Valen-
tinian (I, 364-75; II, 375-92). Among them, one of the crooked Fir-
millianus was made for (or ‘became’) a joke; and it is actually
preserved to the present day.
20. Formerly, some people used to call the Xerolophos a spec¬
tacle (theama). For in it were sixteen spiral columns, and Artemis, a
composite statue (stele) and one of the builder (i.e. of the
Xerolophos), Severus (193-211) and a monument (themation)—a
tripod. Many sacrifices also took place there at the orders of the
same Severus. And there too many prophecies were given in the
same place, at which a virgin was also sacrificed, and an
astronomical position1 prevailed for thirty-six years.
21. The so-called Exakionion once held a hare, a hound and a
huge Faunus, all three from one piece of iron; and many other
sights (theamata) were preserved in this place. These Marcian
(450-57) took away and placed in the region of S. Mamas. And
there was a large bath, in which many were endangered because
they said they had not heard the prophecy.2

1 See note.
2 Whatever the passage means, it is about predicting the future; so Preger’s sug¬
gestion, χρισμόν (‘baptism’) is unnecessary.
 84 ΠΑΡΑΣΤΑΣΕΙΣ ΣΥΝΤΟΜΟΙ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑΙ

22. ’Εν δε τώ αγίω Μάμαντί ποτέ ΐβτατο γέφυρα φο¬

βέρα περί δώδεκα λόφους καί καμάρας εχουΰα. Ποταμός
γάρ κατήρχετο έκεΐΰε παμμεγέ&ης καί μάλιΰτα, cbg ελεγον,
τώ Φεβρουαρίω μηνί. ’Έν&α καί δράκων ΐΰτατο χαλκούς
5 παμμεγέϋ'ης διά τό λέγειν τινάς δράκοντα κατοικεΐν έν τώ
γεφυρίω έκείνω' εν αυτώ ονν πολλαί παρθένοι έτύ&ηβαν
καί προβάτων καί ορνέων πλή&η πολλά καί βοών. Βαΰι-
λίΰκος γάρ τις έραΰϋ'είς τον τόπον, og εις των από Νου-
μεριανοϋ Καίΰαρος υπήρχε, κτίΰας κατωκηΰεν εν αυτώ"
ίο εν&α καί ναόν παμμεγέ&η τού Λιός ήγειρεν. Ταϋτα δε Ζή¬
νων έν τώ δευτέρω τής βασιλείας καιρώ παρέλυσε.
23. 'Εν τώ Φόρω κάτω&εν τής μεγάλης στήλης νπάρ-
χουσι σταυροί εις πλή&ος, τό σημείον τού ΰταυροϋ τού με¬
γάλου φέροντες' εν&α καί των δύο ληστών των συσταυρω-
15 Ό'έντων τώ Χριστώ έν αυτώ τώ τόπω κεχωσμένοι είσίν εως
τής ΰήμερον' αλλά καί βίσσιον υελουν μύρου, έν ω δ Xρι-
6τός ήλείψατο, καί πολλά ετερα εις πλή&ος σημειοφορικά
υποκάτω του Φόρου υπάρχουΰιν, ζτε&έντα') παρά Κωνΰταν-
τίνου του μεγάλου καί παρά Θεοδοσίου τού μεγάλου άσφα-
20 λισ&έντα9 άτινα κατ' όνομα εις μήκος του μνημονεϋσαι έξα-
γόμεΌ'α.
24. Πολλά έν τώ Στρατηγίω τώ μεγάλω Κωνΰταντϊνος

§ 22 Treu ρ. 11, 13, Suid. s. ν. Μάμας·, inde Codin. II 21

(ρ. 30, 14 Β) § 23 Treu ρ. 11, 9 et Suid. s. ν. Φόρος paucis
omissis; inde Cod. II 20 (p. 30, 10 B)

1 iv δε τον αγίω (sic) Ρ 2 μαρμάρας Ρ 7 βασιλι¬

κός Ρ 8 τοΰ τόπον Tr. Suid. εις τόν Ρ νονμερίον Ρ
11 κατέλνσεν Tr. Suid. 12 ότι κάτω&εν τον φόρον κεχω-
σμένοι νπάρχονσιν κτλ. Tr. Suid. στήλης] πύλης Ρ, corr.
Lamb. 13 τανροϊ Ρ 15 εως τή Ρ 16 βηκίον Tr., βίκιον
Suid.; sed cf. Usener Acta Anastasii ind. s. ν. βίσσα έν ω]
δ Tr. Suid. 18 τε&έντα inserui ex Tr. Suid.
 TRANSLATION 85

22. At S. Mamas there once stood a terrifying bridge with about

twelve arches and vaults. For a very big river used to pour down at
that point, especially, as they said, in the month of February. There
too stood a very big bronze dragon, since some said that a dragon
lived in that bridge. Accordingly many virgins were sacrificed on it
and a great number of sheep and birds and oxen. For a certain
Basiliscus, who was one of the descendants of the Caesar Numerian
(AD 282), fell in love with the place, built it up and lived there;
there too he erected a very large temple to Zeus. But Zeno put an
end to these things1 in the second part of his reign (i.e. 477-91).
23. In the Forum, underneath the great statue [stele), there is a
multitude of crosses, bearing the form of the Great Cross.2 There
too < those of > the two thieves who were crucified with Christ are
buried in this place until the present day. Also a glass vessel of the
myrrh with which Christ was anointed, and a great many other
miraculous3 things are beneath the Forum, < placed there>4 by
Constantine the Great (324-37) and made safe by Theodosius the
Great (379-95), which we refrain from mentioning by name at
length.
24. Constantine the Great (324-37) took much pleasure in the

1 I.e. ‘destroyed the pagan temple’, or ‘put an end to the pagan practices’.
2 See commentary.
3 Or ‘bearing witness’.
4 Supplemented from the Anon. Treu.
 86 ΠΑΡΑΣΤΑΣΕΙΣ ΣΥΝΤΟΜΟΙ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑΙ

δ μεγας ηρέβκετο' όθεν καί νουμίa 'Ελληνικά εις χάος

*{* πλήθος παρέδωκεν. '£1ς δε έγγράφως μεν τούτο ονχ εϋρο-
μεν, παρά δε άνδρών των εν πείρα της γραφής τνγχανόν-
των ήκονΰαμεν, δτι ίν αντω τω Στρατηγίω καί χρνΰός εις
5 πλήθος κατεχώβθη εις χάος πολύ. Καί ονκ ήπίβτηΰα άκον-
ύας, ότι [ά] καί ημείς καί οι πατέρες ημών εζέδωκαν ημϊν
τα πλείω άγράφως καί ονκ έγγράφως , ώς ι'ΰαΰιν οι φιλο¬
μαθείς. .Εν δε τω μικρω Στ ρατηγίω μόλιβδος πολύς χρη¬
ματίζει, η αντος δ μόλιβδος η μολίβδον διάθεΰις έγγραφος'
ίο αλλά καί χρνΰίον καί άργνρίον διά μαρμαρζίν^ων γραφών
ποίηΰις' τούτο δε εκ ΰτίχων πινακιδίων μαρμάρινων η άνα-
γνώτες η παρά τών άναγνωΰάντων έρεννηΟαντες ταύτα γε-
γραφήκαμεν.
25 . ’Εν δε τω ναω τού άγιον Μήνα όρυγμα ενρέθη
15 μέγα^ ότε έκαθαίρετο, καί όΰτα ανθρώπων γιγάντων εις
πλήθος, άτινα θεαΰάμενός ό βαΰιλενς ό ’Αναδτάϋιος καί
έκπλαγείς ίν τη Φόΰΰα κατέθετο εις θαύμα εξαίΰιον.
26 . ’Εν τω ναω τού άγιον μάρτυρος Προκοπίου τού

§ 25 Treu ρ. 11, 24, Suid. s. ν. Μήνας; inde Codin. II 22

(ρ. 31, 3 Β) § 26 Treu ρ. 11, 29, Suid. s. ν. Προκόπιος;
inde Codin. II 23 (ρ. 31, 7 Β)

2 <(είς)> πλήθος? cf. lin. 4 et 15; pertinet ad νονμία Cf.

Socrat. I 1, 1 όσα ή έγγράφως ενρομεν η παρά τών ίβτορησάν-
των ήκονΰαμεν, διηγούμενοι 3 τής γραφής secludit Alexis ;
sed έγγραφον παράδοΰιν significare videtur 5 ήτίΰτηοα Ρ
6 a seclusi ημείς sc. έκδιδονμεν τοΐς αλλοις 9 ή
αντος . . ή μολίβδον Ρ, correxi (καί αντος Lamb.): aut plum¬
bum ipsum aut compositio (?) plumb i litteris descripta? (διά-
θεαις έγγρ. idem significare videtur quod ποίηαις διά γρα¬
φών) 10 μαρμάρων Ρ, corrigebam 11 ποίηαισις Ρ διά
γραφών ποίηαις χρνοίον καί άργνρίον] fabricatio auri et ar-
genti descripta in marmore έκ στοιχείων? μαρμαρικών Ρ,
correxi, cf. § 40 et 66 17 έν τή Φόοαα] εις τό παλάτιον
Tr. Suid., cf. § 73
 TRANSLATION 87

Great Strategion; so he actually deposited a lot of pagan coins in a

pit1 there. We have not found this in written form, but have heard it
from men who have had experience of a written record, that in this
Strategion a lot of gold was also buried in a great pit.2 And I did not
disbelieve this when I heard it, because [what] we and our fathers
have handed down to us <is> for the most part unwritten, not
written,3 as connoisseurs4 know. In the Little Strategion large
amounts of lead are exchanged—either lead itself or written trans¬
actions < in place of> lead; also the composition of gold and silver
< is laid down> in inscriptions on marble. We have written this
after reading it from inscriptions on marble tablets or after making
enquiries of those who have read it.
25. In the Church of S. Menas a great trench was found when
the church was being cleaned (or ‘cleared’), and a lot of bones of
giant men, which the Emperor Anastasius (491-518) saw and
marvelled at and deposited them in the Fossa as an extraordinary
wonder (thauma).
26. In the church of S. Procopius the martyr at Chelone stood a

1 The word εις is probably missing in P: see commentary.

2 The same wording as above.
3 Or ‘because what we hand down our fathers too have handed down orally for
the most part and not in writing’. This important passage needs supplementing as
we suggest in order to fill out the sense; it is omitted by Anon. Treu and the Patna.
* ‘Lovers of knowledge’, see introduction, section iv.
 88 ΠΑΡΑΣΤΑΣΕΙΣ ΣΥΝΤΟΜΟΙ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑΙ

iv τη Χελώνη ΰτηλη ΐβτατο ευνούχον τινός, η εν τώ ΰτή&ει

εγραφεν' 6 μετατι&είς-δεμάτια τώ βρόχω παραδο&ήτω. Ήν
δε η ΰτηλη Πλάτωνος κονβικονλαρίον, ο? εν ταΐς ημεραις
βαΰιλεως Βαΰιλίΰκον πνρίκανΰτος γεγονε. Των δε γονέων
5 αντον αίτηΰάντων τω βαΰιλεΐ ΰτηλω&ηναι τον ευνούχον
Πλάτωνα εις μνημόΰννον τοΐς άνταίρονΟι βαΰιλεί ονκ εκώ-
λυΰεν. ’Εν δε τω άνακαινίξεΰ&αι τον τον μάρτνρος ναόν
μετετε&η είς το 'Ιπποδρόμων’ οι δε οίκοι τον αντον ευνούχον
ΰώξονται εν τη Χελώνη εως της ΰημερον.
ίο 27. ’Εκ των (Ιμερίου χαρτονλαρίου *|* φράΰις
των παρά Θεοδώρου, δτε παραγεγονεν εν τω Κννηγίω
Ό'έας χάριν. Πολλά γάρ ημΐν εμελεο&η περί τον ερεννηΰαι
ακριβώς περί ών παρεκάλεΰας καί φανερώΰαι τη 6η αρετή,
ώ Φιλόκαλε.
15 28. ’Απελ&όντων ημών ποτέ εν τω Κννηγίω ΰνν 'ίμερίω
τω προλεχ&εντι ενδόξω χαρτονλαρίω τάς εκεΐΰε ίΰτορηΰαι
εικόνας, εν οις εϋρομεν μίαν ΰτηλην μικράν τω μηκει καί

§ 28 1. 15—ρ. 36, 6 et ρ. 36, 11 — 22 transscripsit Anon.

Treu ρ. 12, 7 (Suid. s v. κννηγιον) paucis omissis et mutatis.
Initio addit haec: περί των έν τώ Κννηγίω στηλών iv τω
Κννηγίω το πρότερον ίρρίπτοντο οι βιο&άνατοι4 ησαν
δέ τινες ίκεΐσε στηλαι· καί άπελ&ών Θεόδωρος ό ανα¬
γνώστης μετά'ΐ. χαρτ. εΐδεν έκεΐσε ΰτηλην μικράν κτλ. (nihilo
secius pergit ίμοΰ δε &ανμάζοντος κτλ). Inde Cod. II 24
(ρ. 31, 17 Β)

5 τώ βασιλεΐ] αΐτειν τινι etiam § 64, cf. Marci Diaconi

indicem 6 άντερονσι Ρ 9 Fini capitis ornamentum scriba
adpinxit et inferiorem paginae partem vacuam reliquit
10 έκ των (περί') 'Ιμερίον Heisenberg ημερίον hie et rell.
locis (1. 15, p. 36, 2 et 6) Ρ φράοις των] an (έκ)φρασ&έν-
των vel (ίκ)φραστών? έκ των Θεόδωρόν αναγνώστου φράσις
τών περί 'Ιμερίον χαρτ. ότε κτλ. Lamb. 12 έμελη&η edd.
14 Φιλόκαλε] cf. § 28, 41, 42; nomen proprium esse mihi
videtur (φιλόκαλε edd.) 17 iv οϊς sine vi relativa
 TRANSLATION 89

statue (stele) of a eunuch which had written on the breast ‘Let him
who disturbs monuments (thematia) be hanged’. The statue (stele)
was of Plato the cubicularius, who was burnt in the days of the
Emperor Basiliscus (475-77). When his parents asked the emperor
that the eunuch Plato be commemorated in a statue as a reminder
to those who opposed the emperor, he did not forbid it. In the
course of the renovation of the church of the martyr it was removed
to the Hippodrome; but the houses of the same eunuch survive until
today at Chelone.
27. From the story of Himerius the chartularius, told by
Theodore, when he was with him in the Kynegion looking
round.1 We have taken great care to research accurately the
things about which you asked and to describe them to your
honour, O Philokalos.2
28. One day we went off to the Kynegion with Himerius the
aforementioned honourable chartularius to investigate the statues
(eikones) there, and found among them one that was small in height

1 Chap. 27 is indented in P and written as if a new heading, after a concluding

flourish and a space at the end of the preceding chapter. The first sentence needs
supplementation: see note. ‘Looking round’: or ‘doing research’.
2 Possibly this sentence is the opening of the report, and should be attached to
the present chapter 28, as suggested by Professor C. Mango.
 90 ΠΑΡΑΣΤΑΣΕΙΣ ΣΥΝΤΟΜΟΙ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑΙ

πλατείαν και παχεΐαν πάνν. ’Εμον δε ΰανμάζοντος καί μη

ίΰτορονντος φηΰίν δ 'Ιμεριος' (&ανμαξε, δτι δ κτίΰας τδ
Κυνηγών εΰτιν.’ ’Εμον δε είπόντος 'Μαξιμιανδς δ κτίΰας
καί 2 * * 5Αριΰτείδης δ καταμετρηΰας’ παρεν&ν πεΰείν την ΰτηλην
5 εκ τον εκεΐΰε νψους ον τοΰοντου νπάρχοντος και δονναι
τω 'Ιμερίω και παραντά Ό'ανατώΰαι. 'Εμον άέ φοβη&έντος
δια τδ μη είναι ετερον εκεί η μόνους τους τους ημιόνονς
ημών κατέχοντας και αντους εξω των αναβαθμών υπάρχον¬
τας δειλιάΰας μη κινδννεύΰω ΰνρας τω δεξιω ποδί, εν&α
ίο τους καταδίκους, ρίπτειν επεχείρουν. Αειλιάΰας δε τδ άχ&ος
άφηΰας εν τω ΰτόματι τοΰ όχΟνν άνεχώρηΰα πρόςφνγος γε-
νόμένος εν τη μεγάλη εκκληΰία' και καταγγέλλων τδ πραχ&εν
εν άλη&εία ονκ επιΰτευόμην εως εις όρκον βεβαίωΰιν ελΰ'είν
με διά τδ τότε και τούτο μόνον τηρηΰαί με τδ κατόρθωμα.
ΐ5 Οι ονν οικείοι τον τελεντήΰαντος και οί τον βαΰιλεως φίλοι
ΰυν εμοι επορεν&ηΰαν εν τω τόπω και πρδ τον τδ πτώμα
τον άνδρδς προςεγγίΰαι τδ πτώμα της ΰτηλης ητενιξον &αν-
μάζοντες. ’Ιωάννης δε τις φιλόΰοφός φηϋιν, ότι 'μά την
&είαν πρόνοιαν όντως ενρίΰκω εν τοΐς Αημοΰ&ενονς ΰνγ-
20 γράμμαΰιν υπό τούτον τοΰ ζωδίου άποκταν&ηναι ένδοξον
άνδρα’. ''Ος και παρεν&ν τω βαΰιλεΐ Φιλιππικω πληροφο-
ρηΰας κελεύεται καταχώΰαι τδ αυτό ζώδιον εν τω αντω τόπω"
ο και γεγονεν διά τδ μη δέχεΰ&αι κατάλνΰιν. Ταντα, Φιλό¬
καλε, μετά άλη&είας ερευνών ενχον μη είςελ&εΐν εις πει-
25 ραϋμδν και ταίς άρχαίαις ΰτηλαις και μάλιΰτα ταΐς cΕλληνι-
καις πρόςεχε &εωρών.

2 φησίν Ήμέριος καί αυτός &ανμάζων, όΰτις ό κτίΰας κτλ.

Lamb. μη θαύμαζε cod. G Codini ex coniectura 3 μαξι-
μϊνος Tr. et Suid. 5 on] ov? (ου τοΰοντου νπάρχ. om. Tr.
Suid.) 7 τους τοΰ?] cf. Usener Theodosios p. 173 sq.
14 ποτέ P και τοϋτο μόνον] cf. adn. p. 30, 6 16 τω πτώ-
ματι Lamb., sed cf. adn. p. 26, 11 20 άποκταν&ήναι] τεδνη-
ξόμενον Tr. Suid. 22 τώ αντώ ζωδίω Ρ 23 καταλνΰεως
Ρ, corrigebam
 TRANSLATION 91

and squat and very heavy. While I was wondering at it and not get¬
ting on with my enquiry,1 Himerius said ‘You are right to wonder,
for he is the builder of the Kynegion’. When I said ‘Maximian was
the builder and Aristides the architect’,2 immediately the statue
(stele) fell from its height, which was great, and dealt Himerius a
great blow and killed him on the spot. I was afraid, for there was
no-one else there except for the men who were holding our mules,
and they were outside the steps. Terrified of being hurt myself, I
dragged him by the right foot to where they throw the convicts and
tried to throw him in, but in my terror I let go of the load at the edge
of the bank and ran away and sought asylum in the Great Church.
When I told the truth about what had happened, I was not believed
until I resorted to confirmation by oath, since I was the only one
who had seen the event at the time. So the dead man’s relations and
the friends of the emperor went with me to the place, and before ap¬
proaching where the man lay fallen, stared in amazement at where
the statue lay fallen.3 A certain John, a philosopher, said ‘By divine
providence, I find it so in the writings of Demosthenes, that a man
of rank would be killed by the statue (zodion)’. And he told this at
once to the Emperor Philippicus (711-13) and was commanded to
bury the statue (zodion) in that place; which indeed was done, for it
was impossible to destroy it. Consider these things truly,
Philokalos, and pray that you do not fall into temptation, and take
care when you look at old statues (stelai), especially pagan ones.

1 See introduction, section iv.

2 Possibly an actual inscription.
3 The Greek has the same awkward repetition.
 92 ΠΑΡΑΣΤΑΣΕΙΣ ΣΥΝΤΟΜΟΙ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑΙ

Θεόδωρόν άναγνώβτου ετι ϋυντομία

γυναικών.
29. Βερίνης γυναικδς Λεοντος τον μεγάλου πληοίον τον
άγιον 'Λγα&ονίκου άνωθεν των βά&ρων εν κίονι χαλκή' ετι
5 της αυτής εν τω ’Λνεμοδουρίω προς νότον πληοίον της
αγίας Βαρβάρας. ^Λλλ! η μεν πρώτη εν τω άγίω ’Λγα&ονίκω
ετι τον άνδρός αντης ξώντος εΰτη' η δε άνωΌ'εν της αγίας
Βαρβάρας μετά την τελευτήν Λεοντος τον άνδρός αντης και
φυγήν Ζήνωνος του γαμβρόν αντης, ότε Βαΰιλίΰκον εοτεψε
ίο τον αδελφόν αντης κράζοντος τον Πραΰίνου μέρους' 'Βερί-
νης ορθοδόξου 'Κλίνης πολλά τα ετη’' ήν γάρ ορθόδοξος πάνν.
30. Ευφημίας (γυναικόςβ :Ίονΰτίνον τοϋ Θρακός εν
τοΐς Όλνβρίου πληΰίον τής αγίας Ευφημίας, ήτις έκκληοία
νπ αυτής ίκτίΰ&η, οτήλη εν άναβάοει μικρά πάνν χρυΰέμ-
15 βαφος νπάρχονΟα.
31. Ευδοξίας γνναικός ’Αρκαδίον μεγάλη πάνν και
Πουλχερίας χέυγατρδς αυτής και ετέρων δυο θυγατέρων αυ¬
τής, άμφοτέρων άργνραί' ετι τής αυτής Ευδοξίας εν κίονι
χαλκή καί ετέρα iv τοΐς Λυγουΰτείοις, δά ήν 6 Χρυΰόδτο-
20 |νιος έΰκευάΰ&η.

§ 29 ]. 3—10: Treu ρ. 12, 26 sqq. (Suid. s. ν. Βηρίνα): Βη-

ρίνης τής γνναικός τον μεγ. Λ. δύο οτήλαί εΐΰΐ’ μία μεν βο¬
ρέ ιοτ έρα τον ά. ’Λγα&. μετά τήν άνοδον των άναβα&μών
ετέρα δέ κατά το μέρος τής ά. Βαρβ.' καί ή μεν τον ά. Άγα&.
γέγονε ξώντος Αέοντος, τής δέ ά. Βαρβ. μετά τελεντήν αντον,
ήνίκα Βαΰ. τον άδ. αντής έστεψε φνγόντος Ζήνωνος τον γαμ¬
βρόν αντής. Inde Codin. II 25 (ρ. 33, 1 Β) § 30 Treu
ρ. 13, 1 (Suid. s. γ.Ευφημία): in brevius coactuxn; inde Codin.
II 26 (p. 33, 8 B)

1 έτι — item ανντομία = ιστορία σύντομος ? Ex-

spectamus (στήλαι) εν σνντόμω γυναικών 3 βερήνας Ρ
4 Post κίονι sive subaudias sive addas (στήλη έστίβ, cf. § 31
9 in voce βασιλίσκον P extremam litteram ex e mutavit
10 βερΐνας P 12 γνναικός om. P 19 ανγονστίοις Ρ (ανγον-
σταίοις Comb., έν τω ανγονστείω Lamb.) Basis cum titulo
huius statuae etiam exstat (CIG IV 8614) 20 έσκενάσ&η) in-
 TRANSLATION 93

29. Brief Catalogue of Women, still from Theodore the Lector.

A bronze < statue > of Verina, the wife of Leo the Great
(451-74), on a pillar near S. Agathonikos above the steps. Another
of her at the Anemodourion, to the south, near S. Barbara. The
first, at S. Agathonikos, was erected during the lifetime of her hus¬
band; the one beyond S. Barbara after the death of her husband
Leo and the flight of her son-in-law Zeno (i.e. after 475), when she
crowned her brother Basiliscus (475-77) to the acclamations of the
Green faction: ‘Long life to Verina the orthodox Helena’. For she
was very orthodox.
30. A very small gilt statue (stele) of Euphemia, the <wife> of
Justin the Thracian (518-27), on a plinth in the quarter of Olybrius,
near S. Euphemia, a church she founded herself.
31. A very large < statue > of Eudoxia, the wife of Arcadius
(395-408), and of her daughter Pulcheria and two other daughters,
all in silver. Another of the same Eudoxia in bronze on a pillar and
one more at the Augusteum, on account of which arose the
machinations against Chrysostom.
 94 ΠΑΡΑΣΤΑΣΕΙΣ ΣΥΝΤΟΜΟΙ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑΙ

32. ’Αρκαδίας γνναικός Ζήνωνος της δεντέρας εν τοϊς

πληΰίον μέρεΰιν των βά&ρων των λεγομένων Τόπων εν τοϊς
τον άγιον ’Αρχιΰτρατήγον' εν&α Ζήνων έκρινε τονς μετά
Βαϋιλίΰκον καί ΰέκρητον τον τόπον πεποίηκεν. ”Ετι της πρώ-
5 της αντον γνναικός ’Αρεάδνης μετά καί αντον Ζήνωνος εν
τη βαΰιλική πνλη.
33. ’Εν αντή τη Χάλκη πληΰίον άνω&εν Πονλχερίας
της αοίδιμον, ώς εν τω Περιπατώ εν τω παλατίω εμπρός
νπάρχοντι.
ίο 34. ’'Ανω&εν τής Χάλκης εν τω Μιλίω τω προς ανα¬
τολήν Κωνΰταντίνον καί 'Ελένης άνω&εν τής καμάρας' εν&α
καί ΰτανρός <(καί ή Τνχη)> μέΰον τον ΰτανρον τής πόλεως.
35. ’Εν τω αντω Μιλίω Σοφίας τής γνναικός ’Ιονΰτί-
νον τον μετά τον μέγιΰτον ’Ιονΰτινιανόν καί ’Αραβίας &ν-
15 γατρός αν τής καί 'Ελένης ανεψιάς Σοφίας ενμορφοτάτης
πάνν κεχρνΰωμένη.
35 a. ’Αρκαδίον καί Θεοδοΰίον νΐον αντον εν τοϊς πλη-
ϋίον Θεοδοΰίον ΰτήλης τον πατρός, άμφότεραι έφιπποι' οτε

§ 32 Treu ρ. 13, 4 περί τής ’Αρκαδίας είς ’Λρκαδιανάς

(Suid. s. ν. Αρκαδία)·, inde Codin. II 27 (ρ. 33, 10 Β) § 33 Treu
ρ. 13, 10 (Suid. s. ν. Πουλχερία)·, inde Cod. II 28 (ρ. 34, 1 Β)
§ 34 Treu ρ. 13, 14 (Suid. s. ν. Μίλιον): έν τή καμάρα
τον μιλίου ατήλαι Κώνον, καί 'Ελένης‘ έν&α κτλ.·, inde Cod.
II 29 (ρ. 35, 3 Β) § 35 Treu ρ. 13, 17 (Suid. s. ν. Μίλιον):
paucis discrepant, ν. infra; inde Codin. II 30 (ρ. 35, 11 Β)
§ 35a 1. 1 et 2 Treu p. 13, 20 (Suid. s. ν. Μίλιον)·, inde Cod.
II 38 (p. 38, 10 B)

sidiis vexatus est; cf. Cramer Anecd. II 110, 94, Ps.-Polyd.

p. 166 et 170 Bianc.; eodem sensu usurpatur ουοκενάζειν ab
Malala; οκευή = insidiae Theophan. 4 βασιλίσκον P (cf.
p. 26, 6) 8 ώς προς τον περίπατον τον έν τω παλατίω Tr.,
πλησίον τού παλατιού ώς προς τον περίπατον Suid. 12 ante
μέσον in Ρ est rasura 7 — 8 litterarum; supplevi ex Tr. ('καί
ή τνχη τής πόλεως μέσον τον σταυρόν'’) 18 στήλη Ρ (πλησίον
τής στήλης Θεοδ. τον μεγ. Tr.) έφ’ ϊπποις Ρ Treu; corr. ex
Suid., cf. § 19. 80
 TRANSLATION 95

32. <A statue> of Arcadia, the second wife of Zeno (474-5,

477-91), in the part near the steps known as Topoi, in the
neighbourhood of the holy Archangel. Here Zeno gave judgement
against the supporters of Basiliscus (475-7) and made the place into
a court. Also <one> of his first wife Ariadne with Zeno himself on
the imperial gate.1
33. On the same Chalke gate, nearby but beyond, <a statue >
of the famous Pulcheria, like the one in the Peripatos in front of the
palace.
34. Beyond the Chalke at the Milion to the east, <a statue> of
Constantine and Helena above the arch. There, too, a cross < and
the Tyche> of the city in the middle of the cross.
35. At the same Milion, a gilded <statue> of Sophia, the wife
of Justin (II, 565-78), who reigned after Justinian the Great
(527-65) and Arabia her daughter and Helena her very beautiful
niece.
35a. < Statues > of Arcadius (395-408) and Theodosius his son
(II, 408-50), in the neighbourhood of the statue (stele) of Theodosius
his father (I, 379-95), both equestrian, when2 a large amount of

1 I.e. the Chalke.

2 I.e. at the time when the statues were set up.
 96 ΠΑΡΑΣΤΑΣΕΙΣ ΣΥΝΤΟΜΟΙ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑΙ

καI ΰιτηρέΰια εδό&η πολλά, έξαιρέτως δε τώ Πραΰίνω μέρει

χράζοντος τον δήμον' "Ο γόνος Θεοδοΰίον Κωνΰταντϊνον
ενίχηΰεν ’.
36. ’Εν τώ παλατίω τώ τρίβουναλίω Ενδοχίας γνναιχός
5 Θεοδοΰίον, τον εγγονος Θεοδοΰίον, Μαρχιανον τε χαΐ Κων-
ΰταντίνον' εν&α xcci όρχήΰεις πλεΐΰται έως 'Ηραχλείον τον
τε Πραΰίνον xcci Βενέτον μερονς γεγόναΰιν.

Περί θεαμάτων. B(ekkerρ.) 166

37. Θέαμα a . Το εν τη Βαΰιλιχή *f* ΰειρα τη χρνΰο-

ίο ρόφω άνδρείχελον άγαλμα ύπαρχον χρνΰεμβαφον (εν&α τό

§ 36 Treu ρ. 13, 23 (Suid. s. y. στήλη): paucis discrepant,

v. infra; inde Cod. II 32 (p. 36, 12 B) § 37 1. 9—p. 41, 13:
Treu p. 13, 28 sqq. (Suid. s. v. Βασιλιχή) non paucis discre-
pans: Τω (an Έν τω?) έν τή Βασιλιχή χρνσορόφω όπίσω τον
Μιλίου ήν άνδροείχελον άγ. χρυσέμβαφον' έν&α ήν το ψάμμον
(εως add. Suid.) 'Ηραχλείον τον βασ." χαϊ γοννχλινές ’Ιουστι¬
νιανού τοϋ τυράννου ■ έχει ό Τέρβ. έδημηγόρησεν. Έν οϊς έλέ-
φας ΐστατο παμμεγέ&ης, υπό Σενήρου χατεσχενασμένος. ’Όρος
δε ήν προ τοϋ μέρους των άναβα&μών, έν&α χαϊ σχολή φυλ.
ύπήρχεν (σχολή φυλ. πολλή· Suid.) έμενε δε έχεΐσε άργνροχόπος
έν πλαστοϊς ζνγοϊς τήν πράσιν ποιούμενος. Χαϊ τον οίχή-
ματος αυτόν πορΌνυμένου ήπείλει τω τον έλ. φνλάττοντι θάνα¬
τον, εί μή τούτο χρατήσει. Ο δε &ηροχόμος ονχ ένεδίδον.
'Όν φονενσας ό ζυγοπλ. δέδωχε βοράν τω έλέφαντι. Τό δέ &η-
ρίον άτι&. όν χαϊ αυτόν άνείλε. Χαϊ ό Σευήρος άχονσας τώ
&ηρίω θυσίας ήνεγχεν. Έν αντώ δέ τω τόπω παρεν&ν χαϊ
άνετνπώ^ησαν τό τε &ηρίον χαϊ ό &ηρ οχόμος. Έν&α χαι

1 an έδό&ησαν secundum consuetudinem auctoris ? πρασί¬

νων Ρ 2 έγγονος Comb. Χωνσταντίνον Ρ 4 έν τώ
τριβονναλίω τον παλατιού Tr. Suid.; sed cf. § 15 έν τω Φόρω
τώ δεξιώ μέρει, § 44b, 48, 54 5 τοϋ έγγόνος Ρ (έγγόνου
edd., sed cf. de Boor ind. Theophan.), om. Tr. et Suid., qui
eius loco καί. αντοϋ praebent, ut quattuor statuae sint
6 πλείσταις P 9 σειρά τής χρνσορόφον Ρ, χινστέρνη τή χρν¬
σορόφω Lamb., τή χρνσορ. (σειρά seel.) Comb., cf. ρ. 40, 6 et 14.
An έν τή βασ. στοά τή χρνσορ.? (cf. Procop. List. arc. 14 ρ. 90, 3
Bonn, et infra p. 40, 16) 10 άνδρείχελον] § 64 άνδροείχελον
 TRANSLATION 97

corn was distributed, especially to the Green faction, as their people

shouted ‘The son of Theodosius has surpassed Constantine’.1
36. In the Tribunal of the palace <a statue> of Eudocia, the
wife of Theodosius (II, 408-50), the grandson of Theodosius (I,
379-95), and < statues > of Marcian (450-57) and Constantine
(324-37); here many ceremonial dances of the Blues and Greens
took place up to the reign of Heraclius (610-41).

About Spectacles (theamata)

37. Spectacle number one. The gilt statue (agalma) of a man in the
golden-roofed Basilica colonnade2 (where the measure of the

1 For the acclamation cf. chapter 3.

2 See commentary for the very difficult vocabulary of this chapter.
 98 ΠΑΡΑΣΤΑΣΕΙΣ ΣΥΝΤΟΜΟΙ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑΙ

εζαμον 'Ηράκλειον τον βαΰιλεως κατεοκενάοΌ'η), το γονυκλινές,

’Ιονϋτινιανον έοτι κατά το δεντερον (ανβτον την Κωνΰταν-
τινονπολιν τνραννήΰαντος, και ττληΰίον αντον της γνναικδς
αντον, αδελφής ’Ιβονζηρον Γλιαβάνον, μετά την ήτταν Τι-
5 βερίον τον ’Λψιμάρον' δτε και | Φιλιππικός εν αντώ τω Β 167
τόπω της χρνΰορόφον Βαΰιλικης άπεδοκιμάο&η, Τερβέλι τον
Βονλγαρίας εκείΰε πολλάκις κα&ίΰαντος και Γλιαβάνον Χα-
ζάρι' πάκτα ονν ούκ ολίγα εκείϋε εδό&ηΰαν: εν&α αντον
τον τνράννον και της γνναικδς τά αγάλματα. ’Εν οίς ελεφας
ίο ΐϋταται παμμεγέ&ης' ώς οι δηριοδεϊκται ημΐν εβεβαίωΟαν,
μη γίνεΰ&αι επάνω αντον το μέγεθος των ελεφάντων, των
δε μεγάλων εως όντως. Οντος δ ελεφας νπδ Σενηρον τον
Κάρον Έλληνος ετνπώ&η Ό·εαμά τι κατά την παράδοΰιν.
’Εν γάρ τη αντη χρνΰορόφω Βαΰιλικη τον ίλεφαντα παρα-
15 μενειν εις &εαμα εξαίΰιον' δρον γάρ είναι προ τον μερονς
των αναβαθμών των οβ' ελεγον' εν&α και ΰχολη φνλαττόν-
των πολλή. ’Εν αντώ δε φαΰι τω ελεφαντι παραμενειν τω
τόπω εκείνω Καρκινηλον άργνροκόπον εν πλαΰτοΐς ζνγοΐς'

'Ηρ. έλατρεν&η πολλάς ϋ'νΰίας όεξάμενος, δ? έν τω 'Ιπποδρομίω

μετετέ&η. ’Επί δε Τονλιανοϋ νπατικοϋ από 'Ρώμης ήλ&εν έπι
το Βυζάντιον καί είςηχϋη έν άπ'ήνη καί νηΐ καί ατηλών (sic) ι'.
Inde Codin. II 41 (ρ. 39, 5 Β)

1 έξαμμον Tr., cf. ρ. 28, 13 εως Ηρακλείου Suid. (cf. supra

ρ.39, 6) 2 κατά] μετά Ρ, τοΰ κατά το δεντερον την κτλ. Comb.
τον Ρ, corrigebam 4 ηβονζηρον γλιαβάνον Ρ (ν. 1. 7),
Βονΰηρον vel Βονζήρου edd. (nomen Βουζηνός anno 1401 oc-
currifc in Actis et Diplom. ed. Muller et Miklosicb Π 493)
5 τοΰ] υιού P, corr. Lamb. 6 τερβελϊ P, correxi 7 πλια-
βάρον Ρ 9 έλε'φαος Ρ 10 &ηριοδίκται Ρ (&ηριοδέκται
edd.); cf. Du Cange gloss, lat. s. v., C. Gl. Lat. Ill 272, 5:
'&ηριοδηχτης marsus’ 12 σεβηρον P 13 καρού P, cf.
§ 57 &εάματι P, corr. Lamb.; an (είςβ Ό·έαμά τι coll.
p.41,11? 15 φόρον Comb. προτον Ρ, πρώτον Lamb, et
Comb., προς τον Band., cf. Treu 17 πολλή] πόλιν Lamb.
’Εν αντώ δε κτλ.] eodem loco atque elephantus 18 καρ-
κινηλω άργνροκόπω Ρ, correxi coll. Tr. πλατύς Ρ
 TRANSLATION 99

Emperor Heraclius (610-41) was set up)—the kneeling one, is of

Justinian when he was tyrant of Constantinople for the second time
(i.e. 705-11), and next to him is his wife, the sister of Ivouzeros
Gliavanos, after the defeat of Tiberius Apsimar (698-705), when
Philippicus (?the emperor, 711-13) also was censured in that part of
the golden-roofed Basilica. Tervel of Bulgaria and Gliavanos the
Khazar took their places1 there on many occasions, and so large
payments of tribute were made here, at the site of the statues
(agalmata) of the tyrant and his wife. With these stands a huge
elephant; as the exhibitors of animals2 have assured us, elephants
do not come greater in size than this, the big ones being as big as
this. This elephant was set up by Severus the son of Carus the
pagan as a spectacle (theama), according to tradition. For in the
same golden-roofed Basilica they say the elephant lived, an extraor¬
dinary spectacle [theama). They said there was an enclosure in front
of the area of the seventy-two steps, and there was also a large force
of guards there. And they say that in the same place as the elephant
lived Carcinelus, a silversmith who used rigged scales. They say he

1 I.e. for the ceremony of the handing over of tribute.

2 See commentary.
 100 ΠΑΡΑΣΤΑΣΕΙΣ ΣΥΝΤΟΜΟΙ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑΙ

ώΰτε διατρέφοντι τον ελέφαντα, φαΰίν, <^Ό·άνατον)>

άπ;είλεΓν, δ'τί κατετεορΌ'εΓτο τούτον τδ οίκημα' καί ηολλάκις
διαβεβαιωΰαμένον θάνατον τω ΰηριοτρόφω, ει τούτον
κρατηΰει' αντδς δε δια *{* τάς βαγνλας έλαιοφόρονς κρατηΰαι
5 ονκ ένεδίδον' ον καί φονενΰας δ αντδς ξνγοηλάΰτης τω
έλέφαντι εις βρώΰιν ηροέ&ηκε' τοΰ δε Ο'ηρίον άτι&άΰον δν-
τος, καί αητόν έξανηλωΰεν. Ό καί Σενηρος άκονδας Ινδίας
τω Ο'ηρίω ονκ όλίγας ηροςήνεγκεν. ’Εν αντω γάρ τω τόηω
ηαρεν&ν καί άηετνηώ&ηδαν. ”Εν&α καί .Ηρακλής έλατρεν&η
ίο ηαμηόλλας Ινδίας δεξάμενος' καί εν τω 'Ιηηοδρομίω μετε-
τέϋ'η εις Ό'έαμά τι μέγιδτον τδ δε ηρότερον άηδ | 'Ρώμης Β 168
έηί ’Ιονλιανον νηατικον έηί τδ Βνξάντιον είςήχ&η μετά
καρονχας καί νηδς καί δτηλων δώδεκα. Αντη φηδίν η ίδτορία
τον θεάματος Σενηρον η ξένη γέγονεν έηί 'Λν&ιμον νηά-
15 τον' οντινος τα 'Λν&ίμον κατά την κέλενδιν Νονζαμητον
νηάρχον, τον άηδ Περδών, αντί ηάκτων έχρηματίδ&ηδαν, εν
ταϊς ημέραις Βνζα καί ”Αντη' ο καί έως της δημερον τοΐς
φιλοδοφονδιν εν ηείρα ηροτέ&ειται &έαμα.
38. Θέαμα β'. Τον εν τω ώρέω Μιλίω 'Ηλιον.
20 ’Εν τω ώρέω Μιλίω 'Ηλιον Αιδς άρμα εν τέτραδιν ΐηηοις

§ 38 Treu ρ. 14, 15 sqq. (Suid. s. y. Μίλιον): "Οτι άρμα

ήλιον έν δ' ιηηοις ηνρ. ιβτάμενον (ίητάμενον Suid.) ηαρά
δύο ΰτ. έκ ηαλ. των χρ. νηηρχεν έν τώ ώραίω μιλίω' έν&α ενφη-

1 τώ suppl. Lamb. τώ έλέφαντι Ρ ά&άνατον') suppl.

ex Anon. Treu 2 οτε? κατεηορ&ητω Ρ (καί έηορ&εΐτο
Comb.) 3 τοντο PTr. 4 διά τονς βαιονλονς έλαιοφόρονς
Lamb, (qui conf.); locum non expedio (έν λεωφόροις?) 7 σεβή-
ρος Ρ 13 ταντη Ρ φααίν edd., sed cf. Malal. ind. s. v.
φημί et § 68 15 αν&ιμίον (άνϋ'ίμον 1. 14) P. Dubium utrum
Anthimus an Anthemius nominatus sit consul ille ficticius.
16 Post νηάρχον addunt edd. 'της ηόλεως’ nullo nixi testi-
monio 17 αντί P. Byzas et Antes (cf. infra p. 42, 3 et
48, 5) heroes ex nomine urbis Βνζ-άντιον ficti δν P 18 ηρο-
τέ&ηνται Ρ 20 των έν τώ ώρέω (paulo post ώραίω Ρ) μιλίω
ηλία Ρ, corr. Lamb.
 TRANSLATION 101

threatened the elephant’s keeper because his house was being

damaged, and he frequently vowed that he would kill the keeper if
he did not keep the animal in check. But the keeper would not con¬
sent to control the elephant with reins.1 The user of rigged scales
killed him and offered him to the elephant as fodder, but the
animal, being wild, killed him too. And when Severus heard this
he offered many sacrifices to the beast, and they were at once com¬
memorated in statues in that place. There too Heracles was wor¬
shipped, the recipient of many sacrifices. And < the statue> was
removed to the Hippodrome to be a great spectacle (theama). But
originally it was brought from Rome to Byzantium in the time of
Julian the consularis with a chariot and a boat and twelve statues
(stelai). This strange tale of the spectacle of Severus took place (?was
written), they say,2 in the consulship of Anthemius;3 he was the
owner of Ta Anthemiou, which was traded by the order of
Nouzametos the prefect, the Persian, in place of tribute payment,
in the days of Byzas and Antes. And this spectacle (theama) is ac¬
cessible until the present day for philosophers to test.
38. Spectacle number two. On the Helios at the golden Milion.
At the golden Milion a chariot of Zeus Helios with four fiery

1 For the text see commentary.

2 φησιν.
3 P. has Άνθιμου but ’Ανθεμίου seems implied by what follows.
 102 ΠΑΡΑΣΤΑΣΕΙΣ ΣΪΝΤΟΜΟΙ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑΙ

πυρίνοις^ ιπτάμενον παρά όνο ΰτηλών, εκ παλαιών χρόνων

νπάρχον' εν&α Κωνΰταντΐνος 6 μέγας ενφημίΰ&η μετά το
νικήβαι 'Λζώτιον καί Βνζαν καί ’Άντην, κράζοντος τον Βέ¬
νετου μέρους
5 'είλες παλίνορβον ίμάΰ&λην,
ώς δε δίς ήβήιΐας μαίνεαι εν ΰταδίω

τον δε Πραΰίνον μέρους λέγοντος 'ον χρήζομέν 6ε, λωβέ'

οι •Ο'εοϊ ανώτεροι αντοϋ είλον’' τον de 'Ηλιον άρματος κατε-
νεχ&έντος εν τω \Ιπποδρομία), δορνφορονμενον είςηει ΰτηλί-
ιο διον καινόν, παρά Κωνΰταντίνον κατα6κευαΰϋ·έν, υπό 'Ηλιον
φερόμενον, Τνχη πόλεως' εν βραβείοις πλείΰτοις εις τό ΰτάμα
είςηει καί ελαβεν ά&λα παρά τον βαΰιλέως Κωνΰταντίνον,
καί ΰτεφανω&έν έξηει \ καί ετί&ετο εν τω Σινάτω εως των 169
<(επιόντων)> γενεθλίων της πόλεως. (Τπό δε ’Ιονλιανοϋ διά
15 τον χαραχ&έντα βτανρόν εν αντω, βοΦύνω, όπου τά πλεΐΰτα
θεάματα, καί αυτό παρεδό&η. Τοίς δε πίναξιν εάν τις ερεν-
νήΰει ακριβώς τον Φόρου? επί πλεϊον Ο'ανμάοοι.

μίσ&η Κωνσταντίνος μετά τό νικήσαι ’Λζώτιον έπειδή καί

Βύζας έκεΐσε ενφημίσϋ'η' κατενεχ&εν δε τό άρμα έν τω
ίπποδρ., δορνφορ. στηλ. καινόν παρά Κ. καταακ. υπό η. φερ.,
Τύχη πόλεως εις τό ατάμα είςήει καί στεφανω&εν έζήεΐ' έτί&ετο
δέ έν τω σεν. εως των έπ ιόντων γεν. τής π. · διότι δε έπί
κεφαλής αντοϋ σταυρόν έχάραξεν Κωνσταντίνος, Τουλιανός
αυτό βοΌ'ύνω κατέχωσεν. Inde Codin. II 42 (ρ. 40, 1 Β)

1 ιπτάμενον Ρ et Suid., ίστάμενον Treu; neutrum placet,

exspectamus βασταζόμενον (cf. ρ. 26, 9) 2 υπάρχων Ρ μετά
των έκεΐσε Ρ 5 sq. Anthol. Pal. ΧΥ 44, 5: δήμον μεν βοόων-
τος εϊλες κτλ. Est epigramma monumenti positi in honorem
Porphyrii aurigae; quod monumentum inferioris aetatis fabu-
latores ad Constantini Magni victoriam rettulisse videntur
παλίνορσον καί Ιμάσ&λην Ρ 6 μαίνε Ρ σταδίοις Anth.
8 αυτόν εϊλεν Ρ, αυτούς εϊλον? 11 βραβεΐον cinsigne ho¬
noris’ Reiske ind. Const. Porphyr. de caer. 13 σηνάτω P
14 έπιόντων om P 15 βυϋ'ίνω P
 TRANSLATION 103

horses, driven headlong beside (?)* two statues (stelai), has existed
since ancient times. There Constantine the Great (324-37) was ac¬
claimed after defeating Azotius and Byzas and Antes, the Blue fac¬
tion shouting

‘you have taken up the whip again,

and as though young again you race madly in the stadium’;1 2

but the Green faction said ‘We don’t need you, miserable wretch;
the gods above have taken him’.3 And the chariot of Helios was
brought down into the Hippodrome, and a new little statue (steli-
dion) of the Tyche of the city was escorted in procession carried by
Helios. Escorted by many officials,4 it came to the Stama and
received prizes from the Emperor Constantine, and after being
crowned, it went out and was placed in the Senate until the next5
birthday of the city. But because of the cross engraved on it, it was
consigned by Julian to a pit where there were many other spectacles
(.theamata). And if anyone researches accurately the inscriptions of
the Forum, he would be still more amazed.

1 See note.
2 A genuine charioteer epigram, totally inappropriate to the Emperor Constan¬
tine; see note.
5 P has αύτοϋ. At least read αυτόν.
4 See commentary.
5 Supplied from Anon. Treu and Patna, 11.42, p. 173. For the subject matter cf.
chapter 5.
 104 ΠΑΡΑΣΤΑΣΕΙΣ ΣΥΝΤΟΜΟΙ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑΙ

39. Θέαμα γ'. Τών εν τω Φόρω. Βαλμασά κεντν-

ρίων φίλος ειδώλων πάνν κατέα'ξε τό εΐλημα τον y πνρον
ωρολογίου, &έας χάριν, ως ελεγεν' cog άέ εν τω δοκειν μάλ¬
λον, ενεκα τοη κλέμματος' καί τοντο ποιήσαντος, έκλεψε το
5 Παλλάδος εί'δωλον άργνρονν. Καί τα βαλάντια ’Ασκληπιό-
δώρου εδρέ&ησαν των τριών λίτρων καί ή κορωνίς Κλεο-
πάτρης, κατασκενασ&ε ίσα ΰμαράγδινος πάνν άλάβαΰτρος.
Τοντο γνους δ βασιλεύς Κωνσταντίνος τω αυτω κεντυρίωνι
Βαλμασά έπετίμησεν άξιον θανάτου. Τον δε άναισχνντονντος
ίο καί β-εους επικαλούμενου, άπετμή&η εις εν των σκαλιών
τον αντοϋ Φόρου, εν&α τα άριστα τα πρώτα νπήρχον. Το
δε εν τη δεύτερα καμάρα γεγονός ά&εσμον ον σιωπήσωμεν'
τό τον μοιχού Μαξεντίον εί'δωλον εκεΐσε προςεκννεΐτο λα-
τρενόμενον, καί τοΐς πολλοΐς είδωλολάτραις άγνοούμενον Φεός
15 ίππόσννος ελατρενετο* διό Κωνσταντίνος αυτό μεν κατέβαλε,
τους δε τοντο τολμήσαντας ξίφει άπεκεφάλισεν. ”Εν&α καί
Αρειος μετά ταντα τον μιαρόν θάνατον νπέστη, χείρονα
'Ελλήνων βλασφημήσαι άποτολμήσας ό δείλαιος | μετά λιτής Β 170
καί τιμής ό ά&λιος τον θρόνον Κωνσταντινουπόλεως βασι-

§ 39 Exiguam partem (1. 16 sqq.) exhibet Anon. Treu p. 14,

26 sqq.: Έν&α ’Αρειος τον αί'οχιβτον ύπέστη θάνατον από τής
καμάρας ώσεϊ κ-θ1' παλαιστάς έτνπω&η υπό τον θεοφιλούς Θεο¬
δοσίου "Αρειος ίν μαρμάρω (μαρμαρίνω?) άναγλύφω γειτνιώντι
τή γή καί συν τή τον Άρείου του Σ. Μ. Εν. προς αισχύνην αυ¬
τών, ώς αν οι παρερχόμενοι κάπρον καί ονρα καί έμπτν-
σματα έπιρρίπτωσιν αντοΐς. Inde Codin. II 43 (ρ. 40, 10 Β)

2 φόρου Lamb., an πύργον τον ? 4 ένεκα] Lamb.,

εως Ρ ποιήσας Lamb. 5 παλάδης Ρ, corr. Lamb. 6 ή
κορωνί εκλεοπάτρις Ρ, corr. Lamb. Κλεοπ. ] Cleopatra regina
in alchymistarum numero erat; v. Berthelot Coll, des anc.
alcb. II ind. 7 σμαρ. πάνυ (καίβ άλαβάστρινος? 8 τόν
αυτόν κεντνρίωνα Lamb. 12 σιωπήσομεν edd. 14 sq. non
sanus locus esse videtur; an αγνοούμενος = άγνωστος? (Maxentii
statua ut ignotus deus eques colebatur?) 16 sq. τον τολμή¬
σαντας Ρ 17 μορόν Ρ, corr. Lamb. 18 άποτολμήσαι Ρ
 TRANSLATION 105

39. Spectacle number three. About the things in the Forum.

Balsama, a centurion and a great friend of idols (eidola), broke the
arch of .1 of <the> clock, for research,2 he said, but, as
seemed more likely, to steal it. Having done this, he stole the silver
statue (eidolon) of Pallas. The scales of Asclepiodorus, weighing
three pounds, and the garland of Cleopatra were found, the latter
made all of emerald alabaster.3 When the Emperor Constantine
heard of this he condemned the same centurion Balsama to death.
But he showed no shame and called on the gods when he was
beheaded at one of the stairs of the Forum, where the first meals of
the day were served. Nor let us pass over in silence the impious oc¬
curence in the second archway; the image (eidolon) of the adulterer
Maxentius received obeisance and worship there, and unrecognised
by most of the idolaters (eidolatrais) it was worshipped as a god
mounted on a horse. Wherefore Constantine destroyed it and
beheaded with the sword those who dared to do this. There too after
this Arius met his disgusting death, the wretch who dared to
blaspheme worse than the pagans, the miserable creature who
wanted to seize the patriarchal throne of Constantinople by im-

1 For the mysterious word πύρου (‘building’?) see commentary.

2 θέας χάριν.
3 See commentary.
 106 ΠΑΡΑΣΤΑΣΕΙΣ ΣΥΝΤΟΜΟΙ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑΙ

λικη χειρι κα&αρπάΰαι βουλόμενος. ’Αλλ’ ουκ ’Αλέξανδρος

δ πολύς εν &εογνωΰία τοϋτο παρεΰ.εως τώ όλε&ρίω
Ό'ανάτω τούτον παρέδωκεν. ’Εν αυτώ ονν τώ τόπω τώ από
της ■καμάρας εως κ&' παλαιοτάς εχοντι έπι θεοφιλούς Θεο¬
ί) δοΰίου άπετυπώ&η Άρειος έν μαρμάρω Ουγγειτνιώντι τη γη,
και ϋυν αντώ Σαβέλλιος, ΑΤακεδόνιος, Εύνόμιος, προς αί-
ΰχννην τοΐς διερχομένοις *f* 6φετερίζειν τούτοις και κόπρους
και ουρά και έμπτυΟματα και άτιμίαις όνειδίξε6Ό'αι τους τον
του Ό'εον υιόν άτιμάϋαντας. "Ατινα και κ.α&ορώνται οώα εως
ίο της ΰημερον τοΐς τά γεγραμμενα παρ’ ημών μετά φιλοΰο-
φίας και πόνον διερευνώΰιν.
40. Θέαμα δ\ το εν τοΐς ’Αρτοπωλίοις *{* πΰροις
ύπαρχον. Κυνάριον άπο μαρμάρου, οΰ&ατα πλεΐΰτα *}* εν
τη νεμέοει περιφέρον ωθεί κ [ουΌ·’ μνρμηκοι] *J* λατρευειν
ΐ5 . . . χείρονν, τοΐς &εωρεΐν κατά παν έϋ'έλουοιν τοΐς παΰι

§ 40 1.12—ρ. 45,5 et ρ. 45,10 sqq. = Treu ρ. 15,1 sqq.: Έν τοΐς

’Αρτοπωλίοις κννάριόν έοτιν, ού&ατα έ'ως των κ φέρον ταώνες
δε καί άετοί καί λέαιναι λαγωοί τε καί κριών κάραι καί οτρον-
&ών καί κορωνών καί τρνγόνος μιας καί γαλέας καί δαμά-

1 καταρπάοαι Ρ 2 in Ρ lacuna 5—6 litterarum , πα-

ρέοχεν Lamb., exspectamus παρέβλεψεν, παρεχώρησεν simile
3 τοντο Ρ 4 έως] cf. § 59 έως X (οτηλας), Treu ρ. 15,2
έχων Ρ 7 (ώοτεβ τονς διερχ. έφεδρίζειν τοντοις καί
κόπρω καί οϋρω καί έμπτνΰματι Lamb.; an τονς διερχομένονς
έπιρριπίζειν (cf; Tr.) τοντοις καί κόπρους κτλ.? κόπροις Ρ
12 άρτοπωλέοις πνροις Ρ, an πνροΐς? (πνροί = horreum
triticarium ?) cf. ρ. 45, 6; φόροις Comb. 13 κιονάριον Lamb,
qui statuam Naturae innumeris mammis et animalium capi-
tibus circumdatam esse putat άφ’ μαρμάρου Ρ έν τη νεμέοει
Ρ, non expedio (έν . . μέθη?). 14 ώς είκον&’ μνρμηκοι λα-
τρεύειν . . . χείρονν Ρ (ante χείρονν lacuna trium litterarum);
ώοεί μνρμηκια (verrucas), λατρευειν έπιχειρονν vel ώσεί τέκνοις
μυρίοις δαιτρενειν έπιχειρονν Lamb. Initio certe legendum
coll. Tr.: ώσεί κ'; ον&’ μνρμηκοι glossa esse videtur ad οϋ&ατα
ex margine in textum transposita (οϋ&ατα μνρμηκια). Reliqua
non expedio (<(όβ λατρευειν έπεχείροvv?) Neque quae sequuntur
verba mendo carere videntur
 TRANSLATION 107

perial aid with procession and honour. But Alexander, great in

divine knowledge, did not .1 until he brought the man to his
horrible death. So in that place about twenty-nine palms distant,
from the arch, Arius was represented in the reign of god-loving
Theodosius, on a slab of marble close to the ground, and with him
Sabellius, Macedonius and Eunomius, an object of disgust to
passers-by, to vent2 on them dung and urine and spittle, and to load
with dishonour those who had dishonoured the Son of God. These
things can be seen up to the present day by those who wish to ex¬
amine what we have written with philosophy3 and effort.
40. Spectacle number four, which is in the (?) buildings4 of the Bread
Market.
A small dog, made out of marble, bearing many teats5 t.t, as
many as twenty, or lumps6 which they sought to worship, was visi¬
ble for all who wanted to see from every side. And heads of a

1 P has a gap of 5 or 6 letters.

s P’s σφετερίζειν (‘appropriate’) cannot be right.
3 Used in Par.'s technical sense; see intro., section iv.
4 See on chapter 39. Perhaps insert ‘or’ (ήτοι).
5 The text is very corrupt: see commentary. Our translation is as near as we can
get but remains approximate.
6 Plumps or warts, reading ήτοι for οΰθ’ before it.
 108 ΠΑΡΑΣΤΑΣΕΙΣ ΣΥΝΤΟΜΟΙ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑΙ

προέκειτο' ταοΰ δε καί άετοΰ καί λεαίνης λαγωοϋ τε καί

κριών κάραι, και ΰτρον&ών καί κορωνών και τρυγά νος fαας
καί γαλέας καί δαμαλίδες *{* εμαοΰβαι καί Γοργονίδες δυο,
άμφότεραι εκ δεξιών καί εξ ευωνύμων, η μία τη έτέρα κατ’
5 όψιν βλέπουΰα, άπό μαρμάρων άναγεγλυμμέναι *{* τα φυρα-
&έντα κάτω τών αυτών πυρών ήτοι '’Λρτοπωλίων &έας
τοϋνεκεν, Κωνβταντίνου δράμα. '’Αλλά και Βούλγαρος υπέρ \
βοός *j* κατάραος υπάρχων, cog τη γη διορυττειν ε&έλων, Β 171
τοΐς δρώΰι &έαμά τι μεγιΰτον. ζΙιεκειτο δε τούτο εως ζεστών
ίο πολλών καί μέχρι Ζήνωνος άρκέϋαι την ίΰτορίαν. Γαληνός
δε τις ιατρός καί φιλόΰοφος δπάρχων, ώς αυτός εδίδαξεν
άπό χρονογράφων, <(εκεΓ<?ε^> περαιώνεις εβεβαιώ&η τάς Γορ-
γονίδας τάς μαρμάρινους, άτε την μίαν εκ δεξιών, άτε δε
καί την εξ ευωνΰμων, ιερογλυφικά τινα καί άΰτρονομικά
15 εχίδνια ΰυλλαβουΰας, τών βαΰιλέων γράφειν τάς ίΰτορίας,

λ εως καί γοργόνες δύο, μία έκ δεξιών καί η έτέρα εξ ενωνν-

μων, ή μία τη έτέρα κατoipiv βλεπόμεναι, άπό μαρμάρων
γεγλνμμέναι' ΐσταντο μέχρι Ζήνωνος. Γαληνός δέ τις, ιατρός
και φιλ. νπ., έκεΐαε περαιω&είς τάς Γοργόνας έλεγεν ίερογλ.
καί άστρ. όντα τών βασιλέων γράφειν τάς ίΰτορίας, Κωνστ. τον
μεγ. τνπώσαντος- τον δέ αντον Γ. έπί πλεΐατον σνχνάσαντος
καί τοΐς άναγν. προςέχ., τά μέλλοντα σνμβαίνειν Ζήνωνι παρά
Βηρίνης καί γελάσαντος, Καλλ. τις ΰνρφετός τώ γένει, κάπ. δέ
τη τέχνη, μετά την έπάνοδον Ζήνωνος διαβάλλει εις αντόν τον
Γαληνόν ό δέ Ζήνων τούτον άνηρήκει. Inde Codin. II 46
(Ρ· 41, 14 Β)

1 πρόκειτο Ρ 3 γάλας Ρ, καί μνός καί γαλής Lamb.

