Constantinople in the Early Eighth Century: The "Parastaseis Syntomoi Chronikai": Introduction, Translation and Commentary 9004070109, 9789004070103

Table of contents :
Preface vii
List of Abbreviations and Editions ix
Map of Constantinople xiii
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

Citation preview

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

LEIDEN

E. J. BRILL 1984

CHARLOTTE ROUECHÉ

Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition publishes monographs by members of the Columbia University faculty and by former Columbia students. Its subjects are thefollowing: Greek and Latin literature, ancient philosophy, Greek and Roman history, classical archaeology, and the influence of the classical tradition on mediaeval, Renaissance and modem cultures. The following books have been published in the series: I. Monfasani, John: George of Trebizond: a Biography and a Study of his Rhetoric 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 Writings of Plato (1976) IV. Bagnall, Roger S.: The Administration of the Ptolemaic Possessions outside Egypt (1976) V. Keuls, Eva C.: Plato and Greek Painting (1978) V I. 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.: Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development as a Historian (1979) IX. Tarân, 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 A ll rights reserved. No part o f 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 ............................................................................................... List of Abbreviations and Editions................................................... Map of Constantinople.................................................................... Sketch map of the palace a re a ...........................................................

vu ix xm xiv

Introduction....................................................................................... i) The Textual History of the Parastaseis................................. ii) The Parastaseis and the Patria............................................... iii) The Present Publication...................................................... iv) The Structure and Style of the Parastaseis............................ v) The Date of the Parastaseis................................................... vi) Is the Parastaseis a Guidebook?........................................... vii) The Parastaseis and Ancient Statues.................................... viii) Historical events in the Parastaseis....................................... ix) The Sources of the Parastaseis.............................................. x) The Value of the Parastaseis for Art H istory........................ Conclusion......................................................................................

1 2 3 9 9 17 29 31 34 38 45 53

Text and Translation.........................................................................

55

Com mentary......................................................................................

167

Bibliography ......................................................................................

278

Indices ............................................................................................... Index Topographicus..................................................................... Index Nominum............................................................................ Index R erum .................................................................................. Index Graecitatis...........................................................................

283 283 285 289 290

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

V III

PR EFA C E

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 Cormack, Liam Gallagher, Judith Herrin, Geoffrey House, Lucy-Anne Hunt, Marlia Mundell Mango, Charlotte Roueché and Caro Wilson. Liam Gallagher also contributed some acute suggestions after examining the MS in Paris. Charlotte Roueché 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

Agathias,Hist. AJA Amm. Marc.

Analecta Bollandiana Historiarum libri quinque, cd. R. Keydell, Berlin 1967. American Journal of Archaeology Ammianus Marcellinus, Res gestae, ed. C. U. Clark, 2 vols. Berlin

1910-15. Ann. Scuola arch, di Atme

Anon. Treu ANRW Anth. Plan. AP

Annuario della Scuola de archeologia di Atene Excerpta Anonymi Byzantini, ed. M. Treu, Gymnasiums-Programm Ohlau 1880. Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischm Welt, ed. H. Temporini Anthologia Planudea - AP, book XVI. Anthologia Palatina - Anthologia graeca, ed. H. Beckby, 4 vols.

Munich 1957-8, 2nded., 1967-8. Aratus, Pham. B BCH BF BMGS Book of the Prefect BSA Bury, Imperial Admini­ strative System

Arati Phamomma, ed. E. Maass, Berlin-Leipzig 1893. Byzantion Bulletin de correspondmce hellénique Byzantinische Forschungm Byzantine and Modem Greek Studies Le Livre du Préfet, ed. J. Nicole, Geneva 1893, repr. London 1970. Annual of the British School at Athms

J. B. Bury, The Imperial Administrative System in the Ninth Cmtury, London 1911. Bury, L R E 2 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, Porphyrius Alan Cameron, Porphyrius 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 Coptus - AP, book II. Chron. Pasch. Chronicon Paschale, ed. L. Dindorf, CSHB 1832. CIL Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum CJ Codex Iustinianus, ed. P. Krüger, Corpus iuris civilis, vol. II, tenth edition, Berlin 1929. Com. Marc. Comes Marcellinus, Chronicon, ed. T. Mommsen, M G H Auctores Antiquissimi, vol. XI, Berlin 1894, pp. 60-104. CQ Classical Quarterly CSCO Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orimtalium 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 lArchéologie chrétimne et de Liturgie Dagron,Naissance G. Dagron, Naissance d ’une capitale, Paris 1974. De Coer. Constantine Porphyrogennitus, De Caerimoniis aulae byzantinae ( The Book of Ceremonies) ed. I. I. Reiske, 2 vols. CSHB 1829-30. Diakrinomcnos in Theodore Lektor (see below).

X

LIST O F A BBREVIATIONS AND E D ITIO N S

G. Dagron and J. Paramelle, ‘Un texte patriographique. Le “ récit merveilleux, très beau et profitable sur la colonne du Xérolophos” (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. Dölger, Regesten F. Dölger, Regesten der Kaiserurkunden des oströmischen Reiches, vol. I Munich-Berlin 1924. DOP Dumbarton Oaks Papers Du Cange, Glossarium C. F. du Cange, Glossarium ad scriptores mediae et infimae Graecitatis, 2 vols., Lyons 1688. Ebersolt, Constantinople J. Ebersolt, Constantinople, Paris 1951. EO Echos d*Orient Eusebius, H E 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. Über das Leben des Kaisers Konstantin, GCS 1975. Evagrius, E H The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius, ed. J. Bidez and L. Parmen­ tier, London 1898. FHG IV Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum, ed. C. Müller, vol. IV, Paris 1868. GCS Die griechische christlichen Schriftstellerder ersten Jahrhunderte George of Pisidia, Exp. Pers. in Georgio di Pisidia, Poemi I. Panegiri Epici, ed. A. Pertusi, Ettal 1960. Gero, Byzantine Iconoclasm 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 Iconoclasm 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, I, II R. Guilland, Recherches sur les institutions byzantines, 2 vols. BerlinAmsterdam 1967. Guilland, Topographie, I, II R. Guilland, Etudes de topographie de Constantinople byzantine, 2 vols. Berlin-Amsterdam 1969. Head, Justinian I I C. Head, Justinian II of Byzantium, Madison 1972. Hesychius 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 archäologischen Instituts Janin, CB2 R. Janin, Constantinople byzantine, second edition, Paris 1964. Janin, Eglises et mona­ stères2 R. Janin, La géographie de l'église byzantine, vol. III, Les églises et les monastères, second edition, Paris 1969. J HS Journal of Hellenic Studies JO B Jahrbuch der österreichischen Byzantinistik (formerly, Jahrbuch der öster­ reichischen byzantinischen Gesellschaft) John Ant. John of Antioch, in FHG IV. Diegesis

LIST O F ABBREVIATIONS AND ED ITIO N S

XI

John of Ephesus, H E 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, L R E A. H. 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 Malalas 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, 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. M EFR Mémoires de VEcole française 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, Byzantinoturcica2 G. Moravcsik, Byzantinoturcica, 2 vols, second edition, Berlin 1958. Müller-Wiener W. Müller-Wiener, Bildlexikon zur Topographie Istanbuls, Tübingen 1977. Nanatio de S. Sophia ed. Preger, I, pp. 74-108. Nicephorus Breviarium, in Nicephori opuscula historica, ed. C. de Boor, Leipzig 1880. Nicetas Choniates, Hist. Historia, ed. I. Bekker, CSHB 1835. Nicetas Choniates, De Signis as above, pp. 854-68. Oikonomidès, Listes de préséance, N. Oikonomidès, Les listes de préséance byzantines des IXe et Xe siècles, Paris 1972. P Parisinus graecus 1336. Par. Parastaseis syntomoi chronikai, ed. Preger, I, pp. 19-73. Patria I, II, III, Patria 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, H E Philostorgius Kirchengeschichte, ed. J. Bidez, rev. F. Winkelmann, GCS 1972. PLRE, I, II A. H. M. Jones, J. Martindale, J. Morris, Prosopography of the Laier Roman Empire, I, Cambridge, 1971; J. R. Martindale, Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, II, Cambridge 1980.

X II

Preger Procopius, Anecd. Procopius, de Aed. Procopius, BG Prudentius, Contra Symmachum RE REB RESEE RHR Robert of Clari

LIST O F A BBREVIATIONS AND E D IT IO N S

T. Preger, ed. Scriptores Originum Constantinopolitanarum, 2 vols. Leipzig 1901-7, repr. New York 1975. Procopii Caesariensis Opera Omnia, ed. J . Haury, rev. G. Wirth, vol. III, Historia Arcana, Leipzig 1963. as above, vol. IV, De Aedificiis, Leipzig 1964. as above, Vol. II, De Bello Gothico, Leipzig 1962.

ed. M. Cunningham, Corpus Christian., 126, Tumhout 1966. Pauly-Wissowa, Real Enzyklopädie Revue des études byzantines Revue des études sud-est européennes Revue de l'histoire des religions trans. E. H. McNeal, The Conquest of Constantinople of Robert of Clari, New York 1936. Schilbach, Metrologie E. Schilbach, Byzantinische Metrologie, Munich 1970. Socrates, H E Historia ecclesiastica, in PG, 67, cols. 30-842. Sozomen, H E Sozomenus Kirchengeschichte, ed. J. Bidez and G. C. Hansen, GCS, Berlin 1960. Speck, Universität P. Speck, Die kaiserliche Universität von Konstantinopel, Munich 1974. Speck, Artabasdos P. Speck, Artabasdos, der rechtgläubige Vorkämpfer der göttlichen 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 Theodoros Anagnostes Kirchengeschichte, ed. G. C. Hansen, GCS 1971. Theodoret, H E 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 Mémoires 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 Euthymii ed. P. Karlin-Hayter, Vita Euthymii Patriarchae CP, Brussels 1970. Vita Stephani iunioris PG, 100, cois. 1069-1185. W Vizantiiskii Vremennik Zonaras Epitome Historiarum, ed. M. Pinder and T. Büttner-Wobst, 3 vols. CSHB 1841-97. Zosimus Historia Nova, ed. F. Paschoud, Budé, 3 vols., 1971-9. ZR VI Zbomik Radova VizantoloSkog Instituta (Belgrade)

Map 1. Constantinople in the early Byzantine period

Map 2. Sketch plan of the palace area, after W. Müller-Wiener, Bildlexikon zur Topographie Istanbuls (Tübingen, 1977), p. 232.

INTRODUCTION

The text here presented is preserved only in one eleventh-century MS., Par. gr. 1336 (hereafter P). It is generally known as the Parastaseis Syntomoi Chronikai (lit. ‘Brief Historical Notes'), which is the title given in the MS., though it may not be the original one. It is a strange and dif­ ficult, but nonetheless richly rewarding work, of interest in a variety of ways. Most obviously, it belongs to the class of texts known collectively as ‘patriographic’, that is, works concerning themselves with the monu­ ments of Constantinople. In this group of texts, it occupies an early and important place, and despite much evident confusion, preserves valuable information about the city and its monuments, in particular ancient statues. Since the work itself can be dated to the eighth century (below, section v), it is a rare source of knowledge of the late antique and early medieval city, and must be sharply distinguished from the embroideries or additions in the later texts. As a work of the early period, it offers in­ triguing insights into the cultural world of an age from which very little other literary evidence has survived. But the Parastaseis (hereafter Par.) is also problematic. For though the description ‘a kind of tourist’s guidebook to the curiosities of Constan­ tinople'1 seems at first sight adequate, on closer scrutiny this phrase fails to do full justice to Par.’s complexity.** In fact, Par. would be next to useless as a guidebook since 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 their history and interpretation (often an arcane pagan meaning). The repetitions, together with certain other distinct features (section iv below) have led us to conclude that Par. represents the work of a group rather than a single author, and that it may to some ex­ tent constitute a dossier of information, including letters, rather than a finished work. The appearance of references to named individuals ap­ parently responsible for certain sections suggests some kind of group ac­ tivity, possibly under the patronage of the 'Philokalos' who is several times named. Yet the literary air of some of the names, together with numerous false ‘citations',* makes even this problematic. There are thus many difficulties involved in elucidating this text, and it has never before received the attention which it clearly deserves. One 1 Mango, AS, p. 60. This article is the best introduction to Par. and its subject matter. * Section vi below, ’ Section ix below.

2

IN TR O D U CTIO N

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 Constantinopolitanarum (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,78give 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.6 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 by J . Pargoire, BZ 12 (1903), pp. 333-35 (‘cette prose idiote’, ... ‘un manuscript de Paris parfaitement exécrable’). 5 See Th. Preger, Scriptores Originum Constantinopolitananun 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 χρονικαι, Programm des k. Max.-Gymnasiums München, 1898. The preface of this edition contains material not included in the 1901 preface. 7 pp. viii-x. 8 Beiträge zur Textgeschichte der Πάτρια Κπύλεως, Programm des k. Max.-Gymnasiums, München, 1895. 9 See Pargoire, p. 333 (η. 4 above).

IN T R O D U C TIO N

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 ‘récit merveilleux, très beau et profitable sur la colonne du Xérolophos’ (Vindob. Suppl, gr. 172, fol. 43v-63v) \ Travaux et Mémoires 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. " 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 Patria interchangeably. 12 The Origines of Constantinople by Hesychius, also edited by Preger, Scriptores, I (1901), pp. 1-18, was perhaps part of a longer history (preface, p. vi). 11 See L. M. Whitby, ‘The Chronicle Sources of Theophanes’, B, 53 (1983), pp. 31245, and see on chap. 43.

4

IN TR O D U CTIO N

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 Patria are to Preger’s 1907 edi­ tion. 16 See notes 6 and 8 above. 17 See Mango, /15, for many examples of this attitude from a variety of other texts.

INTR O D U CTIO N

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.'8 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.1819 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 f.). 18 Preger, Scriptores, I (1901), p. x; Beiträge (n. 8), pp. 28 fT. 19 Preger, Scriptores, II (1907), pp. xxv IT., lists 67 MSS. For their relationships, see ibid., pp. iii-xxiv and Beiträge, pp. 7 ff.