έμαονσαι] an ε' μνκονσαι (= μνκώμεναί)? 5 άναγεγλνμμέ-
νων Ρ, corr. Lamb. τά φνρα&έντα~\ exspectamus άσφαλι-
σ&έντα, στοιχειω&έντα simile 6 πόρων Lamb., cf. ρ. 44, 12
7 βονλαρος Ρ, corr. Lamb., cui adversatur Comb., nomen
proprium Βονλαρον esse ratus 8 καί^αρό^ Band., an υπέρ
βοός καί άροτρου νπάρχων, cf. statuas Reinach Repertoire
II 556 έ&έλειν P, correxi 9 τών P, correxi 15 συλ¬
λαβών P, corr. Comb., i. e. anguibus cinctas, v. indicem s. v.
Genera verbi. Erant igitur βασιλογράφια, qualia tradunt non-
 TRANSLATION 109

peacock and an eagle and a lioness and rams, and sparrows and
crows and one turtle dove and a weasel and five heifers lowing1 and
two Gorgons, one on the right and one on the left, one looking into
the face of the other, carved from marble in relief f < and >2 all
mixed up together below the same building3 or Bread Market, as a
spectacle, the work of Constantine. There was also an oxherd4
above an ox ploughing,5 as if intending to dig the earth, a great
spectacle (theama) for those who saw it. This remained for many
years, and the story lasted until the reign of Zeno. But a certain
Galen, a doctor and philosopher, as he himself taught from the
writings of chronographers,6 proceeded thither and ascertained that
the marble Gorgons—that it, that on the right and that on the left,
grasping snakes, with hieroglyphic and astronomical mean¬
ing—recorded the stories of the emperors, this having been done by

1 Taking Preger’s έμυκοΰσαι for P’s impossible έμαοΰσαι.

2 ‘and’ seems to be missing in P.
3 See above and on chapter 39.
4 Reading βουκόλος for P’s βούλοφος; see note.
5 See note.
6 See note.
 110 ΠΑΡΑΣΤΑΣΕΙΣ ΣΪΝΤΟΜΟΙ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑΙ

Κωνΰταντίνον τον μεγάλον τοντο ποιηβαντος. ζΤον <5ε αντον

Γαληνόν επϊ πλεΐβτον ονχνάβαντοςβ και τοις άναγνώΰμαΰιν
τούτον προςέχοντος, τα μέλλοντα ΰνμβαίνειν Ζηνωνι παρά
Βερίνης προςέχων έγέλαΰε. Καλλίΰτρατος δε τις9 ΰνρφετός
5 μεν τω γένει, κάπηλος δε τη αξία, έμβατεύοντι τη ίΰτορία
των Γοργονίδων Γαληνω και μάλιβτα Ονχνώς μετά την άνά-
καμψιν Ζήνωνος την από ’Ιΰανρίας το δεύτερον — φατρια-
ο&ε'ις 6 αντός Γαληνός παρά τον αντον Καλλιΰτράτον το6-
ούτονς εμπαιγμονς επ’ ενιαντον και βολίδας νπέμεινεν, ωΰτε
ίο μέχρι τέλονς [τό πέρας] εν τη αντη ’Αρτοπωλίων καλενδία,
εν αντοΐς τοις ξωδιακοΐς τετράπόδοις και πετεινοΐς, Οελεντίον
νπάρχοντος ξίφει άποκεφαλιΰ&ηναι, κράξαντος τον Πραΰίνον
μέρονς και τοϋ δχλον ' δίκαια η κρίΰις\ ’Αριϋτείδης δε φιλό-
ΰοφος έπέ&ηκεν όνομα τω τόπω τοιόνδε, ο και φαίνεται
15 εως της ΰήμερον, 'Γαληνού &ηρία, αδικία *j* νενομένω Ζή¬
νων ι’. Κα'ι τνπώϋας την γραφίδα άπέδρα έν Χερΰώνι, και
έΰώ&η εως της ΰημερον.
41. | Θέαμα ε'. Το εν τοις 'Αμαΰτριανον. Καρα- Β 172
κάλλον τον πραιποΰίτον ϋ'εαμάτιον ήτοι είδωλεΐον της Βν-

§ 41 Pauca decerpsit Anon. Treu p. 15, 18 sqq.: Περί τοϋ

’Αμαοτριανον. Ζενς ήλιος έν άρματι μαρμαρίνω κα'ι 'Ηρακλής
ό άνακείμενος’ έν&α ποταμός ό από Λύκον λατρενόμενος· καϊ
έν αντώ χελώναι μεβταϊ ορνίθων καϊ δράκαιναι ιη ’ έγίνοντο
δε έκεϊσε δαιμόνων έπιαταΰίαι. Inde Codin. II 52 (ρ. 45, 11 Β)

nulli codd.; cf. Nic. Chon. p. 405, 20 schol., cod. Hierosol. Sab-
bait. n. 422 (βαβιλογράφιν), Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft fur
altere deutsche Gesch. XV (1890) 155 sqq. (Vasilographus)
3 τοντο P, corr. Lamb. 4 βερηνης P 5 fortasse in-
serendum <(έπιβονλενειβ έμβατενοντι κτλ. 7 Et φρατριάξειν
et φατριάξειν (— insidiari) Byzantinis in usu est 10 τό
πέρας seclusi άρτοπωλίω (sic Ρ) καλενδία] sanumne sit
dubito. Cf. 'calendar locus ubi territorium aliquod incipit’
Du Cange Favre s. v. (saec. XIII) 11 Σελεντίον νπ’ άρχον-
τος edd. 14 τοιώδε Ρ, correxi 15 νεμομένη Comb., νενοη-
μένη? 17 έΰώ&η] sc. η γραφές 19 &εμάτιον? cf. ρ. 32, 9
et 35, 2
 TRANSLATION 111

Constantine the Great. And when he applied his attention to their

readings, observing what was destined to happen to Zeno by the
agency of Verina, he laughed. But a certain Callistratus, vulgar by
birth and a pedlar by station, when Galen kept repeating the story
of the Gorgons, especially frequently after the second return of
Zeno from Isauria (i.e. 477-91)—this same Galen was the subject of
a deliberate attack from this Callistratus, and was the recipient of
such mocking and blows over the course of a year that finally a
court was held in the same building1 of the Bread Market, among
the same sculpted images of animals and birds, and he was be¬
headed by the sword, the Green faction and the crowd shouting out
‘The verdict is just’.2 Aristides the philosopher gave the following
name to the place which can be seen until today: ‘The beasts of
Galen <and> the injustice t. to Zeno’.3 4 And when he had
carved the inscription, he fled to Cherson, and the inscription has
been preserved until the present day.
41. Spectacle number five. In the neighbourhood of the Amastrianon.
From Caracallus the praepositus the minor spectacle (themation)
or small statue (eidolion), the foremost of the city of Byzantium,

1 See commentary.
2 See chapters 29 and 32.
3 P’s νενομένω cannot be right, but it is far from clear what should be read.
4 Or possibly a pagan temple.
 112 ΠΑΡΑΣΤΑΣΕΙΣ ΣΥΝΤΟΜΟΙ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑΙ

ξαντίων πόλεως πρωτεύον από Τραϊανόν, <(cog)> Μεκας και

Γλαύκος' εξ ών Θεόδωρος χρονογράφος άναρρωΰ&είς άνα-
γνώΰμαβιν. Ζενς "Ηλιος εν αντω τω τόπω εν άρματι μαρ-
μαρενδέτω' *J* Αιός ΰκνταλίδης, ’Αριΰτείδης, 'Ηρακλής δ
5 άνακείμενος, ηνίοχος &εων επιγραφών '’Απόλλων παγκρα-

της’Έν&α δ ποταμός *f* ό κντλον, άετιος δ από Λύκον

[μνκο]λατρενόμενος' εν αντω χελώναι μεΰται δρνί&ων’ εν
ανταΐς δράκαιναι ιη\ Κονκοβύτιος φιλόϋοφος ειδώλων πρω-
τοβτάτης και ΰ'ύτης γνναικός και δύο τέκνων, μητρός 1 * * * 5Αγλαϊ-
ίο δής και αδελφής Γραφεντίας. ’Εν αντω τω τόπω δαιμόνων
έπιβταΰίαι και πτώΰεις, άτε βαΰιλέων, ζεγίvovτoy τοΐς φιλο-
ΰοφούΰι' μάλιΰτα εάν πόρνοι είεν τη γλώττη η τη ΰπορα οί
βαβιλεΐς ολέθριοι. Αιά τούτο τω γνμνω προςεχέτωΰαν ζωδίω,
και βιδηρέαν βοτάνην 6νν κοχλίδι περιζέβαντες και τοΐς
15 μνκτηρΰιν δπτήΰαντες *{* γαλονχεΐτε τοΐς φίλοις τού άνακτος'

Ί* και ην γνωΰτά εκ τούτων ΐΰως &έλεται εις αντονς γενε-

1 προτενων Ρ, προτερενον Comb.; corrigebam ώ? du-

bitanter supplevi 2 άα'αρραχΓίΙεΙρ] αναγνωριστείς Comb.,
αναρριγείς· Ε. Kurtz (nomen ducens ex . .) 3 μαρμαρεν-
&έτω P, correxi, cf. Anon, post Leon. Gramm. 348, 2 άμαξας
σιδηρενδέτας·, χρνσόδετος et χρνσένδετος (Pauly-Wissowa s. v.).
Etiam μαρμαρενδύτω licet scribere coll, λι&ένδντος p. 50, 22 ubi
videsis. μαρμαρείω έτέ&η vel μαρμαρείω λενκω Lamb. 4 Αιο-
σκονρίδης? ο άνακείμενος] i. e. accubans velut statua
musei Cbiaramonti 5 έπί δίφρων, ’An. παγκρΑ παγκρα-
τής Ρ, παγκρατιαστής Comb. 6 Κντλον et Άετιος pro
propriis nominibus accipiunt edd. 7 μνκο dittographia
interpolatum esse videtur (cf. p. 48, 14). Ad rem cf. Mala-
las p. 264 8 Κονκοβντιος] και Άκονντιος edd. nescio unde;
fort. Κονκονβντιος scribendum; cf. Κονκονζέλης aliaque no-
mina; de Cobida vel Cubidio (v. Zach. v. Lingentbal Gesch.
d. gr.-rom. Rechts p. 11) cogitavit W. Fischer 9 (άλλα
καϊy μητρός κτλ.? 11 άτε βασιλέων appositio vocis δαιμό¬
νων (Comb.) έγίνοντο suppl. ex Anon. Tr. 15 γαλονχειται
P, fort, γάλον vel γαλής (sc. μνκτήρσιν) χεϊτε τοΐς φίλοις
16 naif’ rjv γνωστά έκ τούτων ίσως &έλει τά εις αντονς γενέ-
σ&αι νμΐν? ήν Comb
 TRANSLATION 113

dating from the reign of Trajan (98-117), <as> Mekas and

Glaukos < relate >, on whose writings Theodore the chrono-
grapher depends. In this place Zeus Helios on a chariot inlaid
with marble, the tstaffbearer1 of Zeus, Aristides, the reclining
Heracles, a charioteer of the gods with the inscription ‘All-powerful
Apollo’. There was the river .,2 the eagle worshipped by a
wolf;3 in it are tortoises full of birds and among them eighteen she-
serpents, Koukobytios the philosopher, a champion of idols (eidola)
and sacrificer of his wife and two children, his mother Aglaide
and his sister Graphentia. In this place the dominion and fall of
demons < exemplified >4 those of emperors to philosophers,
especially if the accursed emperors be fornicators in word or off¬
spring. For this reason let them pay attention to the naked statue
(zodion) and cooking the iron5 herb with a small spoon and roasting
with the nostrils, let them f. at the friends of the emperor.
From these it was known to you how6 things are likely to happen to

1 See note.
2 See note for the text here.
3 This chapter is perhaps the most corrupt of all: see commentary.
Reading αετός for P’s άετως.
4 P has no verb but Anon. Treu has added έγίνοντο; a stronger verb has
presumably dropped out. For the meaning cf. chapter 40.
5 All this is unintelligible in its present form, but some kind of magic is implied.
6 Reading όπως for ίσως.
 114 ΠΑΡΑΣΤΑΣΕΙΣ ΣΥΝΤΟΜΟΙ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑΙ

6&αι νμΐν. Πολύς δε άργυρος καί μάλιϋτα δηναρίων κατέ-

χωΰται κάτω&εν, άτε δη και χληβανρός χρνΰίου. Ότι xϊέατρον
Ί* V7τάρχον καί τοίς πολλοΐς βλέπειν εν ήμερα | Α ιός ϋ'υΰίας Β 173
καί χϊαυμάζουύιν' ΰειΰμον δε γενομενον άπο&ανεΐν εν αντω
5 τω τΐέλματι ως επί Βυξα καί ’Άντη, πριν Κωνΰταντΐνος τη
πόλει Ί* άλλα τη 'Ρώμη θεόν γινώϋκων εφαίνετο. Οι δε
ίπποι καί αί κινννρες Γαλινδουχίον τοϋ δονκός' ατινα καθ-
ορώνται εν τω *j* πνρί ’Αρτεμιΰίω εως της δεύρο. Όθεν,
Φιλόκαλε, πολλούς κόπους διά την ΰην αρετήν υπομείναντες
ίο ονδεν ηγανακτηΰαμεν.
42. (Θέαμα ζ.β Περί τον Βοός. Το δε έν αντω
τω Βοΐ θέαμα τρανώς 6οι υποδείξομεν, δπερ πλειΰτάκις δι
επιΰτολών ημΐν έΰημανας δηλόν 6οι γενέΰ&αι, ώ Φιλόκαλε.
<(Τπό δεβ Οναλεντινιανοϋ του πραιποβίτον Κώνΰταντος
15 έν τω Τπποδρομίω οίκοδομηΌ'ηναι γινώΰκομεν. Κάμινος δε

§ 42 lin. 15—ρ. 49, 9 — Treu ρ. 15, 22 sqq.: Περί τον βοός.

Κάμινος ην έκεΐ έκτισμένη παμμεγέ&ης βοός έχουσα κε¬
φαλήν έν&α οι κακούργοι έτιμωροϋντο’ ο&εν καί Τον-
λιανός προφάσει των καταδίκων πολλονς έν αντω χριστιανούς
κατέκανοεν ην δέ η κάμινος βοός τύπος παμμεγε&εστάτον
θέαμα, ου κατά μίμηΰιν καί έν τω νεωρίω βονς άπετνπώ&η'
ην δε ό βονς η κάμινος εως Φωκά, άλλ’ νπό Ηρακλείου έχω-
νεν&η λόγω νονμμίων. Inde Codin. II 53 (ρ. 46, 1 Β)

1 νμΐν] νμνον Comb. 3 sq. υπάρχων Ρ. Quae se-

quuntur, non minus obscura sunt; exspectamus ότι θέατρον
ύπάρχον (vel ύπηρχεν) καί. τονς πολλονς βλέπειν . . καί θαν-
μάζειν Ο'υσίαις Ρ δ άντι Ρ 6 άλλη τη 'Ρώμη Comb.,
τη άλλη Ρώμη“ί θεό? Ρ 7 κιννύρα vel κινάρα musicae
instrumentum est; κινννρίδες 'quod Hesychius exponit τά
μικρά όρνι&άρια’ Lamb. παλινδονχίον vel μεγαλινδονχίον
Αονκός Comb. (cf. 1. 1. ρ. 310); nomen Γολινδονχ occurrit in
Actis SS. Mai IV 170 B (Theophil. Simoc. 5, 12, 1), 13. Juli ΠΙ
509 sq. 8 πνρί Ρ, πόρω vel φόρω Comb. Αρτεμισίου loci
nomen alibi quod sciam non traditur; an Αμαστριανώ vel
ΆρτοπωλίωΊ 11 θε'αμα ς suppl. Bekker 13 σημανας Ρ
14 νπο suppl. Lamb. βαλεντινιανον Ρ κώνστανταντος Ρ
 TRANSLATION 115

them. And much silver, especially in denarii, was buried below,

and1 also a treasure of gold. It is said that there was a theatre and
that it was possible for many to watch in the daytime and marvel at
sacrifices to Zeus.2 And there was an earthquake, and people died
in this arena in the days of Byzas and Antes before Constantine was
revealed as a worshipper of God not in this city but at Rome.3 And
the horses and musical instruments of the dux Galindouch—these
can be seen in the building4 of the Artemision until the present day.
Wherefore, Philokalos, though we have gone to a lot of trouble for
your honour’s sake, we do not grudge it.
42. < Spectacle number six. > About the Ox.
We will describe clearly to you the spectacle (theama) at the Ox,
which you have frequently asked us in letters to make clear to you,
Philokalos. We have discovered that it was built in the Hippodrome
<by> Valentinian the praepositus of Constans (337-50). And there

1 P has ατε δή.

2 See commentary. We offer a paraphrase rather than a translation.
3 A negative has dropped out.
4 πυρί, possibly the same as πύροις in chapters 39-40.
 116 ΠΑΡΑΣΤΑΣΕΙΣ ΣΥΝΤΟΜΟΙ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑΙ

τταμμεγέΌ'ης μεγάλη εως ημών διαΟω&εΐβα, ενϋ'α ’Ιονλιανδς

δ χλεοΰτνγής ττροφάοει των καταδίκων ηολλονς εν αντη
Χριΰτιανονς κατέκανΰε. Ην δε η κάμινος φέρονΰα βοδς
χαλκόν τταμμεγεΌ'εΰτάτου Ό'έαμά τι, ονηερ κατά μίμηΰιν (καί
5 βονς)> εν τω Νεωριβίω λιμενι κατετυπώ&η. Τω δε αντω βοΐ
τω χαλκω ενεκεν κανΰεως τΐαρηκολον&ηΰέ τι μώμον εως
Φωκά τον άναξίον' καί μετά τδ καν&ηναι τον αν τον Φωκάν
mco \Ηράκλειον χωνεν&ηναι τον βονν εις ΰκονλκαταμεΐον καί
εις τον Πόντον τιεράΰαι ενεκεν ΰτρατολογίας | (ήν δε τδ Β 174
ίο ΰκονλκάτον εν τω Πόντω) *j* ΰτα&μών τον άργνρίον κδ'
διά τδ είναι αντδ χντόν. ”Όηερ καί ενταν&α ϋώζεται εως
τής ΰημερον τοΐς δρώΰιν εις λαιμία χωνεντά ΰκνϋ’ρωττά τΐάνν.
43. <(Θέαμα)> ζ'. ’Εκ τον *j* Μιλίον θεάματος τον
γ δφικίον Αιοΰκόρον' εκ των κα& ώραν επί Μανρι-
15 κίον Ανγονϋτον. "Οτι τδ Σινάτον τδ λεγόμενον τον Φόρον
ονδεν άλλο ετυμολογείται η μόνον Σινάτον οίκοδομήϋαντος
τδ Σινάτον' καί τδ εν αντω τρίλι&ον ζώδιον ήτοι τρικέφαλον
ττορφνροειδή, ο ελεγόν τινες Κωνΰταντίνον τδν μέγαν μεΰον5

4 δηερ Ρ ζκαϊ βονς) inseruit Lamb. 5 κατεηό&η Ρ

8 εις άκονίκαταμίον Ρ, correxi; ΰκονλκα — excubiae (Du Cange
gloss, graec. et Du Cange-Favre s. v. sculca, Theophyl. Sim.
6, 9, 14, cf. ηροΰκονλκάτορες Malal. p. 330, 2); fin aerario ex-
cubiarum’ 10 κονλκάτον Ρ; ΰκονλκάτον — ΰκονλκα? (cf.
φοΰΰάτον et φόΰΰα) (νηήρχε δε sc. τδ ίϊέαμαβ ΰτα&μών?
11 <(χρνΰδνβ χντόν Comb., χρνΰεγχντόν Band. 12 λεμία
Ρ; λαιμίον (a λαιμός) significat effigiem collo tenus ut ΰτη-
&άριν imaginem pectore tenus; cf. Malal. p. 265, 1, Acta et
Diplom. Y p. 323 sq., Typicon Stramnitzae ed. Omont in Me¬
langes Weil p. 309 sqq., Synops. Sath. p. 149, 20 τά νομίΰματα
τούτων (sc. των ε' βαΰιλέων) τονς τνηονς φέροντα ηενταλαίμια
όνομάζοντο 13 &έαμα suppl. Lamb. £'] ζη Ρ, corr. Lamb.
έκ τον βιβλίον τον θεάματος Lamb.; neque enim de Milio
agitur in insequentibus 14 κα&όραν ini P 16 ΰινα τον
P, corr. Lamb. 17 τδν ΰινατον P, correxi 18 ηορφνροειδες
Lamb.; sed cf. p. 22, 31 ίκμώάη an Κωνΰταντίνον τδν τον με-
γάλον?
 TRANSLATION 117

is an enormous great furnace, preserved until the present day,

where Julian (361-3), hated of God, burned many Christians on the
pretext of their being criminals. The furnace bore as a spectacle
(theama) a huge bronze ox, in imitation of which that at the Neorion
harbour was made. An air of disgrace attached to the bronze ox
because of the burning, up to the reign of the wicked Phocas
(602-10). But after Phocas himself was burnt the ox was melted
down by Heraclius (610-41) for the treasury of the guards and went
to Pontus for army recruitment (the guardpost was in Pontus).1 < It
was worth> twenty-four measures of silver, because it was cast.
And this remains here even up to the present day for people to see,
cast into frowning imperial portraits.2
43. < Spectacle number> seven. From the \Mihon a spectacle (theama)
of the ? official Dioscorus; from the things to be seen3 in the reign of the
Emperor Maurice.
That the explanation of the name of the so-called Senate of the
Forum is none other than that Senatos built the Senate. And the
porphyry statue (zodion) there of three stones with three heads,
which some said was of Constantine the Great in the middle, Con-

1 See note; the vocabulary is technical, and authentic.

2 I.e. in the form of coins.
3 See note for this and for the many difficulties presented by this title.
 118 ΠΑΡΑΣΤΑΣΕΙΣ ΣΥΝΤΟΜΟΙ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑΙ

Κωνΰτάντιον ενώννμον, Κώνβταν εν τοΐς δεξ,ιοΐς μέρεβιν,

εις πόδας άρκονμενον δνο, εις δε χεΐρας εξ' ζενον τοΐς
όρώΰι &έαμα, άλλος άλλοχόΰ'εν ορών, καί. η κεφαλή μία.
’Εμπνριβμοϋ δε ποτέ γενομένον εν αντω τω τόπω και πάν-
5 των εκεΐβε άΰχολονμένων, είπεΐν, κλαπηναι το &ανμ,άΰιον
εκείνο επί Θεοδοβίον τον μικρόν νΐοϋ :Αρκαδίον, ο$ εν&νς
δια ταχνδρόμον εν τοΐς διαΰτατοΐς και εν τοΐς Ό'αλαττίοις
μερεΰι μετά απειλής ει μη φάνειεν το &έαμα' και
οι τοϋτο τολμηΰαντες ονκ ίΰχνΰαντες εις την ιδίαν πατρίδα
ίο άπενεγκεΐν, φ&αζόμενοι δε τω δρόμωνι τω βαβιλικω άπο-
ποιηβάμενοι εαντονς τό τε Ό'έαμα και εαντους εν τω βν&ω
ρίψαντες | κατεποντίΰΌ'ηΰαν' ώς πολλών πλοίων και ΰαργά- Β 175
νων έλ&όντων και κολνμβητων τινων διά τό άδημονεΐν τον
βαΰιλέα, δώρα τε εις πλη&ος ταττομενον και ώς φ' κεντη-
15 ναρίων μεΌ1’ όρκων φρικτών βεβαιονμένον τοΐς μέλλονΰιν
αντό έκβάλαι εκ της ϋ’αλάΰΰης, ονκ ΐΰχνΰέ τις. Τότε όργι-
ΰ&εις δ αντός Θεοδόδιος και τον Σινάτον οίκον τω πνρϊ
παραδεδωκεν νπό τεδδάρων κιόνων βαδταξόμενον. Και μετ-
έ&ηκεν την ΰτηλην 'Ελένης μητρός Κωνΰταντίνον και αντοϋ
20 καί της γνναικός αντοϋ Φανβτης, &νγατρός Αιοκλητιανοϋ,
εν τω αντω Σινάτω' αντοϋ μεν και της γαμέτης γαλκεγγν-
των νπαρχόντων καί μέρος λι&ενδντων, αντης δε εκ πορ-

2 άρκονμενον] vix genuinum 3 άλλον Comb. όρώντι?

7 διαΰτατοΐς] quid sit, nescio, cf. διάστημα Theophan. p. 146,
12; an διαβατοΐς? 8 άπελής P, lacunam indicavi; excidisse
videtur έκηρνξε vel ζητεΐν έκέλενσε vel simile quid 10 δρόμω
P, corrigebam 12 σαργάνων] de accentu vide Krumbacher
Studien zu .Romanos p. 259 et Berl. philol. Wocbenschr. 1899
p. 646, Hippol. Theb. ed. Diekamp p. 10, 2 14 δώρα δε P,
corr. Band. ταττομενον P, corr. Lamb. cog] εως?
20 ϋ'νγατρός (Μαζιμιανον τον 'Ερκονλίον, γαμβρόν) Αιοκλ.
suppl. Lamb. 21 Σινάτω] mirum quod in senatu, quern
modo combustum esse narravit, statuas positas esse dicit
22 λι&ενδντων] cf. αργνρένδντος infra in H. Soph. § 28; χρυσίον
et άργνρίον ένέδνσε ibid. § 21 et 22 αντης δε ζτης 'Ελένης)?
 TRANSLATION 119

stantius on the left and Constans on the right, with two feet, but six
hands—a strange spectacle (theama) for those who saw it, each one
looking in a different direction—and one head. But once there was
a fire in this place, and while everyone was busy (so to speak) that
extraordinary thing was stolen, in the reign of Theodosius II
(408-50), the son of Arcadius, who immediately <made>J threats
through a herald in the suburbs and districts by the sea if the spec¬
tacle (theama) were not found. Those who dared to do this were not
able to remove it to their own country, but were overtaken by the
emperor’s boat and did away with themselves; they cast both the
spectacle (theama) and themselves into the sea and were drowned.
And although many boats and rope-baskets and some divers came
because of the anguish of the emperor, and though he offered a
multitude of gifts and with fearful oaths promised to give five hun¬
dred centenaria to anyone who could rescue it from the sea, no one
succeeded in doing so. Then this Theodosius in anger gave over the
house of Senatos to the fire (it was supported by four columns). He
removed the statue {stele) of Helena, the mother of Constantine,
and Constantine and his wife Fausta, the daughter of Diocletian, in
the same Senate house. Constantine and his wife were made of cast

1 The verb is missing.

 120 ΠΑΡΑΣΤΑΣΕΙΣ ΣΥΝΤΟΜΟΙ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑΙ

φυρού μαρμάρου *f* περιφέρουΰα' άτινα καί Σώζονται εως

τής δεύρο.
Παπία.
44. ’Εν τω λεγομένω Στατήρι, δηερ λέγεται Μόλιον,
5 άλωπόν είναι εκ μαρμάρου ΠηγανουΣιου εις μήκος οργυιάς
ε\ πλάτος δε οργυιάς δυο ήμίΣυ, προς νότον εν τούς ανα¬
κτορικούς οίκοις, προς δε βορραν προς τον παλαιόν νεών'
οπερ εν τω Στή&ει εγραφεν δι’ έμπλαΣτών χρυΰεων και
άργυρεων γραμμάτων rΑφροδίτη Σελήνη’ ’ έδό&η ΠέρΣαις
ίο εις πάκτον επί 'ΛναΣταΣίου βαΣιλέως αντί Στα&μών χιλίων
χρυΣού.
44 a. Καί τούτο δε ό αυτός Παπίας εδίδαξεν εκ των
αυτού Συγγραμμάτων, ότι αί γοργονοειδεΐς [*}* δεματερίδε
γυναικοειδεύς] κε\φαλαί εν τή Χάλκη πύλη, προς μεν τό Β 176
15 πρόΰ&εν περιπατούντι ευωνύμως, προς δε τό όπιΣ&εν δεξιώς,
τής ’Αρτέμιδος Ό·εας εκ τού ναού ’Εφεΰίων ήκαϋιν ζοκτώβ'
τα μεν τεΣΣαρα εν τούς Ταύρου μερεΟιν, εν τοϊς παλαιούς

§ 44a 1. 13 — ρ. 52, 10 neglegentius excerpsit Anon.

Treu ρ. 15, 30 sqq.: Ότι έν τή χαλκή πύλη γοργονοειδεΐς γν-
ναικοειδεΐς κεφαλαί έκ τον ναόν τής Αρτέμιδος τον έν Έφέσω
ήκασιν οκτώ' καί αί μεν δ' έν τοϊς τον Ταύρον μέρεσιν έν
τοΐς παλαιοϊς παλατίοις προςεπάγησαν Κωνσταντίνον και Γου¬
λιανού καί τής γνναικός αυτού καί των νίών αυτού καί Γάλ¬
λον, τά δέ δ' έν τή Χαλκή ενωνύμω μέρεί' έν&α καί σταυρός
υπό ’Ιουστινιανού πέπηγεν καί Βελισαρίον καί Τιβέρειος δ κνρ-
τοειδής Θράξ καί ’Ιουστίνος ό πρώτος λεπτοειδής καί των συγ¬
γενών αντον επτά, αί μεν από μαρμάρου, αί δε χαλκαΐ. Inde
Codin. II 28 (ρ. 34, 5 Β)

1 περιέχονσα Comb., an περιφερούς ut duabus illis statuis

partim aeneis partim marmoreis opponatur? 4 μόλιον] an
μώλον? (cf. Theopban. ind. verb.) 7 νεόν P, cf. § 57
9 σελένα Ρ έδό&η (δέβ“? 12 πατίας Ρ 13 δεματερίδε
(i. e. δειματοειδεΐς?) et γυναικοειδεΐς glossae esse videntur ad
γοργονοειδεΐς 16 ήκασι· τάς μέν τέσσαρας Ρ, corrigebam
(subaudiendum est γοργόνεια)
 TRANSLATION 121

bronze and partly of stone, but Helena was of porphyry all over.1
These are preserved up to the present day.

From Papias

44. In the so-called Stater, which is called Molion,2 was a fox

made of Peganousian marble, its length five fathoms and its width
two and a half fathoms. In a southerly direction lay the imperial
palace, and in a northerly direction the old church. On its chest in¬
laid in gold and silver letters was written ‘Aphrodite Selene’. It was
given to the Persians by way of tribute at the time of the Emperor
Anastasius (491-518), in place of a thousand pounds of silver.
44a. As this Papias also explained in his writings that the
gorgon-like heads3 on the Chalke gate—which are on the left as the
spectator approaches and on the right if he is walking away from
it—came from the Ephesian temple of the goddess Artemis. There
were < eight > ,4 Four of these are in the area of the Forum Tauri,

1 See commentary.
2 ‘Modios’ or ‘Milion’? See commentary.
3 The words δεματερίδε γυναικοειδεϊς in P are clearly a gloss, even if not quite in¬
telligible.
4 Added from Anon. Treu.
 122 ΠΑΡΑΣΤΑΣΕΙΣ ΣΥΝΤΟΜΟΙ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑΙ

παλατίοις προςπηχ&εντα Κωνΰταντίνον, ένΟ'α καί ’Ιονλιανον

καί τής τούτον γαμέτης, αλλά καί. Κωνΰταντίνον τον με-
γάλον καί των νΐών αντον καί Γάλλον κα&ορώνται αγάλ¬
ματα' τα δε τεΰΰαρα εν τη προειρημένη πύλη ενωνύμω μερει'
5 εν&α και ΰτανρδς πεπηγώς επί ’Ιονΰτινιανον τον πάλαι και
Βελιΰαρίον ζκαί άλλων 6τήλαιβ καινονργη&εΐΰαι ΐΰτανται'
εν η και αντδς Βελιΰάριος κα&οράται χρνΰέμβαφος, ήλιοκε-
φαλος, και Τιβέριος δ κνρτοειδής Θραξ και ’Ίονΰτΐνος αν-
τό&ι δ πρώτος λεπτοειδής, επίφορος κατ’ ιδέαν πάνν, και
ίο των ΰνγγενών επτά, αι μεν εκ μαρμάρον, α£ δε και χαλκαι\
εκ των ζωΰμάτων επιγινωΰκόμεναι ακριβώς τοΐς παριονΰι.
45. Πολλά τη βαΰιλίδι Πονλχερία Λέων δ μεγας εμα-
κάριζεν' δ&εν και μνήμην αντής τής τελειώΰεως επετελει,
και εν τω τάφω αντής αντος ίΰτόρηΰε τδ ταύτης Ινδαλμα.
15 Και εν τοΐς βαΰιλείοις δε θεωρών αντήν εν ίΰτορία τον
βίον ολον αντής εμακάριζεν. Μαρκιανον δε ΰτήλην και Πονλ-
χεριάς δ αντος Λέων εν τοΐς Θεοδοΰιανον εμβόλοις μετα-
ΰτήΰας τη βαΰιλίδι πόλει προςε&ηκεν.
46. ’Ιονλιανον χαραγάς Θεοδόΰιος δ μεγας ήμαύρωΰε'
2ο μεΦ’ ών και την τούτον ΰτήλην εξω τής Χαραγής έΰτηκνΐαν
&εαΰάμενος ήρν&ρίαΰε, καί τοΐς ΰννοδεύονΰιν επύ&ετο, τίνος
άν εϊη | τδ χάραγμα. Τών δε ’Ιονλιανον φηΰάντων, εν&νς Β 17
εκείνον είπεΐν orι μελαν άνθρωπον την ΰτήλην τε&έαμαι και
πάνν ήρϋϋ’ρίαΰα' και παραντίκα ταύτην κατέαξε, καί δόγμα
25 προέ&ηκεν, οτι δπον εάν ενρε&είη εν χαραγαΐς νονμίων τδ

4 τάς δε τέαααρας Comb. έν τής προειρημένης πύλης

ενων. μέρει Lamb., sed cf. § 15. 36. 48 5 τον πάνν Comb.
6 καί νονργη&ήΰαι Ρ, καί. Ναρΰον βτήλαι Lamb., καί άλ¬
λων βτήλαι supplebam 9 έπίφοβος? 11 ξωσμάτων^ γραμ¬
μάτων? παρονοι Ρ, corrigebam 20 Χαραγήςj officinae
monetarum; cf. Const. Porph. de caer. p. 11, 12 et scbol. p. 8
23 μέλανος άνθρωπον ΰτήλην Lamb. 25 ενρε&ή ή Ρ;
de optativo cum coniunctivo iuncto v. Biittner-Wobst Zonaras
III p. 175, 14
 TRANSLATION 123

fixed on the ancient palace of Constantine, where the statues

{agalmata) of Julian (361-63) and his wife, and also of Constantine
the Great (324-37) and his sons and Gallus can be seen. The other
four are on the left of the above-mentioned gate. In the same place
is also a cross put up in the time of the earlier Justinian (527-65);
restored1 < statues > (stelai) of Belisarius < and others > 2 were also
set up. And on the gate Belisarius himself is to be seen gilded, with
a crown of rays; and Tiberius (II, 578-82) the Thracian, with a
hunched back, and Justin I (518-27), slender in appearance, and
very close to his real likeness; and seven relatives, some in marble
and some in bronze, who can be accurately recognised by passers-
by from their dress.
45. Leo the Great (457-74) greatly honoured the Empress
Pulcheria; accordingly he observed the commemoration of her
death and on her tomb he represented her image (indalma). And in
the imperial palace when he looked on her picture he would deem
her whole life blessed.3 Leo also transferred a statue (stele) of Mar-
cian (450-57) and Pulcheria to the Theodosian porticoes and gave it
to the imperial city.
46. Theodosius the Great (379-95) wiped out4 the coinage of
Julian. In addition, when he saw his statue {stele) standing outside
the Mint, he turned red and asked his companions whose likeness
{charagma) it was. When they replied that it was Julian’s, he said at
once: T have seen a black man represented in a statue {stele) and I
grew very red’, and at once he broke it and issued a decree saying

1 Or ‘reused’.
1 Preger’s supplements.
3 Or ‘seeing her picture in the palace, he himself then commemorated her whole
life in a cycle’.
4 See note.
 124 ΠΑΡΑΣΤΑΣΕΙΣ ΣΥΝΤΟΜΟΙ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑΙ

τοιοντον υπόδειγμα καί μη τώ δημοσίω καταμηνυ&ή, δημευ¬

τείς ό τοιοντος ίξόριστος Κωνσταντινουπόλεως γένηται.
47. Πολύς ην ’Ιουλιανος iv μαγγανείαις' ο&εν καί τοΐς
είδώλοις εις στήλας βαΰιλικάς, φασίν, εξεικόνιζε καί προςκυ-
5 νεΐσ&αι ταντας ώς βασιλέων εικόνας ήνάγκαξεν' με& ών
καί iv τη Νικομηδέων μητροπόλει το τον Απόλλωνος άγαλμα
χρυσέγκανστον κατασκευάσας καί της θεάς ’Αρτέμιδος νόμοις
όμοίοις ίνομο&ετει προςκυνεΐσ&αι, ως αύτοΰ φη6ιν είναι καί
της γαμέτης τα ινδάλματα' δϋ'εν καί άπειρον πλη&ος κλαπεν
ίο εις είδωλολατρείαν κατεπεΰεν.
48. 5Εν τοΐς Πανεάδος μερεΰι τη επονομαζόμενη Και¬
σαρεία της Φιλίππου διερχομενον ’Ιουλιανοϋ, το της αίμορ-
ροούσης ίνδαλμα Ό'εασάμενος καί αυτόν του ’Ιησού τον αν¬
δριάντα ώ? ελεγον ύπ’ αυτής κατασκευασ&έντα' εν οίς
15 κεκνφυΐα η γυνή καί τη δεξιά χειρί τον κρασπέδου τον
άνδριάντος ’Ιησού άπτομένη' μέσον που βοτάνης είδος, άλε'ξη-
τηριον φάρμακον προς πάσαν νόσον επιτήδειον εκφυεν καί
τυφλούς ως φαΰι τούς εκ κοιλίας μητρός έξελ&όντας ίάσα-
6&αι (τούτο δε καί Ευσέβιος 6 Παμ\φίλου καί 6 Αιακρινό- Β 178
so μένος άκριβέστερον μεμνηται) — ταντα ’Ιουλιανος Φεασάμενος
έπύ&ετο το μυστήριον, καί μα&ών ’Ιησού είναι τον ανδριάντα
κατέκλασεν' ώσα-ύτως δε καί τής Βερονίκης, ως 6 Αιακρινό-
μενος μεμνηται καλεΐσϋ'αι την αίμόρρουν' καί το φντόν δε
κατεκαυσε καί Αιος εϊδωλον καί :Αφροδίτης εν τω τόπω
25 άνατε&εικως καί εαυτόν' εν οίς καί ναόν οίκοδομήσας επέ¬
γραφε τάδε' (&εω Αιΐ παντεπόπτη' ’.Ιουλιανος Πανεάδι εις
δώρον άγει’. ”Εν&α καί Μαρτύριος επίσκοπος πολλά εξον-

3 τά είδωλα ? δ τανταις Ρ 7 χρνβέγκαατον Ρ

9 κλαπτέν Ρ, κλαπεν Lamb. (= κλοπιμαίως ?) 11 De variis de
Veronica narrationibus cf. Dobschiitz Cbristusbilder p. 197 sqq.
et 250* sqq KaiG. τή Φίλιππον Lamb.; sed cf. Tbeopban.
49, 9, Cedr. 534, 8; 535, 3, Sozom. 5, 21 12 αίμορρονσης P
16 ήκαϊ'} μέαον? πον Ρ 19 Euseb. hist. eccl. 17, 18
25 έαντον Comb.
 TRANSLATION 125

that whenever that same man’s likeness (hypodeigma) was seen on

coins and the Treasury was not notified, he who was responsible
should suffer confiscation and be banished from Constantinople.
47. Julian (361-63) was deeply involved in sorcery; thus he
fashioned idols (eidola) into the semblance of imperial statues (stelai),
it is said, and forced everyone to do obeisance to them as if to im¬
ages (eikones) of emperors. In addition, he erected the gold-niello
image (agalma) of Apollo and the goddess Artemis in the metropolis
of Nicomedia and ordered that it should be revered with similar
rites, saying that the likenesses (indalmata) were of himself and his
wife. And because of this, a huge number were deceived and fell
headlong into idolatry.
48. As Julian was passing through Caesarea Philippi, as it is
called, in the region of Paneas, he saw the likeness (indalma) of the
woman with an issue of blood, and the statue (andrias) of Jesus
Himself which they said had been put up by her. In it the woman
was bending down and touching the hem of the garment of the
statue (andrias) of Jesus with her right hand. In the middle there was
growing a kind of plant, an efficacious remedy for any disease and
one capable, they say, of curing even those born blind from their
mother’s womb (so it is recorded with great precision by Eusebius
Pamphili and Diakrinomenos). Seeing this, then, Julian asked its
meaning (mysterion) and when he heard that the statue (andrias) was
of Jesus, he broke it. He did the same with that of Veronica, as
Diakrinomenos tells us the woman with the issue of blood was
called. And he burned the plant and dedicated an idol (eidolon) of
Zeus and Aphrodite on the site, and one of himself. And there too
he built a temple and inscribed on it ‘To the divine Zeus who sees
all. Julian makes this gift to Paneas’. And there the bishop Mar-
 126 ΠΑΡΑΣΤΑΣΕΙΣ ΣΥΝΤΟΜΟΙ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑΙ

•θ'ενήΰας savxbv εκάη πληΰίον τον ναόν, ώ? ελεγον, εις &ν-

οίαν &εοΐς.
49. Ίονλιανον βαΰιλενοντος, ηρίν η την 'Ρώμην κατα-
λαβεϊν, στήλην εν Βνζαντίω τούτου άνέΰτηΰαν εν τοΐς Κων-
5 ΰταντινιανον εμβόλοις’ καί 6 ΰτρατηλάτης /ίημόφιλος
χαίρων τη των ειδώλων &ρηΰκεία εν πορφνρω κίονι ταν-
την άνέ&ηκεν’ *f* μέγας Φεοΰεβής νηάρχων ’Ιονλιανός.
Λια τοντο η μόνον εβαΰίλενΰεν, καί εν 'Ρώμη καί εν 'Αν¬
τιόχεια εικόνας αντω εν τε ΰανίοι καί γαλκονργημαΰι μεγί-
ιο 6τοις άνέ&ετο.
50. Γρατιανος μετά το γημαι εν 'Ρώμη ηαρεγενέτο καί
εαντόν καί την γαμέτην εν άργνραΐς ΰτηλαις εις άλλο &έαμα
τη 'Ρώμη τζροέ&ηκεν.
51. Οναλεντινιανον τον νεωτερον εν τοΐς Λεοντίον εμ-
15 βόλοις νπηρχε ϋτηλη ϋ'ανμάΰιος, εν&α Ζήνων τάς εποψέας
εηοιεΐτο. Ζήνων Οναλεντινιανον την ΰτήλην Ό·εαΰάμενος
άτνχειν εφηΰε τονς μη είκόΰιν εις μνημην κα&οραΰ&αι Καί-
ΰαρας.
52. | ’.Εν τω Βοΐ Κωνΰταντίνον φοΰΰάτον παρεΰκενάΰ&η Β 179
20 μεγιΰτον, καί ττόλεμον αντω Βνζας τζαρετάξατο, καί άτζέ&ανον
rΈλληνες, 6 Σωκράτης φηΰίν, εΐκοΰι χιλιάδες. Παρεν&ν
δε εν αντω τω Βοΐ ΰτανρός άργνροϋς κεχρνΰωμένος ετνπώ&η
καί Κωνΰταντίνον καί 'Ελένης εικόνες, άμφοτερων αί χεΐρες
τον ΰτανρόν κατέχονΰαί φαΰι τον ΰεόδονλον.

4 άνέατηαεν Ρ, corr. Comb. 7 Ante μέγας in Ρ tantum

spatium relictum est quantum in capitum initiis; forte ini-
γράψας inserendum est ' νηάρχει? 8 εΐ μόνον P, corr.
Band. 8 sq. έβαβίλενβεν sc. ’Ιονλιανός 10 άνέ&ετο] άνέ-
&εντο? 12 άλλότριον? 13 ηροέ&ηκεν] cf. § 59. 64 (ηροςέ&ηκε
% 17. 18. 21. 45) 15 έηοψίας ηοιεΐΰ&αι yectigalia et tributa in-
spicere, cf. de Boor Tbeophan. ind. s. v. 17 κα&ορωμένονς vel
κα&οραα&αι (μέλλοντας)? 19 φωβάτον Ρ 22 άρ^νρόρ Ρ
24 φαΰί τον &εόδονλον (τλεόδουλ in rasura) Ρ in initio
§ 53 exbibet. In fine § 52 ponit Comb, scribens φησί τών &εο-
δονλων (sc. Κωνοτ. καί'Ελ.). Immo ad οτανρόν pertinere videntur
 TRANSLATION 127

tyrius, who strongly opposed the emperor, was burned near the
temple, they say, as a sacrifice to the gods.
49. While Julian was emperor (361-63), before he came to
Rome, they set up a statue {stele) of him at Byzantium at the
Constantinian porticoes. The general Demophilus, who rejoiced
in the worship of idols {eidola), set it up on a porphyry column
< inscribed>1 ... ‘This is2 the great godfearing Julian’. For this
reason, as soon as he became emperor, he set up images {eikones) to
him3 in Rome and Antioch, in the form of panels (sanides) and large
bronze statues {chalkourgemata).
50. Gratian (375-83) came to Rome after his marriage and
presented another spectacle (theama) to Rome in the shape of silver
statues (stelai) of himself and his wife.
51. There was a wonderful statue {stele) of Valentinian the
Younger (III, 424-55) at the porticoes of Leontius, where Zeno
used to hold his inspections.4 When Zeno (474-91) saw the statue
{stele) of Valentinian, he said that those Caesars who were not com¬
memorated in statues {eikones) were unfortunate.
52. In the area of the Forum Bovis a great encampment was
prepared by Constantine the Great (324-37), and Byzas made war
on him, and as Socrates says, twenty thousand pagans died. And
at once in the same Forum Bovis a silver gilt cross was set up, and
likenesses {eikones) of Constantine and Helena, the hands of both
the slaves of God5 holding the cross, they say.

1 There is a space in P and some such word is missing.

2 ύπαρχων in P.
3 I.e. ‘to Julian’.
4 See commentary.
5 Reading θεοδούλων; see commentary.
 128 ΠΑΡΑΣΤΑΣΕΙΣ ΣΥΝΤΟΜΟΙ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑΙ

53. Ότι τα λεγάμενα Κοντάρια βίγλαν είχον εως ετη ζ''

και εν αντω τω τόπω πόλεμος εως ετη β' και ναός ειδώλων
μικρός πάνν, ον ελεγον Γαληνόν είναι' ον κα&ελών Κων-
Οταντΐνος της Θεοτόκον οίκον άνηγειρε και εαντόν εγχαράξας
5 καί την μητέρα καί ’Ιηΰονν καί την Παρθένον πανηγνρικάς
εορτάς έπετέλει εις ημέρας ιβ'.
54. 'Εν τοϊς Βιγλεντίον δπήρχεν η όχνρωτάτη βίγλα
Κωνΰταντίνον, ην προ της όπταΰίας <(έξωβ της πόλεως
εΰτηΰεν' εκεί γάρ, ως ελεγεν, καί τον ΰτανρόν περί δειλινόν
ίο όφ&αλμοφανώς έ&εάΰατο. ’Εν αντω δε τω τόπω τοϊς Βιγλεν¬
τίον Σενηρος Γάζονς κατωκιβεν, oi)g καί πολεμηΰας Μα'ξι-
μϊνος ατρατηγός Κωνΰταντίνον ώϋεί οκτώ χιλιάδας άπέκτεινεν.
Καί τότε οι λοιποί καταβάντες των ίππων καί τά ξίφη κλά-
ΰαντες τοϊς ποΰίν Μαξιμίνον έγκνλινδονμενοι ΰωτηρίας τν-
15 χεΐν ίκέτενον' καί τνχόντες εκ των ιδίων χαλκόνργημάτων
Κωνΰταντίνω ΰτηλην άνέ&εντο.
55. 'Εν τω Φόρω μ' ημέρας Κωνΰταντϊνος έδοξάΰ'&η
καί ενφη\μίΰ&η παρά τοϊς μέρεΰι καί παρά τοϊς άρχονΰι 180
της αντής πόλεως. Κανονάρις δε φιλόΰοφος εν νψηλω
20 τόπω άνελϋ’ών μετά το πεβεΐν τονς όχλονς μεγάλη φωνή

§ 53 Treu ρ. 16, 9 sq.: Τά λεγ. Κοντάκια βίγλα ην με¬

γάλη τό πρότερον καί εως £' έτών έφνλάττετο έκεΐσε
καί πολέμον γενομένου έκεΐσε δνο έτη ναός ωκοδομη&η ειδώ¬
λων μικρός νπό Γαλλίν ον όν κα&ελών Κ. τής Θεοτόκον ναόν
ήγειρεν καί ένεχάραξε τον Χριβτόν καί εαντόν καί την μητέρα
αύτοϋ καί έπετέλεοε πανήγνριν ημέρας δώδεκα. Inde Codin.
II 66 (ρ. 51, 12 Β) § 54 Anon. Treu ρ. 16, 15 sq. nihil nisi
prima verba (usque Κωνστ.) excerpsit. Inde Codin. II 67
(p. 52, 3 B)

3 ov &.] ώς έλ. P, corr. Band. Γαλλιηνον Lamb. 6 ε£?]

εως Comb., ώς Band. 7 ίσχνρωτώτη Tr. βίγλη Ρ 8 Post
οπτασίας inseruit Comb, (τής τον στανρον έπίβ, ego έξω vel
προ excidisse puto 9 ελεγον Lamb. 20 πανσαι Lamb.,
σιωπήσαι ?
 TRANSLATION 129

53. That the so-called Kontaria had a guard for seven years; and
in the same place there was a war for two years, and a very small
temple of idols (eidola) which they said was of Galen.1 Constantine
pulled it down and built a church of the Theotokos, and portraying
himself and his mother and Jesus and the Virgin he held a festival
for twelve days.
54. In the area of Ta Viglentiou2 was the very strong watch-
tower of Constantine, which he put up before his vision outside the
city; for there, they say, he saw the cross with his own eyes about
evening. In this region, they say, the area of Ta Viglentiou,
Severus settled the Gazoi and Maximinus, the general of Constan¬
tine (sic), fought against them and killed about eight thousand. And
then the rest dismounted from their horses and breaking their
swords rolled on the ground at the feet of Maximinus and begged
for mercy. When they were spared, they set up a statue (stele) to
Constantine made out of their own bronze weapons.3
55. Constantine was honoured in the Forum for forty days and
acclaimed by the factions and by the leaders of the city. But
Canonaris the philosopher went up to a high place and when the
crowd had fallen silent4 cried out in a loud voice ‘Do not give

1 Perhaps Gallienus is meant: see commentary.

2 See chapter 7.
3 See note.
4 Reading σνωπήσαι: see commentary.
 130 ΠΑΡΑΣΤΑΣΕΙΣ ΣΥΝΤΟΜΟΙ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑΙ

εκρα'ξεν' 'ύπερ προγόνων μη φρονεί, 6 των προγόνων καθ-

αιρετης.’ 'Όν ό Κωνΰταντίνος μετά:καλεοάμενος ΰυνεκ,ρότει
καί παρεκάλει τούτον παύΰαΰ&αι ελληνίζειν. 'Ο όέ ίΰχυρα
τη βοη ύπερ προγόνων καί άπο&νηΟκειν ελόμενος εκαρατο-
5 μή&η εν τοΐς αύτοΐς Βιγλεντίου εμβόλοις εις φόβον των
καταληφ&έντων Γαζών.
56. 'Η ΰτηλη η εν τω Φόρω πολλάς υμνωδίας εδεξατο.
’Εν αυτή το πολίτευμα καί Όλβιανός έπαρχος καί οί ΰπα-
β'άριοι, οί κουβικουλάριοί καί μόνον καί ΰιλεντιάριοι μετά
ίο κηρών λευκών οψικεύΰαντες, λεύκας ΰτολας άμφότεροι περι-
βεβλημένοί, από τό καλούμενου άρτίως Φιλαδελφιν, τότε όέ
Προτείχιΰμα καλουμενον (εν οίς καί πόρτα ην τό πρότερον
υπό Κάρου καταΟκευαΰ&εΐΰα) άνηνεγκαν εποχουμενην εις
καρούχαν’ ω£ (Ιέ ό Λιακρινόμενός φηΰιν, ότι εκ της καλου-
15 μενης Μαγναύρας. 5Εν οίς εν τω Φόρω τεθείΰα καί πολ¬
λάς , cog προείρηται, υμνωδίας δεξαμενή εις Τύχην της
πόλεως προςεκυνή&η παρά πάντων, εν οίς καί τά εξερκετα'
ε'οχατον πάντων τότε ύψοϋτο εν τω κίονι, τού ίερέως μετά
της λιτής παρεΰτηκότος καί τό 'Κύριε ελεηΰον’ πάντων
20 βοών των εν ρ' μετροις. Πολλά ούν 6 Λιακρινόμενος άνω¬
θεν τού κίονος φάΰκει πράγματα τε&ηναι, ένθα η θτύ]λη

§ 56 lin. 11 usque ad finem Treu ρ. 16, 19 sqq.: nΟτι νυν

τό Φιλ. τό παλαιόν έπϊ Κωνοταντίνον προτείχιβμα ην καί
πόρτα υπό Κάρου καταΰκεναΰ&εΐΰα' εκεί ΐατατο πρώτον η ΰτηλη
τον φόρου, ην από τον Φιλαδελφίον εις καρούχαν ηνεγκαν, cog
δε κτλ. non paucis omissis, sed re non discrepans. Inde Codin.
II 48 et 49 (p. 43, 19—44, 11 B)

6 καταλειφ&έντων Lamb. (cf. p. 55, 13 oi λοιποί) 8 έν

αυτή] ην αυτήν Menrad 9 κουβικουλάριοί Lamb, (qui ma¬
gistrates saepe iungitur cum silentiariis); idem conicit απα-
&αροκουβικονλάριοι·, κονδικελλιοι P, qualis magistratus nus-
quam memoratur καί μόνον] cf. § 15 καί μόναι, indicem
Malalae etc.; καί μην Comb. 11 άπό τον κτλ. Lamb.
15 έν olg] η (η cod.) Tr. 17 έξέρχετα Ρ, corr. Lamb. (sc.
προςεκύνηοαν αυτήν) 20 έν ρ' μέτροι?] εκατοντάκις Tr.
 TRANSLATION 131

yourselves airs above your ancestors, you who have destroyed your
ancestors’. Constantine summoned him and upbraided him and
called upon him to give up his paganism. But he cried out loudly
that he chose to die for the sake of his ancestors, and was beheaded
in the same portico of Viglentius to inspire fear in the remaining
Gazoi.
56. The statue (stele) in the Forum received many solemn
hymns. Here the government and the prefect Olbianus, the
spatharii, the cubicularii and also1 the silentiarii, forming an escort
with white candles, all dressed in white garments, brought it raised
on a carriage from what is now called the Philadelphion but was
then called the Proteichisma, in which there was also formerly a
gate, built by Carus. But as Diakrinomenos says, it came from the
so-called Magnaura. Whereupon it was set up in the Forum and, as
has been said above, received many hymns and was revered as the
Tyche of the city by all, including the army. And finally it was
raised on a pillar in the presence of the priest and the procession,
and everyone crying out the ‘Kyrie eleison’ a hundred times.
Diakrinomenos says that many things were placed on top of the

1 και μονον και; cf. chapter 49.

 132 ΠΑΡΑΣΤΑΣΕΙΣ ΣΥΝΤΟΜΟΙ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑΙ

ϊβταταιέν οίς χαί χαραγή βαΰιλιχή Κωνΰταντίνον ή λεγο-

μένη ΰωτηρίχιος, χίλια χεντηνάρια. Τότε ενφημίΰ&η ή πόλις
χλη&εΐΰα Κωνΰταντινου\πολις, των ιερέων βοώντων' 'εις 181
απείρους αιώνας ενόδωΰον ταντην, Κύριε’. Καί όντως μετά
5 πολλής δορνφορίας έμμέτρως μ' ημέρας πανηγνρίΰαντες, τον
βαΟιλέως ΰιτηρέΰια πάμπολλα τοίς όχλοις χαριΰαμένον, άπήλ-
&εν εχαΰτος εν τή ιδία οίχία. Καί όντως τή επαύριον το
γενέ&λιον τής πόλεως γέγονεν χαί ιπποδρόμων μέγα, πολλά
χάχεΐΰε χαριΰαμένου, χαταλεί'ψας τά τοιαντα γενέθλια εις
ίο μνήμην αιώνιον.
.
57 Έν τοις πληΰίον τον Ταύρον μέρεΰιν Κωνΰταντΐνος
ο μέγας έν τω &έρει άδεώς διέτριβεν' εν&α Σενήρου τον
υιόν Κάρου υπήρχε παλάτιον χαί νεώς, εί'δωλον &εοϋ Σευήρον
ονομαζόμενου' εν&α χαί τέϋΰαρες ΰννϋ'εταί χαμάραι παμ-
ιδ μεγέ&εις χαί ανταί υπό Σενήρου χαταΰχεναΰ&εϊΰαι, πολλά
μαντείας εις χρήΰιν *{* οίόμιΰμών &εών μαχάρων χαί -θ'εών
Βητγάμων εχονΰαι είδωλα, αργυρά τε χαί χαλχά χαί εξ ελε¬
φάντινων χαί μαρμάρων, ως λόγος φέρει πολλών, ως είχε-,
φηΰίν, έν ανταΐς ταΐς χαμάραις' χαί πόλεμος Κωνΰταντίνον
20 γέγονε χαί Σενήρου τον .Ερχονλιον ένίχηΰε χαί έν ταΐς χα-
μάραις την χεφαλήν αντον τε χαί τών μεγιΰτάνων αντον
έπί επτά ημέρας έχρέμαΰε' χαί μετά ταντα τά είδωλα ΰνγ-

2 ΰωτηρίχιος Ρ, -ίχιος vel -ήΰιος Comb. (cf. ρ. 319)

11 του οτρδν (i. e. σταυρού) Ρ, corr. Lamb. 13 είδάλον Ρ,
ειδώλων Band., εί'δωλον Comb.; an ήχα'ά) είδωλον? 14 ονο¬
μαζόμενος vel -μένον Lamb. 15 οεβήρον Ρ πολλάς Ρ,
corrigebam (πολλά — είδωλα); πολλής Lamb. 16 οίωνισμών
τε Lamb., αιωνίων Band., an τών νενομισμένων vel ώνομασμέ-
νων? 17 βητγάμων] Comb, confert Βητάγων, nomen Saturni
apud Phoenices inferosque deos significari putat έχονσα P
18 ώ? είχε (sic) φηαϊν P; verba obscura_ sunt; όν εύξα-
σ&αί φαΰιν Comb. 20 Σευήρον Band, (ώ Μαξέντιον τόν
'Ερχ. Lamb., xal Μαξ. του Ερκ. Band.) 22 ήμέραις Ρ, cor¬
rigebam ex consuetudine scriptoris σνγχαλέσας P, corr.
Lamb.
 TRANSLATION 133

pillar where the statue [stele) now stands, among them imperial
coinage of Constantine, the so-called sotericius, to the amount of
ten thousand pounds. Then the city was acclaimed and called Con¬
stantinople, as the priests cried out Ό Lord, set it on a favourable
course for boundless ages’. And when they had thus with great
pomp celebrated fittingly for forty days, and the emperor had
bestowed many gifts of corn on the people, each man went away to
his own home. And thus on the next day the birthday of the city
took place and a great race in the Hippodrome, and the emperor
made many gifts there too, instituting these birthday celebrations as
an eternal memorial.
57. In the area near the Taurus Constantine the Great spent
some time resting1 in the summer. There there was the palace and
temple of Severus, the son of Cams, called the idol (eidolon) of the
divine Severus. And there were four very large composite vaults,
themselves built by Severus, containing many idols (eidola) of
prophecy for tprayersf2 to the immortal gods and of the gods of the
underworld,3 made of silver and bronze and ivory and marble, of
many kinds, they say, as were found, they say,4 in the vaults. And
there the war of Constantine and Severus took place, and <he>
defeated Herculius and hung up his head and those of his leaders in
the vaults for seven days. And after this he broke in pieces the

1 See note
2 P has οίομισμών, which is corrupt.
3 See commentary.
4 The text is confused, but probably not corrupt.
 134 ΠΑΡΑΣΤΑΣΕΙΣ ΣΥΝΤΟΜΟΙ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑΙ

κλάσας εις μέρος αύτουργικά υπάρχοντα έκ των αυτών μαρ¬

μάρων εις Ό'εαν εασεν. Εν αύτω τω τόπω εως ’Ιουλιανοϋ
ετιμωροϋντο κατάδικοι. ’Εν τω αύτω τόπω ύπερκειμένη πλάκα
εις μήκος άγαν καϊ ζωδίοις άναγεγλυμμένοις τούς πολέμους
5 Κωνσταντίνου εως του τρίτον σεισμού προέκειτο δεικνύονΰα.
Κωνσταντίνου στήλη \ έκεΐσε άνω&εν τής καμάρας τής προς Β 182
το άνω&εν μέρος ετύπωτο, το σημείου τον σταυρού εν τή
δεξιά χειρί κατέχονσα.
58. ’Εν τοίς Φιλαδελφίου τής καλούμενης πάρτης με-
ιο ρεσιν ενυπνιάσ&η Κωνσταντίνος' εκεί πρώτον πάντων τον
τύπον τού σταυρού εΌ'εάΰατο, τνπώσας αύτόν εις μήκος καϊ
πλάτος, ώς είδεν, εν κίονι πορφυρώ τετραπλεύρω, χρυσώσας
αύτόν, καϊ σημεΐον σπόγγου εν τοίς ποσϊν τού σταυρού
άσφαλισάμενος' ζκαϊ στήλην)> τής μητρος 'Ελένης καϊ αύτού
15 καϊ τών υιών εξ αύτού (τούβ τετράπλευρου κίονος άνατυ-
πώσας εις θρόνους έτίμησε. ΤΙολλάς ύπατείας 6 μέγας Κων¬
σταντίνος εν αύτω τω τόπω πεποίηκεν. ’Εν αύτω δε τω τόπω
ετιμή&ησαν κεντνρίονες διά το τον σταυρόν βαβτάξειν εν
προτιμήσει γενόμενοι, νπεράνω *{* βαλλέριον κα&ίσαντες.

§ 58 Ιϊη. 9—16 — Treu ρ. 17, 1 sqq.: Ότι εις τό Φ. έστη-

αεν έπϊ κίονος ό άγιος Κ. κεχρνσωμένον σταυρόν κατά τον τύ¬
πον, όν είδεν έν τω ούρανω, και έκ τον κίονος τον σταυρόν
τον πορφυρού αυτού στήλην · καί. τών υιών αυτού στήλας άνε-
τνπωσε και εις θρόνους έτίμησεν. Inde Codin II 50 (ρ. 44, 12 Β)

1 αύτουργικά idola pagana Du Cange in glossario inter-

pretatur, cum αυτουργοί coloni i. e. pagani sint (?) an έκ τών
αυτών καμαρών e regione harum camerarum? cf. ind. s. v. έξ
2 είασεν Lamb. 3 πλάξ Band. 7 έτνπούτο Band.; de
neglecta reduplicatione cf. § 41 κατέχωσται 14 καϊ στήλην
(vel στήλας) supplevi 15 τού suppl. Comb. 16 εις θρό¬
νους έτίμ.] cf. την εύεργέτιν ίτείμησεν έ(σ) στήλην Sterrett The
Wolfe exped. η. 330 18 διά τό τον σταυρόν έν προτιμήσει
βαστάζειν γενόμενοι Ρ, corrigebam 19 νπεράνω τού λαβάρου
καΌΊσαντες vel καταστήσαντες (sc. τον σταυρόν) Lamb., νπερ¬
άνω καβαλλαρίων κα&ίσαντες Comb. fut superior! equitibus
 TRANSLATION 135

pagan idols (eidola), and left them for display.1 In this place, up to
the time of Julian (361-63), criminals were punished. In the same
place in an elevated position was a very broad slab, and it re¬
mained, showing in engraved figures (zodiois anageglummenois) the
wars of Constantine, up to the third earthquake. A statue (stele) of
Constantine was fashioned there up above the vault in the upper
part, holding the sign of the cross in the right hand.
58. In the region of the so-called gate of the Philadelphion, Con¬
stantine had a dream. There first of all he saw the sign (typos) of the
cross, and he set it up, as he saw it, in the same length and breadth,
on a four-sided porphyry column. He gilded it and fixed a sign
(semeion) of a sponge at the feet (sic) of the cross. He honoured
himself and his mother Helena and his sons, setting up < statues >
of them on thrones beside2 the four-sided column. In this place
Constantine the Great gave many consular donations. In this place
centurions were honoured, being held in honour for the carrying of
the cross, seated above the f .3

1 εις θέαν.
2 Ιξ in P does not make sense.
3 See commentary.
 136 ΠΑΡΑΣΤΑΣΕΙΣ ΣΥΝΤΟΜΟΙ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑΙ

59 . Πολλάς Κωνΰταντΐνος ΰτήλας εν τώ Φόρω προ-

έθηκεν, μεθ’ ών καί εξ ίδιας καταΰκενής έως λ'. Πρώτος
ύπατος εν τώ Φόρω Καλλίΰτρατος ετιμήθη' καί εως βαΰι-
λείας Κωνΰταντίνον νπατοι κωδικέλλους εν τώ Φόρω ελάμ-
5 βανον. 'Ο δε Καλλίΰτρατος α'πάτος μεγάλως ετιμή&η εν τω
Φόρω, cog πρώτος την αξίαν τον νπάτον δεξάμενος, τον
Πραΰίνον μέρονς βοώντος' 'Καλλίΰτρατος εντνχής καί εις
άλλο προκόψει’. 'Ο δε φοβηθείς τω τοϋ άγιον ζ. . .)> τεμένει
καταλαμβάνει, καί είςελθών εν αντώ έζήτει πρεΰβείαν. Πολλά
ίο Κωνΰταντίνος τω Καλλιΰτράτω εξωμόΰατο μη άδικηΰαι' | 6 Β 183
δε ονκ ηνεΰχετο καί χειροτονηθείς πρεΰβντερος της εκκλη-
ΰίας εξέρχεται' og καί έπιΰκόπηΰεν νΰτερον' όθεν μοι τα
πολλά εμφέρεται διηγήματα.
60. ’Εν τω cΙπποδρομίω άπετέθηΰαν είδωλα εκ της 'Ρώ-
15 μης ηκοντα ώΰεί ξ\ εν οίς καί Ανγονΰτον, ώς ον γέγραπται
μεν, λέγεται δέ, τό ομοίωμα.

§ 59 Treu ρ. 17, 7 sqq.: Περί τον ΰενάτον ότι ό φόρος

τιμήν έΰχεν ώς οίμαι δε τό σένατον λέγει, ότι έξ αρχής
τονς ν.ωδικέλλονς οι πατρίκιοι έκείΰε έλάμβανον έως Κων¬
ΰταντίνον · πρώτος δε Καλλ. τήν αξίαν τον νπάτον έκεΐαε έδέ-
ξατο τον δήμον κράξοντος· Κ. εντνχής καί εις άλλο προκόψει-
ό δέ φοβηθείς προΰέφνγεν τή έκκληΰία. Κωνατ. δέ εξωμόΰατο
μή άδικηΰαι αντόν ό δέ μή άνααχόμενος έχειροτονήθη πρεΰβν¬
τερος, εΐτα έπίΰκοπος- όθεν πολλά μοι έκφέρεται διηγήματα.
Inde Codin. II 44 (ρ. 40,17 Β) § 60 Ηη. 14 sq. (-Ανγονΰτον)
= Treu ρ. 17, 17 sq. Inde Codin. II 73 (ρ. 52, 18 Β)

loco considerent’. Hoc magis placet: similem militum hono-

rem memorat Malalas p. 351 2 πρώτον P, Callistratus
consul ficticius est 4 κοδικέλλονς P 7 eadem fere accla-
matio Codin. Ill 123 (p. 107, 15 B) 8 τό . . τέμενος Comb.;
sed saepe καταλαμβάνειν cum dativo iungitur a Byzantinis.
Lacunam indicavit Comb. 9 πρεΰβείαν i. e. Sancti illius
auxilium et preces, cf. lexica; άδειαν Comb. 15 ώΰεί £']
εξαίρετα δέ Treu (ubi έξαίρετα δέ εξήκοντα scribendum esse
docet Codinus)
 TRANSLATION 137

59. Constantine set up many statues (stelai) in the Forum,

among which up to thirty were of his own commissioning. The first
consul honoured in the Forum was Callistratus; and up to the reign
of Constantine1 the consuls received their codicils of office in the
Forum. Callistratus was greatly honoured in the Forum, as he was
the first to receive the office of consul, while the Green faction
shouted ‘Callistratus is lucky and will advance to another < of¬
fice > ’. But he was afraid, and sought refuge in the precinct of S.
<.> and entering it he sought sanctuary. Constantine
repeatedly swore to Callistratus that he would not harm him, but he
was not satisfied and <only> emerged from the church when or¬
dained a presbyter. He actually became a bishop later. About this2
many accounts have reached me.
60. In the Hippodrome statues (eidola) were set up which came
from Rome, as many as sixty, among which was the likeness
(homoioma) of Augustus, as is told, though not written down.

1 A prime facie contradiction, since Par. has just said that Callistratus was the
first. Perhaps read έπί (‘in the reign of).
2 Or ‘wherefore’.
 138 ΠΑΡΑΣΤΑΣΕΙΣ ΣΥΝΤΟΜΟΙ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑΙ

61 . Πολλά ημΐν διεβεβαιοϋτο Φίλιππος έπαρχος, οτι

το εν τω 'Ιπποδρομίω ύπάρχον ομοίωμα Θετταλικον κατα-
ΰκεναΰμα υπάρχει Ποντίου τίνος, το άνω&εν της βαΰιλικης
κα&έδρας ίΰτάμενον. ’Εν δε τοΐς γυναικείοις δμοιώμαΰιν,
5 τό πληΰίον των Μηδων του ελεγείου, αί γεννώΰαι 'θ'ηρες
και ανθρώπους ίΰ&ίουΰαι" την μεν μίαν 'Ηρωδίων μ οι έτρά~
νω6εν ’Ιονϋτινιανού τοϋ ά&εου δηλοϋβαν την ιΟτορίαν (των
δευτέρων αυτού πράξεων)>' τό δε δεύτερον, εν οίς και
πλοίον υπάρχει, μη πληρω&ηναι, αλλά περιμένειν. Όπερ
ίο άκουΰας εδάκρνΰα, εί άρα γ' ετι τοιοϋτον πάλιν τη Κων-
6ταντινουπόλει έπέλ&οι άλόγημα. ’Ιουΰτινιανός ό μέγας εν
τοΐς του κα&ίΰματος *}* κατ’ έπος εποχείτο εν ΐππω χαλκω
μετά την νίκην Μηδων. Η εν τω 'Ιπποδρομία) κα&εζομένη
γυνή ίν ΰελλίω χαλκω και αύτη άνω&εν, ώς προείπομεν, ό
ιγ. μεν 'Ηρωδίων εδίδαξε Βερίναν είναι τοϋ μεγάλου Λέοντος'
ως δε εγώ παρά πλειόνων ηκουΟα, εξ 'Ελλάδος είναι τό
είδωλον μάλλον της :Α&ηνάς, όπερ καί έπίΰτευΰα.
62 , Πολλά Φίλιππος ίβτόρηΰεν ό δυνάοτης, με& ών
καί τούτο παρέδωκεν, ότι τό δρακονταΐον 'Αρκαδίου μεν

§ 61 Ιΐη. 5 — 9 — Treu ρ. 17, 19 sq.: Περί της γεννώαης

&ηρας έν τω 'Ιπποδρ.: Αί γεννώΰαι &ήρας καί ανθρώπους
έΰ&ίονααι· η μεν μία έατίν Ιονβτ. τον τνράννον δηλονβα την
ίβτορίαν τών δευτέρων αυτόν πράξεων η δε ετέρα, έν οϊς
καί πλοίον ύπάρχει, μη πληρω&έν μέλλει γενέο&αι. Inde Codin.
II 77 (ρ. 53, 19 Β) Lin. 13—17 = Anon. Treu ρ. 17, 25 sq.
qui pauca omisit; inde Codin. II 78 (p. 54, 8 B) § 62 p. 61
1. 3 sq. = Treu p. 17, 29 sq.; inde Cod. II 79 (p. 54, 11 B)

2 τε&αλικόν Ρ, &ετταλόν Comb. 5 &ηραις Ρ 6 έΰ&ί-

ονΰιν Ρ 7 δηλοναα Ρ, δηλώβαι Lamb. τών δευτ. κτλ.
om. Ρ 10 γέτη Ρ, γε edd. 11 έπέλ&η Ρ 12 τοϋ κα&-
ίσμαΰι Ρ, corr. Comb. κατεποχεΐτο Comb., cf. § 14 βτηλη
κατοχνΐα έν ΐππω·, fort, exciderunt quaedam: κατ’ έτος έπο-
χεΐτο' (έν&εν καί έτυπώ&η'} έν ΐππω κτλ. 18 με&’ ών Ρ,
μα9ών edd.
 TRANSLATION 139

61. Philip the eparch confirmed many things1 for us; that the
Thessalian2 statue (homoioma) in the Hippodrome is the work of a
certain Pontios—the one that stands above the imperial box.
Among the female statues (homoiomata), that near the epigram of the
Medes < is of women > giving birth to wild beasts and they devour
men.3 4 One <of them>, Herodian made clear to me, reveals the
story of the godless Justinian.·1 The other, which is accompanied
also by a boat, has not been fulfilled, but remains. When I heard
this, I wept to think that such a misfortune should yet again befall
Constantinople. In the <area> of the Kathisma, Justinian the
Great (I, 527-65) rode t.cm a bronze horse, after the victory
over the Medes. The woman seated on a bronze chair in the Hip¬
podrome—she too is above < the imperial seat > as we mentioned
before—Herodian told me is Verina, < the wife> of Leo the Great
(474-91); but as I have myself heard from many people, it is instead
the statue (eidolon) of Athena from Hellas, and this I believed.
62. Philip the dynast5 expounded many things, in the course of
which he passed this on: that while the dragon statue (drakontaion) is

1 Or ‘at length’.
2 I.e. of verd antique.
3 Reading Θήρας; see commentary.
4 We have omitted ‘of his second reign’, added by Preger: see commentary.
5 For Philip the eparch and Philip the dynast see commentary.
 140 ΠΑΡΑΣΤΑΣΕΙΣ ΣΥΝΤΟΜΟΙ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑΙ

έκτνπωμά έβτιν^ | 'Ονωρίον δε άδελφοϋ αντοϋ επίδειξις εν Β 184

'Ρώμη βαβιλενοντος. Έν&εν καί χρηΰμοί και προ ημών και
εως της δεύρο ονκ ολίγοι γεγόναΰιν. 'Η δε άνω&εν τον
δρακονταίον ναινα από ’Αντιόχειας της πρώτης εις Κών¬
ο ΰταντινονπολιν ελήλν&εν επί Κωνδταντίνον τον μεγάλον,
κα&ώς 6 προειρημένος Φίλιππος ίΰτόρηβεν.
63. ’Εν τω 'Ιπποδρομία) πολλοί φόνοι καί κακά γεγό-
ναΰιν καί μάλιΰτα εν τοΐς προ ημών' εν οις καί εφ’ ημών
^Αναΰτάϋιος ό μοναχός δι αλητείας τρόπον αντιλόγων τω
ίο βαΰιλεΐ έκαν&η.
64. Ενδοκίας 'Αθηναίας κατά μοίραν δικαΰ&είβης κατά
χάριν ηνρατο τύχην, καθ'’ ην οι αντάδελφοι, τό ξένον της
ΰνγγόνον ακηκοότες εντύχημα, άνελ&εΐν ΰννεπειρώντο φιλο-
ΰόφοις ζ' καί τη τύχη εξ ατνχίας εδεή&ηΰαν ίλαΰ&ηναι.
15 Θεοδόΰιος δε ό βαΰιλενς εις τό 'Ιππικόν ηλατο, τοΐς φιλο-
ϋόφοις άρέΰων' καί τις αντών ονκ ενείληΰεν, Ήΰαν δέ τον
άρι&μόν ξ'' Κράνος, Κάρος, Πέλοψ, Άπελλης, Νερονας,
Σιλβανός, Κνρβος. Οντοι Οννηΰαν εις τό 'Ιππικόν τω βα-

§ 64 1. 17 — ρ.63, 12 in. et ρ. 63,20—64, 8 = Treu ρ. 17, 31 —

18, 24: inde Codin. II 82 (ρ. 56, 1 Β). Sed Anon. Treu nonnulla con-
fudit; etenim initio responsum Crani exhibet, turn reliquorum re-
sponsa, inter quae Crani dictum iterum occurrit Cyrbi Pelopis-
que verbis interpositum. Verbis non paullum discrepat: Ότι
Κράνος ό φιλόσοφος εις ών των επτά φιλοσ. των σνν τη Ενδ.
άνελύ’όντων έξ ’Αϋ'ηνών, ητησε τον Θεοδ. ίδεΐν τά εν τω ιπποδρ.
στοιχεία· καί ίδών τον περιχντην καί τον όνον είπε· τις ό
στησας·, τον δε άναγνώστον είπόντος' Οναλεντινιανός4 ώ σνμ-
φοροί, έφη, ότι αν&ρωπος όνω άκολονύ'εΐ4 ησαν δε οι φιλόσ.
οντοι οι επτά4 Κράνος κτλ. — Κνρβος4 &εωρονντων δε ίπ-
πενοντα τον βασιλέα καί &ανμαξόντων έφη βασιλεύς4 τι
&ανμ άζετε-, άπεκρίϋ'η δε ’Απελλης4 & αν μάζω είδώς, ότι των

8 εύφημων Ρ, corr. Comb. 12 κατά χάριν &εον?

16 άρέσκων Comb. καί τις Ρ (?) ένέλησεν Ρ, corrigebam:
cf. έξειλέω apud Theopbanem, περιέλησε in cod. R infra in
narratione de H. Sopbia § 16 18 ονλβανός P
 TRANSLATION 141

an erection1 of Arcadius (393-408), it is a display (epideixis) of his

brother Honorius (393-423), reigning in Rome. There not a few
oracles have taken place, both before our time and up to the present
day. The hyena above the dragon statue (drakontaion) came from
Antioch first to Constantinople in the reign of Constantine the
Great (324-37), as the aforementioned Philip told.
63. Many murders and evils took place in the Hippodrome, and
especially in the < times > before us; among these in our own day
too, Anastasius the monk was burned for contradicting the emperor
in the cause of truth.
64. When it befell Eudocia the Athenian to be judged,2 she
found good fortune through her beauty. Her brothers thereupon,
hearing of the surprising good luck of their sister, took it upon
themselves to come up to her3 with seven philosophers and asked to
be relieved of their own misfortune with good fortune. The
Emperor Theodosius (II, 408-50) drove into the Hippodrome to
satisfy the philosophers.4 And which of them did not participate?
They were seven in number: Kranos, Karos, Pelops, Apelles, Ner-
va, Silvanus, Kyrvos. These men met the emperor5 in the Hip-

1 Or ‘likeness’ (έκτΰπωμα): see commentary.

2 I.e. in a beauty contest to find an imperial bride: see note.
3 Probably = ‘come up to the capital’, once she had become empress.
4 I.e. he was challenged by them to a debate on the significance of the statues in
the Hippodrome. See notes. The chapter is extremely difficult and corrupt, but
each answer of the philosophers must represent a riddle or a pagan prophecy: see
note.
5 Or ‘were in the Hippodrome with the emperor’.
 142 ΠΑΡΑΣΤΑΣΕΙΣ ΣΥΝΤΟΜΟΙ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑΙ

ΰιλεΐ θέας ζ^χάριν) ’Ολυμπίων. 'Ο δε βαΰιλεύς Θεοδόΰιος

ορών τους φιλοΰόφους θαυμάζοντας φηΰϊν προς αυτούς'
'ώ φιλόΰοφοι, εί θαυμάζετε, κατεφιλοΰοφηθητε.’ '£1ς παραυ-
τίκα άποκριθήναι ενα εξ αυτών, 'Απελλήν δνόματι, καί εί-
5 πεΐν' '*}* μη θαυμάΰιν εμε τούς ίππους τω επιβάτη, ειδώς
ακριβώς ότι ίπποι ανθρώπων επιβάται γενηΰονται, άλλαΟ-
βομένων τών ’Ολυμπίων, και τδ θαυμάζον άμβλυωπιάΰει.’
Νερούας δε άπεκρίνατο' 'κακόν τη βαΰιλίδι ΰτοιχεΐον' δρώ
τδ ΰτοιχεΐον τοΐς ϋτοιχείοις ΰυντρέχοντα.’ | Και δ Σιλβανδς Β
ίο ίδών τδ πρδς μεΰημβρίαν ζώδιον, εις τδ άνω τδ γόνυ
Ί* κάβου δίκην κεκμηκότα, φηΰίν' 'καλώς δ ΰτοιχειωΰάμενος'

’Ολυμπίων άλλασσομένων ίπποι γενήσονται ανθρώπων έπιβάται

καί τδ θαυμάζον αμβλνωπιάσει. Νερονας ί-φη ' κακόν τη βασι-
λίδι, οτι τδ ΰτοιχεΐον τοΐς ϋτοιχείοις έπακολουθεΐ' και ό
Σιλβανδς ζίδών) τδ όκλάζον ζωδιον ΐφη~ καλώ? έστοχάσατο'
καιροί γάρ έπί τούτον άγόνατοι ΐσονται · ό δε Κνρβος κτλ., turn
ό δε Κράνος . . (ν. quae supra dixi) Πέλοψ δε . . Κάρος δε . .
-σννέστηκεν haec fere congruentia. Cf. praeterea Tzetzae iam-
bos 270 sqq. in calce chiliad, ed. Kiessling p. 519: ’Όνος δε
χαλκούς ιππικού πινύσκεται | έμπροσθεν έατώς, ίκ δε τών όπι-
ΰθίων | άνθρωπος οίκτρδς ζωγράφων τδν νύν βίον, | ως είπε τδ
πρίν Άττικδς ΰοφδς Κράνος, | ΐφασε καί γάρ τω κρατούντι τω
τότε' |. Φεύ συμφοράς, άνθρωπος ήττων ών όνον \ ΐσται χρόνος
γάρ τοΐς μεθνστερον χρόνοις, j όταν όνώδεις δνΰγενεΐς καί καν-
λίαι | καί πας άμουσος ειςρνείς κτηνωδίαν | κρείττων νομισθή
των σοφών καί κοσμίων.

1 -9·^α? όλνμπιον Ρ, corr. et ενεκεν suppl. Comb.; cf. § 39

Ό^α? χάριν, § 40 θέας τούνεκεν 2 an θαυμάζοντας < ιπ-
πενοντα αυτόν)? 5 μη θαυμάζειν έμε κτλ. Lamb, in textu,
μη θανμάζομεν τών ίππων τους έπιβάτας, άλλ’ είδότες κτλ.
idem in notis; fortasse μη θαυμάζειν τού ίππον τδν επιβάτην
είδώς κτλ., quod pro είδότα posuisse scriptorem non mirum
6 γεννησονται Ρ 7 άμβλωπιάσει Ρ, ό μη θανμάζων άμ-
βλνωπησει Lamb, cui adversatur Comb, ('tanta futura miraculi
vis, ut oculos hebetet’) 8 κακόν τη βασιλίδι τών πόλεων,
ότι ΰτοιχεΐον δρώ τω στοιχείω τής τύχης σνντρέχον Lamb.
9 ό ήλβανδς Ρ 11 καμπτδν, δίκην κεκμηκότος Lamb., κα-
 TRANSLATION 143

podrome to see1 the Olympians. And the Emperor Theodosius, see¬

ing that the philosophers were amazed, said to them, ‘If you are
amazed, philosophers, you have been out-philosophized’. And at
once one of them, Apelles by name, replied, and said ‘ < Do not
think> I am fsurprised at the horses < ...> the rider,2 for I see
clearly that horses will be the riders of men when the Olympians
change, and the amazement will then fade away’. And Nerva
replied, ‘<1 see> a bad sign (stoicheion) for the queen <of
cities > —the statue (.stoicheion) which is like its meaning (stoicheia)’,3
And Silvanus, looking at the statue (zodion) towards the south, up
on high, leaning on its knee like f.,4 said, ‘The artificer

1 θέας < χάριν> cf. chapter 39.

2 Apelles is looking at an equestrian statue: the meaning beneath the corruption
is probably ‘at the rider of the horse’ or ‘at the horse and its rider’.
3 Reading συντρέχον.
4 The reclining Heracles of Lysippus: see note.
 144 ΠΑΡΑΣΤΑΣΕΙΣ ΣΥΝΤΟΜΟΙ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑΙ

καιροί γάρ επϊ τούτον άγόνατοι εδονται.’ 'Ο δε Κνρβος εν

τω δημω ορών είπεν' 'ώ δήμε, δι’ ον δήμιοι τίεριΰΰενουΰιβ
Πελοψ δε τους δρονς των ίππων ίδών είπε' 'τίνος το πρό¬
βλημα ^' Θεοδοΰίου δε φηΰαντος 'Κωνΰταντίνου\ είπεΐν
5 εκείνον' 'η φιλόΰοφος άκυρος η βαϋιλευς ονκ άληϋ'ής.’
'Εώρα γάρ τι 6 φιλόΰοφος ϋ'ηλυμορφον ζώδιον? τετραμερεΰι
ζωδιακοΐς γράμμαΰι γεγραμμένον, και είπεν' 'ώ τετραπέ-
ρατε, εξ ου Κωνΰταντΐνος και άπέρατοι εΰονται.’ Κάρος <5ε
προτραπεϊς παρά τοΐς φιλοΰόφοις λαληΰαι φηΰίν' 'δυΰνυχη
ίο μοι τα πάντα φαίνεται, ow, εί ταντα τα ΰτοιχεΐα, ως Λε£-
ρώνται, άλη&εΊίΰουΰιν, ϊνα τί η Κωνΰταντινονπολις ΰυνε-
ΰτηκενβ Κράνος δε, o<iug και λογιΰτης της 'Λ&ηνών φιλο-
ΰοφίας ελεγετο, μειδιών έπεκοκκυία. Τον βαΰιλέως πυν-
^ανομενού 'τίς η αιτία β Ί* \. . . />ατο εναρκία τό πλεΐον
15 ^ελώυ τ) ΰκώπτων. Νάρκιΰΰος δε πραιπόΰιτος δίδωΰι τω
φιλοΰόφω ράπιΰμα είπών προς αυτόν' 'τω 'Ηλίω ώς 'Ηλίω
άποκρίνον, ΰκότος ύπάρχων.’ Του δε και την άλλην ΰτρέ-
ψαντος, δίδωΰιν ό Νάρκιΰΰος. Ο δε φιλόΰοφος τω Ναρ-
κίΰΰω εφη* 'ον διά ΰε λαληΰω, άλλα τοΐς γράμμαΰι δνΰω-
2ο πουμενοςά Το δε πρόβλημα τοϋ Κράνον τοιοντόν έΰτιν'
ητηΰεν τω βαΰιλεΐ τα εν τω 'ίππικω ΰτοιχεΐα &εάΰαΰ&αι, και

μίλλον δίκην κεκμηκότος (!) Comb., καμηλού δίκην κεκμηκότος

Du Cange; an κάβου (a *κάβος = καβάλλος? cf. Thesaur. Gloss,
ed. Doetz s. y. cabo = caballus) vel καμηλού δίκην κεκνφότα
(sc. ζώδιον)? cf. Treu τό όκλάζον ζώδιον καλός Ρ 6τοχαοά-
μενος Ρ, corr. Lamb. 2 έν τω δημω] τον δήμον Tr. 3 όρους
Tr. 5 ουκ άλη&ης] ευηϋ'ης Comb. 6 τι] τινά Ρ; hie inse-
runt vocem Κάρος Lamb., Κράνος alii 10 πηρώνται P, locus
corruptus esse videtur 11 άληΌ'ευουαιν Tr. 12 λογιστείς
P, corr. Lamb. ’Αθηναίων Lamb. 13 έπεκεκοκκυΐα P;
έπεκόκκυζεν? 14 lacunam indicavi; άπεκρίνατο τάναντία
Lamb., έναντία Comb., magis placet άπεκρ. αναρ&ρα vel
διεμείνατο έν αργία 15 γελώ είακόπτειν Ρ, γελών καί οκ.
Lamb. 16 ραπίοματα Comb. 19 διε βε Ρ 20 κρόνου Ρ
21 ητω εν τώ βααιλεϊ Ρ; αίτεΐν τινι etiam ρ. 35, 6
 TRANSLATION 145

(stoicheiosamenos) has done well, for in that day times will be

barren’.1 Kyrvos, looking at < the statue> of the People,2 said, Ό
People, through whom public executioners are unnecessary’.3
Pelops, looking at the starting-gates of the horses, said, ‘Who posed
the riddle?’ And when Theodosius said, ‘Constantine’, he said,
‘Either the philosopher has got it wrong or the emperor did not keep
to the truth’.4 For the philosopher was looking at the female statue
(zodion) inscribed with zodiacal inscriptions on all four sides, and he
said, ‘You of four boundaries, through whom Constantine .5
will come to nought’.6 Karos, urged by the philosophers to speak,
said, ‘All these things are bad in my opinion; I mean, if these
statues (stoicheia) tell the truth when they are put to the test, why
does Constantinople still stand?’ And Kranos, who was said to be
the leader of the Athenian philosophers, smiled and hooted with
laughter. When the emperor asked ‘Why are you doing that?’
T<. he re>plied ‘Enough’, more in laughter than mockery.
Narcissus, apraepositus, gave the philosopher a slap and said to him,
‘You are benighted; answer the sun like the sun he is’.7 8 When
Kranos turned the other cheek,6 Narcissus gave him < another slap>.
The philosopher said to Narcissus, ‘It won’t be you who makes me
speak; it is because I am disturbed by the inscriptions’.9 The riddle
of Kranos is as follows: he asked the emperor if he could inspect10
the statues (stoicheia) in the Hippodrome, and at the emperor’s com-

1 See note.
2 Or ‘at a place in the Hippodrome called Demos’.
3 There is a pun in the Greek between demos and demioi (‘executioners’).
4 See note.
5 A reference to the descendants of Constantine seems to have dropped out.
6 Since in modern Greek τετραπέρατος = ‘very cunning’, άπέρατοι here might
mean the opposite (i.e. ‘ineffective’, ‘useless’). Suggested by Professor C. Mango.
7 I.e. the emperor.
8 Matth. 5.39.
9 Presumably those mentioned above.
10 θεάσασθαι.
 146 ΠΑΡΑΣΤΑΣΕΙΣ ΣΥΝΤΟΜΟΙ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑΙ

τον βαΟιλέως κελενΰαντος εί'λετο εν&νς εκείνος. ’Έΰτι δε

άνδροείκελον το ’άγαλμα περικεφαλαίαν τη κε\φαλη περιέχον, Β 186
γνμνόν τοι δλως και εν τοΐς βρετγάνοις διδνμοις έπικεκα-
λνμμένον. Τον δε φιλοΰόφον πνϋΌμένον 'τις αν’ εφη 'ό
5 ΰτηϋαςβ εφη τις άναγνώΰτης δτι ' Οναλεντινιανός τούτο
προν&ηκεν’’ είπεν δε δ φιλόΰοφος’ ’’πότε καί τον ονονβ
τον δε φηΰαντος 'δμοη’, είπεΐν εκείνον’ 'ποτέ όνος ώς
άνθρωπος εΰται' ώ ΰνμφορά, ότι άν&ρωπος όνω άκολον&εΐ.’
’Αλλά μη εΟτω (το) τον μάντεως. Τοντο το πρόβλημα εν-
ιο ρέ&η εν τοΐς τόμοις Αεοντος τον μεγάλον, ο εφιλοΰόφηΰε
Κράνος, παρά Αιγνρίον άδτρονόμον καί νπάτον τον αντού
βαΰιλεως Αεοντος.
65. ’Αΰκληπιόδωρος επί 'Αναΰταΰίον ίδιον το ζώδιον το
μεγα, το εν τω 'Ιππικω την χεΐρα επί τον προΰώπον κ.ατε-
15 χοντα, εφη’ 'ώ βία, ότι πάΰα άν&ρωπίνη ένδεια εις μίαν
άνθρωπον φρόνηΰιν ξνμω&εΐΰαΚαί τις αντω επέδειζε
γράμματα εν τω μαρμάρω' τον δε νπαναγνόντος, φηϋίν'
'άγαμόν μη φ&άΰαι τοΐς τότε μέλλονΰιν είναι' ώς κάμοί τι
κέρδος τον μη άναγνωναι .
20 66. Αεον γινώΰκειν ότι η ΰτηλη η καλονμενη Ταύρος
Θεοδόβιός εβτιν δ μέγας' εν η ποτέ εδέχετο ό βαΰιλενς τονς

§ 6δ Treu ρ. 18, 25 sq.; inde Codin. II 83 (ρ. 57, 9 Β)

§ 66 1. 20—ρ. 65, 1 — Treu ρ. 19, 1 sqq.: Ότι η εν τώ τανρω

1 εΐλετο] είςήλατο ? 2 Eadem statua (rNicon’ post Ni-

candrum asinum) memoratur a Niceta Acom. de sign. Cpol. 6
το Ρ] τι edd. έπικεφαλαίαν P 3 βρετγάνοις — ai-
δοίοις ? vox alibi non occurrit 5 βαλεντινιανός P 8 ώ
τής ΰνμφοράς Treu altero loco; cf. infra 1. 15 ώ βία
9 τό inserui; αλλά μή έστω' τον μάντεως τοντο κτλ. inter-
pungunt Comb, et Band. 11 κράνος Ρ Λιγονρίου Lamb,
in textu, Όλνβρίον in notis; cf. § 5 b αστρονόμων νπάτον?
Comb. 13 ’Λσκληπιόδοτος Lamb. 14 κατέχον Tr. 16 έζν-
μώ&η Tr. νπέδειζε Tr. 17 φράσαι τά τότε μέλλοντα Lamb.
τά τότε μέλλοντα είναι Tr. 18 κάμε Ρ, corr. ex Tr.
 TRANSLATION 147

mand, he immediately chose one. The statue (agalma) is shaped like

a man, with a helmet on its head, completely naked but with its
private parts1 covered. The philosopher asked ‘Who set it up?’ and
a lector replied ‘Valentinian put it here’. And the philosopher said
‘When did he add the donkey?’ And when the other said ‘At the
same time’, he said One day a donkey will be like a man; what a
fate, for a man to follow a donkey!’ May the words of the seer not
come to pass! This problem,2 which Kranos expounded,3 was found
in the books of Leo the Great,4 according to Ligurius the
astronomer and consul of the same Emperor Leo.
65. In the time of Anastasius (491-518) Asclepiodorus looked at
the large statue (zodion) in the Hippodrome which holds its hand up
to its face5 and said Ό might! to think that all human need should
be kneaded6 in the wit of one man’. And someone showed him the
writing on the marble; when he had read it he observed ‘It were
good not to know in advance the things that are going to happen; so
too I would have been better off if I had not read the inscription’.
66. Note that the statue [stele) called Taurus (i.e., the statue in
the Forum Tauri) is Theodosius the Great (379-95). It is here that
the emperor once used to receive the leaders of barbarian peoples.

1 See note for this meaning.

2 See note. We have translated the same word above as ‘riddle’.
3 ‘Philosophized’: see intro., section iv.
4 This ought to mean Leo I (457-74), in which case Ligurius (for whom see also
chapter 5b) is not a contemporary of the authors. See note.
5 I.e. this is again the reclining Heracles.
6 Some pun is surely intended: see note.
 148 ΠΑΡΑΣΤΑΣΕΙΣ ΣΥΝΤΟΜΟΙ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑΙ

από των εάΗ'ών δυνάΰτας. ’Αργυραΐα δέ τις ην πρώην, ώς

δ Σωξομενός διδάβκει. Κλήμης δε τάς όμοιας και πολυ¬
μόρφους μαρμαρίνας Κωνβταντίνου είναι, φάύκει τοϋ υίοϋ
Κώνβτα.
5 67. Ο Πιττάκης ό λεγόμενος Λέων 6 μέγας έΰτίν, ό
παρά τζοΐς'β πολλοίς Μακελάριος λεγόμενος' καϋ·’ ήζν)> τά
δεξίματα των \ βαβιλέων εκεΐΰε έγένοντο. ’Αλλά καί παλά- Β 187
τιον ην ποτέ ΰυνιΰτάμενον πληΰίον της παλαιάς εκκληΰίας
της αγίας Ειρήνης, κα&ώς ’Ιωάννης ό Αιακρινόμενος λε'^εί.
ίο 68. Λέον γινώΰκειν ότι τό λεγόμενον Αυγουβταΐον ΰτή-
λας τρεις διαδέχεται' Κωνσταντίνου τό πρώτον, εν οψς')
και βαβιλικαί ήΰαν κάτω ε' τοϋ κίονος, Κωνϋταντίου, Κών-
ΰταντος καί Κωνβτανζτίνου[Χωνόταν] τε καί Αικινίου'
αλλά καί ϋΰτερον ’Ιουλιανοϋ. ’Επί Θεοδοΰίου οϋν τοϋ με-
15 γάλου στήλη έτέρα τω κίονι διαδέχεται, άργυραΐα καί αυτή,
άλλα καί ’Αρκαδίου καί 'Ονωρίου πρ<^όςy τή γη, ώς ό Θεό¬
δωρός φηΰι. ’Εν δε τοΐς Σωξομενοϋ γράμμασι, φηΰίν, ’Ιου¬
στινιανός έΰτιν, ο νυν κα&οραται τό μέγιστόν τοϋ Φόρου

στήλη τον Θεοδοσίου έστίν ήν δε πρώην άργνρα' %ν&α τους

από των έ&νών ήκοντας έδέχετο' ήσαν γάρ πρώην έκεΐ παλάτια.
(Verba extrema Anon. Tr. ex fine § 67 excerpsit). Inde Codin.
II 47 (p. 42, 15 B)

2 σωζόμενος P 3 i. e. Constantini Pogonati 5 πή-

ταξ an πήτακ(ις) scriptum fuerit in P, ob marginem succi-
sum discerni non potest. Item post παρατ (sic) et κα&η
(6) margo abscisus 7 τά δεξήματα P. Corrigere posses τά
δέξιμα τά των κτλ., sed nominis δέξιμον casus etiam suf-
fixis -ατος κτλ. formari posse, etsi aliud exemplum non novi,
tamen ex analogia vocis άλλάξιμον negare non licet 11 ένο |
margine absciso P; έν ω editores 12 βασιλικαί sc. στήλαι
an ε' κάτω? 13 Post Κώνσταν priore loco positum
margo abscisus; alterum seclusi (Κωνσταντίας Band.) 15 δια¬
δέχεται passive 16 post πρ margo abscisus 17 σωζο-
μένον P
 TRANSLATION 149

It was formerly silver, as Sozomen tells us. Clement says that the
similar and manifold (sic) marble < statues > are of Constantine
(IV, 668-85), the son of Constans (II, 641-68).1
67. What is known as Pittakes (i.e. the statue in the Pittakia) is
Leo the Great (457-74), commonly called the Butcher. The
emperors used to hold receptions here. And there was once a palace
here, which stood near the old church of S. Irene, according to
John Diakrinomenos.
68. Note that the so-called Augusteum received three statues
(stelai) in succession. First, one of Constantine, which also had five
imperial <statues> below the column—Constantius (II, 337-61),
Constans (I, 337-40), Constantine (II, 337-40)2 and Licinius
(308-24), with Julian (361-63) added later. Under Theodosius the
Great (379-95) another statue (stele) was substituted on the column,
also of silver, with Arcadius and Honorius at ground level, as
Theodore says. But in the writings of Sozomen, they say, it is Justi¬
nian (527-65) who3 is seen there today.

1 Or, more likely, ‘and’ has dropped out and Par. means that they are of Con¬
stantine the Great and his son Constans (see chapter 68 et al.).
2 I.e. the three sons of Constantine who succeeded him.
3 Reading δς; see note.
 150 ΠΑΡΑΣΤΑΣΕΙΣ ΣΥΝΤΟΜΟΙ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑΙ

ξώδιον. Κα&ά φησι Θεοδώρητος και Ευσέβιος, εν οίς δο-

κούσι σφάλλεσ&αι βιβλίοις, nΕλληνος είναι στηλην' κα& ην
άφιερώσας δ μακάριος Κωνσταντίνος δι ευχής εστησεν. Έν
δε τοΐς Απολλιναρίου και Αλεξάνδρου σνγγράμμασιν Κων-
5 σταντίνου είναι τον μεγάλου, καΟ’ά και Μιλίχιος δ χρονο¬
γράφος εξηγησατο.
69. °0 τρίπους δ εν τω Στρατηγία) τω μεγάλω, κα&ά
Προμονντιος Αλέξανδρον λέγει είναι τον Μακεδόνα. ’Επι-
ΰτώΰατο δε καί εκ των γραμμάτων, καί όσοι τοΐς γράμμαΰιν
ίο αυτόν έμφιλοχωροϋσι, μάλιστα οι ταΐς μαντείαις στοιχοϋντες,
έπιγινώσκονσι τον Αλέξανδρον είναι. Γράφει δε δ αυτός
καί Κωνσταντίνον τον άγιον εκεί ττρώτον φόρον τη πόλει
ταΰτη άναστησαι.
70. | Τδ καλόνμενον Φιλαδέλφιν Κωνσταντίνου είναι τον Β 188
15 μεγάλου τους υιούς, από Γαλλίας τον ενα προς την Κων¬
σταντινούπολή ελ&όντα μετά τον θάνατον του πατρός' με¬
γάλης τε νπαντης καί χαράς γενομένης άσπάσασ&αι άλλη-
λους καί παρεν&ύ στήλας αυτών άνεγεΐραι τη πόλει το
σχήμα νποσωζούσας. ’Ιουλιανοϋ δε στηλη καί Αναστασίας
20 της αυτού γαμέτης, ην διά το είναι Χριστιανην εξέβαλε της
βασιλείας. Αυτή δε έν τω μοναστήρια) των Προμούντον άπε-

§ 70 1. 14—19 = Tr. ρ. 19, 5 sqq.: To καλ. Φιλαδέλφιον

νίοί είΰι τοϋ μ. Κ.· ηνίκα γάρ Κ. έτελεντησε, τον Κω νΰ τ αν¬
τίο ν δντος έν τοΐς άνατολικοΐς μέρεΰι, Κωνοταντΐνος
άπδ των Γαλλιών έρχόμενος ΰννηφ&η Κώνοταντι και άαπά-
ζονται άλληλονς■ ονχ ότι έκεΐ ΰννηφύ'ηοαν, αλλά της
νπαντης αντών έκεΐβε άν αατηλωύ' ε ίΰης. Inde Codin.
II 48 (ρ. 43, 13 Β)

1 Dubito utrum interpungam post κα&οραται (ρ. 65,18) an post

ζώδιον 2 exspectamus ην άφιερώΰας, sed cf. ρ. 68, 5 4 ΰνγ-
γράμμαΰιν (φέρεταιβ? 10 οτοιχειονντες Ρ, corr. Ε. Kurtz;
cf. Malal. ρ. 460, 5 δεξάμενος τά γράμματα καί οτοιχηαας (fac-
ceptis litteris et perlectis’) 19 νποβωζονβαν P Iuliani
coniux ab aliis scriptoribus Helena Constantia nominatur
 TRANSLATION 151

68a.1 The largest statue (zodion) in the Forum, as Theodoret and

Eusebius say—and their books are apparently wrong—is of a
pagan. It was put up by the blessed Constantine with prayers after
he had consecrated it. According to the writings of Apollinarius and
Alexander it is a statue of Constantine the Great, as Milichius the
historian also claimed.
69. The tripod in the Great Strategion, according to Promoun-
tius, is of Alexander of Macedon. He confirmed it from the inscrip¬
tion, and those who are familiar with his writings—especially those
who are in line with the prophecies2—recognise that it is Alexander.
And this same man writes that it was here that S. Constantine3 built
the first forum for this city.
70. The so-called Philadelphion represents4 the sons of Constan¬
tine the Great. One of them arrived in Constantinople from Gaul
after his father’s death (337). They greeted each other with a great
meeting and rejoicing, and at once erected statues (stelai) of
themselves in the city preserving this scene. There was a statue
(stele) of Julian (361-63) and Anastasia his wife, whom he ejected
from the throne because she was a Christian. She was shorn in the

1 For the paragraph division see note on chapter 68.

2 The meaning is very uncertain. Possibly it should be interpreted ‘those who
are familiar with its inscriptions (i.e. those on the tripod)—especially those who can
interpret them in accordance with the prophecies’.
3 Greek άγιος.
4 Literally ‘is’.
 152 ΠΑΡΑΣΤΑΣΕΙΣ ΣΥΝΤΟΜΟΙ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑΙ

κείρατο. Αί δε ανταί ΰτηλαι μέχρι τον ννν οώξονται εν τώ

Φιλαδελφίω.
71. 'Ο λεγόμενος Ξηρόλοφος οτηλην μεν έχει, καθώς ό
Αιακρινόμενος λέγει, τον μικρόν Θεοδοβίον και Οναλεντι-
5 νιανον κάτω&εν τοϋ κίονος και Μαρκιανον. Σειΰμον δέ
γενομένον πεπτωκέναι την ΰτηλην, και ώς λόγος λέγει, άνελ-
&εϊν αντην άνω&εν των επτά κιόνων' και νποΰτρέψαι <^την)>
Μαρκιανον και Οναλεντινιανοϋ εν τω Τριβονναλίω.
72. Ο λεγόμενος Νεώριος ό και 'Αρκάδιος' όν Κόνων
ίο έβτοιχειώΰατο, ενρων τον τόπον πλείΰτοις πόνοις ΚωνΟταν-
τίνον τον μεγάλον πονη&έντα' εν ω και αί άγοραϊ των θα-
λαΰΰίων εμπορενμάτων πρώην νπηρχον εκεί' επί ’Ιονΰτινια-
νον δέ μετεποιή&ηΰαν εις τον ’Ιονλιανον λιμένα.
73. Ο Ζενξιππος το λοντρόν Σενηρος καλείται' νπό
15 Σενηρον γάρ έκτίο&η. Σνν αντω δέ καί το 'Ιπποδρόμων τδ
πρώτον ελαβε κτίΰμα εν όλίγω. Αί Κωνΰταντιαναί νποΚωνΰταν-
τίνον τον μεΐγάλον έχτίβ&ηΰαν,χαί η λεγομένη Φόΰΰα. Στηλαι Β 189
δέ πολλαί ονΰαι εν Κωνΰταντιαναΐς διέπεΰαν αξιαι θαύματος.
74. 'Ο αγωγός νπό Ονάλεντος τοϋ 'Αρειανον έχτίΰ&η,
20 καθώς γράφει Θεόδωρος' η βαΰιλιχη χινΰτέρνη νπό Κων-

§ 71 1. 3—6 (—ατηλην) = Tr. ρ. 19, 13 sq.; inde Codin.

Π 19 (ρ. 30, 1 Β) § 72 Treu ρ. 19, 18 sq.: Ότι τό νεώριον
ό Κόνων εστοιχειώσατο · έν ώ χτλ.; inde Codin. II 68 (ρ. 52,
5 Β) § 73 1. 14 — 16 (—ολίγω) = Treu ρ. 19, 22 sq.; inde
Codin. Π 33 (ρ. 36, 16 Β) § 74 1. 19 = Treu ρ. 19, 25; inde
Cod. II 69 (ρ. 52, 8 Β). — L. 20 —ρ. 68, 3 = Treu ρ. 19,27 sq.

3 είχε Tr. 4 βαλεντινιανον Ρ 5 κάτωθεν τον κίονος

post Μαρκ. ponit Tr. 7 την vel τάς supplendum esse
censeo 8 βάλεντος Ρ 9 τό λεγόμενον Νεώριον ό Αρκάδιος
ίτειχίβατο Lamb. 13 ίονστιανον Ρ 14 Σενηρος καλ.
om. Tr., Σενηρον Du Cange, Banduri 16 at] καί Comb.
17 φονασα Ρ; φόααα scribit Ρ ρ. 34, 17, φωαάτον ρ. 54, 19
(scripturam codices saepissime variant; cf. de Boor ind. Theo-
phan.) 20 οτέρνη P
 TRANSLATION 153

monastery of Promotus. These statues (stelai) still stand in the

Philadelphion to this day.
71. The so-called Xerolophos has a statue (stele), according to
Diakrinomenos, of Theodosius II (408-50), with Valentinian (III,
425-55) and Marcian (450-57) at the foot of the pillar. There was an
earthquake, and the statue {stele) fell down, and, so we are told, it
was re-erected beyond the seven pillars. The group of Marcian and
Valentinian was returned to the Tribunal.
72. The so-called Neorios (i.e. the statue at this harbour), also
Arcadius (395-408) (sic). Conon (Leo III, 717-41) set up a statue
there,1 finding the place elaborated with many works by Constan¬
tine the Great. Formerly the markets concerned with sea trade were
here. In the time of Justinian they were moved to the harbour of
Julian.
73. The Zeuxippus bath is called Severus,2 for it was built by
Severus (193-211). Together with this he undertook the first foun¬
dation of the Hippodrome in a short space of time. The Constanti-
nianai were built by Constantine the Great, as was the so-called
Fossa. There were many remarkable statues (stelai) in the Constan-
tinianai which have been destroyed.3
74. The aqueduct was built by Valens the Arian (364-78), as
Theodore writes; the cistern of the Basilica by Constantine the

1 This could mean ‘cast a spell on it’ (cf. chapter 89); but see note.
2 Or ‘the Zeuxippus is called the bath of Severus’.
3 Or ‘the many statues in the Constantinianai fell down and were an object of
wonder’.
 154 ΠΑΡΑΣΤΑΣΕΙΣ ΣΥΝΤΟΜΟΙ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑΙ

ΰταντίνον τον μεγάλου' ή δε Χρνΰορόη υπό Αικινίον κατ’

επιτροπήν Κωνΰταντίνον. ,Η δε χαλκή ΰτήλη ή εν τη βαΰι-
λική κινΰτέρνη κα&ημένη θεοδοΰίον τον μεγάλου έΰτίν.
'Η ΰτήλη ή όπιΰ&εν τής Μαγναύρας κατά το ανατολικόν μέρος
5 τον Ήλιακοϋ μετεώρου Φωκά εΰτιν, καθ’ ήν εν τω έβδόμω
ετει τής βαΰιλείας αντον ΰπουδήν πολλήν περί τον άνελ&εΐν
έπεδείζατο. Μοναχός δε τις εκ τής τον όΰίον Θεόδωρόν τον
λεγόμενόν Σικεών μονής — κατά ταντα γάρ και ό μακά¬
ριος Θεόδωρος ήν εν ταΐς ήμέραις τον αντον Φωκά επί
ίο Θωμά τον νέου πατριάρχον Κωνΰταντινονπόλεως, ος καί ΰνν-
&ημα εποίηΰε παρακαλεΰας τον όΰιον Θεόδωρον είπεΐν τω
Φωκά πανΰαΰ&αι εκ των άκαίρων φόνων' ο καί ποιήΰας ό
όΰιος παρήνει τω βαΰιλεί μή άπαν&ρώπως χρήΰ&αι τοΐς
νπηκόοις. 'Ο δε βαΰιλενς ήτηΰεν ΰημεΐον πΛχρά τον πατρός
15 εις αντον γενέΰ&αι διά την ποδάγραν καί πανΰαΰ&αι των
πολλών φόνων. Ενζαμένου δε τον όΰίον έρρύΰ&η τής νόΰον.
Αυτός δε ουδέ οϋτως έπαύΰατο άποκτένων. Ο δε προειρη¬
μένος μοναχός ε&άρρηΰέ τινι περί τον Φωκά, ότι κατά τον

inde Codin. II 40 (ρ. 38, 15 Β). — L. 4 sqq. = Treu ρ. 19, 30 sqq.:

Περί στήλης τον άρμαμέντον (cf. Theophan. ρ. 274, 22—24):
ή στήλη ή εις τό άρμαμέντον τοΰ Φωκά ίστι καί έν τώ
εβδόμω ζέτει) τής βασιλείας αντον περί τό τέλος σπονδάζων
άναγαγεΐν αντήν έν τω κτιστώ κίονι μετά τό άναγαγεΐν αντήν
δεκαοκτώ παρελϋΌνσών ημερών κατηνέχϋη τής βασιλείας· τότε
δε ήν Σικεών (cod. σιμεών [?]) ό όσιος. Inde Codin. II 34
(ρ. 36, 20 Β)

1 Χρνσορρόη ? 4 μέρους Ρ 7 sqq. Eadem historia

in vita S. Theodori qui dicitur Syceota ap. Theoph. Joannu
Μνημεία άγιολογ. ρ. 480 sqq. 8 σικαιών Ρ, σνκεώτου Lamb.,
sed cf. cod. Paris, gr. 1534 fol. 95 βίος Θεόδωρόν τον Σικεών.
Inc. 'Ο . . . Θεόδωρος δ λεγόμενος Σικεών κτλ. (Catal. codd,
graec. hagiogr. bibl. Paris.) ταντα Ρ, ταντόν Comb.
15 πανσεσδαι ? 17 άποκτένων P; Byzant. codd. et κτένειν
et κτέννειν scribunt, cf. ind. Theophan. s. ν. άποκτέννω
18 κατά] μετά Comb.
 TRANSLATION 155

Great, the Chrysorrhoe1 by Licinius (308-24) at the order of Con¬

stantine. The bronze seated statue [stele) set up at the Basilica
cistern is of Theodosius the Great (379-95). The statue [stele) which
is behind the Magnaura in the eastern part of the raised Heliakon is
Phocas (602-10). He showed much eagerness about its erection in
the seventh year of his reign. There was a certain monk from the
monastery of S. Theodore, called ‘of Sykeon’—for according to this
story the blessed Theodore lived in the days of the same Phocas, in
the time of Thomas the Younger, patriarch of Constantinople (in
fact Thomas I, 607-10), who besought S. Theodore and made him
agree to tell Phocas to cease from his unsuitable murders. This the
holy man did, and he advised the emperor not to treat his subjects
inhumanly. The emperor asked for a sign from the father to come to
him about his gout; then he would cease from his many murders.
The holy man prayed, and he was delivered from his malady. But
even so he did not stop killing. The aforementioned monk confided
to someone concerning Phocas that he would die a terrible death at

1 See note. It is not very likely that Licinius would have done any building at
Byzantium, and the Constantinian foundation was only begun in 326.
 156 ΠΑΡΑΣΤΑΣΕΙΣ ΣΥΝΤΟΜΟΙ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑΙ

καιρόν τούτον δεινώ &ανάτω θνήσκει, ετι φιλοσοφονντος

Σέργιον τον μετά τον νέον Θωμαν επισκοπήσαντος’ αντός
γάρ και τώ μοναχω έ&άρρησεν. ”Ερχεται ονν τούτο εν τοις
ώσί τον βαβιλέως Φωκά ετι | της στήλης ελαννομένης' και 190
5 τοσαντη σπονδή έχρήσατο περί της άναβάσεως της στήλης,
ώστε, κα&ως οι τότε έξηγήσαντο, ετι και ετι πλείω φόνονς
αντόν πεποιηκέναι. ’Άλλα και χρήματα πάμπολλά τοΐς δον-
λενονΰιν ίχαρίΰατο προς τό ταχύναι' και μετά ιη' ημέρας
τον στα&ήναι την αντην στήλην κατηνέχ&η της βασιλείας,
ίο αμεινον ών επραξεν άπενεγκάμενος, τον πικρόν θάνατον.
75. ’Εν τοις λεγομένοις Μαρινακίον στήλη ΐστατο, εν
η και παράδοξον Ό·έαμα γέγονε. Σεισμού γάρ γενομενον και
παντός τον τόπον ίκείνον από &εμελίον φ&αρεντος και της
στήλης πεσονσης κάτω τον κίονος στα&ήναι αντην όρ&ήν,
15 ως οι προ ημών εξηγηΰαντο. Αοκιμασ&είσης γάρ της στή¬
λης εις τό άρχαίον άνατε&ήναι εμεινεν αχ&ος βαρντατον
εχονΰα. Τοντο δε ελεγον γίνεσ&αι εως πλειόνων καιρών.
Την δε στήλην ενρίσκομεν είναι Οναλεντινιανού τον νεω-
τέρον' ώς τινα φιλόσοφον διασαφήσασ&αι τότε διά τον
20 άδικον θάνατον Οναλεντινιανού τον νεωτερον *f* σημειω-
Ό'ήναι την στήλην’ εως γάρ τότε δικάίαν ψήφον άπένεμον
τον &άνατον τον ’Αετίον.
76. ’Εκ τής λεγομενης Νικομήδειας στήλαι πλεΐσται εν

§ 76 Treu ρ. 20, 4 sq.; inde Codin. II 73 (ρ. 53, 1 Β)

9 τό ατα&ήναι Ρ 10 ή τον πικρόν ϋ'άνατον Comb., cui

adyersatur Ε. Kurtz (fer trug nichts Besseres davon, als das
gewesen war, was er gethan hatte, namlich den bittern Tod’)
11 μαρτινακίον Lamb.; sed cf. index Synax. Sirmondi in
An all. Bolland. 1895 p. 425: πέραν έν τοις Μαρινακίον
18 et 20 βαλεντινιανον Ρ 20 ΰημειωϋήναι = ΰτοιχειω&ή-
vai? Comb. 21 locus item corruptus; exspectamus banc sen-
tentiam: εως γάρ τότε δικαίαν ψήφον (= iudicium) άπένεμον
(= ένόμιζον?) τον θάνατον (αντον διά τον θάνατον) τοϋ
Αετίον 22 άνετίον Ρ, corr. Lamb.
 TRANSLATION 157

that time, while Sergius, patriarch after Thomas the Younger

(610-38), was still a monk (for he confided in the monk also).1
Therefore this came to the ears of the Emperor Phocas while the
statue {stele) was being cast, and he made so much haste in the erec¬
tion of the statue {stele) that, as his contemporaries have told, he
caused still more deaths. But he gave much money to the workmen
to speed up the work; and eighteen days after the same statue {stele)
was put up, he was cast out from the imperial power, getting
nothing better than he dispensed, a horrible death.
75. In the area called Ta Marinakiou there stood a statue {stele)
where a miraculous event took place. There was an earthquake and
that whole place was destroyed from its foundation and the statue
{stele) fell down from the column but stood upright, as those before
our time have told us. For when they attempted to put it up in its
original place, it stayed on the ground because it was very heavy.
They say that this happened several times.2 We find that the statue
{stele) was of Valentinian the Younger (III, 425-55). A philosopher
then explained that the statue {stele) was made miraculous
{semeiothenai) because of the unjust death of Valentinian,3 for until
then they had thought the judgement fair < because of > the
murder of Aetius.
76. From the place called Nicomedia many statues {stelai) came

1 For the meaning, see note.

2 Or ‘remained so for a long time’.
3 See note.
 158 ΠΑΡΑΣΤΑΣΕΙΣ ΣΥΝΤΟΜΟΙ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑΙ

τή Κωνΰταντινονπόλει ήκαΰιν. ΌαΙεν καί Αιοκλητιανον εν

τω 'Ιπποδρομίω ΰώζεται εως τής δενρο, έπίκνφος ονΰα, άνα-
μέΰον τον λεγόμενόν κα&ίΰματος.
77. Μαξιμιανον ΰτήλη εν τοΐς της Χάλκης μέρεΰι
5 νπάρχει βαρντάτη πάνν. ’Έν&α καί το γένος άπαν Θεοδο-
ΰίον τον Σπάνου κα&οράται εν ΰτήλαις εως της ΰήμερον.
78. | Αί Γοργονίδαι λεγόμεναι αί τέΰΰαρες εκ της ’Εφέ- ®
ΰον ήκαΰιν από τον της ’Αρτέμιδος ναόν, αϊ κατά τον ΰηκδν
της Χάλκης περιφέρονται, εν&α καί ΰτανρον ΰημεΐον άνω-
ιο Ό’εν αντων ΐΰταται.
79. Της λεγομένης ’Αρτέμιδος η ΰτήλη εν τω fΙππο-
δρομίω ΐΰταται, εν&α γνμνάζονται οι παλαίοντες.
80. 5Εν τή Χάλκη πνλη τον παλατίον Ζήνωνος καί
’Αρεάδνης τής ΰώφρονος εΰχατον καί αίΰχρας το πρότερον εν
15 κίοΰιν ΐΰτανται πεζαί ΰτήλαι, ίάμβονς έλεγείονς εχουΰαι παρά
Σεκοννδον φιλοΰόφον μεριΰ&εΐΰαι.
81. Η ΰτήλη ή προς τό Ζενξ,ιππον &εωρονΰα, ήτοι
εμπροΰ&εν, ’Ιονΰτινιανον καί Θεοδώρας εΰτίν' κα& ήν καί
εδοξάΰ&η ’Ιονΰτινιανός, δτε έτί&ετο ή αντή ΰτήλη, κράζοντος
20 τον Πραΰίνον μέρονς' '’Ιονΰτινιανός καί Κωνΰταντΐνος νέοι
άπόΰτολοι ’ ’ εν οίς καί Σοφία ή αντοϋ γαμέτη παρά Πλονμβα
τον φιλοΰόφον ίαμβικοϊς μέτροις τονς έπαίνονς έδέξατο.

§ 77 Treu ρ. 20, 8 sq.; inde Codin. II 28 (ρ. 34, 20 Β)

§ 78 Treu ρ. 20, 11 sq.; inde Codin. II 28 (ρ. 34, 5 Β) § 79
Treu ρ. 20, 15 sq.; inde Codin. II 74 (p. 53, 12 B) § 80 Treu
p. 20, 18 sq.; inde Codin. II 28 (p. 34, 3 B)

2 έπίκονφος Lamb. 7 γοργόνες Tr. 8 αηκόν] οίκον

Tr. (καταντικρνς τής Χάλκης Lamb.) 9 φέρονται Tr.
12 δοκιμάζονται Tr. 15 έλεγεΐα (ιάμβους om.) %χ. Σεκ. φιλ.
Tr. De Secundo philos. cf. Krumbacher Byz. Litt.2 p. 557 et
Orelli Opuscula Graecorum veterum sententiosa I 208 sqq.
16 μερΐ6ϋ·εϊΰαι] cf. p. 27, 4 21 Σοφία] aut cum Lamb.
Θεοδώρα scribas necesse est aut pro αντον ponas Τονατίνον
Πλονμβάτον Lamb.
 TRANSLATION 159

to Constantinople, including that of Diocletian which is preserved

until today in the Hippodrome, stooping, in front of1 the so-called
Kathisma.
77. There is a very heavy statue {stele) of Maximian2 in the area
of the Chalke. Here the whole house of Theodosius the Spaniard (I,
379-95) is seen in statues (stelai) until today.
78. The four so-called Gorgons came from Ephesus from the
temple of Artemis. They surround the vestibule of the Chalke and
the sign (semeion) of the cross stands above them.
79. The statue (stele) called Artemis stands in the Hippodrome
where the wrestlers exercise.
80. On the Chalke gate of the palace there are standing statues
(stelai) of Zeno (474-91) and Ariadne, eventually chaste but earlier
shameless, on pillars, carrying iambic inscriptions arranged by
Secundus the philosopher.
81. The statue (stele) that faces the Zeuxippus, that is, that is in
front of it, is of Justinian (527-65) and Theodora. When it was
erected, Justinian was showered with praise, the Greens chanting:
‘Justinian and Constantine the new apostles’. Also there was
Sophia his wife (sic) who received praise through the iambic verses
of the philosopher Plumbas.

1 Or ‘in the middle of.

2 See commentary.
 160 ΠΑΡΑΣΤΑΣΕΙΣ ΣΥΝΤΟΜΟΙ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑΙ

82. Η εν τώ παλαιοτάτω λοντρώ νπάρχονβα βτηλη εκ

χρωμάτων, ήτοι το Ζενξιππον, Φιλιππικόν τον πράον έβτίν
τον κατά άγνοιαν πλανη&έντος' ως (5ε εχει λόγος, τοιοντον
αντόν είναι οίον το πρωτότνπον. Μεγάλως γάρ έπηνεβαν
5 οι ζωγράφοι τον γράψαντα, οτι ονκ εχώρηβε την τον βαβι-
λέως μορφήν προς το άρχέτνπον.
83. ’Εκ τον λεγόμενόν Ίκονίον βτηλαι ηκαβιν εν Κων-
ΰταντινονπόλει πλεΐβται, καθ’’ ην καί τον Λ ιός εν τώ cΙπ¬
ποδρομία) βώζεται.
ίο 84. | Τά τέββαρα ιππάρια τα χρνβόβαφα τα φερόμενα 192
άνω&εν τον 'Ιππικόν εκ της Χίον νηβον ηκαβιν επί Θεο-
όοβίον τον μικρόν.
85. ’Εκ τον προειρημενον Ικονίον Περβεως βτηλη καί
’Ανδρομέδας ftνγατρός Βαβιλίβκον νπαρχονβης, ώς οί μνΟνί
15 φαβι καί τις των ίβτορικών, δίδοβ&αι Ο'νβίαν τώ έκεΐΰε εμ-
φωλενοντι δράκοντι. Οντως γάρ ην εκ παλαιας βννη&είας
δίδοβ&αι παρθένον κόρην τώ ϋ'ηρίω' κα&’ ην Ανδρομέδα
δε&εΐβα %λανάτον αιτία τώ &ηρίω εμελλεν δίδοβ&αι. 'Ο
γονν προειρημένος Περβενς εκεΐβε ηκων πν&εται κλαιονβη
20 τη ’Ανδρομέδη, τί αν είη δεδεμένη καί Ό’ρηνονβα. Η (5έ τό

§ 82 1.1 — 2 — Treu ρ. 20, 21 sq.: Ή έν τώ Ζενζ,ίππω

λοντρώ νπάρχονβα βτηλη εκ χρωμάτων τον Φιλιππικόν έστι τον
πραοτάτον. Inde Codin. II 39 (ρ. 38, 13 Β) § 84 Treu
ρ. 20, 24 sq.; inde Codin. II 75 (ρ. 53, 14 Β) § 85 Anon.
Treu ρ. 20, 27 sq. pauca omisit, reliqua fere ad verbum ex-
scripsit. Inde Codin. II 85 (p. 58, 4 B)

2 τώ Ζενξ,ίππω Lamb. (cf. Tr.); sed appositionem alio ac

legitimo casu poni buic aetati non alienum; v. Malal. p. 128,
19 et not. Dind. 5 Fort, έχώριβε, ut χωρίζειν τι dictum sit
pro χωρίζεσ&αί τίνος 13 Ad rem cf. Joh. Antioch. F. H.
Grr. 4, 544, 18 (cum notis), Malal. p. 36, 18 (= Chron. Pasch.
p. 71), Glycas p. 264, 17 βτηλαι Tr. 14 cog] ην Lamb.
18 θανάτου αιτία] vix significare potest morti destinatam;
pro eo βορά Tr.
 TRANSLATION 161

82. The coloured image {stele) in the ancient bath, that is to say
the Zeuxippus, is of Philippicus the gentle (711-13), who was
deceived through ignorance. As the story goes, it is just like its
model (prototypon). Painters greatly praised the artist, because he
did not depart from1 the emperor’s appearance with regard to the
archetype {archetypon).
83. A great many statues (stelai) have come from the place called
Iconium to Constantinople, among them one of Zeus that is still in
the Hippodrome.
84. The four gilt horses that stand above the Hippodrome came
from the island of Chios under Theodosius II (408-50).
85. From the above-mentioned Iconium comes a statue {stele) of
Perseus and Andromeda, who was the daughter of Basiliscus;2 as
the myths and one of the historians say, she was given as a sacrifice
to the dragon that lived there. For this was an ancient custom, for a
young maiden to be offered to the beast. In accordance with it An¬
dromeda was bound, undeserving of death,3 and was about to be
given to the beast. And the aforementioned Perseus, passing that
way, asked the weeping Andromeda why she was bound and

1 Reading έχώρισε for P’s έχώρησε: see note.

2 See commentary.
3 Reading άναιτία for P’s άιτία.
 162 ΠΑΡΑΣΤΑΣΕΙΣ ΣΥΝΤΟΜΟΙ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑΙ

ΰνμβάν εζηγήΰατο. Τον δε χα&ίΰαντος ηχε το &ηρίον. Αντος

δε Γοργόνης κεφαλήν εν πήρα χατέχων όπιΰΟΌφανώς ΰτρα-
φεϊς δείκννΰι το Ο'ηρίον' δπερ ίδών εκείνος άπέψνξεν.
Εχληϋ·η ονν ’Ικόνιον παρά λογίΰτον Φιλοδώρον ή πόλιρ
5 δια το ηκέναι τον Περΰέα και ΰώΰαι την ’Ανδρομέδαν, φαϊ-
νον εντνχημα τη πόλει έκ τον ηκοντος Περΰέως. Ήν όέ
όνομα τη πόλει το από γενέΰεως Αορία, έπειτα έχλη&η Θρη-
νωδία, παρά δε Φιλοδώρον τον λογίΰτον εκ τον ηχειν τον
Περΰέα έχλή&η ’Ικόνιον. ’Έν&α εΰτηλώ&η δ αντος Περΰενς
ίο ΰνν τη 3 * 5Ανδρομέδη επάνω της πάρτης της πόλεως' χαΌ·’ ην
και Ό’νΰίαι πολλαί γεγόναΰιν έχεϊΰε παρά Αεχίον και Αιο-
χλητιανον και Μαξιμιανον' εν&α πλεϊΰτοι άγιοι έμαρτνρηΰαν.
Ήχαΰιν ονν τον τε Περΰέως και ’Ανδρομέδας αι ΰτηλαι,
ως | λόγος εχει, έπι Κωνΰταντίον μετά τδ πληρω&ηναι την 193
15 \Αντιοχέων έκχληΰίαν, εν τώ Κωνΰταντιαναΐς λοντρώ.
86. ’Αναΰταΰίον ΰτηλη νπάρχει η όπιΰ&εν τον άγιον
μάρτνρος Μήνα, ητις ΰτηλη έΰτά&η μετά τδ πανΰαΰ&αι την
βοοϋ'νΰίαν των ειδώλων και γενέΰ&αι πορνεΐον τδν τόπον,
τον βαΰιλέως τοντο κελενΰαντος επί τδ άτιμαΰ&ηναι τδν τόπον.
20 87. ’Εν τη χαλονμένη Αετίον χινΰτέρνη, ητις νπδ ’Αετίον

§ 87 Treu p. 21, 13 sq.: Έν τη χαλ. Ά. κινΰτέρνη, ητις

νπδ ’Α. πατρίκιον έκτίΰ&η έπί Ονάλεντος, ΰτηλη ί'στατο τον
αντον ’Αετίον (nil ultra). Inde Codin. II 71 (p. 52, 14 B)

3 τώ &ηρίω Lamb., sed cf. Byz. Zeitschr. YII 377; Treu

addit to δηλητηριον ίκεΐνο Tr.; sed subiectum sub audi¬
tor δράκων, όπερ ίδδν ίκείνην Lamb. 4 Φιλοό.] φιλοΰόφον
Ρ, Φιλοχώρον hie et 1. 8 Lamb. 5 ηκέναι—6 Περΰέως] τδν
Περΰέα δεϊξ,αι την εικόνα έκεΐΰε Tr. φόνοις ατύχημα Ρ,
corrigebam 6 Περΰέως] περΰαίον Ρ 7 Πορία] δάνεια Tr.
(δαναεία Lamb.); ad nomen cf. Λορίειον, Πορνλάειον, Πορη-
νοί (?) Buresch Aus Lydien ρ. 78 έπληΰ&η &ρηνωδία Tr.
(έπληΰϋ'η &ρηνωδίας καί έκτοτε έκληϋ'η &ρηνος Codin.) 9 έτε-
λειώ&η Ρ et Tr., corrigebam 10 post πόλεως Band, inserit
έΰτηλώ&η άμφότερος κα&’ ην—12 έμαρτνρηΰαν om. Tr.
15 έν τωΚωνΰτ. λοντρώ in Ρ falso initium sunt capitis insequentis;
recte Anon. Treu (ubi Κωνΰταντιανώ) 20 κηΰτέρνη Ρ
 TRANSLATION 163

lamenting. She told him what had happened. But as he took up his
position1 the beast came up. Turning away and facing backwards,
Perseus showed the Gorgon’s head he was carrying in his satchel to
the beast, which expired on seeing it. So the city was called Iconium
by Philodorus the logistes because Perseus came (ήκέναι) and saved
Andromeda, a bright stroke of luck for the city from the coming of
Perseus.2 The name of the city from its foundation was Doria; then
it was called Threnodia, but by (? according to) Philodorus the
logistes it was called Iconium from the coming of Perseus. Then the
same Perseus was commemorated in a statue (estelothe) with An¬
dromeda above the city gate; many sacrifices took place there by
order of Decius (249-51) and Diocletian (284-305) and Maximian,3
and many saints were martyred there. The statues (stelai) of Perseus
and Andromeda came, so we are told, in the reign of Constantius
(II, 337-61), after the completion of the church of Antioch, to the
bath of Constantinianai.
86. The statue {stele) behind S. Menas the martyr is of
Anastasius (491-518). It was erected when the sacrifice of oxen to
idols (eidola) stopped and the place was turned into a brothel; the
emperor ordered this so that the place should be dishonoured.
87. In the so-called cistern of Aetius, which was founded by the

1 See note.
2 The repetition is in the Greek.
3 See on Chapter 77.
164 ΠΑΡΑΣΤΑΣΕΙΣ ΣΥΝΤΟΜΟΙ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑΙ

πατρίκιον κτιΰ&εΐβα εν ταίς ημέραις Οναλεντινιανον' ενΟ·α

7) ϋτηλη αντον τον Οναλεντινιανον εν τη κινΰτέρνη βιάζεται
δορνφορονντος αντην τοϋ 'Αετίον.
88. 'Η λεγομένη ’'Αβπαρος νπό ’'Αβπαρος καϊ 'Αρδαβον-
ρίον των έπι Αέοντος τον μεγάλον οίκοδομεϊταί' κα& ην
Αβπαρ καϊ ’Αρδαβονριος πληρω&είβης αντής τον δλε&ρον
νπομένονβιν.
89. Την λεγομένην Κράνον νηβον εβτοιχειώβατο Βερίνα,
κα& ην ονδεμία ενρίβκεται φροντίς, τίνος χάρίν ταντην
βτοιχειονται. Εν δε τω βτοιχειω&ηναι την αντην νηβον
ά&ρόως θάνατοί γεγόναβι πλεΐβτοι^ Ο'θ’εν ερημονται διαρκέ-
βαβα μέχρι των χρόνων ’Ιονβτινιανον τον τρίτον την &ά-
λαββαν προςτάξαντος άναπλώΰαι εν αντη εις τέλειον άφα-
νιβμόν.