6

IN T R O D U C TIO N

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 jure 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 ail the other material in this se­ quence {Patria, 86-110) demonstrably comes from the opening of Par., it

7

IN T R O D U C TIO N

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

Anon. Treu p. 3.1 Treu 3.18 4.3 4.11 4.20 4.28 5.1 5.15 5.20 5.24 6.4 6.8 6.18 6.28 7.1 7.13 7.17 7.26 8.3 8.12 8.20 8.28 9.10

Par.

Patria

1 15 14a 2 3 4 17 5 6 7 8a 8 9 11 12 13 14 10 80 81 84

Anon. Treu 13.13 13.17 13.20 13.23 13.27 14.14 14.25 15.1 15.17 15.22 15.30

16.8 16.15 1 l * 1 i 1 1 lacuna t

6 7 8 9 10

110 107 109,108 86 87 88 89 89a 90 91 92 93 94 95 106

16.18 17.1 17.7 17.16 17.19 17.24 17.28 17.31 18.25 19.1

Par.

Patria

34 35 35a 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 44a 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61(a) 61(b) 62 63 64 65 66 67 68

29 30 38 32 41 42 43 46 52 53 28

66 67 48 50 44 73 53 54 79 82 83 47

,0 Cf. its allusions to the meaning of statues, its use of ίστορίαι, its references to the ar­ cane knowledge of ol στηλωτικοί, its use of έστοιχειώαατο (for all these see section iv). 11 Beiträge, pp. 30-35.

IN TR O D U CTIO N

8

Anon. Treu 9.14 9.26

10.15 10.21 10.26 10.29 11.1 11.8 11.13 11.23 11.28 12.7 12.24 13.1 13.4 13.10

Par.

Patria

11 12 13 14 15

96 97 98 99 100

16

102 = 16 102= 18 104 104a = 76 105 = 19(a)

17 18 19 20 21 23 22 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Anon. Treu 19.5 19.12 19.17 19.21 19.24 19.26 19.30 20.3 20.7 20.10 20.14 20.17 20.20 20.23 20.26 21.12 21.16 21.20 περί τοΰ Μοδίου

Par.

69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88

Patria

48 19(b) 68 33 69 40 34 73 28 28 74 28 39 75 85 71 70 51 (cf. Par. 12)

Finally, we must consider MS. G of the Patria (Par. suppl. gr. 657, of the thirteenth century), which not only 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.

IN T R O D U C TIO N

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 Constantinopolitan 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:

27-28:

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 is the heading to 28, and is set out as such in P. 28 consists of a firstperson narrative, apparently by one Theodore, describing an en­ counter with a falling statue which killed his companion Himerius. The

10

IN TR O D U CTIO N

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 saune 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 peau· twice (chaps. 29, 35a), auid amother 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 Constamtinople. Chaps. 42 amd 43 lack the heading ‘spectacle’, auid the numeration, but the subject matter is similar; as 42 begins with a further address to Philokados, it is possible that these two chapters may have been added on later. Or, if they aure original, the headings should perhaps be restored. 41 ends ailso with such am address, which there looks like a conclusion. Both allusions im­ ply that Philokalos wais in some way responsible for encouraging this research, and 42 alludes to his letters requesting information. The beginning of 43 seems to ascribe the materiad 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 amd am allusion in 44a ascribe 44 auid 44a to a certain Papias. Whether he continues ais the source for what follows, or how far, is unclear: there aue no further headings in P amd no cleaur indications from the subject matter. The latest allusion is by implication to Justi­ nian II (second reign, 705-11) (chap. 44a). 45-59: auranged according to the activities of certain emperors: Leo I (45), Julian (46-49), Gratian (50), Vadentiniam (? Ill) (51) amd, in a slightly different format, Constantine (52-59). 56 (on the statue on Constamtine’s porphyry column in the Forum) invites compaurison with chap. 5, amd the two stand independently (see below, section viii). 60-65: a section about the Hippodrome amd its monuments. 61 alludes to the ‘godless’ Justiniam II (705-11), amd 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 amd describes a series of monuments and places, but this time on the whole more briefly. The saune didactic tone is preserved amd 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 portraut of Philippicus (711-13) (chap. 82), amd 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 materiail and subject matter: chaps. 5, 38, and 56, for example, adl concern the birthday

IN T R O D U C TIO N

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 25 See note 17 above.

12

IN TR O D U CTIO N

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.

IN TR O D U CTIO N

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

IN TR O D U CTIO N

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 Metabyzanlina 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' ,JÖBG 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 écrit, discours parlé. Niveaux de culture à Byzance aux VIIIe-XIe siècles’, Annales E.S. C. 34(1979), pp. 264-78.

IN TR O D U CTIO N

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 wellbased 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 2* 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 L ife o î S. Samson (F. Halkin, ‘Saint Samson le xénodoque de Constantinople (VIe siè­ cle)’, Rio. di Studi bizantini e neoellenici, n.s. 14-16 (24-26) (1977-79), pp. 5 ff. ; see especially p . 6 note 3).

16

IN TR O D U CTIO N

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 reiil 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 eure 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), πύρος (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 varia grammatica (Scriptores, I, 1901; pp. 120-24), which includes readings of P not adopted in Preger’s text. 90 See Preger, s.v. abundantia sermonis (1901, p. 124).

IN T R O D U C TIO N

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 materiell 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.312 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

IN TR O D U CTIO N

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

IN T R O D U C TIO N

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 naturail 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*31 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). 31 For Leo’s names see note on chap. 1.

20

IN T R O D U C TIO N

(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 triumphed 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, CE1, pp. 267 ff.; note to chap. 3. 39 As with Theophanes, p. 396, calling Leo III 6 ευσεβής βασιλεύς. Contrast the passages cited in n. 33 above.

IN TR O D U CTIO N

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 Patria (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. I l l , 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. Pardy 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

IN T R O D U C TIO N

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.4546It 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, Euphémie de Chalcêdoine: Légendes byzantines (Brussels, 1965); R. Naumann and H. Belting, Die Euphemia-Kirche im Hippodrom zu Istanbul und ihre Fresken (Berlin, 1966), pp. 23-27. 45 For which see Patna, III.9, p. 217. 46 Theophanes, p. 439; see S. Gero, Byzantine Iconoclasm dwring the reign of Constantine Vf CSCO 384, Subsidia 52 (Louvain, 1977), pp. 155 ff.; Halkin, op. cit.y p. 89.

IN TR O D U CTIO N

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 I ll’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. 4® Millet, art. cit. (n. 32), p. 395; Janin, CB1 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

IN T R O D U C TIO N

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

IN TR O D U CTIO N

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 eighthcentury 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 German us’s letters to two Anatolian bishops (before 730), PG 98.164 B, 165 C-D, 168 D-188 B (from Mansi). The monk Andrew Kalybites called Constantine V ‘the new Valens and Julian’—Theophanes, p. 432. See too the Life of S. Stephen, PG 100.1181. ss 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). ** Theophanes, p. 382; Nicephorus, p. 48; see A. Grabar, L ’Iconoclasmebyzantin (Paris, 1957), p. 48 f.

26

IN TR O D U CTIO N

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 antiiconoclastic 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 807,60 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.

IN T R O D U C TIO N

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. 42 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, be. cit.

28

IN T R O D U C T IO N

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, ^45, p. 61. 67 Mango, Byzantium, p. 78. 68 See R. Guilland, ‘Contribution à l’histoire administrative de l’Empire byzantin. Le chartulaire et le grand chartulaire’, RESEE 9 (1971), p. 406; N. Oikonomidès, Les listes de préséance byzantines des IXe et X e siècles (Paris, 1972), p. 310.

IN T R O D U C T IO N

29

in force by the time of the Patna.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 duché byzantin de Rome’, M EFR (Moyen Âge) 91 (1979), pp. 41-88. 70 See n. 1 above and Mango, Byzantium. The Empire of New Rome, p. 80. 71 See e.g. R. Valentini and G. Zuchetti, Codice Topografico della Città 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 Rateriana, 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’, A tti dell’Acad. Lincei, Memorie, ser. 5.8 (1903), pp. 49-60).

30

IN T R O D U C T IO N

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 âs 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 potentiell 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, A tti della Pontificia Accademia Romana di Archeologia, ser. II, vol. ix). 73 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 Romae II.1 (Rome, 1857-88), pp. 18-33.

IN TR O D U CTIO N

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, pagam 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 Nazianzus.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

IN T R O D U C TIO N

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*85 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, AS, 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 élite 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.). 89 See C. Mango, ‘The Legend of Leo the Wise’, Z R V I 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). 85 Dagron, pp. 516 (Constantine), 531 (Leo VI), and see note on chap. 64.

IN T R O D U C TIO N

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 ad 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,84*8687he is nowhere mentioned in Par.*7 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. 88 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’, A N R W ii. 16.2, (Berlin, 1978), pp. 1652-99; C. P. Jones, ‘An epigram on Apollonius of Tyana’, JH S 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 Patria, II. 103, which says this. It is no accident, then, that the Patria 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

IN T R O D U C TIO N

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 élite, 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 severed 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 88 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, i45, p. 67. 91 So Mango, AS, p. 68, but see Mathiopulu-Tomaritu, p. 29, n. 18 and generally. Cutler, art. cit. (η. 89), is more positive.

IN T R O D U C T IO N

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 2m epic battle in which twenty thous2md 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 gener2il (M 2iximinus) and the Gazoi supposedly settled there by Severus, while chap. 41 again places the vision in Rome. Par. refers in severed passages to the ceremonies which accompanied the dedication of the city in 330 emd 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. severed 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 annu 2d 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 Maladas and the Chronicon Paschale. Nevertheless, Par. has more circumstantial 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 of Tyche, presumably the Tyche of the city, was closely associated with this ceremonial. The question thus arises whether Par. ’s elaboration on the evidence of Maladas 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 92 On the foundation of Constantinople see G. Dagron, Naissance d’une capitale (Paris, 1974), pp. 37-41 (the basic account, but vitiated by the failure to distinguish the evidence of Par. from that of the later Patria, and in general insufficiently critical); R. Krautheimer, Thru Christian Capitals (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London, 1983), pp. 41 ff.

36

IN T R O D U C TIO N

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.9394In 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 330.9+ 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 dédicace de Constantinople dans la tradition byzantine’, RH R 127 (1944), pp. 61-127; Averil Cameron, ‘The Cult of the Theotokos in Sixth-Century Constantinople' ,JThSn.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. 93 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 Costantinopoli’, Φιλίας χάριν, Miscellanea in onore di E. Manni (Rome, 1979), pp. 595-610.

IN T R O D U C TIO N

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

IN T R O D U C TIO N

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 façade 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.99 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. Festugière, Vie de Théodore de Sykeon (Brussels, 1970), para. 133, pp. 105-6.

IN TR O D U CTIO N

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 ail 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 V III.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 100 For the remaining fragments, see G. C. Hansen, Theodorus 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 during the reign of Con­ stantine V, pp. 49 ff.; Mango, Brazen House, p. 109; see e.g. L ifeo ïS . Stephen the Younger, PG 100. 1085.

40

IN TR O D U CTIO N

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 V II.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 105 For the 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 Alain Cameron, ‘A quotation from Nilus of Ancyra in an iconodule tcxt’,J T h S n.s. 27 (1976), pp. 128-31.

IN T R O D U C TIO N

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,11415 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. 1,1 The fathers of Tarasios (bom 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 if.) reveals the existence of secondary education in the capital before 730. Platon of Sakkoudion (bom 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 siècle’. Settim anidiStudi.... X X (Spoleto, 1973), pp. 712 ff.; ‘Who wrote the Chronicle of Theophanes? ’ , ZR V I 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. 115 F. Diekamp, Hippolytus von Theben (Münster 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. 1,4 Diekamp, op. cit., p. xvi.

42

IN TR O D U CTIO N

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 verbid 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 selfconscious 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 the15 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 M uralt’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.

IN T R O D U C T IO N

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 a n d 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

IN TR O D U CTIO N

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 17 Similarly chaps. 1 ώς λόγος £χει, 9 έμφέρεται, 10 έμφέρεται εις τούς πολλούς etc.

IN T R O D U C TIO N

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 Mai alas 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 meted or stone was in almost total disuse in the eighth century.122 Par. ’s lack of interest in contemporary art 1,8 See note on chap. 38. 119 So L. M. Whitby, ‘The Great Chronographer and Theophanes’, BMGS, 8 (1982) pp. 1-20. 190 E.g. p. 320 Bonn. 191 Cf. pp. 16-17 (Constantine and Helena—their statues in Constantinople); 18 (the dedication ceremony). 199 See Mango, 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

IN TR O D U CTIO N

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, sculptured 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.

IN TR O D U CTIO N

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 façade, 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 Constantinopoli 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

INTR O D U CTIO N

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: chap. 5: chap. 5a: chap. 5b:

chap. 6: chap. 7:

chap. 8: chap. 10: chap. 11:

chap. 12: chap. 13: chap. 14: chap. 15: chap. 17: chap. 18:

a statue of Fidalia (destroyed) group at the Neolaia (see notes). Statues of Adam and Eve and Plenty and Famine on columns bronze ox at the Neorion harbour, engulfed by Maurice 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 two-headed statue of a woman, taken from Panormon by Chosroes to Persia 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) charioteer groups; statues of Artemis and Aphrodite panel paintings of patriarchs, burned by Arians with the icon of the Virgin and Child 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, Gillen 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 statue of Manaim the general at the Horreum; silver statue of Valentinian (taken for tribute) large statue of Menander the seer at the Artotyrianos, melted down for coin by Marcian equestrian statue of Aspar at the Taurus silver cross in the Forum and statues of two angels, Constantine and Helena. Gilded statues of Constantine’s sons and himself bronze statue of an elephant in the Forum 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 églises et les monastères, 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).

IN TR O D U CTIO N

chap. 19: chap. 20: chap. chap. chap. chap. chap.

21: 22: 23: 26: 28:

chap. 29: chap. 30: chap. 31: chap. 32: chap. 33: chap. 34: chap. 35: chap. 35a: chap. 36: chap. 37 :

chap. 38: chap. 39:

chap. 40: chap. 41:

chap. 42: chap. 43:

49

equestrian statues of Gratian’s family, Theodosius and Valentinian, with a certain Firmillianus a composite statue of Artemis, with Severus the founder of the Xerolophos and a tripod; sixteen twisted columns a hare, hound and faun made of one piece of metal, very large bridge at S. Mamas with bronze dragon objects below the great statue of Constantine in the Forum statue of a eunuch, Plato, at church of S. Procopius at Chelone heavy statue which killed Himerius in the Kynegion, buried by order of Philippicus bronze statue of Verina on a pillar near S. Agathonikos; another at the Anemodoulion small gilded statue of Euphemia large silver statues of Eudoxia, her daughter, and two other daughters; another bronze statue of Eudoxia on a pillar at the Augusteum statue of Arcadia the second wife of Zeno (sic); statues of Ariadne and Zeno on the Chalke statue of Pulcheria at the Chalke statues of Constantine and Helena and a cross on the roof of the Milion group at the Milion of Sophia, Arabia her daughter and Helena her niece, gilded equestrian statues of Arcadius and Theodosius II near that of Theodosius I at the Tribunal, statues of Eudocia, Martian and Constantine at the Basilica, gilded kneeling statue ofJustinian 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 at the Milion, Zeus Helios in a quadriga; small statue of Tyche of the city, buried by Julian 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 small marble dog, animal heads, two gorgons of marble; an ox­ herd and an ox (?), all at the Artotyrianos 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 (?) a large bronze ox, melted down by Heraclius 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 chap. 44: chap. 44a:

chap. 45: chap. 46: chap. 47: chap. 48: chap. 49: chap. 50: chap. 51: chap. 52: chap. 53: chap. 54: chap. 56: chap. 57:

chap. 58:

chap. 59: chap. 60: chap. 61:

chap. 62:

IN TR O D U CTIO N

marble fox with gold and silver lettering, given as tribute 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 pictures (?) of Pulcheria in the palace; statues of Marcian and Pulcheria set up by Leo I on the Theodosian porticoes statue of Julian outside the Mint, destroyed by Theodosius I imperial statues set up by Julian; gold-niello statues of Apollo and Artemis set up at Nicomedia (reused as imperial statues?) 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 statue ofJulian on porphyry column at Constantinian porticoes; panel icons and bronze statues of Julian at Rome and Antioch statues of Gratian and his wife in Rome, of silver statue of Valentinian III at porticoes of Leontius silver gilded cross set up by Constantine in the Forum Bovis with statues of Constantine and Helena, their hands holding the cross statues (?) of Constantine, Helena, Christ and His Mother at Kontaria bronze statue of Constantine made from armour, at Ta Viglentiou Constantine’s statue in the Forum; objects placed on the pillar at Taurus, statue (?) of Severus; (?) pagan statues destroyed by Constantine; statue of Constantine with cross in right hand; relief showing Constantine’s wars 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 (?) thirty statues set up by Constantine in the Forum sixty statues from Rome in the Hippodrome including one of Augustus 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) dragon-statue set up (?) by Arcadius commemorating (?) Honorius; hyena brought from Antioch under Constantine

IN T R O D U C TIO N

chap. 65: chap. 66: chap. 67: chap. 68:

chap. 68a: chap. 69: chap. 70: chap. 71: chap. 72: chap. 73: chap. 74: chap. 75: chap. 76: chap. 77: chap. 78: chap. 79: chap. 80: chap. 81: chap. 82: chap. 83: chap. 84: chap. 85: chap. 86: chap. 87:

51

marble reclining statue in Hippodrome, with inscription 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 statue in Pittakia of Leo I 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 statue of Constantine in the Forum, said to be pagan tripod in Great Strategion, attributed to Alexander the Great Philadelphion group of the sons of Constantine; statues of Julian and his Christian wife Anastasia (sic) at Xerolophos, Theodosius II on pillar, with Valentinian and Marcian at foot. This statue fell down in an earthquake statue of Arcadius at Neorion; many statues (?) set up by Constantine fallen statues at the Constantinianai bronze seated statue of Theodosius I at Basilica; statue of Phocas behind the Magnaura, on (?) the Heliakon, in bronze statue of Valent inian III on pillar at Marinakion which stood upright and could not be replaced when it fell in an earthquake stooping statue of Diocletian in front of the Kathisma in the Hip­ podrome, one of many statues brought from Nicomedia heavy statue of Maximian at the Chalke with members of the house of Theodosius I four gorgons at the Chalke, with the sign of the cross above them statue of Artemis in the Hippodrome statues of Zeno and Ariadne on pillars at the Chalke (but see note ad he.) statues of Justinian and Theodora facing the Zeuxippus painted image of Philippicus at the Zeuxippus, very lifelike (see note) the Zeus in the Hippodrome, from Iconium along with many other statues four gilt horses above the Hippodrome, brought from Chios under Theodosius II (probably the four horses at San Marco, Venice) statue of Perseus and Andromeda from Iconium, brought to the Constantinianai under Constantius II statue of Anastasius behind S. Menas 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

IN TR O D U CTIO N

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, ‘Fünf lokalitäten in Konstantinopel’, in H. G. Beck (ed.),

Studien zur frühgeschichte 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.

IN T R O D U C TIO N

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. 1,0 E.g. Alan Cameron, Circus Factions (Oxford, 1976), p. 245.

ΠΑΡΑΣΤΑΣΕΙΣ ΣΥΝΤΟΜΟΙ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑΙ TEXT AND TRANSLATION

1

.

Αέον γινώ σχειν ότι 6 άγιος Μ ώ χιος πρώην μεν νπό Κ ω νσταντίνον τον μεγάλον παροιχοδομή&η 'Ελλήνων πλή&η ίκείΰε χατοιχονντων πολλά * nul ναόν είναι τον Α ιός εχεΐσε, 5 καθ’ ήν ζχα ι ix των λί&ων αντ οΌ)> εχτισε τον ναόν' πίπτει δε νπ ό Κ ω νσταντίνον iv τη τρίτη αντον νπατεία. *Εν δε ταΐς ήμέραις Θεοδοσίον τον μεγάλον εξορίζονται οι 5Α ρειανοί των αγίω ν ίχχλησιώ ν χαι έλ&όντες iv τω ναω τοϋ ά γιον Μ ω χίον ήράσ&ησαν χαι παραχαλοϋσι τω βασιλεΐ χατοιχεϊν ίο αντονς εκεί, ο χαι γέγονεν. Παρεν&ν ονν ανεγείρονσι τόν αντον ναόν οι 3Αρειανοί χαι δοξάζεται παρ’ αντών 6 ναός ετη ζ '’ χαι πίπτει , ώς λόγος εχει, λειτονργονντων αντών iv τω ζ' ετει ' καθ’ ον 3Αρειανοί άπεχτάν&ησαν πολλοί. ’Ε ν δε ταΐς ήμέραις ’ίονσ τινια νον τον βαΰιλέως άνεγείρεται 6 15 αντός ναός χαι ΐσταται εως η μ ώ ν iv δόλω Μ άρχελλος άνα­

ξ 1 1. 2—6 (ναόν) et 6—16 (Έ ν—ήμών): Codin.Π 110 (ρ.72, 17 Bekker. y. app. erit.)

3 πλή&η πολλά est attributum vocis *Ελλήνων ; de eiusmodi barbarie v. Dindorf ad Malal. p. 128, 19 et 227, 6, Dobschütz Cbristusbilder 214**, 5 παρά τφ αίγιαλω τά ’Α μαντίον προςαγορενόμενα 5 xal ix των λίθων αδτοϋ supplevi ex Codino 6 Κωναταντίουί 9 ήράο&ηΰαν] ήθροίσθησαν Alexis 12 ώς λόγος ϊτει P (h i edd.), correxi coni. § 7, 82, 85 13 καθ’ ï)v? 15 ήμών iv δόλω · jj μάρχελλος P, ffalso Marc, etc.’ vertit Banduri; pro iv δόλω conicit Lamb, ΰλως vel ΰνν θόλω iungens periodo praecedenti, iv 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 1he 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, 11.110, p. 209. 2 P has Constantine, but see note. Apparently ύπό stands for ini.

58

ΠΑΡΑΣΤΑΣΕΙΣ ΣΥΝΤΟΜΟΙ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑΙ

γνώδτης φηδιν ότι εν τω δεντέρω ετει τής βαδιλείας Κόνωνος τον ’Ιδαύρον ηίητει ο ναός. 2 . fO άγιος ’Αγα&όνιχος νηο ’Αναδταδίον το ηρότερον και Ίονδτινιανον τον μεγάλον το δεύτερον οίχοδομή&η ' Ιν 5 ω καί ηατριάρχαι εηιδκόηηδαν εν τω αντω ναω ζ ' in i χρόνονς ν ' ' καί βαδιλεΐς δτεφηφορονδιν εκεΐδε. Α ι ήν αιτίαν μετεηοιήϋ'η "|* νηο Ό'νμον, ον γινώδκεται. Τοντο δε ηαρέδωκαν οι ηρο ημών οτι καί ηαλάτιον μέγιδτον ηληδίον τον ναόν τούτον η ν' νηο δε Τιβερίον τον ηρώτον μετεηοιη&η ίο διολεοΟέν εις τα ννν βαΰίλεια. 3. Τα τείχη τα ηρος &άλαδδαν ανακαινίζονται in i Τιβερίον ’Αψιμάρον' εως γαρ αντον η μέλη μένα ήδαν ηάνν. Τα δε τείχη της δύδεως των μεγάλων ηορτών in i Αέοντος τον μεγάλον και ενδεβονς' κα-θ·’ ην και ελιτάνενδαν και 15 τό (κύριε ελεηδον’ τεδδαρακοντάκις εβόηδαν καί δ δήμος τον Πραδίνον έκραξαν‘ *Λέω ν Κωνδταντΐνον εις κράτος ενίκηδεν’. 4. ’Ε ν τη κατωγαία ηόρτη τη ηληρεδτάτη δτοιχειον ΐδτατο Φιδαλείας τίνος 'Ελληνίδος. ’Αρ&είδης δε της δτηλης 20 &ανμα ( η ν ) ίδεδ&αι μεγα, τον τόηον εκείνον in i ηολν

§ 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

4 Ιονστιιανον Ρ 6 έατεφηφόρονν Band. 7 &υμον] Ρ , adulterinum esse videtur; Τιβερίον Lamb., àno θεμελίου ? cf. § 75 10 διολισ&εν edd. et Codin., sed cf. Theophan. p. 299, 17 etc. 13 τής δνσεως] τής ηόλεως Lamb. Αέον­ τος κτΧ.] scriptoris errore Leo Macelles muros instauravisse dicitur, cum id Isaurum suscepisse sciamus; ci. Banduri 2, 780 (δνσσεβονς idcirco scribere voluit Comb.) 15 τεσσαρ.] μ' Ρ 16 κωνσταντινος Ρ , corr. Comb., cf. § 35; Λέων και Κωνσταντίνος . . ένίκησαν Lamb., Λέων Κωνσταντίνος καί Θεο­ δόσιος . . ένίκησαν Codin. 18 ηλησιεστάτη Lamb. 19 φιδαλία ς 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 t ..... 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’.34 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

ΰείεβ&αι , ωΰτε καί τον βαΰιλέα &ανμάΰαι καί λιτήν άπελ&εΐν iv τώ τόπω καί οϋτως πα ν Gca Σ άβα τοϋ όσιου δι ευχών τούτο ποί'ήΰαντος. 9, ’Ε ν τγί λεγομένη Νεολαία ΐβτατο γυναικεία στήλη 5 και βωμός (μ ετά μοΰ^χαρίδιον μ ικ ρ ό ν iv οϊς και ίπποι χρυΰίω διαλάμπεις τέΰΰαρες' επί (δ ίφ ρ ο ν δε κ α ι} διφρελάτον τήν ΣεΟΕιν μόνην, τήν δέ λοιπήν άρχαίαν ίο είναι καί μηδέν παρά Κωνεταντίνου καταεκευαεθήναι. "€ωε γάρ Θεοδοείου τοΟ μεγάλου θέαμα παρά τών πολιτών γέγονεν έν τώ Ίπποδρομίψ, μετά κηρών καί λευκών χλαμύδων φοροθνταε πάνταε είεέρχεεθαι τήν αύτήν ετήλην μόνην έπάνω άρματοε [ήγουν καρούχαε] έωε τοΟ ετάματοε άπό τών καγκέλ15 λων. ΤοΟτο δέ έΕετέλουν, δτε τό γενέθλιον τήε πόλεωε έορτάΣετο. ’€κεΐ δέ έν Σώδοιε έετηλώθηεαν εΐε τούε κίοναε ό Άδάμ καί ή €ύα καί ή €ύθηνία καί ό Λιμόε. 5 a. ’€ν τή λεγομένη λίμνη τοΟ Νεωρίου βοΟε ϊετατο χαλκοΟε παμμεγεθέετατοε πάνυ. ΚράΣειν δέ έλεγον αύτόν ώε βοΟν 20 μίαν τοΟ ένιαυτοΟ, καί γίνεεθαι παραπτώματα έν τή ή μέρα έκείνη, έν ή έκραΕεν. ’€πΙ δέ Μαυρικίου τοΟ βαειλέωε έν αύτή τή λίμνη κατεχώεθη.