§ 88 Treu ρ. 21, 17 sq.; inde Codin. II 70 (ρ. 52, 10 Β)

1 et 2 ονάλεντος Ρ, correxi; est Valentinianus III; cf.

p. 67, 8 8 δορνφορονσης P, correxit Comb. 4 utroque
loco αοπορος Ρ έπϊ P, vnb Tr. 10 αντην bis scribit P
12 τρίτον = τρις saepe apud Const. Porpbyrog.; τρίτον
legit et scribit Lamb, ceterique 13 άναπλενοαι Ρ, ava-
ηλονααι Comb., άναηλώοαι Bekker (άναηλονν = άναηληρονν,
cf. Wendland Rh. Mus. 1898, p. 30).
 TRANSLATION 165

patrician Aetius in the days of Valentinian (III, 425-55);1 there the

statue [stele) of Valentinian himself is preserved in the cistern with
Aetius escorting it.
88. The so-called cistern of Aspar was built by Aspar and Ar-
daburius under Leo the Great (457-74). When it was finished Aspar
and Ardaburius met their deaths there.
89. Verina bewitched2 the island called Kranos. As to why she
bewitched it, no reason can be found. But while this island was
bewitched, suddenly many deaths took place, whence it remained
deserted until the reign of Justinian, who three times3 ordered the
sea to wash over it and overwhelm it completely.

1 There is no verb.
2 See note.
3 τρίτον for τρίς: see note.
'
 COMMENTARY

The heading Parastaseis syntomoi chronikai, written in red, may not refer to
the whole work as we have it, for there are other headings in red too: see
note on chap. 27. The first part of the work so marked off ends at
chap. 26; chap. 27 begins with a new heading. Par. begins in medias res',
possibly there was originally a more formal opening.

Chapter 1: Arianism

Arianism, a fourth-century doctrine propagated by the Alexandrian

deacon, Arius (ca. 256-?ca. 346), proclaimed the priority of God the
Father and the human and created nature of Christ. Condemned at the
first ecumenical council summoned at Nicaea by Constantine (AD 325,
cf. the possible allusion in chap. 7), Arianism nevertheless enjoyed some
imperial support during the fourth century; Theodosius I however denied
Arians the right to celebrate their faith within Constantinople (CTh.
XVI. 5.15, cf. 13), so that they were forced to seek churches beyond the
walls (see below). In Par., Arianism represents the worst kind of heresy
(see chap. 39), on a par with the iconoclastic activity of the apostate
Julian (see introduction, section v). This hostility to a half-remembered
Arianism (hardly a live issue in itself in Par.’s day) is an indication of
Par. ’s intellectual background. Such knowledge of the historical develop¬
ment of Arianism as is displayed in Par. comes through the tradition of
ecclesiastical history and focusses on its beginnings in the fourth century
(see especially chap. 39). Naturally Par. has no awareness of its impor¬
tance in the barbarian west.
Note that: for this formula, see introduction, section iv.
S. Mocius: it is interesting that Par. as it now stands begins with S.
Mocius, one of the few churches to be noted there, since Constantinople
was dedicated on May 11, the festival of S. Mocius, a recent martyr at
Byzantium; Constantine’s choice of date may well have been a
deliberately programmatic one (see T. D. Barnes, Constantine and
Eusebius, Cambridge, Mass., 1981, p. 222). But as the work as a whole
lacks an introduction, it remains doubtful whether this is in fact the
original opening.
The church of S. Mocius lay near the cistern of the same name (built
by Anastasius, 491-518) outside the Constantinian walls; see Janin,
Eglises et monasteres2, pp. 354-58). Procopius, Aed. 1.4. 27, confirms that it
was refounded by Justinian, and emphasises the size of the new church.
168 COMMENTARY

Whether or not it fell in AD 718, a restoration was needed in the reign of

Basil (866/67-886); seejanin, p. 355. The jerry-building of Constantino¬
ple by Constantine was a standard theme of pagan polemic (e.g.
Zosimus, 11.32).
pagans: ‘Hellenes’, as normally in early Byzantine texts.
Constantius: the necessary emendation from ‘Constantine’ (P) to
‘Constantius’ was suggested but not adopted by Preger. The third con¬
sulship of Constantine was in AD 313, when he was still preoccupied with
the immediate aftermath of his defeat of Maxentius at the Battle of the
Milvian Bridge, much too soon for conversion of temples into Christian
churches, still less for activity at Constantinople, which did not begin un¬
til the late 320’s.
Arians: see note above, and introduction, section v. The church of S.
Mocius was outside the Constantinian city wall of Constantinople in 384,
when Theodosius restricted worship in Constantinople to the orthodox
(CTh. XVI. 5.15, cf. 13). The seven years would be AD 384-91.
many Arians were killed: i.e. (to Par.’s way of thinking) they suf¬
fered the inevitable punishment of heretics or pagans; see introduction,
section v.
in our own day: for the date, see introduction, section v.
falsely: P has έν δόλω, which we tentatively render ‘falsely’.
Marcellus the lector: apparently a contemporary of Par.: see introduc¬
tion, sections iv and ix. Lectors were minor clergy; see DACL
VIII.2.2241 f. (Leclercq).
Conon the Isaurian: the implications to be drawn from references to
Leo III in Par. are discussed at introduction, section v. At chap. 72 he is
simply called Conon, at chap. 3 ‘Leo the Great and Pious’. Par.’s at¬
titude to Leo III, the first iconoclastic emperor, is ambiguous, and may
well represent the fact that parts of Par. were written at different times
and from different types of source material.
Both the name and the origin of Leo III present problems. Par. calls
him both ‘Conon’ and ‘the Isaurian’. S. Gero concludes (Byzantine
Iconoclasm during the Reign of Leo III (C.S.C.O., Subsidia 41, Louvain,
1973), pp. 1-24; ‘Notes on Byzantine Iconoclasm in the Eighth Century’,
Byzantion 44 (1974), pp. 23-42, especially 24) that Leo was born at Ger-
manikeia ( = Maras) in N. Syria and was called Conon, while ‘Isaurian’
was a term of abuse which entered the tradition only later; he would
regard the use of the term ‘Isaurian’ in Par. as an interpolation.
However, there is no reason to suspect the text of P at this place, and
since Gero’s argument also involves dismissing other early evidence, it is
better to accept Par. ’s testimony as reliable. Perhaps Leo was the son of
Isaurian parents who had emigrated to Syria or gone there to find work
 COMMENTARY 169

(for the latter pattern see C. Mango, ‘Isaurian Builders’, Polychronion,

Festschrift F. Dolger, ed. P. Wirth, (Heidelberg, 1966), pp. 158-65). The
alternative theory of C. Head (‘Who was the real Leo the Isaurian?’,
Byzantion 41 (1971), pp. 105-8), according to which ‘Leo the Isaurian’
was a name given to Leontius (695-98) (who was called Leo on his coins
and did come from Isauria) is unlikely in view of this passage in Par. and
Par. ’s likely date and connection with the reign of Leo III.

Chapter 2

S. Agathonikos: Janin, Eglises et monasteres,2 pp. 7-8. The church was

at Kainoupolis, in the ninth region sloping down towards the Propontis
between the Forum Tauri and the Forum of Constantine, where accord¬
ing to the Synaxarion CP, August 22nd, Agathonikos was martyred. The
Narratio de S. Sophia (Preger, I, p. 74, and cf. Cedrenus, I, p. 498) seems
to attribute the church to Constantine. The restoration by Justinian is
confirmed by Procopius, Aed. 1.4.
seven patriarchs: the use of this church as the seat of the patriarch is
accepted by F. Dirimtekin, ‘Le local du patriarcat a Sainte Sophie’, 1st.
Mitt. 13.13 (1963/64), pp. 113-27. But for the organisation of the patriar¬
chate between 532 and the rebuilding of the patriarchal palace by John
Scholasticus (John of Ephesus, HE 11.34), see R. Cormack and E. J. W.
Hawkins, ‘The Mosaics of St. Sophia at Istanbul: the Rooms above the
Southwest Vestibule and Ramp’, DOP 31 (1977), pp. 177-251.
wear crowns there: probably a reference to a ceremony in which the
emperors went to S. Agathonikos.
altered: after ‘altered’, P has ‘in anger’ (υπό θυμοΰ), which makes no
sense. Neither Lambeck’s ύπό Τιβερίου (‘by Tiberius’) nor Preger’s από
θεμελίου (‘from the foundations’) is secure enough to print in the text.
Tiberius: called ‘the Thracian’ at chap. 44.
the present palace: known only from this text and the corresponding
passage in the Patria (11.107, p. 208). See Janin, CB2, p. 122.

Chapter 3

Tiberius Apsimar: Apsimar was commander of the fleet stationed on

the SW coast of Asia Minor before he was proclaimed emperor and took
the name Tiberius, which may explain his concern for the sea walls (see
Theophanes, p. 370 de Boor; Nicephorus, p. 40 de Boor).
neglected: the patriarch Germanus, referring to the attack on Con¬
stantinople by the Avars in AD 626, says that there were no effective sea¬
walls at that time (V. Grumel, ‘Homelie de St. Germain’, REB 16
(1958), pp. 183-205, especially 195, 202); the sermon probably dates
170 COMMENTARY

from AD 728 (Grumel, p. 188). But the city had withstood a lengthy siege
by the Arabs under Constantine IV (674-78), so some improvement must
have been made. Nicephorus (p. 50 de Boor) and Theophanes (p. 384 de
Boor) attribute repairs to the walls of Artemius-Anastasius (713-15).
the western walls: this seems to mean simply the land walls, and
‘great gates’ probably the Golden Gate of triumphal entries. These were
repaired by Leo III and Constantine V after the earthquake of 740
(Theophanes, p. 412 de Boor); several building inscriptions on towers on
the walls refer to these two emperors (H. Lietzmann, Die Landmauern von
Konstantinopel, Berlin, 1929, p. 20 f.; B. Meyer-Plath and A. M.
Schneider, Die Landmauern von Konstantinopel, II, Berlin, 1943, pp. 127 ff.;
Janin, CB2, pp. 269 ff).
Leo the Great and Pious: the only occasion in Par. of the use of
‘pious’, the standard epithet of a reigning emperor. It is likely therefore
to be indicative of a contemporary allusion. Cf. the early references to
Leo III in Theophanes (pp. 396, 397, 398 de Boor), where he is called
‘pious’. From this point on in the Chronicle the strongly iconophile bias of
Theophanes’s own day is responsible for the condemnation of the
emperor as iconoclast. This allusion in Par. may thus reflect a contem¬
porary documentary source, perhaps that which preserved other genuine
acclamations recorded in Par. Cf. however chap. 5d with note ad loc.
It is less clear however what conclusion can be drawn from this as to
Par.’s date. The last sentence as it stands must be emended, either to
yield ‘Leo has surpassed Constantine’, or ‘Leo and Constantine (i.e.
Constantine V) have prevailed’. If the former, the acclamation would
refer only to Leo III, comparing him with Constantine the Great, and
with its reference to a procession to the sea walls would fit very well in the
context of the imperial propaganda during his masterful handling of the
siege of Constantinople in 717-18, when just such a procession is record¬
ed (see Gero, Byzantine Iconoclasm during the Reign of Leo III, pp. 36-43,
135-36 for discussion of the oriental sources). The evidence of Par. would
belong to the early years of Leo’s reign. On the other hand, not merely is
it just as easy to emend to ‘Leo and Constantine’ (joint rulers from 720)
but there are a number of surviving inscriptions attesting their joint
repairs to the walls (see above). In this case it is natural to think of the
damage done by the earthquake of 740 as the factor necessitating repair,
even though Leo’s death in 741 provides a tight chronology. But perhaps
there is no need to refer all the building activity on the walls to this
period; the inscriptions (and the acclamation) might date from any time
within their joint reign, i.e. 720-41.
Preger made the mistake of assuming that this refers to Leo I, whom
Par. regularly calls ‘great’ (chaps. 29, 45, 61, 64, 67, 88). But the whole
 COMMENTARY 171

context, and the close parallels with both the situation after the Arab
siege and the wall inscriptions, even without the epithet ‘pious’ place it
beyond doubt that Leo III is meant.
Greens: there are several other factional acclamations recorded in Par.
(see chaps. 29, 35a, 38, 40, 59, 81). For this one, see Alan Cameron, Cir¬
cus Factions (Oxford, 1976), p. 334 (though note that Par. does not say that
the acclamations was addressed to Leo Makelles (Leo I), as we have
seen). The term ό δήμος τοϋ Πρασίνου (sc. μέρους) is standard for ‘the
Greens’ (Cameron, op. cit., pp. 39 ff.). It is probable that the acclama¬
tions were recorded in a written source and that they were there simply
listed without much or any context (see e.g. on chap. 38).

Chapter 4

the ground-level gate: the translation is uncertain, but presumably

the reference is to a gate in the city walls.
Fidalia the pagan: an example of pagan statues and their unpleasant
influence: see introduction, section vii. The effects of that influence often
resulted in ‘wonders’ (introduction, section iv). Fidalia was the mythical
wife of Byzas, the legendary opponent of Constantine, who features often
in Par. (introduction, section viii). According to Chron. Pasch., pp. 493-95
Bonn, she was the builder of the land walls, and she was said to have
defended the city from a Scythian attack (Hesychius, p. 8). The walls
would thus be an appropriate place for her statue. The general Calliades
is said to have erected statues of Byzas and Fidalia in the Basilica
(Hesychius, p. 14; Anth. Plan., 66-67); cf. also the two sanctuaries built
by Byzas to Artemis and by Fidalia to Aphrodite mentioned at Chron.
Pasch., p. 495 Bonn.
the emperor.S. Sabas: either Anastasius or Justinian I. S. Sabas
(439-532), founder of the lavra of Mar Saba and several other com¬
munities in Palestine, spent winter, 512-13, and April-September, 531,
in Constantinople (see E. Schwartz, Kyrillos von Skythopolis (Leipzig,
1939), pp. 143-46, 173-79; E. Stein, Opera Minora Selecta (Amsterdam,
1968), p. 179). A formal procession of emperor and clergy was thought to
be the right way to deal with the malevolence of pagan statues. No doubt
S. Sabas was consulted and advised the emperor to this effect.

Chapter 5

Neolaia: this location is obscure. It has been assumed (Janin, CB2,

p. 194; Guilland, Topographie, I, p. 385) to refer to the carceres, i.e. the
starting gates of the Hippodrome, since according to Nicetas Choniates,
Hist., p. 156 Bonn, that is where the group of four horses stood. But it is
172 COMMENTARY

in fact unlikely that the horses mentioned here are the same as those at
chap. 84; whereas the latter may well be those removed to San Marco in
Venice from their position over the starting gates (see note ad loc.), these
are part of a group with driver and chariot, and their location must be
sought elsewhere in the Hippodrome. Neolaia might refer to a particular
place in the Hippodrome, presumably quite distinct from the carceres. L.
Borrelli Vlad and A. Guidi Toniato, ‘The Origins and Documentary
Sources of the Horses of San Marco’, Exhibition Catalogue, p. 127, with n.
9, p. 135, suppose that it was the place where the young men sat. It is
true that ‘young men’ were recognised as a special group, often
associated with the factions, and if there is anything in this explanation, it
might therefore have to do with the places occupied by the factions. For
‘young men’ see E. Patlagean, Pauvrete sociale et pauvrete economique a
Byzance, IVe-VIIe siecles (Paris, 1977), pp. 228-29; for the seats of the fac¬
tions, see Alan Cameron, Porphyrius, p. 182.
with a small calf: P’s text is defective and the missing letters have to
be supplied on the basis of Patria, 11.87, p. 196.
four horses shining with gold: at first sight the same as the group
described at chap. 84 as being ‘above the Hippodrome’; cf. also Nicetas
Choniates, loc. cit. This would be the group attributed to Lysippus, to be
seen on the fagade of San Marco in Venice. For discussion of the San
Marco horses, see note on chap. 84 below.
These four horses and chariot recall for Par. those at the Milion record¬
ed in chap. 38. Thus Par. here wrongly assumes that the group at the
Neolaia was involved in the annual birthday celebrations of Constantino¬
ple; the little statue was transported from the starting gates to the Stama,
where it was acclaimed. Par. clearly has in mind the annual ceremony
described by Malalas, pp. 320-22 Bonn, where a gilded wooden copy of
the Forum statue of Constantine (see on chap. 56), holding a Tyche in its
hand, was brought into the Hippodrome on a chariot and acclaimed.
However, the figure at the Neolaia which Par. evidently confuses with the
Tyche of the city is described as a ‘running statue’, and the statue itself is
said to be female (see below). The most likely explanation is that Par. is
actually reporting correctly; the Neolaia group was an antique group of a
female driver, and the ‘small statue’ was a miniature athletic figure. By
Par. ’s day it is unlikely that a statue or chariot was still involved in the
birthday ceremonies (below). The author has seen the Neolaia group and
jumped to conclusions about it based on a dim awareness of the fourth- to
sixth-century birthday celebrations.
Par. in fact preserves two more accounts of the foundation and subse¬
quent birthday celebrations of the city (chaps. 38, 56), with no attempt at
synchronisation. Yet the evident confusion may conceal genuine tradi-
 COMMENTARY 173

tion; Par. is clear that a Tyche was involved in the dedication, and this
detail is unlikely to have been a later invention. In chap. 5 Theodosius is
held reponsible for ending the anniversary ceremonies in their earliest
form, whereas at chap. 38 it is Julian who destroyed the Tyche. In fact
they continued in some form into the sixth century (Malalas, loc. cit.,
with Chron. Pasch., p. 550), and the games in the Hippodrome were still
held in the tenth century (De Caer., I, pp. 340-49); see introduction, sec¬
tion viii.
statue of a female: a whole folium is missing in P from this point (to
the end of 5d). It has been supplied by Preger from Patria, II. 87-91,
pp. 196-98. In adjacent sections the Patria can be observed to follow Par.
fairly closely, and it is likely that these sections do represent essentially
what stood in P at this point. However, since the Patria do not always
follow P verbatim, problems arise about whether exact words in the Patria
actually stood in P. For further discussion, see notes below (especially on
5d) and introduction, section ii.
running image: surely not a crass error but genuine observation—the
statue was an antique model of a female athlete. The author has mistaken
it (because of the chariot and horses) for the city Tyche (chaps. 38, 56),
but failed to observe the obvious discrepancy. The rest of chap. 5
therefore concerns the annual birthday celebration as it was thought to
have been in the fourth century, and Par.’s error does not negate the
value of this latter part for the history and nature of the early ceremonies.
See further on chap. 56 (main discussion).
An alternative explanation of the ‘running’ figure might be that it was
an advancing or ‘hastening’ Victory, of the type familiar from late anti¬
que coins (see e.g. J. P. C. Kent, Roman Imperial Coinage VIII (London,
1981), 551, 588-9). But such Victories typically bear wreaths, not men¬
tioned here by Par.
group of horses: the word ζεΰξις properly means ‘yoking’, but is here
used for the horses so yoked, and perhaps the chariot as well, since the
passage below differentiates between the driver and the rest of the group;
cf. the similar use of ζεύξιπποι at chap. 8. Both the location of the group
and its firm association with a female driver, chariot and ‘running image’
make it unlikely that the four horses are the San Marco horses (see on
chap. 84). As at chap. 38 (see ad loc.) Par. has wrongly associated a
chariot group with the birthday celebrations. The authors knew of the
ceremony but (since the wooden statue had long disappeared) were
unable to connect it correctly with a surviving statue or statue group.
candles and white chlamydes: i.e. wearing the standard dress for
late antique ceremonial. Par. thus preserves at some remove a genuine
late antique description of the fourth-century ceremonial. See also on
174 COMMENTARY

chaps. 38 and (especially) 56, and compare the similar description in

Malalas, p. 322.
stama: the place before the Kathisma (i.e. the imperial box) in the
Hippodrome where charioteers would normally stop to be crowned and
which would be the natural stopping place for a formal procession (Alan
Cameron, Porphyrins the Charioteer, Oxford, 1973, pp. 49-50, citing
Guilland, Topographie, I (1969), p. 451 f. See too chap. 38.

Chapter 5a (supplied from Patria: see note on chap. 5).

Neorion: mentioned again at chaps. 42 (where the ox described here

is said to be a copy of that at the Forum Bovis) and 72. Janin, CB2,
pp. 235-36, takes this passage to mean that Maurice sank the ox in the
harbour because of the bad luck it brought, which is probably correct,
though the Greek of the Patria is not quite so explicit.

Chapter 5b (supplied from the Patria)

For the problems presented by this chapter, see introduction, section v;

Mango, Brazen House, pp. 98-103, especially 111, n. 12; and on the
Chalke, see note at chap. 44a. The famous icon of Christ on the Chalke
gate of the imperial palace was removed by Leo III in AD 726. The
reference here, therefore, if it did actually stand in P, would be crucial for
the dating of Par. The date of the icon itself is also controversial; prima
facie, the passage seems to imply that the icon dated from the reign of
Maurice (582-602), but Mango is sceptical, suggesting that in any case
statues of Maurice and his family, as mentioned here, are not likely to
have survived (especially in such a prominent position) into the reign of
his murderer, Phocas (Brazen House, p. 103). Statuary on the fagade of the
Chalke is quite likely (Mango, pp. 103-4), but Par. or its source might
well have misidentified this group (for example, chap. 77 refers to a
group at or near the Chalke of Theodosius I and his family), all the more
so since tradition did associate Maurice with the Chalke icon
(Theophanes, p. 285, see Mango, pp. 110-11). However, the date of the
icon remains uncertain, and the seventh-century date preferred by
Mango (p. 112) remains, as he admits, ‘certainly not conclusive’. Cf.
also the doubts of A. Frolow, ‘Le Christ de la Chalce’, B 33 (1963),
pp. 107-20, who does not discuss this evidence. In view of the fact that
this passage actually survives only in the Patria, it would be unwise to at¬
tempt to rely on it for early testimony to the ascription of the icon to the
reign of Maurice. Yet the reasons against such a date are not compelling.
We tend to think that 5b does (like 5a, 5c and 5d) represent the contents
of Par. If so, then it supports the conclusion (introduction, section v) that
 COMMENTARY 175

Par. includes material of different dates and bias, for this passage must
predate AD 726, when the icon was removed, whereas other passages in
Par. are certainly later, including, perhaps, 5d. where allusion is made to
the destruction of monuments by Leo III (see note ad loc.). In any case,
Par. had access to a good source for the late sixth-century emperors (in¬
troduction, section viii)—see Mango, p. 102 and below on chap. 43.
For the Chalke gate see also chaps. 33, 44a, 77, 78 and 80. A substan¬
tial roofed structure, this entrance to the imperial palace was one of the
most conspicuous buildings in the ceremonial heart of Constantinople.
The icon placed on its fagade would inevitably become one of the major
religious symbols of the city. D. Stein, Der Beginn des byzantinischen
Bilderstreits (Munich, 1980), pp. 70-74, 156, 197, argues that Leo III
replaced the icon of Christ with a new image of the Cross surrounded
with prophets, apostles and their sayings. But this substitution is not
mentioned explicitly in the contemporary source, a letter of Patriarch
Germanus to Thomas of Claudiopolis (PG. 98, col. 185A); cf. Speck, Ar-
tabasdos, pp. 277-78, 378, note 649 fin. The further suggestion (Stein, op.
cit., p. 197, note 17), that the destruction of the Christ icon in 726 is a
literary topos, does not alter the fact that if chap. 5b did stand in this form
in P, it was certainly written before 726. The whole question will be
discussed further by P. Speck and D. Stein in a forthcoming study of the
sources for the reign of Leo III.
represented as God and man: this terminology could be said to be
favourable to icons. For Par.’s stance in the iconoclastic controversy, see
introduction, section v. In contrast to this description of the Chalke icon,
the Patria (III.20, p. 219) record incorrectly that there was a bronze
statue of Christ on the Chalke, erected by Constantine I and destroyed by
Leo III.
Ligurius the pagan: one of Par.’s Fictitious sources: see introduction,
section ix. Presumably he is the same as the ‘astronomer and consul’ of
Leo I in chap. 64.

Chapter 5c (supplied from the Patria).

Maurice: Preger’s text of the Patria passage (II.89a, p. 197), based on

the majority of MSS., has Marcian, but G (Paris, supp. gr. 657, on
which see introduction, section ii) has a substantially different version
and gives the emperor’s name as Maurice. The latter is undoubtedly
historically more correct, since the relics of S. Euphemia were still in
Chalcedon in AD 593 (Theophylact Simocatta, Hist. VIII. 14; see R.
Naumann, H. Belting, Die Euphemia-Kirche, Berlin, 1966, p. 24). G’s ver¬
sion is more elegantly written in other respects, and the name Maurice
176 COMMENTARY

may simply be a correction. But since Par. is relatively well-informed

otherwise about the reign of Maurice, and in view of the very well-known
and important event of the removal of the relics to Constantinople at the
end of the sixth century, it is perhaps more likely that ‘Marcian’ is an
early corruption. We accordingly accept ‘Maurice’ as the correct
reading. The context of the story told here—hostilities between Byzan¬
tium and Persia—demands a late sixth or early seventh-century date; see
below.
disciple of Eutyches: i.e. Monophysite. As with Par.’s references to
Arius (see on chap. 1), heretics are depicted in the context of the fourth-
fifth century doctrinal battles. Thus Eutyches (fl. 378-454), condemned
at the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451 for Monophysitism (i.e. claiming
that Christ was wholly divine), stands for the whole doctrinal position as
manifested in later centuries. But see further below.
church of S. Euphemia: in fact the church was the site of the Council
of Chalcedon itself, at which Monophysitism was condemned, and after
which S. Euphemia became a major symbol of orthodoxy (see A. M.
Schneider, in A. Grillmeier and A. Bacht (eds.), Das Konzil von Chalkedon,
Wurzburg, 1951, I, pp. 291-302; F. Halkin, Euphemie de Chalcedoine,
Brussels, 1965). The real reason for the transfer of the relics to Constan¬
tinople lay in a combination of military and psychological factors, but
Par. presents it in the personal terms of betrayal by a disgruntled heretic,
showing little understanding of the struggle between Byzantium and Per¬
sia, but well aware that the condemnation of Eutyches was connected
with the church of S. Euphemia. For the date of the church of S.
Euphemia by the Hippodrome in Constantinople (6th or 7th c.) see
Naumann-Belting, op. cit., pp. 23 f.; Muller-Wiener, pp. 122-25. During
the Three Chapters controversy in the mid-sixth century the Chalcedon
church served as a refuge for the protesters against Justinian, notably
Pope Vigilius, and the African bishop Verecundus died there (Viet.
Tonn., Chron. s.a. 552).
the followers of Eutyches were defeated: i.e. the Council formally
condemned Monophysite doctrines as heretical. The story of ‘Akatos’ is
an embroidery placed in a real context, based on the historical connection
of S. Euphemia and Chalcedon with the Council of AD 451.
belonging to the Persians: apparently a fort captured by the Per¬
sians. Serapion is difficult—it might reflect a genuine Persian name, or
even relate to a real Serapaeum. In any case Par. ’s topography is far from
satisfactory, since Rhegion is on the European, not the Asian side of the
Bosphorus.
Chalcedon was attacked by the Persians in 609 (Theophanes, p. 292,
implying that they stayed for some time) and 616-17 (ibid., p. 316), when
 COMMENTARY 177

they wintered outside and attacked the surrounding areas. The first occa¬
sion seems the most likely context for the events of this passage.
the equipment of the commanders of Rhegion: a typical chatty ad¬
dition by the writer.
the precious relics: the translation of the relics of S. Euphemia to the
martyrion near the Hippodrome, which had been adapted from part of
an earlier secular building (Naumann-Belting, op. cit., p. 23; Muller-
Wiener, pp. 122 ff.). Again this passage has implications for the date of
Par. and for Par.’s attitude to the iconoclastic emperors (introduction,
section v), since the relics were later disturbed by Constantine V
(741-75). They were desecrated by being thrown into the sea, whence
they were supposed to have floated to Lemnos (Theophanes, pp. 439-40
de Boor; see introduction, loc. cit., with Gero, Byzantine Iconoclasm during
the Reign of Constantine V, pp. 155 ff., and J. Wortley, ‘Iconoclasm and
Leipsanoclasm: Leo III, Constantine V and the Relics’, BF 8 (1982), pp.
253-79, attempting to exonerate Constantine of all blame). If this does
represent Par.’s text, it indicates a favourable attitude to the relics and
must antedate their desecration by Constantine V. The language of
chaps. 5b and 5c thus suggests a pre-iconoclastic date, and this makes it
likely that they do represent P’s text. If so, the reference to Maurice in
chap. 5b ought to be accepted too. For the difficulties raised by the
reference to Leo III in chap. 5d see further below and introduction, sec¬
tion v.
the church: i.e. collectively, the whole church. The writer has dimly
in mind the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon (AD 451).
gold-niello: supplied from Patria, 11.89, p. 198, though omitted here
by Preger. Cf. chap. 47, for a similar painted statue of Apollo. The
technique of using heated wax was regularly employed for portraits on
wood and icons (cf. chaps. 10 and 49) but could also be applied to mar¬
ble. For a pre-iconoclastic example see K. Weitzmann, ‘The Jephthah
Panel in the Bema of the Church of St. Catherine’s Monastery on Mt.
Sinai’, DOP 18 (1964), pp. 341 ff.

Chapter 5d (supplied from the Patria, as far as ‘pagans’).

Leo the Isaurian ... irrational: see introduction, section v, and for
Leo the Isaurian, note on chap. 1. The use of the word alogiston is in¬
teresting here. At first sight neutral, in later iconophile texts it (or similar
phraseology) is used as something of a euphemism for iconoclasts; cf.
Theophanes, p. 405 de Boor άλογία; Photius, Horn. 17.1 δυσσεβείας θράσος
άλογον. See too Par.’s use of the noun άλόγημα for ‘disaster’ at chap. 61.
If this terminology reflects the later significance, it may represent an
178 COMMENTARY

alteration in the Patria to bring out disapproval of Leo’s policies. This

would be quite in line with the aggressively iconophile tone generally
taken in the Patria. For a similar use of alogistos for those who destroy an¬
cient monuments, see Patria 11.33, p. 168. But the use of άλόγημα at
chap. 61 may show that such a usage was possible in Par. ’s day already.
If so, we must recognise that this passage is critical of Leo (contrast chap.

3)·
Trizodon: a tripod? Cf. chap. 20, θεμάτιον τρίπουν, in a similar con¬
text of prophecy and paganism. For astronomy see also chaps. 8, 11 and
20 with note to 20.
S. Mocius: the cistern of S. Mocius may have fallen out of use
because of declining population (cf. J. Teall, ‘The Grain Supply of the
Byzantine Empire, 330-1025’, DOP 13 (1959), p. 103; C. Mango, Byzan¬
tium, p. 80), but it was not filled in completely. See Muller-Wiener,
p. 278.
pagans and Arians: note the association for Par. between antique
statues, paganism and heresy (introduction, section vii). On tombs
within the Constantinian walls, see G. Dagron, ‘Le christianisme dans la
ville byzantine’, DOP 31 (1977), pp. 3-25.

Chapter 6

Panormon: Janin, EO 23 (1924), pp. 315 ff., identifies this fort as

Bandirma on the south coast of the Sea of Marmara. It was later a
sizeable town. See F. W. Hasluck, Cyzicus (Cambridge, 1910), p. 50 f.
Panormos is another Fictitious character, eponymous founder of
Panormon.
like iron and bronze: i.e. as strong as iron and bronze, or composed
of two layers as if welded together. The metaphor is clumsy, and
presumably derives from another source, even a building inscription,
which is less garbled.
staircase: apparently the earliest example of στυράκιον (twice in Const.
Porph., De Caer. I, pp. 151.14, 601. 2 Bonn, meaning spiral staircase),
στυραξ has the same meaning at Theophanes Cont., p. 140.16 Bonn.
steep: Preger emends P to ίκμώδη, only once attested, in the scholia to
Aeschylus, with the sense of ‘wet’, ‘moist’, not very appropriate here.
We prefer αιχμώδη, formulated from αιχμή, ‘a spear’, hence ‘pointed’,
‘high up’, and thus ‘steep’.
spectacle: for ‘wonders’ and ‘spectacles’ in Par. see introduction, sec¬
tion iv.
tower: i.e. that containing the staircase (up to the top of the walls).
Reiske, on De Caer, I, p. 151.14 Bonn (see above) supposes that στυράκιον
 COMMENTARY 179

can mean the whole structure, and thus a tower or column with a stair
within, which would fit the present passage very well.
five fathoms: for this measurement, see E. Schilbach, Byzantinische
Metrologie (Munich, 1970), 17 f., 22 ff.
Chosroes: Chosroes II (590-628), in view of the general context (cf.
chap. 5c).
is worshipped: for the uses of the word λατρεύειν in Par. (often with
connotations of idolatry), see introduction, note 83.
Paradeisios: for the implications of this for the question of Par.’s
sources, see introduction, section ix. Par. seems to be citing the ‘third edi¬
tion’ of the Chronicle of Hippolytus of Thebes, apparently a very recent
work for the compilers of Par. See F. Diekamp, Hippolytus von Theben,
1898, with full discussion of Par., 6-7. We seem therefore to have an in¬
dication of a genuine written source, named also in chap. 7, and just
possibly the source of 5c (introduction, section ix). The precise reference
to Hippolytus’s ‘third edition’ (he apparently produced at least three of
the five redactions in which the fragments are preserved—Diekamp, p.
xvi) does suggest that for once Par. was using something specific and that
the story of Paradeisios may have been added by Hippolytus only in the
third ‘edition’.
It is not clear at what date this Paradeisios went to Persia as a prisoner.
‘Up to today’ might imply that the statue was taken in the invasions of
Chosroes II in the early 7th c. but that Paradeisios himself was not cap¬
tured until much nearer Par. ’s own time, perhaps during the Arab inva¬
sions in the seventh or early eighth centuries. The first provincial
διοικηταί (tax collectors) do not otherwise appear until the late seventh
century (Oikonomides, Listes de preseance, pp. 313, 315). But they could
also be city officials; cf. Theophanes, pp. 367, 412. It would be equally
possible to take the νΰν as referring to the citation of Paradeisios in the
chronicle of Hippolytus, and to suppose that Paradeisios was in fact cap¬
tured during the Persian invasions of 609 or 616-17. The passages in Par.
where Persian invasions are in point must come from literary sources;
Par. shows no direct awareness of the contemporary situation of Persia
under Arab rule. For the idea that the Persians too manifested fear of an¬
cient statues, see John of Ephesus, HE VI.23, who says that a statue of
Trajan in Persia was so much feared for its malevolent potential that it
was eventually destroyed by royal command. This notion too belongs,
therefore, in the context of the Byzantine-Persian wars of the late sixth
and early seventh centuries. On balance, Paradeisios probably lived in
that period too.
Check this extraordinary story: evidently a scribe’s marginal note:
see introduction, section iv. We may well sympathise with his reaction.
See too on chap. 43.
180 COMMENTARY

Chapter 7

Smyrnion: Janin, CB2, p. 426 identifies this with the perfume

market, placed by the Book of the Prefect, c. 10, between the Chalke and the
Milion, though by Janin on the other side of the Milion.
Tetradesion: generally identified with the Octagon, seat of the
‘university’ (Guilland, Topographie, II, pp. 6-10; P. Speck, Universitat,
p. 104; Alan Cameron, GRBS 17 (1976), pp. 271-3), burned down in AD
532 in the Nika revolt and subsequently rebuilt. The story that it was
burned again (complete with professors) by Leo III in 726 is probably
pure legend (Brehier, B 4 (1927-28), pp. 13 ff; Speck, op. cit., p. 78 f.;
Mango, Brazen House, p. 50); there is nothing in this passage to support
the suggestion of Mango foe. cit.) that there may actually have been an
accidental fire under Leo III, unless of course it took place after the com¬
position of this chapter.
below the ground: the sense would seem to be that the statues had
been buried, out of sight, rather than that they were in a lower storey (so
Janin, CB2, pp. 426-27). Quite possibly they were put in the Basilica
cistern, under the ‘university’.
S. Theodore: the church of S. Theodore in the quarter called
Sphorakiou, after the patrician (consul AD 452) who built it on the site of
an earlier chapel (Janin, Eglises et monasteres2, pp. 152-53). The Smyrnion
and Sphorakion were close together, near the Augusteum. See Speck,
Universitat, pp. 103-104 and plan on p. 106.
Hilarion: otherwise unknown.
also named Constantine: in fact it was Crispus, Constantine’s eldest
son, who was mysteriously put to death in AD 326; see PLRE I, s.v. FI.
Iulius Crispus 4.
Herodotus and Hippolytus: see introduction, section ix on Par.’s
named sources. The form of the reference strongly suggests that
‘Herodotus’ was cited by the genuine Hippolytus (on whom see above).
The name looks distinctly odd in this context; if it is not a mistake for
Herodian (chap. 61), it is probably a fake ‘source’; see further introduc¬
tion, section ix.
repented: the story of Constantine’s repentance belongs to the pagan
polemical tradition, according to which the emperor was only converted
to Christianity in 326 by the promise of Christian forgiveness for the ex¬
ecution of his son: see Zosimus, II.29.2. The idea was to give Constan¬
tine’s conversion an unworthy motive. Christian writers indignantly
repudiated the insinuation: Sozomen, HE 1.5. It is therefore interesting
that something of the story has survived in Par. Since it is clear that Par.
does owe some of its material to the ecclesiastical historians (introduc-
 COMMENTARY 181

tion, section ix), it is at first sight surprising that its awareness of Con¬
stantine as a historical figure is so deficient (introduction, section viii).
But this and other passages make it highly likely that in fact the compilers
only knew the earlier ecclesiastical writers through later compendia, and
that even then they have made little attempt to sort out myth from fact in
the early history of Constantinople or the reign of Constantine. It is
highly unlikely that Constantine would have erected any such statue, in
Constantinople or anywhere else, since in fact the circumstances of
Crispus’s disgrace and death were kept as quiet and unpublicised as was
decently possible. Thus they go unmentioned in Eusebius, Vita Constan-
tini.
prostrated himself in penance: for the concept of μετάνοια (which
could actually mean προσκύνησις, prostration, the outward sign of repen¬
tance) see N. Oikonomides, ‘Leo VI and the Narthex Mosaic of Saint
Sophia’, DOP 30 (1976), p. 156 f.
Severus .... Eleutherius: all these are the names of persons who gave
their names to quarters of Constantinople. They seem to have been ar¬
bitrarily grouped together and crudely connected with the previous story
(like Crispus, they were all put to death unjustly). If Severus and Ar-
matius are correctly identified (see below) their statues could not have
been in existence before Valens.
Severus: probably not the emperor. According to the Patria, III. 108,
pp. 251-52, a quarter was called after one Severus, patrician and adopted
brother of Constans II (641-68). Severus may also have given his name to
the Severianae (Janin, CB2, p. 423). For the Emperor Severus in Par., see
note on chap. 73, and introduction, section viii.
Harmatius: eponymous founder of the quarter Τά Άρματίου accord¬
ing to the Patria, 1.71, p. 149. In another passage however it is said to be
named after the house built there by Armatius, magister, who betrayed
Basiliscus to Zeno in 477 and was executed by him (Patria, III.61,
p. 238). In both cases the Patria gives Armatius rather than Harmatius.
But all these explanations of the derivation of names of localities are
highly dubious.
Zeuxippus: the name comes from the baths of Zeuxippus. But at c.
73 Severus is made responsible for the baths and at c. 82 they are des¬
cribed as very ancient. An absurd story existed according to which they
were named after Zeus Hippios (Hesychius, pp. 15-16, cf. Chron. Pasch.,
p. 494 Bonn). See Janin, CB2, p. 442; Muller-Wiener, p. 51; R.
Guilland, ‘Les thermes de Zeuxippe’, JOBG 15 (1966), pp. 261-71.
Viglentius: the name of the Viglention is variously derived from Βίγ-'
λα (chap. 54, probably correctly, cf. Janin, CB2, p. 323) or from Vigilan-
tia, sister of Justinian (Patria, III. 117, p. 254). The discrepancy between
182 COMMENTARY

this passage and chap. 54, like that on the Zeuxippus (see above), is an
indication of Par. ’s multiple and uncoordinated sources, perhaps also of
separate entries written by different people.
Eleutherius: said to have been a secretis (Patria, 11.63, p. 184) and
patrician (Patria, III.91, p. 248) under Constantine, whose statue (and
house—Patria III.91, p. 248) stood near the harbour known as
Eleutheriou. But as the character is otherwise unknown, the etymology is
almost certainly fictitious. For the Senaton, see on chap. 8 below.
Arians: for Arians in Par. see introduction, section v and note to chap.
1. With this sentence (suggested by the mention of the Arian Valens) Par.
‘explains’ what was perhaps the starting point of the passage as a whole,
the suspicion that there were some ancient statues buried at the Tetrade-
sion near the church of S. Theodore. See also notes on chaps. 1 and 28.
The words ‘until today’ (introduction, section v) betray the concerns of
the compilers, and leave one with the suspicion that the derivations and
identifications offered here are their own work.

Chapter 8

the Senate: there were two Senate houses in Constantinople, at the

Forum of Constantine and at the Augusteum (Janin, CB2, pp. 154-56).
Pace Janin, the one mentioned here is the former rather than the latter;
the proximity of the Praetorium would make it an appropriate place for
executions (Guilland, Topographie, II, p. 38). For further indications, see
below, with Mango, Brazen House, p. 50.
in their chariots: cf. chap. 5. The word ζευξιπποι is known only
through a gloss, but seems here to refer to the team and the chariot.
astronomical calculations: perhaps οργανον is an elaborate sundial
with markings of planetary positions. Par. records other groups of
statuary with astrological significance—chaps. 5d, 20. As here, the
presence of pagan statues is there linked with the suspicion that they can
offer predictions of the future, a theme strongly expressed in the 16th c.
Diegesis edited by Dagron and Paramelle (Travaux et Memoires 7 (1979),
pp. 491-523). For astronomy in Par. see also chaps. 5d, 11, 20.
Artemis and Aphrodite: if this is the Senate in the Forum, these
might be the two statues of Pallas Athene said to have been placed there
by Constantine (Hesychius, p. 18).
Arians: see on chaps. 1, 7 and 10.
the chariots: presumably the statues of the charioteers referred to
above. There is nothing to indicate which Theodosius is meant, but if
there is anything in the burial story, it would be tempting to associate it
with the burning of the Senate said to have taken place under Theodosius
 COMMENTARY 183

II (cf. chap. 43). More probably however it reflects a vague and uneasy
general feeling that there was a lot of potentially dangerous pagan
statuary buried under the streets of the city. This may not have been so
far from the truth; a rise in the level of occupation since the late antique
period, combined with neglect of many classical monuments, may have
resulted in some being half hidden and all the more mysterious for that.

Chapter 9

the twelve baskets: i.e. the baskets used to gather up the crumbs after
the feeding of the five thousand. One MS of Hesychius (p. 17,n. tol. 15)
refers to their having been buried by Constantine at the base of the great
column with other relics (see also chap. 23). This connection again in¬
dicates that Par. is here dealing with the Senate house of the Forum of
Constantine.
Metrophanes: bishop AD 306-14.
vault: according to Hesychius (see above) they were buried under the
column of Constantine. Par. might possibly be taken to be referring to the
so-called ‘oratory of Constantine’ at the foot of the column (see J. Eber-
solt, Constantinople, Paris, 1951, pp. 71-74; Dagron, Naissance, p. 34, with
n. 3).

Chapter 10

Alexander: bishop of Constantinople, AD 314-?337. Mentioned

again at c. 39 as the opponent of Arius.
Paul: in office intermittently from ? 337 to ? 350, but deposed at least
once by Constantius II (a controversial issue: see Alan Cameron, ‘A
quotation from Nilus of Ancyra in an iconodule text’, JThS n.s. 27
(1976), pp. 128-29).
For representations of patriarchs in this manner, see John
Chrysostom, Horn. Encom. in Melet., PG 50.516 (images of Meletius,
bishop of Antioch, 360-81) and for the destruction of images of
predecessors, art. cit. p. 129 n. 2; John of Ephesus, HE 1.36; 11.27, 34;
M. Mundell, ‘Monophysite Church Decoration’, in A. A. Bryer and J.
Herrin (eds.), Iconoclasm (Birmingham, 1977), p. 72; Cormack and
Hawkins, OOP 31 (1977), p. 216. For σανίδες (panel paintings?) see also
chap. 49.
the great statue: i.e. the porphyry column with the statue of Constan¬
tine which dominated the Forum of Constantine; see Mango, AS, p. 57
n. 13 and in Jahrbuch des D A.I. 80 (1965), pp. 306-13; Janin, CB2, pp.
77-80. Other references in Par. to this statue: chaps. 17, 23, 56, and see
especially on chap. 68a.
184 COMMENTARY

Arians: introduction, section v.

after they had seized power: probably referring to the periods of
Arian supremacy under Constantius II and Valens.
the Koronion Milion: apparently an epithet meaning ‘curved’,
perhaps implying that the Milion, described as ‘a great apse’ by Nicetas
Choniates, Hist. p. 307.7 Bonn (cited by Mango, Brazen House, p. 48),
was vaulted. But the word may be corrupt, possibly standing for ώρέιω
(see on chap. 38). For the Milion in general, see Guilland, Topographie,
II, pp. 38-41; Muller-Wiener, pp. 216 ff. (with plan), and note to chap.
35.
the Mother of God: there may well be a trace of iconophile polemic
here in ascribing such activity to Arians, who are normally cast as villains
(introduction, section v and notes on chaps. 7 and 8). An image of the
Virgin and Child is not likely so early (Averil Cameron, ‘The Theotokos
in Sixth-Century Constantinople’, JThS n.s. 29 (1978), pp. 79-108), but
would have been common enough in the early eighth century.
Ancyrianus: introduction, sections v, ix. A garbled reference to Nilus
of Ancyra (5th century), possibly acquired by Par. through a florilegium
of iconophile texts composed by the Anastasius cited here (so Alan
Cameron, JThS n.s. 27 (1976), pp. 128-31, also identifying this
Anastasius with the iconophile monk burned in the Hippodrome under
Constantius V, for which see chap. 63 and introduction, section v). But
there is no prima facie reason to identify this Anastasius with the
Anastasius of chap. 63. The words παρά ’Αναστάσιον (perhaps meaning
‘via Anastasius’) with the later gloss ‘and Anastasius himself says the
same’ do seem to imply a written source, but its nature—and the identity
of Ancyrianus—remains uncertain. See note on chap. 63 and discussion
in introduction, section ix.

Chapter 11

At the Great Church: on this passage see E. Maass, Analecta sacra et

prof ana, Universitatsschrift zur des Kaisers Ceburtstag (Marburg, 1901) (rev.
Preger, BZ 11 (1902), pp. 164-68), where it is suggested that these statues
constituted an astronomical group, representing a horoscope which Con¬
stantine had drawn up for the church. According to Preger, they are
more likely to have been antique statues brought by Constantine to
decorate the city (cf. Mango, AS, p. 57 for a list). By the ‘Great Church’
the writer means Constantine’s church, the old S. Sophia; see below.
Whether this conglomeration was really inside S. Sophia seems doubtful;
έν has an uncertain use in Par. and should sometimes be translated ‘at’ or
‘near’ rather than ‘in’. In any case the statues were scattered round the
city in Par. ’s day.
 COMMENTARY 185

of Zeus: P’s καί τοΰ Διός, rightly removed by Preger, is a gloss. At

Patria, 1.49, p. 140.4 the more difficult Ζεΰ has given way to the easier
Διός.
Carus: presumably a confused reference to the emperor. Someone of
the same name is mentioned again as the father of Severus (chaps. 37 and
57, the latter apparently referring to the Emperor Severus) and as builder
of a pre-Constantinian gate (chap. 56).
the Zodiac: Preger (BZ 11 (1902), p. 166) points out that this is prob¬
ably the group later described as being in the Hippodrome (Vita Euthymii,
20.25, p. 219 Karlin-Hayter).
Hero the philosopher: Hero of Alexandria, fl. c. AD 200; for his
reputation in the Byzantine period see Pauly-Wissowa, RE VIII. 1.
1069-71. Another possibility is the 5th-century teacher of Proclus (ibid.,
1080).
in profile: lit. ‘from the side’; presumably the two figures are address¬
ing each other. This might be either a relief or a sculpture in the round.
The extract from this passage in the Suda (s.v. Sophia) places this phrase
at the beginning of the chapter, thus locating the statues ‘at the side of’ S.
Sophia. See above.
it is worth mentioning: for the phraseology, see introduction, section
iv.
Galen the quaestor: unknown. Chap. 44a has a Gallus in a group in¬
cluding Constantine and his sons and Julian.
Julian the eparch: the references to both Julians are omitted in P and
supplied by Preger from Anon. Treu and Patria, 11.96, p. 202.5. There
was a Julian PPO in AD 315-24 (PLRE I, s.v. Julianus 35).
Julian Caesar: ‘Julian as Caesar’ (355-61). For Julian in Par. see in¬
troduction, section v.
Licinius: it is hardly likely that there would really have been a statue
of Constantine’s defeated rival; Par. does preserve some dim awareness
of the historical figures of the Constantinian period, and the name has
probably survived independently of an awareness of the actual
significance of Licinius. Cf. also Constantine’s general ‘Maximinus’
(chap. 54).
Serapio the governor: it is doubtful what the late antique title
ύπατικός ( = consularis) meant to Par.: quite possibly the eighth-century
authors thought it meant ‘consul’. Similarly it is probably fruitless to look
for a real Serapio, though there are one or two early fourth-century of¬
ficials of that name (PLRE I, pp. 804, 823).
ivory: perhaps just the flesh parts.
Cypros the rhetor: unknown.
186 COMMENTARY

These statues.: i.e. they were (it is said) in or around the site of the
earlier church of S. Sophia before its rebuilding by Justinian I. The
writer of this passage did not therefore see them all in one group.
Whether he is likely to be right about their identification or their collec¬
tive origin seems doubtful, especially as the last sentence seems to imply
that only ‘most’ could now be seen. The last sentence even has a defen¬
sive air, as though this is good information, even if not everyone believes
it. For similar exhortations see e.g. chap. 39, fin.

Chapter 12

Manaim: otherwise unknown, but for the name (the Patria, 11.97,
p. 202 have Mocvocvafj) see de Boor, Texte und Untersuchungen V.2b (Leip¬
zig, 1889), p. 170, and Acts 13.1.
Scythians: quite unspecified, simply an umbrella literary term for
any northern barbarians. The identification of the statue is not likely to
be other than semi-legendary, if indeed not invented.
Horreum: For P’s ώρίω (ώρείω Preger) we read ώρίω. ώριον is used
for ώρειον (= horreum, a granary) in Geopon. 2.28 etc. (LSJ s.v.). See
below on ‘measure’ and cf. Theophanes, p. 384 τά βασιλικά όρια mean¬
ing ‘imperial granaries’.

The Modion

This chapter raises many problems, not least because a whole sentence
is missing in P; thus the question arises again (see on chap. 5) to what ex¬
tent the Patria can be relied on as an indication of Par. ’s original text. In
this case the difficulty is acute, since there seem to be differences between
P and the Patria (11.97, p. 202, cf. 51, p. 179) over the location of the Mo¬
dion.
‘Modion’ was the name given to a granary, horreum, associated with
the official standard measure, the archimodion, established there by Valen-
tinian. This took the form in part of a pair of bronze hands fixed on
spikes, which warned merchants who cheated of the penalty for their
crime, i.e. mutilation. The name of the measure derived from modios, a
term for the measurement of wheat (Schilbach, Metrologie, p. 58 f.); hence
the presence of a granary and its assumption of the name. In 455 Valenti-
nian III fixed the official price of wheat in Africa at 40 modioi for 1
solidus; 30 modioi per solidus was also a common rate (Jones, LRE I,
pp. 445-46). Only in bad harvests, dearth or famine did the price rise to
only 12 modioi per solidus {ibid., pp. 445, II, p. 844). But Par. seems to
be confusing prices and measures, probably because as usual (cf. chaps.
16, 24) the text is at its most obscure when the author is trying to explain
 COMMENTARY 187

something in his own words. Here it claims that the solidus (nomisma)
was originally silver, probably a simple error (but see below). The whole
chapter relates to the imperial control of corn imports used to provide free
bread for the people of Constantinople (cf. chaps. 29 and 32) and com¬
memorates Valentinian’s role in this matter. By Par.’s day the bread
doles may not have existed on the same scale, but in 713-15 Artemius-
Anastasius stocked the imperial granaries with foodstuffs in anticipation
of a long siege (Theophanes, p. 384). The Horreum of this chapter may
have been one such depot.
As for the location of the Modion, Par., in its extant sections in P, gives
no location, while the Patria, II, 51, p. 179 and 97, p. 202, place it in the
Amastrianon. From De Caer., I, pp. 83, 106 Bonn, however, we learn
that the Modion lay between the Philadelphion and the Forum Tauri,
where in fact a pair of stone hands was found (Janin, CB2, p. 66), no
doubt a copy of the bronze hands on spikes. Possibly this was the original
site of the Modion, a public place on the Mese named after the measure
set up there. The Modion at the Amastrianon mentioned by the Patria
may only have been erected in the late eighth century, when the Empress
Irene installed bakeries there; see on chap. 40. We would have to suppose
that the Patria, drawing on Par. ’s entry about the orignal Modion, have
added the Amastrianon location. Par. will not have known of the second
Modion. Thus it is not clear whether the house of Crateros, mentioned in
the Patria, II. 97, and supplemented here, was actually at the
Amastrianon or near the Mese, though the latter would follow if in fact
the Patria got this sentence from Par. The following chapter in the Patria
(II.97a) also places the statue of Valentinian described by Par. at the
Amastrianon; so it seems likely that it has similarly misplaced the original
site of the Modion. Since the statue itself was destroyed under Justinian,
both Par. and the Patria are reporting on something no longer possible to
check. In Par. it is striking that the modion of Valentinian seems to be
clearly distinguished from any association with the Amastrianon, nor
does Cedrenus relate it to that area (I, p. 566 f. Bonn). The next chapter
in Par. (chap. 13) describes a statue erected in the buildings of the Bread
Market, the Artotyrianos, thus showing the logical connection for the
writer between the Modion, associated with grain, and bread. But as the
Bread Market lay on the other side of the Forum Tauri, further to the
east, it cannot have adjoined the Modion.
Thus it seems likely that the original measure established by Valenti¬
nian was set up on the Mese, and gave its name to a public place known
as the Modion. The Patria, on this view, knew of another modion at the
Amastrianon, evidently set up after the compilation of Par.; it is possible
also that the original modion was moved to this different site.
188 COMMENTARY

The difficulty and obscurity of the Greek in this chapter, together with
the fact that a number of letters are missing in P, make it one of the
hardest to interpret, though the parallel texts in Anon. Treu and the
Patria just about make it intelligible.
what is called a measure: the text from here to ‘spikes’ must be sup¬
plemented from the Patria, 11.97, p. 202, since P omits a sentence. The
use of ώρολόγιον (normally ‘clock’, ‘sundial’: see on chap. 39) should be
compared with Patria, 11.51, p. 179, where it is glossed by εξαμον (see
below). The Modion is thus identified by both terms, and the reference is
specifically to a monument at the Amastrianon.
Valentinian: Janin, CB2, pp. 66, 69, assumes Valentinian III
(425-55); perhaps rather Valentinian I (364-75), who built the aqueduct
(see chap. 74) according to Cedrenus, I, 685. Valentinian III, on the
other hand, established a measure for Africa (see note above).
an official measure: the text is very compressed, but the meaning is
more or less clear from Anon. Treu, p. 9 (Suda, s.v. Μαναΐμ), though the
compiler has freely paraphrased Par. One or two letters are probably
missing at different places in P’s text.
for the nomisma was originally made of silver: we expect a
reference to the measurement of wheat, but Par. seems to be referring to
the price. If Par. does have the measurement in mind, the ratio 1:40, not
1:12, would have been expected. Nor is Par. right about the Constanti-
nian solidus (= the nomisma), which was of gold from the beginning,
and famous as such. It is very odd that Par. is at its most obscure when
dealing with everyday things; but cf. chaps. 16, 24. It may very well be
that what Par. is actually thinking of is the ratio of lesser denominations
to the solidus/nomisma in its own day; in the tenth century certainly, 1
solidus = 12 miliaresia (Book of the Prefect, III.3, ed. Nicole, p. 25). This
might well account for its (wrong) assumption about the origins of the
solidus. If there is anything in this suggestion, it confirms both the ig¬
norance of Par. about the real early history of Constantinople and the in¬
ability of the author(s) to explain things clearly in his own words.
Theodoret: see introduction, section ix.
full: cf. Patria, 11.51, p. 179.
shippers: the navicularii. A considerable body of legislation was con¬
cerned with confirming the privileges and regulating the conduct of these
merchants, who maintained the corn supply of Constantinople and
Rome.
one of the shippers: the Greek as it stands is very difficult, with a
genitive participle (καταγγείλαντος) left hanging without reference. But
Patria 11.51, p. 179.8 has turned the construction round, evidently find¬
ing it difficult too, so that P’s text is probably correct, even if obscure,
 COMMENTARY 189

and should not be emended. It was the shipper (or sailor—see below)
who was accused of cheating and punished by the emperor by having his
hand cut off. Par. is thus explaining the significance of the bronze hands.
We have translated P’s text as ‘one of the shippers’ (for άμφότερα mean¬
ing ‘all’, cf. chap. 17). Whether ναυτών (usually ‘sailors’) has its normal
meaning here seems doubtful; more probably it is simply a variant for the
participial ναυτιοϋσιν. It is impossible to translate this sentence literally,
but P’s tortuous syntax elsewhere (see introduction, section iv) suggests
that it must stand nevertheless.
among those present: what appears to be envisaged is that the ship¬
pers are selling corn to the emperor so that it can be used for corn doles
(see chap. 18). Since the price had been fixed (see above) the shippers
could be punished if caught cheating on the weight. ‘Those present’
presumably implies that the accusation took place in public while the sale
was proceeding. The subject of the participle will then be an unspecified
‘someone’.
at the foot of the Modion: for κατωγάιω see chap. 4. No doubt ‘at
ground level’, or ‘basement level’ rather than actually underground.
measure: the word εξαμον appears again at chap. 37 (the examon of
Heraclius in the Basilica) and at Patria, II. 51, p. 179, used to gloss
ώρολόγιον. The sense is uncertain, but it ought to mean ‘measure’ and
perhaps comes from Latin examen. Here it clearly recalls Valentinian’s
establishment of a just measure, commemorated in this monument. But
see on chap. 37.
was removed: Par. seems to be saying that the statue, measure and
all, was removed, i.e. to be melted down or simply handed over for
tribute, by one Curius, a protector, i.e. an imperial guardsman, in
528/29 (the title suggests Justinian I, though MS G of the Patria, at
II.97a, p. 203, understands it as Justinian II). See R. Frank, Scholae
Palatinae (Papers and Monographs of the American Academy in Rome,
23, Rome, 1969), pp. 84 ff.

Chapter 13

Menander the seer of the Cretans: a Menander is mentioned by

Cedrenus as γόης και άπατεών (‘a magician and charlatan’) under Trajan
(I, p. 433.14; 437.7).
Artotyrianos: this hall was situated near the Bread Market (Ar-
topoleia) just beyond the Forum of Constantine (Janin, CB2, pp. 37,
100). We only know it from this passage (cf. Patria, 11.98, p. 203, where
the statue is called ‘the statue of the Artopoleia’) and Patria II.46a, p. 175
(pigs being driven there for slaughter). According to the Patria (11.98,
p. 203) the statue was of silver.
190 COMMENTARY

struck ... into coins: cf. chap. 42 and note to chap. 28. Obols were of
silver; see Schilbach, Metrologie, pp. 175, 185.

Chapter 14

Ardaburius: son of Aspar, mag. mil. or. from AD 450; dismissed for
treason by Leo I in 466, further accused and executed in 471; PLRE II,
s.v.; see Jones, LRE I, pp. 221-23. For Ardaburius’s character see Suda,
s.v.
Herodian: see below.
hunchbacked: for statues so described, see chaps. 19, 44 and cf. 76.
The writer sees something potentially funny or malevolent about them.
This story is typical of the kind of moral that Par. tends to draw from en¬
counters with statues: introduction, section vii and note on chap. 28.
heavy: cf. chap. 28, of the statue that falls on Himerius and kills him.
he found: either inside or under the statue.
talents of gold pounds: talents and pounds of gold used inter¬
changeably—Schilbach, Metrologie, pp. 171-72.
he was killed: i.e. Ardaburius was killed by Leo. His dying words
follow.
‘No one who has debased ...’: Ardaburius protests that his lot is
worse even than that of proved counterfeiters. For harsh penalties for
malpractice by monetarii see Jones, LRE I, p. 436. The text is corrupt
where we have written ‘received’: but the promising ηύρίσκετο in later
MSS of the Patria is likely to be a later conjecture rather than the original
reading.
this hunchbacked emperor: clearly the point of the story is to
underline the malevolence of pagan statues, and to point a comparison
between the ugliness of the statue and the unpleasantness of Leo.
‘Hunchbacked’ seems to be used as a general term of abuse—cf. chap. 44
on Tiberius II, who was certainly not hunchbacked, and cf. also chaps.
19, 29. In some way the statue signified the emperor and the punishment
that Ardaburius would receive from him. Those who could understand
these arcane matters (the ‘philosophers’—introduction, section iv) knew
that this incident with the statue, rather than any other action, brought
on the execution of Ardaburius. The moral is: don’t play about with an¬
cient statues, especially pagan ones. At the end of chap. 28, where a not
dissimilar tale is told, the moral is stated in so many words, but here it is
only left implicit.
this place: this ought to mean the place where the statue was, but that
was in Thrace (see above). Nor can it mean the place of execution, for
that took place in the palace (Com. Marcell., a. 471). Perhaps it refers to
 COMMENTARY 191

where Aspar, his father, was commemorated, i.e. the Taurus (see
below). Such carelessness would not be untypical of Par.
philosophers: introduction, section iv. Cf. chaps. 24, 37, 41, 64.
‘Philosophers’ are above all those who can understand the secrets of anti¬
que statues.
Aspar: father of Ardaburius, responsible for Leo I’s elevation in AD
457. He controlled the army in the German interest, though an Alan
himself, and his other son, Patricius, was made Caesar and betrothed to
Leo’s daughter. But in 471 Leo had both Aspar and Ardaburius killed by
eunuchs in the palace (Bury, LRE I2, p. 320; Jones, LRE I, p. 223).
up to the present day: introduction, section v. See chap. 15 also,
mounted on a horse ...: there is clearly something missing in P’s text,
and the meaning of δεξιολαβεΐ is also uncertain (‘led on the right’? or
‘armed on the right’?).
Taurus: Aspar is associated with the cistern and palace named after
him (Muller-Wiener, p. 279), but these were not near the Forum Tauri.
See on chap. 88 and further, Janin, CB2, p. 204; G. Vernadsky, ‘Flavius
Ardabur Aspar’, Sudost Forschungen 6 (1941), pp. 38 ff.