§ ό Codin. Π 87 (ρ. 69, 11 Β)

1 βασιλέα] aut Anastasium aut Justinianum fuisse Sabae vita a Cyrillo conscripta docet 2 πανσαι] de verbi usu intransitivo 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 μοσκαρίδιον, de μετά cum accus, cf. § 10 et 32, de tenui pro aspirata v. index s. v. phonetica; xal μοαχάριον Lamb., καί άρνίον μικρόν Comb. 6 δίφρον δέ καϊ supplevi ex Codino, ubi legitur in i δίφρον καϊ διφρηλάτον γνναικός (sc. στήλη) ; καί διφρηλάτης έπϊ δίφρον Lamb. 7 Post Φη excidit folium ex codice; supplevi l. 7 — p. 22, 26 ex Codino II 87—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 *) small calf; with these too were four horses, shining with gold; and on a < chariot with a > charioteer was a < statue12 of afemale > (stele) holding in her right hand a smallfigure (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/ 34) 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 Patria 11.87, p. 196. 2 All the italicized section is missing in P and supplied here from Patria, loc. cit. See notes. * 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. Του Μαυρίκιου ετήλη καί τήε γυναικόε καί των τέκ­ νων αύτού èv τη Χάλκη ϊεταται άνωθεν τήε θεανδρικήε είκόνοε τού Ίηεού Χριετοΰ · ύπ ’ αύτού γάρ κατεεκευάεθηεαν. Αί δέ δύο ετήλαι ai έκτεταμέναι τάε χείραε ό ειε τώ έτέρω έκ τήε 5 ’Αθηναίων γήε ήκαειν· φιλοεόφων δέ φαειν είναι, ώε φηειν Λιγύριοε ό Έλληνικόε. 5 c. Μετά τό άποθανειν Μαρκιανόν τόν βαειλέα έγένετο €ύτύχουε τινόε μαθητήε όνόματι "Ακατοε, διάκονοε ύπαρχων του ναού τήε άγίαε €ύφημίαε· δε Ιδών ήττηθένταε τούε κατά ίο €ύτύχην κατέλαβε Οεραπίωνα (?) τό κάετρον* τούτο δέ ήν έν των Περεών, 'Ρήγιον τούνομα. ’€μήνυεε δέ ΤΤεριττίιμ τώ καετροφύλακι τά τήε άεθενείαε των έν Καλχηδόνι οίκούντων δε παρευθύ τού άρματοε έπιβάε — ούτωε γάρ τοίε έν 'Ρηγίψ καετροφύλαΗι πέφυκε — μετά έβδομήκοντα χιλιάδων έρχεται έπΐ 15 τήν Καλχηδονίων μητρόπολιν · οί δε έκεΐεε προγνόντεε έφυγον έν τώ ΒυΖαντίω άραντεε μεθ’ έαυτών καί τά τίμια λείψανα τήε άγίαε Εύφημίαε* οπερ αύτόε "Ακατοε άμυνόμενοε διά τό μή ευγχωρηθήναι €ύτύχει τήν έκκληείαν κατά ταύτηε τόν ΤΤέρεην ΤΤεριττίωνα ήγαγε. Τότε ήρπάγη παρά τών ΤΤερεών ό Ήλιοε 20 θεόε ό λεγόμενοε Κρόνοε, δε ίετατο έν Καλχηδόνι* δν καί άπήγαγογ εΐε Περείαν. 5d. ’€πί Λέοντοε τού Ίεαύρου πολλά θεμάτια παρελύθηεαν άρχαΐα διά τό τον άνδρα άλόγιετον είναι. Τότε τό λεγό­ μενον Τρίίωδον τό εΐε τά κούφα τού αγίου Μωκίου κάτωθεν 25 ύπάρχον έπήρθη* έν αύτώ ήετρονόμουν έωε τότε πολλοί* καί τύμβοι Ελλήνων χοά ’Αρειανών νπάρχονΰι χεχωϋμένοι xccl αλλα εις πλη&ος ϋχηνώματα.

6.

30

Το δε Πάνορμον χάΰτρον υπό τον Π ανόρμον "Ελληνος εχτίο&η διπλότειχον ύπαρχον οιδηρον xccl χαλχον δίχην άναμεμιγμενον. ’Ε ν δε rrj προς βορράν πόρττ} τον αντοϋ χάΰτρον ί'ΰτατο ΰτνράχιον ίχμώδη χαι ΰτηλη γ ν ν α ι-

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

28 Πάνορμον] portus Cyzici significari videtur ροόαον] πυργίον vel πνργίδιον Comb, et Band.

31 στυSed ατνρ.

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) ofJesus Christ represented as God and man; for they were put up by him.1*The two statues (stelai) whose hands are outstretch­ ed towards each other camefrom the land of the Athenians; they say they are of philosophers, as Ligurius the pagan says. 5c. After the death of the Emperor Maurice1 (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 thefollowers 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 thefort, 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 andfled 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. Modus456 In the time of Leo the Isaurian (717-41), many ancient monuments (thematiaj were destroyed, because the man was irrational3At 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 pagans? 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. 1 P has Marcian, but see commentary. 5 Omitted here by Preger, though present at Patria, 11.89, p. 198. 4 Similarly omitted by Preger, though present at Patria, toe. cit. 5 See note. 6 P ’s text resumes at this point. 7 See commentary.

64

ΠΑΡΑΣΤΑΣΕΙΣ ΣΥΝΤΟΜΟΙ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑΙ

κεία δικέφαλος. ’Έν&α και &έαμα γέγονεν ' εμπνριΰμον γάρ ποτέ το κάΰτρον κατειληφότος και πάΰης της πόλεως έδαφιβ&είβης μετά και των τειχών ιΰταβ&αι το πνργίον έκεϊνο της πάρτης, εν&α και η ΰτήλη ΰννίϋτατο. 'Αλλα πολλάκις 5 και τον πνρός προςεγγίζοντος τω τόπω ώς υπό τίνος διώκοντος αντο οπιΰ&εν ώς οργνιάς ε' νπεχώρει της ύτήλης. Α ντη δε παρελήφ&η νπ ό Χοβρόον τον Περβών τνράννον καί εβτιν εις Περΰίδα λατρευομένη έως τον ν ν ν , κα·Θ·ώς 6 Παραδείΰιος διοικητής εκεΐΰε κρατη&είς και έκφνγώ ν δήλα ίο πεποίηκεν èv τω χρονικω 'Ιππολντον το τρίτον δημοβιενομένω. [Ζητεί ιΰτορίαν έζαίβιον.] 7. Το δε καλόνμενον Σ μ νρ νιο ν πληβίον τον Τετραδιΰίον εμβόλον εχει νποκάτω τής γ η ς , το προς βορράν μέρος οργνια ς ι \ ΰτήλας πληβίον τον ναόν τον Θεόδωρόν. Ε ίΰ ιν is δε α ί ΰτήλαι α ί μεν τέΰΰαρες Κω νϋταντίνον τον μεγάλον και τής γνναικός αντον Φανΰτας και 'Ιλαρίωνος πραιποΰίτον και τον παιδός τον τρίτον Κ ω νϋταντίνον τον όμω ννμον,

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

Byzantinis esse turriculam vel 'columnam 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. III 190 et 202 (p. 124, 11 et 127, 10 Β) ίκμώδη] ήχμώδι P, correxi, de forma cf. § 43 ζώδιον πορφνροειδή (αύχμώδι Comb., αίχμώδη Du Cange, αίχμωδες vel ή αιχμή Lamb.) 1 &ανμα ? ένπνριομον Ρ 2 τον κάΰτρον Ρ έδαφη&είοης Ρ 9 παραδείΰιος 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 'ΙππολΛ cf. Hippolyt. Theb. ed. Diekamp p. 33 δημοΰιενόμενον P 11 extrema verba seclusi 15 τε'σσαρε?] τρεις P (etiam Codini codd.) 17 Falsa tradit scriptor, sed noli corrigere (xal Κρίΰπον τον παιδός Κωνΰταντίνον τον μεγάλον vel καϊ τον παιδος Κωνϋταντίνον τον όμωννμον καϊ ίτέρον Κρίΰπον όνομαζομένον Lamb., καί τετάρτη τον παιδός Κωνϋταντίνον τον Κρίΰπον Comb.); inter-

TRANSLATION

65

of a woman with two heads. Here a spectacle (theama) 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 taxcollector 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 ΣΤΝΤΟΜΟΙ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑΙ

ον 'Ηρόδοτος χαϊ 'Ιππόλυτος χρονογράφοι λέγουβιν άποχεφ αλιβθηναι νπό τον πατρός ' όν χαϊ λυπη θείς 6 πατήρ μετενόηβε χαϊ εχλανβεν επ' αντω μ ' ημέρας , ώς δ λόγος εχει, μη λονβάμενος το βώμα, μη άναψνξας εν χοίτη. ’Εποίηβε 6 δε την βτηλην εξ άργυρον χαθαρον βάψας αυτήν χρυΰω πλείΰτω, την δε χεφαλην μόνην ix χρνΰίον τελείου γρά­ φ οντα ν εν τω μετωπιδίω’ 'ηδιχημένος υιός μου9. Ταύτην ΰτήΰας μετάνοιαν βάλλων ελιπάρει θεω νπερ ων επλημμέληΰεν. A i δε λοιπαί ε' ΰτηλαι δπάρχονΰιν Σ ενη ρον, 'Αρμαιο τίου, Ζ ενξ ίπ π ον, Βιγλεντίου (τ ο ν τα Βιγλεντίου'} χτίβαντος χαϊ ’Ε λευθερίου τον εις το Σ ινάτον το παλάτιον χτίβαν­ τος. Οντοι πάντες ξίφει παρεδόθηΰαν χαϊ νπ ό τον άδιχηβαντος ΰτηλωθέντες βνγχώρηβιν παρά τον πλημμεληβαντος έδνβωποϋντο. Παρέλαβον δε χαϊ τα οίχεια τέχνα τοντο 15 αντό ποιεΐν χαϊ εχ τούτων πολλοί εως Ονάλη τον ’Α ρειανον. Οι ο νν ’Α ρειανοϊ μη φέροντες την ήτταν την διά Κω νβταντίνου iv τω είρημένω Τετραδιβίω εμβόλω πληβίον τον αγίου Θεοδώρου ταντας χατέχωβαν εως της βημερον. 20 8 . ’Ε ν δε τω Σινάτω άπετέθηΰαν ηνίοχοι εν ξευξίπ-

§ 8 Codin. II 94 (ρ. 64, 3 Β)

polavit locum Codinus, quem sequitur cod. Mosqu. Georgii Monachi p. 428 (cf. Patzig B. Z. VI 332) 1 Ήρωδίων coll. § 61 Lamb. 'Ι λλοΙ.] cf. ad p. 23 1. 10 4 μηδε? 9 αεβήρου Ρ άρμάτον P 10 τον τά Βιγλ. ex Codino suppi. Lamb. 18 ëtoç την ΰη· Ρ, sed cf. § 19,23,26 20 Hoc lôco valde obscuro narrari videtur in senatu statuas aurigarum, quae erant iv ξενξίπποις (curruum genere?) sublatas et in organo astronomico positas esse; currus vero in fornice esse defossos άπετέθηοαν] = άφηρέθηοαν? cf. § 11 Έ ν τη έχχληαία ΰτηλαι άφηρέθηΰαν. Cui adversari videtur vis verbi in § 60 ηνίοχοι έν ζενξίπποις] quales significentur aurigae nescio; 'ξενξιπποι iunctores’ Corp. Gloss. Lat. ΙΠ 241, ό, 'ξεύξιππος desultor’ C. Gl. L. II 46, 20; an iv έξίπποις ('έξάιπποι 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 < T a Viglentio u > 1and 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 Villens the Arian (364-78). And the Arians, unable to endure their defeat by Constantine, buried them in the Tetradesion portico mentioned above near S. Theodore until the present day. 8. In the Senate there were placed charioteers in their chariots,

Supplied from Patria, 11.93, p. 201.

68

ΠΑΡΑΣΤΑΣΕΙΣ ΣΥΝΤΟΜΟΙ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑΙ

ποις και ετέ&ησαν εν τώ άστρονομικώ όργάνω , εν&α της ’Αρτέμιδος καί της 5Α φροδίτης ΐΰτανται στηλαι ’ èv αϊς σκντάλαις άπεκεφαλίσ&η ύπο των ’Α ρειανώ ν 'Αρκάδιος αρχι­ διάκονος της άγιας Ε ίρηνης ’ εν&α και λέγονσι σείεσ&αι 5 τάς στηλας εως τριών ημερών τοϋ θανάτου τούτον. Α ί δε καρονχαι èv τώ είληματι κατεχώσ&ησαν ènl Θεοδοΰίον τον βαΰιλέως.

9.

Κ α ι τοντο δε ίμφέρεται, οτι οι δώδεκα κόφινοι δέκα ετη εν τώ νέω παλατίω τον Σ ινά τον πεποιηκασιν ’ μετά δε ίο ταντα ( ε ν ) τω είληματι κατεχώσ&ησαν Μ ητροφάνονς Ιπ ισκόπον Κωνσταντινονπόλεως τοντο ονμβονλενΰαντος τω μεγά λφ βασιλεΐ Κωνΰταντίνω.

10.

Κ α ι τοντο δε έμφέρεται εις τούς πολλούς, δτι Μ η ­ τροφάνονς και ’Αλέξανδρον και Π αύλον a i εικόνες εν ίο σανίσι γεγόναΰιν ύπό τον μεγάλον Κ ω νσ τα ντίνον’ και ΐΰταντο εν τω Φόρφ πλησίον της μεγάλης στηλης της èv τώ κίονι κατά την ανατολήν' άςτινας εικόνας οι ’Α ρειανοι μετά το κρατησαι τώ π νρ ϊ παραδέδωκαν èv τώ κορονίω Μ ιλίω μετά και της Θεοτόκον άπεικόνισμα καί αυτόν 20 του νηπιάσαντος σαρκϊ ’Ιη σ ον , κα&ά ’Α γκνριανος χρονο-

§ 9 1. 8 — 10 (κατεχ.): Codin. Π 95 (ρ. 64, 9 Β) Codin. II 106 (ρ. 70, 4 Β)*6

§ 10

iugae’ C. Gl. L. Ill 302, 69 et alibi)? 1 και έτέ&ησαν seel. Band. 2 ΐΰταται στηλη Ρ , correxi ex Codino èv αί$] καί Lamb. σκντάλαις] fσκυτάλη rutrum’ C. Gl. L. ΠΙ 263, 14 6 έληματι Ρ , είληματι τον *Ιπποδρομίου GB 8 έμφένεται Ρ , corr. Lamb., cf. § 10, 69 10 èv suppi. Comb, (etiam Codini codd. GB) είληματι τοϋ Φάρου GB; cf. quae tradit Constant. Rhod. 76 (προς &έμε&λα τοϋ στύλον sc. τοϋ πορφνροϋ) et adn. ad Hesych. p. 17,13 11 σνμβολεύσαντος P 18 sq. ώρείω Μιλίω Lamb. coll. § 38 19 άπεικόνισμα P] cf. § 32 adn. erit. 20 Άγκυρανός 'Ancyra 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

' See note. 2 See note.