Chapter 15

For the Forum see also chap. 39 (note), with chaps. 10, 17.
<he> received: there is no subject in P’s text. It should be either
Leo I (the subject of the preceding chapter) or (more probably) Constan¬
tine, the builder of the Forum.
in our time: introduction, section v.
the < emperor > in our day: P simply says ‘he’ or ‘the one in our
day’, i.e. presumably the emperor. That must surely be Constantine V,
who did have a connection with S. Mamas (introduction, section v). The
name could be omitted deliberately, or another word might be missing in
P. The Patria (11.100, p. 205) omit the allusion altogether. For Par. ’s at¬
titude to Constantine V, see introduction, section v.
S. Mamas: see chap. 22 and Janin, CB2, pp. 473-74. The region was
at Besiktas on the European bank of the Bosphorus. Constantine V used
the harbour here as a military base in 742/43, and the palace and hip¬
podrome there were the scene of his persecution of iconophiles: see in¬
troduction, section v. Par. might be carefully avoiding a direct mention of
such controversial matters. For the relevance of this to the dating of Par.
see introduction, loc. cit.
up to the present day: see introduction, section v.
192 COMMENTARY

Chapter 16: Constantine’s Vision

The famous vision of Constantine before the battle of the Milvian

Bridge near Rome in AD 312 is mentioned obliquely at chap. 41 and
more fully described, in a Constantinopolitan setting, at chaps. 16, 54
and 58. In chap. 54 it takes place by implication outside the city walls of
Constantinople, and precedes a major confrontation with pagan forces,
the Gazoi associated with Severus. But in chap. 16 it is placed in the
Forum and in chap. 58 in the Philadelphion, where it is not a vision but a
dream (see note to chap. 58). Thus Par. preserves some notion of a vision
as significant in the Christian belief of the emperor (despite chap. 7, on
which see note), but usually locates it in Constantinople. There are clear¬
ly several different versions, unresolved in Par., as with the passages
about the birthday of the city (on which see note to chap. 5), though there
may also be traces of the later idea that Constantine had several visions.
Nicephorus Callistus Xanthopoulus lists three, at Rome, Byzantium and
on the Danube (HE VII.29, 47, 49), thus rationalizing a tradition which
had grown gradually (cf. a 9th-century MS from Sinai, ed. E. Nestle, BZ
9 (1895), pp. 324 ff., which added the Danubian one). Par.’s particular
stress in chap. 58 that Constantine ‘first’ saw the sign of the cross may
seem to reflect an ordering of these. But as Par. shows no knowledge of
the Vita Constantini and is ignorant of nearly all the genuine historical
events of the early fourth century except for the founding of Constantino¬
ple, this degree of sophistication is unlikely. As a saint of the eastern
church (see chap. 69) and the emperor who founded Christian Constan¬
tinople, Constantine is seen as a symbol of the new epoch. He was also
known as a great builder, and the temptation to credit him with otherwise
unattributed buildings was irresistible. So Par. makes him responsible for
many constructions actually built much later, e.g. the Augusteum.
Note that: introduction, section iv.
at the intersection: μεσοσυλλαβών is very rare and seems to carry the
meaning ‘alternating’ (LSJ s.v.). One passage supports the use of the
passive as meaning ‘disturbed’ or ‘intercepted’. We must suppose active
for passive (in fact frequent in Par., cf. chap. 17 εγραφεν, τοις
προαναδεδηλώκοσι, 26 εγραφεν). We tentatively propose ‘at the intersec¬
tion’, or ‘on the cross-piece’.
the patron of the Forum: i.e. Constantine. This cross is known only
from this passage and Patria 11.102, p. 205 (seejanin, CB2, p. 63), where
the inscription is given as ‘hagios, hagios, hagios’ (cf. Suda s.v. σταυρός),
with a further elaboration at Patria II. 16, p. 158 (εις άγιος, είς κύριος ’Ιησούς
Χριστός εις δόξαν θεοΰ πατρός.αμήν). The placing of the cross and ac¬
companying statues in the Forum is difficult to envisage, and Janin’s ‘sur
 COMMENTARY 193

l’arc oriental’ (loc. cit.) has no basis in the texts. Janin also seems to en¬
visage the cross described here as being different from that between the
statues of Constantine and Helena (see below).
angels: cf. Patria, 11.16, p. 159, where they are described as ‘winged’.
A similar group (a cross flanked by Constantine and Helena and two
angels) is shown in an 18th-century drawing of a reliquary at the Sainte-
Chapelle (Ebersolt, Constantinople, p. 119; see A. Frolow, Les Reliquaires de
la Vraie Croix (1965), pp. 94, 217). These groups, associating Constantine
and Helena with the Cross, are unlikely to have been of Constantinian
date, since they clearly commemorated the post-Constantinian legend of
the finding of the True Cross by Helena (see now E. D. Hunt, Holy Land
Pilgrimage in the Later Roman Empire AD 312-460, Oxford 1982, pp. 38 ff.).
on the right and left: i.e. of the cross.
to the north: i.e. of the Forum. For similar contortions see chap. 44a,
11-15. The impression in both places is of a pretentious but unsuccessful
attempt at ‘precision’. The Patria (11.102, p. 205) simplify things con¬
siderably— ‘on the south curve (?)’, but elsewhere (as with the inscription
on the cross—see above) they elaborate (11.18, p. 160).
a cross inlaid with silver: at 11.102, p. 205, the Patria similarly refer
to silver, but at 11.18, p. 160 to gold. It is not clear whether ‘orbs’ really
refers to round balls at the ends of the arms of the cross or to ‘tear-drop
serifs’.
just as he saw <it in the sky>: the phrase is completed from the
Patria, 11.102, p. 205. For the erection of another cross at the
Philadelphion on a porphyry column, together with statues of Constan¬
tine, Helena and his sons, also to commemorate the vision, see on chap.
58, and see note above.

Chapter 17

elep*hant: this statue was surrounded by others of a fanciful kind,

which were attributed to Apollonius of Tyana but placed in the early
fourth century (Patria, 11.103, p. 206). For Apollonius in this connection
and the suggestion that he ‘magicked’ the statues of Constantinople, see
Mango, TS, p. 61 and introduction, section vii. It is deeply entrenched in
the later patriographers, but though Par. shares their suspicion of the
powers latent in antique statues, it does not express so fully developed an
explanation, nor refer explicitly to Apollonius in this context.
the great statue: i.e. the statue of Constantine-Helios on the por¬
phyry column in the Forum of Constantine. See chaps. 10, 39, 56, 68a,
with Mango, ^45, p. 57.
spectacle: for the terminology, see introduction, section iv.
194 COMMENTARY

one back foot: perhaps we should read ένα των όπισθεν πόδα (Preger,
Addenda).
Prefect: i.e. the praefedus urbi (Dagron, Naissance, pp. 213 ff.;
reorganisation by Justinian, Jones, LRE II, p. 692; R. Guilland, ‘Etudes
sur l’histoire administrative de l’empire byzantin. L’Eparque’, Byzan-
tinoslavica 51 (1980), pp. 17-32, 145-80). In the early eighth century the
eparch was considered the most important person in the capital after the
emperor; his role at that time may be indicated by the fact that Daniel of
Sinope, eparch under Artemius-Anastasius, was sent as an envoy to
Caliph Walid (Theophanes, p. 384).
soldiers: they formed part of the τάξις τοΰ έπαρχου, a city police re¬
corded in De Caer., App. to vol. I, p. 498; 11.19, p. 609 Bonn. At Patria,
11.31, p. 167 they are said to guard the petitions deposited at the Pittakia
(see on chap. 67).
all the bones: for άμφότεφα meaning ‘all’ see on chap. 12.
tablet: uncertain whether Par. means a flat tablet or a box with a lid.
‘Not even in death’: the general vocabulary strongly suggests a con¬
fused versions of an epigram, possibly ending χωρίζομαι ουδέ θανούσης in¬
stead of the unmetrical ουδέ θανούσης χωρίζομαι. The T’ of the epigram is
the tablet or box (if the latter, a perfume or make-up box) and the
priestess Aphrodite is its owner. It would be typical of Par. to misunder¬
stand a conventional classical (i.e. pagan) usage. If the bones really ex¬
isted, they ought to be those of Aphrodite herself. But though the
box/tablet and its inscription were probably genuine enough, the story
associating them with the elephant is of course highly suspicious.
This: of the whole elephant statue. The medium is not specified, but
is most likely stone.
as in the above cases: cf. chap. 13.

Chapter 18

In the place: presumably ‘nearby’ rather than ‘on’, the Milion being
a monument, not a place. This looseness of terminology for indicating
place is typical of Par. The Patria, 11.104, p. 207, add that the statue held
in its hand an orb and a crowned human figure. For the other statuary at
the Milion and the figures of Constantine and Helena with a cross and
the Tyche of the city on the roof see on chaps. 34-35.
donated much grain: see also chap. 35a.

Chapter 19

Peripatos: or ‘colonnade’. Preger takes this to be one of the Peripatoi

of the Hippodrome mentioned at Patria, 1.61-62, p. 145; 11.79, p. 191;
 COMMENTARY 195

III.9, p. 217 (MS G); but chap. 33 refers to a Peripatos in front of the
palace (see note ad loc.). Since chap. 18 is about the Milion, the Peripatos
of the palace is perhaps more likely here.
the crooked Firmillianus: the point of the joke is lost on us. At chap.
29 there is also an obscure lesson to be drawn from a crooked or hunch¬
backed statue, and see too chaps. 14 and 44. Certainly ‘crooked’ is a
word of abuse, probably not to be taken literally.
for a joke: either meaning that the statue was set up as a joke, or that it
became the object of laughter. In Par. the ‘philosophers’ who understand
the secrets of statues often find themselves laughing at what they
discover—see particularly chap. 64. On the other hand, the lessons that
they draw are, to the Christian author(s) of Par., deadly serious.
until today: introduction, section v. Cf. the identical wording at
chap. 7.

Chapter 20: The Xerolophos

The Xerolophos on the seventh hill of the city in the western region
was the site of the forum and column of Arcadius. The forum itself could
be called the Xerolophos, but was also known as the Forum of
Theodosius (Patria, II. 105, p. 207). For the consequent confusions, liable
to involve the Forum Tauri as well, see Guilland, Topographie, II,
pp. 59 ff.; Muller-Wiener, pp. 250-53. Severus built the Xerolophos as
well as many other pagan monuments connected by Par. with spectacles,
idolatry, divination and sacrifice (see on chaps. 37 and 73). But Par. does
not comment on the images sculpted on the column of Arcadius which
later gave rise to such debate (see Patria, II, 47, 53, pp. 176-77, 180).
These form the subject of the Diegesis (ed. Dagron and Paramelle, Travaux
et Memoires 7 (1979), 491-523), where they are explained as prophesying
the future of the city. The Xerolophos was decorated with other statues
which may have been erected by Theodosius II (Guilland, loc. cit., citing
Com. Marc., a. 435). It also held many imperial statues, including one
on top of the column of Arcadius, identified by Par., following
Diakrinomenos, as Theodosius II, with Valentinian and Marcian at the
foot (chap. 71). But Theophanes (p. 412 de Boor) says this was of Ar¬
cadius himself, as one would expect. Both sources agree that the column
fell in an earthquake, which in Theophanes is clearly the great earth¬
quake of 740: on the implications of this for the date of Par., see introduc¬
tion, section v. Both Par. and the Patria link the Xerolophos with the Ex-
akionion, which was similarly decorated with pagan sculpture and the
site of spectacles. Their close proximity explains this association, which
may indeed go back to the time of Severus (see note to chap. 21).
196 COMMENTARY

spectacle: see introduction, section iv. The writer implies that there
might be disagreement about what statues and monuments fell into this
category. The specialised use of theama in Par. (see also on chap. 21)
makes Guilland’s suggestion (loc. cit.) that the forum was originally called
Thauma (sic) most unlikely.
Formerly: probably implying that the columns and statues have now
disappeared.
sixteen spiral columns: an unlikely number; they have after all
disappeared, and the author may simply be guessing. ‘Spiral’—i.e.
covered with reliefs in the form of a spiral (see G. Becatti, La Colonna
coclide istoriata, Rome, 1960), or, perhaps more likely, simply ‘twisted’.
composite statue: i.e. as Artemis of the Ephesians, with many breasts
and surrounded by animals.
the founder, Severus: for Severus, see also on chap. 37, and especial¬
ly 73 and introduction, section viii. Severus’s role as the pagan counter¬
part of Constantine in the development of Byzantium/Constantinople is
even more fully developed and mythologised in the Diegesis (Travaux et
Memoires 7 (1979), 491-523).
oracles: introduction, section vii. Pagan statuary was obscurely felt to
be capable of yielding prophecies of the future history of the city—to
those who knew how to read the signs. Similarly, it is often presented as
the scene of sacrifice, execution or, on occasion, martyrdom; see Dagron
and Paramelle, op. cit. However compressed, the present chapter fits
perfectly into this whole patriographic complex of ideas concerning the
dangers and hidden powers of antique statues, though it represents an
early stage in the development. For astronomy in relation to pagan
statuary, see chaps. 5d, 8, 11.
sacrifices: Severus’s pagan practices are similarly magnified in the
Diegesis (Dagron and Paramelle, op. cit.)·. cf. also chap. 22 below.
an astronomical position: the meaning is very uncertain, though
the connection of astronomy and pagan statues is built in to Par.’s at¬
titudes. For the word in an astrological context, see D. Pingree, ‘The
Horoscope of Constantinople’, in Y. Maeyama and W. G. Saltzer (eds.),
Πρίσματα. Naturwissenschaftsgeschichtliche Studien (Wiesbaden, 1977),
pp. 305-15, especially p. 307.

Chapter 21

Exakionion: a colonnade with statuary. Some doubt exists as to its

location (see Janin, CB2, p. 351 f.; Guilland, Topographie, II, p. 62 f.). It
was beyond the Constantinian walls, on a route leading from the
Xerolophos to the Pege (Guilland, p. 64). The Patria, II, 54, pp. 180-81,
 COMMENTARY 197

give it a Constantinian origin, together with an absurd etymology (from

κίων and έξω, after a column with a statue of Constantine outside the
walls).
Faunus: or Pan? (Νεβρώδ).
S. Mamas: see on chaps. 15 and 22. The area was at Besiktas on the
European side of the Bosphorus. See J. Pargoire, ‘Les Saints-Mamas de
Constantinople’, IRAIK 9 (1904), pp. 261-316.
prophecy: again the meaning is unclear, but like the Xerolophos, the
Exakionion is connected by Par. with mysterious statues, having a poten¬
tial to indicate the future (a power which one neglected at one’s peril).
There is no need of emendation.

Chapter 22

at S. Mamas: see above and on chap. 15. Par. uses the name of the
church to denote the area in general.
bridge: presumably this bridge was in the area to which Par. refers at
chaps. 15 and 21, thus at Besiktas. The Patria, 11.21, p. 161, refer to it as
πέραν τής πόλεως, which Janin, CB2, p. 243, takes to mean at the Golden
Horn, on the basis of the modern Pera/Galata area, which took its name
from this phrase. In fact the Flamurdere river, in a deep ravine, would
well explain the existence of a bridge such as this.
arches and vaults: the Greek is very ambiguous, and P seems to have
made a mistake (μαρμάρας for καμάρας, as in the Patria). The twelve
arches and vaults may be spans of the bridge, but they may also be refer¬
ring to its decoration.
dragon: cf. also the dragon statue at the Hippodrome, chap. 62.
virgins were sacrificed: see above on chap. 20.
Basiliscus: surely the Basiliscus who rebelled against Zeno in AD 475
(cf. chaps. 26, 29, 32 and see note on 85). Par. is well informed about the
reigns of Leo I and Zeno, and this must reflect an available source,
though the considerable confusion apparent in these passages may well
be the contribution of Par. Basiliscus was the brother of the Empress
Verina, wife of Leo I. The paganism attributed to him here derives from
the supposed association here with Numerian (Caesar AD 282, Augustus
283, died 284), son of Carus (for Carus see also on chaps. 37, 56-57) and
thus connected by Par. with the pagan side in the various stories of the
foundation of the city.
put an end to these things: i.e. to the worship of Zeus, perhaps by
destroying the temple.

Chapter 23

On the Forum, see on chap. 39.

198 COMMENTARY

underneath the great statue: for the ‘great statue’ see above, on
chap. 17. For the objects said to have been buried beneath the column
(see chap. 10) see Ebersolt, Constantinople, pp. 73-74.
crosses bearing the form of the Great Cross: perhaps ‘bearing the
shape of’, i.e. regarded as types of the True Cross, or literally ‘bearing
traces’, i.e. relics, of the True Cross. It is not clear what size these crosses
are intended to be. The crosses of the two thieves, which follow next in
Par., are of course thought of as full-size; but here Par. is describing the
objects deposited beneath (or ‘at the foot of’) the column of Constantine,
and it is hard to imagine two full-size crosses, still less several more. The
other texts do not mention these crosses, and Cod. Ang. at Hesychius, p.
17.15 says rather ‘precious wood and holy relics’. In any case the column
was set up before the discovery of the True Cross. See further A. Frolow,
Les Reliquaires de la Vraie Croix (Paris, 1965), p. 88 f. σημεκχρορικά below
raises the same kind of problem: ‘testimonials’ or ‘types’ of the Passion?
Or ‘working miracles’ (see translation)? The language recalls the very
ambiguous terminology employed by Eusebius, whether of crosses, or the
sign of the cross, or in referring generally to the Passion.
Par. ’s references to the statue of Constantine in the Forum (see on
chap. 68a) represent different stages of a growing tradition whereby the
statue came to be regarded as a talisman in its own right. Whereas in the
chaps, relating to the foundation (5, 38, 56) Par. presents the statue with
few if any Christian associations, here and at 68a it reflects the tradition
of its own day, when the statue had been invested with religious over¬
tones and when a developed catalogue of the Christian relics supposedly
buried beneath it had been worked out. See especially on chaps. 56 and
68a.

Chapter 24

Great Strategion: in the fifth region, the place of exercise for the ar¬
my. See Guilland, Topographie, II, p. 55 f. identifying the ‘Great
Strategion’ with the general exercise area and the ‘Little Strategion’ with
the Forum of Theodosius nearby (see too Janin, CB2, pp. 431-32, and for
the name, Chron. Pasch., p. 495 Bonn).
pagan coins: νουμία (nummi), presumably bronze coins, though Par.
seems to think they were of gold (see below). But this passage is hardly
likely to preserve a historic event—see below. Par. is shaky on earlier
coinage, perhaps not surprisingly (see on chap. 12).
in a pit: there seems to be a word missing in P.
we have not found this in written form: a central passage for Par. ’s
methods and sources: see introduction, section iv. The contorted effort to
 COMMENTARY 199

explain the credentials of the work is typical; so is the appeal to ‘con¬

noisseurs’, usually called ‘philosophers’ (introduction, section iv), who
are the intellectual elite able to appreciate the subtlety of Par. ’s contribu¬
tion. The writer here is aware of the notion of the authority of documen¬
tary sources and the value of autopsy; he uses the semi-technical
‘research’ (έρευνήσαντες, p. 34, line 12). But he seems very unclear when
it comes to stating whether his sources were actually written (or rather,
inscribed), or whether the research was done in his own circle or by a
previous generation. The extreme awkwardness of the Greek here, where
the writer is really trying to make a point, bears out our general impres¬
sion of Par. ’s linguistic level; namely that considerable effort has been ex¬
pended in trying to achieve a high style without command of the
necessary equipment.
And I did not disbelieve this: as it stands, this sentence is ungram¬
matical. A verb has to be understood for the first person plural. Preger
prefers to drop ‘what’; he would presumably then translate ‘because both
we ourselves (sc. hand down our conclusions) and our fathers have
handed things down to us for the most part orally and not in written
form’. The identity of the T’ remains a mystery (introduction, section
iv); note however that the writer uses the language of a group.
either lead itself or, written transactions < in place of> lead: ap¬
parently a very clumsy way of saying that in the Little Strategion lead
changes hands, sometimes in the form of the material itself, sometimes in
paper deals. But the lead in question may be lead seals, used for example
to certify bags of coins. For bullion dealers and moneychangers see the
Book of the Prefect, chaps. 2 and 3.
composition of gold and silver: the language is extremely vague (af¬
fectedly so). The writer is trying to explain in fancy ‘literary’ language
what must have been everyday business dealings. Again, the reference
looks to be either to the regulation of coinage or to the sale of bullion. The
rules were evidently displayed, rather like the ‘measure’ at the Modion.
‘Composition’ is a tentative suggestion for ποιησις.
inscriptions on marble tablets: even this is very clumsily put. The
writer implies that no one had heard of inscriptions before. Why did it
take ‘research’ to discover what was written on these inscriptions, which
were presumably visible and probably currently applicable? The entire
passage is made far more obscure than need be by the laboured attempt
at ‘scholarly’ language.

Chapter 25

S. Menas: near the Acropolis (Janin, Eglises et monast'eres2, p. 333; H.

Delehaye, ‘L’Invention des reliques de S. Menas a Constantinople’, AB
200 COMMENTARY

29 (1910), pp. 1-34). See also Patria, III.2, pp. 214-5, and for the
Anastasius story, Michael Glykas, p. 492 Bonn. Cf. chap. 86, also con¬
necting the Emperor Anastasius with the church of S. Menas.
Fossa: the Fossa (‘Ditch’), if it existed, seems to be quite unknown to
other writers. But cf. also chap. 73. This Fossa, according to Par., was
constructed in the reign of Constantine (cf. chap. 73), no doubt during
his ‘wars’ (cf. that constructed during the siege of Constantinople in
717-18: Theophanes, p. 395 de Boor); it then became a repository for
‘wonders’.
wonder: see introduction, section iv.

Chapter 26

S. Procopius: Janin, Eglises et monasteres2, p. 444. According to the

Patria, III. 18, p. 219, this too was built by Constantine.
Chelone: north of the third hill (Janin, CB2, p. 102)?
which had written: active for passive, as elsewhere (see note on
chaps. 41, 44).
‘Let him who disturbs ...’: i.e. the passer-by is warned to leave the
statue (or funerary bust) alone. The writer does not notice that the statue
was in fact moved, as he states himself. Inscriptions warning passers-by
not to tamper with memorials are standard on funeral monuments. It is
not at all certain that stele here does mean a statue. See for a Byzantine
tombstone. C. Mango and I. Sevcenko, ‘Some Recently acquired Byzan¬
tine Inscriptions at the Istanbul Archaeological Museum’, DOP 32
(1978), no. 15, pp. 12-13 (6th century).
Plato the cubicularius: unknown. Cubicularii were eunuch palace of¬
ficials.
Basiliscus: see on chap. 22. Par. does not suggest that Basiliscus was
other than the legitimate emperor. Presumably the second ‘the emperor’
also refers to Basiliscus. It is odd to find a reference to the parents of the
eunuch Plato, unless they had specifically prepared their son for such a
career; Patriarch Germanus was one so prepared, albeit forcibly
(Theophanes, p. 352 note, de Boor). Eunuchs were more usually slaves
and non-citizens in origin. It seems that the point of the story is that the
parents were protecting themselves by commemorating their son as a
reminder of what can happen to those who oppose the emperor. The
phrase ‘oppose the emperor’ is rather reminiscent of chap. 63, where the
monk Anastasius is said to have been burned alive in the Hippodrome for
‘speaking against the emperor’; see note ad loc. Both chapters, however
we interpret them in detail, show Par. against a background of imperial
pressure on opposition.
 COMMENTARY 201

Chapter 27: The story of Himerius the chartularius

This chapter appears to begin a fresh section in P. Chapter 26 marks a

conclusion, and the whole of chapter 27 is arranged in P as a heading at
the top of the next page after a gap, a more obvious break in the continui¬
ty of the text even than at chapter 1. Further, we seem to have here an en¬
tirely new heading, and then an extract apparently by one Theodore,
which reads almost like a diary entry. Both chapters 27 and 28 end with
addresses to one Philokalos, who seems to have commissioned the
‘research’: see introduction, section iv. It is not entirely clear whether the
second sentence of the present chapter 27 should not instead be regarded
as the opening of chapter 28, leaving ‘chapter’ 27 simply as a title or
heading.
The possibility exists that Par. as we have it represents a collection of
reports that Philokalos had commissioned. But the status of the ‘circle’
which seems to have produced Par. does not admit of certainty. See in¬
troduction, loc. cit.
Himerius the chartularius: while the title can refer to anyone who
keeps records, it is possible that Himerius was attached to one of the
ministries of government in the capital, whose offices were reorganised
between the seventh and early ninth centuries (see Bury, Imperial Ad¬
ministrative System, p. 83; Oikonomides, Pistes de preseance, pp. 310, 313,
364). A chartularius under Leo III, a certain Paul, is described as oikeios of
the emperor and was later sent to Sicily as strategos (Theophanes, p. 398).
Other chartularii were employed in the administration of the city
(Guilland, Institutions, I, p. 469). See further R. Guilland, ‘Contribution
a l’histoire administrative de l’Empire byzantin. Le chartulaire et le
grand chartulaire’, RESEE 9 (1971), pp. 405-26.
Theodore: the same as the Theodore Lector of chaps. 29 ff. ? See in¬
troduction, section ix. Anon. Treu assumes the connection.
Kynegion: an amphitheatre and an area on the acropolis of ancient
Byzantium, near the sea wall, where wild beast shows were held (Janin,
CB2, p. 14; L. Robert, Les gladiateurs dans Torient grec (Paris, 1940),
pp. 310-313; cf. Patria, 11.24, p. 163). After the cessation of the shows
(late fifth-early sixth-century), the Kynegion was used for criminal ex¬
ecutions (Theophanes, p. 375; Nicephorus, pp. 42, 56; see Alan
Cameron, Porphyrius, pp. 229-30). It clearly had steps leading into it and
was decorated with many statues. Par. reflects its ruinous state in the
eighth century; see introduction, section v.
Philokalos: perhaps the sponsor of the whole oeuvre; he is addressed
also in chaps. 28, 41 and 42. Letters to and from him are implied (see
chap. 42). The name however might seem suspiciously literary: see in¬
troduction, section iv.
202 COMMENTARY

research: Par. seems to use quasi-technical language of the activity in

which the participants engaged: see introduction, section iv, and on
chap. 24.
to your honour: Theodore addresses Philokalos in dignified and
honorific terms. See on chap. 28. These titles in Par. seem to reflect a
stage of development before the fully established system of the tenth cen¬
tury; introduction, section v.

Chapter 28

The style of chap. 28 is chatty and personal, as though an actual ac¬

count by Theodore of his experience. It could well have come from a per¬
sonal letter or a diary, and is written in the first person.
This is a story illustrating the malevolent power of antique statues. Par.
frequently returns to this theme, and often, as here, records the destruc¬
tion of such statues by burying, as though this is the only way to dispose
of such dangerous objects: see chaps. 7, 8, 9, 38 and 5a, where one is
sunk. The implication is that breaking up such statues would be insuffi¬
cient to neutralise their power: see on chap. 14. At chap. 7 the Arians are
held responsible for burial of statues, but at chap. 9 it is the bishop,
Metrophanes. Statues of metal were also often melted down and struck as
coin (chaps. 13 and 42), and at chap. 17 Par. states that the Prefect of the
City often got rid of statues in this way. There is no suggestion that these
statues were particularly dangerous, although the ox in chap. 42 com¬
memorated unpleasant events. This form of destruction probably took
place when there was a shortage of precious metal, clearly the case in that
episode. The reverse process is recorded at chap. 54, where the defeated
Gazoi are alleged to have given up their weapons to make a statue of
Constantine. This story seems unlikely and may represent merely the
triumph of Christianity over pagan forces, but it serves to recall the con¬
stant reuse of metal, which affected metal statues as well as pictures.
Some statues, then, whether of metal or not, were destroyed for various
reasons. By Par. ’s day, it was firmly believed that such statues were at
least suspect, and motives for their destruction in ealier times were pro¬
vided accordingly. Par. also seems to have the notion that there were
large numbers of pagan statues buried under the city in various places. It
is all part of the bewilderment and to some extent the fear aroused in
Christians who lived in a city where pagan monuments could still be seen
and pagan associations felt. See Mango, zlS, p. 58 for the numbers of an¬
tique statues probably surviving in the eighth century, with introduction,
section x.
Kynegion: see note above.
 COMMENTARY 203

honourable: another honorific title, cf. Justinian, Nov. 41; normally

used of palace officials, as in Miracula S. Artemii, chap. 31, where Sergia is
identified as the wife of one of the ένδοξοι τοΰ παλατιού (ed. Papadopoulos-
Kerameus, pp. 44-45). By the seventh century, the term was almost
always used in the superlative.
to investigate the statues: more of Par.’s technical language. The
idea is of going round, looking and taking notes. See below—Theodore
just gapes at the statue and does not get on with his research. For the
composition of the group which seems to have been responsible for Par.,
see introduction, section iv.
squat and very heavy: Par. seems especially suspicious of broad heavy
statues: cf. chap. 14, with a very similar moral.
wondering at it wonder is the expected response to unexplained
statues: see introduction, section iv.
the founder of the Kynegion: according to the Chron. Pasch., p. 495
Bonn, Severus built the Kynegion. Cf. Malalas, p. 491 Bonn.
Maximian ... and Aristides: there is a great deal of confusion in Par.
between the names Maximian and Maximin: cf. chaps. 54, 77 and 85. At
the corresponding place in the Patria (11.24, p. 163) we find Maximin. In
view of Par. ’s hazy ideas about historical events and personages in the
late third and early fourth centuries (see introduction, section viii), it is in
principle doubtful whether one can sort out the individuals meant (Maxi¬
mian the elder, Augustus with Diocletian, as in chap. 85; or Galerius,
also called Maximianus). See PLRE I, s.vv. In this case, Maximian the
elder is probable, the Kynegion elsewhere being associated with Severus,
i.e. with the pagan history of the city (see above). ‘Maximinus’ features
in chap. 54 as a ‘general of Constantine’.
immediately the statue fell: see below and chap. 14. Also note above
on the malevolence of pagan statues.
which was very great: the Greek is very loose (presumably collo¬
quial). For δούναι standing alone cf. chap. 64. In the next sentence the
construction changes abruptly half way through and ‘dragged’ has no ex¬
pressed object.
convicts: the Kynegion continued to be used through the eighth cen¬
tury as a place of execution and for the burial of those executed (e.g.
Nicephorus, p. 42). Towards the end of the reign of Justinian it was a
scene of imperial measures against pagans—Malalas, p. 449 Bonn (for
the date, AD 562, see Stein, BE 11.799-80).
asylum in the Great Church: i.e. S. Sophia. Asylum could be sought
at the high altar or in the chapel of S. Nicholas behind it: see Mango,
Brazen House, p. 59, n. 146. For two constitutions confirming the right,
see M. Amelotti and L. M. Zingale, Scritti teologici ed ecclesiastici di Giusti-
204 COMMENTARY

niano (Milan, 1977) = Legum Iustiniani imperatoris vocabularium, Subsidia

III, pp. 203-209.
I was the only one: again the Greek is clumsily or carelessly expressed.
the friends of the emperor: very important for Par.’s date and
milieu: see introduction, section v. The emperor is Philippicus (711-13):
see below. Curiously, Nicephorus, p. 49, employs the same phrase (‘the
friends’ of the emperor). According to Theophanes, pp. 387, 380, 381,
the chief supporters of Philippicus were Helias the spatharius, Maurus
Bessius the patrician, and John Strouthus. This passage in any case
would seem to place Par. on the side of Philippicus (see also on chap. 82).
amazement: see above on ‘wondering’.
John, a philosopher: see introduction, section ix. That he could in¬
terpret the event guaranteed his status as a ‘philosopher’. By a curious
parallel, a philosopher and astrologer called John, according to the
Diegesis, supplied the predictions to Severus which were subsequently ex¬
pressed in reliefs on the Xerolophos column (Dagron and Paramelle,
p. 514).
‘I find it so’: who Demosthenes was remains obscure: on the
whole, ‘philosophers’ in Par. do not refer back to written prophecies for
their interpretations. The title (see above) makes it clear that the ‘proph¬
ecy’ belonged to Par. ’s own time. It is most likely to be an on-the-spot in¬
vention. The laborious style is typical of Par. when laying stress on an ex¬
planation; see especially chap. 24.
statue: zodion sometimes, but not always, implies that the statue is
‘charged’, i.e. has hidden powers; see introduction, section vii.
to bury the statue: on the disposal of statues, see above.
Philokalos: introduction, section iv, and note on chap. 27. Theodore
will thus be one of the circle of friends or proteges of this Philokalos, who
seems to be some sort of patron. The language of the concluding sentence
uses Par.’s favourite vocabulary of ‘research’ and points the moral left
implicit in chap. 14: leave pagan statues alone. It was not actually stated
earlier that this statue was a pagan one, but if it was of the tetrarch Maxi-
mian, that would have been assumed by the writer. Statues did not need
to be of gods and goddesses to be considered pagan: it was enough if they
were of individuals from pre-Christian times. In any case, Maximian was
a persecutor and an opponent of Constantine, Par. ’s hero.
This chapter well exemplifies the purpose of Par. The point of the
‘research’ was less to find out antiquarian information than to under¬
stand the meaning (often unpleasant) of antique statues. It is a primary
aim of Par. to expose pagan statues for the unwary.
 COMMENTARY 205

Chapter 29: Catalogue of Women

The words which apparently mean ‘Catalogue of Women, still from

Theodore the Lector’ appear as another heading in P. The section on
women seems to continue until chap. 36, after which there is yet another
heading. Presumably this Theodore is the same as the author of chap. 28
(see note); he cannot however be the well-known sixth-century writer
Theodore Lector, since the Theodore of chap. 28 is a contemporary of the
Emperor Philippicus (711-13).
Verina: wife of Leo I: see chap. 89.
S. Agathonikos: see chap. 2.
above the steps: perhaps a reference to the flights of steps built by
Constantine as points of distribution for the άρτοι πολιτικοί {panes gradiles-
free bread). These were modelled on those at Rome, which Prudentius
describes as high (Contra Symmachum, I, 572). The fifth-century Notitia
records 117 such steps throughout Constantinople (see Dagron,
Naissance, p. 553; Jones, LRE I, pp. 696-701; cf. Chron. Pasch., p. 531
Bonn). Par. appears to distinguish these steps from flights of steps con¬
nected with buildings (cf. the άναβαθμοί leading down to the Kynegion,
chap. 28, or those at the Basilica, chap. 37). The original Greek term was
έρκάναι; see Dagron, loc. cit. The decline in the population of Constan¬
tinople by the eighth century (Mango, Byzantium, p. 80) must have meant
that many of the distribution points were no longer used, which may be
why Par. does not explicitly mention the connection here. Under
Heraclius people had to pay for the right to receive bread {Chron. Pasch.,
p. 711). Yet the principle of the distributions continued, and Par. reflects
the persistent concern of the early Byzantine emperors with grain and the
control of weight and price (see especially chap. 12 with note).
Anemodourion: or Anemodoulion (see MSS at Patria, III, 114,
p. 253). A monumental weather vane (Janin, CB2, pp. 100, 309). It is
also attested in the Life of S. Andrew the Fool (chap. 105), a work dated
by Mango to the early eighth century {Rivista di Studi bizantini e slavi
(Bologna) 2—forthcoming).
S. Barbara: this church was in the area called Ta Basiliskou, after
Basiliscus who supposedly owned a house there—a favourite kind of
etymology, see Janin, CB2, pp. 319-20; Eglises et monast'eres2, p. 56. The
Patria, 11.25, p. 164, add that the church was near the Artotyrianos,
which was close to the Bread Market (Artopoleia); see chap. 13. Perhaps
a confirmation of our interpretation of the ‘steps’ (see above).
when she crowned her brother: Verina did proclaim Basiliscus
(PLRE II, s.v. Basiliscus 2). The acclamation looks genuine, but could
well relate to a different occasion. For factional acclamations in Par. cf.
206 COMMENTARY

chaps. 3, 35a, and see Alan Cameron, Circus Factions, p. 142 f. This can¬
not be used by itself to support Verina’s orthodoxy or her favouring of
the Greens. On the other hand, if Verina was Chalcedonian, as Par. (or
Theodore) says, then the Greens were primafacie Chalcedonian too. But it
is more likely that the comment ‘for she was thoroughly orthodox’ is a
deduction from the words of the acclamation, and further, that the ac¬
clamation (from a genuine list of Green acclamations) was applied to this
context by Theodore, because of the association of the statue of Verina
and the quarter of Basiliscus. ‘When she crowned her brother Basiliscus’
is Theodore’s linking sentence. Basiliscus had not been intended for the
throne by Verina at all; she had preferred her lover Patricius.

Chapter 30

S. Euphemia: cf. chap. 5c. This church however was in the region
north-west of the Philadelphion, Ta Olybriou (Janin, CB2, pp. 398-99;
Eglises et monasleres2, pp. 124-26; Muller-Wiener, pp. 122-25; Naumann-
Belting, Euphemia-Kirche, p. 25), but Euphemia, wife of Justin I, was not
responsible for it. The Patria, 11.60, p. 238, attribute it to Eudoxia and its
completion after her death to Olybrius, whose house was nearby; accord¬
ing to the Chron. Pasch., p. 594 Bonn, Olybrius and Placidia built it. Both
these notices surely derive from Anth. Pal. 1.12 and 14, where Anicia
Juliana, builder in the 520’s of the church of S. Polyeuktos (not men¬
tioned by Par.) is described as the third generation of her family to work
on the church; thus her grandmother, Eudoxia, wife of Valentinian III
(425-55), started the building which her mother Placidia and Olybrius
continued, and it was only completed in the early sixth century. Par. ’s at¬
tribution of the church to the Empress Euphemia is a crude deduction
based on the name of the church and the statue. In the Patria, III. 183,
p. 273, Justin I and Euphemia are correctly associated with the
monastery of the Augusta, where Euphemia was indeed buried.

Chapter 31

two other daughters: Eudoxia and Arcadius had four daughters

altogether, of whom the eldest, Flaccilla, is not heard of beyond
childhood.
all: cf. chaps. 12, 17.
another < statue >: erected by the prefect Simplicius on a tall por¬
phyry column in the Augusteum in AD 403 (CIL III.736; Com. Marc.,
s.a. 403; Socrates, HE VI. 18). Par. mentions two statues of Eudoxia
here—the bronze one, apparently left unspecified as to place (unless it is
near that of Euphemia, chap. 30), and the silver one at the Augusteum.
 COMMENTARY 207

The latter is correctly associated with the plot against the patriarch John
Chrysostom (398-404), for the latter’s disapproval of the noisy and pagan
inauguration of the statue provoked Eudoxia’s rage; her influence led to
the Council of 404 and John’s removal from Constantinople. See F. van
Ommeslaeghe, ‘Jean Chrysostome en conflit avec l’imperatrice
Eudoxie’, AB 97 (1979), pp. 131-59. On this statue and the many others
in the Augusteum, some listed in chap. 68, see Mango, Brazen House,
pp. 56, 59; Janin, CB2, p. 76; Muller-Wiener, p. 52; P. Speck,
‘Eudoxia-Saule und Pittakia’, Ελληνικά, 22 (1969), pp. 430-35. The
base of this statue was discovered in 1848 and is now in the garden of S.
Sophia; see Mango, AJA 55 (1951), p. 63.

Chapter 32

Arcadia: perhaps the first wife of Zeno; she was outlived by Ariadne,
who selected and then married his successor Anastasius (491-518). See
PLRE II, s.v. Arcadia 2.
Topoi: this place was near the Arcadianai, NE of S. Sophia and near
the Mangana palace (Janin, CB2, pp. 311-12, 435; cf. Patria, 1.52, p. 141;
11.27, p. 164). Zeno re-entered Constantinople in August, 476, and ex¬
iled Basiliscus to Cappadocia. Par. is the only source to connect these
events with Topoi and to identify these steps with the steps for bread
distributions near a church of S. Michael. Cf. chap. 29 βάθρα. It is tem¬
pting to associate the Topoi with the area where Zeno set up his seat of
judgement with his inspections, recorded in chap. 51, at the portico of
Leontius, another otherwise unknown site. Janin, CB2, p. 91, observes
that this cannot have been far from the palace, and indeed there was a
church dedicated to the archangel nearby.
on the imperial gate: i.e. the Chalke gate of the palace. These statues
are also mentioned in chap. 80. Par. is an important source for the
statuary which adorned the fagade of the Chalke: see chaps. 5b, 33, 44a,
80, 88 with notes, and Mango, Brazen House, pp. 99-103. The statues
were probably arranged in niches above a central doorway (ibid.,
pp. 103-4).

Chapter 33

Pulcheria: wife of Marcian (450-57). Her statue is also recorded in

chaps. 31 above (perhaps as a young girl) and 45. Even the Suda (s.v.
Pulcheria) seems to have found Par.’s Greek difficult here, and it is not
clear whether it is likening the statue of Pulcheria to another on the
Peripatos, or whether the words about the Peripatos continue the descrip¬
tion of the same statue. Mango, Brazen House, p. 99, describes it as ‘a
208 COMMENTARY

statue of the Empress Pulcheria which stood at the peripatos in front of the
palace, i.e. possibly on the Mese’. The Greek itself is highly compressed,
and seems to be saying that the statue is ‘on the Chalke’ and ‘on the
Peripatos’.
Peripatos: cf. chap. 19. Probably the same, but see note ad loc. It was
a colonnade in front of the palace.

Chapter 34

above the arch: cf. chap. 10 on the ‘curved Milion’, and below, note
on chap. 35.
a cross: Patria, 11.29, p. 166, here gives a fuller account. The cross had
at its centre an image of the Tyche of the city (compare chap. 16 for the
same grouping in the Forum); according to the Patria, this Tyche was
‘bewitched’ (έστοιχειώμενον—see introduction, section vii) and signified
victory for the inhabitants of Constantinople and defeat for their
enemies. In P there is an erasure between ‘cross’ and ‘middle’ and the
words ‘and the Tyche’ should be supplied from the Patria (they were
probably erased in P because they seemed pagan). The comment about
the meaning of the Tyche in the Patria is however likely to be a later addi¬
tion (see introduction, loc. cit.).

Chapter 35: The Milion

The Milion was almost certainly a vaulted tetrapylon with a gilded

roof, at the conjunction of the Mese and the Augusteum; see Mango,
Brazen House, p. 47 f.; Dagron, Naissance, pp. 36-37; 66 n. 7; 390 n. 2;
Guilland, Topographie, II, pp. 38-41; Muller-Wiener, pp. 216-18. In this
position it was a conspicuous monument, noticed by all approaching or
leaving the centre of Constantinople, and it served as a site for imperial
propaganda; see Mango, Art of the Byzantine Empire, pp. 16, 141, 153. On
the roof were statues of Constantine and Helena with a cross which
displayed the Tyche of the city in the middle (chap. 34). Statues of Justin
II and his family stood at the base (chap. 35), and nearby were equestrian
statues of three generations of the family of Theodosius I (chap. 18). Ac¬
cording to chap. 38, there was also a chariot group of Zeus-Helios with
four horses and two further unidentified statues, described as golden;
Par. associates the chariot group with the birthday celebrations of the ci¬
ty, held annually, but this is probably an error (see on chaps. 5, 38, 56,
84). It is more likely to have been a piece of antique statuary, as also that
at the Neolaia (see on chaps. 5, 84). At chap. 43 Par. also mentions the
Milion in passing (see note ad loc.) and in chap. 10 it is called ‘curved’,
and is a site of Arian activity. But Par. does not mention the important
 COMMENTARY 209

changes made to it in the early eighth century, when Philippicus

represented in the vaulted roof the first five ecumenical councils together
with portraits of himself and the monothelite patriarch Sergius, and
Anastasius replaced them with the sixth ecumenical council. Constantine
V later put up hippodrome and charioteer scenes in place of the councils;
see A. Grabar, L’Iconoclasme byzantin (Paris, 1957), pp. 48-49; Mango,
Brazen House, p. 48. In view of Par. ’s apparently reliable information
about Philippicus (chaps. 28, 82), the omission is surprising, but Par.’s
coverage of even relevant recent events is very far from being complete:
see introduction, section v.
Sophia: the group of statuary mentioned here (Sophia, Arabia, and
Helena) recalls the similar one recorded as being on pillars at the harbour
of Sophia, representing Justin II, his wife Sophia, Arabia and Narses the
praepositus, recorded at Patria, III.37, p. 230, where it is said to have been
erected by Narses; see Muller-Wiener, pp. 62-63; Guilland, REB 13
(1955), p. 65 f. A different entry mentions Vigilantia, sister of Justinian I
and mother of Justin II, in place of Narses (Patria, 11.62, p. 184). It is
hardly possible to decide which is correct, or even whether there were two
groups. See Averil Cameron, ‘The Artistic Patronage of Justin IT,
Byzantion 50 (1980), p. 70.

Chapter 35a

Not strictly about women and therefore possibly not part of

Theodore’s catalogue.
corn: cf. chap. 18 on the same statue.
Greens: for Green acclamations cf. also chaps. 3 and 29. The mean¬
ing of the words following ‘was distributed’ is unclear, and Preger’s
Πρασίνω is an emendation for Πρασίνων, δήμος could refer to the people as
a whole, but its proximity to μέρει, another technical term for factions,
makes it likely that it means ‘all the Greens’; see on chap. 3. The content
of the acclamation might seem to support Preger’s text at chap. 3, but see
note ad loc. for reasons against that reading.

Chapter 36

Tribunal: see Janin, CB2, p. 112. There was another room in the
palace called the Tribounalion, in addition to the famous Chamber of the
Nineteen Beds.
Eudocia: see on chap. 64.
ceremonial dances: an important piece of evidence for the existence
of a ceremonial role for the factions before the reign of Heraclius. See
Cameron, Circus Factions, pp. 251 ff., especially p. 255. Not only did the
210 COMMENTARY

Blues and Greens take part in imperial ceremonies and processions; they
had their own established places in the palace where they staged
ceremonial shows. After the reign of Heraclius, the factions were given
special courtyards outside the palace {phialai) by Justinian II, which were
in turn abolished by Basil I (867-86) in favour of a different arrangement
(see Cameron, loc. cit., and Theophanes, pp. 367-68 de Boor for the
phialai).

Chapter 37: About Spectacles

Yet another section heading is marked in P, which also writes the

words ‘spectacle number one’ as a title. It is not entirely clear how many
chapters are covered by the general title. Chaps. 37-41 list and describe
five numbered ‘spectacles’, and Preger restored numbers (following
earlier editors) to the two following descriptions of spectacles in chaps. 42
and 43 to make a total of seven, since chap. 44 clearly marks the begin¬
ning of a new section. This does not seem unreasonable, and involves on¬
ly slight emendation to the beginnings of chaps. 42 and 43. On the other
hand, the end of chap. 41, with a concluding sentence addressed to
Philokalos, makes it possible to argue that the original section ended here
and that 42 and 43 were added later. They contain similar material, and
begin with another address to Philokalos, so that the compiler might well
have linked them with 37-41. At the end of chap. 41 (p. 48.2) we have the
words ‘that there was a theatre i.e. suggesting that what follows is a
quotation, either continuing what has gone before, or from something
else; so possibly the section ‘about spectacles’ did not even extend as far
as the end of chap. 41. We have however followed Preger in supplement¬
ing titles at the beginning of chaps. 42 and 43. At all events, this is further
indication that Par. has been put together from differing kinds of sources.
Spectacle number one: this features as a heading in P. For theama,
which we have translated ‘spectacle’, see introduction, section iv.
the kneeling statue of Justinian II: the context makes it clear that
Justinian II is meant; Grabar’s claim that this was a statue of Justin
(L’Empereur dans Part byzantin, Paris, 1936, p. 100) is based on a
misreading (see Mango, BZ 55 (1962), p. 342). There is much of interest
here: a kneeling figure such as this would be a rare example of an im¬
perial personage from the early period thus represented in an attitude of
prayer or adoration (see Mango, loc. cit.). There is no reason to doubt it,
though as Mango points out, Justinian must have been kneeling before
Christ, and Christ is not mentioned. However, the reign of Justinian II
would be an appropriate moment for such an innovation, for this
emperor emphasised his subordination to Christ (see J. N. Breckenridge,
 COMMENTARY 211

The Numismatic Iconography of Justinian II, New York, 1959). This

testimony is important for the history of statuary in the round: see
Mango, AS, p. 71, n. 96, since it attests an imperial statue at least as late
as the late seventh century.
As Mango points out, (Brazen House, p. 50), Par.’s presentation of the
statuary of the Basilica reflects contemporary reality, whereas that of the
Patria (11.41, p. 171 f.) represents the situation of a bygone age; all the
statues mentioned here, except possibly that of Theodosius I, had been
removed by the tenth century.
the Basilica colonnade: σείρα is difficult. Originally meaning a rope
or cord, it is attested in Byzantine texts with the meaning ‘lineage’ or
‘succession’, and used by theologians of logical sequences. Here it seems
to refer to a row of columns, i.e. a colonnade. Cf. Procopius, Aed. 1.1
45-46 of the dome of S. Sophia, recalling II. 8-19. It is characteristically
omitted in both Anon. Treu and the Patria, probably because they found
it too difficult and left it out deliberately. A connection may have dropped
out between ‘Basilica’ and ‘colonnade’, which are otherwise awkwardly
juxtaposed.
The Basilica, on the first part of the Mese leading to the Forum of Con¬
stantine, was a large court with porticoes, housing the library, the
‘university’, law courts and an area for legal education, and finally the
stalls of booksellers; see Janin, CB2, pp. 157-61; Guilland, Topographie,
II, pp. 3-13; Mango, Brazen House, pp. 48-51; P. Speck, Universitat,
pp. 93-99, 106. The ceiling of the porticoes was probably gilded (Mango,
p. 51, referring to a law of 440 describing the Basilica as ‘inaurata et mar-
moribus decorata’, CJ VIII.ii.21).
the measure of Heraclius: for the word εξαμον see on chap. 12. If ex-
amon should be connected with the term modios, as at chap. 12, this monu¬
ment might have been a symbolic representation of a correct measure. In
view of chap. 12, therefore, Speck’s suggestion (Universitat, pp. 98-99)
that the word here should be corrected to εξωμον, and taken to indicate a
statue of Heraclius in an unsleeved tunic, or even naked, is unlikely to be
correct. This otherwise unknown object may be connected with
Heraclius’s efforts to control weights and measures, and his reorganisa¬
tion of the bread distribution (Chron. Pasch., p. 711); one official, John,
nicknamed the Earthquake, attempted to double the price of bread and
had to be removed {ibid., pp. 715-16).
tyrant: surely carrying the sense ‘usurper’; at chap. 61 he is called
‘godless’.
Ivouzeros Gliavanos: only Par. gives the name of the Khazar ruler
who aided Justinian II and whose sister the latter married. For the form
of the name, see D. M. Dunlop, A History of the Jewish Khazars (Princeton,
212 COMMENTARY

1954), p. 171; Head, Justinian II, p. 102. If Par.’s entry was written early
in the eighth century, it must be regarded as an excellent source for Justi¬
nian II.
Apsimar: P has ‘Tiberius son of Apsimar’, but cf. chap. 3 where the
emperor’s double name is correctly given.
Philippicus: according to Theophanes, the later emperor Philippicus
(then called Bardanes) was exiled by Tiberius Apsimar to Kephalenia
(p. 372) in AD 703; from there he was recalled by Justinian II and sent
‘with the fleet’ against the Chersonese in 711 {ibid., p. 378). But
Nicephorus (p. 44) suggests that he was to be left there as an exile.
Perhaps Philippicus did not return to favour in Justinian II’s second
reign (as assumed by Head, Justinian II, p. 146). He was proclaimed
emperor and adopted the name Philippicus in Cherson. Either our text is
referring to some sort of retrial under Justinian II (705-11), or to the
events of 703. It does not seem likely that Par. has in mind the fall of
Philippicus himself in 713; we know that he was blinded in or near the
Hippodrome (Nicephorus, p. 49; Theophanes, p. 383). See however
Speck, Universitat, p. 99 and note 52.
censured: or ‘condemned’. It is best to punctuate here and start a
new sentence with ‘Tervel’, since the trial of Philippicus is less easily
linked with the presence of foreign princes ‘on several occasions’ than is
the presentation of tribute. But either construction is awkward.
Tervel: the Bulgarian ruler who enabled Justinian II to return to
power in 705 (Nicephorus, pp. 41-42; Theophanes, p. 374); he was richly
and ceremonially rewarded by Justinian {ibid.). Par. must be referring to
these great ceremonies. See Head, Justinian II, pp. 123-24.
Gliavanos the Khazar: see Moravcsik, Byzantinoturcica2 (1958), I,
pp. 81-86; II, pp. 335-36, on the Khazars. The chroniclers make no
mention of a visit by the Khazar Khan, but they do describe how Justi¬
nian sent for his Khazar wife after his reinstatement (Nicephorus, p. 43;
Theophanes, p. 375). It is possible that the Khan, or one of his kinsmen,
accompanied the empress and was honoured in Constantinople; Justi¬
nian’s recall of his wife suggests that he valued the alliance, despite the
Khan’s treachery while Justinian had been in exile.
payment: for πάκτον of tribute, see on chap. 12. For Justinian’s
rewards to Tervel the Bulgar see V. Besevliev, VV 16 (1959), pp. 8-13.
elephant: for another statue of an elephant, in the Forum of Constan¬
tine, see chap. 17, and cf. Speck, Universitat, pp. 99, with note 45; 106.
as the exhibitors of animals have assured us: Par. ’s chatty tone sur¬
faces again. Even if chaps. 37-41 or 43 came from a different ‘source’,
they have the same language and outlook as the rest of Par.; cf. the
following sentence, for example. Here the ‘evidence’ of animal keepers is
 COMMENTARY 213

brought forward as serious historical information. Severus the son of

Carus is a familiar figure in Par. (see on chaps. 20, 34, 57 and note to 73,
with chap. 56), as a sort of compound bogeyman of pre-Christian Con¬
stantinople; see introduction, section viii. It is hardly likely that the
Emperor Severus really did kill the elephant; Par. brings him in whenever
some suitably pagan name is needed. ‘According to tradition’: the hear¬
say of gossip and half-knowledge. ‘Spectacle’: see introduction, section
iv.
What follows is a fanciful story of why the statue of the elephant came
to be set up in the Basilica. According to Par., there was once a real
elephant kept in that place; but then the author weaves a story to connect
the massive elephant statue set up, meaningfully enough, by ‘Severus the
son of Carus’ with pagan sacrifices and the worship of Heracles. The end
of the chapter, with its reference to the mythical Byzas and Antes, and its
allusion to ‘philosophers’, betrays the contorted thinking of the authors of
Par. The Greek throughout is very free and loose, as usually when the
author lets fly with an elaborate story.
enclosure: the Greek opov normally means ‘boundary’; it is used in
chap. 64 for the carceres (starting gates) of the Hippodrome.
the seventy-two steps: perhaps the steps mentioned by Zosimus,
II.31.2 (so Mango, Brazen House, p. 44, who also points out that the
ground to the north of the Basilica dropped sharply for about 12 metres,
which might necessitate a long ilight of steps). The logic of the story puts
the existence of the real animal back in the days of the pre-Christian city,
but the Basilica seems to have been built only c. 410 (Mango, op. cil.,
p. 49); it is possible that the Ilight of steps was already there (Mango,
pp. 43-44).
force of guards: the Greek schole might refer either to the men or to
their guard-post. It is not clear whether Par. really means soldiers or
merely animal-keepers.
Carcinelus: perhaps a nickname for a grasping money-lender (from
‘crab’ or ‘pincers’), or (more likely) a fictitious name to suit the story.
false scales: cf. p. 41.5 ζυγοπλάστης; the latter word is found only
here, but cf. ζυγοκρούστης (‘one who uses a false balance’). There is no
particular point in this emphasis on Carcinelus’s occupation, except to
indicate him as the villain of the piece in contrast to the elephant’s rough
justice; but Par. is rather interested in control of money and weights—cf.
the measure of Heraclius here and see chap. 12.
threatened: the Anon. Treu supplies ‘with death’, adopted by
Preger; but it is better to keep Par.'s loose and no doubt idiomatic style,
especially as the Anon. Treu frequently simplifies in this way.
214 COMMENTARY

reins: P has βαγύλας, a Latin word meaning bridle or reins (Du

Cange, Glossarium mediae et infimae latimtatis, s.v., referring to this
passage). It would seem to make better sense to read it this way than to
adopt Lambeck’s βαιούλους or βαγύλους, ‘trainers’ (Theophanes,
p. 466.24). But after βαγύλας P has έλαιοφύρους, ‘oil-bearing’, ‘oil-
producing’, which makes no sense; possibly a corruption of ‘the
elephant’, or alternatively replacing some other adjective qualifying
βαγύλας.
Severus honours the elephant for its innate wisdom in thus punishing
the hot-headed money-lender. The story turns out to have a moral:
statues, if old and with pagan connections (here imported by the mention
of Severus), or even if simply not understood in a conventional Christian
context, nearly always in Par. have a hidden meaning; see most clearly
chap. 28.
sacrifices: Par. often connects pagan statuary with the idea of
sacrifice, as with that of prophecy; see especially chap. 20, also involving
Severus.
statues: the plural implies at least statues of the elephant and its
trainer; perhaps also a third figure holding scales, which could have given
rise to the story.
Heracles: apparently the Heracles Trihesperus in the Hippodrome at¬
tributed to Lysippus and described at length by Nicetas Choniates, De
Signis 5, p. 858 Bonn, and by Par. in the context of the Hippodrome at
chap. 64. See A. Cutler, ‘The De Signis of Nicetas Choniates: a Reap¬
praisal’, AJA 72 (1968), pp. 116-117; Mango, dS, p. 73. Par. implies here
that it was originally in the Basilica before being removed to the Hip¬
podrome. Thus this whole chapter has an air of describing the supposed
past of the Basilica, rather than its present. Par. places the bringing of the
statue from Rome to Constantinople ‘in the time of Julian the consularis’.
It might mean however ‘in the consulship of Julian’, in which case we
might connect it with Julian cos. 322 and Prefect of the city of Rome in
326-29 (PLRE I s.v. Julianus 23); see M. Bieber, The Sculpture of the
Hellenistic Age (New York, 1961), p. 35.
a chariot and a boat: evidently statuary too, though the Patria, 11.41,
p. 172, seems to have understood the reference to be to the means of con¬
veyance. There was a boat in stone in the Hippodrome, probably part of
the Scylla group described at chap. 61.
twelve statues: cf. chap. 60, where there are said to have been sixty
statues from Rome in the Hippodrome.
Anthemius: P has Άνθιμου at 1. 14, Άνθιμίου at 1. 15, Άνθημίου is
suggested by J. Pargoire, BZ 12 (1903), pp. 333, 467-68; there was a
well-known area called ‘the quarter of Anthemius’ (Janin, CB2, p. 309;
 COMMENTARY 215

Guilland, Topographie, II, pp. 99-101). The note about the reclining
Heracles seems to have slipped in parenthetically, since we are now back
with the ‘strange story’ of Severus and the elephant.
Nouzametos: one would say a fictitious name, except that Par. seems
clear that this person was of Persian origin.
tribute payments: for πάκτον see also chap. 12. But the mention of
Byzas and Antes locates the story in the realm of legend.
This spectacle: i.e. the elephant statue was still to be seen in or near
the Basilica and clearly needed exposition by Par.’s group of
‘philosophers’. Chap. 37 is a good specimen of their claims and their
methods; see introduction, section iv.

Chapter 38

Spectacle number two: this time P has the number and an ex¬
planatory title as well; so too with chaps. 39-43. Preger’s suggestion that
ώρέω stands for aureo (Latin ‘golden’) must be right, the Milion being
often so described. For the Milion see chaps. 10, 34-35 and note to
chap. 35.
This chapter wrongly ascribes an epigram from the Porphyrius base in
the Hippodrome to the supposed acclamation of the Emperor Constan¬
tine at the Milion, and probably also wrongly connects a chariot group at
the Milion with the birthday ceremonies of the city which included the
procession of a statue of Constantine into the Hippodrome to be
honoured there (see on chaps. 5, 56, and introduction, section viii).
Nevertheless, the chapter does preserve a genuine text known from other
sources, and some possibly authentic, if confused, idea of the early birth¬
day ceremonial.
It is obviously natural to suppose that the author read the epigram off
the Porphyrius monument in situ in the Hippodrome. It is not clear when
the bases were removed from the Hippodrome (see Cameron, Porphyrius,
p. 5 f.), but they were probably still there in Par. ’s day. In this case the
author can hardly be excused: he has taken a charioteer epigram about a
charioteer called Constantine to refer to the Emperor Constantine the
Great; see Cameron, Porphyrius, 109-11. Moreover, the (genuine)
epigram attributed to the Blues seems to have belonged rather to the
Greens (Cameron, op. cit., p. 111). But since the bases were on top of the
fifteen-foot high spina, it would in fact have been hard to read the inscrip¬
tions on them, and it is at least possible that Par. found these in a written
source, though perhaps more probably in a collection of acclamations
(for which see chaps. 3, 29) than a MS anthology, as suggested by
Cameron, op. cit., p. 112, since there is nothing to suggest that the
216 COMMENTARY

authors consulted literary sources of this kind (see introduction section

ix). It would appear that the acclamations to which Par. had access were
given without context (notes to chaps. 3, 29); here at any rate it has
grotesquely misapplied a genuine inscription still to be seen clearly on its
base in the Hippodrome. Surely Par. had not even realised that this was
so.
Of the different accounts in Par. of the foundation ceremonies and
subsequent birthday celebration of Constantinople (chaps. 5, 38, 53, 55,
56), chap. 38, with its completely misplaced epigram, is perhaps the least
successful, and yet it does preserve a genuine text which we can check
from other sources. This ought to be a warning against too easily discard¬
ing Par. ’s information in other places where it seems garbled or even
nonsensical (for a pessimistic view see Cameron, Porphyrius, p. 110; con¬
tra, Barnes, HSCP 79 (1975), p. 333).
At first sight one of Par. ’s grosser confusions, chap. 38 in fact contains
some interesting pointers relating to the tradition of the founding of Con¬
stantinople (on which see main discussion on chap. 56). The connection
made here between the Milion group and the birthday ceremonial is
probably simply wrong, as with the Neolaia group (see on chap. 5). But
the curious insistence on the late antique ceremonial is striking, and Par.
seems to have more information than is contained in Malalas, p. 320 f.,
the main source. Chap. 38 makes it clear that the Tyche of the city played
a prominent role in whatever ceremonies accompanied the foundation
and the annual birthday festival. The detail that Julian threw the image
into a pit, while doubtless mythical, is only found here and seems to com¬
bine Par.’s sense of the original ceremonial (not overtly Christian in
chaps. 5 and 56 except for the Kyrie eleison in 56 which may well be an
anachronism) with the eighth-century tendency to cast Julian in the role
of iconoclast (see introduction, section v). Clearly Par. is describing in all
these passages a ceremony or ceremonies no longer, for good reason,
familiar in this form, and that inevitably makes for confusion. Never¬
theless, it seems unlikely that the birthday ceremony as described by
Malalas at p. 320 f. and said to be performed in the sixth century (p. 322)
had evolved at so late a date, and there is no reason to doubt that at least
in the later fourth century if not in the last years of Constantine himself
some such ceremonial regularly took place, or that it included an element
of imperial cult symbolised in honours paid to the image of Constantine.
Further, chap. 38 is of interest in that it clearly shows a connection in the
minds of the authors of Par. between the statue of Constantine and
Helios. This is important in view of the fact that none of the early sources
explicitly say that Constantine’s statue was actually a reused statue of
Apollo or Helios; see further on chap. 68a, where Par. denies that it had a
 COMMENTARY 217

pagan origin but without explaining what this rumoured pagan origin
was. Hesychius, whose terminology comes nearest to making the connec¬
tion in the early period, merely says that the statue ‘shone like Helios’
(p. 17.14 Preger). Thus Par. may offer some support for the view that
Constantine’s statue was an Apollo-Helios (held by most scholars since
the article of Th. Preger, ‘Konstantinos-Helios’, Hermes 36 (1901),
pp. 457 ff., but rejected by Alan Cameron, ‘The Foundation of Constan¬
tinople’, forthcoming). See now R. Krautheimer, Three Christian Capitals
(1983), pp. 62 ff.
At the golden Milion: for έν meaning ‘at’, see p. 184.
chariot of Zeus/Helios: the Anon. Treu and the Patria, 11.42,
pp. 172-73, remove ‘Zeus’ and attribute the chariot to Helios alone. Par.
couples the two again at chap. 41.
Azotius, Byzas and Antes: as usual when Par. mentions Constantine,
we are in the realm of legend; see introduction, section viii.
‘you have taken up the whip again the Blue acclamation is ac¬
tually from one of the extant inscriptions on the Porphyrius base in the
Hippodrome (= AP XV.44), but hopelessly misapplied (see Alan
Cameron, Porphyrius, pp. 109-11; Dagron, Naissance, pp. 307-9). The
epigrams commemorated a charioteer called Constantine along with Por¬
phyrius—hence Par. ’s confusion (and a sad reflection on its lack of
awareness about the Christian founder of Constantinople). Par. perhaps
derived the epigram from a written collection of acclamations rather than
from the Porphyrius base itself—see above. It is even probable that Par. ’s
‘Blue’ acclamation was actually Green (Cameron, p. 169).
Green faction: this alleged Green acclamation is hardly applicable to
the Emperor Constantine, nor does Dagron’s translation help (‘the gods
higher than he (i.e. the charioteer) have carried him off’—Naissance,
p. 308). Perhaps it is a genuine Green acclamation from a genuine fac¬
tional record (see Alan Cameron, Circus Factions, p. 245), misunderstood
and/or misapplied by Par. See also on chaps. 3 and 29. Here Anon. Treu
and the Patria (11.42, pp. 172-3) have typically left out the acclamations
altogether. Par. has totally failed to see the inappropriateness of a
reference to ‘the gods’ in connection with the Christian Constantine (see
on chap. 68a).
a new little statue: evidently the same idea as in Malalas, p. 322 and
Chron. Pasch., p. 530 Bonn, where Constantine is said to have instituted
processions to the Hippodrome of a copy of his own statue from the
Forum, holding a copy of the Tyche also held by that statue. Par. ’s ver¬
sions of the procession have much in common with Malalas and Chron.
Pasch., but have lost the idea that these copies were wooden and gilded;
thus the author can suppose that the Milion group actually was that used
218 COMMENTARY

in the procession. The account here passes from describing the Milion
group to the ceremony itself, which was now known only from hearsay or
from such chronicles as were available. As here, chap. 5 associates the
small statue at the Neolaia with Tyche, and for the same reason; but see
note ad loc. Chap. 34 records a cross and a Tyche of the city together with
statues of Constantine and Helena on the Milion (for the text, see
translation and note ad loc.)—a group unlikely to be of Constantinian
date, but nonetheless indicative of the importance attached to the Tyche
in the fourth century. It would be wrong, however, to see this as having
a religious, as opposed to a symbolic, significance: see Alan Cameron,
‘The Foundation of Constantinople’, forthcoming.
escorted by many officials: cf. De Caer. I, pp. 440, 705 άξίαι δια
βραβείων. The insignia serve to denote the officials themselves, for which
see Oikonomides, Listes de preseance, pp. 282-83. If the terminology is
anachronistic (see on chaps. 5 and 56), it does not thereby follow that the
ceremony itself was not authentic.
Stama: the place in the Hippodrome where the charioteers were
crowned after winning a race (cf. chap. 5 and see Alan Cameron, Por-
phyrius, pp. 50-51; Dagron, Naissance, pp. 39-40).
Senate: the Senate in the Forum of Constantine; see note on chap. 8.
under Julian: apart from the parallel passage at Patria II. 42, p. 173
this is the only reference to such an action. But for the burial of suspect
statues (inverted here) see chap. 28, and for Par. ’s interest in Julian as a
prototype of iconoclastic emperors, see chap. 48 and introduction, sec¬
tion v.
inscriptions of the Forum: i.e. inscriptions on the bases of the statues
in the Forum of Constantine (cf. note to chap. 39). Each chapter in the
section ‘about spectacles’ (37-43) ends with a comment by the writer on
what has been described, either justifying the efforts of the ‘philosophers’
or else noting that the objects can still be seen. Chap. 41 concludes with a
note to Philokalos (on whom see chap. 27 and introduction, section iv)
emphasising the hard work that his commission (?) has entailed. The
language here (‘he will be amazed’) is very typical of Par.·, these statues
are objects of ‘wonder’ (introduction, section iv). At the end of chap. 11
also the writer encourages the readers to go and see for themselves by
looking round the city that what he relates is true. It may seem odd that
in a chapter about the Milion, Par. directs its readers to inscriptions in
the Forum; but its train of thought has led it to the Constantine statue
there. The implication is that Julian had recorded his destruction of the
Tyche in an inscription in the Forum—and that this is Par.’s source.
 COMMENTARY 219

Chapter 39: The Forum of Constantine

The Forum of Constantine lay on the Mese between the Milion and
the Forum Tauri. It was oval in shape and contained many ancient
statues, dominated by the porphyry column in the middle, bearing the
famous statue of Constantine (possibly a reused statue of Apollo):
Mango, TS, p. 57; Janin, CB2, pp. 77-80; Muller-Wiener, pp. 255-57;
Dagron, Naissance, pp. 38-39 and see on chap. 68a. When this column
was erected, at the refounding of the city, later legend claimed that a
number of significant objects were buried at the base, some listed in
chaps. 9 and 23, while others were placed on top. According to
Nicephorus Callistus one such was the axe with which Noah built the Ark
(the ‘treasure of Constantine’, HE VII.49); Malalas, p. 320 and Chron.
Pasch., p. 528 Bonn, add the palladium of Rome. Most had a Christian
purpose; cf. the crosses and other objects of Christ’s Passion mentioned
in chap. 23. In addition to the ‘great statue’ or great column of the
Forum, there were many statues and unusual objects, such as the clock or
sundial and patriarchal portraits. Around the sides were colonnades with
niches large enough to hold equestrian statues, many of which had in¬
scribed bases (chaps. 38, 39). Constantine himself commissioned many
of these (chap. 59), and destroyed one of Maxentius, an object of pagan
worship. Those of Arius and other Arians were erected by Theodosius I
so that Christians could recognise and condemn the arch-heretic
(chap. 39). The Forum of Constantine was an important ceremonial
space in the city and assembly point for the inhabitants, where the city
prefect summoned the people for announcements. It appears from
chap. 39 that free meals were sometimes distributed there, probably on
the south side where the ground slopes away and steps up to the Forum
might be required (see note ad loc.).
Both chap. 39 and chap. 40 are very corrupt and translation is often
difficult. Anon. Treu and the Patria, 11.43, p. 173, lack the first part of
chap. 39 altogether.
Forum: i.e. the Forum of Constantine.
Balsama the centurion: quite unknown (if genuine).
devotee of idols: for ‘idol’ in Par. see introduction, section vii.
Though it can be neutral, simply meaning statue, as at chap. 60, εϊδώλον
does often carry the connotation of pagan ‘idols’ (chaps. 47, 49) and
είδωλολατρεία can certainly mean ‘idolatry’ (chap. 47 and see below). For
a full discussion of Par. ’s terminology of statues and the various meanings
of είδώλον see introduction, section vii. Another ‘champion of idols’ is
Koukobutios the ‘philosopher’ (chap. 41).
220 COMMENTARY

building: the meaning is extremely doubtful. P has τοΰ πύρου

ώρολογίου. Since however πύρου recurs at chap. 40 and perhaps 41 also,
with the meaning ‘building’, it does not seem likely to be corrupt here.
Preger suggests that we should read πύργου (‘tower’), but we prefer to re¬
tain πύρου. Presumably the article has dropped out before ‘clock’. The
existence of a clock or sun-dial in the Forum is confirmed by the Patria,
III. 12, p. 218, where it is recorded that it was bronze and came from
Cyzicus. Other horologia at Constantinople are attested near the Milion
(Theophanes, p. 216 de Boor), the Chalke (Malalas, p. 479 Bonn), the
baptistery of S. Sophia and the Augusteum (Narratio de S. Sophia, pp. 82,
84, 104 Preger). For the clock to be displayed high up on a tower or tall
building makes sense, although ancient sundials were frequently placed
on low bases.
for research: cf. chap. 27.
Pallas: i.e. Athena; see chap. 61.
scales of Asclepiodorus: these all seem to be small precious objects
stolen by Balsama and now discovered.
where the first meal of the day is served: could this be a reference to
free distribution of food? Cf. John of Ephesus, HE 11.43, III. 14 for such
distributions and the association with ‘stairs’. In the eighth century the
Patriarch Tarasios organised free food for the poor (see Mango, Brazen
House, pp. 50-51).
archway: presumably still in the Forum, hence one of the arches of
the colonnades. For καμάρα cf. chaps. 22, 34 and 56. Par. ’s tone is heavily
coloured, and the passage is full of vocabulary with pagan associations.
Maxentius: the general meaning seems to be that in the Forum there
was an equestrian statue, the object of pagan worship, which, Par.
claims, was really of Constantine’s rival, Maxentius. Constantine,
recognising this, cast it down and punished the offenders. Maxentius,
son of Maximian, was defeated by Constantine at the Battle of the Mil-
vian Bridge outside Rome (AD 312), before which Constantine was said
to have had his famous vision (though Par. is uncertain as to its loca¬
tion—see introduction, section viii and note to chap. 16) and thus figures
in later Christian tradition as the type of paganism. The Christian
associations of the Forum, the most important Constantinian public
space in Constantinople, would naturally lead Par. to explain the
remembered destruction of an equestrian statue in terms of the struggle
between Christianity and paganism. But since Constantine’s victory is
usually depicted in this text as a victory over the mythical Byzas and
Antes, it is very uncertain whether the writer here really understood who
Maxentius was, or whether there would have been such a statue here.
 COMMENTARY 221

Arius: see note to chap. 1. Par. ’s notice here is unusually detailed and
vehement, and should probably be linked with renewed condemnation of
Arianism in the immediately pre-iconoclastic period—see introduction,
section v. Par. ’s phraseology looks as though it derives from a written
anti-Arian source, probably a homily (cf. Photius, Homilies XV, XVI,
trans. Mango (1958), with p. 239 f.). ‘By imperial aid’ would seem to
refer to Constantius II (337-61), who supported Arianism and promoted
the interests of Arius himself and his hopes of gaining the patriarchal
throne of Constantinople. Par. can afford to be much more outspoken in
its condemnation of Arians than of iconoclasts; Arianism was a much
safer topic. However, the very prominence of Arians in Par. indicates a
context in the early stages of iconoclasm when Arianism was very much
at the centre of polemic.
Alexander: cf. chap. 11. Bishop of Constantinople, 327-40, also com¬
memorated in an icon burned by Arians (chap. 10). His prayers through
the night were thought to have brought about the death of Arius
(Sozomen, HE 11.29).
Some letters are missing in P before ‘until’, and the whole entry up to
the death of Arius is omitted by Anon. Treu and the Patria, 11.43, p. 173.
palms: 7.81 cm (Schilbach, Metrologie, p. 18).
in the reign of...: Anon. Treu, followed by Patria, 11.43, p. 173, have
changed this to ‘by’ (επί to ύπό), but P’s text is likely to be right.
Sabellius, Macedonius, Eunomius: i.e. the arch-heretics of the late
third and early fourth centuries, all associated with Arianism.
vent on: P has σφετερίζειν (‘take over’). Par.'s hostility to heretics is
expressed in the strongest possible language, noticeably contrasting with
its restraint in dealing with iconoclasm; see introduction, section v.
Photius in an earlier sermon (now lost) had told of the death of Arius,
clearly in similar language (Mango, Photius, Homilies, p. 244), and no
doubt the theme was common in homilies contemporary with Par.
For the final sentence, see note on chap. 38. ‘With philosophy’ hardly
does justice to Par.'s sense of φιλοσοφία (see introduction, section iv). The
idea is that to understand Par.'s work, and the monuments which it
describes, one needs φιλοσοφία, the quality of being a ‘philosopher’, i.e.
insight, connoisseurship, the understanding of the arcane secrets of an¬
cient statues. Similarly ‘effort’ (πόνος) and ‘examine’ (διερευνάν) are
technical words for Par. At the end of chap. 41 the effort of collecting the
information is again emphasised.
up to the present day: see introduction, section v.
222 COMMENTARY

Chapter 40

The text of this chapter in P is very corrupt and much of the translation
must be regarded as very tentative. Like the other chapters in this sec¬
tion, i.e. chaps. 37-41 or 43, chap. 40 has a heading as well as the title
‘Spectacle number four’.
buildings: again the mysterious πύρος (see on chap. 39). In any case
something seems to be missing in P’s text, perhaps ήτοι before πύροις (cf.
p. 45.6 ‘the buildings, or rather the Bread Market’), πύρος exists with the
meaning ‘wheat’, and it is possible to envisage its extension by Par. to
mean the buildings in which the grain was kept, or possibly baked (see
below). Bread had probably been produced in this area before Irene in¬
stalled the new ovens; see chap. 41. It seems as though most of the ter¬
minology to do with grain, and with weighing it (see on chaps. 12, 39) is
only half understood by Par., unless it has been corrupted later; there is
certainly a high incidence of rare and difficult words in this connection.
Bread Market: see on chap. 13. It was just beyond the Forum (Janin,
CB\ pp. 37, 100).
A small dog: the text is fairly hopeless. Anon. Treu, followed by
Patria, 11.46, pp. 174-75, has attempted to smooth it out. P’s text is well
written at this point and not erased, so the corruption was early.
Lambeck, perhaps rightly, envisaged a group of different animals
mingled together, depicting Nature.
a peacock and an eagle: either we must supply ‘there were images of’
or take ‘heads’ as referring to all of these, since they are all in the
genitive. More probably the complete animals and birds were portrayed,
except for the rams’ heads.
heifers Plowing: P’s έμαοΰσαι is meaningless. Preger suggests t
μυκοΰσαι (‘five heifers lowing’), which is just possible,
to be looked at: cf. θέας χάριν, introduction, section iv.
oxherd: P has the nonsense word βούλαρος. βούκολος (‘oxherd’) at
least fits the context, especially with ύπέρ βοός. If this is a group represent¬
ing ploughing, the corruption in P after ‘ox’ ought to be solvable in this
way. What P has is κατάραος, suggesting the verb καταρόω (‘plough’).
Preger suggests καί άρότρον (‘above an ox and a plough’.
a great spectacle: hence its inclusion in this section. For θεάμα and
θαύμα (‘wonder’) in Par. see introduction, section iv.
for many years: punctuate after ‘years’ and take the next words as a
separate clause with historic infinitive, as so often in Par.
the story lasted until the reign of Zeno: i.e. this account held the
field until the true meaning of the statues was revealed in the reign of
Zeno.
 COMMENTARY 223

Galen: not of course the famous physician, but a ‘wise man’ in the
time of Zeno who understood the real significance of the statues. Possibly
however he is called a doctor because Par. or its source confused him with
the famous Galen.
historical writings: for ‘chronographer’ in the sense of historian see
chap. 7 and introduction, section ix.
the stories of the emperors: the figures turn out to signify prophecies
as to the future of Constantinople and its rulers. For the same idea cf. the
16th-c. Diegesis, 513 ff., and see introduction, section vii. When Galen
realises what this means for Zeno himself, he is said to laugh—a typical
reaction for ‘philosophers’ who understand the secrets of statues (see
chap. 64).
and when he applied his attention: partially supplied from the
Patria, 11.46, p. 175, since half the line is missing in P.
Zeno_Verina: for Verina see on chap. 29. She hoped to replace
Zeno with Patricius but was forestalled by her brother Basiliscus who
seized the throne for himself. Thus the episode appears to have taken
place at the very beginning of Zeno’s first reign, 474-75, before the usur¬
pation of Basiliscus.
Callistratus: this episode, by contrast, occurs after Zeno’s return to
power. Par. seems to be on the side of the unfortunate Galen, who could
after all interpret statues correctly—cf. the terms of abuse used of
Callistratus (vulgar and in trade). Whether there is anything at all in the
connection of this further Green acclamation (see notes on chaps. 3, 29
and 38 above) with an execution in the area of the Bread Market we can¬
not know; nor whether there was indeed some kind of a tradition which
named the strange animal statuary there after one Galen.
building: καλενδία, another rare word.
a court was held: a silentium was held, i.e. a trial.
Green faction: see note on chap. 38.
Aristides the philosopher: i.e. one of Par. ’s sources; see introduc¬
tion, section ix. He merits the title because he could interpret meanings
(here of the supposed name of the statuary).
which can be seen until today: perhaps therefore an inscription on
the statues, still visible, but no doubt misinterpreted by Par.’s source.
injustice: P’s text is corrupt and the meaning uncertain. Perhaps it
means ‘the beasts of Galen, who (i.e. Galen) was rewarded with injustice
(i.e. unjustly punished) by Zeno’.
when he had carved the inscription: why Aristides should have run
away to Cherson, and whether ‘was preserved’ means that he was still
alive at the time of writing or (more likely) could still be seen com¬
memorated in a statue, are questions which probably go together. The
224 COMMENTARY

choice of Cherson as a refuge probably reflects recent history for Par.,

when it was the site of Justinian II’s exile and Philippicus’s acclamation.
Probably Par. thought of Aristides as a contemporary of Galen and Zeno,
but supplied Cherson from recent experience. For Cherson in the early
eighth century see Head, Justinian II, pp. 108 f., 142 ff.

Chapter 41: The Amastrianon

Another difficult and corrupt chapter, with many uncertainties. P

writes ‘Spectacle number five’ and what follows, down to praepositus, as a
heading. For some reason Preger indicates that the heading ends with
‘Amastrianon’, without including ‘Caracallus the praepositus'.
The Amastrianon was a public square between the Philadelphion and
the Forum Bovis, lying on the southern fork of the Mese leading to the
Xerolophos; see Janin, CB2, pp. 68 ff. and REB 13 (1955), pp. 85 ff.;
Guilland, Topographie, II, p. 74. It was built by Constantine I and richly
decorated with ancient statuary, including a Zeus-Helios chariot group, a
reclining Heracles (a copy of the one in the Hippodrome?) and a Hermes.
The association with Zeus, apparently a defining feature of this place, is
noted by Cedrenus, I, p. 566 f., who records a temple of the Sun and
Moon, pagan statues, evil spirits and connotations of death which gave
the Amastrianon a bad name. Par. testifies to this aspect of the place,
describing a temple dedicated to Zeus, a theatre, pagan sacrifice and
monuments connected with the dominion and fall of demons from which
‘philosophers’ could predict the fate of emperors. In particular, there was
a strange representation of a river, an eagle and wolf, with tortoises,
birds and female serpents (cf. the ‘spectacle’ in chap. 40), and a group of
statues said to depict the idolatrous philosopher, Koukobutios, and his
family. Finally, Par. adds a building identified as the Artemision which
contained horses and musical instruments, still visible at the time of
writing. Taken together with the stories of buried gold and silver
treasure, of pagan participation in sacrifice and worship, these associa¬
tions of the Amastrianon render it an outstanding example of the
pre-Christian city of Constantinople. Par. adds that many pagans died
in this area in an earthquake before the time of Constantine’s vision and
conversion to Christianity. This earthquake took place in the arena or
hippodrome there, a monument also known to the Patria, III. 173, p. 269,
where it is attributed to Theodosius I or II, but often discounted by
modern scholars. Despite their doubts (see Dagron, Naissance,
pp. 316-17; Guilland, Topographie, I, p. 167), the evidence of the
patriographers should probably be accepted. The Patria may refer to
some part of it when they record a vault or apse at the Amastrianon, on
 COMMENTARY 225

which a measure (examon or horologion) was set up with the two bronze
hands as at Valentinian’s modios (see chap. 12) near the Lamia (Patria,
11.51, p. 179, cf. Janin, CB\ pp. 104, 379; REB 13 (1955), p. 88f. and
note on chap. 12). The area of the Amastrianon was partially destroyed
by the Empress Irene in the late eighth century when she built the
Eleutherios palace and installed bakeries (Theophanes, pp. 467, 472,
476; Patria, III. 173) Judging by an ingenious theory devised to explain
the much later term, coliseo de spiriti, these bakeries may have been
established at the curved end of the hippodrome or theatre of the
Amastrianon, for the occuli typically associated with such buildings ap¬
pear on a late sixteenth-century map of Constantinople (see C. L.
Striker, ‘The Coliseo de Spiriti in Constantinople’, in O. Feld and U.
Peschlow (eds.), Festschrift F. Deichmann, forthcoming). Thus the associa¬
tion between the Amastrianon and bread making and hence with the
measure (modios) may date only from this time. But the coliseo de spiriti
perhaps owes its name partly to the form of the hippodrome or theatre in
the Amastrianon, and partly to the long tradition of divination, proph¬
ecy, the ‘rise and fall of demons’ and emperors and other pagan activities
so vividly evoked in Par., chap. 41.
Caracallus the praepositus: unknown. He seems to be cited as the
source; see introduction, section ix.
statue: for the uses of είδώλον see on chap. 39 and introduction, sec¬
tion vii.
Mekas and Glaukos: on all these ‘sources’ see introduction, section
ix. What follows (for which Par. might well have had some kind of written
source) is clearly a list of statues. The corruptions and difficulties in the
text perhaps suggest that the list was only partially understood.
Zeus-Helios in a chariot: the same as that mentioned of Helios by
Cedrenus, I, p. 566 Bonn, as being in this region and ‘on a white
chariot’. We have already heard of a Zeus-Helios on a chariot at the
Milion (chap. 38; see note ad loc.).
the staff-bearer of Zeus: P’s Διός σκυταλίδης is surely corrupt.
Cedrenus, loc. cit., may give a clue to what stood in Par., since there we
find the word σκηπτούχος. Neither Anon. Treu nor the Patria mention this
statue. It is clear that Cedrenus was not drawing on Par. but was using a
different and good source, despite Janin, REB 13 (1955), p. 88. The
‘staff-bearer’ of Zeus would be Hermes. For Διός see on chap. 41.
Aristides: unknown; the name is dropped by Anon. Treu and the
Patria. Cf. chap. 28 (Aristides the architect of the Kynegion) and
chap. 40 (Aristides the philosopher). This looks like Par. using classicis¬
ing names for greater ‘authenticity’; see introduction, section iv.
226 COMMENTARY

the reclining Heracles: see chap. 37. This recalls the famous reclin¬
ing Heracles of Lysippus (see Nicetas Choniates, De Signis, 5, p. 858
Bonn, on which see A. Cutler, AJA 72 (1968), pp. 116-17). In chap. 37 it
is said that a similar statue was moved from the Basilica to the Hip¬
podrome, and that is certainly the same as the statue described in
chap. 65 as being in the Hippodrome. Why then do we seem to find the
same statue listed at the Amastrianon? One possibility is that it was a
copy of the famous one (see Cutler, art. cit., p. 117, n. 55 for an imitation
in ivory). It seems that there was indeed such a statue at the
Amastrianon, since Manuel Chrysoloras refers to a reclining statue
‘above the wolf’ (see below) in a letter written in 1411 (PG 156.48).
Another possibility is that while it was a reclining figure, it was not
Heracles, for Cedrenus, I, p. 567 Bonn, places in the Amastrianon a
reclining Zeus attributed to Phidias.
a charioteer of the gods: i.e. a statue of a pagan god driving a
chariot.
inscribed: Greek επιγραφών, i.e. active for passive, cf. chap. 26.
the river: the question is whether there are two representations here
(a river and an eagle) or one (a group of the river and a wolf), since the
Greek is very compressed and Anon. Treu and the Patria, 11.52, p. 179
abridge it so as to leave out the eagle altogether. There have been
numerous attempts to explain the Greek, either by taking κυτλος and
λύκος as proper names or by fairly drastic emendation. It does seem clear
that there was a statue of a wolf (Chrysoloras loc. cit. above), for Malalas
also refers~to one, put up by Apollonius of Tyana (p. 264 Bonn), and
Cedrenus, I, p. 364 Bonn picks this up. But κύτλου is still a puzzle, as is
άέτιος (‘like an eagle’?). Anon. Treu and the Patria as usual leave out the
difficult words. At least it is clear that the first two syllables of the im¬
possible μυκολατρευόμενος must be regarded as a scribal error and cut out,
giving the sense ‘worshipped’.
tortoises: a stone tortoise is mentioned by Malalas in the same
passage (p. 264 Bonn).
eighteen she-serpents: MS G of the Patria adds ‘completely of stone’,
as though to explain that these are all statues; Par. simply lists what the
statues represent.
Koukobytios: all the names are completely unknown. Presumably
there was a group of at least three, possibly six, figures but Par.’s iden¬
tification hardly looks convincing. Koukobytios is a ‘champion of idols’,
like Balsama the centurion in chap. 39, who is an equally suspicious
figure. Probably Par.’s designation of Koukobytios is influenced by its
suspicion that the Amastrianon, being the site of so many peculiar
statues, is a rather dangerous place; so it gives an aetiological explanation
 COMMENTARY 227

in terms of one of the statues being that of a ‘champion of idols’.

‘Philosopher’ does not here have the favourable meaning it usually has in
Par., where it generally denotes one who shares Par. ’s own superior
understanding of statues (introduction, section iv); but see on chap. 64.
the dominion and fall of demons: Par. ’s attitude is exactly that of the
16thc. text edited by Dagron and Paramelle, the Diegesis (Travaux et
Memoires 7 (1979), pp. 513 ff.); where there are pagan statues, prophecy is
possible about the future of the city, or more specifically of its
emperors—cf. chaps. 20, 40 and notes ad locc. The other element which
makes this possible is the past fact of sacrifice in the place, which is here
represented by Koukobytios’s having ‘sacrificed’ his wife and children.
Naturally, given Par. ’s outlook, the prophecies can only be discerned by
‘philosophers’ (introduction, section iv). The sentence is difficult: a verb
has to be supplied. But the general meaning is that the fall of emperors
can be deduced by the wise. ‘Demons’ probably means the pagan gods
depicted in the statues. The language of the rest of the sentence is very
strong—‘accursed emperors’ are called ‘fornicators’; cf. the language
used of Arius in chap. 39. It is safe for Par. to write thus of pagans and
heretics, whereas more care is needed in relation to contemporary
emperors; introduction, section v. But behind this may lie the idea that
the fall of recent emperors (especially Justinian II, for whom see on chap.
37) was predicted in the statues (cf. Patria, 11.77, p. 190).
For this reason: Anon. Treu and the Patria, 11.52, p. 180, both omit
the rest of the chapter, perhaps finding it as difficult as we do. The text is
certainly corrupt in several places, and the meaning of the sentence that
follows is very obscure. However, some kind of moral is still being drawn
about the hidden meaning to be found in the statuary, after which the
writer seems to pass on to further general remarks about the area.
naked statue: unclear to which this refers. For the uses of zodion in
Par. see introduction, section vii. Perhaps the subject of ‘turn their atten¬
tion’ is the ‘philosophers’—unless it is the emperors themselves (unlikely
however in view of τοΰ οίνακτος).
The allusion in what follows seems to be to magic spells. After
‘roasting’, P’s γαλουχεΐται (‘is suckled’) makes no sense. Preger seems to
understand all this as meaning that the philosophers should pour abuse
(χέω; cf. μυκτήε in the sense of ‘sneering’) at the friends of the (bad)
emperor, γαλέη (a weasel) can be used to signify bad luck. The precise
meaning escapes us, but Par. goes on with a remark that although clearly
corrupt is equally clearly still about drawing lessons from statues. Since
the weasel had unsavoury sexual connotations, there may be some point
here in relation to the fornication mentioned above (see J. Boswell, Chris¬
tianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality (Chicago, 1980), p. 143).
228 COMMENTARY

From these it was known to you ...: possible emendations are καθ’ ήν
for καί ήν or δπως for ίσως. Who is it who is being thus suddenly ad¬
dressed, people in general, or the ‘philosophers’? Not Philokalos, for he
is addressed (below) in the singular, and here we have a plural.
much silver: we are on surer ground here. It is typical of Par. ’s
outlook that pagan statuary might also indicate the presence of buried
treasure; cf. chap. 24.
there was a theatre: the theatre and arena in this region were known
later as the Coliseo de Spiriti\ see note below.
arena: πέλμα is the normal Byzantine term for the arena in a hip¬
podrome: Guilland, Topographie, II, p. 442, n.l. The Patria, III. 173, p.
269, refer to a hippodrome in the region of the Amastrianon built by
Theodosius and later demolished by Irene, the mother of Constantine VI
(see Janin, REB 13 (1955), pp. 90-91); see the study by C. L. Striker,
‘The Coliseo de Spiriti in Constantinople’, in O. Feld and U. Peschlow
(eds.), Festschrift F. Deichmann (forthcoming).
the horses: we seem to be back with the list.
the dux Galindouch: unknown. The name looks Persian (cf. S.
Golindouch, a late sixth-century Persian martyr).
Artemision: unknown. The Greek τω πυρί is possibly the same word
as in chaps. 39 and 40 (see notes).
Philokalos: the chapter ends with an address to Philokalos, the ‘spon¬
sor’, it seems, emphasising the industry of the compiler(s). Perhaps the
element of resentment here expressed reflects the difficulty in dealing
with the Amastrianon statuary. For Philokalos, see introduction, section
iv, and for the ‘effort’ involved, cf. chap. 39 fin. ‘For your honour’: cf.
chap. 27 and note.

chapter 42

P has the words ‘About the Ox’ as a heading, but not ‘Spectacle
number five’ (added by Preger): see above, note on chap. 37. However,
P does seem to have the numeral six at the beginning of the heading to
chap. 43 (though not the word for ‘spectacle’); this suggests that ‘Spec¬
tacle number five’ did originally stand here in P (and ‘spectacle number
six’ at chap. 43).
the Ox: it gave its name to the Forum Bovis: Janin, CB2, pp. 69-71.
clearly: cf. chaps. 12 τρανότατα and 61 έτράνωσεν; evidently these are
part of Par.’s special vocabulary of ‘research’ (they are not everyday
words); see introduction, section iv.
Philokalos: chap. 41 ended and chap. 42 begins with remarks ad¬
dressed to Philokalos. Here the writer alludes to ‘frequent letters’ of
 COMMENTARY 229

Philokalos, who evidently in some sense organised or at least sponsored

this part of the work which resulted in Par. Chap. 28 also reads as if it
might be a letter in reply to Philokalos’s requests. See further, introduc¬
tion. section iv.
built in the Hippodrome: according to Cedrenus, the bronze ox was
brought from Pergamum (I, p. 566 Bonn). It is just possible that it was in
the Hippodrome for a time before being removed to the Forum to which
it gave its name.
Valentinian: certainly not one of the emperors of that name, for
praepositi were eunuchs.
furnace: Cedrenus, loc. cit., suggests that the furnace itself was built
in the form of an ox, or an ox’s head (see Janin, CB2, p. 69). More prob¬
ably it was an ordinary furnace with a separate statue of an ox, as sug¬
gested by ‘bore as a spectacle’. If the ox statue really was melted down by
Heraclius, the furnace might have remained and could then explain the
continued use of the Forum Bovis for burning the bodies of public
enemies (e.g. Stephen and Theodotus in AD 695: Nicephorus, p. 39 de
Boor, Theophanes, p. 369).
Julian: for Par.’s attitude to Julian, see introduction, section v.
Neorision harbour: also mentioned in chap. 5a, but there called
Neorion. Cf. chap. 72.
Phocas: for the burning of Phocas’s body in the Ox’ see Chron.
Pasch., p. 701, Theophanes, p. 299, Guilland, Topographie, I, p. 45. The
words ‘by Heraclius’ seem to refer to the burning of the body, but
Theophanes, loc. cit., says it was burned by the factions. Probably the
phrase ‘by Heraclius’ should be taken with what follows.
melted down: see note to chap. 28. This recalls similar expedients
adopted by Heraclius to meet the expenses of the Persian war, particular¬
ly the edict of c. 622/23 by which church plate from Constantinople was
expropriated and coined (see D5lger, Regesten, no. 176; Theophanes,
pp. 302-3). It may also be connected with the creation of a new silver
coin (Dolger, no. 167) and the economies recorded in Chron. Pasch.,
p. 706 Bonn.
treasury of the guards: see below on ‘guardpost’. The terminology
seems to suggest that the excubitors were involved in the recruitment
drive; cf. Chron. Pasch., p. 724; Theophylact Simocatta, Hist. VI.9.14.
For discussion see W. E. Kaegi Jr., ‘Two Studies in the Continuity of
Late Roman and Byzantine Military Institutions’, BF 8 (1982),
pp. 87-113.
went to Pontus for the army recruitment: Heraclius did indeed
recruit in Pontus and Armenia (Thomas S. Brown, Anthony Bryer and
David Winfield, ‘Cities of Heraclius’, BMGS 4 (1978), pp. 22 ff.; N.
230 COMMENTARY

Oikonomides, ‘Les premiers mentions des themes dans la chronique de

Theophane’, ZR VI 16 (1975), pp. 1-8. This is therefore a contribution to
the vexed question of Heraclius’s reforms, and the relation of these
recruits (if any) to the new army recorded by Theophanes, p. 303 and
George of Pisidia, Exp. Pers. 11.44 f., 55 f. For a summary of the debate,
see J. F. Haldon, Recruitment and Conscription in the Byzantine Army,
c. 550-950 (Vienna, 1979), pp. 35-40, and review by R. J. Lilie, Byzan-
tinoslavica 41 (1980), pp. 241-46. But Par.’s evidence tells us nothing
directly about the origins of the themes (see Haldon, op. cit., pp. 30 ff.;
R.-J. Lilie, JOB 26 (1977), pp. 7-47). As the soldiers were not actually
paid in bronze, the ‘ox’ could not have strictly gone to pay them; but
Heraclius did set up temporary mints during his campaigns which issued
bronze to serve the needs of the army and the commissariat for small
change (P. Grierson, Catalogue of the Byzantine Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks
Collection II, (1968), p. 220, cf. pp. 38 ff.). For the whole background of
armies and recruitment in this period, see further J. W. Teall, DOP 13
(1959), pp. 108 ff.; W. E. Kaegijr., BZ 66 (1973), pp. 308-30; Haldon,
op. cit.
guardpost: σκουλκάτον (Preger), from σκοΰλκα. This ought to have to
do with scouts, look-outs etc., but might just be a reference to the role of
the scribones, officers of the excubitors, as recruiting-officers (see Haldon,
Recruitment and Conscription, p. 21; we are grateful to J. Haldon for help on
this point).
it was worth: something of the sort is missing in P. But σταθμών is
strictly a measure of length (Schilbach, Metrologie, pp. 33, 36).
because it was cast: given its size, it was presumably a very large
piece of solid bronze which produced a great quantity of distinctive coins.
up to the present day: see introduction, section v. See too the final
sentences of chaps. 37, 39, 40, 41, 43 and by implication also 38.
this remains ...: Par. means that the coins struck from the bronze of
the ox are still in circulation. For styles of imperial portraiture on early
seventh-century coins, see Grierson, op. cit., pp. 88 ff. If true (and the
comment on the appearance of the imperial bust perhaps suggests that it
was) this would be interesting evidence for the length of time some coins
remained current. For λαιμια see Malal., p. 265 Bonn, but contra, W. E.
Kaegi, BF 8 (1982).

Chapter 43

The title raises great problems. P’s heading seems to refer to the
Milion, though there is no reference to the Milion in the passage. As for
ζή, it could represent the numeral ζ', in which case θέαμα (‘spectacle’) has
 COMMENTARY 231

been omitted, as in chap. 42 (notes on chaps. 42 and 37). The similarity

of subject matter and treatment between 42-43 does suggest that they are
all part of the section ‘about spectacles’, in which case we should restore
‘Spectacle number seven’ here. Against this view is the fact that P actual¬
ly has ζή, which suggests the marginal note ‘check’, as in chaps. 6 and 10.
There is certainly something wrong with the rest of the title, which in P’s
version consists of an accumulation of names and titles without enough
connection (though P does have a second τοΰ, omitted in Preger’s text,
after Μιλίου). Literally, the title should mean something like ‘From the
Milion the spectacle of the ? official Dioscorus; from the things to be seen
in the reign of the Emperor Maurice’, όφφίκιον cannot be right as it
stands; the word does exist in the sense of ‘bureau’, ‘office’, but would
then require another article. Perhaps it conceals a title for Dioscorus in¬
stead. It may be that this source is the chronicle from the reign of
Heraclius identified by L. M. Whitby with Mango’s ‘patriographic
source of around 600’ {Brazen House, p. 102; Whitby, unpublished Ox¬
ford D. Phil, thesis, 1981). An alternative suggestion, made by Alan
Cameron, is that ‘Milion’ conceals ‘Milichios’, the ‘chronographer’ of
chap. 65.
That the chapter begins as though with a quotation, perhaps from
Dioscorus (see above).
the Senate of the Forum: see on chaps. 7-8. The etymology is one of
Par.’s more desperate efforts (cf. chap. 85 on Iconium). See Mango,
Brazen House, p. 57; Janin, CB2, pp. 154-55.
the three-headed porphyry statue: Par. now describes a lost statue
which it seems to imply had been in the Forum, actually in or at the
Senate House. It was apparently a composite group with three heads,
identified as Constantine I, Constans and Constantius, looking in dif¬
ferent directions. According to Par., there were three bodies, six hands,
but one trunk and only two feet. This seems to distinguish it from the
porphyry group of four embracing ‘tetrarchs’ at San Marco in Venice,
which did come from Constantinople (R. Naumann, 1st. Mitt. 16 (1966),
pp. 199 ff.; L. Rocchetti, Ann. Scuola arch, di Atene 50-51 (n.s. 34-35)
(1972-73) (1975), pp. 467 ff.). In the Venice group, the four figures em¬
brace each other in two facing couples and do not share any lower limbs.
P. Verzone has identified the Venetian tetrarchs with the Philadelphion
group described at chap. 70: see note ad loc. But the statue described here
seems to have been a different one, if indeed it existed at all.
one head: hardly. Perhaps three heads, or a head with three profiles,
looking in different directions.
stolen: a highly elaborate and no doubt false story. The notion of theft
to account for the disappearance of statues in Constantinople is not un-
232 COMMENTARY

common (see Mango, AS, p. 58, note 16, where one of the examples is
the Perichytes statue mentioned at Par., chap. 64). AP IX. 779 com¬
memorates the (temporary) theft of a sun-dial.
suburbs: διαστατούς, only here. The root means ‘apart from’ hence
perhaps ‘suburbs’. Otherwise it must somehow mean ‘by land’, to
balance ‘by the sea’. The verb is missing in P.
gave up to the fire: the Senate House of the Augusteum was indeed
destroyed by fire, the one started in 404 by the supporters of S. John
Chrysostom (Mango, Brazen House, p. 56), though not because of the
anger of the then three-year old Theodosius. Curiously the sources for
that event specifically say that while the fire burned people went about
their business (Mango, loc. cit. and n. 129)—Par. ’s άσχολουμένων? If Par.
was drawing on a written description of the famous fire, that might ex¬
plain why he needs to ‘explain’ the rather rare άσχολουμένων with ‘as it
were’ (ώς εϊπεΐν). But if so, the writer failed to notice that he had got the
wrong Senate House. However, a garbled story of the fire, which is dated
more or less correctly, would naturally have suggested a context for the
tale of the theft of the porphyry group, which people remembered as hav¬
ing looked so odd.
<made> threats: no verb in P.
Fausta the daughter of Diocletian: in fact of Maximian, married to
Constantine in 307, died in mysterious circumstances in 326. Another
statue of Fausta is mentioned at chap. 7.
porphyry all over: Preger suggests περιφερούς (probably =
‘rounded’).

Chapter 44: From Papias

Hardly the Papias cited by Eusebius, HE III.39 (‘a man of little in¬
telligence’), nor the author whose works are preserved in a fragmentary
state (see de Boor, Texte u. Untersuchungen V.2b (Leipzig, 1889). More
probably, if he is genuine (see Mango, Brazen House, pp. 102-103) a con¬
temporary of the author; see introduction, section ix. The name occurs
on seals (J. Nesbitt, DOP 31 (1977), p. 119). But the word is also attested
from the reign of Leo VI (886-912) as a title (of a guard of the imperial
palace and of the Magnaura); see Oikonomides, Listes de preseance,
pp. 306-7.
Stater: neither Stater nor Molion is found elsewhere as a place name.
Molion, implying a harbour (from μώλος) would be out of place between
the palace and the ‘old church’ (see below), but the obvious correction to
Modion also raises problems of topography (see on chap. 12); the Mo-
dion was not near the palace. ‘Milion’ could be a possibility.
 COMMENTARY 233

Peganousion: a type of marble.

lay the imperial palace: as often when Par. is trying to describe a
location, the Greek is very awkward, and the term ‘imperial palace’ (‘the
house of the rulers’) is not the normal one, though it could hardly mean
anything but this.
old church: S. Sophia or S. Irene.
was written: the Greek has active for passive, see on chap. 26.
‘Aphrodite Selene’: a strange inscription. Perhaps ‘and’ has fallen
out (‘to Aphrodite and the Moon’).
tribute: see on chap. 12. Under Anastasius 1,000 lbs of gold was paid
by the Persians after the battle of Amida (see C. Capizzi, L’imperatore
Anastasio (1969), pp. 174-85; Evagrius, HE III. 37; Theophanes,
pp. 144-46).

Chapter 44a: The Chalke

The Chalke, forming one of the chief entrances to the imperial palace,
was a substantial roofed structure (‘vestibule’ is a better translation than
‘gate’, but cf. Mango’s term ‘Brazen House’); Janin, CB2, pp. 100-101;
Mango, Brazen House, pp. 98-107. It was one of the most conspicuous
features of the ceremonial heart of the capital and was adorned with
many statues, mosaics and a famous icon of Christ, on which see chap.
5b and note. The Milion, close by, similarly possessed decorative
elements which took on theological, political and imperial significance
under certain emperors (see note to chap. 35). Mango, op. cit., pp. 103-4,
envisages the Chalke fagade as having arcaded niches containing statues,
mostly imperial. These are described by Par. at chaps. 5b, 33, 77, 78 and
80 (see notes ad locc.). There was also a cross erected by Justinian, a gild¬
ed statue of his general, Belisarius, with a crown of rays, and four of the
Gorgon heads from the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus (see below and
chap. 78). Nearby were statues of Maximian, the whole family of
Theodosius I (possibly a reference to the group near the Milion? see
chap. 18) and Pulcheria. It must be emphasised that the Chalke icon was
one of the major religious symbols of Constantinople. Its removal in 726
caused a sensation which Par. could hardly have neglected; see
Theophanes, p. 405 de Boor and cf. Patria, III.20 pp. 219-20, where the
icon is transformed into a bronze statue of Christ associated with the
Paneas one and attributed to Constantine. This was destroyed by Leo III
and replaced under Irene by a mosaic icon of Christ.
gorgon-like heads: a gloss has crept into the text, in P’s γοργονοειδεΐς
δεματερίδε γυναικοειδεΐς. Preger thus brackets δεματερίδε γυναικοειδεΐς. But
Anon. Treu has γυναικοειδεΐς; possibly therefore it should be kept. On the
234 COMMENTARY

other hand, δεματερίδε (corrupt, but probably with the meaning ‘fearful’,
cf. δειματωδεΐς, δειμωδεΓς) can hardly stand as well. It is probably best to
cut out both, with Preger. For these heads see also chap. 78 and Mango,
Brazen House, p. 100, describing them as ‘gilded masks’ (cf. Patria, 11.28,
p. 165 κεφαλαί ήμίσειαί.. .χρυσέμβαφοι). There were eight in all, from the
temple of Artemis at Ephesus. Only four of them were at the Chalke,
where they are described as being ‘in the vestibule’ (chap. 78), on the
left-hand side (chap. 44a) or ‘opposite the Chalke, on an arch’ (Patria, loc.
cit.). ‘Eight’ has to be supplied here, but is clearly needed for the sense.
ancient palace of Constantine: since this palace is in the region of the
Forum Tauri, it cannot be the Daphne, the oldest part of the imperial
palace (Janin, CB2, pp. 109, 112-13; Dagron, Naissance, pp. 92-94). But
there may have been another palace near the Forum Tauri, where chap.
57 absurdly says Constantine liked to spend his summers.
Julian and his wife: cf. chaps. 47 and 70.
cross: there is no other mention of this cross, except at Par., chap. 78.
statues of Belisarius: according to Mango, Brazen House, p. 101, it is
‘highly unlikely’ that there would be a radiate statue of Belisarius. The
mistake would be an easy one, however, since he was commemorated in
the ceiling mosaic which Justinian did put up in the Chalke (Procopius,
Aed. 1.10) (a source which Par. does not know). In the mosaic Belisarius
was portrayed as a victorious general. A. A. M. Bryer suggests that Par.
might have misinterpreted the crested military headdress on a genuine
statue of Belisarius.
Tiberius the Thracian with a hunched back: but the sources for
Tiberius II remark particularly on his handsome appearance (cf.
Evagrius, HE V.13). Par. seems to use ‘hunchback’ as a term of abuse
(cf. chaps. 14, 19), but its application here is mysterious. For Tiberius as
a Thracian cf. Evagrius, HE V.ll.
Justin I: perhaps the same group of statuary to which AP 1.97 refers
(Mango, Brazen House, p. 83).
very close to his real likeness: Par. singles out this statue for its
realism; cf. the praise accorded to an image of Philippicus in chap. 82
(see note ad loc.), and see Mango, Art of the Byzantine Empire, p. 133. For
the appearance of Justin I, cf. Procopius, Aed. VI.3 (not known to Par.).
For passages commenting on the physical appearance of emperors see C.
Head, Byzantion 50 (1980), pp. 226-40; B. Baldwin, ibid., 51 (1981),
pp. 8-21. Both Anon. Treu and the Patria, 11.28, p. 165, omit this com¬
ment, but after mentioning the seven relatives of Justin I the Patria refers
to two horses brought by Justinian from the temple of Artemis at Ephesus
(Mango, Brazen House, p. 103, with the comment that it is impossible to
be sure which of these statues continued to exist and at what period). The
 COMMENTARY 235

present passage is the most important of Par. ’s mentions of the statuary

on the Chalke (the others are chaps. 5b, 33-34, 78), yet it is not complete
and raises problems of its own. The general treatment of the Chalke in
these passages well illustrates the lack of synthesis in Par. between dif¬
ferent sources. Par. appeals here, at chap. 44afin, to what people will see
if they go and look at the monument in question; cf. also chaps. 38 and
39. It rarely has an aesthetic comment to make, and its remarks here are
more descriptive than analytic.

Chapter 45

Pulcheria, sister of Theodosius II and wife of Marcian, was perhaps

suggested by the fact that she too had a statue at the Chalke (chap. 33),
though it is not mentioned here. On her property and buildings in the ci¬
ty see Dagron, Naissance, pp. 97, 400-401; Mango, Art of the Byzantine Em¬
pire, p. 51.
Leo: i.e. Leo I, successor of Marcian. Pulcheria died in 453 (PLREll,
s.v.).
recorded: the Greek is hard to translate; it might mean that he
honoured her memory by setting up pictures of the whole of her life (i.e.
scenes from her life) in the palace.
Theodosian porticoes: Janin, CB2, p. 93, 408-11, suggests, following
Theophanes, p. 297, that these may have been in the suburbs, near the
Theodosian kastellion in the Hebdomon.

Chapter 46

Chapters 46-49 all concern Julian and trace a geographic progress

which, even if wrong on Rome, may still reflect a genuine source.
wiped out: lit. ‘blinded’.
coinage: within four lines we have χαραγαί, χαραγή and χάραγμα.
Mint: there were two mints at Constantinople, one in the palace
placed close to the office of the comes sacrarum largitionum, which probably
minted mainly gold; and another in the twelfth region of the city basically
for copper and silver. Janin places the latter (Moneta) close to the Forum
of Arcadius, between the Exakionion and the Xerolophos, following the
itinerary described in l)e Caer., I, p. 105 Bonn {CB2, pp. 38, 393-94). But
money-changing if not minting took place at the ariyroprateia in the Regia,
between the Milion and the Forum of Constantine. This is mentioned by
Nicetas Choniates, pp. 738-41 Bonn and by Robert of Clari, Conquest of
Constantinople, trans. McNeal, p. 110, but this activity seems to be
distinct from that of the Mint proper. It is not clear which mint is meant.
We owe this information to the kindness of M. F. Hendy.
236 COMMENTARY

I have seen a black man: though μέλας can mean ‘evil’ or ‘malig¬
nant’, Theodosius is presumably also referring to the appearance of the
statue. Julian’s coinage was not conspicuously pagan, except for his still
unexplained ‘bull’ types (J. P. C. Kent, Roman Coins, (London 1978), p.
56; Roman Imperial Coinage VIII (London, 1981), pp. 46-47; G. W.
Bowersock, Julian the Apostate (Cambridge, Mass., 1978) p. 104). The
ridicule they generated (Julian, Misopogon 355 D) was mentioned by
Socrates (HE III. 17), so a garbled recollection may have filtered down to
Par., though the implication is that it was less the iconography of Julian’s
coins that gave offence than simply the fact that they bore his likeness.
The connection of Theodosius and Julian here (the emperor who out¬
lawed paganism and the last pagan emperor) suggests an ideological
rather than a genuinely historical opposition; cf. the appearance ofjulian
and Theodosius together in chap. 5. On Julian in Par. see introduction,
section v.

Chapter 47

sorcery: regarded as the likely accompaniment of paganism. Cf.

Nicetas Choniates, De Signis, 8, p. 861 Bonn—the μαγγάνευμα of
Apollonius of Tyana. For the idea that one can fall into idolatry through
misidentification of a statue see chap. 39 with note. The imperial statues
set up by Julian, according to this chapter, and accorded προσκύνησις
were really of pagan gods, so that those who paid this respect were actual¬
ly worshipping idols. The Greek of the latter part of the chapter is rather
unclear, but this is the general meaning.
idols, idolatry: see on chap. 39, and see introduction, section v.
proskynesis: the act of prostrating oneself, thus the technical term for
paying due respect to an emperor, and an important part of the imperial
cult (see O. Treitinger, Kaiser- und Reichsidee, pp. 84-94; E. Kitzinger,
DOP 8 (1954), pp. 91-94, 122-4). This sign of respect was also extended
to other symbols of imperial authority such as the Tyche of Constantino¬
ple (see chap. 56 and Patria, 11.42, p. 173) and gradually transferred to
Christian ones as well.
gold-niello image: see note to chap. 5c.
Nicomedia: Julian visited the city and assisted in its rebuilding after it
was destroyed by an earthquake (Amm. Marc., XXII.9.5.). For statues
of julian and his wife there, see P. Athanassiadou-Fowden, Julian and
Hellenism (Oxford, 1981), p. 190 and note 125.
idolatry: for Par. ’s attitude to Julian and its fear of idolatry as in¬
dicative of a date just before or in the early stages of Iconoclasm, see in¬
troduction, section v. The iconophiles tended to identify the Iconoclastic
 COMMENTARY 237

emperors Leo III and Constantine V with Julian, the arch-pagan (see
chap. 48; the Acts of the Council of 787 (Mansi, XI11.356); the Life of S.
Stephen the Younger, PG 100.1181).

Chapter 48

Paneas: the story of the famous Paneas statue, told in Eusebius, HE

VII. 18, is out of place in a work dealing with Constantinople, and has got
in here because of the connection with Julian. In the Patria, III.20, p. 219
we are told that the bronze statue of Christ stood at the Chalke and that it
cured the woman with the issue of blood—clearly a confusion (Mango,
Brazen House, p. 109). Eusebius, loc. cit., was the first to tell the story of
the bronze group at Paneas representing the woman and Christ; it was
elaborated by Philostorgius HE VII.3, pp. 78 ff. Bidez, and Sozomen,
HE V.21. See E. von Dobschutz, Christushilder. Untersuchungen zur
christlichen Legende, TU n.f. 3 (Leipzig, 1899), pp. 250* ff., cf. 198 ff.
Par.'s version seems to be derived from Eusebius and Sozomen, doubtless
through an intermediary (or several—see below). The association with
Julian is primary for Par. because of the parallel between Julian and con¬
temporary concerns with idolatry. Both Julian and the Paneas statue
were favourite topics of iconoclast/iconophile polemic; see introduction,
section v.
Paneas is the original and later name of Caesarea Philippi (E. Schurer-
G. Vermes-F. Millar, History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ II
(1979), pp. 169 ff.
andrias: the term used by Eusebius, but only here by Par. (introduc ¬
tion, section vii).
a kind of plant: again the: language used by Eusebius. For the: plant,
see Kitzinger, DOP 8 (1954), p. 94. But Par 's description of the group
differs from Eusebius’s: at HE VII. 18 the woman kneels and holds out
both hands to the standing figure of Jesus, which in turn stretches out a
hand to her. The statue stood at the door of the woman’s house, and was
still standing in Eusebius’s clay, but he does not say explicitly that she
erected it herself, and indeed admits that it might originally have been a
pagan group. Dobschutz, op. cit., p. 198, suggests that it might have· been
a votive stele.
Eusebius Pamphili and Diakrinomcnos: suc h a citation would nor¬
mally imply that the author took his information solely from
Diakrinomenos, even though Par.'s report of Eusebius is unusually ac ¬
curate; see introduction, section ix.
meaning: that is, the meaning was not evident and Julian had to ask
about the identification.
238 COMMENTARY

he broke it: more probably the inhabitants of Paneas broke the

statue, as Philostorgius says (loc. cit.), in an outbreak of anti-Christian
feeling. It is Sozomen who attributes the destruction to Julian, adding
that he put up a statue of himself at Paneas that was later shattered by
lightning.
Julian was commonly equated with the iconoclasts and the example of
the Paneas statue was much quoted in contemporary polemic (e.g. PG
100. 1085, and see Mango, Brazen House, p. 109; Gero, Byzantine
Iconoclasm during the Reign of Constantine V, pp. 49 ff.). Par. does not draw
an explicit moral, but its hostile attitude to Julian is clear (cf. chap. 47);
the selection and inclusion of so prominent a story from iconophile
polemic could be regarded as programmatic for Par.’s attitudes.
temple: not recorded elsewhere. Probably a careless allusion to
Sozomen, HE V.21, who writes of a statue.
Martyrius: not very likely to be historical, to judge from the name.
More probably a memory of pogroms against Christians in the reign of
Julian (Philostorgius, HE VII.3). See Amm. Marc., XXII. 11.3-11.

Chapter 49

Two chapters on spectacles in Rome and Antioch, associated with

Julian and Gratian. But Julian never went to Rome. Possibly this is a
reminiscence of his letter to the Roman senate, written in 361, or more
probably it is a simple error. The statues in this and the following chapter
could be genuine, but the context is wrong in each case.
Constantinian porticoes: probably Ta Konstantiniana (Janin, CB2,
p. 89, cf. 91-92).
Demophilus: unknown.
rejoiced in the worship of idols: see on chaps. 39 and 41.
‘This is P has a space before these words, and Preger aptly sug¬
gests έπιγράψας (‘inscribing it’). But the meaning of the next sentence is
also obscure.
in Rome and Antioch: Julian in Antioch: Amm. Marc. XXII. 10-14.
This need not imply that Julian actually visited Rome, as the accession of
a new emperor was regularly celebrated in the major cities with portraits
such as these panels.
panels and bronze statues: or possibly bronze doors with reliefs. For
the panels, cf. chap. 10, on portraits of the early bishops of Constantino¬
ple. For Julian these would be portraits of the new emperor, both given
as gifts and publicly displayed.
 COMMENTARY 239

Chapter 50

There is no other evidence for a visit to Rome by Gratian. See however

T. D. Barnes, ‘Constans and Gratian in Rome’, HSCP 79 (1975), pp.
325-33, arguing that Par. ’s evidence should be accepted. The date would
be 376 or 377. Gratian was twice married, first in 374 to Constantia, who
died in 383, and then to Laeta; there is no other record of these silver
statues.

Chapter 51

Valentinian: presumably Valentinian III (425-55); cf. also chap. 75.

porticoes of Leontius: only here; see Janin, CB2, pp. 90-91.
his inspections: this activity seems to be connected with the verb
έφοράω (to inspect). Theophanes, p. 146, uses έποψία with δαπάνη of the
campaign financed by Apion in the Persian war of Anastasius, suggesting
‘necessary provisions’. But there is no recorded activity, inspecting
tribute, provisions, troops or the like that is elsewhere associated with
Zeno in this location. There might be a connection with the Topol·, see on
chap. 32.
Caesars: just possibly a historical remark—otherwise why ‘Caesars’
and not ‘emperors’ (Augusti)? Zeno’s young son Leo was proclaimed
Caesar in 473 and elevated his father as Augustus on the death of Leo I,
his grandfather, in the following year. The young Caesar may well not
have been commemorated in a statue; he only reigned as emperor for a
few months, dying later in 474, and was totally eclipsed by his father.
Valentinian III was proclaimed Caesar in 424 (PLRE II, s.v. Valen-
tianus, 4), and made Augustus in 425. Theodosius perhaps then erected
this statue of Valentinian to celebrate his promotion to Caesar. Other
statues of Valentinian III—see chaps. 71, 75 and 87.

Chapter 52

Chaps. 52-59 centre on the mythical battles of Constantine. For all of

this and for Par. ’s attitude to history and knowledge of the reign of Con¬
stantine, see introduction, section viii.
Forum Bovis: see on chap. 42.
encampment: the word φοσσάτον can mean ‘camp’, ‘army’ or ‘ditch’
(for the latter, see on chaps. 25 and 73).
Byzas: introduction, section viii. For the war between Constantine
and Byzas, Antes and Azotius, see chaps. 38, 41 and 54 below. Licinius
is known to Par. as an emperor but never associated with these wars.
Maxentius similarly features with obscure pagan connections (chap. 39)
but not as the opponent of Constantine in battle.
240 COMMENTARY

Socrates: the church historian, who is surely meant, has no trace of

this mythical encounter, needless to say. For named sources in Par., often
completely wrong, see introduction, section ix.
silver gilt cross: cf. Janin, CB2, p. 70.
the hands of both: the last words in this chapter (‘the believers in
Cod’) are actually joined on in P to the opening of chap. 53, where they
are clearly out of place. And P gives singular, not plural. It seems most
likely that Combefis was right in writing των θεοδούλων and putting the
words at the end of chap. 52; the fact that they are partly erased in P in
any case suggests that they were added as an afterthought and may well
have been corrupted as well as misplaced. If we follow Combefis, the
reference is to Constantine and Helena, the ‘slaves of God’, a common
designation of emperors, possibly reflecting the actual wording on the
cross. The group would then have Constantine and Helena on each side,
their hands holding the cross, φάσι is not exactly easy, but Combefis’s
φησί (he says) is no improvement, and φάσι is not impossible of a virtual
aside; there is no verb for ‘hands’, but Par. is very wont to change the
construction when reporting a difficult identification. See introduction,
section iv, on Par.'s style.

Chapter 53

Kontaria: on the basis of this passage Janin sites the area on a hill,
probably the second, overlooking the harbour of Sophia, near the church
of S. Theda and the krithopoleia (barley market) (CB2, pp. 98, 373). The
Patria, 11.66, p. 187, record that the Kontaria was a great hill,
war: presumably still the war against Byzas and Antes.
Galen: Anon. Treu gives Gallinos, which Lambeck, perhaps rightly,
takes as a reference to the Emperor Gallienus (253-268).
church of the Theotokos: Dagron, Naissance, p. 400, doubts this,
pointing out that Constantine did not undertake a wholesale conversion
of pagan temples into churches. Yet this is a demolition and new con¬
struction, not a conversion, and the Patria's attribution of the rededica¬
tion to S. Theda to Justin II looks circumstantial (III.35, p. 229); see
Janin, Eglises et rnonasteres2, p. 291. However, the attribution of the
church of the Theotokos to Constantine could equally be a throwback of
the later belief in the dedication of Constantinople to the Virgin, current
since the seventh century (Dagron, Naissance, p. 42 and in general A.
Frolow, ‘La dedicace de Constantinople dans la tradition byzantine’,
RHR 127 (1944), pp. 61 ff.). See also chap. 56 below on the birthday
celebrations.
 COMM KNTAR V 241

Chapter 54

Viglentiou: the reference to a watch-tower or guard-post is a clumsy

deduction from the name Tu Viglentiou, rather than the other way
round, asjanin, OB'1, pp. 322-23; cl. chap. 7 with note.
vision: Bar. seems to think that Constantine saw his vision in Con¬
stantinople rather than at Rome. Cf. chaps. 1 (> and 58, where it is located
at the Philadelphion. Chap. 41 however does seem to refer to Rome, by
implication at least (the text is corrupt). See introduction, section viii,
and note to chap. 16.
outside; εξω or πρό has to be supplied, most probably πρό, which
could have fallen out after the preceding πρό in πρό τής όπτασίας.
with his own eyes: i.e. not in a dream, but in physical reality. The
area was near the Forum, not outside the city—Janin, CB2, p. 93. Hut
the chapter is less concerned with the locality than with the fanciful story
of Severus and the Gazoi. ‘There’ does presumably refer to Ta Viglen¬
tiou. It could perhaps then be said that Bar. associates the vision with a
battle, but it sets the vision firmly in the vicinity of Constantinople.
Severus: cf. chaps. 7, 20 and 37; he is called the son of Carus at
chaps. 37 and 57. Here he is put in the same role as Byzas, as the oppo¬
nent of Constant ine, or rather, of Constantine’s supposed general, Max-
imin. The rest of the chapter appears to lapse into a fantastic narrative,
unless possibly it implies a relief of vanquished enemies, perhaps on the
base of a genuine statue or column. For ‘Severus’ in Bar., see introduc¬
tion, section viii; note on chap. 73.
their own bronze: at chap. 49 the same word seems to mean bronze
statues. Here apparently their weapons (cf. the ‘broken swords’ just
mentioned).