70

ΠΑΡΑΣΤΑΣΕΙΣ ΣΥΝΤΟΜΟΙ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑΙ

γράφος εν τη Αεχαλόγω αντον άχριβέδτερον παρά ’Α να .' 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:12 ‘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 Patria, 11.102, p. 205. 2 Or ‘a small box, which had written on its lid’.

82

ΠΑΡΑΣΤΑΣΕΙΣ ΣΤΝΤΟΜΟΙ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑΙ

έφ ιππος χαλκη ‘ ην άνεγείρας πολλά ΰιχηρέΰια χη πόλει προςέ&ηχεν. 19. Α ί δε èv τω Περιπάχω έφ ιπποι ΰχηλαι γένος Γρα%ιανον άπαν καί Θεοδοΰίον καί Οναλενχινιανον ' έξ ανχών 5 καί κνρχον Φ ιρμιλλιανον προς γέλωτα γέγονεν ' ο καί βώξεχαι εως χής ΰημερον. 20. Τον δε Βηρόλοφον πρώην &έαμά χινες εκαλονΰαν ' καί èv ανχω γάρ κοχλίδαι ΐζ ' καί Ά ρχεμ ις, ΰνν&εχη ΰχηλη, καί Σ ενη ρ ον χοϋ κχΐΰανχος καί &εμάχιον χρίπονν. "Εν&α ίο καί &νΰίαι πολλαί παρά χον αυτοί) Σ ενηρον γεγόναΰιν" έν&α καί χρηΰμοί πολλοί èv ανχω τω τόπω γεγόναΰιν' κα&* όν καί κόρη παρ&ένος έχν&η ' καί αΰχρονομικη &έβις εις λ ζ ' χρόνονς διηρκεΰε. 21. Το δε ’Ε ζακιόνιν xο λεγόμενον εΰχε ποχε πχώκα 15 καί κννα καί Νεβρώδ παμμεγέ& η , χα χρία από ενός ϋιδήρ ο ν καί πολλά εχερα &εάμαχα èv ανχω τω τόπω èΰώξovxo. Τανχα Μ αρκιανός παρέΰχ ειλε καί èv χοις χ ον άγιον Μ ά μανχος μερεΰι προςέ&ηκε. Κ α ί λονχρδν δε η ν εις μέγε&ος, èv ω καί πολλοί èκιvδvvεvov διά χό λέγειν μη δέίςαΰ&αι 20 χρηΰμόν.

§ 19 Codin. II 104a (deest in edd.); Treu p. 10, 29, Suid. 8. y. στηλη et Γρατιανός (Cod. p. 53, 16 B), v. Beiträge zur Textg. p. 37 § 20 Cod. II 105 (p. 70, 1 B); Treu p. 11 , 1, Suid. s. v. Βηρόλοφος (Cod. p. 30, 1 B), v. Beiträge etc. p. 38*49

1 è άτινα θεαΰάμενος ό βαΰιλενς δ Αναΰτάΰιος χαϊ ίχπλαγεϊς iv τη Φόΰΰα χατεθετο είς θαύμα ε^αίΰιον. 26. ’Ε ν τω ναω τον αγίου μάρτνρος Προκοπίου τον

§ 25 Treu ρ. 11, 24, Suid. s. ν. Μηνάς·, inde Codin. Il 22 (ρ. 31, 3 B) § 26 Treu ρ. 11, 29, Suid. s. y. Προκόπιος; inde Codin. II 23 (ρ. 31, 7 B)2*6

2 (εΙς~} πλήθος? cf. lin. 4 et 15; pertinet ad νονμία Cf. Socrat. I 1, 1 oca η έγγράφως ευρομεν η παρά των ίΰτορηΰάνχων ήκονοαμεν, διηγούμενοι 3 τής γραφής secludit Alexis; sed έγγραφον παράδοαν significare videtur 6 ήτίΰτηΰα Ρ 6 α seclusi ημείς sc. έκδιδοϋμεν τοΐς άλλοις 9 τ) αύτός . . ή μολίβδου Ρ, correxi (καί αύτός Lamb.): aut plum­ bum ipsum aut compositio (?) plumbi litteris descripta? (διάθεσις έγγρ. idem significare videtur quod ποίηΰις διά γρα­ φών) 10 μαρμάρων Ρ, corrigebam 11 ποίηβιοις Ρ διά γραφών ποίηΰις χρυΰίον καί αρ/νρίου] fabricatio auri et ar­ genti descripta in marmore ix στοιχείων? μαρμαρικών Ρ, correxi, cf. § 40 et 66 17 iv xfj Φόΰΰα] είς τό παλάτιον Tr. Suid., cf. § 73

TRANSLATION

87

Great Strategion; so he actually deposited a lot of pagan coins in a pit1there. 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 είς is probably missing in P: see commentary. * The same wording as above. * 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 Patria. 4 ‘Lovers of knowledge’, see introduction, section iv.

88

ΠΑΡΑΣΤΑΣΕΙΣ ΣΥΝΤΟΜΟΙ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑΙ

iv %ή Χελώνη στήλη ί'στατο ευνούχον τινός, η εν τώ 6τή&ει εγραφεν' 6 μετατι&εις-δεμάτια τω βρόχω παραδο&ήτω. Ή ν δε ή στήλη Πλάτωνος χονβιχονλαρίον, ός iv ταΐς ήμεραις βασιλεως Βασιλίσχον πνρίχανστος γέγονε. Των δε γονέων 5 αύτον αίτησάντων τω βασιλει στηλω&ήναι τον εννονχον Πλάτωνα εις μνημόσυνον τοΐς άνταίρονσι βασιλει ούχ ίχώλυσεν. ’Ε ν δε τω άναχαινίζεσ&αι τον τον μάρτνρος ναόν μετετέ&η είς το 'Ιπποδρόμων ’ οί δε οϊχοι τον αυτόν εννονχον σώζονται iv τη Χελώνι; ?ως της σήμερον. ίο 2 7 . ’E x τω ν ' Ι μ ε ρ ί ο ν χ α ρ τ ο ν λ α ρ ί ο ν *j* φ ρ ά σ ι ς τ ω ν π α ρ ά Θ ε ο δ ώ ρ ο ν , δτε παραγέγονεν iv τω Κννηγίω &έας χάριν. Πολλά γάρ ημΐν εμελέσ&η περί τον ερεννήσαι άχριβώς περί ών παρεχάλεσας χαϊ φανερώσαι τη σή αρετή, ώ Φιλόχαλε. 15 2 8 . 'Απελ^όντων ημών ποτέ iv τω Κννηγίω συν 'Ιμερίω τω προλεχ&εντι ίνδόξω χαρτονλαρίω τάς ίχεΐσε ίστορήσαι είχόνας, iv οϊς εϋρομεν μίαν στήλην μιχράν τω μήχει χαϊ

§ 28 1. 15—ρ. 36, 6 et ρ. 36, 11 — 22 transscripsit Anon. Treu ρ. 12, 7 (Suid. s v. χννήγιον) paucis omissis et mutatis. Initio addit haec: περί των iv τώ Κννηγίω στηλών iv τω Κ ν ν η γ ί ω το π ρ ό τ ε ρ ο ν ί ρ ρ ί π τ ο ν τ ο οί β ι ο ϋ ' άν α τ ο ί ' ήσαν δέ τ ι ν ε ς ί χ ε ΐ σ ε στ ή λ αι · χαϊ άπελ&ών Θεόδωρος δ Α να ­ γ ν ώ σ τ η ς μετά^Ι. χαρτ. ε ΐ δ ε ν ίχεΐσε στήλην μιχράν χτλ. (nihilo secius pergit ί μ ο ν δε &ανμάζοντος χτλ). Inde Cod. II 24 (ρ. 31, 17 Β)

δ τώ βασιλει] αίτεΐν τινι etiam § 64, cf. Marci Diaconi indicem 6 άντερονσι Ρ 9 Fini capitis ornamentum scriba adpinxit et inferiorem paginae partem vacuam reliquit 10 ix τών περίy *Ιμερίον Heisenberg ήμερίον hic et rell. locis (1. 16, ρ. 36, 2 et 6) P φράσις τών] an (ίχ)φρασ&ίντων vel (ίχ)φραστών? ίχ τών Θεοδώρον ά ν α γ ν ώ σ τ ο ν φράσις τών περί 'Ιμερίον χαρτ. οτε χτλ. Lamb. 12 ίμελή&η edd. 14 Φιλόχαλε] cf. § 28, 41, 42; nomen proprium esse mihi videtur (φιλόχαλε 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 καί παχεΐαν πάνυ. ’Εμον δε Φαυμάζοντος και μη ίβτοροϋντος φηΰΐν δ (Ιμέριος' *&αύμαζε, δτι δ χτίβας το Κ υνηγώ ν εβτιν.9 ’Έμον δε είπόντος 'Μ αξιμιανός δ χτίβας xal 9Αριΰτείδης δ χαταμετρηΰας9 παρεν&ύ πεΰεΐν την ΰτηλην 5 εκ τον έχεΐΰε ύψους ου τοβούτον ύπάρχοντος καί δούναι τω 'Ιμερίω καί παραντά Ό'ανατώΰαι. ’Ε μον δε φοβη&έντος δια το μη είναι ετερον εχει η μόνους τους τούς ημιόνονς ημών χατέχοντας καί αυτούς εξω των αναβαθμών υπάρχον­ τας δειλιάβας μη χινδννεύϋω ΰνρας τω δεξιω ποδί, εν&α ίο τούς χαταδίχους, ρίπτειν επεχείρουν. Αειλιάΰας δε το αχ&ος άφηΟας εν τω ΰτόματι του δχ&ου άνεχώρηΰα πρόςφνγος γενόμενος εν τη μεγάλη εχχληβία' καί χαταγγελλων το πραχ&εν εν άληϋ'εία ούχ επιΰτενόμην εως εις ορχου βεβαίωΰιν ελθεΓν με διά το τότε χαϊ τούτο μόνον τηρηΰαί με το χατόρ&ωμα. ΐ5 Οι ονν οίχεΐοι του τελεντήοαντος καί οι τοϋ βαΰιλεως φίλοι ΰύν έμοι επορεύ&ηΟαν εν τω τόπω χαϊ προ τον το πτώμα τον ανδρδς προςεγγίΰαι το πτώμα της ΰτηλης ητενιζον &ανμάζοντες. ’Ιωάννης δε τις φιλόΰοφός φ η ΰιν, δτι *μά την &είαν πρόνοιαν ούτως εύρίΰχω εν τοϊς Αημοΰ&ένους ΰυγ'20 γράμμαΰιν ύπδ τούτου τοϋ ζωδίου άποχταν&ηναι ένδοξον άνδρα9. "Ος χαϊ παρεν&ύ τω βαβιλεΐ Φιλιππιχω πληροφορηΰας χελενεται χαταχώΰαι το αυτό ζώδιον εν τω αύτω τόπω ' ο καί γέγονεν διά το μη δέχεΰ&αι χατάλνΰιν. Ταϋτα, Φιλό­ καλε, μετά αλη&είας έρεννών εύχον μη είςελ&εΐν εις πει25 ραΟμδν καί ταις άρχαίαις ΰτήλαις χαί μάλιΰτα ταΐς 'Ελληνιχαϊς πρόςεχε θεωρών.2

2 φηαϊν Ήμέριος καί αυτός &ανμάζων, δΰτις ό χτίοας χτλ. Lamb. μη θαύμαζε cod. G Codini ex coniectura 3 μαξιμίνος Tr. et Suid. 5 ου] οΰ? (ου τοσοντον νπάρχ. om. Tr. Suid.) 7 τους του?] cf. Usener Theodosios p. 173 sq. 14 ποτέ P καί τούτο μόνου] cf. adn. p. 30, 6 16 τω πτωματι Lamb., sed cf. adn. p. 26, 11 20 άποχτανδηναϊ] τε&νηξόμενον Tr. Suid. 22 τώ αντώ ζωδίω P 23 χαταλνβεως P, 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 (stelat), especially pagan ones.

1 See introduction, section iv. 1 Possibly an actual inscription. * The Greek has the same awkward repetition.

92

ΠΑΡΑΣΤΑΣΕΙΣ ΣΤΝΤΟΜΟΙ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑ1

Θ εοδώρου ά ν α γνώ δτο υ ετι δ υ ν το μ ία γυναικώ ν. 29. Βερίνης γυναικος Αέοντος του μεγάλου πληδίον του αγίου 'Λγα&ονίκου άνω&εν των βά&ρων iv κίονι χαλκή' ετι 5 της αυτής èv τω ’Ανεμοδουρίω προς νότον πληδίον της αγίας Βαρβάρας. 9Αλλ* η μεν πρώτη iv τω άγίω ’Α γα&ονίχω ετι του άνδρος αυτής ξώντος εδτη ' η δε άνωθεν της αγίας Βαρβάρας μετά την τελευτήν Αέοντος τοϋ άνδρος αυτής και φ υγήν Ζήνωνος τοϋ γαμβρού αυτής, οτε Βαδιλίδκον εδτεψε ίο τον αδελφόν αυτής κράξοντος τοϋ Πραδίνου μέρους* 'Βερίνης ορθοδόξου 'Ελένης πολλά τα ετη9' ήν γάρ ορΦόδοξο^ πάνυ. 3 0 . Ε υφημίας (γυνα ικο ς) ’Ιουΰτίνου τοϋ Θραχος iv τοΐς Όλυβρίου πληδίον τής αγίας Ε υφημίας, ήτις εκκληδία ύ π 9 αυτής έχτίδ&η, δτήλη iv άναβάδει μικρά πάνυ χρυδέμ15 βαφος ϋπάρχουδα. 31. Ευδοξίας γυναικος ’Αρκαδίου μεγάλη πάνυ και Πουλχερίας &υγατρδς αυτής και ετέρων δύο θυγατέρων αυ­ τής, άμφοτέρων άργυραΐ’ ετι τής αυτής Ευδοξίας iv κίονι χαλκή καϊ ετέρα iv τοΐς Αύγουδτείοις, δι ήν δ Χρυδόδτο20 μος έδχευάδ&η.