Chapter 55

This passage is very similar to other accounts of the foundation of the

city and the festival lasting forty days (see introduction, section viii; and
cf. chaps. 5, 38, 56 with note). Hut the scene is placed in the Forum of
Constantine, where the statue of Constantine stood, rather than in the
1 lippodromc.
Canonaris the philosopher: of course unknown; cf. Koukobytios in
chap. 41. Here ‘philosopher’ means any pagan ‘wise man’. This chapter
links to the previous one with its mention of Gazoi and Ta Viglentiou,
and with its semi-mythical approach to Constantine.
fallen silent: accepting Preger’s σιωπήσαι for P’s πεσεΐν.
242 COMMENTARY

Chapter 56: 'Che Foundation of Constantinople

This chapter is the fullest treatment in Par. of the foundation

ceremonial of the city of Constantine (cf. also chaps. 5, 38, 53 and 68a).
I lere Par. distinguishes three features: the erection of the statue of Con¬
stantine on a pillar in the Forum, and its acclamation, a festival lasting
forty days, and a birthday celebration subsequently held regularly (i.e.
annually), but in AD 330 on the ‘day following’ (i.e. presumably the day
after the erection of the statue). Chaps. 5 and 38 seem to envisage a pro¬
cession and acclamation in the Hippodrome of a copy of the Forum
statue, holding a statue of the Tyche of the city (see notes ad locc.)\ this
would correspond to the ceremonial described by Malalas, p. 322 Bonn.
Those chapters also imply that the Tyche was dropped from the
ceremony at some time in the fourth century, or that the ceremony itself
was discontinued; however, Malalas, p. 322 implies that it still went on
in the sixth century. Theophanes, p. 383 de Boor suggests that while the
chariot races continued, the procession with the statue and its acclama¬
tion did not. Par. was thus describing a ritual no longer familiar; nor is it
at all certain about the origin of the ‘great statue’ itself (see on chap. 68a
and below). Despite close parallels with the account in Malalas, especial¬
ly in chap. 5, Par. has only a hazy idea of what actually happened, and
can make gross errors (see on chaps. 5 and 38). Nevertheless, its in¬
sistence on this early commemoration of the city’s founding, and the
honours paid to Constantine by subsequent emperors should not be re¬
jected out of hand, even if Par. may have wrongly attributed the
ceremonial to Constantine himself. The fact that the details of the
ceremonies as described in chaps. 5 and 56 are highly anachronistic does
not in itself prove that no such ceremonies existed in the late antique
period. Again, while the objects ‘buried’ beneath the statue in the Forum
are clearly a later and legendary growth designed to enhance the history
of the city first by providing it with symbols to match Rome (the
Palladium) and then with Christian relics (see on chap. 23), Par. does
preserve the memory of a foundation ceremony or dedication of the
statue that was certainly not Christian, and in which the Tyche of the city
played an important role (see on chaps. 38, 68a). The Christian aspect
which the ceremonial bears in chap. 56 is probably equally anachronistic
(see below). Nevertheless, Par. ’s evidence supports the view that in its
earliest phase Constantinople was the scene of commemorative
ceremonial embodying manifestations of imperial cult which were not
overtly Christianised. 'This tells against the claims of the Vita Constantini,
III. 48, that it was a wholly Christian city from the start. Later in¬
habitants fell the lack of a Christian foundation sufficiently to retroject
 COMMENTARY 243

their own Christianisations into their accounts of AD 330. We can see

traces in Par. of this process at different stages in its development.
Par. does not, however, preserve any signs of the probably equally
anachronistic paganising versions of the foundation, known mainly from
John the Lydian, De Mens, IV.2, according to which Praetextatus and
Sopater took part in foundation rites with Constantine; see introduction,
section viii. Both pagans and Christians wished to claim Constantinople
for their own, and found the actual record of its dedication unsatisfactory
for their purposes. The acclamation of Constantine’s statue with that of
the Tyche, whether in the Forum or (of copies) in the Hippodrome, was
strictly neutral, neither Christian nor specifically pagan (for the role of
the Tyche was symbolic rather than religious). Behind Par. ’s confused
and sometimes actually mistaken notices about the erection of the statue
and the birthday celebrations lies the memory of just such a neutral style
of ceremonial. There is no reason to deny that some such ceremonies as
Par. describes could well have evolved during the fourth century (so too
R. Krautheimer, Three Christian Capitals (1983), p. 62; contra, Alan
Cameron, ‘The Foundation of Constantinople’, forthcoming; other
modern accounts on the other hand have been too ready to believe in the
‘pagan’ foundation of the city—cf. Dagron, Naissance, pp. 37 ff.; Janin,
CB2, pp. 23-24; Mazzarino and Cracco Ruggini, cited at introduction,
note 95). It is much harder, indeed, to explain their innovation in the
sixth century, as we would have to do so long as we retained Malalas’s
statement about what happened in his own day at p. 322 Bonn. In any
case, Par.’s contribution to the problem, difficult though it is to assess,
allows us to see—uniquely—how attitudes to the founding of the city
crystallised and developed over a period of some four hundred years.
Here lies the real value of the evidence of Par.
statue in the Forum: according to Malalas and Chron Pasch. a reused
statue from Phrygia (Mango, AS, p. 57 and see on Par., chaps. 38 and
68a). Though the earlier sources do not identify it as a statue of Apollo or
Helios, Par. does make the latter connection at chap. 38 (note ad loc.). At
chap. 68a, however, it preserves a later Christianising version (though
wrongly ascribed) rebutting the idea that it had a pagan origin (see note
ad loc.).
Olbianus: see Dagron, Naissance, p. 40. Clearly the terminology of
this ceremonial description is quite anachronistic for the time of Constan¬
tine. Spatharii are not attested before the fifth century; there was no
prefect of Constantinople until 359; Olbianus is unknown and the
sotericius belongs to a much later period (see below), while Diakrinomenos
is certainly a suspect citation here (see introduction, section ix). Never¬
theless, we should not reject the idea of the ceremonial completely. In the
244 COMMENTARY

eighth century, the late antique period from the fourth to the sixth cen¬
tury must have seemed a unity, and Par. ’s authors had no sophisticated
technique for distinguishing details appropriate to the sixth but not to the
fourth century (introduction, sections viii and ix). The persistence in Par.
of the idea of ceremonial connected with the foundation of the city by
Constantine, even against the Christianising tendencies of the seventh
and eighth centuries, should lead us to consider seriously the possibility
that some of this ceremonial did regularly take place in the fourth cen¬
tury, even if not in the lifetime of Constantine himself (see above, on
chap. 56 generally). In this chapter we can see the effects of that Chris-
tianisation in the claim that the erection of the statue, more probably the
occasion of imperial acclamations (cf. the mention of the army), was ac¬
companied by Christian hymns and prayers. Yet even so we are not
given the elaborate catalogue of Christian objects beneath the pillar men¬
tioned elsewhere in Par. (chap. 23).
white robes: i.e. in the standard manner of a late antique adventus\ see
chap. 5.
Philadelphion: cf. chaps. 58, 70, and see on 43. For the ‘gate’ of the
Philadelphion see on chap. 58, where the Philadelphion is the site of Con¬
stantine’s vision, located at Ta Viglentiou in chap. 54. It was a place on
the Mese leading from the Forum of Constantine.
Carus: cf. chaps. 37, 57 and introduction, section viii.
Diakrinomenos: Par. seems to be saying that according to
Diakrinomenos the procession left the Magnaura, but this was next to the
imperial palace (see Mango, Brazen House, pp. 57-58). Diakrinomenos
was probably only known to Par. through a later epitome (see introduc¬
tion, section ix).
raised on a pillar: i.e. on the porphyry column in the Forum. This
erection of the statue has been Christianised to some extent (see above),
but Par. sees no contradiction between this and the mention of the Tyche,
for the city Tyche had a symbolic rather than a religious significance.
Nevertheless, chaps. 5 and 38 indicate that the Tyche belonged to the
early stage of the foundation and birthday ceremonial, though the ac¬
counts of its disappearance given in those chapters are quite different
from each other.
Kyrie eleison: probably an anachronism (see above), despite the
assertion of the Vita Constantini, III.48, that everything about Constan¬
tinople was totally Christian. More probably such ceremony as did ac¬
company the actual foundation was entirely secular, though not
specifically pagan.
on top of the pillar: the coins stand for the prosperity of the city; see
Dagron, Naissance, p. 59, n. 3, comparing the sack of money represented
 COMMENTARY 245

in the Calendar of 354. Note that Par. does not relate the tradition that
Constantine secreted beneath the statue the Palladium of Rome
(Malalas, p. 320; Chron. Pasch., p. 528 Bonn; cf. Procopius, BG
1.15.11-14), though elsewhere it does refer to the later belief that many
Christian relics were buried there (chap. 23).
sotericius: certainly not a coin of Constantine and in fact common on¬
ly in the tenth and eleventh centuries (Grierson, DOC III. 1 (1973),
pp. 54-55). Par. has little idea of early Byzantine coinage (see on chap.
12). See introduction, section v, for possible implications for the date of
Par. This term might be a later addition, but in any case does not
necessitate a tenth-century date for Par. itself.
ten thousand pounds: not clear whether this means ‘worth ten thou¬
sand pounds’, which is unlikely, or whether ‘and’ has dropped out so
that we should translate ‘and ten thousand pounds’.
Ό Lord the acclamation looks genuine.
made many gifts: there is no subject, but we must understand ‘the
emperor’, i.e. Constantine, from the previous sentence.

Chapter 57

The subject of Constantine continues through chaps. 58 and 59.

Taurus: i.e. the Forum Tauri (cf. chap. 44a ‘the old palace of Con¬
stantine’). Lambeck’s Ταύρου is obviously right.
Severus the son of Carus: we are back in the semi-mythical context of
Constantine’s battles; see introduction, section viii, and for Severus,
chaps. 20, 37, 54. Carus: chap. 56. The palace here mentioned may
remotely recall pre-Constantinian buildings in this area, later destroyed,
the divine Severus: i.e. the Emperor Severus (193-211).
idols of prophecy: though the passage is corrupt, the general idea is
that pagan temples or statues, the site of pagan rites, were connected with
the possibility of prophesying the future of the city; cf. chap. 20, where
Severus also stands for the evils of paganism overcome by Constantine.
The 16th-c. Diegesis (Travaux et Memoires 7 (1979), pp. 513 ff.) betrays the
same mentality, in a more sharply defined form; see introduction, section
vii.
prayers to ...: Lambeck suggested οΐωνισμών τε (‘omens’?). But
perhaps χρήσιν is corrupt (cf. χρησμοί: ‘prophecies’, in chap. 20).
gods of the underworld: the meaning is very doubtful. Combefis
compares βητγάμων, said to be Punic for di in/eri, which after ‘immortal
gods’ certainly gives the right sense.
they say the construction peters out and there is no verb. For φησί
= ‘they say’, cf. chaps. 37, 47 and perhaps also 68. Unless the text is cor-
246 COMMENTARY

rupt, which is a possibility, there is certainly something wrong with the

grammar; but since Par. is perfectly capable of such contortions, it is
probably best to leave it. What the vaults (καμάραι) are is also unclear.
war of Constantine and Severus: see introduction, section viii, for
Par.’s hazy notions of the wars of Constantine. It is not even consistent
about their location, and often seems to site the fighting in Constantino¬
ple, as at chaps. 52 and 54.
Herculius: i.e. Maximian. Par. does have some dim awareness at
least of some of the right names from the years 306-12 (cf. chaps. 39, 54),
though they are hopelessly mixed up with the misdated Severus and the
mythical Byzas and Antes. Severus features as the opponent of Constan¬
tine because of his ideological role as the pagan founder of Byzantium,
whom Par. then envisages as actually having been defeated in war by the
Christian Constantine.
he defeated: presumably Constantine is the subject,
pagan: Preger takes P’s αύτουργικά as ‘pagan’, citing Du Cange
(αυτουργοί = coloni = pagani). The fanciful actions which Par. here at¬
tributes to Constantine are simply a mythologising statement of the
triumph of Christianity over paganism.
punished: presumably it was a place of public execution,
slab: Greek πλάκα.
the wars of Constantine up to the third earthquake: no such earth¬
quake is associated with Constantine. However, it is quite possible that
there was such a representation of the wars of Constantine in or near the
Forum Tauri (Janin, CB2, p. 67 quotes Par. for this without comment). If
so, this might explain why Par. locates the fighting in Constantinople.
The ‘third earthquake’ could be taken to mean that the statue group
stood until the third earthquake, when it collapsed.
holding the sign of the cross: the chapter ends with the word κατέχ-
ουσα, as chap. 52 ends in P with κατέχουσαι.

Chapter 58

For the statues of the sons of Constantine mentioned here see on chaps.
43 and 70.
the gate of the Philadelphion: cf. chaps. 56, 70. Janin, CB2,
pp. 19-20, suggests that it belonged to an outwork defending the Severan
wall.
had a dream: at chap. 54, Constantine’s vision is located at Ta
Viglentiou, and stress is laid on the fact that he actually saw it ‘with his
own eyes’ (i.e. not in a dream) at evening. See also note to chap. 16,
where the various traditions about Constantine’s vision are discussed. It
 COMMENTARY 247

may be that the present passage is an attempted rationalisation, solving

the problem of location (for which see also chap. 41) by suggesting that
Constantine had numerous visions.
on a ... porphyry column: see Janin, REB 13 (1955), p. 99. Par.
seems to be saying that what Constantine actually saw was a cross. Cf.
also chap. 16, where it is similarly suggested that Constantine saw a cross
in the sky and then set one up in the Forum, flanked by angels and by
figures of himself and his mother Helena (see note). However, it is
unlikely that such a group was really of Constantinian date, since it and
others like it surely commemorated the invention of the True Cross by
Helena, a legend not current in the lifetime of Constantine. Here the
statues are said to be ‘on thrones’ (see below). See E. Dinkier, Mullus.
Festschrift Th. Klauser (1964), p. 71 f. for the suggestion that it was
Theodosius I who erected the crosses in the Forum and at the
Philadelphion.
sign of a sponge: i.e. a representation of a sponge at the foot of the
cross.
Helena and himself and his sons: Anon. Treu refers only to statues
of the sons of Constantine; the Patria, 11.50, p. 178, follows this, and adds
that the column stood opposite the two sons of Constantine who were
seated on thrones. These enthroned statues of Constantine’s sons seem to
have survived into the early fifteenth century when they were known as
the ‘True Judges’ (Mango, ZRVI 6 (1960), p. 75). They were seen in
1390 still in the Mese (Mango, BZ 45 (1952), p. 382).
consular donations: in 331 and 332-7. A major function of the con¬
sulship in late antiquity was the giving of largesse and the holding of
games. Hence ύπατεία comes itself to mean ‘largesse’.
centurions were honoured: i.e. by having their statues set up. The
language of the parallel passage in the Patria, 11.50, p. 178, does suggest
that reliefs or groups were set up, though their subject seems to have been
the deeds of Constantine rather than the events of the Passion.
the carrying of the cross: though the word order in P is jumbled the
meaning is clear enough. However, the centurion at the Crucifixion did
not carry the cross. Is Par. confusing the story of the centurion with that
of Simon of Cyrene?
seated above: the meaning is very obscure, and both Anon. Treu
and the Patria omit the allusion to centurions. Par. does seem to be
referring to statues or reliefs, however. Suggested emendations for
βαλλέριον in P range from καβαλλαρίων (Combefis, supported by Preger),
i.e. referring to cavalry (cf. Malalas, p. 351 Bonn) to λαβάρου (Lambeck),
introducing a reference to the imperial labarum.
248 COMMENTARY

Chapter 59

On the Forum see note to chap. 39.

Callistratus: P has πρώτον, i.e. ‘first’ (adverbial). Preger emends to
πρώτος, i.e. ‘first consul’, as in Anon. Treu and Patria, 11.44, p. 173.
Callistratus is unknown and the whole story appears to be fiction (see
below), possibly to explain the perhaps genuine acclamation that follows.
See Dagron, Naissance, pp. 315-16. The story is accepted at face value by
J. Jarry, Heresies etfactions dans I’empire byzantin du IVe au VIIe siecle (Cairo,
1968), p. 147.
consuls: both Anon. Treu and the Patria, 11.44, p. 173, have changed
the (to them) archaic consuls to ‘patricians’.
codicils: i.e. the official insignia of office. Par. is confused here: the
author has only a dim awareness of late antique administration, since he
thinks that there were eastern consuls before Constantine when even the
senate of Constantinople may not have been established until after his
death (Jones, LRE I, p. 527) and eastern consuls postdate the division of
the empire in 395 (p. 533). On the other hand, the reference to codicils of
office shows that the author was indeed thinking of the (to him) early
period; for their equivalent in the ninth and tenth centuries, see
Oikonomides, Listes de preseance, pp. 88-89, notes 28 and 29.
Callistratus is lucky ...: for Green acclamations in Par. see chaps. 3,
39, 38. Par. seems to have had access to a list of genuine acclamations,
though probably without their original contexts (see on chap. 29).
S.: the name of a saint has dropped out. Anon. Treu and the
Patria, loc. cit., simply substitute ‘the church’. Why Callistratus had to
seek asylum is left entirely obscure.
reached me: perhaps indicative of a separate ‘entry’ submitted by an
individual to Philokalos; see introduction, section iv. ‘Many accounts’
indicates oral information, on which Par. often depends.

Chapter 60: The Statues in the Hippodrome

Chaps. 60-65 and 76 concern the Hippodrome, its history and its
statues. Cf. chap. 56 on the foundation of Constantinople and the
ceremonies which took place in the Hippodrome in 330 and then annual¬
ly. On the Hippodrome in general, see Janin, CB2, pp. 193 ff.; Miiller-
Wiener, pp. 64-71. It was built by Severus (see on chap. 73) and
developed by Constantine and decorated by him with statues and objects
brought from many different cities: see chaps. 60, 62, 76, 61. Under
Theodosius I the Egyptian obelisk was erected on the Spina, round which
the chariots raced, and in the sixth century the Porphyrius monuments
with an inscription known to Par. (but probably from a written source,
 COMMENTARY 249

see on chap. 38). Many of the statues in the Hippodrome were of ancient
origin and depicted strange animals, mythological figures and events and
pagan gods, e.g. the Scylla and Charybdis group, the boat of Odysseus,
the dragon statue, Zeus-Helios and the reclining Heracles of Lysippus.
Par. does not however show any awareness of such famous items as the
Egyptian obelisk or the Rhodian quadriga (see on chap. 84). The
obscurity of most of the statues by the eighth century had given rise to the
strange account in chap. 64 of the encounter between Theodosius II and
the pagan philosophers and their ‘explanations’ of the statues. There
were also representations of Adam and Eve, Plenty and Famine on col¬
umns (chap. 5) and inscribed monuments to emperors, e.g. the
equestrian statue of Justinian (chap. 61). Par. records a chariot group,
probably antique, at the Neolaia (see on chap. 5), and the four horses
above the carceres, probably the ones later taken to San Marco in Venice
(see on chap. 84). But it does not mention the Diippion, an area im¬
mediately behind the carceres through which in the reign of Constantine
V the usurper Artavasdos and the patriarch Anastasius were made to
enter the Hippodrome (in 743, cf. the patriarch Constantine II in 766;
see Mango, REB 8 (1951), pp. 152-61; Speck, Artabasdos, 33 ff.). On the
basis of zodiacal inscriptions on certain monuments in the Hippodrome,
prophecies were given, possibly as a result of the ‘interpretation’ of statue
groups like the Perichytes (see on chap. 64). The regular activity in the
Hippodrome, chariot racing between the Green and Blue factions
(demes), is of less interest to Par. than spectacular occasions such as the
burning of a monk (chap. 63) or the birthday ceremonies (chaps. 5, 38,
56). Nor does Par. allude to the triumph of Justinian II (see on chap. 37,
and introduction, section v).
For particular information about the Hippodrome statues Par. cites
Philip the eparch and Philip the dynast, on whom see introduction, sec¬
tions iv and ix. It gives a fairly full account of the decoration of the Hip¬
podrome, which may be set alongside that of Nicetas Choniates (see
below). But it makes no attempt whatever to portray the Hippodrome in
visual terms, as it actually appeared in Par. ’s day. It gives no impression
of the crowding of statues on the high spina which so struck later visitors
to Constantinople (Cameron, Porphyrius, pp. 7, 181). This is not a
guidebook description (introduction, section vi). At best Par. comments
on isolated monuments with little attempt to account for their arrange¬
ment, respective locations or mutual relationships; cf. the similar treat¬
ment of the statues in the Forum (see on chap. 39).
as many as sixty: Anon. Treu has misread P’s text as ‘six’ (εξ), but
the Patria, 11.73, p. 189, keeps the correct number. For the number of
statues in the Hippodrome generally, see Cameron, Porphyrius, pp. 5 ff.
250 COMMENTARY

likeness: the term is used only here and in the next chapter, where the
information is said to come from ‘Philip the eparch’ (introduction, sec¬
tion ix). For Par. ’s phraseology of sources, oral and written, see especially
chap. 24. Philip’s information seems to have been given orally, γέγραπται
might mean ‘inscribed’, but seems to fit better into Par.’s self-conscious
claims about source material.

Chapter 61

Philip the eparch: if genuine, perhaps one of the group responsible

for Par.\ see introduction, section iv, and cf. chap. 61, Philip the dynast.
imperial box: the kathisma, where the emperor sat to watch the races
and where he made public appearances. Cf. chap. 76.
the epigram of the Medes: presumably the famous serpent column
from Delphi, erected after the battle of Plataea (see Mango, T.S, p. 75).
Par. takes it for granted, merely referring to it in passing.
women giving birth to wild beasts: we should read Θήρας (ac¬
cusative) with Anon. Treu and the Patria, 11.77, p. 190. This is the group
representing Scylla and Charybdis, described by Nicetas Choniates, De
Signis, 5 f., p. 858 f. Bonn.
devour: P’s εσθίουσι is probably correct.
Herodian: apparently a contemporary; see introduction, sections iv,
ix. Further evidence of Par. ’s reliance on hearsay and oral information
(see on chap. 59).
made clear to me: one of Par.’s semi-technical words; cf. chaps. 12,
42 and cf. introduction, section iv. The same use of the first person
singular occurs in chap. 59 without necessarily indicating the same
author.
the story of the godless Justinian: Anon. Treu and the Patria, 11.77,
p. 190, insert ‘of his second reign’, probably a gloss. The group intended
was a composite group, but Par. presents it as two distinct parts, each
having a separate meaning. Whereas the meaning of the first has been
fulfilled, in the fate of Justinian II, that of the second is still pending.
Justinian II is described as ‘godless’ here and as ‘tyrant’ in chap. 37; thus
Par. does preserve some awareness of his second reign (705-711), which
was characterised by vengeful punishment of his opponents. The Patria,
loc. cit., make it explicit that this is the Scylla, part of a monumental
group including the boat of Odysseus (below).
there is a boat: the boat of Odysseus (Patria, loc. cit.·, Nicetas
Choniates, De Signis, 7, p. 860 Bonn; see too AP XI.271 with Alan
Cameron, Porphyrius, p. 185). For this group see further G. Saflund, The
Polyphemus and Scylla Groups (Stockholm, 1972); K. Tuchelt, 1st. Mitt. 17
 COMMENTARY 251

(1967), pp. 173-94 (who argues against the evidence for two groups, one
in the Peripatos, though it is clear that this one is in the Hippodrome and
should be identified with the Scylla of Nicetas and AP).
has not been fulfilled: i.e. the prediction which it implies has not yet
come to pass. Cf. chap. 64 for the hidden meanings of Hippodrome
statues.
misfortune: P’s word is άλόγημα. Cf. άλόγιστον of Leo III in chap. 5d.
Justinian the great: clearly the equestrian statue of Justinian I mark¬
ing his victory over the Persians (Anth. Plan. 62-63; cf. Alan Cameron,
Byzantion 47 (1977), pp. 42-48). This statue, though a bronze equestrian
statue of Justinian, is not the same as that on a column in the Augusteum
(on which see Mango, Brazen House, Appendix II, pp. 174 ff.; A. Cutler,
AJA 72 (1968), p. 114, with remarks on the eclipse of such bronzes after
the Augusteum one). The latter is dated by Theophanes, p. 224 and
Cedrenus, I, p. 656, to AD 543; but it may have been an earlier statue re¬
used (Mango, op. cit., p. 174, n. 2). The statue commemorating the Per¬
sian victory is said to have been ‘near the kathisma’, but after that P’s
text seems to be corrupt. One suggestion is that only the base survived in
Par. ’s day and that κατ’ έπος here in P means ‘according to the inscrip¬
tion’. Nicetas does not mention this statue in the Hippodrome, but since
he specifically says his list is not complete (De Signis, 12, p. 866) this omis¬
sion cannot be pressed.
she too is above: i.e. like the Thessalian statue mentioned above. The
Scylla, said here to be ‘near’ the ‘inscription of the Medes’, is thought to
have been on the spina, the high wall down the middle of the arena round
which the chariots raced, and which was packed with statues (Cameron,
Porphyrins, p. 18, and in general pp. 180 ff.). This was ‘in front of’ rather
than ‘above’ the kathisma.
Verina: see on chaps. 29, 89.
Athena: a bronze Athena did still stand in Constantinople, in the
Forum of Constantine (perhaps the Athena Promachos of Phidias—see
R. J. H. Jenkins, ‘The Bronze Athena at Byzantium’, JHS 67 (1947),
pp. 31-33; ‘Further Evidence regarding the Bronze Athena at Byzan¬
tium’, BSA 46 (1951), pp. 71-74); its destruction in 1204 is recorded by
Nicetas Choniates, Hist. pp. 738-40 Bonn. But Par., perhaps surprising¬
ly, does not mention this statue, though cf. a reference to a statue of
Pallas at chap. 39. The difficulty of identifying ancient statuary correctly
is made very clear by Par. ’s acceptance here of the majority view, against
the opinion of Herodian, apparently an expert. These remarks imply the
importance of oral interchange in the formation of Par.’s knowledge.
252 COMMENTARY

Chapter 62

Philip the dynast: perhaps a contemporary; see introduction, section

ix. It is not clear whether or not he is the same as ‘Philip the eparch’ in
chap. 61.
expounded: in Par.’s language, the particular art of expounding the
meanings of ancient statues; introduction, section vii.
the dragon statue: not mentioned by Nicetas, but cf. chap. 22 above.
In what sense it could be a likeness of an emperor, or how έκτύπωμα dif¬
fers from έπίδειξις escapes us, unless έκτύπωμα means ‘erected by’, ‘the
work of’, τυπόω being Par.’s regular word for erecting a statue. It is a
possibility, though not perhaps very likely after the connection with Ar-
cadius, that this is the Serpent Column.
reigning in Rome: Theodosius I (d. 395) divided the empire into an
eastern and a western half and left them to his two sons.
oracles: cf. chaps. 20, 57 and notes. The oracles, or prophecies, are
less appropriate here as the statue, if it is somehow of Honorius, is not a
pagan one.
up to the present day: for these dating indicators see introduction
section v.
the hyena above: see note on chap. 61 for ‘above’, This is the bronze
hyena mentioned by Nicetas Choniates, De Signis, 7, p. 860 Bonn, as ac¬
companying a she-wolf and signifying Romulus and Remus.

Chapter 63

in our own day: Combefis’s έφ’ ήμών must be right. For this impor¬
tant dating indication see introduction, section v.
Anastasius the monk: discussed in detail at introduction, section v.
Apparently an allusion to the iconoclastic policies of Constantine V,
under whom monks were indeed subjected to extreme penalties in the
Hippodrome. According to G. Millet, BCH 70 (1946), pp. 392 ff., this
refers to the humilation of the patriarch Anastasius for his support of Ar-
tavasdos (742/43), though he was not actually burned to death. An
Anastasius is cited in chap. 10 as confirming a story in Ancyrianus (see
note ad loc.), and the suggestion has been made that he was the author of
iconophile writings, perhaps a florilegium, known to Par. (Alan
Cameron, ‘A quotation from Nilus of Ancyra in an iconodule tract’,
JThS n.s. 27 (1976), pp. 128-31). But the most that can safely be said
here is that this Anastasius seems to fit a mid-eighth century context
when monks were being punished for opposition, presumably religious.
Par.’s own attitude, therefore, is left as carefully unspecified here as
elsewhere, though its sympathies in general lie with the iconophile side
 COMMENTARY 253

(cf. its frequent and hostile references to Julian, who was in the eighth
century often identified with the iconoclasts; for discussion see introduc¬
tion, section v). The general context of association of the Hippodrome
with horrors would be reinforced for Par. by the mutilation of Justinian II
there in 695 and the triumph over Leontius and Apsimar, followed by
their execution, in 705 (Nicephorus, pp. 38, 42; Theophanes, pp. 369,
375 de Boor).

Chapter 64: The Seven Philosophers and the Emperor Theodosius

An extremely difficult and textually very corrupt chapter. Seven

philosophers expound the statues of the Hippodrome in a question-and-
answer confrontation with the Emperor Theodosius II (408-50). Because
their explanations often take the form of riddles or even jokes, they have
as often been corrupted in P, so that in some cases the meaning can only
be dimly surmised. The whole presentation is however very interesting,
partly for its romanticising air, beginning with the story of Eudocia, and
the clear affinity of the seven philosophers with the seven wise men, or
with the seven Athenian philosophers who went to Persia when Justinian
closed the Academy at Athens in 529 (Agathias, Hist. 11.30-31), but also
because dialogues of this kind recur in a strikingly close parallel in the
16th-c. Diegesis at section 139 f., where Constantine assembles the
philosophers and wise men and asks for an explanation of the column of
the Xerolophos, and at 302 f. and 337 f., where Leo VI does the same (cf.
especially the last passage cited). The notion therefore of an emperor set¬
ting up a kind of public debate on these matters, and summoning
‘philosophers’ or wise men of all kinds to give their exposition of the
meaning of statues is no wild fiction of Par. ’s own, but belongs firmly in a
long tradition (cf. Alexander’s riddles posed to the gymnosophists: R.
Merkelbach, Die Quellen des griechischen Alexanderromans2 (1977), pp. 72 ff.,
156 ff., and for a much more recent example, the story of a confrontation
between Justinian II and some ‘philosophers’: see A. Stratos, Byzantium
in the Seventh Century, V (Amsterdam, 1980), p. 6). On this occasion it
seems that the pagans get the best of the encounter, in that they are the
ones who know the meanings of the statues, which are invariably un¬
favourable for Constantinople. This chapter is more folkloric and fanciful
than most of the rest of Par., and seems to form a detachable piece.
Perhaps Par. has somehow preserved a specimen of pagan apologetic. But
in this context it is turned to Christian use: since ancient statues were
thought capable of yielding prophecies of the future of the city (chaps. 20,
41, 61), it was essential for emperors to control their interpretation,
especially as the prophecies usually concerned the emperors themselves.
254 COMMENTARY

This chapter springs from a real and earnest need to know the truth—a
need which doubtless supplied Par. with a receptive audience, possibly
familiar with the series of prophecies about the Emperor Philippicus from
a late seventh-century hermit later recorded by Theophanes (p. 381 de
Boor). If so, they would be doubly interested in learning about the
messages to be gleaned from statues.
Eudocia the Athenian: wife of Theodosius II (408-50); she was said
to be the daughter of a pagan philosopher, and much was made of her
early paganism in contrast with her later piety (see Alan Cameron, ‘The
Empress and the Poet: Paganism and Politics at the court of Theodosius
IT, in John J. Winkler and Gordon Williams (eds.), Yale Classical Studies
27, Later Greek Literature Cambridge, 1982, pp. 217-89). The earliest
source to mention the dispute between Athenais-Eudocia and her
brothers that brought her to the notice of Pulcheria and led to her being
chosen as bride for Theodosius is Malalas, pp. 353-55 Bonn, repeated in
Chron. Pasch., pp. 576-79 Bonn. A close examination reveals that the
function of the story in Malalas is as a moralising fable illustrating the
development of good fortune from bad.
her brothers: Malalas, p. 353, says there were two, Valerius and
Gesius (or Genesius: Zonaras, XIII.22, Bonn III, p. 101).
seven philosophers: it is easy to see why this confrontation, not men¬
tioned in any other source for Eudocia, has become attached to her story.
The story itself could as well be told of any other emperor, but the tradi¬
tion of Eudocia’s Athenian origin and philosophic connections made her
the obvious link. The philosophers speak in turn, usually with a riddle or
pun, as they look at the statues in the Hippodrome. The Patria, 11.79, p.
191, tell us that the statues had been ‘magicked’ by Apollonius of Tyana
(έστοιχειώσατο); cf. also 11.103, p. 206, where they say he similarly
‘magicked’ the statues in the Forum of Constantine, as οι στηλωτικοί will
understand (cf. p. 191. 18 f.). Thus the Hippodrome statues are all
presumed to have underlying meanings, which it takes an expert to
unravel. But it is worth noting that Par. does not mention Apollonius by
name, and that Apollonius does not play in Par. the role that he has ac¬
quired by the time of the Patria and Cedrenus (he is also prominent in the
16th c. Diegesis). See however the response of Silvanus below. For these
ideas about statues see C. Blum, Eranos 44 (1946), especially p. 321; in¬
troduction, section vii. Par. seems to represent an early but established
stage in the development of the idea of statues with hidden powers.
good fortune from misfortune: Par. emphasises the same reversal as
Malalas (see above).
Theodosius drove in: why should Theodosius seek to ‘please the
philosophers’? There is much that is obscure in this chapter and we have
translated as best we could.
 COMMENTARY 255

Kranos, Karos: the names indicate the folkloristic tinge of the story,
but do not detract from its seriousness for the compilers of Par.
to see the Olympians: corrected by Combefis to θέας χάριν (see in¬
troduction, section iv). Olympians’ must mean the statues of the pagan
gods, though there is no article and indeed the text has to be corrected.
The allusion is picked up in the reply of Apelles ‘when the Olympians
change...’. There might be a pun intended: i.e. Apelles means not only
‘when the Olympian gods are cast down’ but also ‘when the Olympic
games come to an end’ (usually put in AD 394). Either way he is
threatening Theodosius with dire results, things going topsy-turvy. But
the remark is certainly very difficult and neither Anon. Treu nor the
Patria seems to have understood what it was all about.
the philosophers were amazed: that is, they were evincing the cor¬
rect response when confronted with these ancient statues (introduction,
section iv). Anon. Treu and the Patria, 11.82, p. 193, seek to explain the
amazement by saying that they were looking at the emperor on
horseback. But Apelles’s answer is a paradox, not a response to the sight
of the emperor.
you have been out-philosophized: the whole point is that this is a
confrontation between Theodosius, the representative of the Christian
empire, and the seven philosophers who stand for paganism. If they can¬
not explain the statue, their claim to ‘philosophy’ is exploded.
I am surprised: the text is certainly corrupt, and we cannot recover
the first part of Apelles’s reply. Anon. Treu solves the problem by omit¬
ting it altogether and then smoothing out the grammar.
when the Olympians change: see above. Apelles is saying, in effect,
that all will be revealed (and for the worse, from the pagan point of view)
when the Olympians (gods and/or games) give way to Christianity.
There will then be no need for ‘wonder’. Cf. chaps. 40-41, especially 41:
‘the fall of demons’, i.e. of the pagan gods; clever philosophers are able to
predict the fall of emperors.
Nerva: the beginning of Nerva’s reply is very compressed, but seems
to yield some sense as indicated. Stoicheion in Par. usually means simply
‘statue’ (introduction, section vii), but might also have the sense of
‘meaning’, so that Nerva is saying that the statues correspond to their
meanings (or vice versa). He too is foretelling a bad future for Constan¬
tinople on the basis of these ancient statues.
leaning on its knee: despite the corruption in P it is clear that this is
the reclining Heracles of Lysippus (see on chap. 37, where it is said to
have been at the Basilica, but subsequently moved to the Hippodrome.
In chap. 41, a similar statue, perhaps a copy, is placed at the
Amastrianon. The statue is further described at chap. 65). For reference
256 COMMENTARY

to it in other sources, e.g. Nicetas Choniates, De Signis, 5, p. 858 Bonn,

and bibliography; see note on chap. 37.
P’s text seems to suggest ‘like_’ and Lambeck suggested τό γόνυ
καμπτόν, δίκην κεκμηκότος i.e. ‘its knee bent, as if of someone tired’,
which fits with the description given by Anon. Treu—’a statue crouching
down’—and with Aratus’s description of the constellation of Heracles as
‘as if crouching’ (Phaen. 64 f.; see Preger, BZ 11 (1902), p. 167).
the artificer has done well: Par. uses the word which the other texts
apply to Apollonius in the sense of ‘magicked’, but since στοιχεΐον in Par.
more often seems to have a neutral meaning (simply ‘statue’), it is not
certain that here the reference is more specific, still less that Apollonius is
implied. See note above on the reply of Nerva and for general discussion,
introduction, section vii. In general, Par.’s treatment of this confronta¬
tion and the explication of the Hippodrome statues is less fully worked
out than it was to become later; thus while Cedrenus and the 16th c.
Diegesis are sure that the Hippodrome statues had been ‘magicked’ by
Apollonius of Tyana, Par. merely knows that somehow they have mean¬
ings, which wise men can understand.
the times...: Silvanus’s reply again has to be a pun (τό
γόνυ—άγόνατοι). The meaning is less easy to catch, άγόνατοι (lit. ‘without
a knee’) might mean ‘inflexible’; but perhaps Par. intends it in the sense
of ‘barren’ (άγονοι). Again, a bad prophecy is surely required by the logic
of the passage.
the People: Par. simply says ‘looking at Demos’, i.e. at a statue
representing Demos. It is highly likely that the Hippodrome might have
contained such a statue, since they were common in the late Hellenistic
period, usually in the form of colossal figures of a young man or a
woman. See for examples P. Veyne, ‘Les honneurs posthumes de Flavia
Domitilla’, Latomus 21 (1962), p. 70, n. 3; L. Robert, ‘Inscriptions
d’Aphrodisias’, Antiquite Classique (1966), pp. 425-27.
The pun with demioi (‘executioners’) would be rather an obvious one.
Perhaps by demos Par. ’s authors were likely to understand ‘faction’, since
this was now commonly used for Greens and Blues (Cameron, Circus Fac¬
tions, pp. 28 ff., pointing out however that contrary to the belief of many
scholars it does not invariably have this meaning). If this were the case
here, it might perhaps signify factional violence, though its heyday was
the late fifth-sixth centuries rather than the reign of Theodosius II.
starting-gates: lit. ‘the boundaries’, perhaps therefore the metae, i.e.
‘turning-posts’; but the singular πρόβλημα in the following sentence
would seem to favour carceres (‘starting-gates’). See below.
riddle: the same word πρόβλημα is used twice more in this chapter to
mean the riddle or conundrum which has to be expounded by a
 COMMENTARY 257

‘philosopher’—see especially the end of the chapter (‘the conundrum

which Kranos expounded’). It ought then to have a similar meaning
here—Pelops looks at the opot of the horses, (whatever they are exactly),
and asks ‘who set the problem?’ We next have to explain what follows,
but Pelops seems to be saying either that the philosopher has got it wrong
(i.e. himself), or that the emperor has not set a genuine problem. He says
this because his solution does not fit the facts. Therefore, either he is
wrong, or the ‘problem’ is not genuine. There are indeed difficulties,
however, one being that two monuments or statues seem to be in¬
volved—both the δροι and the female statue next mentioned. Another is
simply the interpretation of what next Pelops says. He is clearly expound¬
ing a prophecy on the basis of this statue, but it is not clear how this has
gone wrong, as he seems to imply.
the philosopher: i.e. Pelops.
zodiacal inscriptions: this sounds closest to the Anemodoulion
described by Nicetas Choniates, De Signis, 4, p. 856 f., but located in the
Forum of Constantine. In this group a female figure topped a bronze
pyramid. See on chap. 29 and cf. Preger, BZ 11 (1902), p. 167.
‘You of four boundaries’: there must be a pun on πέρατα/πέρας (πέρας
= end), but cf. the suggestion of C. Mango that άπέρατοι might mean
‘useless’, ‘no good’, the opposite of modern Greek τετραπέρατοι. The pun
would be in the sound of the words. The four-sided figure is the zodion
just described, or rather the pyramid on which the figure was placed (see
note above). The sentence here seems to refer to Constantine and
(presumably) his descendants; but the word for the latter is omitted. The
sentence is incomplete as it stands, for the subject is not named, and the
sentence simply goes on with a plural verb. Something may have
dropped out, or it may be Par.'s contorted style. Anon. Treu has the
same as P, but MS G of the Patria, 11.82, p. 193, has tried to improve the
original by inserting another adjective (κομψοί τε).
Karos: the general sense of Karos’s reply is that the explanations of
the statues without exception bode ill. He seems then to say: if so, and if
these explanations are true (or ‘turn out to be true’), why does Constan¬
tinople still stand?
leader: λογιστής (Lambeck). The ideological nature of this episode is
underlined by the fact that Par. makes them Athenian philosophers (i.e.
Neoplatonists and arch-pagans).
hooted: on the analogy of κοκκύζω (‘make a sound like a cuckoo’),
κοκκυάω (‘rant and rave’).
he replied: the word for reply has dropped out. P has ... >ατο έναρκια,
έναρκία perhaps being Kranos’s reply—i.e. ‘Enough’.
258 COMMENTARY

‘You are benighted’: Narcissus, as a palace official, warns Kranos

that he should speak more suitably to the emperor. Whether there is a
special point in the reference to Helios (the Sun, in which guise Constan¬
tine was perhaps represented in the statue on the column in the Forum of
Constantine) is not clear, but the philosophers may use the term for its
pagan implications.
turned the other cheek: a very Christian action for a pagan
philosopher, and Par.'s only Scriptural allusion.
gave him another slap: for the verb with this sense, cf. also chap. 28.
The philosopher: i.e. Kranos.
I shall not speak because of you: there seems to be an adverb lack¬
ing. But Kranos assures Narcissus that his slaps have not had any effect;
he speaks and will speak as he does because of his concern at what he
deduces from the statues.
inspect: θεάσασθαι, a semi-technical word in Par.·, see introduction,
section iv.
statue shaped like a man: this is the group consisting of a donkey
followed by a naked male figure wearing a helmet, also described by
Nicetas Choniates, De Signis, 6, p. 860 Bonn, where it is said to have been
set up at Actium by Augustus, and the man and the donkey are named as
Nicon and Nicander. The group was known as the Perichytes (Anon.
Treu, Patria, 11.82, p. 192). Anon. Treu has not only rearranged the
material from Par. at this point, but also expanded it and made it more
intelligible; the Patria follow the Anon. Par.’s account is not only more
difficult, but also more condensed; the group is given only such passing
description as is essential for the context of Kranos’s remark, which is
Par.’s real interest. But Par.’s attribution of the group to Valentinian is
followed in both Anon. Treu and the Patria. According to Choniates, this
was one of the statues destroyed by the Latins in 1204. Interestingly,
Tzetzes, writing in the twelfth century, seems to have known the story
from Par. [Chiliad., ed. Kiessling, p. 519)—unless the story was already a
well-known theme when it reached the compilers of Par.
private parts: βρετγάνοις, unknown otherwise. An alternative sugges¬
tion is ‘arms’, the idea being that the named man was a gladiator and the
arm coverings the wrappings worn on hands and arms by boxers.
One day: the interpretation, like the rest, is unfavourable. Kranos
laments the symbolism of the statue, which portrays a man behind a
donkey, deducing that one day things will really be like this, i.e. topsy¬
turvy, or, in a more precise sense, ‘donkeys’ will be honoured as if they
were men. Tzetzes expands somewhat, saying (loc. cit.) that one day in
the future fools (donkeys) will be valued above true wisdom.
 COMMENTARY 259

May the words ... not come to pass: Par. interposes a personal reac¬
tion to the interpretations of the future of the city offered by the
philosophers; cf. also chap. 61.
This problem: the problemata to which Par. refers more than once in
this chapter are literally the ‘problems’ posed by the statues, i.e. the
question of their interpretation. To solve the problems, i.e. to expound
the meaning of the statues, is called ‘philosophizing’; Par. uses the verb
in this specific sense, just as ‘philosophers’ are either those who can inter¬
pret statues, like Kranos and the rest, or members of Par.'s own circle
who do their best to understand these arcane secrets. The same ter¬
minology and the same set of ideas reappears in the Diegesis; see pp. 514,
521 and introduction, section vii. Ligurius the astronomer and consul is
presumably the same Ligurius as at chap. 5b (see note ad loc.). ‘Leo the
Great’ is Leo I; cf. chaps. 14, 45, 67, 88. Par. uses the term tomoi for
books, possibly a confusion with the famous ‘Tome’ of Pope Leo I (AD
448). Although the Diegesis knows Leo VI as an emperor who consulted
philosophers and astronomers about the meaning of the Xerolophos
reliefs (p. 521), there is no possibility of this passage actually containing
an allusion to him, if only because the Oracles of Leo’ and stories about
him to this effect did not reach their peak of circulation for some con¬
siderable time after his lifetime and achieved their maximum diffusion in
the 16th century, the date of the Diegesis (introduction, section vii).
Rather, the striking parallelism between Par. and the Diegesis is indicative
of the long patriographic tradition which is fairly fresh in the first work
and at its most highly developed in the second. Ligurius is most unlikely
to be a real source, in that he is described as pagan, as an astronomer and
as consul, an unlikely combination; see introduction, section ix.

Chapter 65

The subject of the Hippodrome statues and the theme of the reactions
of philosophers on viewing them leads naturally to a later example of the
same kind. The statue in chap. 65 is again the reclining Heracles (the
Heracles Trihesperus) of Lysippus (chaps. 41, 64).
Asclepiodorus: no need to emend, with Lambeck, to Asclepiodotus,
and identify with the late fifth-century philosopher (PLRE II,
Asclepiodotus 3), especially as the latter was mainly active at
Aphrodisias. It is even possible here that the Anastasius is not the fifth-
century emperor but the successor of Philippicus (713-15), thus that this
Asclepiodorus is a contemporary.
the large statue: obviously the reclining Heracles already mentioned
in chap. 64 (see note). Choniates describes the figure as mournfully sup-
260 COMMENTARY

porting his head on his left hand and lamenting his fate (De Signis, 5,
p. 859 Bonn).
kneaded: the exact pun escapes us.
the writing on the marble: i.e. the inscription on the base. But Par.
does not tell us what the inscription said, contenting itself with
mysterious hints.
It were good not to know: Asclepiodorus’s comment is hard to
translate, since it is not altogether clear whether he is referring back to
those who set up the inscription and the statue, or to the present in a
general sense. If the early eighth-century emperor Artemius, who reign¬
ed as Anastasius II (713-15) is indeed intended, then this statement must
refer to his exile to Thessaloniki under Theodosius III (715-17) and un¬
successful coup against Leo III (Theophanes, p. 383; Nicephorus, p. 55).
But the chapter is too vague to be certain of the reference. Among recent
emperors Par. has most to say about Justinian II and Philippicus (see on
chap. 37; introduction, section v).

Chapter 66

Note: for this formula see introduction, section iv.

Taurus: i.e. ‘the statue in the Forum Tauri’, for which see Janin,
CB2, pp. 64-68; Anth. Plan. 65 is presumably the inscription that accom¬
panied it. It was an equestrian statue with recumbent figures beneath the
horse’s hoof. Nicetas Choniates, De Signis, 4, p. 857 Bonn, describes an
apparently similar statue, but thought it represented either Joshua or
Bellerophon. The allusion here in Par. to the emperor receiving the
leaders of the barbarian peoples looks very like a deduction from a
representation of scenes of submission. Reliefs of this type are described
in the expanded version of this passage in the Patria, II, 47, p. 176, and
were found at this spot (Muller-Wiener, pp. 258-65). The Patria also
mention an equestrian statue of either Joshua or Bellerophon, but state
clearly that the Theodosius statue was on a column. It is not clear
whether all these references are actually to the same statue, nor how
many equestrian statues there were in the Forum Tauri; Par., chap. 35a
mentions statues of Arcadius and Honorius, to which the Patria, 11.38,
p. 170, add Hadrian. But it would seem that Par. ’s allusion here is to the
equestrian statue of Theodosius set up on a pillar in the Forum Tauri.
For the well-known equestrian statue, possibly of Theodosius, in the
Augusteum, see below on chap. 68.
Sozomen: a false citation; see introduction, section ix.
Clement: possibly a contemporary. For other seventh-century allu¬
sions in Par. cf. chap. 74. However, these may actually be references to
 COMMENTARY 261

Constantine I and his son, in which case Clement may fall into the
category of dubious authorities (introduction, section ix).

Chapter 67

Pittakes: for the form of reference see on chap. 66, where

Theodosius’s statue in the Forum Tauri is similarly called ‘Taurus’. The
Pittakia was apparently a small square between S. Irene and S. Sophia
and the Senate House of the Augusteum: see Mango, Brazen House, p.
56 f., especially 59; P. Speck, ‘Eudoxia-Saule und Pittakia’, Ελληνικά,
22 (1969), pp. 430-35. It was not, as formerly thought, a residential area
favoured by the Blues (Alan Cameron, Circus Factions, p. 89). It held the
silver statue of Eudoxia mentioned in chap. 31 (Theophanes, p. 79). At
Patria, 11.31, p. 167, the name Pittakes is derived from πιττάκια = ‘peti¬
tions’, which were deposited at the base of the statue of Leo by those who
sought justice. These were guarded by soldiers until the emperor’s week¬
ly visit to collect them and deliver the judgements. Thus the Patria have a
long antiquarian etymology, whereas Par. merely refers to former ‘recep¬
tions’ (see below). Nevertheless, Par.'s ‘receptions’ do seem to be con¬
nected with the answering of petitions by the emperor, so that the same
idea lies behind both passages even if it appears in its expanded form only
in the Patria. We thank William Turner for help with this passage.
Leo the Butcher: Par. and the later patriographers refer to Leo I in
this way but also call him Leo the Great (cf. chaps. 45, 14, 88 etc.). Ac¬
cording to the Patria, 11.31, p. 167, the statue was on a column. Leo
earned the name after the murder of Aspar (see chaps. 14, 88); see
Malchus, fr. 2a, Cedrenus, I, p. 607.
receptions: surely receptions for the answering of petitions. The
Patria, loc. cit., describe a complex ceremony which took place each week
in the palace, when the emperor dealt with the petitions left at the foot of
the statue during the week and handed them back through officials who
took them to the courtyard of Pittakia to the soldiers who were on guard
and thence to the petitioners. Par. refers to a palace formerly at the Pit¬
takia, but the palace in the Patria is more probably the imperial palace.
Although δεξίματα is unknown elsewhere, δέξιμα (‘receptions’) is com¬
mon; but the receptions here seem to be receptions of petitions.
palace: probably the same as the oikos of Euphemia, sister of Leo,
mentioned here by the Patria, loc. cit.
Diakrinomenos: it is not likely that Par. knew Diakrinomenos direct;
see introduction, section ix. But the detail in Patria suggests that the story
about the petitions did stand in a written source, which Par. was ab¬
breviating.
262 COMMENTARY

Chapter 68

Preger, following previous editors, prints 68 and 68a as one chapter

without a break. However, Liam Gallagher noticed that there is in P a
clearly marked stop after the words ‘who is seen there today’, and a gap
of the size usually marking chapter division before the next words. If this
is indeed taken as a chapter division, both parts become intelligible;
taken together the sentence is incomprehensible. Further, the subject
matter changes, for while 68 (as we print it) concerns the column in the
Augusteum, 68a moves on to the column in the Forum of Constantine.
We therefore separate this in the translation into two distinct chapters,
calling the second 68a and repunctuating accordingly. As will be seen,
the subject matter led only too easily to the conflation. The Greek text as
repunctuated reads as follows: επί Θεοδοσίου ούν τοΰ μεγάλου στήλη έτέρα
τώ κίονι διαδέχεται, άργυραΐα καί αυτή, άλλα καί Άρκαδίου καί Όνωρίου
πρ< ός> τή γή, ώς ό Θεόδωρός φησι. εν δε τοΐς Σωζομένου γράμμασι, φησίν,
’Ιουστινιανός έστι, ός νΰν καθοράται. 68α. τό μέγιστον τοΰ φόρου ζώδιον, καθά
φησι Θεοδώρητος καί Ευσέβιος (εν οϊς δοκοΰσι σφάλλεσθαι βιβλίοις), έλληνος
είναι στήλην.

The Augusteum

By Par. ’s day the Augusteum formed the courtyard of the church of S.

Sophia, and was an enclosed space of quite modest dimensions. But it
had been rebuilt on several occasions, which Par. commemorates in a
hazy sort of way. The original Augusteum was probably constructed next
to the Great Church in 459 by the prefect Theodosius (Chron. Pasch.,
p. 593 Bonn), though a legendary story connects it with Helena, mother
of Constantine, whose statue was erected by her son in a place afterwards
called the Augusteum (from Helena Augusta)—Hesychius, p. 17. See
Mango, Brazen House, pp. 42-47. The major decoration of the Augusteum
was a large column topped by a statue with additional statuary round the
base. Par. here records three changes of the main statue, Constantine be¬
ing replaced first by Theodosius and then by Justinian. The first is a con¬
fusion with the column and statue of Constantine in the Forum of Con¬
stantine, frequently mentioned by Par. As for the second and third,
Cedrenus says that Justinian replaced a silver statue of Theodosius and
the existing column with a new column and a bronze statue of himself (I,
p. 566), but it may be rather that the column was new and the statue re¬
used (Mango, Brazen House, p. 174 ff.). In any case, the prime authority
for Justinian’s statue is Procopius, Aed., 1.2.1, unknown to Par., which
cites instead the fifth-century church historian Sozomen at second hand.
This citation, not merely false but actually impossible, is not untypical of
 COMMENTARY 263

Par.’s references to named literary sources (introduction, section ix), and

it is common for Par. to refer to church historians for secular history. It is
noteworthy that Par. has little sense of the importance of Justinian as a
builder, and does not know Procopius’s Buildings; introduction, section
ix. This chapter is not even written as though the author is familiar with
the statue, which remained standing until the sixteenth century, and has
no appeals to personal observation, as in chaps. 38 and 39.
Theodosius: the mention of statues of Arcadius and Honorius leads
one to wonder whether there is not a confusion with the statue of
Theodosius I on a column in the Forum Tauri (chap. 66; 35a, where Par.
says it was flanked by statues of Arcadius and Honorius).
Theodore: presumably Theodore Lector, i.e. another citation from
Par.’s favourite ecclesiastical historians; see introduction, section ix.
they say: for φησί in this loose sense, cf. chaps. 37, 47, 57. Clearly
Par.’s authors have not read Sozomen.
ος: corrupted to o by the influence of what follows.

Chapter 68a: Constantine’s Statue in the Forum

For the chapter division see note to chap. 68.

the largest statue: that of Constantine on the porphyry column in the
Forum of Constantine (the so-called ‘Burnt Column’), mentioned at
chaps. 23, 39 and 56, and cf. 10 and 17. Usually Par. calls it simply ‘the
great statue’, and it is noticeable that for Par. it has become a talisman,
with significant objects, whether Christian or not, thought to be on top of
the pillar and beneath it (see on chaps. 23, 56; Par. does not, however
mention in this connection the Palladium from Rome—see on chap. 56).
There is some discrepancy between the various passages in which Par.
alludes to this monument in terms of emphasis: whereas chap. 23 is en¬
tirely Christian, and reflects a late stage in the statue’s mythology, 56 is
on the whole secular, allowing a prominent place to the city Tyche as well
as to the statue of Constantine (so also with the other passages concerning
the foundation and birthday ceremonial (5, 38)), while here Par. actually
rebuts the notion that the statue was not Christian from the beginning.
Par.’s immediate source here seems to be ‘Milichius the
chronographer’ (introduction, section ix). The citations of Eusebius and
Theodoret are completely wrong—the Life of Constantine claims that there
were no traces of paganism in Constantinople (III.48). This array of
‘sources’ is therefore mere window-dressing, in Par. ’s manner (introduc¬
tion, section ix).
The real origin of the statue (according to Malalas, p. 320 and Chron.
Pasch., p. 528 a reused statue from Ilium or Phrygia) remains something
264 COMMENTARY

of a problem. Most modern scholars have followed Preger (Hermes 36

(1901), pp. 457 ff.) in thinking that it was an Apollo-Helios, on the basis
of such later texts as Zonaras (III, p. 18 Bonn) and Tzetzes (Chiliades,
VIII.333, p. 295 Kiessling) (see Dagron, Naissance, pp. 38-40, Mango,
AS, p. 57), but it is true that the earliest sources—Malalas, Chron. Pasch.,
with Philostorgius, HE 11.17, Theodoret, HE 1.34 and Hesychius,
Preger, p. 17—make no mention of Apollo or Helios. Thus Alan
Cameron suggests that it was a reused statue of an earlier emperor with a
radiate crown (‘The Foundation of Constantinople’, forthcoming, sec¬
tion V). See too J. Karayannopoulos, ‘Konstantin der Grosse und der
Kaiserkult’, Historia 5 (1956), pp. 341-57. But at chap. 38 Par. seems to
be making a clear connection between the statue or copy used in the
birthday ceremonial and Helios, even if the chapter as a whole is based
on several different confusions (see note). Of course, an erroneous sup¬
position, based on the radiate crown, and on the passage in Hesychius
(loc. cit.) claiming that Constantine’s statue ‘shone like the sun’ (Helios),
that the statue itself was actually a statue of Helios, may already have
been formulated in the period before Par. If so, this would remove one of
the major pieces of evidence for paganising features in the dedication of
Constantinople. Here when Par. argues against the idea that the statue
was a ‘pagan one’, it merely means that it was an antique statue of a
pagan, not necessarily that it was a statue of a pagan god. Constantine in
this chapter is already the sainted Christian emperor, thus his statue is
presumed, however secular in fact, to have been sanctified and erected to
the accompaniment of prayers (cf. also chap. 56, where the prayers are
probably another anachronistic detail). R. Krautheimer, Three Christian
Capitals (1983), p. 62 f., believes that Constantine was deliberately
representing himself as Christ-Helios.

Chapter 69

tripod: presumably this means that the tripod was Alexander’s

stoicheion (see introduction, section vii). If so, this is a peculiarly specific
allusion in Par. to the idea common in the later texts that statues were or
could be inhabited by personages from the pagan past or magicked by
them. This meaning here is guaranteed by what follows, for Par. goes on
to say that it is those who can judge on the basis of prophecies who know
that it is Alexander, and the verb used is στοιχοΰντες. Promountius may
have been a member of Par.’s circle (introduction, section iv); he is
credited with writings on the subject of stoicheiosis and on the history of
Constantinople, but not surprisingly we only know of him from this
passage (introduction, section ix). According to the Patria, 11.59, p. 183,
 COMMENTARY 265

there was a statue of Alexander the Great in the Strategion which Con¬
stantine brought from Chrysopolis, where it had stood for 648 years, and
the association of Alexander with the Strategion is also preserved in
Chron. Pasch., p. 495 Bonn. A tripod of Hecate is mentioned in the
Strategion by Cedrenus, I, p. 563, together with an equestrian statue of
Constantine carrying a cross. For the Strategion see Janin, CB2,
pp. 431-32.
S. Constantine: Constantine is usually presented in Par. simply as
emperor, albeit important for his Christianisation of the city. It was the
anonymous Life of Helena and Constantine that elevated Constantine to
sainthood. This was probably composed between the seventh and ninth
centuries; Par.’s reference is therefore an early witness to the growing
cult, and Par. ’s attitude to Constantine in general should be interpreted
against the background of these developments. See DACL III.2, cols.
2688-89 (Leclercq).

Chapter 70: The Philadelphion

A place on the Mese between the Forum of Constantine and the

Forum Tauri, the Philadelphion got its name from a legendary embrace
of the three sons of Constantine after his death in 337—a programmatic
tradition, since their joint rule soon ended in strife. The place had
formerly been called the Proteichisma, i.e. an outwork of the walls of
Severus, and it had a gate allegedly built by Carus, father of Severus
(chaps. 56, 58); see Janin, CB2, pp. 19-20; REB 13 (1955), pp. 102-3;
Naumann, 1st. Mitt. 16 (1966), p. 210. The original starting point for the
procession in the dedication ceremony of Constantinople was here, rather
than at the Magnaura (chap. 56). Par. presents a very confused account
of the area, placing one of Constantine’s visions at the Philadelphion,
commemorated in a gilded cross erected on a four-sided column with
statues of Helena, himself and his sons (chap. 58 and cf. chap. 16 and
note). Subsequently, this place was given the name Philadelphion to
commemorate a supposed meeting there of the three sons after their
father’s death in May, 337, which they recorded with statues of
themselves (chap. 70). The three-headed porphyry statue described in
chap. 43 with six hands but only two feet, clearly reflects this theme of
concord; but its loss is there described. Presumably there was another at
the Philadelphion; see note ad loc. and Muller-Wiener, pp. 266 ff. P. Ver-
zone identified the Philadelphion group with one of the ‘embracing
tetrarchs’ groups at San Marco in Venice (T due gruppe in porfiro di S.
Marco in Venezia ed il Philadelphion di Costantinopoli’, Palladio n.s. 8
(1958), pp. 8-14), but there are too many discrepancies between those
groups and Par. ’s description here to permit any certainty; see also note
266 COMMENTARY

to chap. 43. Par. is also confused on the crosses which Constantine sup¬
posedly erected after his vision; given the inaccuracy of the account of his
dream at the Philadelphion (chap. 70), the statues mentioned here may
also be a duplication of those put up in the Forum (chap. 16; cf. also 52
on the Forum Bovis). The tradition about the meeting in Constantinople
of the sons of Constantine is certainly without foundation, for they met
only in Pannonia after Constantine’s death (see T. D. Barnes, ‘Imperial
Chronology, AD 337-350’, Phoenix 34 (1980), pp. 160-66; Constantine and
Eusebius, p. 262). What the statues originally were like is itself unclear,
and it is very doubtful whether the connection with the sons of Constan¬
tine is authentic; nor is it clear whether they still stood in Par. ’s day, since
the final words may refer only to those of Julian and his wife. At chap. 58
Par. alludes to seated statues of Constantine’s sons put up by Constantine
himself, and these did survive (note ad loc.)\ presumably this is an entirely
different group. Par. seems to have thought that this was similar to the
group described in chap. 43, which it says was of Constantine himself,
Constans and Constantius. But in neither case is the detailed identifica¬
tion of the figures or the description of the group itself beyond doubt, to
say the least. On the whole it seems most likely that the group of chap. 70,
like that of chap. 43, had disappeared long before, perhaps very soon
after 337, when the theme of concord between the brothers had been
rudely shattered.
One of the three ... from Gaul: here Par. has preserved a genuine
detail of fourth-century history in saying that Constantine II was
previously in Gaul; see Barnes, HSCP 79 (1975), p. 332, and see on chap.
50. Anon. Treu is fuller here: ‘when Constantine died, Constantius be¬
ing in the eastern parts, Constantine, [i.e. Constantine II], coming from
the Gauls, met Constans and they greeted each other’ (p. 19.6 f.). It
seems unlikely that Anon, used another source, or that the extra material
is the result of guesswork. It may be therefore that it used a fuller version
of Par. than in P.
Julian and his wife Anastasia: Julian’s wife was called Helena and
died soon after his accession. She was certainly not forced to take the veil.
Perhaps the statue was actually of Anastasia, sister of Constantine I
(PLRE I, s.v. Anastasia 1).
Promotus: P’s Promountos is influenced by the Promuntius of chap.
68. Janin, Eglises et monasteres2, p. 444, cites this passage without comment
for an otherwise unknown convent of nuns.

Chapter 71

Xerolophos: see chap. 20 and note. The 16th-c. Diegesis is about the
inscriptions on this column, interpreted as full of sinister implications for
 COMMENTARY 267

the city. But although at chap. 20 Par. recognises the place as a location
for pagan rites and prophecy, it does not here lay any particular stress on
the column and its associations.
Diakrinomenos: introduction, section ix.
and Marcian: P puts the words ‘and Marcian’ after ‘at the foot of the
pillar’, but Anon. Treu has rightly reversed the order.
seven pillars: cf. the sixteen spiral columns in chap. 20, part of the
reason for calling the Xerolophos a ‘spectacle’.
earthquake: introduction, section v, for possible dates, and cf. chap.
3.
Tribunal: Janin, CB2, pp. 174-75, cites tribunals at the imperial
palace and the praetorium, but there were probably also regional
tribunals for the administration of justice, and this may have been the
one serving the western region of the city on the seventh hill.

Chapter 72

Neorios: for the harbour of Neorion (modern BahcekapT), see chaps.

5a, 42 and cf. Janin, CB2, pp. 235-36; Muller-Wiener, pp. 57-59. For the
bronze ox there, see chap. 42. Par. adopts the habit of naming a statue
after its location (cf. chaps. 66, 67, 70).
Conon: i.e. Leo III. For this name, see note on chap. 2.
set up: Greek έστοιχειώσατο, which certainly can mean ‘magicked’,
‘cast a spell on’: see introduction section vii. But the verb and noun are
often neutral in Par., and there is nothing else in this chapter to suggest a
context of spells or talismans (contrast chap. 89). Finding the place full of
statues set up by Constantine would seem more likely to cause Leo to set
one up in rivalry than to cast a spell; moreover spells were usually the do¬
main of wise men and philosophers, not of emperors. Preger’s contention
that here (alone) the word means ‘build’ (index verb., p. 117) seems inap¬
propriate as well as unfounded, for the harbour had clearly been built
long before. See however on chap. 89.
markets: is it possible that the markets were moved because the
Neorion had become a health hazard? In 698 the harbour was cleaned
(by Leontius) and an outbreak of bubonic plague lasted for four months
(Theophanes, p. 370 de Boor; Nicephorus, p. 44 de Boor).
harbour of Julian: the port of Julian was refurbished and renamed
after his wife Sophia by Justin II, successor of Justinian (Patria, 11.62, p.
184; III.51, p. 229; see Averil Cameron, B 37 (1967), pp. 15 ff.; Miiller-
Wiener, pp. 62-63).
268 COMMENTARY

Chapter 73: Septimius Severus

Although Par. and the later patriographers tend to exaggerate this

emperor’s activity in the city, they correctly associate him with a major
pre-Constantinian building programme including the first hippodrome,
the baths of Zeuxippus, the Xerolophos and a palace and temple near the
Forum Tauri (chaps. 20, 57, 73). Perhaps more importantly for Par.,
however, Severus is associated with the pagan history of the city; thus he
becomes an opponent of Constantine in fact as well as ideology (chaps.
54, 57), and through his pagan monuments he is held responsible for
magical practice, astronomical predictions, pagan worship, sacrifice and
idols. The compilers of Par. already have the morbid fascination with
such matters that is so much more fully displayed in the 16th-c. Diegesis of
the Xerolophos. In chaps. 37 and 57 Severus is the son of Carus (who is
said to have built the gate in the Proteichisma, chap. 56), and in chaps.
54 and 57 the leader of the Gazoi who fought against Constantine and his
‘general’ Maximin.
Severus: apparently another short-hand appellation (see on chap. 72).
The nominative should be kept, though it makes translation awkward.
For the Zeuxippus, which seems to have fallen into disuse in or soon
after the eighth century, see Janin, CB2, pp. 37 ff. The laconic notice in
Par. gives no hint of the earlier splendour of these baths, which had
formerly been one of the chief sites of antique statues, and had formed
the subject of an ekphrasis by Christodorus of Coptus (introduction, sec¬
tion ix). The fire during the Nika revolt (532) had in fact caused extensive
damage, and Justinian could not replace the many statues then lost. In
the course of the eighth century the baths were converted into a prison or
garrison for the Numeri (Mango, Brazen House, p. 41). Par. is un¬
conscious of their past glory, as of such literary works as did describe the
monuments of the city; its interests are in no way aesthetic (see introduc¬
tion, section x).
Hippodrome: for Severus’s contribution to the Hippodrome see
Guilland, BS 31 (1970), p. 182 f. These accurate allusions contrast with
the semi-mythical role played by Severus elsewhere in Par. (especially in
chap. 20).
Constantinianai: according to Chron. Pasch., p. 534, these baths were
not begun until AD 345, in which case they will have been built by Con-
stantius II. See Janin, CB2, pp. 372-73; Muller-Wiener, pp. 48, 190,
273, on the very large area in this region (τά Όλυβρίου) which took its
name from the baths. Cf. chap. 85 for statues in the baths and 49 for the
porticoes. Patria, I, 71, pp. 149-50, record palaces in the same area built
by Constantine for his sons. See further G. Prinzing, P. Speck, ‘Funf
 COMMENTARY 269

Lokalitaten in Konstantinopel; Das Bad Κωνσταντινιαναί; die Palaste

Κωνσταντιαναι und τά Κώνστα; das Zeugma; das Έπτάσκαλον’, H. G.
Beck (ed.), Studien zur fruhgeschichte Konstantinopels (Munich, 1973),
pp. 179-81.
Fossa: cf. chaps. 25, 52.

Chapter 74

Theodore: in fact the reference is to the Epitome (introduction, section

ix). For the aqueduct, Janin, CB2, pp. 199-200; Muller-Wiener,
pp. 273-77; ascribed to Valens, Socrates, HE IV.8.
cistern of the Basilica: no authority before Par. attributes this cistern
(modern Yerebatansaray), greatly enlarged by Justinian, to Constantine.
For Justinian’s work there see Procopius, Aed. I. 10; cf. Muller-Wiener,
pp. 283-5.
Chrysorrhoe: otherwise unknown. Χρυσορόφη springs to mind
(‘golden-roofed’, cf. chap. 37 of the Milion).
bronze seated statue: presumably the statue of Solomon set up by
Justinian, looking towards S. Sophia (Patria, 11.40, p. 171). But Par.
seems to have confused it with the statue of Theodosius on two pillars
behind the cistern near the Milion, also mentioned by the Patria, (loc.
cit.). It was later melted down by Basil I and made into a statue of himself
which was incorporated into the foundations of his Nea Ekklesia (Mango,
Brazen House, p. 50).
at: for εν meaning ‘at’ or ‘near’ see note on chap. 18.
Heliakon: a circular terrace or balcony round the Magnaura palace
(see Theophanes, p. 274). It was built by Maurice in AD 586 and
adorned by him with his own statue.
a certain monk: this story is an elaborated version of chap. 133 of the
Life of S. Theodore of Sykeon, which merely records the healing of
Phocas’s gout and Theodore’s forecast of divine retribution if he did not
cease from his murders. The confusion between Thomas I and Thomas
II shows that in its present form the story post-dates the patriarchate of
Thomas II (667-69), though the accuracy of the chronological framework
suggests that it may have been worked out by a contemporary; cf. ‘as his
contemporaries have told’, below.
confided: έθάρρησεν, twice in this apparently idiosyncratic sense in
this chapter.
was still a monk: ετι φιλοσοφοΰντος. Here φιλοσοφεΤν is used in its nor¬
mal Byzantine sense of ‘being a monk’, quite distinct from Par.’s own
characteristic use of the verb to denote connoisseurs of statues (introduc¬
tion, section iv).
270 COMMENTARY

for he confided in the monk: the meaning seems to be that it was

the future patriarch Sergius, who did not rise to that position until 610,
who had told the monk of the evils pending for Phocas.
horrible death: cf. Theophanes, p. 299; Chron. Pasch., pp. 700-701.

Chapter 75

Marinakion: the place was in the neighbourhood of Chalcedon, i.e.

on the Asiatic side of the Bosphorus (Janin, CB2, p. 501).
those before our time: cf. chap. 74 ‘as his contemporaries have told
us’ (the same terminology).
we find: introduction, section iv. This section even seems to reveal a
group expedition to Chalcedon to identify the statue and check an oral
account of it.
A philosopher then explained...: the meaning of the statue is
revealed by a ‘philosopher’, i.e. someone who can explain it properly.
Until then people had thought Valentinian’s murder in 455 justified
because of his own murder of Aetius, whereas now it was revealed that
the death of Valentinian was unjust, since the statue could not be moved
from its upright position on the ground. However, P’s text seems to be
corrupt and must be emended. The simplest procedure is to cut out
‘because of’ before ‘unjust death’; then the verb σημειωθήναι is perhaps
difficult (Preger following Combefis took it to mean the same as
στοιχειωθήναι), but can be translated as ‘became a sign’, i.e. that it ac¬
quired a hidden meaning. In the last clause, on the other hand, ‘because
of’ has dropped out. It is clear then that δία has been misplaced in P in a
sentence that is in general clumsily written.

Chapter 76

The place called Nicomedia: this use of ‘so-called’ is a feature of the

concluding chapters (cf. chaps. 78, 79, 83, 88, 89). Nicomedia was
Diocletian’s capital and might be a deduction from the fact that the statue
in the Hippodrome was identified as being of Diocletian.
stooping: this is as puzzling as Par. ’s use of ‘hunchbacked’ in relation
to statues (chaps. 14, 19; see below on ‘heavy’).
in front of the so-called Kathisma: the Kathisma being the imperial
box in the Hippodrome, the statue could hardly be ‘in the middle’ of it,
as the Greek says. Perhaps Par. means that it was on the spina facing the
Kathisma in the middle of the arena, where there were indeed many
statues (see on chap. 61). Or (since the Kathisma was raised up) perhaps
it stood on the same side of the arena but beneath the box.
up to the present day: see introduction, section v.
 COMMENTARY 271

Chapter 77

heavy statue: suspicious statues in Par. tend to the either heavy or

hunchbacked or both; cf. chaps. 75 and (especially) 28.
Maximian: either (as in chap. 85) Galerius, eastern Augustus,
305-11, or Maximian the father of Maxentius, western Augustus,
286-305. All MSS of the Patria version at 11.28, p. 166, give Maximin,
though their source, Anon. Treu, follows Par. correctly.
Theodosius the Spaniard: Theodosius I (379-95).
until today: cf. chap. 76, and introduction, section v. On the Chalke
statues see note on chap. 44a. Mango, Brazen House, p. 102, suggests that
Par. ’s knowledge of the Chalke statues (chaps. 5b, 33, 44a, 77, 80) comes
from ‘a text of c. 600’.

Chapter 78

four Gorgons: see on chap. 44a. The dispersal of this information in

Par. perhaps suggests that as with its notices on the Forum, or the birth¬
day celebrations of the city, the entries about the Chalke do not in fact all
come from the same source. The cross is also mentioned at chap. 44a, but
not elsewhere.

Chapter 79

Apparently a reference to a specific place in the Hippodrome reserved

for a particular class of people (see on chaps. 5, 64, 84).

Chapter 80

earlier shameless: as there is no other trace of Ariadne’s

‘shamelessness’, it is tempting to think that Par. is thinking of Theodora,
who features in the next chapter. There is some confusion there as to the
identity of Justinian’s wife (see below), which may support the idea that
the comment here has become attached to the wrong empress. If
Theodora is intended, this would be a rare testimony in support of Pro¬
copius’s Anecdota (which Par. presumably did not know); otherwise Pro¬
copius finds some confirmation only in John of Ephesus, Lives of the
Eastern Saints, ed. Brooks, PO 17 (1923), 13, p. 189. See D. Daube, ‘The
Marriage of Justinian and Theodora: Legal and Theological
Reflections’, Catholic University of America Law Review 16 (1967), pp.
380 ff. The inscriptions of the philosopher Secundus have been identified
by P. Speck, BZ 67 (1974), p. 389 n. 16, with Anth. Plan. 70 and 71, but
these are in elegiacs, not iambics. On the other hand, some iambics by a
Secundus do survive (Krumbacher, Gesch. byz. Lit.2, p. 557). For
272 COMMENTARY

iconoclastic iambics, see Gero, Byzantine Iconoclasm in the Reign of Leo III,
pp. 113 ff.

Chapter 81

From the latter part of the chapter, it is clear that the statues were ac¬
tually of Justin II (565-78) and Sophia. It would be possible to emend the
text so as to remove the common confusion between Justinian and Justin,
but since it is unclear whether it stems here from an error in transmission
or from a confusion in Par. (which is surprisingly ignorant about Justi¬
nian I), it is probably best to leave the text as it is. For Theodora see note
on chap. 80.
Green faction: for Green acclamations in Par., see chaps. 3, 29, 38.
iambic verses of the philosopher Plumbas: cf. chap. 80 on Secun-
dus. Whereas the latter has some shadowy existence, however,
Plumbas’s status is much more doubtful; see introduction, section ix.
The statues of Justin II and Sophia might be those mentioned by John of
Ephesus, HE III. 24 (so Mango, Brazen House, p. 102, n. 125). For the
Zeuxippus, see note on chap. 73.

Chapter 82

ancient bath: the oldest was the Achilleos, allegedly founded by

Byzas (Janin, CB2, p. 216).
Philippicus the gentle: for Par. ’s references to the reign of Philip-
picus, see introduction, section v. Par. is favourably disposed towards the
emperor, despite his Monothelitism, here excused. See note on chap. 37.
Though perhaps the most interesting chapter in Par. for the art
historian, in view of its terminology and its aesthetic comment, this is
also infuriatingly difficult and very possibly corrupt. Mango’s version
(Art of the Byzantine Empire, p. 133) translates Preger’s suggestion in the
apparatus criticus rather than the text as printed (‘because the emperor’s
likeness did not depart from its archetype’)—see below, and introduc¬
tion, section x.
painted image: στήλη έκ χρωμάτων. Possibly a mosaic is meant, or a
painted statue; cf. chaps. 5c, 47 for statues decorated in encaustic.
as the story goes: i.e. the writer of this chapter had not seen the
emperor in person.
There are several difficulties: 1) Par. seems to be using the two highly
contentious words, prototype and archetype, in the same sense. 2) why is
it said that painters (ζωγράφοι) praised the artist? 3) the reason given for
their approval is very difficult to interpret, since the verb in P, έχώρησε,
does not yield the required sense. Of these three the last is most easily
 COMMENTARY 273

solved by adopting the suggestion έχώρισε, which would then give the
meaning ‘he (i.e. the artist) did not depart in the matter of the emperor’s
appearance from (or ‘in comparison with’) the archetype’ (i.e. the
original). The change is merely a matter of orthography.
This is a very rare example in Par. of what is apparently an aesthetic
judgement, the picture of Philippicus being praised for its realism, even if
not by the writer himself. On the whole Par. shows no interest in the
aesthetic qualities of the art works it describes, since its preoccupations
are rather with their meaning, or with the oddities of their appearance. It
also seems to reflect, if indirectly and carelessly, the terminology of cur¬
rent debate about the nature of images.

Chapter 83

Iconium: see below, chap. 85.

Chapter 84: The San Marco Horses

The four horses removed to Venice after the capture of Constantinople

by the Fourth Crusade in 1204 and mounted on the fagade of San Marco.
This group is recognised as a masterpiece of ancient bronze work but its
date and provenance are still unknown. Recent scholarly opinion seems
to favour a date in the second or third century AD, while stressing the
close links with a persistent Greek tradition, ‘far from the frozen
classicism of Constantine’s era’ (L. Borrelli Vlad, The Horses of San Marco,
Venice, Exhibition Catalogue, The Royal Academy, 1979, 36-40). Vlad
associates the production of this group with the reign of Septimius
Severus, rather than the Hellenistic period favoured by many (see for ex¬
ample, J. F. Crome, BCH, 87, 1963, 209-228). Since the horses were in
Constantinople in the early thirteenth century, several attempts have
been made to identify them with known monuments, of which there are
at least two, possibly three, candidates. There is, however, no literary
evidence for any of them in Constantinople prior to the patriographic
writings of the eighth to tenth centuries. Par. states here that four golden
horses, placed above the Hippodrome, that is, over the starting gates,
were brought from Chios by Theodosius II (408-450). The Patria (II. 73,
p. 189) confirm that Chios was among the many cities which provided
statuary for the Hippodrome. After an earthquake in 447 Theodosius is
likely to have erected new statues. Certainly in the twelfth century a
group of four horses stood in this position (Nicetas Choniates, p. 156,
Bonn). They were not associated with a chariot and appear to have been
placed there as a symbol of the racing activity below.
274 COMMENTARY

The problem of the identification with the San Marco group arises
from the existence of another similar monument at the Neolaia in the
Hippodrome (see chap. 5, supplied from Patria, II. 87). This consisted of
four shining horses connected with a nearby chariot and a female driver
holding a statuette, described as ‘running’ (chap. 5). Par. connects this
with the annual birthday celebrations of the city, but admits that some
believe it to be an antique statue, at least in part, and it seems likely that
this was in fact the case (see note ad loc.). However, it was probably quite
distinct from the four horses mentioned here, both because of its different
location and because the chariot and driver were essential to the Neolaia
group, whereas the four horses ‘above the Hippodrome’ are not
associated with a chariot. It seems most likely, therefore, that these four
horses are the ones shipped to Venice by Enrico Dandolo. There remains
the question of the relation of the Neolaia chariot group to that described
by Par. in chap. 38 as being at the Milion, and also said to be antique. It
is probably most likely that the two are quite separate; at any rate, the
Milion group is said to be of a Helios, the Neolaia one to have a female
driver. Whether the Neolaia group could be identified with the Rhodian
quadriga from Delphi (see Crome, art. cit.) remains open; but the silence
of the early literary sources must render it problematic. Par. is quite un¬
conscious of such a connection and indeed assumes that the group was
used in, or commemorated, the birthday ceremonies instituted by Con¬
stantine. All in all, it seems most probable that the San Marco horses are
to be identified with the ones mentioned in this chapter and that the
Neolaia and Milion groups were quite distinct.

Chapter 85

A continuation of chapter 83 on statues from Iconium.

the daughter of Basiliscus: Andromeda’s father is universally known
as Cepheus (e.g. Malalas, p. 36 Bonn), and was immortalised like her in¬
to a constellation. The name Basiliscus is highly suspicious, in view of the
rather good information in Par. about the fifth-century Basiliscus (chaps.
26, 29, 32), unless possibly it should be written lower case and τίνος in¬
serted (‘a local ruler’).
as the myths and one of the historians say: Par.’s source is a
mystery, but the fullness of the story, which is out of scale for this part of
the surviving text of Par., suggests a written source. Par. claims to have
consulted Philodorus the logistes, probably another of the group of
shadowy contemporaries (introduction, section iv); perhaps however it
refers to him only on the derivation of the name Iconium (see below).
The Greek of the opening sentence is loose in the extreme; the ‘sacrifice’
 COMMENTARY 275

is Andromeda herself, as Par. goes on to explain, and the indirect speech

follows on naturally after ‘say’.
undeserving: surely άναιτία for αιτία. The story is told in a conversa¬
tional and informal style (cf. ‘so the afore-mentioned Perseus’), which is
rather attractive; for a similarly conversational style cf. chap. 28.
as he took up his position: alternatively, referring to the posture of
Perseus in the statue.
to the beast: ‘showed’ (δείκνυσι) is followed by an accusative, but the
following relative confirms that the meaning is correct.
Philodorus: Par. attributes its improbable derivation of the name
Iconium to a certain Philodorus who is named twice with special em¬
phasis. Curiously, Anon. Treu offers a quite different etymolo¬
gy—Iconium was so named because here Perseus showed the icon of the
Gorgon (δεϊξαι τήν εικόνα έκεΐσε ρ. 21.6—and is followed by the Patria,
11.85, p. 194). The latter etymology is well established in the chronicles
(Malalas, p. 36; Chron. Pasch., p. 71; John Ant., fr. 18 = FHG IV.544).
Either Anon. Treu unusually substituted the standard explanation for
Par.’s more recherche one, or (more likely) both versions stood in the
original text of Par. The latter is suggested by the pointed references to
Philodorus, which hint that his etymology was offered as an alternative to
the prevailing one, which then dropped out of the text. The connection
with Perseus was genuine local tradition (Perseus on Iconian coins—F.
W. Hasluck, BSA 18 (1911/13), 267, nn. 4 and 6). In 723/4 Iconium
(Konya) fell to the Arabs. Par. ’s laconic manner in its closing section did
not lend itself to such contemporary allusions (and indeed the passage
might date from before 723), nor to the observation that Iconium was
famous as the home of St. Thecla. But then it is remarkable that Par.
leaves out the Arabs altogether (introduction, p. 37).
Doria: Doria and Threnodia are otherwise unknown (see RE
IX.990-91, s.v. Ikonion). The original Phrygian name in fact seems to
have been Konion (W. M. Calder,yiTS 31 (1911), p. 189), and this, not
some farfetched mythical etymology, is the source of the later Iconium.
The whole absurd derivation given by Philodorus is typical of the
‘philosophizing’ in which the compilers of Par. liked to indulge, though
its subject is rather far from their basic concerns. Not surprisingly we
learn that this classical statue group was the scene of ‘many sacrifices’ in
the reigns of Decius, Diocletian and Maximian, i.e. in times of persecu¬
tion, and that martyrdoms took place there. For the general connection
in Par. of pagan statues with sacrifices, martyrdom and prophecy, see in¬
troduction, section vii.
church of Antioch: on the region of Constantinople called τα
Άντιόχου after the praepositus under Arcadius (395-408), see Patria, III.70,
p. 241. There is no record of a fourth-century church there.
276 COMMENTARY

Constantinianai: for this bath see chap. 73. Par.’s mention of Con-
stantius here seems to support the dating of it in Chron. Pasch., p. 534
Bonn, to 345.

Chapter 86

Anastasius: chap. 25 mentions a renovation of the church of S.

Menas (by the Acropolis—Janin, Eglises et monasteres2, pp. 333-35) by
Anastasius. The rest of the notice here is probably more indicative of
Par. ’s general attitude than informative about S. Menas, especially in its
associations of sacrifice with idols and prostitution.

Chapter 87

Chaps. 87 and 88 both discuss the cisterns of Constantinople; cf. chap.

74.
The opening sentence has no verb, unless the two parts separated in
Preger’s text are joined together.
Aetius: T. D. Barnes has argued that Aetius accompanied Valenti-
nian III to Constantinople for his marriage to Eudoxia in 437 (‘Patricii
under Valentinian ΙΙΓ, Phoenix, 29 (1975), p. 168); once there, he might
well have thought of commissioning a propagandist group emphasising
his role as Valentinian’s protector. But Marcellinus Comes dates the
building of the cistern to 421 (s.a. 421, Chron. Min. II, p. 275), and if this
is right the Aetius in question is likely to have been the man who was
prefect of Constantinople in 419 and praetorian prefect in 425 (PLRE II,
Aetius, I), as accepted by Janin, CB2, p. 203. But if the cistern was built
by this Aetius, whom did the statue group represent? There is no suitable
eastern general, c. 421, with the sort of ascendancy over the then
emperor Theodosius II that the group implies. Marcellinus may be
mistaken, or perhaps more likely, Par. describes a genuine statue of
Valentinian and the western Aetius and understandably, but wrongly,
links it with the cistern named after a different Aetius. For other statues
of Valentinian III mentioned by Par., see chaps. 51, 71 and 75.

Chapter 88

For this cistern see Janin, CB2, p. 204; Muller-Wiener, p. 279. It was
begun in 459 [Chron. Pasch., p. 593 Bonn). For Aspar and Ardaburius cf.
chap. 14, where Par.. similarly connects the killing of Ardaburius at least
in 471 with a monument (see J. B. Bury, LRE I2 (1923), pp. 319-20; G.
Vernadsky, Sildost Forschungen 6 (1941), pp. 38 ff.
 COMMENTARY 277

Chapter 89

Verina: wife of Leo I (457-74) and sister of Basiliscus, cf. chaps. 29,
40, 61.
bewitched: Greek έστοιχειώσατο, on which see introduction, section
vii. But it is possible that the meaning is neutral, as mostly in Par., with
the sense of ‘build’, and that the ‘island’ is actually some kind of artificial
mole or other maritime construction, in the course of whose building a
number of workmen died.
Justinian: most of Par.' s references to Justinian are to Justinian II, if
not otherwise specified.
three times: Preger keeps τρίτον against other editors, understanding
it as τρις.
The destruction of the ‘island’ does perhaps suggest that malevolence
was ascribed to it, but still leaves the interpretation of έστοιχειώσατο itself
open.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

M. Amelotti and L. M. Zingale, Scritti teologici ed ecclesiasticii de Giustinia.no, Milan 1977

(= Legum Iustiniani imperatoris vocabularium, Subsidia III).
P. Athanassiadi-Fowden, Julian and Hellenism, Oxford 1981.
A. Bacht, see A. Grillmeier.
B. Baldwin, ‘Physical Descriptions of Byzantine Emperors’, B, 51 (1981), pp. 8-21.
L. Barnard, ‘The Theology of Images’, in A. Bryer and J. Herrin, eds. Iconoclasm,
Birmingham 1977, pp. 7-13.
T. D. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, Cambridge, Mass. 1981.
-, ‘Constans and Gratian in Rome’, HSCP, 79 (1975), pp. 325-333.
B. Bavant, ‘Le duche byzantin de Rome’, MEFR Moyen Age, 91 (1979), pp. 41-88.
G. Becatti, La Colonna coclide istoriata, problemi storici, iconografici, stilistici, Rome 1960.
H. -G. Beck, Kirche und theologische Literatur im byzantinischen Reich, Munich 1959.
-(ed.), Studien zur fruhgeschichte Konstantinopels, Munich 1973.
H. Belting, see R. Naumann.
M. Bieber, The Sculpture of the Hellenistic Age, New York 1961.
C. Blum, ‘The meaning of stoicheion and its derivatives in the Byzantine Age’, Eranos,
44 (1946), pp. 316-25.
L. Borelli Vlad and A. Guidi Toniato, ‘The Origins and Documentary Sources of the
Horses of San Marco’, in The Horses of San Marco, Venice, Exhibition Catalogue,
Royal Academy, London, 1979, pp. 127-36.
J. Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality, Chicago 1980.
G. W. Bowersock, Julian the Apostate, Cambridge Mass. 1978.
J. N. Breckenridge, The Numismatic Iconography of Justinian II, New York 1959.
L. Brehier, ‘La legende de Leon l’Isaurien incendiaire de l’Universite de Constantino¬
ple’, Byzantion, 4 (1927-8), pp. 13-28.
T. S. Brown, A. Bryer and D. Winfield, ‘Cities of Heraclius’, BMGS, 4 (1978), pp.
15-38.
R. Browning, Medieval and Modern Greek, London 1969.
-, ‘Literacy in the Byzantine World’, BMGS, 4 (1978), pp. 39-53.
-, ‘The Language of Greek Literature’, in S. Vryonisjr, ed., Byzantina kai Metabyzan-
tina, I ‘The “Past” in Medieval and Modern Greek Culture’, Malibu 1979,
pp. 104-33.
A. Bryer and J. Herrin, eds. Iconoclasm, Birmingham 1977.
Alan Cameron, ‘A quotation from Nilus of Ancyra in an iconodule text?’ JTS, N.S. 27
(1976), pp. 128-31.
-, ‘The Empress and the Poet: paganism and politics at the court of Theodosius IT,
in J. J. Winkler and G. Williams, eds. Yale Classical Studies 27, Later Greek Litera¬
ture, Cambridge 1982, pp. 217-89.
-, ‘The Foundation of Constantinople’, forthcoming.
Averil Cameron, ‘The Cult of the Theotokos in Sixth-Century Constantinople’, JTS,
n.s. 29 (1978), pp. 79-108.
-, ‘The Virgin’s Robe: an episode in the history of early seventh-century Constanti¬
nople’, B, 49 (1979), pp. 42.
-, ‘The Artistic Patronage of Justin IT, B, 50 (1980), pp. 62-84.
C. Capizzi, L’imperatore Anastasio I (491-518), Rome 1969.
C. Cipolla, ‘L’antichissima iconographia di Verona, secondo una copia inedita’, Atti
delTAccademia dei Lincei, Memorie, ser. 5-8 (1903), pp. 49-60.
R. Cormack and E. Hawkins, ‘The Mosaics of St. Sophia at Istanbul: the Rooms above
the south west Vestibule and Ramp’, DOP, 31 (1977), pp. 177-251.
L. Cracco Ruggini and G. Cracco, ‘Changing Fortunes of the Italian City from late
Antiquity to Early Middle Ages’, Rivista di Filologia, 105 (1977), pp. 448-75.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 279

-, ‘Vettico Agorio Pretestato e la fondazione sacra di Costantinopoli’, in Miscellanea

in onore di E. Manni, Rome 1979, pp. 595-610.
L. Cristiani, Heresies and Heretics, Eng. tr. New York 1959.
J. F. Crome, ‘Die goldenen Pferde von San Marco und der goldene Wagen der Rhodier’,
BCH, 87 (1963), pp. 209-28.
A. Cuder, ‘The De Signis of Nicetas Choniates: a reappraisal’, AJA, 72 (1968), pp. 113-
18.
-, ‘The Mythological Bowl in the Treasury of San Marco at Venice’, in Near Eastern
Numismatics, Iconography, Epigraphy and History, Studies in honor of George C. Miles,
Beirut, 1974, pp. 235-54.
G. Dagron, ‘Le christianisme dans la ville byzantine’, DOP, 31 (1977), pp. 3-25.
D. Daube, ‘The Marriage of Justinian and Theodora: legal and theological reflections’,
Catholic University of America Law Review, 16 (1967), pp. 380-99.
H. Delehaye, ‘L’invention des reliques de S. Menas a Constantinople’, AB, 29 (1910),
pp. 1-34.
F. Diekamp, Hippolytus von Theben, Texte und Untersuchungen, Munster 1898.
G. B. de Rossi, Inscriptiones Christianae urbis Romae, vol. II, 1, Rome 1888.
F. Dirimtekin, ‘Le local du patriarchat a Sainte Sophie’, 1st. Mitt. 13 (1963/64), pp. 113-
27.
D. M. Dunlop, A History of the Jewish Khazars, Princeton 1954.
A.-J. Festugiere, Vie de Theodore de Sykeon, Brussels 1970.
R. Frank, Scholae Palatinae, Papers and Monographs of the American Academy in Rome,
23, Rome 1969.
A. Frolow, ‘La dedicace de Constantinople dans la tradition byzantine, RHR, 127
(1944), pp. 61-127.
-, ‘Le Christ de la Chalce’, B, 33 (1963), pp. 107-20.
-, Les reliquaires de la Vraie Croix, Paris 1965.
S. Gero, ‘Notes on Byzantine Iconoclasm in the Eighth Century’, B, 44 (1974),
pp. 23-42.
A. Grabar, L’Empereur dans Part byzantin, Paris 1936, repr. London 1971.
-, L’Iconoclasme byzantin: dossier archeologique, Paris 1957.
A. Grillmeier and A. Bacht, eds. Das Konzil von Chalkedon, Wurzburg 1951.
V. Grumel, ‘Homelie de St. Germain sur la delivrance de Constantinople’, REB, 16
(1958), pp. 183-205.
R. Guilland, ‘Les thermes de Zeuxippe’, JOBG, 15 (1966), 261-71.
-, ‘Contribution a l’histoire administrative de l’empire byzantin. Le chartulaire et le
grand chartulaire’, RESEE, 9 (1971), pp. 405-26.
-, ‘Etudes sur l’histoire administrative de l’empire byzantin. L’Eparque. 1. L’eparque
de la ville’, Byzantinoslavica, 51 (1980), pp. 17-32, 145-80.
J. F. Haldon, Recruitment and Conscription in the Byzantine Army c. 550-950, Vienna 1979.
F. Halkin, Euphemie de Chalcedoine, legendes byzantines, Brussels 1965.
-, ‘Saint Samson, le xenodoque de Constantinople (VIe siecle)’, Riv. di studi bizantini e
neoellenici 14-16 (24-26) (1977-79), pp. 5-17.
F. W. Hasluck, Cyzicus, Cambridge 1910.
C. Head, ‘Who was the real Leo the Isaurian?’, B, 41 (1971), pp. 105-8.
-, ‘Physical Descriptions of the Emperors in Byzantine Historical Writing’, B 50
(1980), pp. 226-40.
J. Herrin, ‘The Context of Iconoclast Reform’, in A. Bryer andj. Herrin, eds. Icono¬
clasm, Birmingham 1977, pp. 15-20.
C. G. Heyne, Priscae artis opera quae Constantinopoli extitisse memorantur, Commentationes
societatis regiae scientiarum Gottingensis, cl. philol.-hist. 11 (1790-91), pp. 3-38.
C. Huelsen, La pianta di Roma dell’anonimo Einsidlense, Atti della Pontificia Accademia Romana
diArcheologia, ser. II, ix, Rome 1907.
G. Huxley, On the Vita of St. Stephen the Younger’, GRBS, 18 (1977), pp. 97-108.
J. Jarry, Heresies et factions dans Vempire byzantin du IVe au Vile siecle, Cairo 1968.
R. J. H. Jenkins, ‘The Bronze Athena at Byzantium’, JHS, 67 (1947), 31-33.
280 BIBLIOGRAPHY

-, ‘Further evidence regarding the Bronze Athena et Byzantium’, BSA, 46 (1951), pp.
71-74.
W. E. Kaegi Jr., ‘Two Studies in the Continuity of Late Roman and Byzantine Military
Institutions’, BF, 8 (1982), pp. 87-113.
J. Karayannopoulos, ‘Konstantin der Grosse und der Kaiserkult’, Historia, 5 (1956), pp.
341-57.
J. P. C. Kent, Roman Coins, London 1978.
-, Roman Imperial Coinage VIII, London, 1981.
E. Kitzinger, ‘The Cult of Images in the Age before Iconoclasm’, DOP, 8 (1954), pp.
83-150.
P. Lemerle, Le premier humanisms byzantin, Paris 1971.
H. Lietzmann, Die Landmauem von Konstantinopel, Berlin 1929.
E. Maass, Analecta sacra et projana, Universitatsschnft zur Kaisers Geburtstag, Marburg 1901.
S. MacCormack, ‘Roma, Constantinopolis, the Emperor and his Genius’, CQ 25
(1975), pp. 131-50.
C. Mango, ‘Le Diippion. Etude historique et topographique’, REB 8 (1951), pp. 152-61.
-, The Homilies of Photius, Washington, D.C., 1958.
-, ‘The Legend of Leo the Wise’, ZRVI, 6 (1960), pp. 59-93.
-, ‘Isaurian Builders’, in Polychronion. Festschrift F. Dolger, ed. P. Wirth, Heidelberg
1966, pp. 158-65.
-, ‘La culture grecque et l’Occident au VUIe siecle’, Settimani di Studi . 20,
Spoleto 1973, pp. 683-721.
-, ‘The Availability of Books in the Byzantine Empire, A.D. 750-850’, in Byzantine
Books and Bookmen, D.O. Colloquium, Washington, D.C. 1975, pp. 29-45.
-, ‘Historical Introduction’, in Iconoclasm, eds. A. Bryer and J. Herrin, Birmingham
1977, pp. 1-6.
-, ‘Who wrote the Chronicle of Theophanes?’, ZRVI, 18 (1978), pp. 9-17.
C. A. Mango and I. Sevcenko, ‘Some Recently Acquired Byzantine Inscriptions at the
Istanbul Archaeological Museum’, DOP, 32 (1978), pp. 1-27.
C. Mango, ‘The Life of Saint Andrew the Fool’, Rivista di studi bizantini e slavi (Bologna),
2 (forthcoming).
T. F. Mathews, The Early Byzantine Churches of Constantinople: architecture and liturgy, State
Park, Pennsylvania 1971.
E. Mathiopulu-Tornaritu, ‘Klassisches und Klassizistisches im Statuen-fragment von
Niketas Choniates’, BZ, 73 (1980), pp. 25-40.
H. Mattingly, Roman Coins, London 1928.
S. Mazzarino, Antico, tardo-antico ed era Constantiniana, I, Bari 1974.
D. Meehan, ed. Adamnan’s De locis sanctis, Dublin 1958.
R. Merkelbach, Die Quellen des griechischen Alexanderromans, second edition, Munich 1977.
B. Meyer-Plath and A. Schneider, Die Landmauem von Konstantinopel, II, Berlin 1943.
D. A. Miller, Imperial Constantinople, New York 1969.
G. Millet, ‘ “Parastaseis Syntomoi Chronikai”. Essai sur la date’, BCH, 70 (1946), pp.
393-402.
M. Mundell, ‘Monophysite Church Decoration’, in A. Bryer and J. Herrin eds. Icono¬
clasm, Birmingham 1977, pp. 59-74.
R. Naumann and H. Belting, Die Euphemia-Kirche im Hippodrom zu Istanbul und ihre Freshen,
Berlin 1966.
N. Oikonomides, ‘Les premieres mentions des themes dans la chronique de Theo-
phane’, ZRVI, 16 (1975), pp. 1-8.
-, ‘Leo VI and the Narthex Mosaic of St. Sophia’, DOP, 30 (1976), pp. 151-72.
A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, ed., Miracula S. Artemii, in Varia Graeca Sacra, St. Petersburg
1901.
J. Pargoire, ‘Les Saint-Mamas de Constantinople’, IRAIK, 9 (1904), pp. 261-316.
E. Patlagean, Pauvrete sociale et pauvrete economique a Byzance, IVe-VIIe siecles, Paris 1977.
-, ‘Discours ecrit, discours parle. Niveaux de culture a Byzance aux VUIe-XIe
siecles’, Annates. Economies, societes, civilisations, 34 (1979), pp. 264-78.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 281

G. B. Pighi, ed., Versus de Verona, versum de Mediolano civitate, Bologna 1960.

D. Pingree, ‘The Horoscope of Constantinople’, in Y. Maeyama and W. G. Saltzer, eds.
Πρίσματα. Naturwissenschaftsgeschichtliche Studien, Wiesbaden 1977, pp. 305-15.
T. Preger, Beitrdge zur Textgeschichte der Πάτρια Κπόλεως, Programm des K. Maximilians-
gymnasiums, Munich 1895.
-, Anonymi Byzantini Παραστάσεις σύντομοι χρονιχαί, Programm des K. Maximilians-
gymnasiums, Munich 1898.
-, ‘Konstantinos-Helios’, Hermes, 36 (1901), pp. 457-69.
G. Prinzing and P. Speck, ‘Funf Lokalitaten im Konstantinopel’, in H.-G. Beck, ed.,
Studien zur Friihgeschichte Konstantinopels, pp. 179-227.
K. M. Ringrose, ‘Monks and Society in Iconoclastic Byzantium’, Byzantine Studies,
6 (1979), pp. 130-51.
L. Robert, Les gladiateurs dans l’Orient, Paris 1940.
-, ‘Inscriptions d’Aphrodisias’, L’Antiquite Classique, 36 (1966), pp. 397-432.
L. Rocchetti, ‘Un’ipotesi sui gruppi porfirei del periodo tetrarchico’, Ann. Scuola arch.
diAtene, 51-2 = n.s. 34-5 (1972-3), pp. 467-77.
M. -F. Rouan, ‘Une lecture “iconoclaste” de la vie d’Etienne le jeune’, TM, 8 (1981),
pp. 415-36.
G. Saflund, The Polyphemus and Scylla Groups at Sperlonga, Stockholm 1972.
A. Schneider, see B. Meyer-Plath.
E. Schwartz, Kyrillos von Skythopolis, Leipzig 1939.
I. Sevfenko, ‘Levels of Style in Byzantine Prose’, JOB, 31 (1981), pp. 289-312.
I. Sevienko and C. A. Mango, see C. A. Mango.
P. Speck, ‘Eudoxia-Saule und Pittakia’, Ελληνικά, 22 (1969), pp. 430-35.
P. Speck and G. Prinzing, see G. Prinzing.
D. Stein, Der Beginn des byzantinischen Bilderstreits und seine Entwicklung bis in die 40er Jahre des
8 Jahrhunderts, Munich 1980.
E. Stein, Opera Minora Selecta, Amsterdam 1968.
A. Stratos, Byzantium in the Seventh Century, vol. V, Amsterdam 1980.
C. L. Striker, ‘The Coliseo de Spiriti in Constantinople’, in O. Feld and U. Peschlow, eds.
Festschrift F. W. Deichmann (forthcoming).
C. Η. V. Sutherland, Roman Coins, London 1974.
J. Teall, ‘The Grain Trade of the Byzantine Empire, 330-1025’, DOP, 13 (1959), pp.
87-139.
The Horses of San Marco, Venice, Exhibition Catalogue, The Royal Academy 1979.
P. van Ommeslaeghe, ‘Jean Chrysostome en conflit avec l’imperatrice Eudoxie’, AB, 97
(1979), pp. 131-59.
G. Vernadsky, ‘Flavius Ardabur Aspar’, Sudost Forschungen, 6 (1941), pp. 38-73.
P. Verzone, ‘I due gruppi in porfiro di San Marco in Venezia ed il Philadelphion in
Costantinopoli’, Palladio, N.S. 8 (1958), pp. 8-14.
P. Veyne, ‘Les honneurs posthumes de Flavia Domitilla et les dedicaces grecques et
latines’, Latomus, 21 (1962), pp. 49-98.
E. von Dobschiitz, Christusbilder. Untersuchungen zur christlichen Legende, Texte und Unter-
suchungen, n.f. 3, Leipzig 1899.
K. Weitzmann, ‘The Jephthah Panel in the Bema of the Church of St. Catherine’s
monastery on Mt. Sinai’, DOP, 18 (1964), pp. 341-52.
L. M. Whitby, ‘Theophanes’s Chronicle Sources for the Reigns ofjustin II, Tiberius and
Maurice* (AD 565-602)’, B, 53 (1983), pp. 312-45.
-, ‘The Great Chronographer and Theophanes’, BMGS, 8 (1982), pp. 1-20.
N. Wilson, ‘Books and Readers in Byzantium’, in Byzantine Books and Bookmen, D. O.
Colloquium 1971, Washington, D.C. 1975, pp. 1-15.
J. W’ortley, ‘Iconoclasm and Leipsanoclasm. Leo III, Constantine V and the relics’, BF,
8 (1982), pp. 253-79.
L.-M. Zingale, see M. Amelotti.
 INDICES
References are to introduction, translation and commentary

INDEX TOPOGRAPHICUS

Achilleos, bath 272 129, 131, 137, 151, 169, 172, 182, 183,
Aetius, cistern 51, 163 191, 192, 193, 197, 198, 212, 217, 218,
Agathonikos, S., church 49, 59, 93, 169, 220, 222, 241, 242, 243, 246, 257, 262,
205 263
Amastrianon 49, 52, 111, 187, 224, 225, Forum Bovis 50, 127, 174, 229, 266
226, 228 Forum Tauri 50, 51, 121, 147, 169, 187,
Anemodoulion 49, 93 219, 246, 260, 261, 268
Antioch 50, 127, 238
Arcadian ai 207 Golden Gate 23, 170
Archangel, church 95
Artemision 224 Heliakon 51 , 269
Artotyrianos 48, 49, 77, 189 Hiereia 24
Aspar, cistern 165, 191, 276 Hippodrome 18, 24, 31, 33, ■43, 44 , 49,
Atalus gate 23 51, 52, 61, 103 , 115, 133, 137, 139,
Augusteum 49, 51, 93, 206, 232, 262 141, 147, 153, 159, 161, 171, 173,
177, 184, 185, 200, 212, 213, 214,
Barbara, S., church 93, 205 215, 217, 224, 226, 229, 241, 242,
Basilica 18, 19, 49, 51, 52, 97, 99, 153, 243, 246 f. , 252, 253, 256, 259, 268,
155, 189, 211, 213, 214, 255, 269 271, 273, 274
Blachernae, church 23, 30 Holy land 30
Bread Market 107, 109, 111, 205, 222, Horreum 48, 73, 189
223
Byzantium 34, 63, 111, 127, 167, 192, Iconium 16, 32, 161, 163, 275
251 Irene, S., church 30, 149

Caesarea Philippi 125, 237 Jerusalem 31, 43

Carthage 19
Chalcedon 22, 63, 175, 176, 270 Kathisma 50, 51, 139, 159, 174, 250,
Chalke 11, 20, 38, 48, 49, 50, 51, 63, 95, 251, 270
121, 159, 174, 175, 207, 220, 233, 234, Kephalenia 212
235, 271 Kontaria 50, 129, 240
Chelone 49, 87, 200 Kynegion 19, 28, 45, 49, 52, 89, 91,
Cherson 223 201, 202, 203, 225
Chrysorrhoe 155, 269
Constantinian porticoes 50 Lemnos 177, 274
Constantinianai 37, 51, 268, 276
Magnaura 38, 51
Diippion 249 Mamas, S. 23, 49, 79, 83, 85, 191, 197
Marinakion 51, 270
Ephesus 121, 159, 233, 234 Menas, S., church 87, 163
Euphemia, S., church 22, 63, 93, 176, Mese 187,211,244
206 Milion 23, 25, 48, 49, 52, 69, 81, 95,
Exakionion 83, 196 101, 117, 172, 184, 194, 195, 208, 215,
216, 217, 218, 219, 233
Forum of Constantine 23, 37, 48, 49, 50, Mint 50, 123, 235
51, 52, 79, 81, 85, 103, 105, 117, 127, Mocius, cistern 167, 178
284 INDEX TOPOGRAPHICUS

Mocius, S., church 57, 63, 167, 168 Stater 121, 232
Modion 73, 75, 186, 187, 189, 199 Steps 205
Strategion, Great 51, 87, 151, 198, 265
Neolaia 48, 61, 171, 172, 208, 274 Strategion, Little 87, 199
Neorion 11, 38, 48, 61, 152, 174, 229,
267 Ta Anthemiou 101
Nicaea 40, 167 Ta Antiochou 275
Nicomedia 16, 50, 51, 157, 270 Ta Harmatiou 181
Ta Marinakiou 157
palace 50, 97, 123, 190, 234, 235
Ta Olybriou 93
Paneas 33, 39, 50, 125, 233, 237, 238
Ta Viglentiou 11, 50, 67, 129, 241, 244
Panormon 48, 63, 178
Taurus 48, 50, 79, 133, 147, 245, 261
Peripatos 83, 95, 207, 208
Tetradesion 48, 65, 67
Persia 179, 253
Theda, S., church 240
Philadelphion 11, 50, 131, 135, 151, 153,
Theodore, S., church 65, 67, 180
187, 192, 206, 244, 246, 265
Theotokos, church 240
Pittakia 51
Thessaloniki 260
Pontus 117, 229
Topoi 95, 207
Porticoes of Leontius 50, 127
Tribunal 49, 97, 209
Procopius, S., church 87
Proteichisma 131
Valens, aqueduct of 27, 153
Rhegion 63, 177 Venice 273
Rome 29, 32, 35, 50, 115, 127, 137, Viglentiou 181
188, 192, 214, 220, 238, 239, 242,
245, 252, 263 walls, sea 59, 169, 170
walls, land 170, 171
Senate 23, 38, 67, 103, 117, 119, 182,
183, 218, 231, 232 Xerolophos 23, 32, 35, 51, 52, 83, 153,
Smyrnion 180 195, 204, 266, 267, 268
Sophia, S., church 38, 48, 71, 184, 185,
186 Zeuxippus 35, 51, 153, 159, 161, 181,
Stama 61, 103 268
 INDEX NOMINUM
Adam 48, 61, 249
Aetius 51, 157, 165, 270, 276
Aglaide 113
Akatos 63, 176
Alexander, Psource of Par., 41, 151
Alexander, bishop of Constantinople 69,
107, 183, 221
Alexander of Macedon 51, 151, 264, 265
Anastasia 51, 151, 266
Anastasius 24, 43, 71, 184, 200, 252
Anastasius I (491-518) 37, 44, 51, 59,
87, 121, 147, 163, 171, 200, 207, 233,
239, 259, 276
Anastasius-Artemius (713-15) 25, 170,
194, 209, 259, 260
Anastasius, patriarch of Constantinople
24, 249, 252
Ancyrianus 71, 184, 252
Andrew of Crete 23
Andrew Kalybites 23, 25
Andromeda 32, 51, 161, 163, 274 f.
Anicia Juliana 206
Antes 34, 45, 101, 103, 115, 213, 215,
217, 220, 239, 240, 246
Anthemius 214
Apelles, philosopher 141, 255
Aphrodite 28, 37, 48, 50, 69, 121, 171,
182, 194, 233; see Selene
Apollinarius, Psource of Par. 41, 151
Apollo 49, 50, 113, 125, 177, 216, 243,
264
Apollo-Helios 36, 217, 264
Apollonius of Tvana 33, 34, 193, 226,
254, 256
Apsimar (698-705) 19, 59, 99, 169, 212,
253
Arabia 49, 95, 209
Arabs 28, 37, 171, 179, 275
Arcadia 49, 95, 207
Arcadius, deacon 69
Arcadius (395-408) 48, 49, 50, 51, 71,
95, 119, 141, 149, 195, 206, 252, 263,
275
Arcturus 48, 71
Ardaburius 31, 77, 190, 191, 276
Ariadne 11, 95, 159, 207, 271
Arians, Arianism 18, 25, 33, 48, 57,
67, 69, 167, 178, 182, 184, 202, 208,
219, 220, 221
Aristides, philosopher 42, 49, 111, 223 f.,
225
Aristides, architect 91, 203, 225
Arius 49, 105, 107, 167, 219, 220, 221,
227
Artavasdos 24, 249, 252
Artemis 48, 49, 50, 51, 69, 83, 121, 125,
159, 182, 196, 234
Asclepiodorus 44, 49, 105, 147, 220,
259, 260
Aspar 48,77,165,191,276
Athena 46, 50, 71, 182, 220, 251
Augustus (31 BC-AD 14) 46, 159, 203,
258
Avars 27, 169
Azotius 103, 217, 239
Balsama, centurion 105, 219, 220, 226
Basiliscus 85, 161, 274
Basiliscus (475-77) 89, 93, 95, 197, 200,
205, 206, 207, 223, 274
Basil I (867-86) 168, 210, 269
Belisarius 50, 123, 233, 234
Byzas 34, 45, 101, 103, 115, 127, 171,
213, 215, 217, 220, 239, 240, 241, 246,
272
Calliades 171
Callistratus 111,137,223,248
Canonaris, philosopher 42, 129, 241
Caracallus, praepositus 12, 42, 111, 224,
225
Carcinelus 99, 213
Carus 48, 71, 99, 131, 133, 185, 197,
213, 241, 244, 245, 265, 268
Cedrenus 33, 34, 189, 224, 225, 229,
256, 261, 262, 265
Charybdis 250
Chosroes II 48, 65, 179
Christ 50, 63, 107, 167, 174, 210, 233,
237
Christodorus of Coptus 46, 268
Chronicon Paschale 35, 217, 254, 262, 263
Chrysostom, S. John 93, 183, 207, 232
Clement 42, 149, 260 f.
Cleopatra 49, 105
Conon see Leo III
Constans I (337-40) 49, 51, 71, 115, 119,
149, 266
Constans II (641-68) 51, 149, 181
Constantine, charioteer 215, 217
Constantine I (316-37) 23, 27, 33 f.,
35 f., 44, 47 f., 61, 65, 67, 69, 71, 73,
286 INDEX NOMINUM
79, 81, 85, 95, 97, 101, 103, 105, 109,
111, 115, 117, 119, 121, 123, 127,
129, 131, 133, 135, 137, 145, 149)
151, 153, 167, 169, 170, 175, 180 f.,
184, 191 f., 193, 202, 205, 208, 215 f.,
220, 231, 232, 234, 240 f., 245 f., 247,
248, 253, 261, 263, 265 f., 268, 269;
see Index Rerum, s.v. Constantinople,
foundation of; Constantine, vision of;
‘great statue’)
Constantine II (337-40) 48, 51, 65, 149,
266
Constantine IV (668-85) 42, 51, 149, 170
Constantine V (740-75) 18, 19, 20, 23,
24, 40, 43, 170, 177, 184, 191, 209,
237, 249, 252
Constantine VI (780-90) 22, 228
Constantine VII (913-59) 28
Constantine the Rhodian 34
Constantius II (337-61) 48, 49, 51, 57,
71, 149, 163, 168, 183, 184, 221, 266,
268
Cosmas of Jerusalem 31
Crispus 180, 181
Curius 75, 189
Cypros, rhetor 73, 185
Demophilus 127, 238
Demosthenes 91, 204
Diegesis 32, 253, 256, 259
Diocletian (284-305) 203, 232, 270, 275
Dioscorus 10, 42, 117, 228, 231
Eleutherius 48, 67, 181, 182
Epiphanius the monk 29, 30, 40
Eudocia 49, 97, 141, 254
Eudoxia 39, 49, 93, 206, 207, 261, 276
Eunomius 49, 107, 221
Euphemia 49, 93, 206
Eusebius of Caesarea 26, 39, 41, 125,
198, 232, 237, 263
Eutyches 176
Eve 48, 61, 249
Fausta 48, 49, 65, 119, 232
Fidalia 48, 59, 171
Firmillianus 83, 195
Flaccilla 206
Galen, doctor in the reign of Zeno 14,
109, 111, 223
Galen, quaestor 71, 185
Galerius (305-11) 203,271
Galindouch 115, 228
Gallienus (253-68) 240
G alius 123
Gazoi 35, 131, 192, 202, 241, 268
Germanus, patriarch of Constantinople
21, 24, 25, 26, 39, 43, 169, 175, 181,
200
George Monachus 42
Glaukos 41, 113, 225
Gliavanos 99, 211 f.
Graphentia 113
Gratian (375-83) 37, 49, 50, 83, 127,
238, 239
Gregory of Nazianzus 31
Harmatius 48, 67, 181
Helena, mother of Constantine I 37,
45, 48, 49, 50, 52, 71, 79, 95, 119,
121, 127, 135, 193, 194, 208, 209,
218, 240, 247, 262, 265
Helena, niece of Sophia 49, 95, 209
Helias, spatharius 204
Helios 36, 49, 103, 216 f., 259, 264;
see Apollo-Helios, Zeus-Helios
Heracles 11, 44, 49, 52, 99, 113, 214,
215, 224, 226, 243, 249, 255, 259
Heraclius (610-41) 3, 10, 38, 49, 97,
99, 117, 189, 205, 208, 209, 210, 211,
213, 229, 230, 231
Herculius 133, 246
Hermes 49, 224, 225
Hero, philosopher 48, 71, 185
Herodian 12, 42, 44, 77, 139, 180, 190,
250, 251
Herodotus the chronographer 42, 67,
180
Hesychius 3, 14, 33, 45, 184, 198, 217,
264
Hilarion, praepositus 48, 65, 180
Himerius, chartularius 9, 11, 12, 16, 28,
31, 32, 46, 49, 190, 201
Hippolytus of Thebes 41, 67, 179, 180
Honorius (393-423) 50, 51, 141, 149,
252, 260, 263
Irene (790, 797-802) 22, 189, 225, 228,
233
Ivouzeros 99, 211
John, philosopher 19, 91, 204
John, S. Chrysostom, see Chrysostom
John, S., Damascene 40
John Diakrinomenos 27, 39, 40, 125,
131, 149, 153, 237, 243, 244, 261, 267
John of Ephesus 179, 183, 220, 272
John the Lydian 36, 243
John of Rhodes 40
John Strouthus 204
Julian (361-63) 18, 21, 25 f., 33, 37,
 INDEX NOMINUM
48 f., 57, 71, 73, 95, 103, 117, 121,
123, 125, 135, 149, 151, 167, 173,
185, 216 f., 218, 229, 234, 235 f., 253,
266
Julian, eparch 48, 71, 185
Julian, consularis 101, 214
Justin I (518-27) 93, 123, 206, 234
Justin II (565-78) 50, 95, 208, 240, 267,
272
Justinian I (527-65) 30, 38, 47 f., 50,
123, 139, 149, 159, 165, 167, 169,
171, 176, 186, 187, 189, 194, 203,
209, 233, 234, 251, 253, 262, 268,
269, 272
Justinian II (685-95, 705-11) 10, 18, 38,
42, 49, 99, 189, 210 f., 212, 224, 227,
249, 250, 253, 277
Karos, philosopher 141, 145, 255, 257
Khazars 18, 99, 211 f.
Koukobytios, philosopher 113, 219, 224,
226, 227, 241
Kranos, philosopher 14, 141, 145, 255,
257 ff., 259
Kyrvos, philosopher 141, 143
Laeta 239
Leo I (457-74) 37, 42, 51, 77, 93, 123,
139, 147, 149, 165, 170 f., 190, 197,
205, 235, 239, 259, 261
Leo III (717-40) (also called Conon) 9,
12, 17, 18, 19, 20 f., 41, 44, 59, 63,
153, 168 f., 170, 175, 177, 180, 201,
237, 260, 267
Leo VI (886-912) 32, 181, 232, 233,
237, 253, 259
Leontius (695-98) 169, 253, 267
Licinius (308-24) 48, 51, 71, 149, 153,
185, 239
Ligurius the Hellene 42, 147, 175, 259
Lysippus 214, 226, 255, 259
Macedonius 49, 107, 221
Manaim 48, 73, 186, 188
Mai alas 3, 35, 36, 45, 172, 173, 174,
216, 217, 242, 254
Manuel Chrysoloras 226
Marcellinus Comes 3, 45, 190, 206, 276
Marcellus, lector 21, 42, 57, 168
Marcian (450-57) 37, 48, 49, 50, 51,
77, 83, 97, 123, 153, 176, 207, 235, 267
Martyrius, bishop 125, 238
Maurice (582-602) 22, 38, 48, 61, 63,
174 f., 231, 269
Maurus Bessius, patrician 204
Maxentius 49, 105, 168, 220, 239, 271
287
Maximian 159, 163, 203, 204, 220, 232,
233, 271
Maximinus, general of Constantine I
35, 129, 203, 268
Maximus Confessor 43
Mekas 41, 113, 225
Menander, ‘seer’ 48, 77, 189
Metrophanes, bishop of Constantinople
69, 183, 202
Michael I (811-13) 7,28
Milichius, chronographer 41, 42, 231,
263
Mocius, S. 167
Narcissus, praepositus 45, 258
Nerva, philosopher 141, 143, 255, 256
Nicephorus, patriarch of Constantinople
41, 203, 211, 212
Nicephorus Callistus 192, 219
Nicetas Choniates 34, 171, 172, 175,
184, 214, 235, 249, 250, 252, 257,
258, 260, 273
Nilus of Ancyra 40, 183, 252
Nouzametos 101, 215
Numerian 85, 197
Odysseus 249, 250
Olbianus, prefect 131, 243
Olybrius 206
Pallas 49, 105
Panormos 63, 178
Papias 9, 10, 44, 121, 232
Paradeisios 65, 179
Patricius 191, 206, 223
Paul, bishop of Constantinople 69, 183
Paul, chartulanus 201
Perichytes 232, 249
Perittios 63
Pelops, philosopher 141, 257
Perseus 32, 51, 161, 163, 275
Persians 37, 65, 121, 176 f., 179, 228,
229, 233, 275
Philip, eparch 12, 42, 139, 249, 250, 251
Philip, ‘dynast’ 12, 42, 139, 141, 249,
250, 251
Philippicus (711-13) 10 ff., 17 f., 23, 25,
42, 49, 51, 91, 99, 161, 204, 205, 209,
212, 224, 234, 254, 259, 272
Philodorus, logistes 42, 163, 274, 275
Philokalos 1, 10 f., 16, 19, 42, 89, 91,
115, 201 f., 204, 210, 218, 228, 229,
248
Philostorgius 40, 237, 238
Phocas (602-10) 38, 51, 117, 153, 174,
229, 269, 270
288 INDEX NOMINUM
Photius, patriarch of Constantinople 40,
221
Placidia 206
Plato, eunuch 23, 48, 89, 200
Plato, S., of Sakkoudion 41
Plumbas, philosopher 38, 42, 159, 262
Pontios 139
Porphyrius, charioteer 215 f., 248
Praetextatus 243
Promuntius 42, 44, 151, 264, 266
Procopius of Caesarea 38, 46, 169, 234,
262
Pulcheria 49, 50, 93, 95, 123, 207 f.,
233, 235, 254
Romanos I (920-44) 28
Rufinus 40
Sabas, S. 61, 171
Sabellius 49, 107, 221
Scylla 250, 251
Secundus, philosopher 42, 271
Selene 37, 48, 121, 233; see Aphrodite
Serapio 48, 185
Sergius, patriarch of Constantinople 147,
209, 270
Severus 30, 32, 33, 35, 48 f., 67, 83, 99,
101, 129, 133, 153, 181, 185, 192,
195, 196, 202, 203, 204, 213 f., 241,
245 f., 248, 265, 268
Silvanus, philosopher 141, 143, 256
Simplicius, prefect 206
Socrates, church historian 39, 40, 127,
206, 240
Sopater 243
Sophia 28, 95, 159, 209, 267, 272
Sophronius, patriarch of Jerusalem 43
Sozomen, church historian 39, 51, 149,
180, 221, 237, 238, 260, 262, 263
Stephen, S. the Younger 24, 26, 41
Tarasios, patriarch of Constantinople 41,
220
Tervel 18, 99, 212
Theodora 51, 159, 271, 272
Theodore 9, 89, 149, 153, 201, 202, 204
Theodore, lector 10, 11, 12, 39, 42, 205,
263, 269
Theodore Studites, S. 41
Theodore of Sykeon, S. 38, 155, 269
Theodoret 39, 40, 41, 188, 263
Theodosius I (379-95) 11, 48, 49, 51,
57, 61, 69, 71, 83, 85, 95, 97, 107,
147, 149, 159, 167, 168, 174, 211,
219, 224, 228, 233, 236, 248, 252,
260, 261, 263
Theodosius II (408-50) 16, 23, 31, 39,
49, 51, 95, 97, 107, 119, 141, 143,
145, 153, 161, 182, 195, 224, 232,
235 f., 253 f., 256, 273, 276
Theodosius III (715-17) 260
Theophanes 19, 20, 41, 170, 174, 194,
195, 200, 201, 203, 204, 208, 212,
220, 225, 230, 235, 242, 267
Theophylact Simocatta 229
Theotokos, Mother of God, see Virgin
Tiberius Apsimar see Apsimar
Tiberius II (578-82) 50, 59, 123, 169,
190, 234
Thomas, patriarch of Constantinople
155, 269
Thomas of Claudiopolis 175
Trajan (98-117) 35,113,179
Valens (364-78) 27, 39, 67, 153, 182,
184, 269
Valentinian, praepositus 115, 229
Valentinian I (364-75) 48, 71, 74, 75,
147, 187, 188, 225, 258
Valentinian III (425-55) 50, 51, 127,
153, 157, 165, 188, 239, 270, 276
Verina 37, 46, 49, 50, 93, 111, 139,
165, 197, 205, 206, 223, 277
Verecundus 176
Veronica 125
Vigilantia 209
Vigilius 176
Viglentius 48, 67, 131, 181
Virgin 25, 36, 50, 69, 129, 184, 240
Zeno (474-75, 476-91) 11, 49, 51, 83,
93, 95, 109, 111, 127, 159, 197, 207,
222 f., 239
Zeus 48, 50, 51, 57, 71, 113, 125, 161,
181, 185, 197, 217, 224, 225, 226
Zeus-Helios 49, 101, 113, 208, 217, 224,
225, 249
Zeuxippus 48, 67, 181
Zosimus 168, 180, 213, 249
 INDEX RERUM
acclamations 103, 111, 129, 133, 159,
170, 215, 217, 245
Anon. Treu, relation to Par. 3 f. and
commentary, passim
archetype 161
Arianism 26, 57, 107, 167, 182, 221
art history, value of Par. for 45 f.
authorship of Par. 11 if., 204, 218
Chalke icon of Christ 20, 21 f., 48, 63,
174 f., 233, 237
coinage 27, 87, 115, 123, 188, 191,
198, 229, 235 f., 245, 275
Constantine, vision of 129, 135, 192,
241, 246 f.
Constantinople, in Par. 27 ff.; founda¬
tion of 35 f., cf. 103, 131, 172 f., 208,
216, 241, 242 f.
date of Par. 17 ff.
Forum of Constantine 79 f., 85, 103 f.,
137, 218 f., 263
guidebooks 29 f.
‘great statue’ 183, 193, 198, 216, 243,
262, 263 f.
Hippodrome statuary 216, 248 ff.
historical events in Par. 34 ff.
iconoclasm 18, 21, 23 f., 25, 26, 39,
43, 170, 175, 177 f., 236 f., 238, 252 f.
idolatry 18, 25, 33, 125, 179, 189, 195,
219, 236, 238, 276
monothelitism 19, 43, 272
pagan statues, associations of 31 f., 171,
196, 202, 214, 220, 224, 245
Paneas statue of Christ 26, 33, 39, 50,
125, 233, 237 f.
Patria CP, relation to Par. 3 ff. and
commentary, passim
recruiting, army 229
relics 177
San Marco horses 172, 249, 273 f.
San Marco tetrarchs 231, 265
sources of Par. 38 ff.
‘spectacles’ 31, 97 f., 195 f., 210 ff.
Sophia, S., statues in 71
statues, Par.’s attitude to 31 f.; evidence
for 46 ff.
Suda, relation to Par. 5
textual history of Par. 2 f.
vocabulary, ‘technical’ 13 f.
Xerolophos, meaning of 83, 195
 INDEX GRAECITATIS

{Greek terms mentioned or discussed in introduction, translation and commentary)

άγαλμα 31, 97, 99, 125, 147 έποψία 239

άγόνατοι 256 έρευναν 13, 199
αΐχμωδης 178, 194 έρκάναι 205
άλόγημα 177, 178, 251
άλογία 177 ζεύςιπποι 173, 182
άμφότερα 16, 189 ζεύξις 173
αναβαθμοί 205 ζήτει 16
άνδρίας 31, 125 ζυγοκρούστης 213
άξιαι διά βραβείων 218 ζυγοπλάστης 213
άπεικόνισμα 69 ζώδιον 31, 33, 47, 91, 113, 117, 135,
άπέρατοι 145, 257 143, 147, 151, 204
άποτέλεσμα 33
άργυροπρατεΐα 235 θαύμα 87, 222
άρτοι πολιτικοί 205 θέα 222, 255
άρχέτυπος 161 θέαμα 9, 65, 83, 99, 101, 103, 109, 115,
άσχολουμένων 232 117, 119, 196, 222
αύτουργικά 246 θεμάτων 17, 31, 83, 89, 111, 178
θεοδούλων 127, 240
βάθρα 207
βητγάμων 245 ΐκμωδης 178
βουκόλος 109 ίνδαλμα 31, 121, 125
βρετγάνοις 258 ίστορεΐν 13
ιστορία 13
γαλέη 227
καλενδία 223
δέξιμα 261 κάμαραι 197, 220, 246
δεςιολαβής 191 κατωγαϊος 189
δέον γινώσκειν 16 κοκκύζω 257
δήμος 171, 209 κριθοπωλεΐα 240
διαστατούς 232 κύτλος 226
διερευνάν 221
διοικηταί 179 λαιμία 230
δούναι 203 λατρεύειν 179
δρακονταΐον 139, 141 λογιστής 163, 274

είδώλιον 111 μαγγανεύμα 236

είδώλολάτραι 105 μέρος 209
είδωλολατρεία 219 μεσοσυλλαβων 16, 192
είδώλον 31, 105, 113, 125, 129, 133, μετάνοια 181
135, 137, 163, 219, 225 μυστήριον 125
εϊκων 31, 47, 63, 89, 125, 127, 275
έκτύπωμα 31, 141 ναυταί 189
εκφρασις 34, 45, 268 νουμία 198
έμφέρεται 44
ένδοξοι 203 ομοίωμα 31, 139
έςαμον 16, 188 δργανον 16, 182
έςέρκετα 17, 189, 211 δρια 186
έπαρχος 194 δρος 213
έπίδειξις 141, 252 όφφίκιον 231
 INDEX GRAECITATIS 291

πάκτον 17, 212 στύραξ 178

πιττάκια 261 σφετερίζειν 221
ποίησις 199 σχόλη 107, 213
πόνος 221
πρόβλημα 256, 259 τόμοι 259
προσκύνησή 181, 236 τρανότατα 228
πρωτότυπος 161 τρανόω 228
πύρος(?) 16, 115, 220, 222 τύπος 135
τυπόω 252
σανίδες 183
σείρα 211 ύπατεία 247
σημειωθήναι 157, 270 ύπατικός 185
σημειοφορικά 198 υπόδειγμα 125
σκοϋλκα 230
σκουλκάτον 230 φιλοσοφεΐν 269
σκυταλίδης 225 φιλοσοφία 221
σταθμών 230 φοσσάτον 239
στήλη 31, 47, 59, 63, 65, 67, 69, 71,
73, 75, 77, 79, 81, 83, 85, 89, 91, 93, χαλκό ύργη μα 31
95, 101, 103, 119, 121, 127, 129, 131, χαραγαί 235
135, 137, 147, 151, 153, 155, 157, 159, χάραγμα 123, 2!
161, 163, 165, 272 χαρτυλάριος 10, 89
στηλίδιον 103 χρησμοί 245
στηλωτικός 254 χρισμός 83
στοιχεϊον 31, 33, 34, 59, 143, 145, 255,
256 ώρείον 186
στοιχειοΰσθαι 145, 208, 254, 270, 277 ώρεΐος 184, 215
στοιχέω 264 ώριον 186
στυράκιον 178 ώρολόγιον 188,
 DATE DUE

0
NOV 3 01994

CARR McLEAN, TORONTO FORM #38-297

 DR 729 P3713 1984 010101 000

ffiSSwESSwin
01163 0008758 6
TRENT UNIVERSITY

DR729 .P3713 1984

4 Parastaseis syntomoi chronikai.
English & Greek
Constantinople in the earl^7
eighth century £43-1 i 0
1

242440