§ 29 1. 3—10: Treu ρ. 12, 26 sqq. (Suid. s. ν. Βηρίνα): Βηρίνης τής γνναικός τον μεγ. Λ. δύο ατήλαί εΐοΐ' μία μεν βορ ε ι ο τ έ ρ α τοϋ ά. *Αγα&. μετά τήν άνοδον των άναβα&μών' ετέρα δε κατά τό μέρος τής ό. Βαρβ.' καί ή μεν τον ά. Άγα&. γέγονε ξώντος Αέοντος, τής δε ά. Βαρβ. μετά τελεντήν αύτον, ήνίκα Βαΰ. τον άδ. αύτής ϊστεψε φνγόντος Ζήνωνος τον γαμ­ βρόν αύτής. Inde Codin. II 2δ (ρ. 33, 1 Β) § 30 Treu ρ. 13, 1 (Suid. s. y. Εύφημία): in brevius coactum; inde Codin. II 26 (p. 33, 8 B)*4

1 ϊτι — item συντομία = Ιστορία σύντομος ? Ex­ spectamus (στήλαι) iv σνντόμω γνναικών 3 βερήνας Ρ 4 Post κίονι sive subaudias sive addas (στήλη έστϊ), cf. § 31 9 in voce βασιλίσκον P extremam litteram ex σ mutavit 10 βερίνας Ρ 12 γνναικος om. Ρ 19 αύγονστίοις Ρ (αύγονσταίοις Comb., iv τω αύγουστείω Lamb.) Basis cum titulo huius statuae etiam exstat (CIG ÎY 8614) 20 έσκενάσ&ή] in-

TRANSLATION

93

29. BHef 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 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 τής δεντέρας èv τοΐς πληΰίον μέρεΰιν των βά&ρων των λεγομένων Τόπων εν τοις τον άγιον ’Αρχιΰτρατήγον' εν&α Ζήνων εκρινε τονς μετά Βαΰιλίΰκον καί ΰέκρητον τον τόπον πεποίηκεν. ”Ε τι τής πρω­ ί> της αντον γνναικός 1Αρεάδνης μετά και αντον Ζήνωνος εν τή βαδιλική πύλη. 33. ’Ε ν αντή τή Χαλκή πληΰίον άνω&εν Πονλχερίας τής αοίδιμον y ως èv τω Περιπατώ èv τω παλατίω èμπρbς νπάρχοντι. ίο 34. Άνω&εν τής Χαλκής èv τω Μιλίω τω προς ανα­ τολήν Κωνΰταντίνον και 'Ελένης ανω&εν τής καμάρας* εν&α και ΰτανρός ζκαϊ ή Τνχη^ μέΰον τοϋ ΰτανρον τής πόλεως. 35. ’Ε ν τω αύτω Μιλίω Σοφίας τής γνναικός ’Ιονΰτίνον τον μετά τον μέγιΰτον ’Ιονΰτινιανόν και Αραβίας &ν15 γατρός αντής και 'Ελένης ανεψιάς Σοφίας ενμορφοτάτης πάνν κεχρνΰωμένη. 3 5 a . ’Α ρκαδίον και Θεοδοΰίον νϊον αντον èv τοις πλη­ ΰίον Θεοδοΰίον ΰτήλης τον πατρός, αμφότεραι έφιπποι' δτε

§ 32 Treu ρ. 13, 4 περί τής Αρκαδίας είς ’Α ρ κ α δ ι α ν ά ς (Suid. s. y. \'Αρκαδία); inde Codin. II 27 (ρ. 33,10 Β) § 33 Treu ρ. 13, 10 (Suid. s. V. Πουλχερία); inde Cod. II 28 (ρ. 34, 1 Β) § 34 Treu ρ. 13, 14 (Suid. s. ν. Μίλιον): èv τή κ α μ ά ρ α τον μ ι λ ί ου στήλαι Κωνστ. καί ' Ελένης' Hv&a κτλ.\ inde Cod. II 29 (ρ. 35, 3 Β) § 35 Treu ρ. 13, 17 (Suid. s. ν. Μίλιον): paucis discrepant, ν. infra; inde Codin. Π 30 (ρ. 35, 11 Β) § 35 a 1. 1 et 2 Treu ρ. 13, 20 (Suid. s. ν. Μίλιον); inde Cod. II 38 (ρ. 38, 10 Β)

sidiis vexatus est; cf. Cramer Anecd. Π 110, 94, Ps.-Polyd. p. 166 et 170 Bianc. ; eodem sensu usurpatur συσκευάζειν ab Malala; σκευή = insidiae Theojphan. 4 βασιλίσκον P (cfρ. 26, 6) 8 ώ$ πρός τον περίπατον τον èv τω παλατιω Tr., πλησίον τον παλατιού ώς πρός τόν περίπατον Suid. 12 ante μέσον in Ρ est rasura 7 — 8 litterarum; supplevi ex Tr. (fκαι ή τύχη τής πόλεως μέσον τοϋ σταυρόν’) 18 στήλη Ρ (πλησίον τής στήλης Θεοδ. τον μεγ. Tr.) έφ’ ΐπποις 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 < o n e> 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 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

χαι ΰιτηρέΰια εδό&η πολλά, έξαιρέτως δε τώ Π ραΰίνφ μέρει χράζοντος τον δή μ ον’ "Ο γόνος Θεοδοΰίον Κω νΰταντΐνον ένίχη ΰεν’. 36. ’Ε ν τώ παλατίω τω τριβονναλίω Ε ν δ οχιάς γννα ιχός δ Θεοδοΰίον, τον εγγονος Θεοδοΰίον, Μ αρχιανον τε χαϊ Κ ω νΰταντίνον ' ένθα χαϊ όρχήΰεις πλειΰται εως 'Ηραχλείον τον τε Π ραΰίνον χαϊ Βενέτον μερονς γεγόναΰιν. Π ερ ϊ θ εα μ ά τω ν.

B(ekkerρ.) 166

37.

10

Θ έα μ α a . To iv Ty Βαΰ d ix y *j* ΰειρά ry χρνΰορόφω άνδρείχελον άγαλμα ύπαρχον χρνΰέμβαφον (εν&α το1*6

§ 36 Treu ρ. 13, 23 (Suid. 8. y. ΰτήλη) : paucis discrepant, infra; inde Cod. Π 32 (ρ. 36, 12 B) § 37 1. 9—ρ. 41, 13: Treu ρ. 13, 28 sqq. (Suid. s. v. Βαΰιλιχή) non paucis discre­ pans: Τώ (an Έ ν τω?) iv τή Βαΰιλιχή χρνΰορόφω δπίΰω τ ο ν Μ ι λ ί ο υ ην άνδροείχελον άγ. χρνΰέμβαφον· έν&α ήν το έξαμμον (έως add. Suid.) 'Ηρακλείου τον βαΰ. · χ α ϊ γονυκλινές Τουΰτινιανον τον τυράννου· έχει δ Τέρβ. έδημηγόρηΰεν. Έ ν οϊς έλέφας ΐατατο παμμεγέ&ης, υπό Σενήρου χατεΰχενααμένος. ’Όρος δε ην πρό τον μέρους των άναβα&μών, έν&α χαϊ ΰχολή φνλ. ύπήρχεν (ΰχολή φνλ. πολλή· Suid.) έμενε δε έχείοε άργνροχόπος iv πλαατοΐς ζνγοϊς τ ή ν πρ&αιν πο ι ο ύ μ ε ν ο ς . Καϊ του οΐχήματος αύτον πορ&ονμένον ήπείλει τω τόν έλ. φνλάττοντι θάνα­ τον, εΐ μή τούτο χρατήαει. 'Ο δέ &ηροχόμος ούχ ένεδίδον. Ό ν φονεύΰας δ ζυγοπλ. δέδωχε βοράν τω έλέφαντι. Τό δε &ηρίον άτι&. ον χαϊ αυτόν άνεΐλε. Καϊ δ Σενήρος άχονΰας τω &ηρίω Πυθίας ήνεγχεν. Έ ν αύτω δε τω τόπφ παρεν&ύ χαϊ άνετνπώϋηααν τό τε &ηρίον χ α ϊ δ 0·ηροχόμος. Έν&α χαϊ V.

1 an έδό&ηααν secundum consuetudinem auctoris ? πραΰίνων Ρ 2 ϊγγονος Comb. Κωνοταντίνον Ρ 4 έν τώ τριβονναλίω του παλατιού Tr. Suid.; sed cf. § 15 έν τω Φόρω τβ5 δεξιά μέρει, § 44b, 48, 54 5 του έγγόνος Ρ (έγγόνου edd., sed cf. de Boor ind. Theophan.), om. Tr. et Suid., qui eius loco χ α ϊ α ύ τ ο ϋ praebent, ut quattuor statuae sint 6 πλείΰταις P 9 ΰειρά τής χρνΰορόφου Ρ, χινΰτέρνη τή χρν­ ΰορόφω Lamb., τή χρνσορ. (ΰειρά secl.) Comb., cf. ρ. 40, 6 et 14. An iv τή βαΰ. στοά τή χρνΰορ.ϊ (cf. Procop. bist. arc. 14 ρ. 90, 3 Bonn, et infra ρ. 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

ιταμόν 'Ηράκλειον τον βαδιλέως κατεδκενάδΌ'η), το γοννκλινες, 1Ίονδτινιανον εδτ'ι κατά το δεύτερον ζα ν^το ν την Κωνΰταντινονπολιν τνραννηδαντος, καί πληΰίον αυτόν της γνναικος αυτόν, αδελφής ’Ιβονξήρον Γλιαβάνον, μετά την ήτταν Τι5 βερίον τον ’Λψιμάρου * οτε καί | Φιλιππικός èv αντώ τω Β 167 τόπω της χρνδορόφον Βαδιλικης άπεδοκιμάΰ&η, Τερβελι τοϋ Βονλγαρίας εκεΐΰε πολλάκις κα&Ιΰαντος και Γλιαβάνον Χαζάρι" πάκτα ονν ονκ ολίγα έκεΐΰε ίδό&ηδαν, εν&α αντον τον τνράννον και της γνναικος τα αγάλματα. ’Εν οϊς έλέφας ίο ΐδταται παμμεγεϋ'ης' ως οί Φηριοδεΐκται ημιν ίβεβαίωδαν, μη γίνεδ&αι ϊπάνω αντον το μέγε&ος των ίλεφάντω ν, των δε μεγάλων εως όντως. Ούτος 6 èλêφaς υπό Σενηρον τον Κάρον "Ελληνος ϊτνπώΟ'η &έαμά τι κατά την παράδοδιν. *Εν γάρ τη αυτή χρνδορόφω Βαδιλικη τον ίλέφαντα παρα15 μένειν εις &έαμα ε^α ίδιον ' όρον γάρ είναι προ τον μέρονς των άναβα&μων των oßf ελεγον' εν&α και δχολη φνλαττόντων πολλή. *Εν αντω δέ φάδι τω ελεφαντι παραμένειν τω τόπω εκείνω Καρκινήλον άργνροκόπον εν πλαδτοίς ζνγοΐς'

'Ηρ. ίλατρεν&η κολλάς ϋ'νοίας όεξάμενος, ός èv τώ ' Ιπποδρομίω μετετέ&η. Έ πΙ δε ’Ιουλίαν ον νπατικον από 'Ρώμης ηλ&εν έπΐ τό Βυζάντιον καϊ είςηχ&η èv άπ·ήνη καί νηϊ καί ατηλων (sic) ι . Inde Codin. Π 41 (ρ. 39, 6 Β)

1 ίξαμμον Tr., cf. ρ. 28,13 εως 'Ηρακλείου Suid. (cf. supra ρ. 39, 6) 2 κατά] μετά Ρ, τον κατά τό δεύτερον την κτλ. Comb. τον Ρ , corrigebam 4 ηβονζηρον γλιαβάνον Ρ (ν. 1. 7), Βονοηρον vel Βονζηρον edd. (nomen Βονζηνός anno 1401 oc­ currit in Actis et Diplom, ed. Muller et Miklosicb II 493) 6 τον] νΐοϋ P, corr. Lamb. 6 τερβελϊ P, correxi 7 πΧιαβάρον Ρ 9 έλέφαος Ρ 10 Φηριοδίκτai Ρ (&ηριοδέκται edd.); cf. Du Cange gloss, lat. s. v., C. Gl. Lat. ΙΠ 272, 5: '&ηριοδηκτης marsus’ 12 οεβηρον Ρ 13 χάρον Ρ , cf. § 67 &εάματι Ρ , corr. Lamb.; an &έαμά τι coll. p.41,11? 16 φόρον Comb. προτού Ρ, πρώτον Lamb, et Comb., πρός τον Band., cf. Treu 17 πολλή] πόλιν Lamb. Έ ν αύτφ δ\ κτλ.] eodem loco atque elephantus 18 καρκινήλω 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 places' 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 animals12 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 ΣΤΝΤΟΜΟΙ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑΙ

ώδτε διατρέφοντι τον ελέφαντα, φ αδίν, άπειλεΓν, ο« ν,ατεηο^εϊτο τούτον το οίκημα’ καί πολλάκις διαβεβαιωδαμένον θάνατον τώ &ηριοτρόφω, εί μη τοντον κρατηθεί’ αντός δε δια Ί* τάς βαγνλας έλαιοφόρονς κρατήδαι 5 ονκ ένεδίδον’ ον και φονενδας δ αντος ζνγοπλάδτης τώ ελεφαντι είς βρώΰιν προέ&ηκε ' τον δε θηρίου ατι&άδον δντος, και αύτδν έξανήλωδεν. Ό καϊ Σενήρος άκονδας Ινδ ία ς τώ &ηρίω ονκ δλίγας προςηνεγκεν. ’Ε ν αντω γαρ τώ τόπω παρεν&ν και άπετνπώ&ηδαν. ’Έν&α και 'Ηρακλής έλατρεν&η ίο παμπόλλας Ιν δ ία ς δεξάμενος’ και èv τώ 'Ιπποδρομία μετετε&η είς &έαμά τι μεγιδτον’ το δε πρότερον από | 'Ρώμης Β 168 έπι ’Ιονλιανον νπατικον έπϊ το Βνζάντιον είςήχ&η μετά καρονχας και νηδς και δτηλών δώδεκα. Λ ύ τη φηδίν η ίδτορία τον θεάματος Σενηρον η ξένη γέγονεν έπϊ 5Λν&ίμον ύπά15 το ν ’ ούτινος τα 'Λν&ίμον κατά την κέλενδιν Νονξαμήτον ύπαρχον, τον από Περδών, αντί πάκτων έχρηματίδ&ηδαν, έν ταΐς ημέραις Βνξα και ”Λ ν τ η ’ ο και εως της δημερον τοίς φιλοδοφονδιν έν πείρα προτέ&ειται &έαμα. 3 8 . Θ έα μ α β'. Τ ο ν έν τώ ώρέω Μ ι λ ί ω ' Ηλι ον. 20

’Ε ν τώ ώρέω Μ ιλίω 'Ηλιον Λιος άρμα έν τέτραδιν ΐπποις

§ 38 Treu ρ. 14, 15 sqq. (Suid. s. ν. MlXiov): *Ότι αρμα ήλιον έν δ' ΐπποις πνρ. Ι α τ ά μ ε ν ο ν (Ιπτάμενον Suid.) παρά δύο ατ. έκ παλ. των χρ. ύπήρχεν έν τώ ώραίω μιλίω’ έν&α εύφη-

1 τώ suppl. Lamb. τώ έλέφαντι Ρ ζ&άνατον') suppi, ex Anon. Treu 2 οτε? κατεπορ&ήτω Ρ (καί έπορ&είτο Comb.) 3 τούτο PTr. 4 διά τούς βαιονλονς έλαιοφόρονς Lamb, (qui conf.); locum non expedio (έν λεωφόροις?) 7 αεβήρος Ρ 13 ταντη Ρ φααϊν edd., eed cf. Malal. ind. s. v. φημϊ et § 68 15 άν&ιμίον (άν&ίμου 1. 14) Ρ. Dubium utrum Anthimus an Anthemius nominatus sit consul ille ficticius. 16 Post υπάρχου addunt edd. 'τής πόλεως’ nullo nixi testi­ monio 17 άντί P. Byzas et Antes (cf. infra p. 42, 3 et 48,5) heroes ex nomine urbis Βνζ-άντιον ficti ον P 18 προτέ&ηνται P 20 των έν τώ ώρέω (paulo post ώραίω Ρ) μιλίω ήλία 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 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

5

ιο

15

ΠΑΡΑΣΤΑΣΕΙΣ ΣΥΝΤΟΜΟΙ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑΙ

πυρίνοις^ ιπτάμενον ιιαρά δύο στηλών, εκ παλαιών χρόνων ύπαρχον' εν&α Κωνσταντίνος δ μέγας εύφημίΰ&η μετά το νιχήΰαι ’Α ζώτω ν χαϊ Βύζαν xal Ά ν τ η ν , χράζοντος τον Βέ­ νετου μέρους *εΙλες παλίνορΰον ίμάΰ&λην, ώς δε δίς ήβήΰας μαίνεαι èv ΰταδίω , τον δε Πρασίνου μέρους λέγοντος f ον χρήζομέν σε, λωβέ' οι θεοί ανώτεροι αυτού ειλο ν*’ του δε *Η λιου άρματος χατενεχ&έντος έν τω 'Ιπποδρομία , δορνφορονμενον είςηει στηλίδιον καινόν, παρά Κω νΰταντίνου κατασκευασθεν, ύπό *Η λιον φερόμενον , Τύχη πόλεως' έν βραβείοις πλείστοις εις το ΰτάμα είςηει χαϊ έλαβεν δθλα παρά τον βαΰιλέως Κω νΰταντίνου , χαϊ ϋτεφανω&εν έξηει | χαϊ έτί&ετο έν τω Σινάτω εως των Β 169 (έπιόντω ν^ γενεθλίω ν της πόλεως. (Τπό δε ’Ιουλιανού διά τδν χαραχ&έντα ΰταυρόν έν αν τω, βο&ύνω, όπου τα πλεϊΰτα θεάματα, χαϊ αυτό παρεδό&η. Τοις δε πίνα ξιν έάν τις ερευ­ νήσει άχριβώς τού Φόρου , έπϊ πλείον &ανμάΰοι.

μίσ&η Κωνσταντίνος μετά το νιχήϋαι Άζω τω ν έ π ε ι δ ή χ α ϊ Β ύ ζ α ς έ χ ε ΐ σε ε ύ φ η μί σ &η · χατενεχ&εν δε τό άρμα έν τω Ιπποδρ., δορυφορ. ΰτηΧ. χάννον παρά Κ. χατασχ. ύπό η. φερ., Τύχη πόλεως είς τό στάμα είςήει χαϊ στεφανωτόν έξη εν έτί&ετο δό έν τω σεν. £ως των έ π ι ό ν τ ω ν γεν. τής π." διότι δε έπϊ χεφαλής αύτον σταυρόν έχάραξεν Κ ω ν σ τ α ν τ ί ν ο ς , ’ίουΧιανός αυτό βο&ύνω χατέχωσεν. Inde Codin. II 42 (ρ. 40, 1 Β)1*8

1 ιπτάμενον P et Suid., Ιστάμενον Treu; neutrum placet, exspectamus βασταζόμενον (cf. ρ. 26, 9) 2 υπάρχων Ρ μετά των έχεΐσε Ρ 5 sq. Anthol. Pal. ΧΥ 44, 5 : δήμου μεν βοόωντος εϊΧες χτΧ. Est epigramma monumenti positi in honorem Porphyrii aurigae; quod monumentum inferioris aetatis fabu­ latores ad Constantini Magni victoriam rettulisse videntur παΧίνορσον xal ϊμάσ&Χην P 6 μαίνε Ρ σταδίοις Anth. 8 αύτου εϊΧεν Ρ , αυτούς είΧον? 11 βραβείον finsigne ho­ noris’ Reiske ind. Const. Porphyr, de caer. 13 σηνάτω P 14 έπιόντων om P 15 βυ&ίνω P

TRA N SLA TIO N

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’;12 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 {stelidion) 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. 3 P has αύτοΰ. At least read αυτόν. 4 See commentary. 5 Supplied from Anon. Treu and Patria, 11.42, p. 173. For the subject matter cf. chapter 5.

104

ΠΑΡΑΣΤΑΣΕΙΣ ΣΥΝΤΟΜΟΙ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑΙ

39. Θ έ α μ α γ'. Τ ών εν τώ Φόρω. Βαλμαΰά κεντυρίων φίλος ειδώλων πάνν κατέαξε τδ εί'λημα τον *f* πνρον ωρολογίου, &έας χάριν, ώς έλεγεν ' ως δε εν τω δοκέ tv μάλ­ λον, ενεκα τον κλέμματος* καί τούτο ποιήΰαντος, έκλεψε τδ 5 Παλλάδος εΐδωλον άργνρονν. Kai τα βαλάντια ’Λΰκληπιοδώρου εύρέ'θ’ηΰαν των τριών λίτρων και ή κορωνϊς Κλεο­ πάτ ρης, καταΰκευαΰ&εΐΰα ΰμαράγδινος ηάνν άλάβαΰτρος. Τούτο γνονς δ βαΰιλενς Κωνΰταντινος τω αύτω κεντνρίωνι Βαλμαΰά επετίμηΰεν αζιον θανάτου. Τον δε άναιΰχνντονντος ίο και &εους επικαλούμενου, άπετμή&η εις εν των ΰκαλίων τον αντον Φόρου, εν&α τα άριΰτα τα πρώτα νπήρχον. Τδ δε εν τη δεύτερα καμάρα γεγονδς ά&εΰμον ού ΰιωπήΰωμεν’ τδ τοϋ μοιχού Μαξεντίου ειδωλον εκεΐΰε προςεκυνειτο λατρενόμενον, και τοις πολλοΐς ειδωλολάτραις αγνοούμενου &εδς ΐδ ιππόΰυνος έλατρενετο ' διδ Κωνΰταντΐνος αντδ μεν κατέβαλε, τους δε τούτο τολμηΰαντας ξίφει άπεκεφάλιΰεν. ’Έν&α καί Αρειος μετά ταϋτα τδν μιαρδν θάνατον νπέΰτη, χείρονα *Ελλήνων βλαΰφημήΰαι άποτολμηΰας δ δείλαιος | μετά λιτής Β 170 και τιμής 6 ά&λιος τδν θρόνον Κωνΰταντινονπόλεως βαΰι-

§ 39 Exiguam partem (1.16 sqq.) exhibet Anon. Treu p. 14, 26 sqq. : ’Έν&α *Αρειος τδν αιαχιατον νπέΰτη θάνατον * άπδ τής καμάρας ώδεί κΐΚ παλαΐδτας έτνπώ&η δ π δ τον θεοφιλούς Θεοδοΰίον Άρειος έν μαρμάρφ (μαρμαρίνφ?) ά ν α γ λ ν φ ω γειτνιώντι TV YV κα^ TV Τ°ν Άρείου τοϋ Σ. Μ. Εν. πρδς αίαχννην α υ ­ τώ ν , ώς αν οι π α ρ ε ρ χ ό μ ε ν ο ι κάπρον καί ούρα καί έμπτναματα έ π ι ρ ρ ί π τ ω α ι ν αύτοΐς. Inde Codin. Π 43 (ρ. 40, 10 Β)2

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. alch. Π ind. 7 σμαρ. πάνν άλαβάατρινος ? 8 τδν αύτδν κεντυρίωνα Lamb. 12 ΰιωπήαομεν edd. 14 sq. non sanus locus esse videtur; an άγνοούμενος = άγνωατος? (Maxentii statua ut ignotus deus eques colebatur?) 16 sq. τον τολμήϋαντας Ρ 17 μορδν Ρ, corr. Lamb. 18 άποτολμήδαι 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 < th e > 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 meeils 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. * θέας χόριν. 3 See commentary.

106

ΠΑΡΑΣΤΑΣΕΙΣ ΣΥΝΤΟΜΟΙ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑΙ

λιχή χειρϊ χα&αρπάβαι βουλόμενος. ’Α λλ’ ονχ ’Αλέξανδρος δ πολύς êv &εογνωΰία τούτο π α ρ εΰ ..........εως τω όλε&ρίω ϋ'ανάτω τούτον παρέδωχεν. ’Ε ν αύτω ονν τω τόπω τω από της καμάρας εως χ&' παλαιΰτάς εχοντι έπϊ θεοφιλούς Θεο5 δ 00ίου άπετυπώ&η Ά ρειος ίν μαρμάρω δυγγειτνιώντι τη γη, χαϊ βύν αντώ Σαβέλλιος, Μαχεδόνιος, Εννόμιος, προς αίδχύνην τοΐς διερχομένοις *{* δφετερίζειν τούτοις χαϊ χόπρονς χαϊ ουρά χαϊ έμπτύΰματα χαϊ άτιμίαις όνειδίζεο&αι τούς τον του Ό'εοϋ υιόν ατιμάΰαντας. ηΑτινα χαϊ χα&ορώνται ΰώα εως ίο της ΰήμερον τοΐς τα γεγραμμίνα παρ’ ημών μετά φιλοΰοφίας χαϊ πόνου διερευνώΰιν. 4 0 . Θ έα μ α δ', το i v τ ο ΐ ς ’Α ρ τ ο π ω λ ί ο ι ς Ί* π ύ ρ ο ι ς ύ π ά ρ χ ο ν . Κυνάριον άπο μαρμάρου, ού&ατα πλεΐδτα *f* èv τη νεμέϋει περιφερον ωΰεϊ χ ' [ου#’ μνρμήχοι] *|* λατρεύειν is . . . γείρουν, τοΐς &εωρεΐν χατά παν i&iXoveiv τοΐς παοι

§ 40 1.12—ρ. 45, δ et ρ. 45,10 sqq. = Treu ρ. 15,1 sqq. : *Εν τοΐς ’Αρτοπωλίοις χυνάριόν έΰτιν, οϋ&ατα ΐως των χ φέρον ’ ταώνες âh χαϊ άετοϊ χαϊ Χίαιναι λαγωοί τε χαϊ χριών χάραι χαϊ οτρον&&ν χαϊ χορωνών χαϊ τρνγόνος μιας χαϊ γαλέας χαϊ δ α μ ά - 1*3

1 χαταρπάΰαι Ρ 2 in Ρ lacuna 5—6 litterarum, παρέαχεν Lamb., exspectamus παρίβλεψεν, παρεχώρηοεν simile 3 τούτο Ρ 4 fcog] cf. § 69 ΐως X' (στήλας), Treu ρ. 16,2 ϊχων Ρ 7 ζωΰτε) τούς διερχ. έφεδρίζειν τοντοις χαϊ χόπρω χαϊ ούρω χαϊ έμπτνοματι Lamb.; an τούς διερχομένονς ίπιρριπίζειν (ci. Tr.) τοντοις χαϊ χόπρονς χτΧ.? χόπροις Ρ 12 άρτοπωλέοις πνροις Ρ , an πνροΐς? (πνροϊ = horreum triticarium?) cf. ρ. 45, 6; φόροις Comb. 13 χιονάριον Lamb, qui statuam Naturae innumeris mammis et animalium capi­ tibus circumdatam esse putat &φ* μαρμάρον P iv τη νεμέοει P , non expedio (iv . . μίδη?)· 14 ώς είχονΟ·’ μνρμήχοι Χατρενειν . . . χείρονν Ρ (ante χείρουν lacuna trium litterarum); ώοεϊ μνρμήχια (verrucas), λατρεύειν ^ιχειρονν vel ώοεϊ τέχνοις μνρίοις δαιτρενειν ίπιχειρονν Lamb. Initio certe legendum coll. Tr.: ώοεϊ x ’ \ ov&’ μνρμήχοι glossa esse videtur ad ού&ατα ex margine in textum transposita (ού&ατα μνρμήχια). Reliqua non expedio ( λατρεύειν Ιπεχείρονν ?) 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 teats51.......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

' P has a gap of 5 or 6 letters. 1 P’s σφετερίζειν (‘appropriate’) cannot be right. J 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 ?lumps or warts, reading ήτοι for ουθ’ before it.

108

ΠΑΡΑΣΤΑΣΕΙΣ ΣΤΝΤΟΜΟΙ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑΙ

ηροέκειτο’ Xαοϋ δέ και αετόν καί λεαίνης λαγωοϋ τε και κριών κάραι, και στρου&ών και κορωνών καί τρνγόνος μιας και γαλέας και δαμαλίδες *|* έμαοϋσαι και Γοργονίδες δυο, άμφόχεραι εκ δεξιών καί έξ ενω ννμω ν, ή μία xjj ετέρα καχ 5 οψιν βλέπουσα, ano μαρμάρων άναγεγλνμμεναι *{* χά φυρα&ένχα κάτω τών αντών *{* ηυρών ήτοι 5Αρτοηωλίων &έας τοννεκεν , Κ ω νσταντίνον δράμα. ’Α λλά και Βούλγαρος υπέρ | βοδς f κατάραος υπάρχω ν, ώς xjj γη διορνττειν έ&έλων, Β 171 τοΐς δρώΰι &έαμά τι μέγιστον. Αιέκειτο δε τούτο εως ζεστών ίο ηολλών και μέχρι Ζήνωνος άρκέΰαι τήν ιστορίαν. Γαληνός δέ τις ιατρός και φιλόσοφος ύηάρχω ν, ώς αυτός έδίδαξεν άηό χρονογράφων, (έκ εΐσ ε) περαιώνεις έβεβαιώ&η τάς Γοργονίδας τάς μαρμάρινους, άτε τήν μίαν έκ δεξιών, άτε δε καί τήν έξ ενω ννμω ν, ιερογλυφικά τινα καί αστρονομικά 15 εχίδνια συλλαβούσας, τών βασιλέων γράφειν τάς ιστορίας,

λεως καί γοργόνες δύο, μία έκ δεξιών καί ή έτε'ρα έξ εύωννμων, ή μία τη ετέρα κατό'ψιν βλεπόμεναι, άπό μαρμάρων γεγλνμμέναι’ ιαταντο μέχρι Ζήνωνος. Γαληνός δέ τις, Ιατρός καί φιλ. ύχ., έκεΐαε περαιω&είς τάς Γοργόνας ϊλεγεν ίερογλ. καί άδτρ. όντα τών βαΰιλέων γράφειν τάς ίατορίας, Κωνοτ. τον μεγ. τνχώσαντος· τον δε αύτον Γ. έχί χλεΐοτον δνχνάοαντος καί τοΐς άναγν. χροςέχ., τά μέλλοντα ανμβαίνειν Ζήνωνι χαρά Βηρίνης καί γελάσαντος, Καλλ. τις ανρφετός τφ γένει, κάχ. δέ τη τέχνη, μετά τήν ix άνοδον Ζήνωνος διαβάλλει είς αντόν τόν Γαληνόν’ ô δέ Ζήνων τούτον άνηρήκει. Inde Codin. Π 46 (ρ. 41, 14 Β)l1I

1 χρόκειτο Ρ 3 γάλας Ρ, καί μνός καί γαλής Lamb. έμαονΰαι] an ε' μνκονΰαι ( = μνκώμεναΐ)? 6 άναγεγλνμμένων Ρ , c o i t . Lamb. τά φνρα&έντά] exspectamus άαφαλιΰ&έντα, ατοιχειω%·έντα simile 6 πόρων Lamb., cf. ρ. 44, 12 7 βονλαρος Ρ , corr. Lamb., cui adversatur Comb., nomen proprium Βονλαρον esse ratus 8 κα&αρός Band., an νπέρ (έχί?) βοός κ α ί ά ρ ό τ ρ ο ν ύχάρχων; cf. statuas Reinach Répertoire Il 666 έ&έλειν P, correxi 9 τών P, correxi 16 evXλαβών 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 lowing1and two Gorgons, one on the right and one on the left, one looking into the face of the other, carved from marble in relief t < a n d > 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,56as 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,® 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. 5 See above and on chapter 39. * Reading βουκόλος for P ’s βούλαρος; see note. 5 See note. 6 See note.

110

ΠΑΡΑΣΤΑΣΕΙΣ ΣΥΝΤΟΜΟΙ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑΙ

Κωνσταντίνον τον μεγάλον τοϋτο ποίησαντος. (Τ ο ν δε αντον Γαληνόν επί πλεΐστον σνχνάσαντος)> καί τοίς άναγνώσμασιν τούτον προςέχοντος, τα μέλλοντα σνμβαίνειν Ζήνωνι παρά Κέρινης προςέχων έγέλασε. Καλλίστρατος δε τις , σνρφετος 5 μεν τω γίν ει, κάπηλος δε τη αξία, έμβατενοντι τη ιστορία των Γοργονίδων Γαληνω καί μάλιστα σνχνώς μετά την άνάκαμψιν Ζήνωνος την από ’Ισανρίας το δεύτερον — φατρια­ στείς 6 αύτός Γαληνός παρά τον αντον Καλλιστράτον τοσούτονς εμπαιγμονς επ ένιαντον καί βολίδας νπέμεινεν, ώστε ίο μέχρι τέλονς [το πέρας] εν τη αντη ’Αρτοπωλίων καλενδία, έν αντοΐς τοίς ζωδιακόΓς τετραπόδοις καί πετεινοΐς, σελεντίον ύπάρχοντος ζίφει άποκεφαλισ&ηναι, κράζαντος τον Πράσινον μέρονς καί τον όχλον ' δίκαια η κρίσις9. ’Α ριστείδης δε φιλό­ σοφος έπέ&ηκεν όνομα τω τόπω τοιόνδε, ο καί φαίνεται 15 εως της σήμερον, 'Γαληνόν &ηρία, αδικία *|* νενομένω Ζ ή ­ νων ι 9. Καί τνπώσας την γραφίδα απέδρα έν Χέρσωνiy καί εσώ&η εως τής σήμερον. 4 1 . I Θ έ α μ α ε'. Το έν τ ο ί ς ’Α μ α σ τ ρ ι α ν ο ν . Καρα- Β 172 κάλλον τον πραιποσίτον δεαμάτιον ήτοι είδωλεΐον τής Β ν-

§ 41 Pauca decerpsit Anon. Treu p. 16, 18 sqq.: Περί τον ’Λμαατριανον. Ζενς ήλιος έν αρματι μαρμαρίνω καί Ηρακλής ό άνακείμενος' έν&α ποταμός ό άπό Λύκον λατρενόμενος· καί έν αύτώ χελώναι μεοταί όρνί&ων καί δράκαιναι ιη’' έγίνοντο δί έκεΐΰε δαιμόνων έπισταΰίαι. Inde Codin. II 62 (p. 45, 11 B)*3

nulli codd.; cf. Nie. Chon. p. 405, 20 schol., cod. Hierosol. Sabbait. n. 422 (βασιλογράφιν), Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft für ältere deutsche Gesch. XV (1890) 165 sqq. (Vasilographus) 3 τοϋτο P, corr. Lamb. 4 βερήνης P 5 fortasse in­ serendum (έπιβονλενει) έμβατενοντι κτλ. 7 Et φρατριάζειν et φατριάζειν (= insidiari) Byzantinis in usu est 10 τό πέρας seclusi άρτοπωλίω (sic Ρ) καλενδία] sanumne sit dubito. Cf. 'calenda: locus ubi territorium aliquod incipit’ Du Cange Favre s. v. (saec. XIII) 11 Σελεντίον νπ’ άρχοντος edd. 14 τοιωδε P, correxi 15 νεμομένη Comb., νενοημένη? 17 έ6ώ&η\ sc. ή γραφίς 19 &εμάτιονΊ 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 Gillen 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 < a n d > the injustice t ......... to Zeno’.34And 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.

* P ’s νινομίνω cannot be right, but it is far from clear what should be read. 4 O r possibly a pagan temple.

112

ΠΑΡΑΣΤΑΣΕΙΣ ΣΥΝΤΟΜΟΙ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑΙ

ξαντίων πόλεως πρωτεύον από Τ ραϊανόν , Μ εχας και Γλαύκος' εξ ών Θεόδωρος χρονογράφος άναρρωα&είς άναγνώδμαδιν. Ζευς "Ήλιος èv αντω τω τόπω èv άρματι μαρμαρενδετω ’ *)* Λ ιός δκνταλίδης , 5 Α ριδτείδης , 'Ηρακλής δ 5 άνακείμενος ) ηνίοχος θεών ετΐίγράφων ' 'Απόλλων παγκρατης . ”Εν&α δ ποταμός *f* δ κύτλον , αίτιος ο από Α ύ κ ον [μνκο]λατρενόμενος' εν αντω χελωναι μεδται ορνί&ων ’ èv ανταΐς δράκαιναι ι η \ Κονκοβύτιος φιλόσοφος ειδώλων πρω­ τοστάτης και &ντης γνναικός και δύο τέκνων , μητρός ’Α γλα ϊίο δης και αδελφής Γραφεντίας. ’Ε ν αντω τω τόπω δαιμόνων ίπιδταδίαι και πτώσεις, άτε βαδιλεων, (ίγίνο ντο '} τοΐς φ ιλοδοφούδι' μάλιΰτα εάν πόρνοι εϊεν τη γλώττη η τη σπορά οι βασιλείς δλε&ριοι. Α ιά τούτο τω γνμ νω προςεχετωδαν ξωδίω, καί σιδηρίαν βοτάνην δνν κοχλίδι περιζέδαντες καί τοϊς 15 μνκτηρδιν όπτηδαντες *|* γαλονχεΐτε τοΐς φίλοις τού άνακτος' Ί* και ην γνωδτά ίκ τούτων ιδως θελεται εις αντονς γενε- 1

1 προτεύων Ρ, προτερεϋον Comb.; corrigebam ώς du­ bitanter supplevi 2 άναρρωβθεΐ?] άναγνωρισ&εις Comb., άναρρη&εϊς E. Kurtz (nomen ducens ex ..) 3 μαρμαρεν&ίτω Ρ , correxi, cf. Anon, post Leon. Gramm. 348, 2 άμαξας σιδηρενδέτας; χρυσόδετος et χρνσένδετος (Pauly-Wissowa s. v.). Etiam μαρμαρενδύτω licet scribere coli, λι&ένδντος ρ. 50,22 ubi videsis. μαρμαρείω έτέ&η vel μαρμαρείω λενκω Lamb. 4 Αιοσκονρίδης? ό άνακείμενος] i. e. accubans velut statua musei Cbiaramonti 5 in i δ ίφ ρ ω ν , 'An. παγχρ.? ηαγκρaτής Ρ, ηαγχρατιαστης Comb. 6 Κντλον et Αίτιος pro propriis nominibus accipiunt edd. 7 μνκο dittographia interpolatum esse videtur (cf. p. 48, 14). Ad rem cf. Malalas p. 264 8 Κονκοβύτιος] xal Άχούντιος edd. nescio unde; fort. Κονχονβύτιος scribendum; cf. Κονχονξίλης aliaque no­ mina; de Cobida vel Cubidio (v. Zach. v. Lingenthal Gesch. d. g r.-röm. Rechts p. 11) cogitavit W. Fischer 9 (άλλα xaiy μητρός κτλ.? 11 ατε βασιλέων appositio vocis δαιμό­ νων (Comb.) έγίνοντο suppi, ex Anon. Tr. 16 γαλονχείται P , fort, γάλον vel γαλής (sc. μνκτήρσιν) χεΐτε τοίς φίλοις 16 καθ’ ην γνωστά ίκ τούτων ίσως &έλει τά εις αύτονς γενέσ&αι ύμΐν? ην Comb,

TRANSLATION

113

dating from the reign of Trajan (98-117), < a s > Mekas and Glaukos < relate > , on whose writings Theodore the chronographer 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 .......,12 the eagle worshipped by a wolf;3 in it are tortoises full of birds and among them eighteen sheserpents, 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 t ............ 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. * This chapter is perhaps the most corrupt of all: see commentary. Reading αετός for P ’s άέτιος. 4 P has no verb but Anon. Treu has added έγίνοντο; a stronger verb has presumably dropped out. For the meaning cf. chapter 40. 1 All this is unintelligible in its present form, but some kind of magic is implied. 6 Reading δπως for ίσως.

114

ΠΑΡΑΣΤΑΣΕΙΣ ΣΥΝΤΟΜΟΙ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑΙ

σ&αι νμίν. Πολύς δε άργυρος καϊ μάλιστα δηναρίων κατέχωσται κάτω&εν, άτε δη και θησαυρός χρυσίου. ηΟτι &έατρον f ύπαρχον και τοΐς πολλοΐς βλέπειν εν ημέρα \ Λιός ϋ'νσίας Β 173 και &ανμάξουβιν’ σεισμόν δε γενομένου άπο&ανεϊν εν αντώ 5 τω πέλματι cbç επι Βνζα και 'Άντη^ πριν Κωνσταντίνος τη πόλει *}* αλλά τη 'Ρώμη &εόν γινώΰκων έφαίνετο. Οί δε ίπποι και a i κινννρες Γαλινδονχίου τον δονκός’ ατινα καθορώνται εν τω Ί* πυρι ’Λρτεμιΰίω εως της δεύρο. Φιλόκαλε y πολλούς κόπους δια την σην αρετήν νπομείναντες ίο ονδεν ηγανακτησαμεν. 4 2 .